TokyoTakarazuka

I my opinion, there’s nothing overly scandalous about this news story. It certainly does not indicate that Bush or Blair lied about anything and in fact the memo contains evidence to the contrary. For instance, the document says that Britain was greatly concerned Saddam may use “WMD on day one” if a war was started. Obviously this concern wouldn’t exist unless the author of the document believed that Saddam both had WMDs, and that he was capable of deploying them. One person recorded in the memo states that, although Saddam did in his opinion have WMDs, his capability to use them was probably less than that of Libya, North Korea, and Iran. Although all of those nations are subject to considerable enmity from the United States due in part to their possession of WMDs, as I will note later, strategic and historical justifications for war were far greater in Iraq than anywhere else. If true, there is nothing particularly scandalous about it. If a president decides on war and is convinced congress will support him, preparations frequently begin before war is declared. For instance, congress did not authorize the Persian Gulf War until January 12, 1991. By then, a massive US buildup of both tens of thousands of troops and hundreds of bombers had already started in August, 1990. Considering the great expense of supplying these troops, it would have been rather awkward had congress not declared war upon his request in January, but both George Bushes were confident that the legislature would side with them, and since they were both right, speculation about what would have occurred otherwise is moot. That said, in this case Bush did not need a declaration of war in order to make war preparations, due to legislation passed in 1998 which had already stated bluntly that, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” Undoubtedly, 1998 will be remembered in history as the turning point in British and American relations with Iraq. It was in 1998, not 2002, that both Clinton and Blair, as well as many other influential pundits, hinted at or expressed for the first time that military action against Iraq would soon become inevitable. From 1991 to the beginning of 1998, the USCOM inspections in Iraq were characterized by non-cooperation from Saddam Hussein. Iraqi scientists were intimidated by the secret police, key facilities were destroyed, moved, or gutted of content shortly before scheduled inspections, and weapon inspectors were frequently bribed or prevented from entering important factories (as the memo notes, Saddam was playing “hard-ball with the UN”). Even by 1998, a year in which Iraq kicked UNSCOM out of the country on three separate and lengthy occasions, the weapons inspectors were still uncovering concealed documents which revealed that Iraq had not yet disclosed the extent of its WMD capabilities. After seven frustrating years, this was the final straw for President Clinton and Prime Minister Blair. In 1998 Clinton declared that, “The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.” In February of that year the headline of the international news section of the Ottawa Times read, “Clinton, Blair ready for war with Iraq.” The first sentence reported that, “U.S. President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair stood united in their willingness to go war yesterday.” In September, 1998, Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act, which, as I stated, officially made regime change America’s policy in Iraq. Clinton asserted that, “The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.” This hostile action in many ways represents the beginning of the next war with Iraq. The Act did not specify how Saddam was to be overthrown, although it did provision massive funds for Iraqi exile groups. Clinton’s term in office was nearly over and, understandably reluctant to start a war, he instead increased covert activity against Iraq and announced his intentions to maintain tight sanctions against the regime. Overthrowing Saddam, he said, would take, “time and effort.” You can see in their speeches the extremely bellicose language Clinton and Blair began using against Saddam starting in 1998. Blair stated in 1998 in reference to Operation Desert Fox that, “Our quarrel is with him [saddam] alone and the evil regime which he represents. There is no realistic alternative to military force. We are taking this military action with real regret, but also with real determination. We have exhausted all other avenues. We act because we must.” In February, 1998, Blair emphasized his belief that Iraq “has already compiled sufficient chemical and biological weapons to wipe out the world's population” and a month later he affirmed that he was “ready to wage war” to get rid of Saddam Hussein. It goes without saying that these were fighting words. From that point and on, the United States and Great Britain were committed, in America’s case legally committed, to finding some way to oust Saddam. Clinton and Blair had made it abundantly clear in 1998 that the “conditions to justify a war” (quoted from the memo) could now be evoked at will. In the 2000 US presidential election, however, George Bush promised that, if elected, he would pursue the “full implementation” of the Iraq Liberation Act. This threat to invade was thinly veiled. After all, Clinton was already undergoing numerous initiatives to undermine Saddam, so “full implementation” would obviously encompass something more than the extensive covert action and tight sanctions that were already being implemented, not to mention the ongoing “no-fly zone war”, which from 1999 to 2002 was seeing weekly clashes between American warplanes and Iraqi antiaircraft weapons. Upon taking office, George Bush invited Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Armitage to join his cabinet. All these men had signed at the beginning of 1998 a declaration authored by the Project For The New American Century which stated that, “the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps” to remove Saddam via “a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.” The leaked document poses the question, “If Saddam was not an immediate threat, could war be justified legally?” Considering Saddam’s extensive attempts to conceal his WMD programs, it was difficult to determine how much of a threat he was. However, Bush and Blair were, in the year 2002, re-addressing an issue which Clinton had already answered in 1998. Clinton had declared that year that, “mark my words, he [saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.” He said this during Operation Desert Fox, by far the largest bombardment of Iraq’s weapons facilities between 1991 and 2003. However, even this did not convince Saddam to readmit the UNSCOM inspectors. Such an intense attack was a determined attempt to bring Saddam to heel, but as one of the authors of the leaked memo correctly notes, “Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.” Since Desert Fox didn’t get results, invasion seemed to be the only military policy remaining. Between 1998 and 2002, however, Iraq was completely unsupervised; Saddam had five years to build or conceal any WMDs he might have retained during the UNSCOM era. During this period, testimony from prominent Arab leaders, numerous weapons inspectors, and several Iraqi defectors all indicated he was doing just that. As Clinton had said in 1998, Iraq could “begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years” and if the United States “delayed for even a matter of days… we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons…. The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.” As it turned out though, Clinton, Bush, and Blair did give Saddam years. Because they delayed before, Bush and Blair now had to draw upon the events of five years ago in order to make the case for war now. Understandably, when Bush finally decided to take action, intelligence was “fixed around the policy”. “The policy”, of course, had already been made firmly in 1998. From 1998 to 2000, it was no longer a question of whether Saddam had to be removed, it was only a question of how. By the time George Bush was elected in 2000, it was no longer a question of how Saddam had to be removed, it was now only a question of when; war was inevitable. The article mentions that, “The Americans just wanted to get rid of the brutal dictator, whether or not he posed an immediate threat.” I'd be nice if this part of the memo turned out to be true, and that the United States and Great Britain were simply pursuing the humanitarian cause of removing one of the world's most sadistic tyrants, but I doubt it. In reality, I think that Clinton and Blair, and later Bush and Blair, did believe that Saddam represented a real threat, although not necessarily immediate one, to the long-term security of the Middle East. Also, your implication that the mainstream media is not publicizing the memo is false. The New York Times, one of America’s most popular newspapers, reported it the day it was leaked. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/internat...1cnd-blair.html

