Ke Ao Maoli
These are Important Articles Which Were Posted Over Time:
2002 - Sandanistas document U.S. as a Terrorist Nation
Terrorism as Foreign Policy
By Stephen Gowans
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, terrorism is the "use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
When George W. Bush gave the CIA a green light to 'to topple or capture' the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, using violence and 'deadly force' if necessary," he adopted terrorism as his official foreign policy regarding Iraq.
But terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy isn't a recent innovation. It has long been used by great powers, not least by the United States, to achieve geopolitical goals.
In fact, the United States and other great power allies, like Britain, have been the most ardent, and destructive, practitioners of terrorism. But because Western governments present their acts of terrorism as legitimate, necessary and sometimes even humanitarian, we don't see that the greatest terrorist acts of all haven't been incubated in Afghan caves, or refugee camps in the West Bank, but in richly-appointed government offices in places like Washington, Tel Aviv and London.
After relentlessly bombing German cities in World War II, Winston Churchill drafted a memorandum to his chiefs of staff. "The moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed," he wrote. "Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land." (1)
The horrors of the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo would later be followed by the greatest single terrorist act in history, the atomic incineration of thousands at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Frequent programs of terror would follow.
When the Sandinistas came to power in Nicaragua, ousting the US-backed dictator Samosa, Washington organized former members of Samosa's dreaded National Guard to carry out terrorist attacks against civilian targets, such as schools and medical clinics. The hope was that the use of force against people and property would be sufficiently coercive and intimidating to topple the new government. The contra's terrorism, on top of the economic terrorism of U.S. sanctions, eventually did topple the Sandinistas, but not before the World Court convicted the United States of....terrorism. Strange that the United States, which demonizes countries its calls sponsors of terrorism and sanctimoniously appoints itself to rid the world of the scourge, is the only state to be convicted of this reprehensible act.
Washington has also sponsored terrorist attacks against Cuba, the Bay of Pigs invasion being the most well known, but only one of dozens, if not hundreds, of attacks launched from the United States with either the government's passive knowledge or active connivance. And these days at the centre of U.S. foreign policy in the Americas lurks Otto Reich, the Undersecretary of State for Hemispheric Affairs, a virulent anti-Castro Cuban exile, linked to terrorist attacks on the Caribbean country.
U.S. backed and supported death squads in Central and South America, which have actively terrorized civilian populations, have also served Washington's political and ideological ends, intimidating and coercing movements and organizations that threaten U.S. hegemony. And a major training centre for death squad terrorists is the U.S. Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation at Fort Benning, Georgia, known by its detractors as "the school of assassins". The school trains Latin American soldiers in what it calls counterinsurgency, but what often amounts to terrorizing domestic populations for political and ideological reasons. Colombia, which has the worst human rights record in the Americas, has sent over 10,000 soldiers to the school.
In Afghanistan, the CIA organized the mujahideen, Islamist fanatics, to use violence against people and property -- in other words, terrorism -- to topple the Communist government. Zbigniew Brezinski, national security advisor to Jimmy Carter, told an interviewer in 1998 that the U.S. began funnelling aid to the mujahideen terrorists six months before the Soviet Union intervened, with the intention of drawing the Soviets into their own Vietnam. (2)
After the Soviets withdrew and Afghanistan's Communist government fell, some mujahideen made their way to the Balkans, carrying out terrorist attacks in Bosnia and Kosovo. As late as 1998, the U.S. State Department listed the KLA, to which it would later provide aid, as a terrorist organization linked to the most notorious mujahideen terrorist of all, Osama bin Laden.
But while the United States record on sponsoring terrorists is bad enough, its record in directly using violence against people and property to achieve political ends is infamous.
Since World War II some 35 million people have died in wars, (3) many of them wars the United States has been at the centre of, in pursuit of political and ideological objectives. Ninety percent of the dead have been civilians, many killed in indiscriminate bombing raids by the U.S. Air Force.
