Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime The Courts The Military United States News

Bradley Manning Makes Statement 440

Posted by Soulskill
from the answering-questions-of-patriotism dept.
Bradley Manning, the 25-year-old U.S. Army soldier who allegedly leaked hundreds of thousands of internal memos about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, has been held by the government for two and a half years. On Thursday he pleaded guilty 10 of 22 charges brought against him, and now he has released an official statement. Here's an excerpt: "On 3 February 2010, I visited the WLO website on my computer and clicked on the submit documents link. Next I found the submit your information online link and elected to submit the SigActs via the onion router or TOR anonymizing network by special link. ... I attached a text file I drafted while preparing to provide the documents to the Washington Post. It provided rough guidelines saying ‘It’s already been sanitized of any source identifying information. You might need to sit on this information– perhaps 90 to 100 days to figure out how best to release such a large amount of data and to protect its source. This is possibly one of the more significant documents of our time removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of twenty-first century asymmetric warfare. Have a good day. After sending this, I left the SD card in a camera case at my aunt’s house in the event I needed it again in the future. I returned from mid-tour leave on 11 February 2010. Although the information had not yet been publicly by the WLO, I felt this sense of relief by them having it. I felt I had accomplished something that allowed me to have a clear conscience based upon what I had seen and read about and knew were happening in both Iraq and Afghanistan everyday."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bradley Manning Makes Statement

Comments Filter:
  • Torturing ants (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 1s44c (552956) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @07:15PM (#43056929)

    The quote about how the US is similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass really sums the situation up for me. As someone in Europe I see the US forcing their way into war after war to justify having a military that has grown out of all control. A country that uses torture as an interrogation technique should not consider itself civilized.

  • Re:Torturing ants (Score:5, Insightful)

    by anagama (611277) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Saturday March 02, 2013 @07:24PM (#43056985) Homepage

    Ahh, the very fine "your ancestors did something evil so you can't point out my current evil" retort. Brilliant. Settles the case for sure!

  • Re:Torturing ants (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 1s44c (552956) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @07:26PM (#43056997)

    Are you from one of the European nations without blood on its hands? Remind me, which one is that?

    No, of course I'm not. But I'm from one that learned from the mistakes of the past and after centuries of war learned to get on with its neighbors.

  • by Brucelet (1857158) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @07:30PM (#43057025)
    The press has already been so grossly compromised by corporate influence that it's "critical watchdog function" isn't currently all that functional anyway
  • Re:Torturing ants (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 02, 2013 @07:31PM (#43057027)

    Most European nations have done terrible things in the past and to a lesser degree in the present. I am not proud of being British, slavery, oppression and empire, all under that banner.

    However the US is the >current main player in the west and the key global enabler for war, torture and economic oppression. If the argument is that Europeans did things equally awful in the past, which i doubt anyone disputes... That excuses the current crop of Muslim extremists, because Christians did awful things in the past too.

  • Re:Arab Spring (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 02, 2013 @07:35PM (#43057055)

    You seriosly believe there is "democracy" in Egypt now. Or Libya.

    It's true that the old dictators were toppled but now there is a power vacuum where new overlords are fighting for top dog position. Egypt have had an increase in islamic terrorism which is kept silent in media to not make it worse. Do you think the air balloon full of tourists that exploded was an accident or terrorism? Blonde women can no longer walk in Cairo without escorts for fear of rape. Seriosly, dude.

    Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

  • Re:Torturing ants (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 1s44c (552956) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @07:37PM (#43057065)

    "But but but YOU did it too!" doesn't make it any less wrong. Nice try.

    No country in Europe has ever destroyed two entire countries because a group part based in one destroyed two buildings.

    I've heard of avenging a crime sevenfold but a country for a building represents vengeance carried way too far.

  • Re:Torturing ants (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ogi_UnixNut (916982) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @07:41PM (#43057075) Homepage

    You do realise that a lot of countries in the EU have been implicated in the torture and the ferrying of suspects to other countries with more lax rules on "interrogation methods"?

    If there is one thing that the western European nations have not done, it is learn from the past, the same stuff is still going on today, including ignoring/violating international law when it suits them. The difference is that now they have the media to gloss over and sugercoat it so the citizens honestly feel they are the good guys.

