General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsList of countries the USA has bombed since the end of World War II
We just love to bomb other countries!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/list-of-countries-the-usa-has-bombed-since-the-end-of-world-war-ii/24626
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992-94
Bosnia 1995
Iran 1998
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia Serbia 1999
Afghanistan 2001
Libya 2011
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)the secret drone wars...but I didn't sleep well and am in a bit of a fog.
And how the fuck could they forget Iraq 2003-whenever.
Also Afghanistan 2001-whenever.
Those weren't exactly secrets.
OnlinePoker
(5,729 posts)So they've missed the drone attacks in Pakistan from the last couple of years.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Belize for example. or Tasmania. or Singapore. Or Luxembourg.
Bryant
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)I think the Aussies would raise a ruckus if we bombed their island
think
(11,641 posts)unblock
(52,438 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)As a Democrat, a DUer and as a citizen of the United States, I was proud to attend the Passing the Torch: An International Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy at Duquesne University. One of the many important things discussed there was what author, historian and teacher, James DiEugenio reported on the important change in foreign policy JFK represented from his predecessor and his successors, immediate and otherwise.
DiEugenio said President John F. Kennedy did not undergo a change of heart from Cold War hawk to liberal dove Democrat only after the hair-raising nuclear crises he experienced in office. "John F. Kennedy was never a Cold Warrior," DiEugenio said. Throughout his 16-year career in the House and Senate, President Kennedy sided with the People, Justice and Democracy -- across the United States and around the world. This is a world view radically different from Eisenhower, and his foreign policy makers, principally the Dulles Brothers and their allies, including young Dick Nixon.
The JFK Administration may have represented a break in the action, H20 Man's Father explained to him and I agree. It was a special interlude, indeed. In only 1,037 days, we launched the nation toward the moon, creating a new type of economy; maintained the peace when several times the heads of the military and the secret organs of the national security state counseled all-out war; and started the nation on a path where all men are equal under the law, no matter race, color, or creed, and justice extended to economics and health, as under FDR and the New Deal.
DiEugenios research shows President Kennedy was working to defend the interests of democracy over those of colonialism, not only in Europe, as evinced in divided Berlin, but in Africa, Asia, South America and around the world. During less than three years in office, Kennedy turned official U.S. support from that of Eisenhower and the Dulles Brothers for supporting US commercial and colonial interests over democracy, such as in Guatemala and Iran, to respect for the nations and their democratically elected leaders, like Lumumba and Sukarno. In matters of war and peace, JFK always sided with peace, making overtures to North Vietnam. The Dulles Brothers and Nixon sided with France and the colonial powers, even drawing up plans to nuke the North Vietnamese Army at Dien Bien Phu, Operation VULTURE.
The record shows JFK's Foreign Policy of democracy over colonialism was immediately reversed by Lyndon B. Johnson, who reversed course in Vietnam and supported the pro-colonialist forces in Congo, Vietnam, Brazil, Dominican Republic and elsewhere around the world. Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and most who followed continued the Business-As-Usual, advancing the interests of Big Money, Big Oil and Big Wars for Profit.
One of the things I am most proud of is how Democratic Underground covered many of these salient points on its boards, from DU1 through the present day. At the Duquesne conference, I was listening and nodding, knowing that many times we had discussed this on DU. In looking back to one particularly important post through GOOGLE, I found we sourced this information back to DiEugenio. That's what the Internet can do: Spread Truth.
Why it matters.
Democracy depends on Truth. The Republic depends on Justice. That is, the reality that ours is a nation under law.
Once a criminal is, or criminals are, allowed to go free, Justice has been denied. We find ourselves operating under a falsehood, we are living a Big Lie.
We as a Nation have been on the criminal path since November 22, 1963.
DUers know you dont need to read a history book or watch a tee vee special to know: It shows. Since 1964 and the Gulf of Tonkin, its been a series of wars without end for profit. And in the process, the rich became super-rich -- the richest and most powerful people in history.
PS: Thanks, Scuba! Don't mean to hog the bandwidth, but the next 50 years can be different -- they can be decades of peace and prosperity for ALL: They can be Democratic. What we need is to keep spreading the Truth, DU!
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)Another great post and observation from one of DU's greatest. Keep on, Octafish!
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)navarth
(5,927 posts)Octafish gets it. My respects.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)he is not.
That administration designed and carried out
a campaign of terror against Cuba.
And JFK's Alliance for Progress had a
legacy of death squads in Latin America.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Chomsky, FWIU, says there was no difference between Eisenhower and Kennedy and Johnson. But there was, take Indonesia, where JFK intervened with the Netherlands and its former colony:
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1962/10/11/page/14/article/kennedy-move-averted-war-says-general
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 16, 2014, 08:51 PM - Edit history (1)
JFK had 12,000 military advisers and 300 helicopters in Viet Nam by 1962.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Nor did he send in combat troops. Nor did he send in draftees.