Although there are many factors for the waning in union membership in the United States, the “present-day right” has little to do with it. The current decline has been an ongoing trend since the 1950’s, caused in part by the passing of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, vastly decreasing the powers allotted to unions, which in my opinion had become by the late-1930’s excessively coercive. In the 1950’s and 1960’s the corruption and mafia ties of many key labor unions was probably by far the greatest blow the union movement suffered to its prestige. New economic studies were also by the 1970’s increasingly questioning how effective labor unions actually were in improving the wages of their members. Of course, all this took place before the modern right emerged in the United States under Ronald Reagan. Union membership in the United States peaked in 1945, and has since then been in almost constant recession. This graph (see below) demonstrates the trend well. Union membership in the United States increased in the 1930’s and 1940’s, peaked in 1945, leveled off in the early 1950’s and then began to inexorably plummet starting in the late-1950’s. Obviously this cannot be blamed on the present-day right for two reasons. Firstly, union membership was already precipitously declining long before the New Right emerged, and secondly, union strength did not decline under the leadership of Reagan or Bush any more so than it did under Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. http://www.phschool.com/atschool/econ/GIFs..._membership.gif The only thing I don’t like about unions is the overly coercive powers they are afforded by many governments. I’m thoroughly opposed to the ‘closed shop’, which, although illegal in most of the United States, is still legal in most of Canada. I also strongly disagree that union members should have special immunities from being fired by their employer, as is true is much of Canada, because this often eliminates the employees’ incentive to work. I don’t think that unions should have the power to force their employers to stop hiring new workers during strikes. As far as I know, only British Columbia and Quebec still allow them to do this in Canada. That being said, I believe that unions play an important role in the economy and I wouldn’t like to see them disappear entirely. In fact, so long as their coercive power remains relatively limited, I would actually prefer to see them expand. As fraternal organizations, unions help to provide a social security net for their workers that is far more effective than any government welfare program. Well-organized guilds and unions in many countries have proven to be an efficient system of ‘private welfare’. The ability of unions to organize non-violent demonstrations in support of their members is also a role that should never be curtailed. In the United States, prominent unions have often been bastions of anticommunism. The AFL-CIO, for instance, America’s largest labor union, was one of the fiercest denouncers Stalin’s dictatorship in the 1940’s and one of the strongest supporters of the Korean War in the 1950’s and the Vietnam War in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Also, there’s no need to resort to Anne-Coulterite debating tactics. Just because you disagree with your opponents is no excuse for branding them as ‘fascists.’

Instead of inventing an intentionally partisan and inflammatory explanation, you could instead look at a few basic demographic statistics. One of Bush’s most overwhelming bases of support was seniors of age 60 and over. Bush won this demographic by the large margin of 8%, which is very high considering that he only won the election by a margin of 2.5%. Obviously, almost everyone from this demographic would be rejected from military service should they attempt to sign up. Bush also won the age 45-59 demographic by an above-average margin of 3%, and the so-called Generation Jones (those between the ages of about 30 and 44) by 7%. Those between 30 and 59 who attempt to join the army would of course have a much greater chance of being rejected than those younger than 30. By contrast, Kerry won the age 18-29 demographic by a 9% margin. In other words, Kerry supporters, the demographic most likely to be against the Iraq War, are also the group that, should they attempt to join the military, are the most likely to be accepted and sent overseas. Another factor that may play a role is that most single and childless people are Kerry supporters, whereas those who are married and have children voted for Bush by the astounding margins of between 11% and 15%. Obviously, this would be a great deterrent to join the army. I don’t need to point out that not everyone who believes the Iraq war to be virtuous will immediately join the military, just as not everyone who believes the Darfur genocide is unjust will become a humanitarian worker, but that being said in 2004 Bush easily carried the military serviceman demographic by 16%. This margin was even higher for servicemen who had specifically served in Iraq. However, considering the fact that Paul Martin is “at one with the United States” on the issue of rebuilding Iraq, and since defeating the insurgency is key to doing that, perhaps this isn't something you ought to be gloating about at all. Canada might be a bit too preoccupied in Afghanistan to fill the gap, but we should be hoping that other nations will. As Iraq’s first democratically-elected president in fifty years, Jalal Talabani, stated: “The victory of the new Iraq will be the triumph of freedom over hate, of decency over intolerance. Who would not want to share in such a worthy campaign?”

Events like this happen frequently in the Third World, especially Africa and the Middle East, because national governments rarely effectively enforce law in the countryside. However, if you’re trying to imply that conditions for women in Afghanistan have gotten worse since the NATO invasion then you’re incorrect. Here is a small sampling of the reports which document the flourishing of human rights that have occurred since the fall of the Taliban. Taliban's demise benefits Afghanistan's women http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/arch...0/18/2003207391 Reflections on progress for Afghanistan's children http://paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=87255 Small nonprofit, big goal: education for Afghanistan http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...anistan09m.html Women Enter Business World http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/arr/a...2_152_3_eng.txt Strong Showing by Women Voters http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/arr/a...0_142_3_eng.txt AFGHANISTAN: Interview with head of independent human rights body http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportI...on=Central_Asia You've also neglected in this thread to point out all the positive developments in civil liberties that have been seen in post-Saddam Iraq. Dispatches from Iraq's feminist front http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.18/01-iraq.html And this was the results of that election… Iraqi women seek power to safeguard rights http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/i...iraq-women.html These advances, however, are not limited to women. Baghdad book alley springs back to life http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Region2....rticleID=128066 Iraqi cartoonists mock militants and America alike http://in.news.yahoo.com/040927/137/2gyws.html Iraqi labour movement makes global debut with tough task ahead http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp.../120841/1/.html Such developments have made the people of Iraq and Afghanistan more optimistic now than they have been in decades. The number of people applying for refugee status in the First World is at the lowest level since 1987, due to overwhelming decreases in those applying from Afghanistan and Iraq. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3615566.stm Economic conditions are so good in Afghanistan that not only have most of the Afghan refugees in Pakistan returned for the first time in decades, but even native Pakistanis are immigrating north in order to find well-paying jobs. http://jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2004-daily/1...national/n7.htm Kurds from Syria and Iran are also taking advantage of the freer intellectual climate in Iraq by enrolling at Iraqi universities in increasingly great numbers. http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=5957 Although obviously more work needs to be done, there’s little doubt that the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein from Iraq has been extremely beneficial to the human rights situation of both countries, for both men and women. The contrast can best be seen in these Freedom House reports, which already record strong and growing improvements in civil liberties in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2001 to about 2004. All of this has occurred in countries that, as Sima Samar said, previously “could even mention the phrase 'human rights'.” http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freew...atings/iraq.htm http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freew...atings/iraq.htm http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freew...afghanistan.htm http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freew...stan2.htm\ The newly elected presidents of Afghanistan and Iraq have both expressed their respect for American efforts to promote human rights in their countries. Iraqi President Jalal Talibani said, “Our gratitude to the American people is immense and we should never be embarrassed to express it. Time and again the U.S. has given the world its most precious resource in the cause of freedom, the lives of its most talented and courageous young men and women.”