"Air bombardment is state terrorism," notes political scientist, C Douglas Lummis. "It is the terrorism of the rich. It has burned up and blasted apart more innocents in the past six decades than have all the anti-state terrorists who ever lived." (4)
When a U.S.-led NATO bombed Yugoslavia for 78 days in the spring of 1999, killing hundreds, if not thousands of civilians, U.S. Air Force Lt. General Michael Short's explanation of NATO's strategy sounded exactly like the American Heritage Dictionary definition of terrorism. Said Short, "If you wake up in the morning and you have no power to your house and no gas to your stove and the bridge you take to work is down and will be lying in the Danube for the next 20 years, I think you begin to ask, 'Hey, Slobo, what's this all about? How much more of this do we have to withstand?'" (5)
And when British Defense Staff, Adm. Sir Michael Boyce, declared the bombing of Afghanistan, led by U.S. forces, would continue until "the country themselves recognize that this is going to go on until they get the leadership changed," (6) it just seemed more of the same. Great powers are prepared to use violence on a massive scale to intimidate and coerce civilian populations, for political and ideological reasons.
So while terrorism may seem the preserve of men with exotic sounding Arabic names, it is hardly exotic, or uniquely Arabic. On the contrary, most of the terrorism practised during and since World War Two has either been sponsored, or directly carried out, by the United States, with far more murderous and destructive consequences than Palestinian suicide bombings or 9/11. Indeed, the number of Afghan civilians estimated to have died in U.S. bombing raids, to say nothing of those who have died of starvation and cold in refugee camps after being driven from their homes by U.S. bombs, exceeds the number of people who died as a result of the 9/11 attacks. (7) While one doesn't justify the other, it does show that U.S. terrorism can be more destructive than even the most destructive al-Qaeda connected attack.
But apologists for U.S. terrorism argue that American acts of violence (which they call self-defense or humanitarian intervention) are justified because they're aimed at stopping or pre-empting illegitimate, illegal or far worse acts of terror. Moreover, they claim the U.S. doesn't deliberately target civilians, while terrorists, and terrorist states, do.
This is artful.
It can hardly be said a campaign of bombing doesn't produce massive terror, or that the killing of civilians and the destruction of civilian property is not an inevitable outcome of the air wars the United States and its allies carry out.
And it's hardly the case that recent American acts of terror were necessary. While Washington said it had to bomb Yugoslavia to stop what it claimed was a Serb campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, almost all the Kosovo-related events of which former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is accused, happened after the bombing. And the deal NATO reached with the Yugoslav government after 78 days of terror bombing was almost identical to the deal Milosevic proposed before the bombing began. Why was the bombing campaign necessary?
Washington's campaign of terror bombing over Afghanistan began, it will be recalled, after George W. Bush's demand that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden was met by the eminently reasonable request to see evidence of bin Laden's culpability. Rather than producing the evidence (which the U.S. government has yet to present to anyone, including the American people) Bush opted for terror bombing. Had he furnished the Taliban with evidence of bin Laden's guilt, the al-Qaeda leader may have been brought to book and Washington could have avoided a massive campaign of terror against innocent Afghans. So what has the campaign of terror availed, besides more deaths than the original reason for the war -- the 9/11 attacks -- produced?
Rather than reducing the threat of terror attacks, the FBI and CIA say the threat has increased.(8) It seems al-Qaeda's infrastructure wasn't uprooted after all. Instead, there are a now whole lot more people who hold grudges against the United States. And with al-Qaeda operatives dispersed across dozens of countries, it was unlikely from the start that bombing Afghanistan was going to disrupt the terrorist organization.
But even apart from the terror bombing failing to achieved its stated objectives, the absurdity of saying that American terrorism is necessary and legitimate, where all other terrorism is unjustified under any circumstances, should be clear.
Palestinians face military occupation, denial of their human rights, repression and daily humiliation, yet we deny this as grounds to justify Palestinian terrorist attacks. Palestinian grievances must be addressed in non-violent ways, we insist.
And while Washington's insistence on maintaining sanctions against Iraq has occasioned other legitimate grievances (according to the U.N., sanctions have killed well over a million Iraqis), we deny this as justifiable grounds for terror attacks.
