Public Must Learn About US Backed Genocide in East Timor

[Backpacker777]

The story of the US backed genocide in East Timor needs to be told to alert the public to the truth about US brutality towards third world countries that the controlled media attempts to hide from us.

The story needs to be told so that all flag-waving, neo-con types can see some of the horrific atrocities the US has committed around the world and been complicit in, thus refuting the myth that we are 'the good guys' and showing the US's utter hypocrisy in accusing other countries of being 'Axis of Evil' nations when we ourselves have aided and abetted in atrocities in other countries that are just as bad, if not worse, than things they have done.

The US backed genocide in East Timor is only one example in a long succession of examples of US atrocities in the third world committed via CIA coups, dirty wars, and our support for corrupt dictators. It needs to be told so that the American public can see exactly why America is so hated around the world and that President Bush's line that 'They hate us because of our freedoms' doesn't exactly fit the bill.

It needs to be told so the public can know the truth that the United States also is a state sponsor of terrorism.

In 1975 Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger sat at a state dinner with Indonesian dictator Suharto, the ruthless dictator who the CIA brought to power in 1965 in an incredible bloodbath, (another story in itself), and reassured him that the US would not shut off the flow of arms to him if he invaded neighboring East Timor, a small island critical to accessing the oil reserves in the Timor Sea.
The next day Suharto invaded. In the capital, Dili, citizens were dragged down to the sea and shot in droves. Over the next 24 years the US consistently supplied Suharto with arms for the brutal occupation and genocide. Estimates place the death toll at 180,000 murdered during the occupation until the US finally shut off the flow of arms in 1999.

The mainstream media imposed a blackout on the genocide. A few small articles were written noting that Indonesia had invaded but then the subject was blacked out for the next two decades. Details of the US backed genocide did not emerge until the 90's.

The East Timor Commission for Reception, Truth, and Reconciliation has documented the atrocity in detail. The documentation is posted on the East Timor Action Network's website.


East Timor Action Network

http://etan.org/news/2006/cavr.htm

Here is the East Timor Truth Commission's website

http://www.cavr-timorleste.org/Trut_seeking.htm


Excerpts:


East Timor truth commission finds U.S. "political and military support were fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation"

Report estimates 100-180,000 Timorese killed or starved 1975-1999

"Responsibility" chapter published on Web by National Security Archive

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 176

Edited by Brad Simpson
Director, Indonesia-East Timor Documentation Project
Phone: 443-845-4462
simpson@umbc.edu

Posted - January 24, 2006



The Indonesia/East Timor Documentation Project


Washington, D.C., January 24, 2006 - The final report of East Timor's landmark Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR) has found that U.S. "political and military support were fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation" of East Timor from 1975 to 1999, according to the "Responsibility" chapter of the report posted today on the Web by the National Security Archive, which assisted the Commission with extensive documentation.

The Commission report, entitled "Chega!" ("Enough" in Portuguese), estimates that up to 180,000 East Timorese were killed by Indonesian troops or died of enforced starvation and other causes resulting from the occupation between 1975 and 1999. The "Responsibility" chapter details the primary role of the Indonesian military and security forces, as well as the supporting roles played by Australia, Portugal, the United States, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, and France.

Click on the image above to read the section of the CAVR report pertaining to U.S. responsibility.




The report (p. 92) finds that "U.S. supplied weaponry was crucial to Indonesia's capacity to intensify military operations from 1977 in its massive campaigns to destroy the Resistance in which aircraft supplied by the United States played a crucial role." Moreover, "U.S. Administration officials refused to admit that the primary reason that East Timorese were dying in their thousands was the security policies of the Indonesian military."

The CAVR used more than 1,000 formerly secret U.S. documents provided by the National Security Archive's Indonesia and East Timor Documentation Project, which published on the Web in November 2005 several of the key documents detailing U.S. support for the invasion and occupation of East Timor across five U.S. administrations

World Policy Institute Research on US arms provisions to Suharto during the Genocide.

http://worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/indoarms.html


Some mainstream news reports made after the truth finally got out.

Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/24/AR2006012401688.html

International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/01/news/timor.php

Times Online

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article598076.ece

[Backpacker777]

Article from the International Federation for East Timor comparing Ford to Hussein because of his actions on East Timor


http://etan.org/ifet/

CounterPunch.org
Weekend Edition January 6 / 7, 2007
Standards for Rembrance
Crimes Against Humanity From Ford to Saddam
By JOSEPH NEVINS

Now that both Gerald Ford and Saddam Hussein are dead and buried, the question of how they will be remembered here in the United States arises. If the talk of officialdom and the mainstream media outlets thus far is any indicator-and surely it is-the U.S. collective memories of the two leaders will be diametrically opposed.


As one might expect, official Washington's reactions to the two deaths have been as different as night and day, with Democrats following the White House lead in lockstep. President Bush expressed sadness in the wake of Ford's death, calling the former president a "great man" while Representative Nancy Pelosi voiced respect for Ford's "fair and reliable leadership." By contract, George Bush welcomed Hussein's execution, characterizing it as "an important milestone on Iraq's course to becoming a democracy," and Senator Joseph Biden, the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declared with satisfaction that "Iraq has . . . rid the world of a tyrant."
On the surface, it makes sense to judge the two men in such divergent ways. After all, an Iraqi court convicted Hussein of a crime against humanity for ordering the deaths of 148 Shiite villagers in Dujail. While the court was of the kangaroo variety, there's no doubt that the Dujail massacre was only one of many atrocities he oversaw while ruling Iraq. Gerald Ford, to the contrary, was never even indicted for any such crime.

But this distinction, it turns out, reflects a double standard for judging similar conduct. If we do not limit our analysis of Ford to his role as a U.S. "statesman," and instead examine his behavior through an internationalist lens similar to that employed to judge Saddam Hussein and concerned with crimes against humanity, we find that Ford, too, was responsible for mass murder-in East Timor. The responsibility goes further than Ford's now-well-known giving to Indonesia the proverbial green light to invade. What the green light metaphor obscures is just how decisive Ford's authorization was, and how his complicity with Indonesia's crimes continued throughout his brief White House occupancy.

On Dec. 6, 1975, Ford and Henry Kissinger, his secretary of state, were in Jakarta, Indonesia to meet the country's dictator, General Suharto. Ford was fully cognizant of Indonesia's plans to launch an imminent invasion of the former Portuguese Timor. According to declassified documents published by the Washington-based National Security Archive, Ford assured Suharto that with regard to East Timor, "[We] will not press you on the issue. We understand . . . the intentions you have." (1)

Suharto needed Washington's go-ahead due to a 1958 agreement that prohibited Indonesia from using U.S.-origin weaponry, which made up 90 percent of Jakarta's arsenal at the time, except for "legitimate national self-defense." (2) For this reason Kissinger suggested that the invasion be framed as self-defense, thus circumventing any legal obstacles.

Kissinger then expressed understanding for Indonesia's "need to move quickly" and advised "that it would be better if it were done after we [he and Ford] returned [to the United States]." About 14 hours after their departure, Indonesian forces invaded neighboring East Timor.

While Indonesian forces massacred civilians during the first hours of the Dec. 7 invasion, Ford spoke at the University of Hawaii. There, he declared-apparently with a straight face-his commitment to a "Pacific doctrine of peace with all and hostility toward none," and spoke of an Asia "where people are free from the threat of foreign aggression." (3)

Ford and his White House successors helped make sure that his lofty vision was not realized in Indonesia-ravaged East Timor. According to the now-independent country's truth commission report, released late last year, Indonesia's war and illegal occupation resulted in many tens of thousands of East Timorese deaths, widespread rape and sexual enslavement of women and girls, and, in the waning days of Jakarta's presence, systematic destruction of the territory's buildings and infrastructure. (4) Today, East Timor is one of the world's poorest countries. It is, according to a 2006 United Nations Development Program (UNDP) report, a country "chained by poverty." (5)

Over the almost 24 years of Indonesian rule, Democratic and Republican administrations alike provided invaluable diplomatic cover and billions of dollars' worth of weapons, military equipment and training, and economic aid to Jakarta. For such reasons the truth commission report characterizes U.S. assistance as "fundamental" to the invasion and occupation, and calls upon Washington to apologize and pay reparations to East Timor.