If you look at the individual statistics cited by Matthew White you will notice that his estimates are in each case based upon a very broad base of data reflecting the academic consensus, as well as including the opinions of both left-leaning and right-leaning scholars. Although it certainly isn’t the final word on the subject, the vast number, the fair selection, and reliability of the sources used at Matthew White’s website make me doubt that there is a better source available online. The numbers I have given are thus similar to and reflect the estimates of such sources as official statistics from the United States and communist nations, scholarly estimates from academic sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica, and even the opinions of left-wing activists such as Noam Chomsky. I suspect your claims that the United States massacred ‘hundreds of thousands’ of innocent civilians is in fact based upon North Korean propaganda. Although American soldiers did commit several significant atrocities, by far the largest of which were the indiscriminate bombings of residential cities (sometimes support by Canadian fighter planes by the way), it’s false to say that deliberate democide by US forces exceeded 100,000. Both the government of South Korea and the United States agree that reports of a systematic policy to murder refugees are false. The largest single massacre committed by American troops was probably about 200 refugees who were murdered at No Gun Ri. Although there was probably also a massacre at Sinchon, the number of deaths was almost certainly no where near the 900 claimed by North Korean sources. That is the death toll of the Khmer Rouge dictatorship, not the Cambodian Civil War. Most sources estimate about 600,000 deaths during that war and even Noam Chomsky agrees that no more than one million died. I do not attribute any of the deaths caused by the Khmer Rouge dictatorship to the United States because no direct military or economic aid was given to them. Although it is true that for a brief period the United States encouraged China to assist the Khmer Rouge, the minuscule amount of aid that resulted from this was not influential and at any rate did not reach the Khmer Rouge until they had already been ousted from power. Aside from Pol Pot and his associates, China and North Vietnam undoubtedly bear the largest responsibility for the KR regime because both of them supplied vast quantities of economic and military aid. This is especially the case for North Vietnam which, in 1970 and 1971, was actually supporting the Khmer Rouge offensives with tens of thousands of conventional soldiers. Formerly, some scholars considered the United States partly to blame for the rise of the Khmer Rouge based on the claim that American bombing drove civilians in the KR’s arms. However, huge gaps have since emerged in this thesis, as even the author of it admits. The communist military units that overran Phnom Penh, for instance, were largely recruited before 1970. Moreover, since KR collectivization began piecemeal wherever they gained new territory, KR terror was already killing, by the early-1970’s, almost as many as people as US bombing. The 500,000 figure was originally reported by UNICEF and many scholars have noted that it was based off questionable methods of statistical analysis and yet had been cited by numerous other sources without properly verifying it. It’s most likely that the death toll from the Iraqi embargo was about 500,000, and Matthew White’s estimates suggest a number between 350,000 and 500,000. That being said, Iraq earned enough food aid and medical supplies from the oil-for-food program to care for a million people several times over; the embargo did not have to result in any deaths at all. In my opinion the United States is the nation second most to blame for those 500,000 deaths, after Iraq. Granted, however, even if we do use the controversial figure of one million, and attribute 50% of it to the United States, and then add 50% of the deaths caused by the wars in Indochina and Korea, that still does not come close to 8 million. Even these calculations, which to me are far too high, we arrive at only about 3.5 million. I have shown clearly in my posts exactly how I arrived at that number. However, no one here as come close to a decent documentation of the 8 million. Therefore, I propose we do away with the preposterous figure of 8 million altogether. In discussing the total number of US-induced deaths since the end of World War II, I propose we use figures of no more than 4 or 5 million at the most.

This is a highly debatable proposition which I not only disagree with, but will go so far as to say that modern research has largely disproved it. Although both the North and the South had significant bases of political support to draw upon, the peasants who comprised the majority of the population of both nations were largely apolitical, siding with whoever was winning the war and whoever could provide them with security. I find it highly unlikely that, by the time North Vietnam began sponsoring the Southern communist insurgency in 1959, Ho Chi Minh’s government could possibly have been any more popular than Ngo Dinh Diem’s. In 1953 North Vietnam began a ‘land reform’ campaign that descended into sheer terror as death squads organized at the community level were ordered to fill extermination quotes in each region, initiating waves of indiscriminate killings that ended in 1957 once 50,000 civilians had been killed and 100,000 imprisoned (by contrast, Diem caused about 15,000 deliberate democide deaths during his entire regime (1954-1963), including during the civil war with the Viet Cong). The Canadian peacekeepers stationed in North Vietnam during the 1950’s to ensure that the Geneva Accords were enforced were shocked in 1956 when group of peasants that had been traumatized by the North’s terror ran towards them begging to be taken to the South and were then beaten back violently by North Vietnamese police. This abject cruelty subsequently spawned massive uprisings against Hanoi, even at Ho Chi Minh’s birthplace. The peasants who launched the uprisings were poorly equipped and since the South never sought to aid them, their cause was evidently futile. Nonetheless, the brutality with which the North suppressed the peasant revolts (more than 1,000 died) caused mass defections of communist officials to the South. Diem, of course, was also fighting internal revolts by militant Buddhist sects and also was gaining the ire of significant portions of his population due to repression, but its unlikely that after the horror unleashed by the North from 1953 to 1957 that Diem would be any less popular than Ho was. At any rate, the North did not care whether their insurgency in the South was supported by the people or not; Ho was determined almost from the beginning that force would be required to unify Vietnam. The North infiltrated its first agents into the South in 1955, not even a year after the Geneva Accords were signed. Ho certainly made no attempt to accurately determine whether the majority of the people supported reunification. In fact, during the Inodchina War Ho had such difficulty finding communist recruits in the South that he openly cursed the “individualism” and “market orientation” of Southern peasants. Although the North has never, to this day, held any multiparty elections, the South did hold one free election, in 1967. Nguyen Van Thieu attained the most votes (33%) and therefore won the presidency, largely because his running mate was the highly popular air force marshal Nguyen Cao Ky. Six other parties ran against them on various nationalist or socialist platforms and a self-described ‘peace candidate’, Truong Dinh Dzu, placed second. Although the communists obviously had no choice but to boycott the election, the turnout was nonetheless surprisingly high, with an estimated 80% of South Vietnam’s population casting their vote. In 1966, based on polls and enemy behavior patterns, Professor Robert Scalapino estimated that about 17% of the population supported the communists. Socialist historian Gabriel Kolko estimated after the war that up to 35% of peasants, although very few city dwellers, were communist-aligned. An interesting essay that you can read online called ‘Villager Attitudes During The Final Decade Of The Vietnam War’ suggests that pro-communist attitudes amongst the peasantry reached a peaked in the early-1960’s, but afterwards declined precipitously. During the Tet Offensive of 1968 the North expected a mass ‘general uprising’ in support of them but in fact testimony from communist officials and POWs indicate that only 2% of the guerrillas were supported by the population. Perhaps the best indicator that the majority of Southerners did not support the North is that within ten years following reunification in 1975, two million were willing to leave their ancestral homes and flee the country in rickety, dangerous ships. In fact, the first Premier of a united Vietnam, Pham Van Dong, stated that 60% of the South population would have to be forcibly persuaded to accept union with the North. In other words, even once reunification was an established fact, he still thought he could count on the support of only 40% of the South’s population. It’s possible that Kim Il-sung was more popular in North Korea than Rhee Syngman was in the South during the Korean War, but irregardless it’s doubtful that the majority of South Koreans supported the 1950 invasion. In 1948 North Korea began a land reform campaign, but unlike in North Vietnam this program was actually fairly successfully and reasonably popular, enough so that certain parts of it were emulated during South Korea’s own land reform program which was completed the following year. By the time the land reform in the North began, nearly one million of the regime’s opponents had already fled the country and these refugees would provide an important base of support for anticommunist sentiments in the South. During the 1940’s and 1950’s South Korea held several multiparty elections of varying degrees of fairness, and once again the North has, so this day, failed to hold one. The freest election in South Korea (up to 1988) occurred in 1948. The United Nations was able to supervise this election and although they recorded a few instances of sporadic voter intimidation, they in the end concluded that the voting was free and fair in the areas of South Korea they supervised (about 2/3rds of the country). The UN recorded a turnout of 75% of the population. Rhee’s party only won 48 of the 200 seats in the national legislature but a compromise was reached with two other parties that resulted in him being elected prime minister anyway. The United States gave the communist party full opportunity to run in the election but they boycotted it regardless. Nonetheless, they did field several ‘independents’ who won a few seats. Kim Il-sung invaded in 1950 in part because his associate Pak Hon-yong told him that 200,000 Southerners would jump to his support. However, Kim later denounced Pak as a liar, declaring that not “even 1,000” Southerners had supported his invasion. This data suggests that even if Kim was more popular than Rhee, the Korean people greatly disapproved of Kim’s violent tactics to achieve reunification. In conclusion, there is significant evidence suggesting that, although the Southern governments may not have been extremely popular, they were as least as popular, by the time war broke out, as their Northern counterparts. As for your claim that the United States was staunching the “democratic will of the people”, keep in mind that South Vietnam held one more multiparty election in its history than North Vietnam did, and South Korea has held several more elections than the North. The multiparty elections that did occur in Vietnam and Korea reflect a tolerance in the South for political pluralism that was and is considered completely unacceptable in communist nations, where opposition candidates are not only banned from entering elections, but are to this day banned from existing altogether.

