Archiv: Richard Nixon


28.11.2019 - 17:45 [ Democracy Now! / Youtube ]

Operation Condor Trial Tackles Coordinated Campaign By Latin American Dictatorships To Kill Leftists

(07.03.2013)

A historic trial underway in Argentina is set to reveal new details about how Latin American countries coordinated with each other in the 1970s and ’80s to eliminate political dissidents. The campaign known as „Operation Condor“ involved military dictatorships in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. They worked together to track down, kidnap and kill people they labeled as terrorists: leftist activists, labor organizers, students, priests, journalists, guerilla fighters and their families. The campaign was launched by the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, and evidence shows the CIA and former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were complicit from its outset.

20.10.2019 - 13:50 [ New York Times ]

Trump Just Created a Moral and Strategic Disaster

(14.10.2019)

History is littered with instances of one-time allies abandoned by Washington to their fate — the Bay of Pigs invasion; the fall of South Vietnam; numerous internal uprisings, like Hungary in 1956, that were fanned by the United States only to be smothered when aid, implicit or explicit, was withheld. The United States has abandoned the Kurds — a stateless people who live in parts of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Armenia and Iran — on numerous occasions in just the past half century. The most infamous of these betrayals came when Saddam Hussein attacked them with poison gas in 1988, and the Reagan administration protected the Iraqi government from congressional sanctions.

20.10.2019 - 13:37 [ Bill Van Auken / WSWS.org ]

The Democrats support the “Forever War”

The violence that is being inflicted upon the Kurdish people of Syria is tragic. The role played by the Kurdish bourgeois nationalist leadership, however, has been shortsighted and criminal. Once again, they hitched their wagon to imperialism, hoping to gain its support for the carving out of an ethnic Kurdish state. The results were entirely predictable. As Henry Kissinger infamously stated after betraying the Kurds following a 1975 deal brokered between the Shah of Iran and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, “Covert action should not be confused with missionary work.”

In its most despicable passage, the New York Times editorial places Trump’s action within the context of a US history that is “littered with instances of one-time allies abandoned to their fate—the Bay of Pigs invasion; the fall of South Vietnam …”

For the Times to cast the Bay of Pigs or the fall of Saigon as an example of Washington’s “betrayals” testifies to the drastic rightward shift in the ex-liberal media.

20.10.2019 - 13:13 [ Bill Van Auken / WSWS.org ]

Die Demokraten unterstützen den „ewigen Krieg“

Heute ist die Demokratische Partei das Sprachrohr der CIA. Sie stützt ihre Amtsenthebungsuntersuchung gegen Trump voll und ganz auf die Sorge der Geheimdienste, dass das Weiße Haus eine zu versöhnliche Außenpolitik gegenüber Russland angenommen habe.

Alle pseudolinken Organisationen, die aus den bürgerlichen Protestbewegungen der 1960er und 1970er Jahre hervorgegangen sind, können ohne Übertreibung als proimperialistisch bezeichnet werden. Sie laufen den Demokraten hinterher und rechtfertigen die Aggressionskriege im Namen von „Menschenrechten“ und sogenannten „demokratischen Revolutionen“.

Große Teile der Arbeiterklasse und der Jugend sind der Trump-Regierung feindlich gesinnt, sehen aber im Pro-Kriegslager der Demokraten keine Alternative.

14.09.2019 - 09:08 [ Yale.edu ]

United States Policy on the Khmer Rouge regime, 1975-1979

1. Kenton Clymer, The United States and Cambodia, 1969-2000: A Troubled Relationship(New York and London: Routledge, 2004)

2. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger discusses the Khmer Rouge regime with Thailand’s Foreign Minister Chatichai, November 26, 1975

Kissinger: “You should also tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won’t let that stand in our way. We are prepared to improve relations with them.”

3. Ford and Kissinger discuss Cambodia with Indonesia’s President Suharto, Jakarta, December 5, 1975

4. Former US National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, on China and the Khmer Rouge, 1979:

“I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.” According to Brzezinski, the USA “winked, semi-publicly” at Chinese and Thai aid to the Khmer Rouge.

14.09.2019 - 09:04 [ Wikipedia ]

Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge

There are allegations that the United States (U.S.) directly armed the Khmer Rouge during the Cambodian–Vietnamese War in order to weaken the influence of Vietnam and the Soviet Union in Southeast Asia. It is not disputed that the United States encouraged the government of China to provide military training and support for the Khmer Rouge and that the United States voted for the Khmer Rouge to remain the official representative of the country in the United Nations even after 1979 when the Khmer Rouge was mostly deposed by Vietnam and ruled just a small part of the country.[1][2][3]

Additional alleged U.S. actions that benefited the Khmer Rouge range from tolerating Chinese and Thai aid to the organization (Henry Kissinger) to, according to Michael Haas, directly arming the Khmer Rouge. The U.S. government officially denies these claims, and Nate Thayer defended U.S. policy, arguing that little, if any, American aid actually reached the Khmer Rouge. However, it is not disputed that the U.S. voted for the Khmer Rouge, and later, for the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK), which was dominated by the Khmer Rouge, to retain Cambodia’s United Nations (UN) seat until 1982 and 1991, respectively.

02.05.2019 - 02:02 [ antikrieg.com ]

Als Nixon uns sagte, dass das Eindringen in Kambodscha die Zivilisation retten würde

Außer vielleicht unter den ehemaligen G.Is, die daran teilnahmen, ist die kambodschanische Invasion längst im amerikanischen Gedächtnisloch verschwunden. Doch auch heute noch im sogenannten Zeitalter Trumps glaube ich, dass sie eine zumindest bescheidene Bedeutung hat. Sie ist nicht zuletzt ein lehrreiches Beispiel dafür, wie eine wild aufhetzerische Sprache dazu dient, die Realität zu verschleiern und anzustacheln und zu spalten, anstatt zu informieren und zu vereinen.

Die Nation ist heute überflutet von einer aufrührerischen Sprache, die selbst Nixon erröten lassen könnte. Ein Teil dieser Sprache stammt von Präsident Trump und seinen Anhängern. Genauso viel oder mehr stammt aus dem Anti-Trump-Lager. Auf beiden Seiten ist die Vernunft scheinbar geflohen.