Vice President Dick Cheney visited an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf on May 11 and addressed 4,000 sailors and Marines who were ordered to stand in the 100+ degree sweltering heat to accommodate him. Cheney expressed his determination to see the U.S. complete the mission that President George W. Bush claimed had been accomplished four years ago.
"We want to complete the mission, get it done right and return with honor," Cheney said, according to the Associated Press.
By saying "we," Cheney really meant, "without me," of course.
Although the VP's speech inadvertently refuted the "Mission Accomplished" proclamation by Bush in 2003, he stood in jackbooted lockstep with a most unusual cohort, the former president Jimmy Carter. It seems surreal that such extreme idealogues could actually be playing on the same team, but while present-day propaganda prevails, history records the facts.
In his State of the Union address to the nation in January 1980, Jimmy Carter said these words:
Let our position be absolutely clear. An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.Not coincidentally, the U.S. had just lost control of Iran the year before when the Iranian Revolution overthrew the Shah. Most Americans do not know that the Shah was brought to power in 1953 in the aftermath of a CIA covert operation known as "Project Ajax" (led by Kermit Roosevelt — grandson of Teddy and cousin to FDR). The U.S. overthrew the democratic government of Iran in order to reinstate British Petroleum's control over the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
After losing Iran, Carter wasted no time in annexing the entire region as "U.S. vital interests." He particularly pointed to the Persian Gulf region, which most Americans do not know provides passage for roughly 25 percent of the world's oil. Carter's declaration that the Persian Gulf would be controlled by the U.S., even if it meant using military force, was a declaration of war. In other words, America was prepared to kill anyone who sought to dominate that region, despite the fact that we had no legal or moral justification.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
It doesn't belong to us. But the eastern side of the Straits of Hormuz, however, which connects the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea, does indeed belong to Iran.
You might want to get your basic facts straight. The Persian Gulf doesn't belong to anyone. US ships there are either in international waters, or in the terrotorial waters of friendly nations with their permission. That's not some sort of horrible aggression as you so intemperately and incorrectly suggest.
Dave
2 - Clavos
And the same goes for the Gulf of Mexico:
The Gulf of Mexico " not the Persian Gulf " is within the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States.
The only part of the Gulf of Mexico "within the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States" is the coastal contiguous zone of the US territorial waters, which, since 1999, by Presidential proclamation have extended 24 miles offshore the coast.
Mexico claims territorial waters of 12 miles.
The rest of the Gulf of Mexico is international waters.
3 - Mike Green
Thanks for your input. I appreciate the focus on the specifics of territorial regions, which does not address the focus of the article, which is that the U.S. initiated an aggressive campaign of terrorism against Muslims in the Middle East, beginning with the CIA overthrow of a democratic government in 1953.
From that point in history, the U.S. continued its aggression against the Muslim peoples in both Iran and Iraq, including befriending Saddam and providing him with assistance during his many years of murderous terror against the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites in both Iraq and Iran.
The rationale for all of such immoral and illegal activity by the U.S. government was simply to establish power in the region and control the oil flowing from it.
When Americans like you and me choose to argue over whether or not a patch of water is open to all or forcibly controlled by one nation, our government receives a pass on the scrutiny that it ought to receive. Yet, instead of holding the U.S. government accountable for the horrendous atrocities it has committed in the name of the American people, many of the American people are arguing over whether or not the U.S. "needs" the ill-gotten black booty it acquires through death and destruction.
Your points are well taken. But please remember that I did not state the U.S. or any other nation owns the Persian Gulf. Nor did I state the U.S. owns the Gulf of Mexico. I did say that one side of the Straits of Hormuz belongs to Iran and the Gulf of Mexico is within the sovereign territory of the U.S.
I believe you agreed with me when you stated that the sovereign territory of the U.S. extends 24 miles into the Gulf of Mexico. That would establish the fact that the Gulf of Mexico is within the territory of the U.S.
You may have assumed I meant the entirety of the Gulf, which I did not mean to say. The Gulf of Mexico does indeed extend to the borders of this nation, as well as Mexico and a few other places as well.
