CIA Destabilizes the World

[Laodicean60]

America has destabilized the world and because of the meddling, we are at a point where the whole world hates us. This does not include President decisions to invade Iraq and Libya.

When President Dwight Eisenhower decided that Africa’s rising political star, democratically elected Patrice Lumumba of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo), was the “enemy,” the CIA conspired in his 1961 assassination, thus undermining the democratic hopes for Africa. He would hardly be the last African president brought down by the CIA.

Since 1975, the CIA has run secretive operations backing Islamic jihadists in Afghanistan that utterly wrecked Afghanistan while giving rise to al-Qaeda.

In the case of Syria, we learned from a few stories in the New York Times in 2016 and 2017 of the CIA’s subversive operations to destabilize Syria and overthrow Assad, as ordered by President Barack Obama. Here is the case of a dreadfully misguided CIA operation, blatantly in violation of international law, that has led to a decade of mayhem, an escalating regional war, hundreds of thousands of deaths, and millions of displaced people, and yet there has not been a single honest acknowledgment of this CIA-led disaster by the White House or Congress.

In the case of Ukraine, we know that the U.S. played a major covert role in the violent coup that brought down Yanukovych and that swept Ukraine into a decade of bloodshed but to this day, we don’t know the details. Russia offered the world a window into the coup by intercepting and then posting a call between Victoria Nuland, then U.S. Assistant Secretary of State (now Under-Secretary of State) and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt (now Assistant Secretary of State), in which they plot the post-coup government. Following the coup, the CIA covertly trained special operations forces of the post-coup regime the U.S. had helped bring to power. The U.S. government has been mum about the CIA’s covert operations in Ukraine.

How the CIA Destabilizes the World | Common Dreams

If only the CIA’s rogue operations had been consigned to history as a result of the crimes exposed by the Church Committee, or at the least had brought the CIA under the rule of law and public accountability. But that was not to be.

www.commondreams.org

 

[Larniavc]

This does not include President decisions to invade Iraq and Libya.

Oh it does.

 

[Laodicean60]

Oh it does.

Yes, you are right! I meant the article did not include our presidents.

 

[Hans Blaster]

America has destabilized the world and because of the meddling, we are at a point where the whole world hates us. This does not include President decisions to invade Iraq and Libya.

None of this:

When President Dwight Eisenhower decided that Africa’s rising political star, democratically elected Patrice Lumumba of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo), was the “enemy,” the CIA conspired in his 1961 assassination, thus undermining the democratic hopes for Africa. He would hardly be the last African president brought down by the CIA.

Since 1975, the CIA has run secretive operations backing Islamic jihadists in Afghanistan that utterly wrecked Afghanistan while giving rise to al-Qaeda.

Implies this:

In the case of Ukraine, we know that the U.S. played a major covert role in the violent coup that brought down Yanukovych and that swept Ukraine into a decade of bloodshed but to this day, we don’t know the details. Russia offered the world a window into the coup by intercepting and then posting a call between Victoria Nuland, then U.S. Assistant Secretary of State (now Under-Secretary of State) and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt (now Assistant Secretary of State), in which they plot the post-coup government. Following the coup, the CIA covertly trained special operations forces of the post-coup regime the U.S. had helped bring to power. The U.S. government has been mum about the CIA’s covert operations in Ukraine.

How the CIA Destabilizes the World | Common Dreams

If only the CIA’s rogue operations had been consigned to history as a result of the crimes exposed by the Church Committee, or at the least had brought the CIA under the rule of law and public accountability. But that was not to be.

www.commondreams.org

Sachs is just plain wrong at best and a propagandist at worst.

 

[Gene2memE]

In the case of Ukraine, we know that the U.S. played a major covert role in the violent coup that brought down Yanukovych and that swept Ukraine into a decade of bloodshed but to this day, we don’t know the details.

We don't know any of that actually. We know that some people have claimed that, but they've not actually offered any evidence of such.