  • by julian67 (1022593) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @07:45PM (#43057109)

    Only capital punishment fits in a case like this because there are two factors so serious that no lesser punishment is appropriate.

    The first is that the offender gave greater weight to his conscience than to the power of his state. He disobeyed orders and statute. Any student of 20th century history will tell you that blind obedience is the glue that binds successful societies and engenders success, safety and justice.

    The second is that the offender communicated with people so depraved that they openly engage in journalism, a pursuit that has the potential to inform taxpayers and voters such that they eventually become able to make rational choices and decisions, regardless of the wishes of their superiors.

    This has to stop now, and any repetition or emulation be discouraged by the least ambiguous means available.

  • Re:Torturing ants (Score:4, Insightful)

    by onyxruby (118189) <onyxrubyNO@SPAMcomcast.net> on Saturday March 02, 2013 @07:48PM (#43057131)

    Ah yes, because standing by and doing nothing while innocents are being slaughtered somehow lets you claim a clear conscious. Dictators and tyrants count on people like you to turn a blind eye to atrocities and genocide as it lets them get away with murder by the million.

    Clean hands you have there, keep that chin up and remember useful idiots like yourself are as indispensable to mass murders like Stalin, Milosevic, Assad etc as their own armies. Carry on with pride, job well done, no blood on your hands at all. How's that Syria thing working out for you?

  • Re:Torturing ants (Score:3, Insightful)

    by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @07:50PM (#43057137)

    Baloney.

    WW I was based on the assassination of a single individual.

  • Re:Torturing ants (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spire3661 (1038968) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @07:57PM (#43057191) Journal
    Civilized human beings do not torture their enemies, ever. There is no context that justifies TORTURING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING, EVER.
  • Re:Torturing ants (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 1s44c (552956) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @08:00PM (#43057205)

    A country that uses torture as an interrogation technique should not consider itself civilized.

    Never drop context, which in this case is the 3000+ deaths of September 11, 2001.

    How many people died as a result of the US reaction to the 3000+ deaths of September 11, 2001? How many of those dead had no involvement whatsoever in the September 11, 2001 attacks?

  • Re:Arab Spring (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jhoegl (638955) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @08:03PM (#43057227)
    Actually, the key word is predictable.
    If a leader is unpredictable, no one can do business with them.
  • by Jessified (1150003) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @08:08PM (#43057255)

    Al Qaeda is perhaps the most brilliant organization on this planet. With such limited resources, they sure have crippled this great, free country to a common dictatorship.

  • Re:Torturing ants (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @08:12PM (#43057281)

    Using torture is a war crime. It is not acceptable nor is it productive. Senior US military command is on record stating it is immoral and counter-productive. It should never happen and those who engage in it, foster it or approve it should be prosecuted.

  • Re:Torturing ants (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr. Slippery (47854) <`ten.suomafni' `ta' `smt'> on Saturday March 02, 2013 @08:16PM (#43057311) Homepage

    Paraphrasing Madeleine Albright: "What's the point of having such a powerful military, if we never use it?"

    The Founders were smart enough to realize the temptations of a standing army, and tried to put safeguards against one into the Constitution. That's part of what the Second Amendment is about -- not just the RKBA, but a structural defense against the formation of a military-industrial complex by relying on a militia rather than a large standing army. Too bad we opted for an empire instead; they never end well.

  • Re:Torturing ants (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 02, 2013 @08:18PM (#43057333)

    "WW I was based on the assassination of a single individual."

    Actually, it was *triggered by* the assassination of a single individual. The root causes were far deeper than that, and had been building for quite a while.

  • by greenbird (859670) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @08:41PM (#43057465)

    he press has already been so grossly compromised by corporate influence that it's "critical watchdog function" isn't currently all that functional anyway

    Yup. And that's why organizations like Wikileaks and technology like encryption and Tor are so critical. They've taken over that function. Actually they're even better for that function because there much less likely to be influenced by political pressure of any kind.

  • Re:Torturing ants (Score:4, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Saturday March 02, 2013 @09:01PM (#43057551) Homepage Journal

    A country that uses torture as an interrogation technique should not consider itself civilized.