Washington's considerable share of the blame for East Timor's plight does not rest solely at Ford's feet. But it was Gerald Ford that opened the door to this dreadful chapter in history.

There is little doubt that Ford's authorization was key to Indonesia's invasion. Intelligence and diplomatic documents reveal that Jakarta was so worried about how the U.S. would react to its aggression that Suharto had vetoed earlier plans to invade. Had the United States (along with its allies, especially Australia and Britain) said "no" to Jakarta's invasion prior to its launching, the Suharto regime would have been in a very difficult bind and most likely have reversed course. And, given the profound anti-communism of the regime, it could hardly have turned to the likes of the Soviet Union as an alternative.

As William Colby, the head of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1975, told an interviewer during the 1990s, if the United States had vetoed Indonesia's plan to invade, "[w]e certainly would have had a little diplomatic strain there," but nothing beyond that, the implication being that Jakarta would have backed down. He went on to suggest that Jakarta had no other options apart from securing Washington's compliance and to ask rhetorically, "where would have [Suharto] gone" had the Indonesian ruler not been not happy with the U.S. position? (6)

Nonetheless, Ford's administration had previously warned Indonesia against using American weaponry in any planned aggression. But any reservations that the administration may have had about the employment of U.S. weaponry seem to have disappeared by Dec. 6, 1975, with horrific results for the people of Timor-Leste, as the now-independent country is officially known..

One week after the meeting in Jakarta, Ford sent Suharto a package of golf balls as "a personal gift." (7) In the months that followed, his U.N. ambassador, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, prevented the United Nations from taking effective steps to compel Jakarta to end its illegal aggression. ( Later in 1976, Ford's administration shipped a squadron of U.S. OV-10 "Bronco" ground-attack planes to Indonesia's military, ones ideal for counterinsurgency of the type it was waging in East Timor.

In the 1990s, journalist Allan Nairn interviewed Gerald Ford and asked him if he had authorized the invasion, Ford replied, "Frankly, I don't recall." As Nairn recounted recently on Democracy Now!, Ford explained that there were many topics on the December 6, 1975 meeting agenda, and East Timor was one of the lesser items. (9)

While Ford had the luxury of forgetting-an example of what we might call imperial privilege-the people of East Timor are condemned to remember: they will live with the physical, social, and psychological effects of the horrific war and occupation for decades.

According to the 2006 UNDP report, 90 out of 1,000 children there die before their first birthday; half the population is illiterate; 64 percent suffers from food insecurity; half lack access to access to safe drinking water; and 40 percent live below the official poverty level of 55 cents a day. Meanwhile, a study conducted by the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims determined that about one-third of East Timor's population suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. (10)

This is a legacy for which we should remember Gerald Ford, just as Saddam Hussein will justifiably be memorialized for his role in crimes against humanity.

[kiwisongbird]

Wow! A bit too much for me to read, but I think I read enough!

I know many Americans, and knowing individuals has indeed helped me to know that you guys are wonderful and that there are many things to love about you. I'm thankful for these boards and for people I've met here in Thailand...

But, well, reading stuff like this - stuff that is not from some conspiracy site, but rather from an official country site - certainly upsets me.

I hope other can read it and not merely get angry, but perhaps begin to admit that just because someone is a leader doesn't mean that they are above committing acts that are wrong and perhaps evil...

I don't understand a lot about the arms race and things like that, but I do understand that quite a bit of your economy is related to the manufacture and sales of these weapons of war. Maybe someone could explain that to me in a simple manner. I wouldn't mind hearing from both sides of the coin.

I love my American friends.

[Veni Vidi Velo]

Not to diminish the problems in Timor, but why would anyone think the US government is going to do anything to abate it if it's not willing to do anything about the genocide taking place in the United States right now? There have been 47 million children murdered in cold blood, for profit, in this country to date, and still one of our major political parties & the liberal knotheads in this country want to cloud the issue as "a women's right to choose".

[Backpacker777]

I agree. The flag waver crowd is quick to accuse other countries of being terrorist nations yet they conveniently sidestep the fact that the US is also a state sponsor of terror. Our terror just doesn't make the headlines.

