Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Double Standards Of US In Past Decades  
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1917 times:


Some pro-Us poster on this board posted an article on the Double Standard of Europeans regarding the past and some European countries friendly relations with Iraq.

To freshen-up the memory of these people, below is a quite extensive list of documents I have found at the website of the US Department of State, and which have been declassified in full or partially.

Let's have a look:
OPERATION STAUNCH: We attempt to keep weapons from flowing to Iran, the party which seeks to continue the war, by means of a combined intelligence-sharing and diplomatic effort."
Source: US State Department, Declasified Documents
See http://foia.state.gov/documents/foiadocs/24b4.PDF (need Acrobat).

This means that the US was telling Saddam where to drop his bombs in Iran. It doesn't state, however, that Iraq started that war.

Check http://foia.state.gov/documents/foiadocs/6446.PDF page 3, paragraph starting with "-- I SHARE YOUR CONCERN..."
Note that, at that time, it was Iran that had attacked Iraq, not the other way round as the US is telling us now.

ANOTHER ONE

PROPOSED SALE OF DIGICON COMPUTER TO IRAQ, January '85
http://foia.state.gov/documents/foiadocs/6f6c.PDF
Page 1, item nº 4.
Although I don't know whether they finally got the computer from the US, the fact that they were willing to sell them to Iraq in 1985 makes one wonder. Note that not the whole document has been declasified. I wonder why?

The document at http://foia.state.gov/documents/foiadocs/6f69.PDF gives you an idea what the computer was meant for.

For some reason, this whole Digicon issue must be still very embarasing for the US. Of the next documents, virtually only the dots and commas have been declassified: http://foia.state.gov/documents/foiadocs/6f5c.PDF

May '89, how the US Government, planned to finance an ethylene plant in Iraq: http://foia.state.gov/documents/foiadocs/2419.PDF
Note: EXIM = EXport-IMport Bank of the US (http://www.exim.gov/).

Look how good friends Ronald Reagan and Saddam were, back in '84: http://foia.state.gov/documents/foiadocs/6f7f.PDF , 1st paragraph.

Finally, the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds comes up, Sept. '88
"IRAQ: ATTACKS ON KURDS"
http://foia.state.gov/documents/foiadocs/270e.PDF

More here: http://foia.state.gov/documents/foiadocs/2715.PDF. Note that is From the Secretary of State To the US Embassy in Baghdad (Dec. '88). Also note that it was well before the First Gulf War.

In case you'd like to search the site for yourself, go to http://foia.state.gov/SearchColls/CollsSearch.asp

When you compare the contents of the above documents with the US's statements regarding Iraq's past and specially accusations regarding France, once can only conclude the US applies Double Standards!



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOvelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1888 times:

It was about time that people who do reasearch and find facts are becoming more active than the propaganda-parroting morons of "he gased his own people so he is a threat to US".

Schoenorama

These are just the tip of the iceberg. As I have stated before, you cannot be a superpower and have a decent foreign policy at the same time. US fellas seem to forget that and post things like "we are 100% right in Iraq situation".

Well, it seems that half the World does not agree with US policy. And it was about time that the US double standards are presented by more and more people here.

Kostas

[Edited 2003-02-15 01:08:32]

User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1804 times:

One thing the US and Europe have in common is that each sees the other as practising a double standard. Just as people can easily spot the flaws in others, but not in themselves.

Maybe we've had too much "togetherness" in the past 50 years, and perhaps we should now just go to our rooms and close the door for awhile until we simmer down.

Pete  Smile


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1767 times:

At my request, the completely irrelevant and off-topic posts on this thread by one particular user have been removed.

Anyone, apart from the above, care to discuss the thread in a serious way?



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineMBMBOS From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2606 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1758 times:

"One thing the US and Europe have in common is that each sees the other as practicing a double standard. Just as people can easily spot the flaws in others, but not in themselves.

Maybe we've had too much "togetherness" in the past 50 years, and perhaps we should now just go to our rooms and close the door for awhile until we simmer down."


