Paul.L wrote, "BTW, Are you sincerely attempting to suggest that the USSR was not intimately involved in the spreading of international communism?"

Yes, I am suggesting that and I am suggesting that the U.S. rulers knew perfectly well that to be the case.

How else do you explain the fact that the USSR leaned on the Vietnamese Communist Party at the Geneva Peace conference in order to force them to agree to give up most of what they won, at terrible cost, on the battleground as I pointed out above?

Whatever the cold warriors and, in more recent years, the Vietnam War revisionist historians have tried to claim, the supporters of the Vietnamese Communist Party were not fighting to bring barracks socialism to Vietnam, and both the rulers of the U.S. and the rulers of the USSR knew it.

If you read George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" you will know that the betrayal of the Vietnamese Communist Party in 1954 by the USSR was not out of character. In 1944 Greek Communists who had practically liberated their country from the Germans were ordered by Stalin to put down their weapons and were, as a result, massacred by the British and their former German collaborationist Greek allies. Similar orders were given to Italian Communists in 1945, although with consequences which were not quite as terrible.

So, it is a lie to claim that when the rulers of the U.S., together with Milton Friedman's Chicago Boys(1) helped the Chilean generals overthrow the democratically elected Allende government and murdered, tortured and jailed their opponents, that they were under any misapprehension that they were fighting to prevent the spread of totalitarian communism to Chile.

Kissinger, once again, explained why they did it "The example of a successful elected Marxist government in Chile would surely have an impact upon---and even precedent value for---other parts of the world, especially Italy." (cited in Klein, p 451)

---

1. The whitewashing of Friedman's despicable role in Chile by Johann Norberg at http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp102.pdf has been comprehensively demolished by Naomi Klein at http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/09/response-attacks

It's instructive how some will turn arguments around 180 degrees when it is convenient.

In 2003, when Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction, and could not possibly have used them, even if they had, due to the presence of UN weapons inspectors in the country, the U.S. chose to launch the bloody and destructive war in preference to pursuing the many diplomatic options still available to them.

In 2003, according to IsntHeIamJoseph, Sadaam(sic) Hussein was so demonic a ruler, that no course of action other than outright invasion and overthrow of his regime could have been contemplated.

However, back in 1983, it was an entirely different story. After Saddam Hussein had launched an aggressive war(1) against neighbouring Iraq and had been accusations by Iran of Iraq having used chemical weapons against its forces:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of
using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol
requires that the international community respond to chemical
warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a
muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its
accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked
for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war
with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming
Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use
of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and
decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The
intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons
against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983
memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

-end-of-quote-

It was after that that Donald Rumsfeld visited Iraq and shook Saddam's hands:

His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad,
where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of
President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while
emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president
[Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two
discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity
toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts ...

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

... find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its
facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran,
and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to
chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting
[Document 31].

-end-of-quote-

Of course, it was in 1998, sometime after that date, that the even more terrible chemical attacks against the Kurds at Halabja occurred, as Paul.L pointed out. Nevertheless, it is clear that Rumsfeld adopted different moral standards at different times according to the needs of U.S. foreign policy (and it would seem, his own personal financial interests as well).

Another principle, selectively applied by Rumsfeld, is opposition to WMD's. On page 290 of "The Shock Doctrine", we learn how, in 2000, Rumsfeld applied an entirely different standard on this issue towards Norht Korea than he was subsequenlty to apply against Iraq. Rumsfeld sat on the board of a Swiss engineering company which "sold nuclear techonology to North Korea, including the capacity to produce plutonimum" (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld#ABB_and_North_Korea). Was the man incompetent or a criminal? You tell me which, Paul.L.

All of this indicates to me that, like Rumsfeld, neither JosephIam nor Paul.L are the least bit interested in the facts, evidence, logic or principles. They will invoke principles such as national sovereignty, democracy or human rights, when they appear to suit their predetermined positions and ignore them when they don't. Others might also find instructive Paul.L's twists and turns in another discussion about the recently abandoned attempts by the NSW Labor Government to privatise NSW's electricity assets against the wishes of at least 79% of the NSW public at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2103&page=0#44628

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Footnote(s)
---+---+---

1. In fact, I don't hold Iraq entirely responsible for the war at that point. Iraq clearly started the war in 1979, but, as I recall, after the war had turned against them, they repeatedly offered peace negotiations to Iran. However, the Iranian Mullahs preferred to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands of their own countrymen, including children, in a pointless prolongation of that conflict.

In point of fact, the U.S. sowed some of the seeds for that terrible conflict, when they covertly overthrew the democratically elected left-wing government of Mohamed Mossadeq in 1953. This was done, of course, in the name of defending 'democracy' and fighting totalitarian communism, all of which Paul.L excuses. This act lit the fuse which eventually brought the Iranian Mullahs to power in 1978.

100 DAYS TO STOP BUSH AND CHENEY PRIVATISING IRAQ'S OIL WEALTH

Friday, 29 August 2008

http://www.handsoffiraqioil.org/2008/08/100-days-to-stop-bush-and-cheney-sat-11.html

George W Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney are putting immense pressure on the Iraqi government to pass a controversial oil law before they leave office. Iraqi trade unionists are fighting the law, which would effectively hand over Iraq’s oil to foreign companies such as BP and Shell for a generation.

Join the Hands Off Iraqi Oil (http://www.handsoffiraqioil.org/) procession through London on Saturday 11 October to launch 100 days of action to stop Bush and Cheney. Come and help a team of Oil Law resisters lasso a giant Dick Cheney and keep him away from a barrel of Iraq’s oil. There will be a samba band banging (oil) drums and corporate pirates too!

Date: Saturday 11 October 2008 Time: 12 noon

Assemble: Shell House, SE1 7NA (Opposite Waterloo train station. Nearest tube: Waterloo)
Route: Through central London: Shell House - BP HQ - Grosvenor Sq. Photo opps @ every stop of the tour

"Yes, I am suggesting that and I am suggesting that the U.S. rulers knew perfectly well that to be the case. "

Guess how all the states surrounding Russia became communist - be assured it was not voluntarilly. But for America, Europe would be speaking another language today. Islamist terror is hardly limited to any one place or issue - it is a global phenomenon, and not so because of America confronting communism in Afghanistan.

Like communism, Islamists also have an agenda - all they need is the ability to action their goals, and this is what happened with Afghanistan - they used US weaponry to foster their own agenda.

The world is facing a new cold war - and it is mostly deflected by the very handy Palestinian conflict placebo. The truth is, the Islamist Regimes orchestrated the Taliban as a deflection from themselves and to sustain their thrones. This is also happening in every country where Muslims live - they are bombarded by poisonous Clerics in Madarasas against the rest of humanity. It is Briton ['EUROPE'] which established the Regimes - not America. Today's Islam is emulating medevial Europe - and the west is quagmired when it cannot take its own to task. We should be grateful that America does not follow Europe's ways.