    Never drop context, which in this case is the 3000+ deaths of September 11, 2001.

    No one is dropping the context. It is considered, and found irrelevant, because you still don't get to claim the moral high ground when you do it. We're no better than they are, we only have different customs.

  • by girlintraining (1395911) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @09:08PM (#43057599)

    Al Qaeda is perhaps the most brilliant organization on this planet. With such limited resources, they sure have crippled this great, free country to a common dictatorship.

    People blame the terrorists for our plight, but let's look at this objectively: How much damage is this organization directly responsible for? A few buildings? Few thousand people dead? Whatever answer you come up with, even if you declare large swaths of the general population malignant, you can't approach the damage caused by our reaction.

    If America fell, it wasn't because of the terrorists, but us. We allowed our elected representatives to do this to us. We voted them into office repeatedly, and willfully. There is no "it just fell from the sky and killed our country" option here. We did this to ourselves.

    Point the finger in the right direction: Right back at you. Terrorists didn't do this, we did.

  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @09:09PM (#43057613)

    WRT lessons learned: Don't deal with wikileaks. Deal with proper news outlets carefully. Don't deal with shady 3rd parties over IRC. Do everything you can to stay "on the level", lest you become the story, instead of what you're trying to report.

    Which is exactly the lesson the government wants you to take away from this situation.
    Do not go against the establishment or the establishment will make an example of you.

    Steve Biko, Victoria Mxenge, Neil Agget and tens of thousands more all paid an even higher price for going against the establishment.

  • Re:Torturing ants (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 02, 2013 @09:54PM (#43057919)

    Civilized human beings do not torture their enemies, ever. There is no context that justifies TORTURING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING, EVER.

    Get off your arrogant moral high horse. There's a real world with real people at stake.

    Hypothetical here: you capture a terrorist who's planted a nuclear or chemical device that will kill thousands if not millions.

    He's not talking, and you have NOTHING about the location of the device - but you KNOW he had one.

    What do you do?

    The answer is easy - you TORTURE THE SHIT OUT OF HIM AND IF HE LIES YOU MAKE HIM WISH HE WERE DEAD WITH EVEN WORSE TORTURE.

    And then you go to bed with a clean conscience.

  • by VinylRecords (1292374) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @09:55PM (#43057929)

    WRT Manning: I feel a bit bad for him. I absolutely understand that there's a need for secrecy in war-fighting, and I appreciate that the military has the ability to enforce that secrecy with punishment. I still feel bad for him. This young man was not in the best frame of mind, and it sounds like he really thought he was trying to do something right.
    It's not just the military information though. Manning was leaking diplomatic information to wikileaks. Thousands upon thousands of pages of documents of diplomatic cables given over to a foreign entity with no oversight whatsoever. Many of those cables containing information and messages that were extremely sensitive and were made public without any attempt to redact or withhold the sensitive information.

    There are needs for secrecy in war. Diplomacy. Business. Personal affairs. And no matter how much Julian Assange argues, you can't really have a world where everything is in the open. There are still files from WWI that are secretive because they contain information that might cause international incidents. When you have countries fighting over centuries old conflicts and warring over ancient religions you might want to bury things that could escalate conflict. This was the rational behind hiding Bin Laden's dead body photos. Rather than make him a martyr and have his image being a rallying symbol for terrorists the government censored it.

    You think if wikileaks had photos of Bin Laden that they wouldn't release them? They don't care about security of the free world. It's a little game to them to show how powerful they are. "Look at us.....we got Bin Laden's photos WORLD EXCLUSIVE". They are no different than the tabloid media who exploit any (personal) information just for magazine sales and internet clicks.

    WRT the material: The first strike seems entirely legit. The one that killed the two Reuters people. They met with armed belligerents, at night, in an area where they knew there was fighting. Everyone wishes they hadn't been in the mix when our pilots and gunners did what they were supposed to. This, however, is going to happen when you have reporters pushing the limits of sanity to get a story in a war zone. Beyond that, it's chopper gunners shooting at a group of enemy combatants with RPG's and small arms, just like they're supposed to.
    If three armed bank robbers storm a bank are you going to rush into that same bank with a ski-mask and a camera so that you can cover the story better? These journalists rush into war zones dressed like militants. And they carry cameras that are tripod mounted or have telephoto lenses that look like weapons from far away. When you're in a helicopter and you've just seen a man firing a weapon from the sky, then another man runs next to him with a two foot long metal object, are you going to risk that being an RPG if it is one, instead of a camera?

