Posts Tagged ‘Colonel Gaddafy’

William Blum’s List of American Foreign Interventions: Part 2

February 15, 2017

Jamaica 1976
Various attempts to defeat Prime Minister Michael Manley.

Honduras 1980s
Arming, equipping, training and funding of Fascist government against dissidents, also supporting Contras in Nicaragua and Fascist forces in El Salvador and Guatemala.

Nicaragua
Civil War with the Contras against left-wing Sandinistas after the overthrow of the Somoza dictatorship.

Philippines 1970s-1990
Support of brutal dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos

Seychelles 1979-81
Attempts to overthrow country’s leader, France Albert Rene, because he tried to turn his nation and the Indian Ocean into nuclear free zone.

Diego Garcia late 196-0s to Present
People of the largest of the Chagos islands forcibly relocated Mauritius and Seychelles so that Americans could build massive complex of military bases.

South Yemen, 1979-84
CIA backing of paramilitary forces during war between North and South Yemen, as South Yemen government appeared to be backed by Russia. In fact, the Russians backed North and South Yemen at different times.

South Korea
Support for military dictator, Chun Doo Hwan, in brutal suppression of workers’ and students’ uprising in Kwangju.

Chad 1981-2
Political manipulation of Chad government to force Libyan forces of Colonel Gaddafy to leave, aided Chadian forces in the Sudan to invade and overthrow Chadian government installing Hissen Habre as the ‘African General Pinochet’.

Grenada 1979-83
Operations against government of Maurice Bishop, and then invasion when Bishop government overthrown by ultra-leftist faction.

Suriname 1982-4
Abortive plot to overthrow Surinamese government for supporting Cuba.

Libya 1981-89
Attempts to overthrow Colonel Gaddafy.

Fiji 1987
Prime Minister Timoci Bavrada of the Labour Party overthrown as neutral in Cold War and wanted to make Fiji nuclear free zone.

Panama 1989
Overthrow of Manuel Noriega, long-term American ally in Central America for drug trafficking. The real reason to was intimidate Nicaragua, whose people were going to the elections two months later and stop them from voting for the Sandinistas.

Afghanistan 1979-92
Backing of Mujahideen rebels against Soviet-aligned government then Soviet forces.

El Salvador 1980-92
Backing of right-wing dictator and death squads in country’s civil war against dissidents, after first making sure the dissidents got nowhere through democratic means.

Haiti 1987-94
US government opposed reformist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide, aiding Haiti government and its death squads against him. However, after he won the 1991, they were forced to allow him back in. They then extracted a promise from him that he would not aid poor at expense of the rich and would follow free trade economics. Kept army there for the rest of his term.

Bulgaria 1990-1
Massive campaign by the US through the National Endowment for Democracy and Agency for International Development to aid the Union of Democratic Forces against the Bulgarian Socialist Party, the successor to the Communists.

Albania 1991
Another campaign to keep the Communists out, in which the Americans supported the Democratic Party.

Somalia 1993
Attempts to kill Mohamed Aidid. The motive was probably less to feed the starving Somali people, and more likely because four oil companies wished to exploit the country and wanted to end the chaos there.

Iraq 1991-2003
American attempts to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Colombia 1990s to Present
Aid by US to suppress left-wing guerillas.

Yugoslavia 1995-99
Campaigns against Serbia government during break up of the former Yugoslavia.

Ecuador 2000
Suppression of mass peaceful uprising by indigenous people of Quito, including trade unionists and junior military officers on orders from Washington, as this threatened neoliberalism.

Afghanistan 2001-to Present
Invasion and occupation of country after 9/11.

Venezuela 2001-4
Operations to oust Chavez.

Iraq 2003-to Present
Invasion and occupation.

Haiti 2004
President Aristide forced to resign by Americans because of his opposition to globalisation and the free market.

For much more information, see the chapter ‘A Concise History of United State Global Interventions, 1945 to the Present’ in William Blum’s Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, pp. 162-220. I realise that many of the Communist regimes Washington sought to overthrow were hardly models of virtue themselves, and often responsible for horrific acts of repression. However, the US has also sought to overthrow liberal and Socialist governments for no better reason than that they sought to improve conditions for their own peoples against the wishes of the American multinationals. And the regimes Washington has backed have been truly horrific, particularly in Latin America.