By arguing over such minutia there is a detraction from the real issues. Perhaps you would like to address the legitimacy of the U.S. overthrow of the Iranian government by the CIA?
Or perhaps you would comment on the support of a brutal tyrant dictator brought to power for 26 years in Iran by the U.S. covert ops?
Or perhaps you may wish to speak about the oil that flowed freely from iran under the control of both the U.S. and UK with British Petroleum turning the valve?
Or maybe you will comment on the strong support Saddam received from the U.S. beginning with Jimmy Carter and through Reagan and Bush (43) up until August 2, 1990 ... despite worldwide condemnation of Saddam's invasion of Iran, 8-year war, use of chemical and biological weapons, and numerous atrocities committed upon his own peoples?
When I make the attempt to turn America's attention to the unconscionable acts of a government that presumably represents the will of the people, inevitably there are those who will sift through word by word to ensure I have dotted every i and crossed every t. If those same folks would use the same talents and skills for holding the government accountable to the people, perhaps the public would be better informed and the government would get away with less evil committed in the name of the American people.
Please forgive the tone of this response. I am just overwhelmed at times at how the focus of the debate can so easily be shifted from the most important issue. Let's hold our government accountable and see if we can agree on whether or not we support its policies, words and actions that are done in our name.
4 - Mike Green
I believe my statements stand regarding both the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Mexico. I did not state that either belonged to any nation. I said that the eastern side of the Straits of Hormuz belong to Iran, through which the Persian Gulf passes to the Arabian Sea. I also said that the Gulf of Mexico is within the sovereignty of the United States. My point was not that the entirety of the Gulf belongs to the U.S., but rather that it extends into our sovereign territory, as it does into Mexico's region as well.
I assure you that this nation would be up in arms if Arab ships were patrolling the Caribbean Sea or Gulf of Mexico ... or any of the areas currently patrolled by the U.S. military, despite the notion that international waters belong to no nation.
Nonetheless, the aggression demonstrated by the U.S. in covert ops that overthrew a democratic gov't in Iran, and both covert and overt operations to support Saddam for more than a decade are issues that deserve more scrutiny than a debate over where international and national territories begin and end.
Perhaps if the same scrutiny applied to this article were also be applied to the past 54 years of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, we might not have a need to parce the debate over water when millions of lives have been lost due to unprovoked and immoral decisions made by our government. It would do us well to watch our leaders more closely than their critics.
5 - Clavos
You did write,
"The Gulf of Mexico...is within the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States."
Which, de facto, is incorrect.
If you're offended, perhaps a little more precision in your writing will solve your problem.
It would do us well to watch our leaders more closely than their critics.
Mmm. But, then:
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
6 - MCH
"Cheney expressed his determination to see the U.S. complete the mission that President George W. Bush claimed had been accomplished four years ago."
This "determination" served Cheney well 35 years ago, when he doggedly pursued five seperate deferments to dodge the draft during the Vietnam War.
7 - MCH
And the main difference between Dick Cheney and Jimmy Carter being the fact that Carter actually served in the military (US Navy, 1946-53...Lieutenant...USS Pomfret and USS K-1), while "Chickenhawk" Cheney was a draft dodger.
8 - Dave Nalle
The rationale for all of such immoral and illegal activity by the U.S. government was simply to establish power in the region and control the oil flowing from it.
Which I have to point out was for the most part not achieved by creating oppression, but by supporting governments which were peaceful and allowed relatively large amounts of freedom. When left to their own devices the same nations which the US interfered in have invariably installed governments which were more oppressive and killed more of thier people than the US supported regimes ever did.
As for the US support of Saddam, despite the fact that he was a communist and a tyrant, he was supported as the lesser of two evils when compared with Iran. Remember that his genocides and other abuses mostly came AFTER the US supported him and resulted in the withdrawal of our support.
Dave
9 - Mike Green
The presumption that U.S. policies do not create oppression is misleading.
The "policy" created by the CIA, which functions as a covert operation of the executive branch, was to overthrow a democratic government in 1953. Which government was that? Italy, according to declassified documents from the NSA. Italy's election saw the rise of a promiment socialist that the U.S. was dead set against seeing get into office. Thus, the CIA plotted to overthrow Italy at the same time it plotted to overthrow another democratic government ... Iran.