Hey Delta-flyer.

I have a suggestion. Instead of shutting off world opinion, perhaps it's time for Americans to examine their history and the contradictions between what we think we belief, what we establish as national policy and the actions we ultimately take.

For all the strength that we possess as a nation (some would argue our "moral" strength), we emphatically refuse self-examination. We aggressively reject the notion that our nation is capable of doing wrong, and we argue that anyone who disagrees with that thesis is the enemy, or at the very least, passive-aggressive.

That sounds like weakness to me. If you can't win an argument, shout your opponent down. It seems like that's what we do to other nations who raise their concerns.

This weekend, hundreds of thousands of people worldwide have joined in protests, urging the United States not to make war with Iraq. Yesterday, after Blix delivered another report urging for more weapons inspections to be performed, the French ambassador delivered an impassioned speech, which was applauded by most members of the U.N.

We are on the eve of starting a terrible war - a huge blunder, in my opinion - and yet we refuse to listen to, to reason with our critics. We march head-first into war with complete confidence that what we are doing is right.

This is not a time to cut off our critics, to act alone, or to refuse to face our own demons.


User currently offlineNBC News1 From UK - England, joined May 2001, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1753 times:

Every country does everything in its own self-interest. Every country will have a long list of hypocrisy in its records.

There's no reason to single out the United-States.


User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1740 times:

MBMBOS ... yes, you're right. But it's hard to unilaterally admit our own fault, as the others will tell you "I told you so" and assume a superior posture.

On the issue of Iraq, I agree that starting a war unilaterally would be a blunder. However, as of today there is no war and all this preparation may have been posturing to get Iraq to cooperate. And so far it seems to be working.

How cooperatiive would Iraq have been if we just sat back and wagged our fingers at them?

Pete


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1727 times:

Delta-flyer: MBMBOS ... yes, you're right. But it's hard to unilaterally admit our own fault, as the others will tell you "I told you so" and assume a superior posture.

Hm. And why would a nation with a strong democratic background like the USA not be able to survive a little shame? Smaller nations have survived worse.  Wink/being sarcastic


User currently offlineB747forlife From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 392 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1722 times:

To all you who mention the "half" of the world that is against the US's policies, what about that other half that is for the US's policies. There is really no percentage that you can calculate for either side, because of the fact that you cannot possibly get everyone's opinion. It is only because these protesters feel that them saying something (those who say something are a far minority of the total number of people in the world) is going to change Bush's opinion. Guess what! It won't. He knows what he is doing is justified, and just because a few peaceniks are being loud isn't going to change him. I mean, I am for the war, but you don't hear me going to pro-war rallies. That is because there are none and there don't need to be, because our opinion is the one being done.

Someone answer me this: what will inspections do to disarm Saddam?

-Nick

PS. The answer is nothing, especially when he just keeps moving them around and around.


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1682 times:

To B747forlife:

To you, the fact that "only" half the world is against US's policies, automatically means that the other half supports it.

Later on in your arguement, you state that it is imposible to know the figures as it is imposible to get everybody's opinion. Here I have to agree with you. Anyway, I hope that the figures of the number of demonstrators (not activists, as some pro-war media would like us to believe) that turned up today, all over the world, will put things in a different light for you.

Then you move on to say that "those who say something are a far minority of the total number of people in the world". That's true. I was supprised how little people turned up in China (Pop. 1,284,303,705 ), Ethiopia (Pop. 67,673,031 ) , Eritrea (Pop. 4,465,651) or N. Korea (Pop.) 22,224,195, to name just a few. I guess it's difficult to demonstrate with an empty stomache!

"..because our opinion is the one being done."

I'am happy to see that is not true, at least people like MBMBOS have different opinions to yours and that of Mr. Bush.

I believe MBMBOS's suggestion "for Americans to examine their history and the contradictions between what we think we belief, what we establish as national policy and the actions we ultimately take" can only lead to positive things.