So it’s actually a very good question whether America has ever really supported democracy, despite the passionate beliefs of its people and media, since the War.

Lobster on MI6 Using Islamist Terrorist to Kill Gaddafy

May 7, 2016

Remember David Shayler? He was the former spook, who spectacularly made a whole series of damaging revelations or accusations, depending on how you see them, about Britain’s spy agencies. He then fled to Switzerland, and started wearing women’s clothes, adopted a female name, and then started muttering New Age nonsense. A bit like Edward Snowden crossed with Grayson Perry and David Icke, but without the Reptoids.

Lobster 50 for winter 2005/6 carried the news that one of the Islamist groups that had been banned by the British government, had also, according to Shayler, been approached by the spooks to assassinate Colonel Gaddafy. Lobster’s editor, Robin Ramsay, wrote:

The broadsheets reported on 11 October on the Home Secretary’s list of groups that are being banned in Britain. Number one on the list was the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which, are told, is trying to overthrow Colonel Gaddafy’s regime. That name might ring a bell because this is the group, an al-Qaeda affiliate we are told, which, according to David Shayler, was paid by MI6 to try to assassinate Colonel Gaddafy. But this was back in the days when Gaddafy was ‘the mad dictator’, some time funder of the IRA and the head of the regime which organised the Lockerbie bombing. (P.31).

The rest of the article argues that Libya didn’t commit the atrocity, and that the real responsibility lay with the Syrians. However, the British and Americans couldn’t admit this, as they needed Syrian assistance in the Gulf War. And so Libya and Abdelbasset el Megrahi, were blamed. This is also the view of the incident taken by Private Eye, who produced a special section on the issue, if I recall.

Shayler’s allegation now, ten years or so later, does have a certain ring of truth. The Islamist groups were toppled and killed Gaddafy were receiving funds from Hillary Clinton’s State Department. It therefore doesn’t seem to be me to be remotely unlikely that MI6 would try and recruit one or two to kill someone, who did sponsor international terror networks at the time.

GEHEIM on Mossad anti-Libyan Activities in West Germany

May 5, 2016

Lobster 15 also carried a review of GEHEIM, a West German magazine devoted to the dirty tricks of the western intelligences in Germany that had been coming out since 1983, by David Teacher. Along with articles on the Federal Republic’s own spy services and undercover police, the magazine also had articles on the CIA and the other American spy agencies, as well as our own, British intelligence agents, GEHEIM had an article by Peter Niggl on Mossad operations against Libya in the Bundesrepublik. Teacher wrote

Perhaps the most interesting article is “Gunning for Libya – anti-Libyan operations in West Berlin” by Peter Niggl. Niggl investigates Mossad involvement in assassinations of Libyan officials and in operations designed to ensure that terrorism remains on the front page of the Western media, thus souring Arab-European relations. He refers specifically to operations aimed at incriminating Syria and Libya in terrorist activities, such as the case of Hassan el Harti, a Palestinian and Mossad agent provocateur, who was arrested in 1979, with six accomplices, on bomb charges, then allowed bail and given back his passport.

The article describes a trio of shady individuals involved in anti-Libyan operations: Rageb M. Zatout, a Libyan exile and member of the Libyan National Salvation Army; Hilmar Hein, a German scaffolding contractor with links to the underworld and who claims to have met John Poindexter and Colonel Oliver North in Bangkok in 1983; and Moshe Ben Ari an Israeli alleged to be head of the ‘Third Eye of Zion’, a group which carries out Mossad’s dirty work in West Berlin. Niggl recounts in considerable detail (passport numbers, car number plates, telephone conversations, extracts from British and German police reports) how, between them, Zatout, Hein and Ben Ari organized the assassination of Libyan officials in London, Rome and Vienna; planned the assassination of Gadhafi in the attack on his Tripoli barracks on May 1984; and had a hand in the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher in April ’84 in London.