    WRT the handling of the material: The military's approach to the material (denying FOIA requests) was shady, but a pretty obvious function of, "err on the side of keeping stuff secret." You can't have war without casualties, and any time it happens somewhere where people live, some of those are going to be bad kills.

    That said, handling of the material was absolutely atrocious. The "collateral murder" video was a selectively edited, perversely annotated, propaganda piece. Every effort was made to point out there were two people with cameras, not AK's, and no efforts (at all) were made to point out the loaded RPG's and small arms carried by the people they were meeting.

    The government is fucked either way. They hold onto the material and everyone assumes the worst. They release the material and wikileaks will selectively edit the information just like the 'collateral murder' video to fit their agenda. The military loses every single time. No matter what the agenda that the media wants pushed is pushed. The military has to defend themselves from something, either withholding information, or "MURDERING INNOCENT BABIES".

  • by RazorSharp (1418697) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @11:02PM (#43058287)

    There are needs for secrecy in war.

    But is there a need for war? How is it that we can agree not to use this or that in war, we can agree to handle enemy combatants a particular way, we can agree that civilians are off-limits and total war is a no-no -- we can agree to all these particulars on the ways in which war is conducted, but we cannot agree to simply not wage war?

    The most ironic thing is, American school children are taught in history class that the reason we are independent from the UK is because the British were stupid enough to believe that rules applied to war. By breaking their rules -- by using guerrilla warfare -- we achieved victory. Strange that the countries with the largest and most capable armies are the ones who also always insist that war be fought according to their rules.

    I believe that Assange does what he does because he believes that the world is far too advanced to conduct warfare, and I agree. The only reason that warfare still exists is because there is a multi-billion dollar industry built around it. We could have killed Bin Laden without ever invading Afghanistan. There was absolutely no good reason to invade Iraq. The foot soldier is an anachronism, a horse and buggy that provides no useful function. They're too dumb to be useful, so we give them guns and send them off to the desert to kill brown people so we can pretend like they're actually doing something that matters. We don't want them to die because that looks bad, so we don't even send them on the most dangerous missions -- those are reserved for mercenaries -- and then when the foot soldier returns home we shower them with praise for being so brave.

    Wanna know who's a helluva lot more brave than any army grunt? Julian Assange. He's taking on the world.

    If you believe there are a need for secrets in war, you're right. But to conduct war under the rules of the Geneva convention is a far greater atrocity than to conduct total war -- at least when one commits to total war they're not deluding themselves into believing that they're behaving in an ethical manner. Manning tried to expose the activities our military engages in for what they are -- high tech barbarism. Good for him, and good for Wikileaks for fighting for civility. Because, in a civilized world, there's no need for secrets. A government of secrets is not a government for the people, it's a government that rules the people. There's a name for a government of secrets: fascism.

  • by Demena (966987) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @11:05PM (#43058303)
    Okay, disclosure. I am an Australian as is/was Murdoch. I have been alive through most of his business manipulations. I was once even an infinitesimal part of his empire. Never in my life have I known him to do anything altruistic. Everything is/was based on self interest. I wouldn't consider him liberal in any way. Even when he appears liberal it is based in self interest or maintaining power in both camps. Someone who appears liberal when the wind blows that way is not a liberal to me. A liberal has to be liberal in principle; has to have liberal principles and not switch as the wind blows. Murdoch has never appeared to fit this image. So I cannot see Murdoch as a liberal. Not in any way.
  • by RazorSharp (1418697) on Sunday March 03, 2013 @12:30AM (#43058693)

    You are a disgusting human being.

    I hope you thank those "dumb" foot soldiers for giving you the ability to post your crap.

    Oh, yeah, I completely forgot that America has been invaded recently and if it weren't for the amazing combat prowess of our jarheads I would be speaking Arabic right now. Keep buying into The Ministry of Truth's taboos, such as, "Thou shall not speak disparagingly of the military." The only positive thing the military does is give jobs to dumbasses who can't think for themselves and give jobs to intelligent engineers so they can design toys for the dumbasses to play with.

