Is Who Becomes the Next President All That Matters?
BERLIN, MAY 13, 2008: I know. I know. How this is the most important election in history, and why the next occupant of the White House will not only be answering the red phone at 3 AM but possibly be saving these not always United States from the decline that even TIME Magazine has announced the country is facing.
Yet, as I travel outside the country, I can’t help but feel, or is it fear, that this logic leaves out some rather important considerations.
Like the fact that the US cannot unilaterally impose its will on the world anymore as our dollar falls and our credibility falls with it. Even a strategy of negotiation as opposed to confrontation is not a recipe for success because in a multi-polar world, other countries and power blocs like the Russians, the Chinese, the EU, The Persian Gulf and OPEC have their own interests. They will listen to our proposals but may reject them if they are at variance with their own needs.
We just don’t have the power to impose our will even as we still suffer from “the USA is number one” syndrome and think that we can kick ass and take names if anyone stands in our way.
Whoever becomes President may not have the power he or she assumes goes with the office. (In fact, after the fact, in their memoirs, most presidents complain they often felt powerless, besieged by lobbyists, party factions and reticent bureaucrats at every turn. They see themselves constrained by institutional obstacles at every turn.)
In many ways, Mao was right, the occupant of the oval office is a paper tiger.
In this new world, if we want others to do our bidding, we can’t threaten to obliterate them or strut around like Mighty Mouse when so many in the world see us as the Mouse that Roared.
So many of our problems today are global and shared by others. Globalization has assured that. We are all impacted by global threats like climate change, escalating food prices, world hunger, endemic poverty, and pandemic disease that the White House can’t wave a magic wand to cure. Sadly, most Americans are not educated about these issues and the press downplays them.
Even when we cause problems, like the mortgage collapse, markets worldwide feel the pain in an internationally entangled financial system where we are dependent on monies from China. Meanwhile, others invest in the US to keep their own profits up and compete with our companies on our home ground.
Sure, we are militarily powerful but apparently not powerful or smart enough to subdue Iraq or Afghanistan after five years. Our warriors on terror have yet to capture Bin Laden or even neutralize the Taliban. The truth is the Democratic candidates don’t think they can tell the military what to do and so have withdrawal plans that will take years. That’s the reality.
The military industrial complex often has a mind of its own.
And so does Wall Street, which won’t take marching orders from any president. Both Clinton and Bush turned to Goldman Sachs to run the Treasury, and it’s not clear if their former execs were ambassadors to The Street or from The Street. Financial power trumps political power in a country dominated by a corporate system.
Who can impose an excess profits tax on Big Oil? Who will dare?
In fact, look at the credit crisis. It started with the mortgage meltdown of August 2007. At least one million families have lost their homes. Another two and half million are threatened. The New York Times reports that even their storage spaces are now being auctioned off because many folks can’t afford the monthly charges. The ONION jokes that a family burned their stimulus check because they can’t afford heat. Sometimes fiction like this gets to the heart of faction.
Times’ business columnist Gretchen Morgenson notes that in all these months of obvious economic calamity, NOTHING meaningful has been done by our government to help people in need, writing, “as the great American credit crash continues to reverberate, we still have nothing that resembles an intelligent and comprehensive plan for dealing with mass foreclosures and the economic consequences associated with the debacle.”
Why? There is a ideological clash of course. That’s obvious. An administration that has foreclosed on the American Dream cares as much about our homeowners as it did about the victims of Katrina.
But beyond that, they don’t know what to do; they have no “fix.” There may not be one. We are dealing not with a political debate but a structural crisis of American capitalism in an era of waning Empire. We can throw money at these problems as we probably should, but they are all intricate and subject to pressure politics. When the Senate run by Democrats tried to bring relief to distressed homeowners, their final bill was shameful with more giveaways to home builders and lenders than mortgagees.
So, let’s temper our expectations about what the candidate of our choice can actually get doneo a system of many checks but very little balance. The Presidency is a bully pulpit. The President can lead but Congress need not follow. Sure, change is needed, and badly, but the changes being proposed — like a summertime tax break at the pump won’t do much about the deeper energy crisis. Many of the proposals being debated are tinkering with deeply flawed policies. They aim to bail the water out of the Titanic while it is sinking
Unfortunately, our scandal obsessed “Gotcha” media is useless in explaining or investigating these deeper problems. Its focus is only on the horse race. Cable news is increasingly a pundit-heavy distraction machine, where opinionizing has replaced reporting, and, yes, still a Weapon of Mass Deception as one film I made years ago argued.
Please think about this, and what’s not being covered. Sorry to rain on the parade as the primaries roll on and the excitement builds like in a sports event.
Who is the next President matters, matters deeply, but is that all that matters?
News Dissector Danny Schechter blogs for Mediachannel.org. He directed In Debt We Trust (indebtwetrust.org) and has finished a book on the financial crisis called PLUNDER. Comments to Dissector@mediachannel.org
Hillary’s Grotesque Insult to African-Americans
By Bob Herbert, The New York Times. May 12, 2008.