I’ll use Matthew White’s website for my statistics since, as I said, he uses multiple reliable sources in order to make his estimates. The total number of civilian and military deaths he tabulates in the Korean and Vietnam Wars combined is 6.3 million, including the civil war in Cambodia. These two conflicts were by far the bloodiest encounters the United States fought during the Cold War, and yet the total figure is still almost two million short of the 8 million cited. That being said, only a small portion of the strife incurred in Korea and Vietnam should be attributed to the United States; it would be unfair to accredit the United States with all those who died. A portion of those deaths should also lie at the hands of North Korea and North Vietnam, as their soldiers also inflicted many military and civilian casualties. South Vietnam and South Korea were obviously independent countries as well, so a part of the destruction reaped lies with them. In the case of Korea, some of those deaths are Canadian soldiers who were killed in the South, and others belong to Chinese and North Koreans who died at the hands of Canadians. Your statement indicates you also want to include indirect killings, or ‘proxy deaths.’ If we do this, the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, the principle arms supplier of North Vietnam and Korea, also must take a large share of the blame. Although Canada bears little responsibility for the total Vietnamese death toll, Canadian corporations, but not the government itself, were the principle foreign supplier of arms to the United States during the war, so this may also have caused some proxy deaths. That death toll of 6.3 million, which as I said is still a far cry from 8 million, has to be divvied up among a large number of nations. 350,000-500,000 died due to the Iraqi embargo, but once again this death toll must be proportioned among many countries, not the least because they were international sanctions, supported by the UN. Many other nations in the UN that successfully voted to impose those sanctions deserve an equal share of the total death toll, including Canada. In 1998, in the face of Saddam’s intransigence prior to Operation Desert Fox, Jean Chrétien affirmed Canada’s staunch support for Resolution 687, which had authorized the embargo in 1991. Iraq also deserves to take blame for a large portion, probably the dominant portion, of that figure. Saddam Hussein skimmed off billions in aid money from the oil-for-food program, which was intended for the needy but invariably never reached them. Many, in Indochina and Korea, were not, as I have stated. Moreover, North Korea and North Vietnam are in particular the nations that deserve especial criticism for their roles, far more so than the USSR, the United States, China, Canada, or the Southern governments. I say this because it’s important to keep in mind that in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the North was the original aggressor. The major international provocation that started the Korean War was the North Korean invasion of the South in 1950, which subsequently triggered a UN intervention. Similarly, few would disagree the first significant international aggression of the Vietnam War was when North Vietnam sent armed soldiers and weaponry into South Vietnam in 1959 to support an ailing communist insurgency. The same can be said about the civil war in Cambodia. Viet Cong soldiers were violating Cambodian neutrality and arming the Khmer Rouge by the early-1960’s, long before the United States was greatly involved. King Sihanouk had by 1967 become so aggravated by the arrogance of the North Vietnamese that he then personally authorized the first American bombing raids and border attacks against communist sanctuaries in Cambodia. During World War II Canada and the United States participated together in war crimes that far exceeded any atrocity by any side in Korea and Vietnam. I believe that part of the reason why we’ve been forgiven for our sins is that Canada was not the country that started the war, but rather, we were defending a nation that was attacked, just as the United States was in Vietnam and Korea. So, we might consider attributing half of the deaths sustained in Korea and Indochina to the United States, as well as half the deaths caused by the Iraqi embargo. Considering the individual circumstances of those events, which I have outlined, this seems to me to be extremely punitive. Nonetheless, using even that high fraction yields a total that does not even reach 3.2 million, let alone 8. As for ‘proxy deaths’, of course the United States is not responsible for all the deaths caused by any war or coup it supported vocally or materially. In each such conflict, there were numerous parties and if we do decide to include ‘proxy deaths’ to determine a country’s murderousness, each nation must be held accountable for only a reasonable portion of the total death toll. For instance, in 1970 the Trudeau government in Canada suddenly withdrew all foreign aid from the democratically-elected administration of Salvador Allende in Chile, in protest of his Marxist policies and despite increasing economic difficulties in Chile. Pinochet’s subsequent military coup of 1973 was openly welcomed by our ambassador, and economic aid was immediately restored. We were even reluctant to take in Chilean refugees so as not to antagonize the new rightist regime. I refuse to accept that it’s fair to hold Canada accountable for the deaths of all 8,000 people killed by Pinochet. It simply means that we bear responsibility for a portion of the blame, not all of it. Pinochet and his supporters are obviously the guiltiest party, not Trudeau. The United States and West Germany, for backing the coup as well, must also accept responsibility for some of those deaths. Each involved party should accept responsibility for a share of those murders. Of course, this data only proves that there are 34.6 million people unaccounted for. Unless someone can account for them, it could just as easily be that the United States killed 1.6 million and the Netherlands killed 33 million, or any other combination for that matter. Whether democide to not, what I want is for someone to account for where those deaths are coming from exactly. The way I see it, the only possible way that United States’ death total would exceed 8 million is if two conditions were met simultaneously. Firstly, that indirect ‘proxy’ deaths be included, as opposed to only direct deaths, and secondly, that all the deaths of each conflict be entirely attributed to the United States, as opposed to only a reasonable share. Judging from Eureka’s post, however, that is exactly what he intends to do; I believe, wrongly.

