
Books – Stephen Kinzer, former correspondent for the New York Times and author of the new book, "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq," talks about Iran at The Milken Institute in Los Angeles, then chats with Netscape News.
Alexia:
Stephen Kinzer's talk at The Milken Institute was so interesting that we've decided to offer it in its entirety, unedited, as a podcast.
You can also download the podcast here.
2007-03-12 09:17:47
If the public knew its US history in the mideast, we'd never have given President Bush the blank check we did on Iraq. We messed with the government in Iraq the same way we messed with Iran, and it has always been about oil.
What this video shows are our blind spots--first communism and now terrorism.
If you are honest with yourself and understand the facts, you cannot blame the Arabs for fighting back against America and Israel.
We`ve been deposing democratic governments and democracy movements around the world for decades, including Iran in the 50`s and Venezuela only six years ago.
I just heard on NPR that the Israeli population in the `legal` and illegal settlements has risen 5% in just the last year alone. This from the same government that says the Palestinians are dangerous and they need to put a fence around the Pals to protect `innocent` Israelis. What a load of crock. The Pal-Israeli conflict continues to be nothing more than about stealing land and breaking promises. Even Bush`s roadmap, which no Republican has the guts to enforce, says most settlements must go.
Now, if we invade the Palestinian territory and kick the Israelis back to the 1967 borders (which they have agreed to anyway), anti-American terrorism will disappear.
This guy seems to make a number of conclusions, which may (or may not) be based on fact. I thought this was going to be a book based on personal knowledge and observations, but it turns out to be based on research of "historical documents." Which may be OK, but when you do that, how do you know A) The documents are authentic and accurate and B) you have located ALL the relevant documents. It's also hard to know, for sure, that you have correctly interpreted the contents of all the documents you HAVE found, considering you MAY NOT be fully aware of the context in which those documents belong. It is very interesting though...
joeblowe,
You pose some valid questions, but they apply to all works of history. Probably no single work is completely unbiased, and that's why it's a good idea to rely on several different works when one forms an opinion. Scientists and, I guess, historians don't expect you to accept anything on blind faith. If something looks fishy, you can do your own research and contradict them. That's how bias is slowly filtered out.
I'm dealing with that very subject now for my Moder American History class; the subject of my term paper is about the 3 types of foreign policy since the end of the Civil War - expansioism, isolationism, and interventionism.
History and historians are a dichotemy and the interesting thing about them is that they depend on each other.
loverman,
You might find this of interest.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/12/declin
It is a relatively short piece on the fall of the Roman Empire.
more:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/01/desola
I think you will find it useful re: interventionism or as I prefer "protecting the trade routes". Something we have been doing since the first war with the Barbary Pirates in 1801.
Simon,
Thanks for the info.
I see interventionism as a policy that's mainly ideological, but certainly not exclusively.
The dynamics of this policy get their direction from a perception of power both diplomatic and economic. For example, how the U.S. acquired Hawaii is economic and Guam as diplomatic.
The other face of interventionism is how we dealt with the Soviet Union's influence - backing governments or overthrowing governments - not exclusively for economic gain, but for ideological gain.
Not a member? Sign-up today!