In fact, he ordered a complete withdrawal by the end of 1964.
http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsam-jfk/nsam-263.htm
One week after the assassination, LBJ reversed the order.
http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsam-lbj/nsam-273.htm
Then, there's the matter of the Joint Chiefs recommending an all-out nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.
JFK opposed that one, thankfully.
http://prospect.org/article/did-us-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963
Joint Chiefs and CIA director Dulles said the best time to attack was "Fall 1963."
hack89
(39,171 posts)Ok.
Some say he planned a complete withdrawal. Many others disagree - including Noam Chomsky (Rethinking Camalot)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)It's a difficult read, but worth it. In it, he documents how the Pentagon and CIA gave LBJ, as veep, a more accurate picture of what was happening in Vietnam than they provided JFK, as president.
Why? JFK said he would not get into a land war in Southeast Asia and he certainly was not going to place US draftees in the middle of Vietnam's civil war; Johnson did.
Vietnam Withdrawal Plans
The 1990s saw the gaps in the declassified record on Vietnam filled inwith spring 1963 plans for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces. An initial 1000 man pullout (of the approximately 17,000 stationed in Vietnam at that time) was initiated in October 1963, though it was diluted and rendered meaningless in the aftermath of Kennedy's death. The longer-range plans called for complete withdrawal of U. S. forces and a "Vietnamization" of the war, scheduled to happen largely after the 1964 elections.
The debate over whether withdrawal plans were underway in 1963 is now settled. What remains contentious is the "what if" scenario. What would Kennedy have done if he lived, given the worsening situation in Vietnam after the coup which resulted in the assassination of Vietnamese President Diem?
At the core of the debate is this question: Did President Kennedy really believe the rosy picture of the war effort being conveyed by his military advisors. Or was he onto the game, and instead couching his withdrawal plans in the language of optimism being fed to the White House?
The landmark book JFK and Vietnam asserted the latter, that Kennedy knew he was being deceived and played a deception game of his own, using the military's own rosy analysis as a justification for withdrawal. Newman's analysis, with its dark implications regarding JFK's murder, has been attacked from both mainstream sources and even those on the left. No less than Noam Chomsky devoted an entire book to disputing the thesis.
But declassifications since Newman's 1992 book have only served to buttress the thesis that the Vietnam withdrawal, kept under wraps to avoid a pre-election attack from the right, was Kennedy's plan regardless of the war's success. New releases have also brought into focus the chilling visions of the militarists of that erafour Presidents were advised to use nuclear weapons in Indochina. A recent book by David Kaiser, American Tragedy, shows a military hell bent on war in Asia.
CONTINUED with very important IMFO links:
http://www.history-matters.com/vietnam1963.htm
Funny in a police state sort of way how little of this gets mentioned anywhere, even DU. I very much appreciate you remembering, hack89.
lpbk2713
(42,772 posts)Liberal_Dog
(11,075 posts)And they save lives.
And all of those countries asked for our help.
So there!!
Brainstormy
(2,381 posts)could pick out as many as three of these on a map.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)There doesnt seem to be any information on some of these.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)were in support of the right wing, nationalistic Kuomintang of Chiang Kaishek in his battles with the communists.
I can't speak for Iran '98, but I'd say that's most unlikely. At that time, as now, China, Russia, Syria and Iran all had defensive pacts with each other. I would think that an attack on Iran, or Syria, would be a suicidal insigation of WWIII.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)between the two sides. The most I can see during that time was that there were a couple of communist Chinese ambushes against marines in post-war China, but that hardly counts as bombing China. About Iran 1998 not sure if they meant to write Iraq 1998 (which seems to be missing), or the 1988 Iranian airliner (I found that mentioned in another similar list when I did a search).
Either way, it looks like the list is garbage.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)The anti-communist campaigns might have been in '47. Or, I might be altogether wrong. My understanding of recent far-east history is sketchy.
I don't think the list is garbage, though. We've bombed a horrifying number of countries. Additionally we've propped up so many fascist bullies and toppled so many stable regimes in order to further the aims of the Filthy Rich that future historians will undoubtedly label us monsters.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)the receiving end of those bombs. Making up history is a fairly terrible way to inform people about history.
As for China we were assisting the Chinese during the war, and had troops stationed in post-war China. We were provided supplies to the Nationalists and helped them airlift troops, but Im not aware of any military engagement with the communist Chinese (and there doesnt seem to be any evidence of it when I searched, either). The US government seemed to try to be on good terms with the communists up until the Korean War, brokering a ceasefire between the two sides and halting aid to the nationalists when the communists began taking over the mainland.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)when they were all but defeated in China.