In this light, I believe a quotation from US President Thomas Jefferson "Delay is preferable to error." (May 16, 1792) is more appropiate for the actual situation, than G. W. Bush saying ""We will call together freedom loving people to fight terrorism.." (Sept. 16, 2001).
It is the "freedom loving people" part of that sentence I have a problem with, specially when I read the following:

". Under “Track II” of the strategy, CIA sought to instigate a coup to prevent Allende from taking office after he won a plurality in the 4 September election and before, as Constitutionally required because he did not win an absolute majority, the Chilean Congress reaffirmed his victory. CIA was working with three different groups of plotters. All three groups made it clear that any coup would require the kidnapping of Army Commander Rene Schneider, who felt deeply that the Constitution required that the Army allow Allende to assume power. CIA agreed with that assessment. Although CIA provided weapons to one of the groups, we have found no information that the plotters’ or CIA’s intention was for the general to be killed. Contact with one group of plotters was dropped early on because of its extremist tendencies. CIA provided tear gas, submachine-guns and ammunition to the second group. The third group attempted to kidnap Schneider, mortally wounding him in the attack. CIA had previously encouraged this group to launch a coup but withdrew support four days before the attack because, in CIA’s assessment, the group could not carry it out successfully." (Source: Hinchey Report
SUBJECT: CIA Activities in Chile, September 18, 2000. Also to be found at the "Your Tax Dollars At Work" website: http://foia.state.gov/Reports/HincheyReport.asp#5

This is just one paragraph of one declassified report. Imagine how much sh*t still hasn't or will never be declassified.

Everytime I hear any US President talk about Democracy, Free Country, Peace of the World, Human Dignity, and other Great Words, I find myself on the edge of throwing up...




Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1667 times:

"In this light, I believe a quotation from US President Thomas Jefferson "Delay is preferable to error." (May 16, 1792) is more appropiate for the actual situation, than G. W. Bush saying ""We will call together freedom loving people to fight terrorism.." (Sept. 16, 2001)."

Non sequitor. This is not 1792 and situations change a whole lot faster than in that era. The world is a smaller place. the world is entire;y different place as well.

As far as "coup d'etat", the US may have been incorrect in the Allende affair, but hypocrisy abounds such as the French in theIvory Coast, Djibouti etc etc. the Dutch Cononialism and the East India Company (if you wish to apply the same "dated" standards as Thomas Jefferson) etc. As matter of fact European and Asian history is wrought with hypocrisy and subversion of the kind you accuse the US of. I don't think that the Us is any better or certainly any worse that Europe who has been a colonial power, quite imperialist and quite viloent as "history"  Yeah sure suggests. Present day German/French/Russian hegemony disguised as "restraint" in regards to protecting their interest in Iraq--in this case preventing a "coup d'etat" in Iraq to protect TotalFina/BASF/Lukoil investment, is astounding and decptive-using "moral piety" to cover up your own "dirty dealings"--something the US has been accused of, yet practiced with great ease by these EU members  Yeah sure . I magine how much will be uncovered about European malfeasance, contrary to UN resolution will be uncovered if Iraq were to fall.. Yeah sure

No country is "pure" as far as trying to influence froeign policy of another, including subvert methods; so I don't think that the US is the sole "evil practitioner"  Yeah sure of hegemony in its froeign policy. However, I think the US is right in keeping the heat on Iraq, since using all of this "pressure" has actually forced the UN into action to actually address the issue and the return of inspections as opposed to European "hand wringing" and "appeasement". Secondly, the US can even be viewed as a "victim" since even the "Europeans" have to admit that 9/11 was a disgraceful cowardly act. And as far as European and world opinions that may exist that say "the US brought it on themselves" is not only disgusting and immoral it is also telling about how judgemental, prejudiced and quite frankly illiterate, intollerant of other opinions and violent some people/movements are--and that is more of a moral quagmire than "so called" US hegemony  Yeah sure ....


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1648 times:

"As far as "coup d'etat", the US may have been incorrect in the Allende affair"

It is sad to find out that, appearantly, you have not yet been convinced of your government's incorrect behaviour in the Allende affair.