Russia offered the world a window into the coup by intercepting and then posting a call between Victoria Nuland, then U.S. Assistant Secretary of State (now Under-Secretary of State) and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt (now Assistant Secretary of State), in which they plot the post-coup government.

They didn't "plot the post-coup government". They discussed their preferences about who, from a US point of view, would be the best people to deal with. This sort of stuff happens ALL THE TIME. This is how the business of international relations is done. And has been done for centuries. David Sachs seems painfully ignorant of both history and the implications of realpolitik.

Following the coup, the CIA covertly trained special operations forces of the post-coup regime the U.S. had helped bring to power.

I wonder what else happened in 2014 that could have spurred Ukraine into wanting CIA help to train special operations groups?

The U.S. government has been mum about the CIA’s covert operations in Ukraine.

David Sachs doesn't understand the meaning of "covert", does he?

 

[Gene2memE]

America has destabilized the world and because of the meddling, we are at a point where the whole world hates us. This does not include President decisions to invade Iraq and Libya.

In case you haven't been paying attention to history, America has spent at least the last ~175 years destabilizing the world.

Instead of inventing stuff about Ukraine, would you like to hear about actual US annexations and coups? There are a couple of dozen countries - a least - where the US has been actively involved in overthrowing governments.

If you can't tell, I'm not a fan of US foreign interventions.

But, I'm vastly less of a fan of authoritarian dictators launching neo-Imperialist crusades against their neighbours.

 

[Laodicean60]

Instead of inventing stuff about Ukraine, would you like to hear about actual US annexations and coups? There are a couple of dozen countries - a least - where the US has been actively involved in overthrowing governments.

If you can't tell, I'm not a fan of US foreign interventions.

I know it's Sachs's opinion piece. Of course, tell me your version of Ukraine in 2014 and others. Also my inventions.

175 years destabilizing the world.

I get you but the weapons of our warfare back then wouldn't end mankind.

 

[Hans Blaster]

David Sachs doesn't understand the meaning of "covert", does he?

It's Jeffery Sachs here, but both have carried water for Russia recently.

 

[Merrill]

This all gets into the bigger issue of how we want the US to behave towards foreign nations in the future

There is virtually no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties in terms of foreign-interventionism, meddling in foreign elections, messing with foreign companies, etc.

There is *some* difference in terms of UN social and human-rights objectives and programs (Democrats tend to be more involved with this)

Since WWII, the US has essentially policed the oceans and global commerce. The "payment" for this is election of our currency as the global reserve. By offering security guarantees (implicit or explicit), we have gained access to foreign markets.

The problem with all of this is that we are now seeing

1. Deglobalization
2. Disgruntled foreign nations threatening to abandon our currency and trade agreements (Saudi Arabia, some South American countries, etc. BRICS)
3. The inability of the US to manage competing initiatives by our allies. We are in a post-Cold War world, and there is no longer unity.

We have to decide whether or not we can have things like universal healthcare, advanced infrastructure, and a vibrant economy, or a multi-trillion dollar military-industrial complex, endless wars, and a global welfare state with us as the one doling out the payments.

And we have to be tough enough to tell countries like Saudi Arabia, that if they want to abandon the petro-dollar, and start letting China buy oil with Yuan, that they will be expected to protect their own oil tankers on the high-seas going forward.

 

[Vambram]

If you can't tell, I'm not a fan of US foreign interventions.

What should the USA have done concerning Word War 1 and World War 2?

 

[Vambram]

There are a couple of dozen countries - a least - where the US has been actively involved in overthrowing governments.

I believe that I am aware of some of the examples to which you are referring. I do not agree that the USA did the right thing in all instances of that happening.

 

[Laodicean60]

The problem with all of this is that we are now seeing

1. Deglobalization
2. Disgruntled foreign nations threatening to abandon our currency and trade agreements (Saudi Arabia, some South American countries, etc. BRICS)
3. The inability of the US to manage competing initiatives by our allies. We are in a post-Cold War world, and there is no longer unity.