  • Re:Arab Spring (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03, 2013 @12:44AM (#43058771)

    "Saudi Arabia has never given the US cause to invade it"

    19 of the 20 aircraft hijackers on September 11th, 2001, were Saudi Arabian nationals.

    AC

  • Re:Torturing ants (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 03, 2013 @12:44AM (#43058777)

    I can't decide if you're dense or what. You jump straight out to call the GP crazy, but you're the one whose post doesn't jibe with the facts. You talk as if PNAC were a Pentagon strategy committee, tasked with developing detailed contingency plans in case we were to go to war with these countries, but they were not. The PNAC is a political organization, made up of neo-conservative political flacks, who were advocating the invasion of these countries according to an updated variant of the discredited cold-war-era "Domino Theory."

      When the twin towers were still smoking, the CIA informed the Cabinet that Al Qaeda's stronghold appeared to be in Afghanistan, Donald Rumsfeld (A PNAC member who had tried to persuade Clinton to invade Iraq) quickly interjected that Bush shouldn't bother with Afghanistan, because there were "no good targets" and should instead invade Iraq. The PNAC document is a statement of pet political theories held by these influential politicians; Rumsfeld rode this hobby horse especially hard.

      None of this is a secret, none of it is "bat shit crazy." It's plain and simple fact.

  • by ultranova (717540) on Sunday March 03, 2013 @01:41AM (#43059039)

    And no matter how much Julian Assange argues, you can't really have a world where everything is in the open. There are still files from WWI that are secretive because they contain information that might cause international incidents.

    And keeping them secret sends a powerful message: you can do horrible things with no regard to long-term consequences, because those who come after you will keep your secrets safe. Both your reputation and the cause you committed atrocities for are safe no matter what you do, so go ahead and shed more blood, no one will ever know. You are not accountable.

    You can have a world where everything is in the open, but the slimy things that live in the dark don't want it, for light would send them scurrying for cover. For everyone else it would be a far better world.

  • Re:Arab Spring (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Sunday March 03, 2013 @01:54AM (#43059071) Homepage Journal

    Read up on Operation Ajax, the operation in which the United States toppled a perfectly legitimate democracy, in order to install a (spineless) puppet dictator, for the sake of saving some money on oil.

    Anyone who believes that the US government believes in democracy is a blathering idiot. Our government worships oil, and nothing else. Damned near everything we do is aimed at securing energy, almost all of it in the form of oil. Democracy is a fool's dream and a lie, pablum spoon fed to the idiot masses.

  • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Sunday March 03, 2013 @02:19AM (#43059183) Homepage Journal

    "The trick is finding the appropriate compromise, such that the people we ask to conduct wars are able to do what we ask them to, but are still somehow accountable to the public for conducting it as well as can be expected."

    The biggest, and most obvious problem here, is that only a relatively small percentage of Americans ever know what war is.

    It's perfectly alright for a young mother in Viet Nam, Korea, or Afghanistan to witness her children being torn to shreds in an artillery barrage, or an air strike. But, that graphic portrayal of war is and always has been banned here in the states. Government doesn't want civilians to understand the horrors of war. Civilians mostly can't be bothered with understanding. Veterans aren't very inclined to talk about it. Government officials are mostly clueless - to them the numbers are just scores, with no horror attached.

    So - how do "we the people" hold anyone accountable?

  • Re:Arab Spring (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cold fjord (826450) on Sunday March 03, 2013 @02:59AM (#43059303)

    Regarding Operation Ajax, I suggest you do the same. Operation Ajax was a counter-coup. If you actually know the history you know that the United States didn't install the Shaw of Iran in power, but helped return him to it after he had been overthrown in a coup by Iranians looking to ally with the Communists of the Soviet Union. The Shaw was hardly a puppet, and not a dictator but an emperor.

    If people who believe the US government believes in democracy are blathering idiots, what does that make you for overlooking Iraq? You do know that Iraq is a parliamentary democracy today, right?

    I'm pretty sure that not everything the US government does is aimed at securing energy, given the evidence: blocking Keystone pipeline, anti-fracking, huge increases coming in EPA regulation aimed at shutting down coal plants, shutting down oil rigs and exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, not approving nuclear plants, etc., etc.