You are comparing very different time eras here. You cannot compare life in the 15th and 16th century, regarding Democracy, Liberty, etc. with the 20th and 21st Century. Off course the Dutch, the English and the French haven't behaved very "democratically" to say the least, during those centuries regarding the countries and people they were occupying and robbing. But you simply cannot compare these two, let alone make it an excuse for actual US behaviour.

If you have checked the Hinchey Report I linked above, you will have noticed your CIA's involvement in Chile also served the purpose of assisting US multinationals, like ITT.

As for France, Germany and Russia's economical interests in Iraq through the companies you named, can you be absolutely sure no US company has similar interests? Taking into account the secrecy regarding nearly everything the US Government does, you will probably not be able to answer the question until your government decides its harmless to inform you and declassifies its documents. Such secrecy does not exist in Europe and many other countries around the world, for the simple reason that the people of those countries simply do not take for granted everything their government tells them. There is no auto-censorship in the media, like virtually all US media networks have established on themselves regarding news which is anti-government.

Once again I repeat MBMBOS's phrase saying "...for Americans to examine their history and the contradictions between what we think we belief, what we establish as national policy and the actions we ultimately take", as I believe this is exactly why people have anti-american feelings. Of course 9/11 was a cowardly act, but it wasn't the first mayor terrorist strike the US suffered. Think of the hundreds of US soldiers that died abroad, the hundreds of US citizens who died when their plane was blown up somewhere over Scottland to name just one. The point is not that 9/11 happened, the point is why it happened. And this is where we get back to Chile, for instance. How do you think the people of Chile, those who democratically voted for Salvador Allende, think today, in the 21st century, of the US?



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1641 times:

ALL Countries practise Double standards. Its called self-interest. That what matters all the time.

Nothing wrong with that!

-Roy


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1636 times:

Indianguy: ALL Countries practise Double standards. Its called self-interest. That what matters all the time.

Not all the time, fortunately.


Indianguy: Nothing wrong with that!

I guess a few thousand kashmiri widows and orphans might disagree.


User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1634 times:

@Klaus: I dont understand how a "few thousand Kashmiri widows" figure in THIS discussion.

I am not opposed to the US for practising what it sees as its self-interest. I am opposed to the Bush administration for setting off a war that will bring disastrous consequences for the whole of mankind. And it sets a dangerous precedent.

Self-Interest is one thing. Imperious Arrogance is quite another.

-Roy


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21495 posts, RR: 53
Reply 15, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1629 times:

Indianguy: I dont understand how a "few thousand Kashmiri widows" figure in THIS discussion.

When it´s about short-sighted perceived self-interest, I think it´s a vivid illustration of the principle...  Sad


Indianguy: Self-Interest is one thing. Imperious Arrogance is quite another.

In Bush´s case, he appears to think they´re identical.


User currently offlineB747forlife From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 392 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1613 times:

Schoenorama: "I guess it's difficult to demonstrate with an empty stomache!"

Of course this is the fault of the US.  Yeah sure

Please. My point was, half the world is not against war. I'd be willing to bet that half the world doesn't give a sh*t either way in this conflict, or has nothing about it. People keep talking about how the majority of people in the UK are against what Blair is doing, but there is no proof of that. Did they really ask every single person in the UK what they thought? No.

As I've said before, you can make a poll say anything you want. If the people polled in all these polls in the UK were people protesting, them I'm sure the pigures would be close to 100%.

-Nick


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16892 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1602 times:

Hey genius ,

what I posted was not an article but a statement of my observations based on fact and history, I don't know where you come off posting shit about the US and Iraq but none of it is newer than 20 years old.

The following is FACT, since the Gulf War ended.

FACT France was the first to break the commercial air embargo against Iraq, FACT France has tried to build a Nuclear power plant for the Iraqis , FACT most of Iraq's military equipment is French made (they don't have any US made hardware). FACT France has development rights to Iraq's oil, and the oil for food program has benefited France, Iraq's leaders , but not the people is was intended.