[Evanescence]

[QUOTE][In 1975 Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger sat at a state dinner with Indonesian dictator Suharto, the ruthless dictator who the CIA brought to power in 1965 in an incredible bloodbath, (another story in itself), and reassured him that the US would not shut off the flow of arms to him if he invaded neighboring East Timor, a small island critical to accessing the oil reserves in the Timor Sea.
/QUOTE]

Henry Kissinger? Where have I heard that name before???

Hmmm....Oh, yeah. Bush placed him in charge of the 911 Commission....

Imagine that...:rolleyes:

[Pouye]

I've already stated that the USA has been involved in "backing" (a term which is biased) different nations and states. The USA, European countries (individually and as a block), China, Russia (the list goes on) play a world game of balancing power and influencing outcomes. This is no surprise to some.

For instance, it is no secret (the US government's own website) that the USA has been Saudi Arabia's number one arms supplier for over 50 years. Since the creation of Israel as a nation, the USA has also been their number one supplier. Money is power, and the USA tends to dish out money to those parties who have US interests in mind. This is simply world/global politics.

Now for the disclaimer. When a country with muscles like the USA supplies money and arms to another country, that "powerful" country is not responsible for how the other country chooses to act. In fact, in many cases the deal backfires (sometimes literally!). In the world politics game, sometimes the one you are supplying money and arms to either bites you bad, or something changes with their structure (a coup, for instance) and suddenly your "friend" is now your enemy. In Afghanistan, for instance, both Russia and the USA have been bitten in this manner.

When a nation "supported" by another (usually more powerful nation) uses that support to go to war or to kill lots of people (genocide), people like to point fingers at the supplying nation -- but often the supplier is not "backing" (or in agreement with) the way they are doing things. In fact, the USA has been stabbed in the back many times by nations who we were "supporting" because they used that support in a way that we did not like or want.

Yes, there are "crooked" war games going on all of the time. This has happened since the beginning of time, and will continue. I'm not saying the USA is innocently giving out money and weapons and shouldn't be questioned why and to whom. Personally I think it is a bad idea arming Saudi Arabia so heavily, even though I know why we have been for many decades. I also think that providing "support" for nations that do not directly have US interests (some countries indirectly aid the USA by virtue of their other relationships but they themselves do not like us very much) is a bad idea.

The problem is when people get this idea that everything is either "good" or "bad" in terms of how international politics (and policies) work. Movies always portray the "Evil Empire" and the "Good Side". Reality, however, is that some decisions are very complex and can potentially bite you no matter which way you go. You try to envision the outcomes, but things don't always turn out the way you would have hoped. Sometimes the USA has made an utter mess by supporting a group/state/whatever that ended up being disastrous. The USA has thousands of pages of documents of failed missions and screwed up attempts at doing what they thought was the right thing at the time but ended up being the wrong thing.

Sometimes two groups hate each other so much that if you give either side the "bigger stick" they will genocide the other. In some cases, there is the option of not getting involved at all... but then look at all of the criticisms and international "outcries" that comes to the USA (or Europe, etc.) for not doing anything! Some situations are simply a "lose/lose".

Saying that the USA supports a country that is involved in genocide because they are the "Evil Empire" -- Bush is "The Emperor" and Cheney is "Darth Vader" is a very childish way of looking at things. It is good for conspiracy theorists, but a broad picture of why things are happening is better painted when you consider all of the factors involved. Sometimes a powerful government will support a country that then does something really stupid. The supporting country can choose to withdraw the support... but that can also have ramifications that could potentially be disastrous. World politics are not simple for some countries because some countries have lots of power and some do not. Some smaller and less powerful countries get caught up in the game and get beat up badly. It is not just the USA involved in doing these things. It is many other power players -- all of which are doing what they think is the best for themselves and their allies.

So is the USA (at least indirectly) responsible for the atrocities that other countries commit, especially when they commit them with the "support" of the USA (money, arms, aid, special agreements, etc.)? That is a good question. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. But if you are already biased one way or another, you will usually not get to the truth in the matter. You will either always vilify the USA, or you will always "support the actions of the good ol' US of A".

Rock

[Backpacker777]

When a nation "supported" by another (usually more powerful nation) uses that support to go to war or to kill lots of people (genocide), people like to point fingers at the supplying nation -- but often the supplier is not "backing" (or in agreement with) the way they are doing things. In fact, the USA has been stabbed in the back many times by nations who we were "supporting" because they used that support in a way that we did not like or want.