If we're just talking about democide, which is a term that RJ Rummel coined, that article is incorrect and ought to be changed. Matthew White's website catalogues deaths caused not only by democide, but also war. At no point does he claim he is accounting only for democide and in fact his site also includes estimates of killings not even associated with government, such as anarchy, riots, and exploitation. For instance, his estimate of deaths during World War II includes not only the Holocaust, which was democide, but also soldiers killed in battle, which Rummel would not define as democide. Similarly, if the authors of that Wikipedia article had bothered to read the website, they would have seen that the same thing can be said of most of the events on the list, including World War I, the Russian Civil War, Warlord China, the Indochina War, and others. Regarding America's alleged democide, even if you include all the deaths of enemy combatants killed by the US Army, which Rummel wouldn't, the figure still wouldn't come even close to 8 million. There's hardly even any point in trying to debate a number like that unless it can be accounted for. I consider Matthew White's website to be a decent source for death toll statistics, as he makes sure to cite all his data to other reliable sources and then make reasonable estimates. On the other hand, I generally don't consider democide-expert RJ Rummel a very reliable source. His books present interesting ideas but he has a very strong tendency to greatly overestimate certain death tolls when it suits his research.

New investigations have gathered evidence connecting Syria to the murder. Assad reportedly said to Hariri, "If you and Chirac want me out of Lebanon, I will break Lebanon." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25...30888_1,00.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/20/internat...&partner=rssnyt

I see no reason why the United States shouldn't voice its opinion in international affairs. On issues of global concern such as the Lebanon-Syria dispute, I would rather the United States do as they have done and specifically state their stance on the matter, rather than being ambiguous. In this particular case, the United States is representing a coalition of at least nine nations. Because the United States, being the most militarily and economically powerful nation of the group, is best capable of enforcing the demand, I believe that it is the most qualified country to speak on behalf of the coalition. Although it is true that America's control over Guantanamo Bay is dubious, I don't believe that a nation should automatically be prohibited from commenting on the border disputes of other nations, simply because it is in a border dispute itself. After all, even Canada claims ownership over highly contested territories, such as Hans Island, which is also claimed by Denmark. Many analysts believe that Canada's deployment of troops to the high Arctic is a show of force aimed at Denmark. The fact that Canada is involved in this dispute has not stopped it from commenting on the situation in Lebanon. Paul Martin, by stating that he prefers a Syrian military presence in Lebanon, has chosen to oppose the UN Security Council on this issue. Overall, I believe that the United States has a better claim to Guantanamo Bay than Syria has to the occupation of northeast Lebanon. Syria intervened in Lebanon to enforce a ceasefire between warring factions and ensure that anti-Syria factions did not triumph during the civil war. Now that the war is over, Syria's reason to stay in Lebanon is largely gone. On the other hand the United States' occupation of the Guantanamo Bay area is legitimate under a 1903 treaty which specifically states that the United States not only has "complete jurisdiction and control" over their bases on Cuba but also that this situation is permanent unless both governments agree to change it. De facto, I think the American government annexed the land more than 100 years ago. The Cuban position is that the treaty is void because the Cuban government would not have signed the agreement in 1903 at all if they hadn't been under American military pressure.

Interest in seeing Syria leave Lebanon dates from before the assassination, and it is not exclusive to the United States. In September, 2004, France and the United States co-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which called on Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon and cease to interfere in its internal politics. Because seven other Security Council members voted for it, the proposal was successful. If the United States is to be criticized for acting on this resolution, we should equally criticize all those who support it, including Angola, Benin, Chile, France, Germany, Romania, Spain, and the United Kingdom. I disagree with anticlimates' assertion that this UN resolution will make the process of disengagement more difficult. In fact, it is precisely this external pressure which has caused President Assad to state this month that a Syrian withdrawal, "should be very soon and maybe in the next few months."

This Associated Press article notes several areas in which strong progress has been made towards combating al-Qaeda, such as the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was described by the 9/11 Commission as the, "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks." http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-0...terrorism_x.htm This article notes that Al-Qaeda is being defeated militarily in its major base of operations in Pakistan. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6527746/ This article, based on a trove of recently captured documents, is less optimistic but nonetheless provides evidence that the 75% figure may very well be accurate. The new documents, which "led to the arrests of 11 suspected Qaeda followers", note specifically that much of Al Qaeda's leadership was destroyed. However, it seems that now Al-Qaeda is "regenerating" and that its "upper echelons are being filled by lower-ranking members and more recent recruits." Nonetheless, I would imagine that Al Qaeda's new leaders are less experienced than those who were captured or killed. http://www.iht.com/articles/533445.html I think the decapitation of Al-Qaeda's old leadership, combined with overwhelming pressure on Al-Qaeda in its former strongholds of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and several other Middle Eastern nations, represent real progress. 9/11 has convinced nations across the world to successfully crack down on Al-Qaeda's terrorism.

I think that the 'excuse' Bush needed to attack Iraq was when Saddam expelled the weapons inspectors in 1998. President Clinton stated that year that, “The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume co-operation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.” He also said that, "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government." Therefore, he signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, which effectively made it the official policy of the United States to seek the removal of Saddam Hussein. This Act probably assisted Bush's invasion more than any other single factor. This statement is probably true of Canada also. Although I don't know all the details of antiterrorism legislation passed since 9/11, I was reading an article on Ernst Zundel by "By BETH DUFF-BROWN, Associated Press" when I read this... "A Canadian law, passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, allows the government to hold terrorism suspects without charge, based on secret evidence that does not have to be disclosed to a suspect or his defense." That doesn't seem much better than the Patriot Act to me.

Don't forget that the administration was also given the excuse to fight Al-Qaida. Afghanistan was of course invaded before Iraq in order to capture Bin Laden. Although Bin Laden himself remains at large, more than 75% of the Al-Qaida operatives identified for arrest on 9/11 have been captured. Well, at least some terrorists hate democracy. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/23/iraq.main/ Plenty of American citizens have been arrested and successfully prosecuted under domestic antiterrorism legislation, such as the Patriot Act. The recently created Department of Homeland Security, as well as of course the FBI, are continuously gathering intelligence on or arresting American citizens suspected of violating laws that prohibit homocide within the United States. The Earth Liberation Front, Squamish Five, and many other radical leftist terrorists largely target or targeted corporations and individuals. Of course, all terrorists are responding to something or other that they don't like. Bush's missile defensive program, as controversial as it is, is purely for defense purposes. I certainly hope one doesn't automatically sponsor nuclear proliferation simply by attempting to create an innovative method of defending oneself from a foreign attack. Keep in mind that Canada has also in the past taken drastic measures to fight terrorism. The FLQ crisis only resulted in a few deaths yet it prompted Trudeau to temporarily turn his cabinet into a virtual dictatorship. He sent troops and tanks into Quebec and rounded up thousands of Quebecers who were obviously innocent of any crime and held them for in some cases several months. If we're going to measure the significance of an event simply by the death toll, then the 9/11 attacks deserve a response that is approximately 1000 times what Trudeau did in 1970 (since the FLQ only killed about 3 people).

