World War I, 3160
February 26, 2007
U.S. Leads in the World War of Lies
In this essay I will explore the validity of two articles, written by the media of two separate countries, one being the United States and the other Iran. Both articles describe the same day and event, but from two extremely different viewpoints. The day was April 12, 2002, the Friday that Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, was ousted by his own military. These articles were written and published on Sunday, April 14, 2002. First of all no one is telling the entire truth. Media serves itself and the community in which it
operates, yet throughout my research, I have proven that in the case of the recent coup in Venezuela, The Tehran Times is far closer to the truth than The New York Times. I plan to convince you, not only of this, but also that the United States media is conditioned not to and restricted from telling it’s citizens what the rest of the world has to say.
The TT literally accuses the U.S. of masterminding the overthrow in its title, With Collapse of U.S. –Masterminded Coup Chavez Returns. The NYT title, Chavez Reclaims Venezuelan Presidency, is simply a factual statement, with no viewpoint at all. The TT portrays Chavez as deeply saddened by the events that have occurred and determined to peacefully fight for equal human rights. The NYT portrays Chavez as being happy and grateful for a second chance to rule his insignificant country. They describe him with raised fists and lifted spirits. In the NYT, Condoleezza Rice states that, “Chavez has been headed down the wrong road, for quite some time now.” What road is this? Is it the one to Democracy and equal global power? To the contrary, the TT states that the U.S. has been headed down the wrong road for quite some time, the road of Imperialism and world dominance. The NYT suggests that Chavez has no chance of becoming a respected world leader in his future, whereas the TT claims that Chavez is going after his well deserved place in world counsel.
Casualty numbers present yet another discrepancy. The NYT reports a higher number of deaths and injuries than the TT. Interestingly enough, the NYT claims that its numbers were obtained by the associated press and the TT claims its sources were doctors and humanitarian workers. Both mention the Organization of American States. The TT describes an investigation into western hemispheric countries involved in the coup. The NYT says that The Organization of American States is looking into Venezuelan politics. The TT goes on to explain how Chavez initiated a successful Caracas OPEC Summit in 2002, only the second of its kind in forty years. The NYT left this information out of its article. The NYT tells how Carmona, the acting president for one day, dismissed congress and dissolved the constitution. It fails however, to state that the Supreme Court was also abolished.
The NYT flat out states that Washington is irritated with Venezuela for “cozying up” with Cuba and other countries that question U.S. authority. The TT is accusing America of piracy and the NYT, not only fails to defend the U.S., but plays blind to the fact that anyone else besides the Venezuelan government was involved in the coup. I agree with my classmate, Sarah Gibbons when she says that the NYT didn’t give the opinion of other world leaders on the subject, whereas the TT did. The U.S article seems cold and uncaring. The Iranian article seems concerned and hungry for justice. The one thing that they agreed upon is that Camona and his military are currently in custody. I wonder if the U.S. is going to offer them any assistance.
The TT may have some deeper interest in subject
what is on the surface, considering that they too were once on the hit
governments to be destroyed by the American Empire. Let me take you back
August 19, 1953, when a crowd of demonstrators protested in the city of
These protestors were placed there by a group of Iranians who were
own government. This rebellious group had the support of the US-British
Alliance. They needed to create an atmosphere where the U.S. involvement
not be noticed in the chaos. The demonstrations led to a battle at the
Prime Minister Mohammad Masaddeq, after two hundred casualties, he
He was replaced by retired General Shah Fazlollah Zahedi, who my
informed me, held on to his power by using mass torture techniques,
learned from the CIA and
dollars. Reporters from the U.S. claimed that there was no outside
assistance involved in the coup, but researchers have uncovered
to the contrary in CIA and British documents. Just as in the case of
Iran was on the road to democracy and world power, by controlling its
resources. The United States was not going to stand for that, so they
removed him. This obviously tells us that the U.S. is not only capable
toppling another democracy and taking out the head of other independent
but that it has done so in the past. This Coup of Iran is almost an
replicate to the coup of Venezuela and also solely for the same reasons,
After 1953, the relationship between the
U.S. and Iran
First Iran opened up for cooperation in the oil business with the United
and other European countries. By 1959 there was a defense agreement with
U.S. Iran took U.S. hostages in 1979 and in 1980 The U.S.
The hostages were released in 1981 in exchange for military equipment.
not happy in 1990 and 91, with the invasion of Kuwait and opposed the
occupation of Allied Forces. This led to a total trade ban in 1995
Iran by the United States. The U.S. vowed to punish any country that
trades with Iran. This is another way to topple a government. If you
ability to trade worldwide, then you kill its ability to exist
The U.S. also froze 12 billion Iranian dollars. 10 of which Iran claims
U.S. still has.
Iran is not the only country to fall victim to CIA invasion. My classmates have researched other countries and have discovered the same patterns. Sarah tells me that, in 1970, Chile experienced this same version of American wrath, with the CIA again, offering their assistance in torture technique. My friend Nardos Tadesse tells me that the U.S. helped the Philippines avoid being conquered by Spain and then slapped a strong hold authority over its military. When the military resisted, the U.S. declared war and killed 800,000 of them. Lisa Corlew tells of a failed attempt to topple the communist government of Cuba. The U.S. has admitted to actually trying to have Fidel Castro killed. Yes, our country thrives on controlling and even destroying other governments of the world.