Why France has to build a Nuclear power plant for a country sitting on a sea of oil is pretty obvious, why France was the first to offer commercial air service to Iraq since 1991 is also obvious, and France's obstructionist policy towards the disarming of Iraq is also Obvious.

France does not want to lose their oil rights in Iraq, they want the Status quo.

They prefer a strong Iraq under Saddam Hussein to continue shipping oil to France and buying French military hardware, if Saddam goes so does one of Frances biggest importers, plus their number exporter (to France) of oil.

Europe (France) depends heavily upon Gulf (Iraqi) oil exports, the point most folks miss is that the overwhelming majority of oil exports to the US comes from

1. Venezuela, 2. Mexico, 3. Canada.

They (anti-war protesters have the blood for oil part down) it's just their shouting it at the wrong people, they should be shouting the "no blood for oil"
at Paris.




Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16892 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1598 times:

And frankly Schoenorama your double standard retort towards my original post is pretty weak, I give you a D-.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/337083/



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1598 times:

Lets see here.

I remember reading something about an enemy of my enemy.

We where defiantly not friendly with Iran in the 1980's. Remember a lot of Reagans election success in 1980 was due to the mishandling of the hostage crisis in Iran by Jimmy "Mr. Peanut" Carter.

Don't try to link the 1980's to those towelheads that are attacking us today.

Same theory applies to the Mujahadeen(spl?) in Afghanistan in the 1980's to.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1574 times:

To STT757:

".. I don't know where you come off posting shit about the US and Iraq but none of it is newer than 20 years old."

So arguements and FACTS about US shit (your words) older than 20 years do not count? That's a very easy way to deny your government's responsabilty in the current World Affairs.

Also, none of the information I provided so far is newer because your government doesn't want you to know. But if you really want to know about more recent actions of your government, how about this:

Guess who was on the Board of Directors of the Technology Department of the multinational ABB, which only 4 years ago sold 2 nuclear reactors , for $ 200,000,000 to North Korea? Any idea? Donald Rumsfeld! Ask him, I'd suggest, in case you don't believe me.

The sale of these two reactors was possible as North Korea then agreed not to use these for nuclear arms purposes. Now american experts assure us that the radioactive material obtained from these reactors can be used for nuclear bombs and might end up in the hands of terrorists..!

"Europe (France) depends heavily upon Gulf (Iraqi) oil exports, the point most folks miss is that the overwhelming majority of oil exports to the US comes from

1. Venezuela, 2. Mexico, 3. Canada."

I don't know where you have gotten these FACTS, but it is obvious that if you would have done some real research on the Internet, you would have come accross the following:

2002 Top 10 Countries from which the United States Imports Oil (thousand barrels per day)
1. Canada 2. Saudia Arabia 3. Mexico 4. Venezuela 5.Nigeria 6. Iraq 7. UK
8. Normay 9 Angola 10. Algeria
(Source: http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw246.shtml)

Not only does this FACT contradict the FACT presented by you, it also shows US dependence of oil from the Gulf Region.

Another interesting FACT I found, says the following:

"Afghanistan has no proven oil reserves, but may have some natural gas. More important it is would be a desirable route for a pipeline from the oil and gas fields of Central Asia. U. S. oil company Unocal was wooing the Taliban for a pipeline deal, supported by the U. S. gov't, but gave up in 1998. When the Taliban are driven out, the prospects for Unocal’s project are much improved." (Source: Oil and Gas Journal)

(In my search on the web for actual US data regarding "Strategic Petroleum Reserves", I came accross the following at http://www.fe.doe.gov/, an official US Department of Energy Website:
"All Annual Reports have been temporarily removed while the Department reviews their content. When this review is completed, all or portions of the information will be reposted." Now this could be merely due to technical reasons, but I have my doubts.)

Another, more open source (British Petroleum, see http://tomweston.net/provenresrv.htm) in a 2001 report, states that Iraq has 11% of World Proven Petroleum Reserves and comes in second place after Saudi Arabia (25%).