Excerpt:
“He can’t win! Don’t you understand? He’s black! He’s black!” (Hillary’s message)
“The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and superdelegates for the longest time. It’s a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and Hillary over the years.
(Representative Charles Rangel of New York, who is black and has been an absolutely unwavering supporter of Senator Clinton’s White House quest, told The Daily News: “I can’t believe Senator Clinton would say anything that dumb.”)
But it’s an insult to white voters as well, including white working-class voters. It’s true that there are some whites who will not vote for a black candidate under any circumstance. But the United States is in a much better place now than it was when people like Richard Nixon, George Wallace and many others could make political hay by appealing to the very worst in people, using the kind of poisonous rhetoric that Senator Clinton is using now.”
http://www.alternet.org/election08/85095/
Let’s be real. The two major party candidates are sock puppets for the empire. What does one get when the corporations and the government are one and the same? Mussolini had a word for it, fascism. The expectation that anything will change with an Obama, or Hillary, etc., in the White House is an orchestrated illusion that has worked well throughout at least my lifetime. As Danny Shechter so aptly puts it in the above article, “Clinton and Bush turned to Goldman Sachs to run the Treasury”. Expect much more of the same when the largesse of the corporate donors turns into payback time. Shechter may have rained on the parade, but the only candidate offering an umbrella is Ralph Nader.
We need to change the whole kingdom, not just the dumb ass king.
Hoa binh
In fact, it’s already too late to matter at all, which is why I don’t bother to argue much with all those “lesser evil” proponents and the self-fulfilling rationales that abound here and elsewhere for endorsing USA Incorporated’s pre-selected “electable” candidates. I’m quite certain that if those chosen ones were Hitler and Stalin, USans would still argue against “wasting votes” on any third alternative.
No, the post-election “Under New Management” sign will signify nothing but a new face and possibly a different colored party banner. The reality is that the imperium is rapidly entering its terminal stages and is clearly destined to go the way of all past empires regardless of which actor-stooge sits in the Whitehouse next year. The perceptive ones, even amongst the erstwhile “conservative” elements, are now seeing the writing on the wall as witness the recent writings of such radicals as Pat Buchanan and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts:
from the article:
“The President can lead but Congress need not follow.”
except they do follow, some less enthusiastically than others, but lined up like baby ducks just the same.
“politics, n.: a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.”
—-ambrose bierce
Who is president is by no means all. It isn’t really even a little. All it is, is opening the eyes, looking around, and maybe swiveling direction a degree or two (to the left?) before ploughing ahead. All that changing presidential party might accomplish, is give us the hope (sorry for using that word) that we’ll start behaving like grown-ups and make responsible decisions based on keeping our species and cultures viable for generations in the future. Remember, Mother Earth couldn’t care less that homo sapiens continues to survive. She did well enough without us for most of her existence.
Just to modify my previous comment slightly, it may make some difference to the immediate fate of some nations other than the US itself, but even that is highly questionable.
Congress must change as well as the White House.
For peace, social and economic justice and human rights.
www.carolmillercongress.com
well said, jozef!
First I’ll repeat your post, in its entirety. You wrote:
“Let’s be real. The two major party candidates are sock puppets for the empire. What does one get when the corporations and the government are one and the same? Mussolini had a word for it, fascism. The expectation that anything will change with an Obama, or Hillary, etc., in the White House is an orchestrated illusion that has worked well throughout at least my lifetime. As Danny Shechter so aptly puts it in the above article, ‘Clinton and Bush turned to Goldman Sachs to run the Treasury.’ Expect much more of the same when the largesse of the corporate donors turns into payback time. Shechter may have rained on the parade, but the only candidate offering an umbrella is Ralph Nader.”
VERY well said, jozef!
Fact is, the American public *does* have a choice, and the choice is “ABCC” — “Anybody But a Corporate Candidate.”
Had Ralph Nader gotten, say, 5% of the vote in 2000, and built on that 5% in 2004 with, say, 10% of the vote, the American political landscape would undoubtedly be quite different today.
Beyond that, real change (are you listening “Uncle Tom Obama”) REAL change must start with an apology. To quote that famous American philosopher Tom Hagen: “An apology, Senator, an apology!”
I’ll believe Obama or Hillary or any other mainstream politician when they announce the following:
“If elected, I promise on my first day in office to:
a.) Walk over to the Pentagon and declare: “The party’s over, boys.” Whereupon I’ll personally apologize to the residents of the 20 countries the United States has bombed since the end of WWII.
b.) Arrange for a ticker tape parade down Wall Street and announce the same sentiment; apologizing to a roughly equivalent number of people.
c.) Apologize to the Japanese and their descendants who were interred during WWII.
d.) Apologize for the 100 million Indians murdered by the American military.
e.) Apologize to the descendants of a quarter of a million Iraqis killed in Gulf War One.
f.) Apologize to the descendants of over one million Iraqis killed by US-led economic sanctions; most of them killed during the eight years of the Clinton-Gore Administration.
g.) Apologize to the descendants of the over 1 million Iraqis killed, so far, during Gulf War Two.
h.) Apologize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
i.) Apologize for Vietnam — where 2 million people were killed by the US government, at least a million of whom were civilians.