Saying that the terrorist acts of the U.S. and its allies and proxies are justifiable while those of its enemies are not, is unrelieved hypocrisy. It amounts to saying terrorism directed at America's enemies is just, while terrorism directed at America, and its janissaires, is unacceptable under any circumstances. Talk about a self-serving double-standard.
Terrorism is always unjustifiable, no matter who's behind it. Even if it is the official foreign policy of one's government.
(1) The Guardian (London), August 24, 2001
(2) William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, Common Courage Press, 2000.
(3) Gabriel Kolko, Century of War: Politics, Conflict and Society Since 1914 (New York: New Press, 1994), 470.
(4) C Douglas Lummis, The Nation, September 26, 1994
(5) Washington Post Foreign Service, May 24, 1999
(6) The Guardian (London), December 20, 2001
(7) Marc W. Herold, "A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan: A Comprehensive Accounting", http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/20-5/casualties12-10.html
(8) The Guardian (London), June 17, 2002
You may re-post this article, providing the text remains unchanged.
Join our e-mail list. Send an e-mail toWhat's Left and write "subscribe" in the subject line.
January 8, 2003
Ex-Bush speechwriter: I was to provide a justification for war
By Stephen Gowans
In late December 2001, chief presidential speechwriter Mike Gerson "was parcelling out the components of the forthcoming State of the Union speech. His request to me," recalls David Frum in his new book The White House in The Right Time: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush, "could not have been simpler: I was to provide a justification for a war."
And so was born the phrase "the axis of evil."
A year later, the impending all-out assault on Iraq is spinned as "a war of liberation." And there's a certain truth to the claim.
It will be a war that could liberate up to 500,000 Iraqis of their lives, according to the British healthcare group, Medact.
It will be a war that could liberate 200,000 Iraqis of their homes, and 10 million of their security against hunger and disease, according to a new UN report.
And, above all, it will be a war that will liberate Iraq of its oil wealth and put America more wholly in charge.
It will indeed be a war of liberation.
And one long in the making.
Key Bush cabinet members had been pushing for a take-over of Iraq and its oil fields for some time.
In September, 2000, Dick Cheney, now vice-president, along with his current chief of staff Lewis Libby, and Donald Rumsfeld, now Secretary of Defense, along with his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, laid out a plan to create a new American century, in which the United States would be supreme in the world, the first truly global empire.
The plan adumbrated regime change in Iraq, that is, the installation of a US puppet regime in Baghdad.
The events of 9/11 were pressed into service to provide the trigger.
Within hours of hijacked jets careening into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, Rumsfeld was ordering his staff to find something that could be used to pin the blame on Iraq.
National Security advisor Condoleeza Rice ordered her staff to consider the opportunities 9/11 provided, as if the grim events of that day were a sliver lining that could justify the vigorous extension of US hegemony.
In his book, Frum recounts how he spent two days dreaming up a pretext for "going after Iraq," eventually hitting on the "axis of evil" idea, which he originally conceived of as the "axis of hatred" but which Gerson changed "to use the theological language that Bush" (mirroring Osama bin Laden) "had made his own since Sept. 11."
While Frum denies the decision to launch a ground invasion had been made when he was asked to "sum up in a sentence or two our best case for going after Iraq," the events leading up to Frum's inventing a pretext for the mass murder suggest the decision had been made long before that.
But more revealing is Frum's attack on the antiwar camp, for in dismissing its arguments, Frum lets slip the real reasons for the impending slaughter: American control of the Middle East.
"I knew that opponents of action against Iraq relied on two main points," Frum writes. "First, they say there was no direct, conclusive proof that Saddam Hussein aided the Sept. 11 terrorists."
This, Frum does not deny, but says Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda are linked in "resenting the power of the West," his rationale for drawing all four into an axis. (North Korea was added at the last minute, he explains, because "it needed to feel a stronger hand.")
"Saddam Hussein was certainly a very bad man, so was Stalin," Frum acknowledges. "We had relied on deterrence, not war, to contain him; why should we not do so with Saddam, who after all controlled a much weaker state than the old Soviet Union?"
Actually, it was less Stalin, and more Washington, with its insatiable appetite for meddling in Central and South America, in Africa, in Indochina, that needed to be contained, but lay that aside. In reply, Frum says this argument is nothing more that resentment of American power.
