the U.S., paragon of human rights(Things are sometimes more complicated though)

I don't think anything I wrote could give anyone the impression that I take the U.S. government to be a paragon of human rights. No, I'm not forgetting about the role of ITT and the Nixon administration in overthrowing the democratically elected Allende, and you could take lots of other examples (Iran 1954, Guatemala 1954, etc. etc. etc.).

Things are sometimes more complicated though. Toward the end of the 80s, when the Pinochet regime was on its last legs, the Reagan administration -- yes, the friggin' Reagan administration with its horrible human rights record in Nicaragua and El Salvador, with its support to Sharon's dirty war in Lebanon, the very same Reagan administration put pressure on Pinochet to leave quietly. The tide was turning and U.S. strategy was beginning to move toward "democratic transitions" as the best way of guaranteeing U.S. capitalist interests. This is not to hold up the Reagan administration as a paragon of human rights, as you've gathered already, but sometimes it's worth looking at the detail too. Credibility is helped by this.

----------------------------------------
Jim (et al), You are very lucky to have been chosen by our very own wonderful "eagle-eyed" Peggy. She only takes the best exchanges and passes them from AVA to us and vice versa. This summer Peggy was away so we missed all the exchanges but Peggy is our official liaison for AVA and AAW matters as well as being our secretary.

As for Iraq, I would say that hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does. Saddam may have no businesss talking about human rights but neither does the US presently or ever for that mater! Who is the expert there? Saddam was guilty of human rights abuses since his leadership and Amnesty has been denouncing this for years! Did the US do anything about this then? The US, under Bush, is refusing even to consider supporting the ICC which would solve problems of human rights abuses by our so-called "leaders".

Have you forgotten who supported the Pinochet government? It was certainly the US (this Bush was a baby then) who helped to put Pinochet in power and took away a democratically elected leader called Allende. Pinochet was responsible for torture and murder. This is when Saddam was a twinkling in the American corporate eye.

Saddam's goons were trained by the School of Americas. One of my Iraqi friends told me that the Republican guard living down her street was very proud to state that he had had his training (in torture) in the US. I remember also that the Iranians' SAVAK, during the reign of the Shah, were also proudly trained by the CIA and Mossad.

You forget the treatment of black prisoners in Alabama, who are chained and sent for hard labour in the US. You forget the death penalty, oft times of innocent people, simply because they happen to be black. You forget Mumia Jamal on deathrow. The US is no angel when it comes to human rights abuses. Today, Guantanamo is just a blink in the US torture policies.

Saddam was supported during all his torture years by the US, as if he was a baby learning to walk!

best wishes, Tamzin

*********************

Jim wrote:

Since eagle-eyed Peggy is looking out for what I post on other lists to share it, when it suits her, with the aawfrance list, let me just make sure I'm not quoted out of context. I'm sure Mark didn't mean to do so, but just to set the record straight, here's what I wrote in reply to someone on the avadiscuss list who regaled us with an open letter from Saddam Hussein to the American people. As for Mark's critical comments about US interests in Iraq(such as the Bush administration conceives them), I agree with all of them. What follows -- the part about a hypothetical quickie intervention to help overthrow Saddam -- is more of a thought-experiment (of a sort not everyone is fond of) than a political position. We are all against the US intervention in Iraq I have certainly not changed opinions on that. -- Jim

I can't say I was too moved by the open letter to the American people by Saddam Hussein. Independently of all the criminal behavior by the Bush administation and by the U.S. armed forces, which we all condemn, I must say that Saddam Hussein has no legitimacy in denouncing inhuman acts. His 35-year dictatorship was one of the most brutal ever known in the Arab world.

I would even go so far to say, with regrets even as I say it, that if the Bush administration had had the intelligence (which it decidedly does not) to overthrow that regime and then get the hell out, then 1) things would be much more peaceful in Iraq today (and conducive to reconstruction and some home-grown form of democracy) and 2) in spite of the misgivings many of us

would obviously have about ANY U.S. intervention anywhere, there would probably be a lot of grateful Iraqis today instead of a whole country dying under occupation. I'm not saying I would have advocated such an intervention at the time -- I was against ANY intervention as were we all, especially given the obvious intentions of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld to occupy and takeover and install their puppets insofar as they could -- but I am saying that this would have been a more intelligent strategy in terms of the U.S. image in the Arab world. Nobody with an ounce of humanitarian and democratic scruples can possibly be nostalgic for the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Just ask anyone who's vaguely progressive in the Middle East and who has any idea of what Saddam Hussein did to any progressives and any people opposing him whenever he had a chance. It's true that his regime was "secular" and "modernizing" and "industrializing" and it's true that Bush-père was interested in wrecking all of this and managed to do so, at great human cost. But from there to rooting for Saddam, there's a step I can't take. It's a shame his trial is being conducted under U.S. occupation. And as for Ramsey Clark, he can defend whoever he pleases. Also, I'm against capital punishment and I hope S.H. gets spared that just as I hope anywould would. But if he gets life in prison for the remaining 10-15 years of his life, it won't be enough to pay for his crimes.

-----------------------------------

I came across these words from Jim posted on the list.
Is this for
real? He wrote:

"I would even go so far to say, with regrets even as I
say it, that if
the Bush administration had had the intelligence
(which it decidedly
does not) to overthrow that regime and then get the
hell out, then 1)
things would be much more peaceful in Iraq today (and
conducive to
reconstruction and some home-grown form of democracy)
and 2) in spite
of the misgivings many of us would obviously have
about ANY U.S.
intervention anywhere, there would probably be a lot
of grateful
Iraqis today instead of a whole country dying under
occupation."

Say it aint so, Jim. The Bush-Cheney administration
did not go into
Iraq to create any home grown democracy, and you know
that. Only
people like John Kerry, who supported the war, can
come up with such
revisionist dribble.
Cheney and the neo-cons had to stay in Iraq, and they
never considered
otherwise, because they went in there to control the
oil, control the
region (for them and for Israel), and to obtain the
fat contracts for
their pals.
They knew in advance that any democratic election
would leave the
shiites in power, and they did not go into Iraq to put
the shiites in
power.
Surely you know that those who overthrew Saddam
Hussein for their own
interests, would gladly overthrow
democratically-elected governments
like that of Chavez for the same reasons.
mark