Rock

That contention is beyond ridiculous. The US provided a steady stream of arms to the Suharto regime for 24 years over five successive US administrations! Furthermore the govt made sure the controlled media did not break the story to the public. The story was blacked out for two decades. Furthermore, it was Ford and Kissinger who gave Suharto the green light to invade while at a state dinner in Jakarta!

Furthermore, the US had a bi-lateral agreement with Jakarta that their arms would be used for defensive purposes only but Ford And Kissinger quietly reassured Suharto that the US would not cut off the flow of arms if he used them for offensive purposes.

That is not 'innonently trying to make a buck by selling arms and not knowing what they were going to do with them.

That is willfull aiding, abetting and being complicit in mass murder.

Mr. Ford died with the blood of those people on his hands while the flag waver crowd remembered him as a 'great statesman'.

[clemsontigers23]

You know what? I'm tired of this "let's all get together and bash America" sentiment. Yes, our country's not perfect. We've had some downright bad leaders over the years. But what are you going to do about it? Sit at your computer and post countless articles about how bad we Americans are, or do something to try and counter the bad with good? What is all of this complaining going to get you? I'm proud to be an American and although our nation has seen its share of troubles, it's still the greatest nation in the world and I'm proud to live here. Our nation is the ONLY nation with a Constitution founded on the Word of God and is a nation where I can go to church and worship freely whenever I want to. Instead of complaining about how bad America is, let's work to make it better. We can start by voting for patriots who will bring morality and God back into our administration of domestic and foreign affairs. Sitting in front of a computer and complaining about it's not gonna help, though.

[Evanescence]

You know what? I'm tired of this "let's all get together and bash America" sentiment. Yes, our country's not perfect. We've had some downright bad leaders over the years. But what are you going to do about it? Sit at your computer and post countless articles about how bad we Americans are, or do something to try and counter the bad with good? What is all of this complaining going to get you? I'm proud to be an American and although our nation has seen its share of troubles, it's still the greatest nation in the world and I'm proud to live here. Our nation is the ONLY nation with a Constitution founded on the Word of God and is a nation where I can go to church and worship freely whenever I want to. Instead of complaining about how bad America is, let's work to make it better. We can start by voting for patriots who will bring morality and God back into our administration of domestic and foreign affairs. Sitting in front of a computer and complaining about it's not gonna help, though.

I agree Clemson....and we can start by STOPPING with the excuse making and mindless scoffing. Esp when provided with clear, 100% true evidence....

[clemsontigers23]

I agree Clemson....and we can start by STOPPING with the excuse making and mindless scoffing. Esp when provided with clear, 100% true evidence....

I agree. If our government is indeed corrupt, then we must work to return it to the way it was designed to operate when our Founding Fathers designed it. Educate yourselves, VOTE, and do so by the will of God. God DOES belong in politics, as He belongs in everything we do. Keep that in mind when you vote and pay close attention to the person's religious beliefs as it should be the core of their lives.

[hochspeyer]

Seems like Indonesia has got it made ... I always thought that they were a Soviet client.

[Pouye]

That contention is beyond ridiculous. The US provided a steady stream of arms to the Suharto regime for 24 years over five successive US administrations! Furthermore the govt made sure the controlled media did not break the story to the public. The story was blacked out for two decades. Furthermore, it was Ford and Kissinger who gave Suharto the green light to invade while at a state dinner in Jakarta!

Furthermore, the US had a bi-lateral agreement with Jakarta that their arms would be used for defensive purposes only but Ford And Kissinger quietly reassured Suharto that the US would not cut off the flow of arms if he used them for offensive purposes.

That is not 'innonently trying to make a buck by selling arms and not knowing what they were going to do with them.

That is willfull aiding, abetting and being complicit in mass murder.

Mr. Ford died with the blood of those people on his hands while the flag waver crowd remembered him as a 'great statesman'.

Have you ever asked yourself the question "why"? What sources do you have on the "other side" of the argument? Sane people do not generally go around thinking about how to genocide a people. I don't think you are getting all of the facts from both sides. Not only that, but there are other factors involved in these "games" which are bigger than just Indonesia. I'm not saying anyone is innocent or guilty. I'm saying that before you jump to conclusions, you might want to find out the bigger picture. I know that atrocities have been committed, but like I said in my post, the USA is not ultimately responsible for an evil leader's actions and how he uses what has been given to him.