I agree that most political scientists would describe fascism as right-leaning, but it's actually hard to fit it in the political spectrum since the definitions of what left and right are have changed so much over the years. However, the idea that fascism is leftist is not a 'silly myth', but rather, something that is seriously debated by scholars. Although all rejected pure Marxism, some fascists proclaimed themselves to be socialist in nature, therefore presumably leftist. Most, however, declared themselves to represent a synthesis of the right and the left, perhaps explaining the difficulty in classifying them. As you point out, totalitarianism is not exclusively fascist. Leninists and Maoists also support the totalitarian model, yet would anyone argue that these are 'leftist' ideologies? I don't know of anyone who would argue that Lenin, Stalin, and other communists were 'right-wing' in a modern sense. Similarly, democracy was essentially a creation of classical liberals, who were considered 'leftist' at the time. Today, few would argue that classical liberalism represents the 'right-wing' of the political spectrum. Modern neoliberal (classical liberal) thinkers are often referred to as the 'far-right'. In social policy, fascism resembles the modern 'right'. Fascists were nationalist, anti-pacifist, largely traditionalist, and they believed in the inequality of man. In addition, in politics their anti-communism often helped them to forge alliances with 'conservative' parties. However, in economics fascism, especially Italian fascism, is generally more similar to the modern left. The left today is often associated with government control over the economy. Mussolini, like Stalin, was intent on gaining total control over the nation's productivity, which he achieved by reorganizing the economy into centrally-controlled corporations, largely run by government appointees. To me, Mussolini's corporatism seems leftist, but he himself said that it in reality represented a synthesis between rightist and leftist economics. Mussolini also believed strongly in the welfare state, which is today considered a leftist trait. Hitler did not nationalize the economy like Mussolini did, and unlike communists he was not contemptuous towards capitalists. However, he did maintain tight control over Germany's big businesses and ensured that they would produce only those materials that he believed would further the fascist state. Hitler himself once said that fascism was a less-populist form of Marxism, and he often referred to his system of government as a form of 'socialism'. In an interesting statement he once asked a fellow politician, "Why should we need to socialize the banks and factories? We are socializing the people?" To be honest, I'm not sure whether this statement reflects a more rightist, or a more leftist stance. I think the essential problem lies in defining the left and right. For instance, Hitler was strongly against free trade. In the 1930's, that would've made him a rightist, since conservative parties of that era supported protectionism. However, modern rightist thought strongly emphasizes global trade. So does that mean his trade policy was rightist, or leftist? And of course, comparing the ideology of the modern Republican Party to fascism is absolutely ridiculous.

Because in Canada, in you're not with us, you're against us! August1991 doesn't seem to understand that all Canadians must believe in the following things... -peacekeeping, not policing -diversity, not assimilation -the beaver's standing as a truly proud and noble animal -designating toques as hats -and referring to couches as chesterfields And if you don't like it, get the hell out!

This map made by the Palestinian Authority indicates that the majority of the Gaza Strip is under their control. http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS.../gaza-2000.html I agree that a lot more progress has to be made in the West Bank, but I think your figures may be exaggerated. The Palestinian Authority claims that they have 'sovereignty' over 41% of the West Bank. http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS...haron-2001.html I strongly disagree that the disengagement plan does not represent real progress. The Authority itself has stated that it supports the plan, which will result in the evacuation of all Israeli settlements and the end to a permanent Israeli military presence in the area. As you noted, the majority of the remaining restrictions on their autonomy regard security measures. Israel wants to ensure that the Authority will not prevent them from using extreme measures to pursue terrorists such as they did from 1982-85 in Lebanon or during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002. Considering that several intractable Palestinian terrorist groups that do not recognize Israel's existence operate in the Gaza Strip, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas, I think that this decision is wise. Regarding the economic restrictions, the agreement indicates that these will likely be temporary until all Israeli settlers have been evacuated, but even if they are maintained I don't think it would qualify as an 'occupation' since I would argue that their economic dependency is not greater that what has existed between other autonomous regions. Infrastructure issues have already been dealt with in previous, multilateral agreements but at any rate I doubt the Palestinian Authority will dispute Israeli influence in this field since at least for the time being it’s almost certainly in their best interest. Considering all the opposition Sharon is receiving, I think it's very admirable that he nonetheless promotes the plan so strongly. I think that Sharon is defying his reputation as a warmonger.

Actually, Israel is already scheduled to pull out of the Gaza Strip this summer. Most of the region is already under the control of the Palestinian Authority. Also, that Lebanon primer is outstandingly biased. The Israeli attack on hostile PLO bases is described as an, "unprovoked invasion." While certainly controversial, few would actually argue it was entirely unprovoked considering the constant rocket attacks and terrorist excursions they were receiving from inside the Lebanese border. The article rather disingenuously claims that Israel did not withdraw until 2000. Although technically true, the Israeli army did, unlike Syrian forces, pull out from almost all of Lebanon in 1985, excepting a fairly thin buffer zone along the southern border to act as a plug against further PLO attacks. Also, among other things, his attempt to blame Arab dictatorships on the United States is extremely dishonest. No documentary evidence has been discovered to support the conclusion that the United States rigged the 1957 election in Lebanon and he goes on to completely mischaracterize the 1958 intervention. Camille Chamoun's government was actively being subverted by the Egyptian dictator Nasser. By preventing the overthrow of Chamoun's government, the United States effectively preserved Lebanese democracy until the outbreak of the civil war in 1975. Although not without its problems, Lebanon was noted throughout the 1950's and 1960's for having the fewest restrictions on press freedom in the Middle East outside Israel, a sharp contrast to Nasser's repressive regime in Egypt. Although the possibility does exist that the CIA assisted the Baath Party of Iraq, the article does not mention that the government they were fighting was not a democracy, but a dictatorship. The only genuine example of American subversion of democracy in the Middle East is the 1953 coup is Iran. Although the United States did eventually provide invaluable assistance in engineering the coup, it was in fact planned and initiated by Britain's MI6.