    Although you state that, "Democracy is a fool's dream and a lie, pablum spoon fed to the idiot masses", I think you've both drank and are selling a bit of snake oil yourself.

    Cheers

  • by zakkie (170306) on Sunday March 03, 2013 @03:29AM (#43059419) Homepage

    Do you think they give us their natural resources at almost free prices because its in their best interest? Nah all that is because we put cool despots in office and create instability we can exploit.

    And yet you still think it a good thing? You've just taken the bully stealing lunch money concept and scaled it up to global scale. Yes, *this* is why we hate you, and this is why what you do is wrong.

  • by Ultracrepidarian (576183) on Sunday March 03, 2013 @03:37AM (#43059431)
    And some of us learned this in Vietnam. My thought as I left, "We make enemies faster than we can kill them."
  • by nyback (1069452) on Sunday March 03, 2013 @05:30AM (#43059787)

    Bad things happen.

    Your way of stating "Bad things happen" WRT the second strike is as wrong as calling the first strike entirely legit. The moment we start to excuse bad things with "Bad things happen" we will accelerate our ride down the slippery slopes.

    The "collateral murder" video was a selectively edited, perversely annotated, propaganda piece.

    For those that has not visited http://www.collateralmurder.com/ [collateralmurder.com] for a while i recommend a re-visit. If you dont like the "selectively edited, perversely annotated, propaganda piece", you can watch the unedited full version of the video and make your own opinion what is propaganda and what's not.

    But most of all watch Ethan McCords eyewitness story from what happened not only in the video of said incident, but what was the instructed ways of handling incidents on the streets of Baghdad given by US military to its soldiers. Then take a few moments to consider what is your opinion on this.

    WRT lessons learned: Don't deal with wikileaks.

    WRT lessons learned: Keep yourself well informed. Have an opinion. Do what you can to affect society in the direction YOU think is for the good of all. Like Bradley, like Ethan.

  • by Xest (935314) on Sunday March 03, 2013 @09:57AM (#43060833)

    "If America fell, it wasn't because of the terrorists, but us."

    This is absolutely true. Far more Americans lost their lives going to war in Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, than lost their lives in 9/11.

    Bush took the 9/11 casualty figures, and multiplied them by three with his actions if you include Afghanistan also. That's quite a colossal fuck up of a response to the initial problem.

  • Re:Arab Spring (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Sunday March 03, 2013 @10:20AM (#43060955) Homepage Journal

    That counter-coup nonsense has already been addressed by others. I don't buy it, in the least.

    Ask yourself a couple questions. What was the motivation for the CIA's involvement in the coup (or counter-coup, if we accept your point of view)?

    MONEY!

    The US claims to love democracy. There was a democratically elected government in place. There was a handy dictatorial puppet at hand. For the sake of money, we established that dictatorial puppet, in the process destroying a democracy.

    YOU WILL NOTE PLEASE:
    I have made no claims that any of the existing government officials were "good guys". I have made no claim that none of those officials were power hungry mad men. I have made no claim that Mossadiq was a saint. Iran had it's problems, and was certain to encounter more. Iran may or may not have become our freinds, or our enemies, as a democracy. But, Iran's government was a legitimate democracy, and we were hypocrites to topple that government.

    Our one and only goal, was to enrich ourselves, and incidentally BP, with oil. Today, all of our meddling in the mideast is still aimed at that one goal - to secure a cheap supply of oil. We don't give a small damn for the people living in the areas that are rich in oil. And, we certainly do NOT respect democracy.

  • Re:Arab Spring (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AK Marc (707885) on Sunday March 03, 2013 @07:42PM (#43064019)
    Bush claimed we went in to Kuawait to "restore Democracy" and you do realize that the US started the Vietnam war by refusing to participate in democracy so that the US could set up a proper puppet dictatorship? The US put in power or supported after in, Castro, Noriega, and Saddam Hussein. We also ousted 2/3 and tried to oust 3/3. You'd think we'd have learned our lesson the first 10 times or so. Why is it that the US requires not only democracy, but that the people vote the way we would?

It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome

Working...