"An American-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein...and a replacement of the radical Baathist dictatorship with a new government more closely aligned with the United States--would put America more wholly in charge of the region than any power since the Ottomans. People who resent American power...very understandably dreaded such an outcome."
In Frum's view, there's a lot of resenting going on, all having to do with Washington's throwing its weight around to "more wholly take charge," and while it's no doubt true that Washington's jackbooting around the world occasions considerable resentment (as the Nazi's did), it's clear that Frum regards the resenting as somehow illegitimate.
Certainly, in the case of countries or organizations, resenting a US take-over is sufficient to earn your way onto Washington's hit-list; resentment is the tie that binds set upon countries into an axis.
Frum's views are entirely consistent with the tacit doctrine that holds sway among his journalistic colleagues in North America and the UK (Frum now writes for Canada's viciously right-wing, Washington-aligned The National Post) that the United States is now the legitimate world ruler, whose authority must be obeyed. Under this regime, ideas of national sovereignty are illegitimate, for all countries (at least the weakest ones, unable to fight back) are to consider themselves subordinate, and are to make way for Washington to manoeuvre itself into a position where it can be "more wholly in charge."
Emblematic of this thinking is the way North Korea is presented in the Anglo-American media: as defiant, for refusing to be bound by an international agreement Washington long ago abandoned, but has commanded Pyongyang to comply with. The very act of asserting one's national sovereignty or right of self-defense in the face of American edicts is considered a defiant act, as if Washington's power to compel compliance rests on legitimate authority and not simply the threat of force or economic warfare.
On the other hand, Washington can unilaterally rip up as many international agreements as it likes, undermine some (such as the International Criminal Court), refuse to be bound by others, and brazenly thumb its nose at international conventions (such as those established at Nuremberg,) and this veridical rogue behavior is regarded as perfectly legitimate, the actions of a sovereign.
Stripped of its verbiage, Frum's account reduces to this: "I was asked to provide a justification for a war that would put Washington more wholly in charge of the region that any power since the Ottomans."
For Frum, and the velociraptors plotting mass murder in the name of strengthening American primacy, there can be no cause higher than service to Washington's imperial ambitions. Inventing justifications for mass murder, are, therefore, wholly justifiable.
Pity those who resent it.
Frum's book is being excerpted in The National Post. His recounting of his inventing a pretext for going after Iraq appears in the January 8, 2003 edition.
You may re-post this article, providing the text remains unchanged.
Join our e-mail list. Send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org and write "subscribe" in the subject line.
|www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI6lXsiHpCUMar 2, 2012 - 2 min - Uploaded by SamSeder
From the Majority Report, live M-F 11:30am EST and via daily podcast at http:// Majority.FM: David ...
|on.aol.com/.../david-frums-role-in-the-axis-of-evil-spe...Apr 25, 2012 - 2 min
David Frum, resident fellow at American Enterprise Institute, talks about his role in writing the Axis of Evil speech.
Jan 29, 2012 8:50 PM EST
US President George W. Bush delivers his first State of the Union Speech 29 January 2002 (PAUL RICHARDS / AFP / Getty Images)
It has been less than a week, and already it's hard to remember a single line from President Obama's most recent State of the Union address.
Yet people are still arguing about the State of the Union delivered by George W. Bush 10 years ago Sunday: the famous, or notorious, "axis of evil" speech. I played a small part in the crafting of that speech. Rereading it again after this long interval of time, I'm impressed to see how well it stands up—and how wrong so many of its critics were.
Ten years ago, President Bush asserted that the world's leading rogue regimes and a variety of terrorist groups together formed an "axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world."
Those words touched off possibly the most explosive reaction ever heard to a presidential speech: an outpouring of enraged criticism that reverberates all these years later.
The criticism could be summarized under three main headers:
1) It was naive, paranoid, or outright deceptive to suggest that rogue states and terrorist groups might cooperate across ideological or theological lines. Communist North Korea would never cooperate with Shiite Iran. Shiite Iran would never aid Sunni Hamas.