Although it seems now that Saddam abandoned his weapons program at some point in time after 1995, keep in mind that there was a lot of evidence against this in 2002, even discounting CIA intelligence. During the UNSCOM operation (1991-1998), Saddam did virtually everything in his power to halt the inspections, from refusing the UN entrance into certain plants to blowing up factories shortly before an inspection. In 1998 Saddam kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq, causing Clinton to declare that Saddam had "abused his last chance." He then signed the Iraqi Liberatin Act, effectively making the removal of Saddam a policy of the United States government. Prominent UNSCOM inpsectors such as Richard Butler, the leader of UNSCOM in its final years, believed that Saddam, with the UN now gone, was restarting his chemical and biological weapons programs. This opinion was echoed by many other inspectors, such as Scott Ritter, who said that Iraq's recent non-cooperation justified the removal of Saddam. Between 1998 and 2002, Saddam was completely unsupervised. During this period numerous Iraqi defectors, many of who were not part of any partisan organization, claimed that Saddam was creating weapons of mass destruction. President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordon both told the American military shortly before the war that they believed the same thing. When the UNMOVIC inspectors arrived in Iraq in 2002, they noted that Iraq could not account for 1,000 tons of chemical weapons, 6,000 gallons of anthrax, and 5,000 gallons of botulinum. ElBaradei noted that Iraq “should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programs ... (but) only a few new such documents have come to light so far ...” It was also discovered that Saddam threatened to murder the families of those scientists who told UNMOVIC too much. Blix, although he never found any direct evidence for the existence of weapons of mass destruction, did declare that, “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament which was demanded of it.” I don't think that the Bush administration ever said that Saddam was involved in the 9-11 terrorist attacks. It is true, however, that it was rather disingenuously implied that he was. These suspicions were based on several meetings between Al-Qaeda and Iraqi officials that were later confirmed by the 9-11 commission, as well as Saddam's comment that the United States had deserved the attacks. Regardless, that Iraq was among the world's largest sponsors of international terrorism is not in question. Since 1991, Iraq has actively supported terrorist movements against Israel, Turkey, and Iran (Israel and Turkey being key American allies in the Middle East), has attempted to assassinate former American president George HW Bush, and has knowingly sheltered the anti-American terrorists Abdul Rahman Yasin, Abu Abbas, and especially Abu Nidal, who was at the time one of the world’s most wanted terrorists. After the September 11th attacks, Vladimir Putin acquired intelligence that indicated that Iraq had been planning terrorist attacks on the United States. Defectors claimed before the war that terrorists were trained by Iraq to hijack aircraft and commit suicide bombing at a camp called Salman Pak. These facts were confirmed after the invasion.

Actually, Mulroney was reelected to a majority government after the issue of the free trade agreement was proposed. If you recall, it was the major issue of the 1988 election and John Turner said that he would scrap it should Canadians elect him. Although I have little doubt that the GST contributed to the 1993 purge, I would imagine that Chrétien won few friends by reneging on his promise to eliminate it, and yet he was re-elected several times. The reason why Mulroney was able to get a federal majority was because he was the first Conservative in modern history who tried to appeal to Quebecers. His majority governments rode on the fact that for the first time a substantial number of Quebec ridings were sending PC delegates to Parliament. Mulroney reversed the economic stagnation that characterized the Trudeau years but nonetheless failed miserably at curbing the massive deficits he had criticized the previous administration for. The failure of the Charlottetown Accord caused him to lose support not only in Quebec but also in traditional conservative bases like British Columbia and Alberta, where the Accord was strongly opposed. This combined with the 1992 recession sealed the fate of the Progressive Conservatives. Today, now that the passions of the early-1990's have died down, Mulroney is increasingly respected as a sort of, "elder statesman." I think that this is because it is recognized that Mulroney's two majority governments, a spectacular feat for a Conservative, were due to his own aptitude, conviction, and charmisa.

Although I don’t essentially disagree with your conclusions, I do object to the America-centric way you portray the Vietnam War throughout the essay. Keep in mind that it was a war between North Vietnam and South Vietnam that the United States later intervened in militarily. The North and the South had millions of people engaged in a conflict that they both believed was worth dying for long before the United States (and China) intervened. Both regimes suffered violent internal revolts from those Vietnamese people who opposed their rule. Communist revolts in the South, however, were aided by the North whereas the peasant rebellions that broke out in the North were not assisted by the South. During the war against the French, Ho Chi Minh found it extremely difficult to gain communist converts in the South and complained of the strong “individualism” of the Southerners and their belief in a market economy. Although it was once thought that, “Ho Chi Minh was increasingly supporting the actions of the National Liberation Front,” Hanoi has since admitted what was already strongly suspected. The NLF was its own creation, with one of its purposes being to give the insurgency in the South a more indigenous character. By the early-1960’s, most of the guerrillas fighting the Southern government were infiltrators from the North. By the late-1960’s, most were conventional troops from the North Vietnamese Army. To help maintain North Vietnam’s internal security, 350,000 Chinese troops were stationed there. It might be said that they were engaged in a “crusade” to train Northern troops, man antiaircraft weapons, assist in locating Southern spies that had been infiltrated into the North, and repair infrastructure damaged by American bombing. Thanks to these troops, the North was able to infiltrate ten of thousands, and eventually hundreds of thousands, of professional NVA troops into the South without any concern about maintaining a domestic defense. The start of NVA infiltration into the South was one of the primary triggers of the intervention of American combat troops, who came to number 500,000 by 1968. However, one must keep in mind that the United States was no more invading the home of the Vietnamese people than China was. Both were engaged in largely defensive roles. Ho Chi Minh was on several occasions forced to be subservient to China’s wishes in order to maintain its support. Diem was much more defiant towards the United States than Ho was towards China, although his post-1963 successors were more malleable to American demands. After the conquest of the South, Northern commanders later recalled their disappointment at finding how hostile the population was towards them. Wartime propaganda had indicated that the Northerners would be welcomed as liberators, but in fact the majority of the Southerners did not want to be part of Ho’s “national democratic revolution.” Already 200,000 had died fighting it, although 300,000 more were to die after 1975 during the North’s pacification of the country. This provoked a mass movement of one million refugees that the war itself could not. The Vietnam War was indeed a proxy war, but don’t forget that there were two proxies; both of whom were fighting for their heritage and free will. The final tragedy of the war, however, belongs to the Southerners. On another note, I think the primary reasons why the United States intervened with military force in Vietnam were to avoid losing its ally in the South and to prevent a waning of confidence in America’s ability to defend its allies. Australia, for instance, lost considerable confidence in their collective security pact with the United States after America suddenly withdrew economic and military assistance from the South in 1974 despite promises not to. Also, there was in fact a relatively small scale domino effect after the end of the Vietnam War. South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia all fell at the same time. Moreover, the communist movements that came to power in Angola, Mozambique, and Nicaragua during the late-1970’s were all directly inspired by the success of the war in Southeast Asia. These successes in turn helped to embolden the roughly simultaneous communist takeovers of Grenada, Ethiopia, and Afghanistan.