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/chinoff/chinoff.htm
Hard to find relevant information. Many links mention the airlifting supplies over the big hump from India.
malaise
(269,254 posts)Glorfindel
(9,740 posts)I'm surprised we neglected Nepal and Paraguay.
packman
(16,296 posts)First the Far East with China, Korea,etc.- then shift to South and Central America- then the Mid East. First the Yellow Scourge and the fear of falling dominos ,then the war on drugs and rebels, then oil. Again, the general trend with a stop-over to bomb a nuisance country.
Initech
(100,129 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)eom
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)CrispyQ
(36,552 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)John Foster Dulles is featured in the work below:
A "killing field" in the Americas:
US policy in Guatemala
The reality of Guatemala
Guatemala, with 10 million people, is the most populous country in Central America. It is run by an oligarchy of wealthy landowners and big business interests that reap the country's agricultural and commercial rewards at the expense of the rest of the population. The country has been headed by military dictators and figurehead-presidents. Ultimate control belongs to the Army.
SNIP...
United Fruit, Eisenhower and the end of reform
United Fruit was a state within the Guatemalan state. It not only owned all of Guatemala's banana production and monopolized banana exports, it also owned the country's telephone and telegraph system, and almost all of the railroad track. In addition to redistributing United Fruit land, the government also began competing with United Fruit in the production and export of bananas.
Important people in the ruling circles of the US, involved with United Fruit Company, used their influence to convince the US government to step in. (Secretary of State John Foster Dulles' law firm had prepared United Fruit's contracts with Guatemala; his brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles, belonged to United Fruit's law firm; John Moors Cabot, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, was the brother of a former United Fruit president; President Eisenhower's personal secretary was married to the head of United Fruit's Public Relations Department.)
In 1954, Eisenhower and Dulles decided that Arbenz finally had to go, and the US State Department labeled Guatemala "communist". On this pretext, US aid and equipment were provided to the Guatemalan Army. The US also sent a CIA army and CIA planes. They bombed a military base and a government radio station, and overthrew Arbenz Guzmán, who fled to Cuba.
The coup restored the stranglehold on the Guatemalan economy of both the landed elite and US economic interests. President Eisenhower was willing to make the poor, illiterate Guatemalan peasants pay in hunger and torture for supporting land reform, and for trying to attain a better future for themselves and their families. In order to ensure ever-increasing profits for an American corporation, the US State Department, the CIA, and United Fruit Company had succeeded in taking freedom and land from Guatemala's peasants, unions from its workers, and hope for a democratic Guatemala from all of its people.
Aided by the US, Colonel Castillo Armas became the new president. The US Ambassador furnished Armas with lists of radical opponents to be eliminated, and the bloodletting promptly began. Under Armas, thousands were arrested and many were tortured and killed. United Fruit got all its land back. As an extra present, the Banana Worker's Union was banned. Armas disenfranchised one-third of the voters by barring illiterates from voting. He outlawed all political parties, labor confederations, and peasant organizations. He closed down opposition newspapers and burned "subversive" books. The "Springtime" had ended.
CONTINUED...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_Guat.html
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)I had forgotten about United Fruit.
I'm going to bookmark that article for later. Thanks much!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The fact that they were innocent of harming the United States of America -- their only crime was to live in a nation marked for takeover by Wall Street -- makes it worse.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Our nation only exists in order to enrich the already disgustingly rich.
We're governed by psychopaths that only allow us to vote for their minions.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Haven't thought of him in years. I tend to believe his accusation of a plot to stage a coup against FDR, but then I believe that the assassinations of the '60s were a successful coup by the Dominionists.
I don't mind being called a Tin Foiler. It certainly explains history since then, from my perspective.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
Different Generation.
tclambert
(11,087 posts)"that reap the country's agricultural and commercial rewards at the expense of the rest of the population."
Thank God we aren't like that.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)how do I bookmark this post? Have to run now, but definitely want to read this later.
broiles
(1,370 posts)navarth
(5,927 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)You can see Diego Rivera's masterpiece, Detroit Industry.
Brings tears to my eyes to type this, what Rivera's eyes must have seen for Glorious Victory:
Rivera put Ike's face on the bomb that made the coup possible.
Dulles is seen shaking hands with Col. Castillo Armas, the lackey CIA found to lead the "revolution" that overthrew the democratic, reform-minded government.
The suffering of millions in Guatemala, for profit and power.
The guy's cronies, the War Party who make endless war to make profits without end are still in power. Shorthand: the BFEE.
navarth
(5,927 posts)It's Rivera at the DIA. Good grief I've seen that painting countless times in my life and I don't recognize that panel.