As Shibley Telhami, Fiona Hill, et al, state in their article
(http://www.brook.edu/views/articles/hillf/20021101.htm)
"The Persian Gulf region remains central to the global oil market and will become even more vital in the future. U.S. oil imports from outside the Middle East will not change this fact."

Also interesting is to read the following, from the same article:

"U.S. strategic priorities supply a second reason why Saudi Arabia will remain important to the United States. For half a century, the United States has made Persian Gulf oil a primary security interest, and this emphasis is unlikely to dissipate in this decade. The conventional view of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf is that American strategy and military posture are based primarily on ensuring an uninterrupted flow of oil at reasonable prices. But, as U.S. government documents declassified over the last several years show, the strategy has also focused on preventing hostile forces from seizing and establishing control of Persian Gulf petroleum. From 1949 to the present, American planners have worried that a hostile state may gain too much wealth and power by controlling the dominant share of the world's oil supply -- and thus become more threatening to the United States. U.S. policy toward the region has thus sought the "denial" of oil to enemies while assuring its flow to the West."

Also VERY interesting to read is "Representative Samuel Gejdenson, Democrat of Connecticut, chairman of a House subcommittee investigating "United States Exports of Sensitive Technology to Iraq," stated in 1991:

"From 1985 to 1990, the United States Government approved 771 licenses for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application. [Only thirty-nine applications were rejected.] The United States spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted. . . . The Administration has never acknowledged that it took this course of action, nor has it explained why it did so. In reviewing documents and press accounts, and interviewing knowledgeable sources, it becomes clear that United States export-control policy was directed by U.S. foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was U.S. foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein."
(Source: http://www.progressive.org/).


As for my Double Standard related to your initial thread of Europe's double standards, the reason why I ommitted to discuss in depth the issue under your threat is that is already had been done by other posters.

To L-188:

"Same theory applies to the Mujahadeen(spl?) in Afghanistan in the 1980's to."

Of course they do apply. Who do you think sponsered the "Muhajadeen"
during that time? That was YOUR CIA. Don't believe me, follow this link: http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1552 times:

Schoenorama....

Guess who was on the Board of Directors of the Technology Department of the multinational ABB, which only 4 years ago sold 2 nuclear reactors , for $ 200,000,000 to North Korea? Any idea? Donald Rumsfeld! Ask him, I'd suggest, in case you don't believe me.

This just shows that the US was prepared to trust North Korea -- now we discover that we were double-crossed. That's hardly a double standard!

As far as the government keeping us in the dark for 20 years, that's utter nonsense. The news media in this country is so aggressive, and the government safeguards so leaky, that most significant things find their way out into the open fairly quickly.

The rest of your arguments are quite weak, as they are nothing but a handful of anecdotes and you only present a part of the story. Even if they were completely true, they represent only a tiny fraction of all that is going on in a huge country like the US. Again, that hardly warrants dismissing the entire US as practising a double standard.

Pete


User currently offlineOO-AOG From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1516 times:


NBC News1

Every country does everything in its own self-interest. Every country will have a long list of hypocrisy in its records.
There's no reason to single out the United-States.


ONLY the United States are going out to war these days, probably that's the reason why they are singled out ... just my point of view though



Falcon....like a limo but with wings
User currently offlineCyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1505 times:

STT757:

FACT France was the first to break the commercial air embargo against Iraq, FACT France has tried to build a Nuclear power plant for the Iraqis , FACT most of Iraq's military equipment is French made (they don't have any US made hardware). FACT France has development rights to Iraq's oil, and the oil for food program has benefited France, Iraq's leaders , but not the people is was intended.

First, I advise you to stop buying extreme right newspapers.
Second, I'll give you FACTS, if it's what you want.

FACT: France helped Iraq to build a nuclear power plant in 1976, when ALL WESTERN countries were dealing with Saddam, encouraged by the US. When the IAF destroyed Osirak (name given to the reactor), the UN and the US said it was an "unacceptable" action from Israel, underlining the fact that the US backed the construction of this reactor. (They needed an ennemy for Iran... their former "friend")

FACT: the french military hardware sold to Iraq was mostly airplanes (Mirages F1), and you know what? Iraq has no airforce anymore.