Niggl also sees the Nesar Hindawi case as a Mossad operation designed to disrupt Syria’s relations with Europe. He points out that Nindawi’s father, a long-time employee of the Jordanian Embassy in London, was sentenced to death in absentia by Jordanians for being a Mossad agent, and that Nesar’s brother Hasi, arrested after the Berlin nightclub bombing that served to justify the American bombing of Libya, underwent a sudden change of heart about making a statement after receiving a prison visit from two Arab-speaking ‘Englishmen’, accompanied by German security official Norbert Boer. This statement came at the time when the Western media were at the peak of their campaign to portray Syria as the sponsor of world terrorism. It is perhaps significant that his trial Hasi did not stick to his previous declarations and states that one of the ‘Englishmen’ had presented himself in Arabic as an Egyptian, and could have been from Israel. Peter Niggl has opened up the subject: it is certainly worth further investigation. (Pp. 28-9).

This raises the question of how far the attempts to overthrow Assad in Syria are part of a long-term Israeli espionage policy, and whether there was Israeli involvement in the overthrow and death of Colonel Gaddafy.

Democracy Now on Hillary Clinton and the Right-wing Coup in Honduras

April 27, 2016

In my last post, I blogged about a piece put up by the veteran critic of American foreign policy, William Blum, attacking Hillary Clinton in his Anti-Empire Report. In his piece he explains that Hillary’s support of the coups against Colonel Gaddafy and Manuel Zelaya in Honduras have been so horrific, as is her support for an American invasion of Syria, that if push came to shove and he couldn’t get out of it, he’d actually vote for Trump over her. And if the above foreign policy decisions weren’t enough, she also supported the horrific Contras in the 1980s, who committed a series of bloody atrocities in Nicaragua, and has massive Neo-Con support amongst Republicans.

In this video from Democracy Now!, Dana Frank, of the University of California at Santa Cruz, talks about Hillary Clinton and her defence of her role in supporting the coup against Manuel Zelaya in Honduras. Zelaya was a centre-left candidate, who won the country’s elections, before being overthrown in 2009. He was ousted by the military. This should have stopped the Obama regime from providing the country and its new rulers with military aid. Hillary did her level best to prevent this. She described Zelaya’s overthrow as a ‘coup’, but deliberately did not call it ‘military’ in order to keep on funding the rebels. She says in her book, Hard Choices, that she arranged for elections to be held in Honduras as quickly as possible, in order render the circumstances of Zelaya’s ouster ‘moot’.

Frank makes the point that this was intended to be an object lesson to the other, potentially disobedient regimes in Latin America. The majority of Latin American countries wanted Zelaya put back into power, which Hillary definitely did not. Furthermore, while the US state department has supported a number of right-wing, including extreme right-wing regimes throughout South and Meso-America, these have fallen and been replaced by left-wing governments. The coup was intended to show that what could be done in Honduras, could also, by implication, be done against them.

And the elections held after the coup were a farce. The left-wing parties stood aside, so that the right were effectively unopposed. Frank describes it as a ‘demonstration election’. This is the term used to describe the fake elections held by South and Central American dictatorships, in which in the months before the election the government’s opponents are rounded up, killed, tortured, or incarcerated. The population duly votes for the authorities, and the international observers go back home telling stupid stories about how the elections were peaceful and orderly, and that it was a legitimate victory for the authorities.

And the right-wing regime has been active in rounding up and killing leftists. These were mostly low-level left-wing militants. The more important dissidents weren’t touched. This changed, however, with the assassination of Berta Carceres. Carceres was an indigenous activist for her Honduran indigenous people. She was killed by the military, an assassination that has outraged many Latin Americans. Hillary was heckled by a group of young South American women during her political campaign about Carceres’ murder.

Here’s the video:

I’m sure a Trump presidency will be a disaster for America. He’s an intolerant Fascist, and I don’t believe that he would be a liberal in foreign policy. Rather, I think he could be every bit as right-wing and imperialist as Bush and Obama, despite the noises he’s made about leaving Syria to Putin.

But Hillary is going to be a danger to everyone else. A ruthless Neo-Con, whose sponsorship of the coup against Gaddafi has turned Libya into what is effectively a failed state, and Honduras into Fascist dictatorship, it’s be fair to call her a menace to the stability and independence of the weaker countries around the world, including Latin America.

The Empire Files’ Abby Martin on the Real Hillary Clinton

April 24, 2016

With Hillary Clinton looking like she’s going to be the Democrat candidate for the Whitehouse, The Empire File’s Abby Martin takes a good, long look at what Hillary really represents in this video. And it’s ugly. Very ugly.

