an interesting read from Aljazeera.net - American Hiroshima

Aljazeera is a really interesting news source. Our (USA) news is strongly pro-American and anti-everything else, I think Aljazeera is more balanced than Fox news. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E4D19123-9DD3-11D1-B44E-006097071264.htm

anyhoo, I found this article very good and it isn't anti-western either

David Dionisi, a former US army intelligence officer, is convinced that plans for a nuclear attack are under way.

Once a conservative Republican, Dionisi enjoyed success as a Fortune 500 business executive after leaving the army. But he later rejected his political beliefs and now advocates peace, social justice and humanitarianism.

In his new book, American Hiroshima, Dionisi argues decades of unjust US foreign policies will be largely to blame for sowing the seeds of hostility and vengeance which could lead to a nuclear catastrophe.


Aljazeera.net: You were once a conservative Republican. What made you change your beliefs?
Dionisi: The transformation was a discovery process. When I joined the military, I had a very limited view of what the US was doing around the world. Through my experiences as a military intelligence officer and later as a business executive doing international volunteer work, I started to see our foreign policies were often hurting people and making the world more dangerous.

One of the more dramatic moments in this process was when I was assigned to a unit focussing on implementing US foreign policy in central America. I was part of a rapid deployment team designed to go in and suppress forces working for social justice in places such as Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala.

You describe the US public as uninformed - why?

The major media outlets are owned by a handful of corporations interested in promoting advertising and pro-government messages. Anything that challenges the existing power structure very often fails to receive air time. I highlight Fox as an extreme example of the Republican propaganda machine.

But when your country is fighting a war, you have an obligation to understand what’s really going on. If you don’t, you can become an agent of injustice. If people can find the time to watch baseball or soccer etc, they can make an effort to read, travel, talk and not be limited to the messages of fear.

They also need to understand their history. In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented a plan called Operation Northwood, which is now declassified. It proposed conducting mass casualty attacks on American targets and blaming it on Cuba to rally public support for war against Fidel Castro. President Kennedy rejected the plan. So we shouldn’t just assume any future attack on our soil is the work of al-Qaida.

Your book condemns alliances with repressive regimes. Can’t these be justified if they serve a greater cause?

History teaches us that when you form alliances that promote injustice, you can only expect injustice in the future. Kindness begets kindness and the inverse is also true.

The US fought the largest secret war in its history during the 1980s in Afghanistan - over $6bn was funnelled into that war. As a result, US collaboration with and responsibility for al-Qaida goes well beyond what most even informed Americans understand.

If you consider that there are over 500 prisoners in Guantanamo Bay from over 40 countries - though not a single one is from Iraq – and that the CIA recruited thousands of people from over 40 countries to be part of that war – none from Iraq – you can better understand how the US played a direct role in creating what became the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Bush supporters argue the removal of Saddam and the Taliban was beneficial and therefore justified military action.

That starts from an artificial premise. When the Bush administration says, “Well, it’s great that Saddam’s gone,” it fails to acknowledge that Bush’s father and President Ronald Reagan were key forces that helped create Saddam Hussein.

Looking at what happened in 1979 it can put a lot of this in perspective. As Reagan came into office, the US embassy hostages in Iran were released after 444 days in captivity. Americans don’t know this wasn’t a coincidence. The US had agreed in writing not to attack Iran and also paid Tehran $8bn. That’s why that media event (of the hostages’ release during Reagan’s inauguration ceremony) occurred with such precise timing.

How do you know this?

These are facts that were subsequently published. The agreement with Iran was submitted for review by the current administration to see if it would be binding and prevent an attack in the near future.

Bush administration attorneys concluded it was signed under duress and therefore not binding. I know this from a former senior member of the Bush administration, a seasoned CIA officer named Ray Flynn.

The US felt humiliated; the Reagan administration wanted to hurt the Iranians but its hands were tied. So Saddam Hussein was used as the agent for that. He ended up invading Iran … and you had this brutal war from 1980 to 1988 that killed over a million people.

What was the US role in that war?

By 1982, Iran had recaptured lost territory and Saddam asked the US for help. So President Reagan signed a National Security Decision Directive - NSDD 114 - to provide all means of support to Saddam Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld then went on a very sensitive mission to deliver satellite intelligence, other forms of intelligence and weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

That’s why the current Bush administration was so confident Saddam had chemical and biological weapons; they knew the US had supplied the ingredients in the 1980s.

Saddam broke with the US, however, when he found out we were selling weapons to Iran in the mid-1980s – the Iran-Contra affair. All this puts the invasion of Kuwait into perspective. Saddam got clear messages from the US saying he could invade; plus he felt the US owed him one after betraying him over Iran.

All these wars form a continuum of injustice. Look at the UN economic sanctions in the 1990s that the US and UK refused to lift: over a million Iraqis died, including 500,000 children. That’s more than the number who died from the Nagasaki and Hiroshima atomic bombings.