Why TotalFinaElf has development rights for Iraq's oil? Because they worked! They made explorations in the Iraqi desert, and it cost them money.
The oil deals between France and Iraq are PERFECTLY LEGAL. (and at least we don't need to go at war to obtain oil deals...)

They prefer a strong Iraq under Saddam Hussein to continue shipping oil to France and buying French military hardware...

France does not export weapons to Iraq since the 80's...


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (11 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1485 times:

To Delta-flyer:

"Schoenorama seems to have a fixation on Chile and Nicaragua. Why not discuss the Third Reich?"

All I'm trying to make clear is why there is anti-americanism. Why do you believe that people, specially the older people, across Europe, still have a "bad feeling" when it comes to Germans and Germany? Because they make better cars? No, everyting has to do with "recent history", even when these events happened 50 or 60 years ago.

The "anti-americanism" around the world today is a mere result of US Foreign Policy throughout the world in the recent years, like, for example, Chile and Nicaragua, but also Israel and the Palestinian people.

Chile and Nicaragua are very clear examples of US Double Standards, when it comes to advocating one thing, but doing something completely different.

To give you more recent samples, how about the following:

As you probably know, one of the key elements of the inspections to be carried out by the UN inspectors regarding Iraq, is that these are carried out "without conditions and without delay", which means that the inspectors can carry out so called "challenge inspections" (= suprise inspections) and that access should be given without conditions nor delay. This sounds and is very reasonable.

These so called "challenge inspections" are also included in many multilateral Weapons Conventions, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, signed by the US on 01/13/93 and ratified on 04/25/97. This Convention also foresees the posibility to carry out "challenge inspections" without prior notification.

An excerpt of the Convention on this matter says the following:

"Challenge inspections are characterised by the 'any time, any place' concept; they are to be launched at very short notice and can be directed at declared or undeclared facilities and locations."

Challenge inspections can be requested by any State Party or Parties (country) of the Convention when that/those country/countries has got reasonable doubt that another State Party complies with the Convention.

This is applicable too ALL nations that have signed and ratified this Convention. All but the US, when it comes to "challenge inspections". The US, in 1998, approved a special Law on this issue:

The US "Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-277) says the following:

"SEC. 303. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT INSPECTIONS.

(a) Prohibition.--No inspection of a plant, plant site, or other facility or location in the United States shall take place under the Convention without the authorization of the United States National Authority in accordance with the requirements of this title."


This means that any request by any State Party of the Convention for a "challenge inspection" can be overruled the United States National Authority.

Furtheron we read:

"2) United states government representatives.--The United States National Authority shall coordinate the designation of employees of the Federal Government to accompany members of an inspection team of the Technical Secretariat and, in doing so, shall ensure that--
(A) a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as designated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, accompanies each inspection team visit pursuant to paragraph (1);
(B) no employee of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration accompanies any inspection team visit conducted pursuant to paragraph (1); and
(C) the number of duly designated representatives shall be kept to the minimum necessary."


In other words, in case the United States National Authority grants permission for an inspection to be carried out, those inspectors shall always be accompanied by employees of the Federal Government and a Special Agent of the FBI. Didn't Collin Powell complain the other day to the UN Security Council the inspectors were always accompanied by Iraqi Government people?

Its interesting that no US Environmental Protection Agency or Occupational Safety and Health Administration personnel are allowed at these sites. Makes on wonder...

There's more interesting stuff:

"(3) Content of notice.--

(A) In general.--The notice under paragraph (1) shall include all appropriate information supplied by the Technical Secretariat to the United States National Authority concerning--
(i) the type of inspection;
(ii) the basis for the selection of the plant, plant site, or other facility or location for the type of inspection sought;
(iii) the time and date that the inspection will begin and the period covered by the inspection; and
(iv) the names and titles of the inspectors.
(B) Special rule for challenge inspections.--In the case of a challenge inspection pursuant to Article IX of the Convention, the notice shall also include all appropriate evidence or reasons provided by the requesting state party to the Convention for seeking the inspection."