It’s really impossible to try to generalize United States foreign policy before and during the cold war since it involved dozens of different administrations over several decades who generated America’s foreign policy towards hundreds of nations across the world. Therefore, America’s foreign policy record is naturally very mixed, characterized by acts of both altruism and maliciousness, as it is for almost any country with significant clout in world affairs. In 1954, for example, the United States was subverting democracy in Guatemala and encouraging repressive dictatorship in Vietnam. Yet within thirty and thirteen years respectively, the United States would be heavily involved in building democratic institutions in these same areas. Also in 1954, the United States was successfully propping up newly-emerging liberal democracies in the Philippines and Costa Rica through economic, military, and covert aid. Regarding American military and economic aid to dictatorships across the world, I think the United States is often criticized too much. Until the 1980’s, there were really very few indigenous democracies anywhere in the world. The so-called “Third Wave of Democratization” from 1975 into the 1990’s is what made democracy the dominant form of government in the world. Before that, the United States, as well as its allies and enemies, would have had to pursue rather isolationist foreign policies in order to avoid dealing with dictators. Today, as America seeks military ties with nations across the Middle East, it is again presented with a situation where it requires influence in regions dominated by dictatorships. For the record, the United States attempted to subvert democratic governments five times during the Cold War, although on only two of those occasions did American efforts directly result in significant changes in the target nation’s internal politics. In Guatemala, from 1953 to 1954, the CIA’s Operation PBSUCCESS toppled the democratically-elected government of Jacobo Arbenz, which was suspected of communist leanings, and replaced it with a military dictatorship that would evolve into Latin America’s most oppressive regime. In Iran, in 1953, Britain’s foreign intelligence service MI6 made plans to remove the democratically-elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh. It asked for and received substantial CIA assistance in “Operation Ajax.” The United States also gave largely inconsequential support for anti-democratic forces in Chile, Brazil, and Guyana. In Brazil, the United States attempted to assist a military coup in 1964 but no significant aid reached the military before it had already consolidated its control. In Guyana, the CIA assisted British efforts to prevent democracy from developing indigenously, although its role was very minor compared to British efforts. In Chile, the United States provided monetary assistance to military plotters working against the civilian government in 1973. However, almost all analysts agree that the coup had enough support that it would have taken place with or without American assistance. By the way, Canada can’t claim innocence in this last case; in protest to Salvador Allende’s nationalization of Canadian properties without compensation, the Trudeau government cut off all foreign aid. Monetary aid was not restored until shortly after Pinochet’s coup. In general, American subversion of democracies was the exception, not the rule, in part because firstly, on a global scale there were relatively few democracies until the 1980’s, and secondly, the United States often found democracies to be better allies as their system of government more closely resembled its own. The United States hasn’t exactly imposed many dictatorships on Latin America, except in Guatemala. It has, however, supported friendly but repressive governments that came to power through other means. Some have fallaciously claimed that the United States installed such dictators as Somoza and Batista following their occupations of Nicaragua and Cuba in the early twentieth century. In reality, however, America’s long-term occupations in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and to a lesser extent Cuba, are recognized as genuine attempts at democracy-building. The only free elections held in Nicaragua in the twentieth century before 1990 took place under the American occupation. US-supervised elections in Haiti brought a nationalist party to power that was strongly opposed to the American military, which promptly left at the new government’s request. Sadly, democracy in these areas did in no instance last very long after the United States army left. Costa Rica is an example of one of numerous democracies across the world that was strongly sponsored by the United States. Successive American administrations consistently favored Costa Rica for its anti-communist foreign policy stance. In fact, the survival of Costa Rican democracy can partly be attributed to the United States due to the large amount of military and economic supplies that were given to it. During Costa Rica’s border disputes with Nicaragua in the 1950’s, Somoza’s threats to topple the Costa Rican government may have become reality if not for the emergency arrival of American military aid during a 1955 border clash. A number of other Latin American liberal democracies, including Venezuela, Bolivia (under the MNR government), Chile (under Frei), and Brazil (under Kubitsuchek), received considerable military and economic aid from the USA. Kennedy has a mixed record on supporting liberal governments in Latin America. His Alliance For Progress, intended to foster democratic governments across Latin America, was largely a failure. Reagan definitely has one of the better records in supporting democracy throughout the world. Although American subversion of the Allende government is well known, is it not so well known that the United States under Reagan played a small but significant role in ensuring a peaceful transition back to democracy in Chile by providing substantial funds to Pinochet’s opponents during the 1990 referendum, a poll which Pinochet lost narrowly. You are correct that the United States intervened during the 1980’s in civil wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua largely due to fears that they would lose influence in the region when the FMLN rebels and Sandinistas, both of whom were financially and militarily supported by Cuba, took over. American military aid to the government of El Salvador in the 1980’s was and is extremely controversial because the El Salvador military, in fighting the rebels, committed ghastly and senseless atrocities against civilians who were obviously innocent of abetting violence. One massacre committed by the military at El Mozote is considered one of the largest single massacres in recent Latin American history. The United States recognized that one of the main causes of the violence in El Salvador was the military’s intransigence towards democratic reforms. In response, President Reagan promoted expensive liberalization efforts that involved pressuring the government to hold free elections (which it did in 1984) and providing financial assistance to liberal candidates who were not connected to military death squads. It can be argued that the United States bears some responsibility for starting the war in El Salvador because it did not pressure the government in any way to perform democratic reforms until the FMLN rebellion was already well underway. The civil war in Nicaragua was considerably less violent. Although it is true that the native Indians largely opposed the Sandinistas (they formed an armed resistance group called Misurasata), the civil war was not an ethnic dispute. The vast majority of the contra rebels fighting the Sandinistas were peasants who feared that their land would be confiscated or collectivized (see “The Real Contra War” by Timothy Brown for more information). Other opponents of the Sandinistas included former members of the Somoza government, as well as former Sandinistas and former opponents of the Somozas who believed the Sandinistas were not committed to democracy. Whether the Sandinista government was a democracy or not is hotly disputed. Although they did hold elections in 1984, I would argue that those elections did not take place under a free climate, due to anti-democratic operations committed by both the contras and the Sandinistas. However, if one does believe that the 1984 elections were free, then America’s attempts to topple the Sandinista government ought to be considered another example of anti-democratic subversion. The United States is sometimes blamed for causing the civil war because it backed the repressive Somoza government, but I consider this accusation to be false. Several American administrations pressured Somoza to submit to democratic reforms, but could not convince him to so as they were unwilling to employ military force. During Somoza’s war against the Sandinista rebels, the Carter government put strong pressure on the government to accept a peaceful solution to the conflict and make concessions. When he refused, all military aid was cut off. Carter initially made peaceful overtures towards the new Sandinista government that had overthrown Somoza, but their acceptance of Cuban military aid and advisors and sponsorship of the rebellion in El Salvador was greatly worrying to both Carter and Reagan and when the resistance against the Sandinistas began Reagan took the opportunity to assist in organizing and supplying these groups, as well as initiating economic and covert pressures. Latin America, as a formal part of the Third World, suffers from the same hardships that all the Third World does and I don’t think the United States can be blamed for most of the region’s economic difficulties. For books that present contrasting, but unfortunately equally biased, stances on this matter, I refer you to “Open Veins of Latin America,” and “Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot.” The nation in Latin America that is definitely the closest to escaping third world status is Chile: a country with many ties to the United States that has at varying times been its close ally or its target. I agree with your assessment on the Vietnam War. Michael Lind wrote a good book called “Vietnam – The Necessary War”, which defends the Vietnam War largely by putting it in a Cold War context. The accusations regarding chemical warfare in the opening quote are unfair. The United States army did not know that Agent Orange could have produced dangerous side-effects in humans when it was first used. In fact, it is still of scientific debate just what effects Agent Orange does have on humans; some argue that its detrimental effects have been trumped up, and many of the Vietnam government’s claims are certainly exaggerated. Regarding depleted uranium, both the American Federation of Scientists and the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission agree that the use of depleted uranium weapons does not pose long-term health threats to people or the environment. It’s true that other groups, such as the European Committee on Radiation Risk, have reached different conclusions, but to make a definite statement in the face of equivocal evidence would be a mistake. So, to answer your question, the United States was in certain instances a rogue, imperialist power, but in other instances it was not. The same thing can be said of Russia, Cuba, France, Great Britain, and even Canada. As to whom has the “loftiest rhetoric,” I can’t help but think that after his marvellous performance before the Gomery inquiry, that is an award which can only belong to Jean Chretien!