Hillary’s campaign is heavily backed by corporate donors. These are most notoriously the Wall Street banks she has bailed out, including Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, but also the private prison industry, the pharmaceuticals, private healthcare, private schools and just about every other fat cat big multinational. Contributors to the Clinton Foundation have included the Saudis and Victor Pinchuk, the oligarch now partly responsible for turning Ukraine, the home of Gogol, Mussorgsky, and Nestor Makhno (for the Anarchists out there) into a post-Soviet banana republic. She’s also supported fracking and the NAFTA agreement that has outsourced jobs from America, as well as destroyed the industries of the other countries that have signed it.

While Bernie Sanders is the people’s candidate, Hillary’s been helped out by the system of superdelegates that the Democrats put in place way back in the 1980s to stop popular, populist candidates coming through. The votes of these privileged individuals vastly outweigh those of the ordinary delegates. And 1/3 of Hillary’s are unsurprisingly drawn from big business.

Hillary’s political history may also be described as ‘chequered’. This would be a euphemism. She started out as a Republican, campaigning for Barry Goldwater, the notorious pro-Segregation candidate. She’s tried to shrug this off as a case of personal naivety, but her activism on his behalf came after the initial peaceful protests, the freedom bus rides. She was part of the Republican reaction.

Her career in the Democrats has been untainted with racism either. The Democrats lost the Southern White vote after they embraced a minimal welfare establishment – medicare and Medicaid – and desegregation. Bill and Hillary attempted to reverse this, and win back White voters by launching the New Democrats in the ’70s and ’80s. These had an anti-welfare, pro-death penalty stance, calculate to appeal to White voters. There was also a strong racist undercurrent to her rhetoric. The Clintons attacked ‘welfare queens’ and ranted about urban ‘superpredators’, feral young males, who in the media were almost always identified with Blacks. She’s tried to distance herself from her past there, apologising for what she claims was a poor choice of words. They weren’t poorly chosen. Quite the opposite. She knew precisely what she was doing.

As Bill and her also know what they’re doing to the poor peasants of the world under the guise of charitable assistance. They’ve set up an organisation to provide help to the peasant farmers of the Developing World, such as the people of Africa. But it’s not a charity. Far from it. It’s a for-profit organisations, and the big businesses that back it expect to get something back in return. It’s another way of enslaving the Developing World’s peasant farmers under the guise of assisting them.

The video also documents her hawkish attitudes to defence, from selling arms to the Saudis, helping organise a coup against a democratically elected government in Honduras, and most notoriously, supporting the invasion of Iraq. She also tried to distance herself from this decision, but history shows that she was strongly in favour of the Iraqi invasion and urged her nation to support George Bush. She has also been responsible for the carnage into which Libya has descended through arming the rebels, who overthrew and killed Colonel Gaddafy. She’s shown on TV laughing about Gaddafy’s execution. The result has been what everyone else warned her about – the emergence of an unstable state governed by Islamist militias. She also wants America to ramp up its presence in Afghanistan. Martin states that Hillary stands for perpetual war.

And most chillingly, Hillary has repeatedly stated that she’s in favour of war with Iran, including the use of nuclear weapons. Again, it’s hard to disagree with Martin when she says that this makes Hillary immensely dangerous, as a war with Iran would be much far-reaching than the Iraq invasion. Indeed it would. It’d be a recipe for global chaos, and would mean that America was effectively at war with the whole Shi’a Muslim world.

And Martin makes it very clear, that as a woman she rejects Hillary’s campaign to gain women’s votes, because she leaves out immigrant women, poor women, and the women of the nations she’s bombed. Here’s the video:

Secular Talk: Saudi Arabia Seeking to Get Nuclear Weapons

January 17, 2016

This video from the atheist news site, Secular Talk, comes from 20th May 2015. And it’s really scary. It’s about a report in the Sunday Times that the Saudis are so upset about the deal between America and Iran, allowing the Iranians to develop nuclear power, that they are approaching Pakistan to acquire nukes themselves. Saudi Arabia also bankrolled much of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb programme. The fear is that this will start an arms race in the Middle East, with Turkey and Egypt also racing to acquire the wretched things. And America looks the other way, because Saudi Arabia is ‘our oil buttbuddies’.