We have to decide whether or not we can have things like universal healthcare, advanced infrastructure, and a vibrant economy, or a multi-trillion dollar military-industrial complex, endless wars, and a global welfare state with us as the one doling out the payments.

And we have to be tough enough to tell countries like Saudi Arabia, that if they want to abandon the petro-dollar, and start letting China buy oil with Yuan, that they will be expected to protect their own oil tankers on the high-seas going forward.

I agree with all this. All you've said is what we can expect and none is good for the American people. We'll never be able to take care of our people with the increased military spending for years to come. 40 other countries want to join BRICS, why? Is it because their cultures clash with Western liberal democracy? Did Saudi Arabia pause their proxy war in Yemen because it seems now that the US is bombing Iran-backed Houthis Saudi Arabia isn't helping us? Then the elephant in the room is China.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What should the USA have done concerning Word War 1 and World War 2?

WW1: Nothing. Keep out. (I blame Wilson.)
WW2: Potentially doesn't even happen then (at least in Europe).

 

[Vambram]

WW2: Potentially doesn't even happen then (at least in Europe).

Oh really? Please explain.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh really? Please explain.

Without US intervention on the Anglo-French side, the Germans probably aren't forced to surrender and then humilated in the peace treaty by Wilson, France, and the British. Likely the French agree to a stalemate, status quo antebellum and there is much less upheaval in Europe with the taring down of Empires. The "Lost Cause" narrative in Germany (sorry, "Stab in the back" it is sometimes hard to tell the whinging of the ex-confederates from the nazis) never gains traction and Hitler remains a failed revolutionary (or failed painter).

 

[Laodicean60]

What should the USA have done concerning Word War 1 and World War 2?

America wanted to be neutral until Uboats started killing Americans. Teddy nudged Wilson into the fight. Tora Tora Tora for WW2. Then for some reason, we felt we needed to be the world police.

 

[Laodicean60]

Without US intervention on the Anglo-French side, the Germans probably aren't forced to surrender and then humilated in the peace treaty by Wilson, France, and the British. Likely the French agree to a stalemate, status quo antebellum and there is much less upheaval in Europe with the taring down of Empires. The "Lost Cause" narrative in Germany (sorry, "Stab in the back" it is sometimes hard to tell the whinging of the ex-confederates from the nazis) never gains traction and Hitler remains a failed revolutionary (or failed painter).

Was it the war guilt clause that upset the Germans?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Was it the war guilt clause that upset the Germans?

Crushing reparations, territorial losses, forced disarmament.

It certainly made conditions ripe for the rise of the NatSocs.

(As much as it pains me as an ardent republican to say... but it seems to be true) The collapse of the German and Austrian monarchies probably helped fascism rise in central Europe as well. The socialists and commies had more of an opening and the traditional right parties disconnected from the no longer extant monarchies were more willing to side with the far (and violent) right to provide a counter to the left factions.

Obviously it's all very counterfactual and we can't know what would have happened, but the US never had any business fighting in the Great European War of 1914.

 

[Vambram]

Without US intervention on the Anglo-French side, the Germans probably aren't forced to surrender and then humilated in the peace treaty by Wilson, France, and the British. Likely the French agree to a stalemate, status quo antebellum and there is much less upheaval in Europe with the taring down of Empires. The "Lost Cause" narrative in Germany (sorry, "Stab in the back" it is sometimes hard to tell the whinging of the ex-confederates from the nazis) never gains traction and Hitler remains a failed revolutionary (or failed painter).

That is a reasonable argument as to why the USA should have stayed out of World War one.

 

[Laodicean60]

That is a reasonable argument as to why the USA should have stayed out of World War one.

I understand what Han is saying every policy has an effect. I think America needed to be in the war because of how much Hitler had taken plus the Japanese in China.