In plain English, "challenge inspections" in the US must be notified beforehand, and, as normal inspections, must be permitted by the United States National Authority. All other countries which have also signed this Convention without such extreme limitations, can be inspected, for example upon request of the US, without prior notification. When any other member of the Convention wishes to execute the Conventions' right on "challenge inspections" on US soil, the inspectors have to informe beforehand when they will be visiting what sites!!

If that isn't a DOUBLE STANDARD!!!

(Sources: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/publaw/105publ.html & http://www.opcw.org/)






Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
25 Clipperhawaii : Funny how you get all this info off a U.S. Government web site. If that does not tell you a lot about the United States nothing will. I don't think yo
26 Post contains links Cfalk : Schoenorama, There a couple of references to Paragraph (1). Why didn't you include it? The link does not work, and I could not find the text you quote
27 Schoenorama : To Clipperhawaii: Believe me, not everything can be found on US Government websites. Like I stated above (Reply # 20), the offical US Department of E
28 Tbar220 : Why are you guys doing this? You're like two little kids playing in a sandbox. "Ooooh, I can throw more sand at you!" God, get over your small wankers
29 Post contains images 737doctor : Tbar, the funniest thing is the futility of it all; as if each side thinks that they might somehow convince the other that they are wrong...
30 Hamfist : Do these really constitute double-standards, or does this just suggest that (like people) relationships simply change over time? Can anyone here hones
31 Schoenorama : To Tbar220 & 737doctor: Just a reminder that there's NO obligation to read this, let alone post a reply. If you do not wish to enter THIS discussion,
32 Tbar220 : I don't care to know what this thread is about. But its exactly threads like this that lower the quality of the non-av forum. People have been complai
33 Delta-flyer : You're right, Schoenorama, we practice double standard. No one, nor any nation, can be totally consistent in its behavior. You have to look at the who
34 Post contains images 737doctor : Just a reminder that there's NO obligation to read this, let alone post a reply. Same goes for what I wrote, yet I am still entitled to my opinion as
35 Todareisinger : The point is not that 9/11 happened, the point is why it happened. Here we go again...Hateful people who are ready to "analyze" the so-called "reasons
36 Ovelix : Tbar Grow up please. Schoenorama is one of the few people who post information based on reliable sources, official and unofficial. If that falls out o
37 Schoenorama : To Delta-flyer: "You're right, Schoenorama, we practice double standard. No one, nor any nation, can be totally consistent in its behavior. You have t
38 Todareisinger : Yes, I take for granted that there are people who are so hateful that they are willing to commit the 9/11 attacks; they have sadly proved it. And I al
39 Schoenorama : To Todareisinger: "Yes, I take for granted that there are people who are so hateful that they are willing to commit the 9/11 attacks; they have sadly
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Do You In The US Think Of Us In The UK? posted Fri Nov 16 2001 16:59:36 by VS744
Finger-printing Of US Citizens In Brazil posted Sat Nov 11 2006 15:30:51 by BOAC911
Numbers Of NCOs In US Army In Iraq posted Tue Sep 26 2006 17:17:17 by Baroque
More US Trops Accussed Of Killings In Iraq posted Fri Jun 30 2006 21:05:02 by Mt99
Unusual Increase Of Tornados In The US? posted Sun Apr 9 2006 22:36:21 by Glidepath73
Double Standards In The Liberal Media posted Wed Nov 16 2005 14:14:42 by Halls120
Racial Double Standards Prevalent In MD Race posted Wed Nov 2 2005 19:23:56 by Slider
Winner Of US Presidential Election In Nov. posted Sun Mar 14 2004 14:35:54 by SK901
Poll: Opinion Of US Global Role Drops In Europe posted Sat Sep 6 2003 01:16:21 by PHX-LJU
History Of Terrorism In Europe And US... posted Fri Feb 7 2003 18:18:37 by 747-451