lol you mean the Khymer Rouge ally prince Sihanouk who declared himself king for life and boldly proclaimed a "triumph for communism in SE Asia"? Now there's a reliable source. FYI the CIA didn't oust him his own national assembly did.Originally Posted by rightwinghour
How exactly were they unconstitutional?I didn’t say it was a coup. Remember I said “coups and such”. Our actions there were unconstitutional anyway.
Yep no evidence that the U.S. funded, armed, or directed the coup plotters, rather there's only evidence that we backed opposition political parties and media outlets. FYI Pinochet was ordered by the Chilean Supreme Court and Chilean Chamber of Deputies to oust the communist tyrant Allende from power for his numerous violations of the Chilean Constitution in his attempts to destroy their republic and establish a totalitarian communist dictatorship.
We occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934.Well I seriously doubt the veracity of Aristides accusations.Also, there’s the Aristide ouster in ’04.
Aristide: 'Marines forced me to leave' - Americas, World - The Independent
Well all of the coups you mentioned fell into that time period.
I don’t understand how you can say that the Family Jewels would cover all CIA coup operations, when that report only covers material from the 1950’s to the mid 70’s.
No they just released a bunch of nasty stuff that they did during that time period but just happened to keep all the stuff that you mentioned out of the disclosure just to help my argument.And besides that, I find it hard to believe that YOU would believe that the CIA disclosed every bad thing they did during the whole of their existence up to that point, and furthermore that they don’t do any bad things now.
no of course the 9-11 Commission is really a cover up and an anonymous quote by some French "journalist" and I use the term loosely, said so, even though he doesn't provide anything to back it up.Just how much do you trust the government anyway? I suppose you think the 9/11 Commission Report is forthright and honest, too?
Where does the Constitution specify what the military can and can not be used for? Are you asserting that the Founders didn't use the military to promote U.S. interets?What interests? The Constitution doesn’t allow for our military to be used for such things.
I reject that global hegemony = imperialism, the reason why the U.S. does not comport with the definition of old world empires is because the U.S. is not an empire so in order to label the U.S. imperialistic one has to set about changing the definition of the word imperialist from actually having an empire to merely having a high level of global influence.Your second question shows you are still missing the point, that the US employs a different kind of imperialism. You’re still trying to make things conform to old world empire definitions. So just to be sure, do you reject the definitions I provided of imperialism? If you do, please say so and why.
The "carpet of gold or carpet of bombs" ultimatum is complete twoofer bull****:Limited? I have no doubt that the Taliban and AQ were thick as thieves, but how does that refute what I said about the ultimatum? FYI, as early as two days before 9/11 we already had planned to give the Taliban the ultimatum. 9/11 was just extra incentive I guess. As for funding, we gave the Taliban $43 million back in May of ’01.
Sounds entirely possible to me as far as the indictments are concerned, and I already had no doubt it was an AQ operation, that wasn’t at issue. I still think the FBI should list 9/11 as something he’s wanted for, but that’s just me. I’m just wondering how the government was so sure it was OBL before the tapes came out. Although, since we had plans in the works to take action in Afghanistan before 9/11, that may not even matter much.
A READER ASKS: "WHAT ABOUT BUSH'S CARPET-OF-BOMBS THREAT?