2) By pointing fingers at these regimes, the president disrupted fruitful negotiations and cooperation.
3) And what about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Didn't they support terrorism? Why were they omitted from the memorable axis?
Criticism #1 is the criticism most thoroughly debunked by subsequent revelations. The whole world now knows what 10 years ago counted as highly sensitive intelligence information: rogue regimes do cooperate, and support for terrorism does cross ideological and theological lines.
From the New York Times, Nov. 2010:
Secret American intelligence assessments have concluded that Iran has obtained a cache of advanced missiles, based on a Russian design, that are much more powerful than anything Washington has publicly conceded that Tehran has in its arsenal, diplomatic cables show.
Iran obtained 19 of the missiles fromNorth Korea, according to a cable dated Feb. 24 of this year.
The missiles could for the first time give Iran the capacity to strike at capitals in Western Europe or easily reach Moscow, and American officials warned that their advanced propulsion could speed Iran’s development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.
From CNN, April 2008:
U.S. intelligence officials will tell members of Congress on Thursday that North Korea was helping Syria build a nuclear facility, according to a source familiar with internal administration discussions. The facility in question was bombed by Israeli planes in September.
From the leading book on Hamas, by a former intelligence analyst at the US Treasury, published in 2007: "The Islamic Republic of Iran ... is Hamas's most important and explicit state sponsor. ... Estimates of Iran's financial assistance to Hamas vary, but there is unanimity on one score: the sum is significant ... at least $25-50 million in 1995 and 1996."
I could fill the column with more examples, but you get the idea. The president's claims in 2002 have been fully corroborated by later knowledge.
The second criticism—that Bush's tough words prevented cooperation with Iran and North Korea—has also been discredited. The period 1997-2001, the period when Iran was supposedly most open to cooperation with the West, was precisely the period in which Iran was investing heavily in the nuclear sites in Natanz and Arak that were exposed to the world in the summer of 2002.
Yes, the Iranian regime had bad relations with the Afghan Taliban, the prime exporters of heroin into Iran. Yes, the Iranian regime was happy to stand aside as US forces overthrew Mullah Omar and his gang. But the claim circulated at that time that the Axis of Evil speech derailed some possible “grand bargain” with Iran was the purest wishful thinking. When the Taliban fell, the Iranians extended refuge to fleeing al-Qaeda members, including relatives of Osama bin Laden. Work on the nuclear program never slowed.
In 2009, a new American president put to the test the hopes that a US appeal might gain a positive Iranian response. Instead, the regime rigged its 2009 presidential elections; jailed, tortured, and killed protesters; and proceeded apace toward a nuclear bomb.
In North Korea likewise, the Axis of Evil speech did not disrupt any good-faith negotiations, for the compelling reasons that there were no good faith negotiations to disrupt. Both regimes valued their nuclear programs more than they valued good relations with the US. If they could dupe the US into offering good relations while continuing their nuclear programs, they were delighted to do that—but if abandonment of their nuclear programs became a serious price for good relations, they then preferred bad. That choice was always theirs, not America’s.
Indeed, the only pause in the Iranian nuclear program occurred in the two years after the invasion of the Iraq, when Qaddafi of Libya surrendered his nuclear program and a frightened Iran slowed down its weaponization. It was the hard line, not the soft line, that briefly diverted Iran from its dangerous path.
The third criticism heard at the time was that the speech was hypocritical: why single out some countries but not others, equally problematic? What about Saudi Arabia? What about Pakistan?
Fair points, up to a point. The 2002 State of the Union offered Pakistan in particular praise it did not deserve.
“Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf.”
These words were spoken not even 8 weeks after Pakistani-backed terrorists attacked the Indian Parliament. And within some very few months after these words were spoken, Osama bin Laden would find refuge inside Pakistan.
But critics of President Bush’s inconsistency have some inconsistencies of their own to iron out.
Would they have wished him to adopt a tougher line to more countries? Or is the argument, “Since we weren’t able to do much about Pakistan, therefore we should not do much about Iraq and Iran either?”