Italy was spared. Iran was not.
The oppression began immediately, First, in the form of murder. Hundreds died in the coup orchastrated by Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of Teddy, cousin of FDR). The man brought to power was the son of the former Shah (who was an ally of Hitler).
The Shah of Iran, from 1953 to 1979, when he was ousted by a revolution of the people, was listed as one of the worst offenders of human rights the world over. His oppressive policies included the creation of the SAVAK (secret police trained by the U.S.) that kidnapped, tortured and murdered (similar to the acts of our current CIA, which spirits folks away into secret prisons). The Shah punished his enemies with death. He worked together with Kissinger and others in the White House to assist the Kurds in an uprising in Iraq and then promptly abandoned them when Hussein signed the Algiers Accord in 1975, which moved the boundaries between the two nations into the middle of the Shatt river in order that Iran might transport oil barges to the Persian Gulf.
The Ayatollah provided newsletters disclosing the Shah's penchant for "radical" living outside of the laws and faith of Islam. For this he was arrested and eventually exiled.
Iran's economy plummeted to ruin due to the Shah's cooperation with the U.S. and Great Britain, which enjoyed the oil from Iran while the Shah used the money to "modernize" his nation, much to the chagrin of the oppressed press, oppressed women, oppressed education system, dogmatic and dominated political system, etc.
On every level of the presumed freedoms Americans care about, the Shah was viewed as a tyrant and brutal dictator. Not to mention the pesky fact that the hypcritical U.S. installed and supported a dictator in a once-democratic nation.
When we support our government in its quest for domination and manipulation of the world, it appears to me that we ought not think as hypocrital leaders do, but rather apply the decisions and actions of our government to other nations as well. We ought to ask ourselves, would we be supportive of other nations overthrowing our government, installing dictators here and suppressing our media, our rights and our laws? Would we be okay with the strong overpowering the weak and managing the systems of their lives, which includes the implementation of malicious immoral policies that bring about untimely death?
Moreover, would we be supportive of any other nation making decisions, as our government has, that causes death and destruction to impact millions of people in order to augment a standard of living?
A bit of incredulity sinks in when I hear ideas that build on the foundation that America is right and everyone else is wrong, no matter what decisions our leaders make in our name. Additionally, it surprises me to hear that this nation of immigrants thinks so highly of itself that the lives of Muslim babies, African babies, Vietnamese babies, Korean babies, Latin babies, etc. can be so easily dismissed as a necessary calculation justified by a political, economic and military strategy to dominate the world.
Perhaps the lives of Americans are not merely equal to the lives of others the world over. Maybe our lives are truly more valuable. Perhaps I've got it all wrong, thinking that equality of human life ought to factor in decision-making processes in this country.
I may have to re-think my assessment of our government's role in the world.
10 - Baronius
Mike, you missed the point of the Carter Doctrine: outside interference. It was never about US aggression towards the Persian Gulf states, only protection against outsiders. It's the equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine. So Cheney's comments address a completely different question.
11 - Nancy
Personally I have gotten to the point where, if I hear anybody in the US government claim something is so, I automatically assume that's a lie until it's proven to not be so, the US government under this & other administrations having proven over & over again almost to the point of the invariable that they are incapable of telling the truth about anything, even when there's no reason on earth to lie, exaggerate, or distort - & BushCo is just the most recent & egregious of liars.
12 - RJ
"Carter's declaration that the Persian Gulf would be controlled by the U.S., even if it meant using military force, was a declaration of war."
Uh...Carter was pretty much the most dovish, pacifist President the US has ever had. If you are trying to make him out to be some sort of warmongering hegemonic maniac, I don't believe you have much credibility...
13 - RJ
"he U.S. initiated an aggressive campaign of terrorism against Muslims in the Middle East"
Wow. Talk about Orwellian...
14 - RJ
"the Gulf of Mexico is within the sovereign territory of the U.S."
Not all of it. Not even much of it. Most of it is international waters.
15 - RJ
"I believe you agreed with me when you stated that the sovereign territory of the U.S. extends 24 miles into the Gulf of Mexico. That would establish the fact that the Gulf of Mexico is within the territory of the U.S."
