Clinton Administration: North Korea, Iran, Cuba are not rogue states

[IndianaGreen]

The Clinton Administration was very bellicose, until Bush came along and made them all look like the church choir.

In June 2000, Clinton's State Department dropped the inflammatory term "rogue state" when referring to North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Cuba and Sudan, preferring the more neutral “states of concern.” Here is an article about that, and the rationale for it.

State Department drops the term "rogue state"—cynicism and crisis in US foreign policy

By Patrick Martin

24 June 2000

US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said June 19 that the State Department will no longer use the term “rogue state” to designate the handful of countries which have been targeted for exceptionally harsh diplomatic and trade sanctions by the US government. Countries like North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Cuba and Sudan will now be referred to as “states of concern,” a spokesman for Albright explained later.

Before examining the content and implications of this decision, it is worth considering the way in which it was announced. Albright dismissed the term “rogue state” in the course of a call-in program on National Public Radio, as she told a questioner that the State Department no longer considered the term an appropriate one. This impromptu comment was then elaborated by State Department spokesman Richard Boucher in response to press inquiries.

This offhand manner underscores the cynicism of American imperialism. The US has used the epithet “rogue” to demonize countries that ran afoul of American foreign policy and commercial aims, deliberately choosing the term to conjure up an image of countries whose leaders—and people—were, as it were, contaminated with the virus of terrorism. The implication was that virtually any measures were justified against such nations.

In the name of combating the “rogue state” of Iraq, the US-led embargo has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. Similar measures have caused economic devastation in Cuba, North Korea and other countries. The US has bombed the “rogue states” Iraq, Libya and Sudan.

But now, without any explanation to the American people, almost as an after-thought, the terminology is casually discarded, as though the matter were of no greater import than the color of Madame Albright's purse.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/rogu-j24.shtml

[TeamJordan23]

1. Albright still believes the sanctions that killed thousands of Iraqi children were the right. nm

[Hippo_Tron]

2. Did the sanctions kill them or was it Saddam refusing to feed his people?

[IndianaGreen]

3. The Clinton sanctions killed all those Iraqi children!

In the euphoric aftermath of the fall of Baghdad. the Pentagon admitted that the "no-fly zones" were a pretext to soften Iraq for a future US invasion. The Pentagon candidly said that our pilots were deliberately provoking the Iraqis to launch their missiles, so then we could bomb a multitude of targets.

The Clinton Administration was warmongering on Iraq, and was not interested in diplomacy. They coveted the oil, for the Clinton neoliberals were not much different from Cheney's neocons.

Sure, one could argue that Bill Clinton preferred bombing to an outright invasion and thus, he would have avoided the quagmire that Bush got us into, but that misses the point. We had no legal justification for the "no fly zones," for they were never sanctioned by the UN. In addition, the sanctuary we created for the Kurds also had the effect of providing a launching pad for Kurdish terrorists to conduct raids deep into Turkey. Shall we mention that Al-Qaeda training camp in Northern Iraq that thrived while we were keeping Saddam from taking control over his country?

These are things that happened during the Clinton Administration. The point I am trying to make is that Bush did not go into Iraq by his lonesome. Not only he had bipartisan support to launch his disastrous war, but there was also a history of imperial designs on Iraq's oil that predated the Bush regime.

If we succeed in nominating a Democrat that really stands for change, rather than a return to the ancient regime, I hope we do some serious soul searching as to our role in a post-Bush world, and the price we had paid for pursuing an agenda of global domination.

[Solve et Coagula]

4. Images of IRAN that western media will not show you!

Images of IRAN that western media will not show you!

WOW- Slide show of images in Iran MEDIA WILL NOT SHOW YOU:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFfHjNximGg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egodlikeproductions%2Ecom%2Fbbs%2Fmessage%2Ephp%3Fmessageid%3D418016%26showdate%3D7%2F29%2F07%26display%3D30%26page%3D1