You list numerous ‘unjust’ actions that led to attacks on US targets – isn’t that justifying terrorism?

I talked to the CIA’s Michael Scheuer, head of the “find bin Ladin” team, and he stresses that people in the Muslim world are not fighting us because of our freedoms or elections but our foreign policy. This is something the Bush administration constantly twists.

The basic principle is: if you hurt someone, they’re going to want to hurt you. We need to ask questions like: Why did 9/11 happen? Bin Ladin has a very clear articulation of why he’s at war with the US, Britain, Israel and others. If Americans read it, they’ll see it’s very clear about things such as US forces on Arab land.

And it’s not just an Arab or Muslim issue. I learnt this in South Korea where the US has had troops since 1950. When you’re there that long, it sends a powerful message that you’re not there to liberate, you’re there to occupy.

You describe the US as the biggest WMD proliferator. Why?

The US has spent $5 trillion on 70,000 nuclear weapons since 1945 – more than the rest of the world combined. A Congressional report in 1999 found the designs for every deployed nuclear warhead – and for some not built yet – had been stolen and passed to China. Israel acquired its programme from the US too.

Despite this, ordinary Americans are more concerned about the Bush administration’s lies and hyped-up warnings about WMD in places such as Iraq.

Is Iran really a threat to the US? An alliance between Shia Iran and Sunni-led al-Qaida seems far fetched.

Iran will not attack the US if the US does not attack Iran. Congressman Curt Weldon (who accuses Tehran of plotting to attack the States) talks about attacking Iran but such talk makes the world more dangerous. If we were Iran, we’d develop nuclear weapons simply because Israel has them. So the US should facilitate a process whereby Israel eliminates its nuclear weapons.

As for the religious differences between Iran and al-Qaida, yes, that’s been true – but Bush’s War on Terror has been pushing the sects together. Intelligence reports indicate bin Ladin’s son Saad has been based in Iran. No, we can’t be certain they’re helping each other. But in any case, the Bush administration does not want peace with Iran.

You say ‘kindness begets kindness’. What’s your evidence?

After the First World War, the Treaty of Versailles punished Germany harshly, producing hardship and hostility that the Nazis exploited. But after the Second World War, when the Marshall Plan helped rebuild Germany and Japan, the US did more to promote democracy than at any time during the Cold War.

To make the world a safer place we must aggressively attack the causes of suffering and hostility. Imagine if Bush had said after 9/11: “People are capitalising on our mistakes in the Middle East. So, let’s ensure there is no hunger, lack of clean water, lack of education etc in the Muslim world.” We would have made more friends and drained support for our enemies.

If we can’t expect US foreign policy to change soon, isn’t it too late to stop an American Hiroshima?

It’s not too late although your point is realistic. But we can still influence the US response. Far more people will die in the retaliation and the counter-retaliation.

If the US had the wisdom, we could make the world safer. The US military budget was over $420 billion in 2005. We could split that three ways: a third on economic development in the Middle East, especially Iraq; a third on tackling injustice at home, such as providing universal healthcare – and that would still leave us with the world’s biggest military budget.

People have to become more involved. The anti-Vietnam War movement is an example – but it failed to hold government to account. If we had tried (former Defence Secretary) Robert McNamara or (former Secretary of State) Henry Kissinger for crimes such as the illegal bombing of Cambodia, it would have sent a powerful message to future leaders. The Bush government today wouldn’t have been so bold.

Ultimately, Americans need to understand many of them will die and parts of their country will become uninhabitable unless they hold their government to account.

 

what a fucking joke. Like bin laden or others would ever stop planning to dump a nuclear bomb on US soil if they could.

 

i don't think that it was he meant, i think he meant that the US foreign policy of the past and present is creating these terrorists, the past foreign policy created bin ladens view, and the foreign policy at present could create the future terrorists
peacex

 

bin laden said he attacked the US because we had troops in the holy land. We didnt invade saudi arabia. How is that a horrible foreign policy move on our part?

Bin laden is a nut. Many of these terrorists are the same ones who want to wipe israel off the map. So, if we dont wipe israel off the map and believe they exist, we have a flawed foreign policy.

There will ALWAYS be a reason to attack america. ALWAYS. If its not our foreign policy it is because Disney/Coke/Mcdonalds are corrupting the poor islamic kids of the world.

Yawn.

 

no they believe that the US have forced western civilisation on their nations. how would you feel, if another nation such as Saudi pressured its culture on the US because it was more powerful and your economy rested on it.

your foreign ploicy is the same as Disney/coke etc, the corporations and the govenement are pretty much the same thing. american cutlure are these corporations, and islamic states do not want these corporations taking hold in their nation. the london bombings happened because of UK foreign policy, the terrorists said so themselves. and 9/11 happened because of US foreign policy

 

their beliefs are unacceptable.