Rock

[Evanescence]

Have you ever asked yourself the question "why"? What sources do you have on the "other side" of the argument? Sane people do not generally go around thinking about how to genocide a people. I don't think you are getting all of the facts from both sides. Not only that, but there are other factors involved in these "games" which are bigger than just Indonesia. I'm not saying anyone is innocent or guilty. I'm saying that before you jump to conclusions, you might want to find out the bigger picture. I know that atrocities have been committed, but like I said in my post, the USA is not ultimately responsible for an evil leader's actions and how he uses what has been given to him.

Rock

Rock, you almost sound like you are defending or making excuses for genocide???

This CIA coverup is just one of many, many things going on with the rogue CIA. In the real world you'd go to jail for selling arms to someone who commits murders.

And the CIAs alignment with the Mossad is another distrubing thing...

[Backpacker777]

Have you ever asked yourself the question "why"? What sources do you have on the "other side" of the argument? Sane people do not generally go around thinking about how to genocide a people. I don't think you are getting all of the facts from both sides. Not only that, but there are other factors involved in these "games" which are bigger than just Indonesia. I'm not saying anyone is innocent or guilty. I'm saying that before you jump to conclusions, you might want to find out the bigger picture. I know that atrocities have been committed, but like I said in my post, the USA is not ultimately responsible for an evil leader's actions and how he uses what has been given to him.

Rock

Why? Oil. There are vast oil reserves in the Timor Sea.

That statement of yours that the USA is not ultimately responsible for an evil leader's actions and how he uses the arms we gave him is a complete crock.

Let me repeat myself: The US had a bilateral agreement with Jakarta that the arms were to be used for defensive purposes only. But at the state dinner the night before Suharto invaded Ford and Kissinger reassured him that the US would not cut off the flow of arms to him if he used them for offensive purposes in Timor. That in itself is a felony for which Ford should have been impeached and prosecuted.

Over 1000 declassified documents demonstrate clearly that the US govt. knew full well what it was doing and conspired to cover up the truth and hide it from the public.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB174/press.htm


And we call other countries terrorist nations?

[Backpacker777]

Here is a short 5 minute video clip:

Genocide in East Timor (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2379713353189275869&q=Genocide+In+East+Timor+ Amy+Goodman&total=5&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)


Or if you have more time on your hands, a 2 1/4 hour video:

Massacre in East Timor: A Case Study in US Foreign Policy (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=575672930 1390353247&q=Genocide+In+East+Timor+ Amy+Goodman&total=6&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2)

[Evanescence]

Why? Oil. There are vast oil reserves in the Timor Sea.

That statement of yours that the USA is not ultimately responsible for an evil leader's actions and how he uses the arms we gave him is a complete crock.

Let me repeat myself: The US had a bilateral agreement with Jakarta that the arms were to be used for defensive purposes only. But at the state dinner the night before Suharto invaded Ford and Kissinger reassured him that the US would not cut off the flow of arms to him if he used them for offensive purposes in Timor. That in itself is a felony for which Ford should have been impeached and prosecuted.

Over 1000 declassified documents demonstrate clearly that the US govt. knew full well what it was doing and conspired to cover up the truth and hide it from the public.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB174/press.htm


And we call other countries terrorist nations?

I have studied these Docs and Packers right.....it was war profiteering at its best....:mad:

[Pouye]

Why? Oil. There are vast oil reserves in the Timor Sea.

That statement of yours that the USA is not ultimately responsible for an evil leader's actions and how he uses the arms we gave him is a complete crock.



Let me repeat myself: The US had a bilateral agreement with Jakarta that the arms were to be used for defensive purposes only. But at the state dinner the night before Suharto invaded Ford and Kissinger reassured him that the US would not cut off the flow of arms to him if he used them for offensive purposes in Timor. That in itself is a felony for which Ford should have been impeached and prosecuted.


So the evil leader was supposed to use the arms for defensive purposes only but he didn't... and the USA is responsible for his actions? I still fail to see the connection. Just because the USA said they wouldn't cut off the arms doesn't make the USA responsible for an evil leaders use of them -- for genocide or any other purpose.