Sigh...
Just about every country in the world claims several miles of ocean/sea/lake that extends beyond its land borders as their territory. But the vast majority of the Gulf of Mexico is beyond 12 or 24 or even 100 miles from US land. Therefore, the US does not own the Gulf of Mexico, nor does it claim to own the Gulf of Mexico.
You're funny, though. Keep posting.
16 - RJ
"quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Love it, Clavos! Latin from a Latino. Good stuff.
Send your lady my best wishes. Everyone's, really.
17 - STM
RJ said: "Love it, Clavos! Latin from a Latino."
Bernardo O'Clavos.
18 - MCH
"Uh...Carter was pretty much the most dovish, pacifist President the US has ever had. If you are trying to make him out to be some sort of warmongering hegemonic maniac, I don't believe you have much credibility..."
Uh, Carter believed that words without action were irrelevant. Weird, huh?
19 - Dave Nalle
Uh...Carter was pretty much the most dovish, pacifist President the US has ever had. If you are trying to make him out to be some sort of warmongering hegemonic maniac, I don't believe you have much credibility...
Carter did take a fairly hard line with OPEC. He was under a lot of pressure because of the gas shortage. And he also ordered the invasion of Iran by Delta Force, though that didn't come off so well. Carter also deployed a limited number of US troops in Jamaica and authorized CIA operations in Nicaragua and Panama, including an attempt to assassinate Panamanian dictator Omar Trujillo. Oh, and he also sent US troops to Zaire to back up the Belgians and French, and continued our involvement in Angola which had started under Ford.
I suppose he was relatively non-interventionist compared to other recent presidents, but he was hardly a pacifist. Remember what he tried to do to that innocent bunny.
Dave
20 - Clavos
@ #s 16 & 17:
RJ and Stan,
Yes, gents, a few remnants of that schoolboy Latin still remain sequestered in the far reaches of what remains of my brain.
Bernardo O'Clavos, eh? Good thing we're not in Chile, Stan; the natives would probably lynch you for blasphemy, dragging Sr. O'Higgins' name through the mud like that.
21 - RJ
"he also ordered the invasion of Iran by Delta Force, though that didn't come off so well."
It wasn't an invasion; it was a (failed) rescue attempt.
22 - Dave Nalle
Well, it was 100-some US troops on foreign soil. Not a conquering army, but certainly a big territorial violation.
Dave
23 - Mike Green
"Uh...Carter was pretty much the most dovish, pacifist President the US has ever had. If you are trying to make him out to be some sort of warmongering hegemonic maniac, I don't believe you have much credibility..."
With an objective insight into the actual decisions and acts of former President Jimmy Carter regarding his role in the current crisis in the Middle East, one must begin at the point of where the relationship between the U.S. and Iran fell apart.
Today, Iran remains on the radar of special forces, military ops and CIA covert ops. Every president since Carter has propagandized Iran to be a horrific fearsome power that must be dealt with by the U.S. or risk endangering American vital economic interests and freedoms.
Today, Bush and Cheney talk of conflict with Iran.
The point of this ongoing rhetoric regarding Iran began with one leader ... Carter. In the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution, the U.S. lost its puppet dictator and control over the oil flowing form the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
Carter's response to that loss?
He befriended Saddam Hussein and assisted, if not urged him into invading Iran in September 1980.
Carter's speech in January 1980 claimed that any "outside force that attempts to control the Persian Gulf will be taken as an assault upon the vital interests of the United States ... and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."
Within 8 months of that speech, the U.S. was involved in assisting a brutal dictator invade its neighboring country. That happened to be the country the U.S. lost control over the year prior. It also happened to be one of the most oil-rich nations in the Middle East aside from Saudi Arabia.
Carter's premise apparently worked to direct the minds of Americans toward the Soviet Union. But if we look at the actions of the U.S. government, we see that its focus since that speech has remained solely upon two targets ... Iran and Iraq.
Despite the fact that 27 years have passed, the targets remain the same.
If Carter was dovish, he was the most vicious dove ever created.