They are murderers. There is NO justifying what they do. If they want to fight the US, fight the US military. Instead, they attack civilians.

 

And so does our military, Megara, and in far greater numbers and with far more devastating long term effects than any supposed "terrorist" boogeyman you so sheepishly ascribe to.

Time to take your head out of the sand and examine the historic record behind your regurgitated "official" soundbites. Washington's legacy around the globe is about as dirty as it comes.

 

are you saying one wrong justifies another wrong lickerish?

Are you justifying what they do?

 

this is where many misinterpret liberals, we are not justifying them, but we are saying that we can't do as they do, as we are therefore as bad as they are. we contradict our beliefs of what we apparently live. we cannot continue being hypocritical

 

Txbarefooter made a very good post - much of the information squares with what I have read about the Middle East. I also thought that the analogy expressed above comparing post war behavior following WWI and WWII was very good. I am not sure that the US would stage an attack on its own people. However, I do believe that we are in Iraq for unjustifiable reasons and that we are creating more problems for ourselves by being there.

 

Well that depends on who "they" are Megara. So far there's been nothing but allegations without any shred of evidence for any of the supposed "terrorist" boogeymen going back to the seminal event of 911 itself.

Given the track record of lies from those screaming "terrorists" the loudest (and most often), I'd say there's more liklihood of false flag operations behind this Neocon agenda-advancing WoT than any widespread threat such as you and other soundbite regurgitators are wont to believe in.

Connecting the dots is, I fully understand, so hard for so many. Perpetuating the status quo of Washington's global dominance depends desperately on that sad truth.

 

it is very easy to just say "its america's foreign policy" that causes our problems.

For example, bin laden said his anger against the US is because of US soldiers in the holy land. We've had troops in Saudi Arabia(at their behest) since 1991 because of Saddam Hussein. Did we deserve 9/11 because of this? What about having our embassies bombed? Did we deserve the first attack on the WTC?

 

it is a lot easier for people to say- oh they are just evil people who are brainwashed to kill us.
nobody deserved 9/11 but foreign policy didn't help you prevent such an attack, it was obvious that an attack was going to happen eventually, the US had a lot of warning that their policy was going to cause hatred and that certain groups may attack. the US does not have a good foreign policy, they have a policy where they push their ideology on the rest of the world.

 

Bin Laden also categorically denied and involvement with 911. Since you seem to believe in words accredited to him, perhaps you'd take stock of that fact and reexamine the big picture in light of those profitting most both in terms of unaccountable assumption of power as well as an ongoing winfall of budgetary largesse.

Even easier to fall for one of the oldest diversionary tactics in the powermongers handbook, namely the creation and increasing exaggeration of the looming outside threat. A tactic you have apparently bought into hook, line and sinker.

 

so a good foreign policy is one that will piss off the fewest people? What if what they believe is right is wrong?

We recognize the right of israel to exist. This alone causes iran to be angry at us.

So, i'll ask again. Was the fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia in response to Saddam Hussein a GREAT EVIL? Should we have NOT done this? Should we base our foreign policy on what wont piss off the fringe of society?

 

We had troops in Saudi, megara, for maintaining hegemonic status quo in the region throughout the Cold War era, not because of Saddam. You definitely need to go educate yourself on US foreign policy and military history going back decades.

 

no you should base foreign policy on respecting others cultures. not interfering in nations because of selfish reasons. the US gov't do not care too much for the israeli people, they care because they have links with israel and they need a western-type nation in the middle east, states only act for selfish needs, that is how world politics work.

why should you have troops in saudi, what right did you have- great money and oil links??

 

uh, this means what? We recognize Israel. Iran hates israel. Iran denouces America for supporting Israel.

edit: How much of our hatred in the region is caused because we recognize the right of israel to exist? Do you think it is justified that people hate us because we recognize the right of a nation to exist? Is it OUR fault or theirs?

We were there at the behest of their government.

So, was this a great evil on our part? That we were there at the behest of the saudi government? That we violated NO international law in being there. Is this our flawed foreign policy? Yes or no, please.

 

So do many leading Anti-Zionist academics and organisations both in Israel and in the US.

Any more simplistic notions you wish to base your ill-informed regurgitations upon?

 

i do not know enough about that actual situations, as i was quite young at the time and havn't studied it yet, but from what i have studied i know that current foreign policy is going to end the US in huge amounts of trouble and if you believe the govt at present that terrorists are just evil (no other reason) and that we should go to other nations to seek said terrorists for reason we don' want to tell you then go ahead.

i am not justifying the nations in the east and what they believe, but the US needs to stop being hypocritical, the US is supposed to stand for freedom and liberty (at least in the past) but now countires just think war/bombing and the american empire