Now to say that what the USA did in relating to Suharo was wrong, I would actually agree with you. But supplying arms to someone who is doing evil things and actually doing those evil things are not the same thing. The USA didn't command Suharo, nor did they control him. He did this on his own volition.

I'm not justifying genocide -- so don't even go there. I'm appalled that genocide happens like everyone else. However, I'm not ready to play the blame game and pin things on the USA that don't belong on them. Suharo was guilty of using US arms against a people. He should be punished. If the USA breached some international agreement, then they should be punished for the breach, but not punished as if they were the ones who carried out the evil of genocide.

Rock

[Backpacker777]

So the evil leader was supposed to use the arms for defensive purposes only but he didn't... and the USA is responsible for his actions? I still fail to see the connection. Just because the USA said they wouldn't cut off the arms doesn't make the USA responsible for an evil leaders use of them -- for genocide or any other purpose.

Now to say that what the USA did in relating to Suharo was wrong, I would actually agree with you. But supplying arms to someone who is doing evil things and actually doing those evil things are not the same thing. The USA didn't command Suharo, nor did they control him. He did this on his own volition.

I'm not justifying genocide -- so don't even go there. I'm appalled that genocide happens like everyone else. However, I'm not ready to play the blame game and pin things on the USA that don't belong on them. Suharo was guilty of using US arms against a people. He should be punished. If the USA breached some international agreement, then they should be punished for the breach, but not punished as if they were the ones who carried out the evil of genocide.

Rock

You are twisting words around. The evil leader went ahead with the invasion because Ford and Kissinger gave him the green light to invade. They broke their own bilateral agreement by assuring Suharto they would continue to supply him if he used the arms for offensive purposes. I suggest you read declassified document number four regarding Ford and Kissinger's assurances to Suharto http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/index.html#doc4

Yes the USA is responsible because this is not merely a case of selling arms to an evil leader and not knowing that he would break the agreement to use them for defensive purposes only. This is a case of the President and Secretary of State actively encouraging him to break the agreement and go ahead and attack.

The analogy is that of the US using Suharto as a hit man to get Timor out of the way and get control of the oil.

You consistently keep on ignoring the fact that the US supplied Suharto with arms for the genocide over a period of 24 years over five successive US administrations! Why do you keep on sidestepping this?

You are 100 percent dead wrong. Knowingly supplying arms to an murdering dictator over a period of 24 years when you know full well what he is doing with those arms is aiding and abetting and being an acessory to mass murder!

[Pouye]

You are twisting words around. The evil leader went ahead with the invasion because Ford and Kissinger gave him the green light to invade.


You are the one doing the twisting. They didn't tell Suharto to invade. They didn't stop him, either. "Gave him the green light" is not the same thing.


They broke their own bilateral agreement by assuring Suharto they would continue to supply him if he used the arms for offensive purposes. I suggest you read declassified document number four regarding Ford and Kissinger's assurances to Suharto http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/index.html#doc4


I've read it. And I agreed with you that the agreement wasn't treated right. A broken trade agreement is not the same things as murdering thousands of people.


Yes the USA is responsible because this is not merely a case of selling arms to an evil leader and not knowing that he would break the agreement to use them for defensive purposes only. This is a case of the President and Secretary of State actively encouraging him to break the agreement and go ahead and attack.


Actively encouraged? They didn't tell him or command him to do anything.


The analogy is that of the US using Suharto as a hit man to get Timor out of the way and get control of the oil.


That is your analogy.


You consistently keep on ignoring the fact that the US supplied Suharto with arms for the genocide over a period of 24 years over five successive US administrations! Why do you keep on sidestepping this?


I'm not ignoring any facts. The USA has supplied arms to many countries who have been involved in genocide. So has European countries. It should also be noted that neither the United States nor the other influential powers made any serious effort to stop money or weapons being channeled into Kosovo when they had their own genocidal war.


You are 100 percent dead wrong. Knowingly supplying arms to an murdering dictator over a period of 24 years when you know full well what he is doing with those arms is aiding and abetting and being an acessory to mass murder!

That is your summation and opinion, and you are entitled to it.

Rock