The show’s presenter, Kyle Kulinski, states very clearly why Saudi Arabia’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is a monumentally bad idea. As an atheist, he is mostly concerned about their religious fanaticism. Iran is another fundamentalist Muslim country, but they’re actually far more liberal than the Saudis. And many of them are secular. This is true. The shahs during their modernisation programme did try to create something like a Western-style civil society away from the religious establishment, while trying to retain their religious sanction as ‘the Shadow of God on Earth’. And the ubiquity of religion under the Islamic Regime has instead put many Iranians off. A few years ago, Private Eye published a piece from Iran in their ‘Letter from …’ foreign affairs column. This piece, by an anonymous Iranian, reported the widespread dissatisfaction with the mullahs’ corruption, and that only one per cent of the population actually bothered to go to the mosque. This is in contrast with the highly religious Saudi state, whose government includes people actively funding Islamist terrorism in the form of al-Qaeda and ISIS.

Kulinski believes the Saudis are far more unstable than the former Soviet Union, which was an atheist state and so didn’t believe in an afterlife. And because of this, he considers that the Soviets were much less likely to start a nuclear war. And even if the Saudis don’t start one now, we can’t be sure of what their leaders would be like in the future. Not all of the secular leaders in the Middle East were entirely sane, like Colonel Gaddafy. And apart from the Saudis, there’s President Erdogan of Turkey, who is also an Islamist and unpredictable.

Kulinski makes it clear that he thinks even America having nukes is a bad idea. But it’s even worse for a country as unpredictable as Saudi Arabia to join the nuclear club. What if their government gets overthrown, he wonders, and we’re called in to combat the new regime? In the meantime, this story has not been reported anywhere else, which is also frightening as no-one’s doing anything about it. The Republicans are worried about Iran having nukes, while Obama’s deal has actually prevented them from getting them. The real danger, if this story is to be believed is Saudi Arabia.

I actually wonder how credible the story is. Lobster accused the Sunset Times under Andrew Neill of running propaganda for MI5 and British intelligence, though gave no examples. So it might be true. Or it could simply be a secret service scare story, for whatever reason. I hope it was the latter.

Imperial Blowback: Americans Aided Islamists against Secular Muslim States

December 21, 2015

Here’s another essay well worth reading from William Blum’s Anti-Empire Report, ‘Murdering journalists … them and us’. It’s his observations on the massacre of the staff of Charlie Hebdo. He states right at the outset that

After Paris, condemnation of religious fanaticism is at its height. I’d guess that even many progressives fantasize about wringing the necks of jihadists, bashing into their heads some thoughts about the intellect, about satire, humor, freedom of speech. We’re talking here, after all, about young men raised in France, not Saudi Arabia.

And then he asks the $64 million question: ‘Where has all this Islamic fundamentalism come from in this modern age?’ The answer?

Most of it comes – trained, armed, financed, indoctrinated – from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. During various periods from the 1970s to the present, these four countries had been the most secular, modern, educated, welfare states in the Middle East region. And what had happened to these secular, modern, educated, welfare states?

He then points out that these states, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, were overthrown by the US, and replaced by Islamist regimes, just as the US is now trying to topple Assad in Syria. This is part of America’s long campaign to overthrow left-wing regimes in the name of multinational corporate profits.

And for the past few years the United States has been engaged in overthrowing the secular Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. This, along with the US occupation of Iraq having triggered widespread Sunni-Shia warfare, led to the creation of The Islamic State with all its beheadings and other charming practices.

However, despite it all, the world was made safe for capitalism, imperialism, anti-communism, oil, Israel, and jihadists. God is Great!

Starting with the Cold War, and with the above interventions building upon that, we have 70 years of American foreign policy, without which – as Russian/American writer Andre Vltchek has observed – “almost all Muslim countries, including Iran, Egypt and Indonesia, would now most likely be socialist, under a group of very moderate and mostly secular leaders”. 2 Even the ultra-oppressive Saudi Arabia – without Washington’s protection – would probably be a very different place.

He then goes on to list the various occasions where the US and the West has also acted to kill journalists, mostly staff working at the state broadcasting agencies of our enemies. These include the bombing of the radio transmitters and 20 radio sites for the Taliban station, Radio Shari, in 2001 and the bombing of the Serbian broadcasting station, RTS, in 1999, because they were also broadcasting material we didn’t like; and the killing of various journalists, including a couple from Al-Jazeera, in Iraq.