His policy regarding using military force to control oil in the Middle East, is the policy that has never changed since his presidency. And because of that policy, this nation has caused the deaths of untold numbers (in the millions) of people. Not to mention the fact that since Bush (41) sent over 500,000 troops to invade Iraq and "defend Saudi Arabia" in 1991, America's military has lost more than 33,000+ troops that have served in Iraq, along with more than 200,000+ wounded.
The decision that became a catalyst for ongoing death and destruction a hemisphere away in the name of America isn't the decision made by a Christian following the moral teachings of Christ. Instead, it is a decision made by a hawish leader that understood the ramifications of walking away from the Middle East once our CIA-installed puppet was ousted from Iran.
Nations have a right to defend themselves against aggression from others, including aggression initiated by the U.S.
Carter had an opportunity to walk away from the aggression the U.S. initiated against Iran and maintained for 26 years (1953-79). Even the Iranian Hostage Crisis did not occur in the immediate aftermath of the Ayatollah's return to to Tehran. Instead, it was sparked by the Carter's admission of the Shah into the U.S. for presumably cancer treatments. Yet another decision Carter made that wasn't the least bit dovish, since Kissinger and others advised him of what would occur if he provided a safe haven for the ex-brutal dictator of Iran.
Carter also had an opportunity to turn the Shah over and get out of the hostage crisis. Instead, he risked the lives of all those kidnapped Americans in order to protect the life of a brutal dictator, which aside from an apology, was the only demands made by the students that held the hostages in the embassy.
Carter ought not be the sacred cow of presidents. He, like those before and after him, were liars and manipulators who deceived the American public and made decisions that had long-range remifications ... not the least of which has been the death and destruction of millions of innocent lives.
24 - RJ
"since Bush (41) sent over 500,000 troops to invade Iraq and "defend Saudi Arabia" in 1991, America's military has lost more than 33,000+ troops that have served in Iraq, along with more than 200,000+ wounded."
33,000???
200,000???
Are you out of your mind?
25 - Mike Green
I would like to state for the record that I am indeed sane, and in my right mind. Outrage and personal attacks are typical knee-jerk reactions to information that defies conventional wisdom and threatens the paradigm into which one has totally invested. I do empathize.
Instead of asking anyone to delve into the 3 1/2 years of research I painstakingly presented in story format in my book, "The WHOLE Truth about the U.S. War on Terror: answers to every question you never knew to ask," I would ask detractors to make a cursory investigation be made into the claims I make prior to presenting a rebuttal.
The VA mortality rates are offered in table format for anyone curious enough to search for them. The raw data without analysis and filtration provides a clear understanding of the amount of troops that have served in the Middle East since August 2, 1990, and specifically Iraq. The data also offers the mortality numbers for troops broken down into categories. Those categories delineate between those who served in Iraq and those who have served in other areas outside of the war theater.
Additionally, the VA offers us the numbers of wounded as well.
One of the reasons why someone would venture to take a look back to 1990 and maintain the count of dead and wounded from that day to this is simply because the U.S. has been involved in a war in the Middle East from 1990 to this very day. That war, which the media pretends began in 2003, actually began 13 years earlier and never ended.
When one looks at the military service and the sacrifices being made in the name of the American people, one has to wonder why? Surely the American people do not have much concern for those who served in Iraq and paid the ultimate price prior to 2003. Certainly the U.S. media has long forgotten our brave men and women who gave their lives believing they were doing something valiant in the name of America. But in fact, they were merely sacrifical lambs, innocent bodies serving an undeserving and unconcerned bunch of ignorant Americans who unwittingly offered them up to vicious, malicious, callous leaders to be sacrificed upon an altar of political allegiance and public apathy.
Today, I am considered by a tiny few to be out of my mind because I care enough about our troops to learn the truth and spread it among those who ought to hear it.
I say to Americans, please watch the backs of those who would willingly die watching yours. At the very least, stop believing the propaganda in the press, Pentagon, the White House and Congress. Do a little research on your own and see if what you think you know is really true.
When someone says to you, "Here are facts you don't know," at least be willing to say, "Okay, let me look into it and get back to you."
When we do that, we open a door of discussion and civil conversation. It is through that door that truth and understanding resides.