Good excuse to go again.
It's to Detroit's credit that we didn't destroy the painting like the pigs wanted to. They did destroy the one in NYC, according to the movie about Frida Kahlo.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...entitled: "Glorious Victory." I alluded to Diego's masterpieces at the DIA as an inside thing. Here's details on the Guatemala painting, currently at the Palace of Fine Arts Museum in Mexico City:
http://art-for-a-change.com/blog/2007/10/diego-rivera-glorious-victory.html
Yeah, Mr. Rockefeller didn't like the Mexican painter.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Alan and John Foster Dulles are directly responsible for unrest and overthrow in many of the nations listed in the OP. Thanks, Octafish.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)an aggressive and greedy country.
Sadly, we're none the better for any of it. Except, of course, our true rulers, the untitled aristocracy.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)We gots lots of catching up to do!
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Why?? Because I guess if we're not careful, they want to be more like us.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)For the "Blame America" crowd, I suppose.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)The OP happens to be, you know...true. If you don't care for that, I'd suggest...fuck it, I'd suggest you just deal with it. Take your jingoism somewhere it will be appreciated.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)"Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, Globalresearch mostly consists of polemics many of which accept (and use) conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and propaganda. The prevalent conspiracist strand relates to global power-elites (primarily governments and corporations) and their New World Order.[1] Specific featured conspiracy theories include those addressing 9/11,[2] vaccines,[3] genetic modification,[4] Zionism,[5][6] HAARP,[7] global warming,[8][9] Bosnian genocide denialism[10] and David Kelly.[11]
Globalresearch contributors are happy to source information from anyone who seems vaguely aligned with their ideology; during the 2011 Libyan civil war the site was an apologist for Muammar al-Gaddafi,[12] reproducing his propaganda and painting him as a paragon of a modern leader. In the 2014 Ukrainian crisis the site is taking the standard "anti-globalisation" stance against the Western side and falling into the ranks of imperial Russian propaganda instead.
It's no surprise then that the site has long become a magnet for radicals, fringe figures and whacko elements from the left in general."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...to clear us of the crimes we've committed against other nations. Go do some reading about John Foster Dulles and then get back to me about ports and storms.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)tclambert
(11,087 posts)KG
(28,753 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Terra Alta
(5,158 posts)Hundreds of nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site, leading to increased cancer and radiation-related diseases in people living downwind from the site.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)but we aren't terrorists or anything. perish that thought.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Remember back in 1981, when that neighborhood in a Pennsylvannia big city had a half block of residences burn, as the police went ballistic in pursuit of gang members.
And then in early 1993, there was Waco TX, where close to eighty people were murdered. (Including some 17 pregnant women.) Within two weeks after this murderous ATF/FBI slaughter, Time and Newsweek magazine reported how David Koresh coud have easily been appprehended by simply having FBI or ATF agents go to the video store where he went to pick up new videos several times a week, and then the agents could have taken him into custody. And that strtegy would not have cost anyone any injuries or loss of life!
But the Two Thousand Teens will probably beat all. We already have seen looting and trashing of neighborhood stores in Ferguson, with suspicious types of perhaps government provacateurs helping to do the looting.
Then we find out this week that :
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/school-districts-1033-program-military-equipment
School Districts receive heavy duty military weapons including grenade launchers!
From the article linked to above:
More than 20 school districts in the United States have been equipped with military-grade equipment through the federal program that provides such gear to local and state authorities free of charge, according to civil rights groups.
The NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Texas Appleseed, a legal advocacy group, sent a letter on behalf of a coalition of civil rights groups to the federal agency that administers the program on Monday. The letter requested reforms be made to the 1033 program, which has come under significant scrutiny after the heavily armed police response to protests in Ferguson, Mo., last month.
The letter cited "published reports" that have showed military equipment being transferred from the Pentagon to the school districts. It said the total number of transfers from the Defense Department to U.S. schools "is difficult to determine."
KPBS in Sand Diego reported that the city's school district had received a mine-resistant vehicle. KTLA in Los Angeles reported that the district there had also received its own mine-resistant vehicle as well as grenade launchers. KHOU in Houston reported that local school districts had received military firearms. And a school district in Edinburg, Texas, has employed a full SWAT unit, according to the letter, which is equipped through the 1033 program. The groups pointed to a news image that showed officers in military fatigues standing in front of school buses. "It is frankly difficult to imagine how a grenade launcher, or any of these items, could be safely used in any scenario involving schools," the letter said.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
treestar
(82,383 posts)with its bare information, that all of these bombings were just for fun?
Some of them don't even look right.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)But he only spoke of Muslim counties.