The whole essay can be read at: http://williamblum.org/aer/read/136.

I think Blum view of the secular regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya is rather too positive. Saddam Hussein was a corrupt butcher. That was why it was easy to get the media to support the invasion, although Hussein’s vile crimes against his own people weren’t the reason we invaded. The West invaded simply so that they could grab Iraqi industries, and with the Saudis steal the country’s oil. Gaddafy also was the proverbial ‘mad dog’ of the Middle East. His regime was secular, it’s true, but he was still quite capable of sponsoring Islamic terrorism elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa when it served his purposes. However, with these secular strongmen now dead, their countries have degenerated into anarchic, violent states, riven by Islamist fanaticism and brutality. You could conclude from this mess that, however vile they were, Gaddafy and Hussein were far preferable to the even worse tyrants and butchers, who have replaced them.

But go and read his piece, and decide for yourself.

William Blum’s Awkward Questions for Obama on Foreign Policy

December 20, 2015

William Blum is a writer and campaigner against America’s barbarous and brutal foreign policy. As well as writing a series of books, he also produces the Anti-Empire Report on the web. In the latest issue, 141, he puts a series of awkward questions that should be asked of Obama regarding his foreign policy in the Middle East, but which won’t. Several of these are about the way America is determined to punish Syria, but does nothing about Saudi Arabia, which has done far more to support Islamist terrorism. He also points out just how much aid Turkey gives to the Islamists.

Which is most important to you – destroying ISIS, overthrowing Syrian president Assad, or scoring points against Russia?

Do you think that if you pointed out to the American people that Assad has done much more to aid and rescue Christians in the Middle East conflicts than any other area leader that this would lessen the hostility the United States public and media feel toward him? Or do you share the view of the State Department spokesperson who declared in September that “The Assad regime frankly is the root of all evil”?

Why does the United States maintain crippling financial sanctions and a ban on military aid to Syria, Cuba, Iran and other countries but not to Saudi Arabia?

What does Saudi Arabia have to do to lose its strong American support? Increase its torture, beheadings, amputations, whippings, stonings, punishment for blasphemy and apostasy, or forced marriages and other oppression of women and girls? Increase its financial support for ISIS and other jihadist groups? Confess to its role in 9-11? Attack Israel?

What bothers you more: The Saudi bombing of the people of Yemen or the Syrian bombing of the people of Syria?

Does the fact that ISIS never attacks Israel raise any question in your mind?

Does it concern you that Turkey appears to be more intent upon attacking the Kurds and the Russians than attacking ISIS? And provides medical care to wounded ISIS soldiers? Or that ISIS deals its oil on Turkish territory? Or that NATO-member Turkey has been a safe haven for terrorists from Libya, Chechnya, Qatar, and elsewhere? Or that last year Vice President Biden stated that Turkish president Erdogan’s regime was backing ISIS with “hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons”?

In the previous issue, 140, Blum points out how much aid the Western nations, as well as the Gulf states, have given ISIS, al-Qaeda and the other Islamist terrorists, and how they have used them against secular regimes. Like Gaddafi’s in Libya. He also suggests that the real reason for the attack on Syria is partly over control of another strategic oil pipeline.

The mainstream media almost never mentions the proposed Qatar natural-gas pipelines – whose path to Europe Syria has stood in the way of for years – as a reason for much of the hostility toward Syria. The pipelines could dethrone Russia as Europe’s dominant source of energy.

He also states that the real reason for the US’ hostility to Assad isn’t because he’s a vicious dictator, but because he’s independent and does not do what Washington tells him.

The United States, I suggest, is hostile to the Syrian government for the same reason it has been hostile to Cuba for more than half a century; and hostile to Venezuela for the past 15 years; and earlier to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia; and to Dominican Republic, Uruguay, and Chile; and so on continuing through the world atlas and history books.

What these governments have had in common can be summarized in a single word – independence … independence from American foreign policy; the refusal to be a client state of Washington; the refusal to be continuously hostile to Washington’s Officially Designated Enemies; insufficient respect and zeal for the capitalist way of life.

They’re at http://williamblum.org/aer/read/140

Go and read what’s really behind America’s and the Tories’ Middle Eastern policy; and http://williamblum.org/aer/read/141