In fact, Bush in 2002 took exactly the gamble with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that critics of his Iraq and Iran policy urged him to take with the latter two countries: he tried to woo them with a softer line. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the gamble paid off. Especially after Saudi Arabia suffered a burst of terrorism on its own soil in 2005, the Saudi authorities became much more cooperative with the United States, cracking down on terrorist financing within their country and better sharing information. With Pakistan, unfortunately, the gamble failed. Pakistan today presents even more challenges to US policy than in 2002.
Yet the Pakistan example should chasten Bush’s critics even more than the Bush administration: that example suggests that soft-line policies can also fail—a good lesson to keep in mind on this 10th anniversary.
It is worthy to note that the U.S.A. was also a signatory to the neutrality law as did the Hawaiian Kingdom. Despite being established as a neutral nation, the U.S. has been anything but neutral based on its actions and attitude. Its military has intervened and invaded countries throughout the world continuously as a form of an active watchdog in promoting its form of democracy along with its doctrines of expansionism, imperialism, and manifest destiny. It's also worth taking note that the U.S. has now engaged in pre-emption similar to the actions of Hitler's Germany. This pre-emption U.S. foreign policy means to stike against any country before they even think about declaring war or attacking the U.S.A. In other words to invade and attack a country before it even thinks of waging war against the U.S.A. ; exactly like the United States of America's actions against the Kingdom of Hawai, Native Americans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan, Phillipines, Palestine, Iran, Puerto Rico, etc.
This deems the U.S.A. as a rogue, terrorist state.
Yes indeed, agree with you, and several authors documented U.S. A. as a rogue, terrorist state too:
* David Blum
On November 6, 2002 nefeli posted the following on Oprah.com forums:
27 countries opinion about USA
“I am Greek and would like to talk about the American government and its “invasion” in other countries. Since 1945 the United States have been involved in the politics of more than 70 countries, mostly using the threat of “communistic conspiracy” in order to be free to invade any country (the same does the government now, using the terrorists’ threat). The reason this happens is that USA wants a safer world for the American companies, it wants to stop the development of any other society which could be an alternative to the capitalistic globalisation and to expand the political and economical empire of USA in order to always be the “great power”. This is not only my opinion about America, it is the opinion of 27 countries.
(The source of the following article is the daily newspaper “TA NEA” and it was written by reporter Kostas Betinakis, 29/9/01.)
1. China 1945-49; USA gets involved in the civil war, supporting Chang Kai Shek against Mao’s communists. Chang Kai Shek flees to Taiwan in 1949. USA recruits Japanese soldiers who were defeated during the war.
2. Italy, 1947-48: USA interferes with the Italian elections in order to stop the Communist party from being in the government. During the next years, they sponsor the smaller parties with millions of dollars, blocking the Communist party from forming a government.
3. Greece, 1947-49: USA replaces the UK who supported the fight against Communists. Right wing comes and starts the chasing of the Communists (this ends to a very bloody civil war).
4. Fillipines, 1945-53: American soldiers fight against left forces (Hooks), during the fights between the Hooks and the Japanese. After the end of the war, fighting against the Hooks goes on, until the regime of Ferdinand Marcos comes into power.
5. South Korea, 1945-53: After the war, USA suppresses the liberals and supports the convervatives who had collaborated with the Japanese invaders. In the war that followed against North Korea, the “volunteers” from other countries were all allies of USA.
6. Albania, 1949-53: American and English secret services tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communistic government and to found a western government, made of collaborators of Italian fascists and German nazis.
7. Germany, 1950: CIA organizes propaganda and psychological war against East Germany, who is led to the building of the Berlin wall in 1961.
8. Iran 1953: Elected Prime minister Mosadek is overthrown byan American-English operation. His mist….(message cut off)
*********** **************** *************** *************** ***********
MAHALO TO MUTASSDES from the English Forum who messaged the following information:
this is also relevant, but not a complete list, as it doesn't include Galtieri of Argentina for a start.
another relevant list of facts:
Here's a list of the countries that the U.S. has bombed since the end of World War II,Â compiled by historian William Blum:
Libya 1986El Salvador 1980s Nicaragua 1980s Panama 1989 Iraq 1991-99 Sudan 1998 Afghanistan 1998 Yugoslavia 1999