After these horrible accounts, you may
ask, does the United
States have any morals? Well, my classmates and I looked into that and
what we found. Personally I checked into how much we spend on our war
compared to other countries. What I found was staggering. An exact
not clear, because of the fact that the number is extraordinarily
that I visited gave me figures
around 500 billion dollars, but these figures do not include the current
Iraq or nuclear research. Can you imagine the true bottom line? I came
survey that revealed most American have no idea of these statistics.
to The International Institute of Strategies Studies in The Military
the United States spends twice as much on its war budget than Russia,
North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Libya combined. The U.S. Arms Control and
disarmament Agency says it’s a little less than that. Either way, it is
much. This is blatantly immoral, considering we have millions of people
and homeless in the U.S. Instead of feeding its own, the U.S. would
spend its money intimidating the rest of the world. Like the Aztecs the America
believes in expanding
its Empire through force and warfare. With no moral conscience toward
people, the U.S. surely has no moral conscience concerning global
The U.S. is concerned with money and power, not peace and prosperity.
If the money spent on war did not convince
you that the U.S.
government is immoral, let me fill you in on what my friends have to
Nardos and Vaughn bring it to our attention
, that the U.S.
is so concerned about nuclear weapons, yet they are the only one ever to
used one and claim that they have the right to possess them. Nardos also
us that the U.S. is responsible for 25% of global greenhouse gas
which is devastating to the environment. She wonders why the U.S.
something to help the situation, since it has the means and the
Lisa reminds us of the Native Americans and how U.S. prejudice deemed
inferior and insignificant, this clearly an immoral act and one against
rights. Vanessa Russo says that the teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. is
than any country in the western world. We are obviously not teaching
our children in the U.S.; Vanessa also explains the immoral treatment of
America’s working class. The working class in America is abused and
by its government and the gap between the rich and poor is ever
claims that Capitalism is the opposite of morality. Sherry Huynh gives
infant mortality rates that twice exceed that of Hong Kong and Japan.
has seen the biggest increase in 40 years. Could this be due to
health care and insurance issues? Wouldn’t a moral government install an
effective plan to take care of its population?
Sarah reports homelessness as atrocious. Is there any excuse? Does the government have an explanation for why it cannot house all of its citizens? We are a superpower, not a third world country. How can you claim to have morals and leave helpless children to sleep in your streets? Dave brings up the issue of slavery. He reminds us that even though slavery has been abolished for 150 years, our government allowed human beings to be owned as property and the effects still linger today. Don’t let America convince you that it is no longer prejudice against those not white, because it is. Cynthia Gauthier talks about instances where the U.S. was involved in assassinations, torture and intimidation. Isn’t this terrorism? Michael adds that pollution is destroying the world and the U.S. is the main offender. But instead of doing the moral thing and using its influence and power to save and preserve the earth, it is using its influence and power to build weapons to destroy it.
Finally, I went on a search to find out what I could about what happened that day, so I could make my final decision on which article I believed to closer to the truth. Speech made by Hugo Chavez did not reflect the spirits that the U.S. claimed he was in. He was not declaring to have been treated well and why did the NYT feel it necessary to make that statement? The NYT also claimed that Chavez was not angry, but Chavez is angry. He is angry at the U.S. for interfering with his country’s progress. Chavez believes that America is an evil empire that is run by satan. America calls him an extremist, but he is determined to convince the world leaders that the U.S. is a dictatorship, practicing piracy around the globe. He is involving himself with other countries that share this view. Chavez claims to want peace and even friendly trade with the U.S. on an equal level. I don’t know if I believe him or not. Human Being whatever time, geography, or race are all basically the same and tend to be instinctively prideful, devious and greedy. Chavez may consciously or unconsciously be involved in a much bigger plan, by a much bigger power. Iran, China and others, who are involved with Chavez, most certainly have their own agenda. Chavez claims without reservation that the U.S. power will be crushed and that he will be part of the process. Washington, no doubt, would be trying to come up with ideas to shut him up. The U.S. has prime and significant motive.
Jon Hochschartner wrote an article in the Echo, called Imperialism in the Backyard and Beyond. He lists some publicly known facts about the coup. One being, “Carmona and other coup plotters met at the White House leading up to the coup.” He says that the CIA definitely had knowledge not only that the coup would take place, but when and where. The coup was discussed in detail. Jon concludes his article by saying, “If the choice is between democracy and economic interest, the United States goes and always has gone with its economic interests.”
Another article by Ducan Campbell called, American Navy ‘Helped Venezuelan Coup’, was published April 29, 2002, in Los Angeles. He already talked of evidence of U.S. funding. What’s taking so long? There were U.S. Navy vessels on a training exercise and were put on stand by, in case they were needed. The article states that, “In Caucus, a congressman has accused the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, Charles Shapiro, and two U.S. embassy military attaches of involvement of the coup.” The U.S. gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups that opposed Chavez in the year before the coup. “The funds were provided by The National Endowment for Democracy, a non-profit agency created and financed by the U.S. Congress.” Isn’t that ironic?
Based on the brief research we have
conducted here, I am
convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt
, that the TT
is telling a story much closer to the truth than the NYT.
Chavez is playing the part of poor, oppressed, minority to his advantage
global theater, the United States did not and does not have the right to
him. It is extremely obvious that the United States feels that it is
to the rest of the world. Family bloodlines do run through the White
resembling hierology. Empires only stand until the commoners and the
have had enough. The U.S. would be wise to humble itself and face its
Articles from Class Course pack.
Campbell, Ducan. “American Navy ‘Helped Venezuelan Coup.” The Guardian
International Los Angeles. 29 April 2002. 23 Feb 2007 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,706802,00.html >
Hochschartner, Jon. “Imperialism in the Bakyard and Beyond.” The Echo 8 Feb 2006. 22
National Security Archieve “Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran.” 22 June
2004. 15 Feb 2007.
Partial transcript. “President Hugo Chavez Delivers Remarks at the U.N. General
Assembly.” Washington Post CQ Transcript Wire. 20 Sept 2006. 16 Feb 2007. <http://www.washington.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AP2006092000893.htm
Wika. “The United States Dept. of Defense.”