And conclude with the words: “Never Again!”
All that misery. All those deaths. All those *murders.* Vote for a mainstream candidate and that’s what your vote is responsible for continuing.
Who Becomes the Next President Is All That Matters
to the A.I.PACmen behind the curtain.
Every biological organism self terminates
when it has become this malignant.
Danny Schechter writes the truth about the current U.S. political reality.
Just electing a corporate media-promoted liberal “saviour” politician to move into the White House in 2009 will not really end the current political, economic and moral crisis that most people in the United States are now suffering from under the current U.S. social system of institutional militarism and corporate totalitarianism.
Revolutionary change by means of mass, nonviolent direct antiwar actions on the street, campuses, workplace and inside the U.S. mass media studios is what is now required–before it’s too late.
What matters the most is us. We, the People. How long are we going to let the big corporations and the politicians trick us into thinking we want what they want us to want?
Eisenhower said something like “Leadership is getting a man to do what you want him to do because he wants to do it.”
Today’s politicians have perverted that into “Leadership is getting a man to do what you want him to do by conning him into thinking he wants to do it, even though he really doesn’t.”
When we wake up and start voting for what’s REALLY in our best interests is when real changes will happen. Trouble is, they’ve got us so mixed up that we don’t really know what we want, so we look to them to tell us what they want us to want, which is huge profits for weapons manufacturers (war), globalization (jobs shipped overseas), and huge profits for oil companies (war and a rapidly-worsening environment). But how many of us REALLY want those things?
You know, we could make huge changes by doing one simple thing: getting rid of our TV’s. Don’t buy TV’s and don’t buy cable and don’t buy satellite TV and don’t watch mainstream news and don’t watch commercials. Huge changes. Just imagine all the corporations that would be contacting the government, saying, “Hey, do something, guys! We’re going broke! Give them something so they’ll start watching TV and buying stuff again, willya?
But that’ll never happen.
Fareed Zakariah points out in a recent Newsweek article that the US is no longer able to rule the world, for reasons similar to those in this article.
Thank God. Now we can close those 750 unwanted military bases all around the world, de-militarize our diplomatic and trade operations, cancel the illegal/immoral nuclear, space and cyberspace weaponry now in development, create the Department of Peace, and learn how to be a good neighbor instead of an arrogant empire builder. The whole world would benefit, especially us.
Those chasing the illusive ‘hope’ agenda of Obama are in for a very big surprise even if he wins the election. As this article demonstrates, it makes no difference which status quo, corporate marching politico gets in: the results are always the same. Corporations win, and the rest of us become disenfranchised. Even the people voting for their own disenfranchisement. The utterly sad fact is, they don’t even know it yet.
When the problem is an inability to drive, switching to a different car is not the solution.
I hope that either Obama or Nader is elected but don’t think that there will be positive change. It seems that we’re all seeing the weed and trying to chop it off to replace it with a flower. The roots of the weed are still there and whatever ‘flower’ is placed upon them will eventually be corrupted.
Schechter’s article is spot on, including where he says it does matter which one gets elected. While the other comments are true about how difficult it is for any president to get Congress to cooperate, the big issue is the courts. Reagan’s lifetime appointments are now at the peak of their power, because they are the chiefs of many of the appellate court districts. Which party’s president will replace any of the Supreme Court justices is crucial, not only for reproductive rights and for civil rights in general, but for Constitutional rights and for the ability to sue corporations and get relief.
Re wsws.org’s comment, “Had Ralph Nader gotten, say, 5% of the vote in 2000, and built on that 5% in 2004 with, say, 10% of the vote, the American political landscape would undoubtedly be quite different today.”–When the fixers change the count in the ballot counting programs around the country, they shift votes from other candidates, including Nader and any Green Party candidate, to the chosen one. That way they get a twofer: Their candidate wins and the third party is diminished and less powerful. It continues to be regarded as a loser, no matter how many votes it truly got. Until we get the massive ballot fraud fixed, not only at the polls but in the “proprietary” counting programs, we get what they give us.
Citizen McCain, of course, doesn’t believe a word of this and will go on acting like the imperialists in “Heart of Darkness”. It is extremely important for right wingers to kick ass. No one can underestimate how badly right wingers need to inflict violence upon others. Just listen to right wing talk radio and you’ll hear it almost immediately. McCain has already said out loud he will start more wars and despite what polls say about the majority of Americans attitude toward the occupation of Iraq . . . when they get into the voting booth they’ll vote for McCain because they too want to kick ass . . . and right now anyone’s ass will do. As the middle class grows more and more frustrated, as it gets its tit further and further into the economic ringer, it will never cross their collective mind to rid themselves of the perpetrators of their woe: the Republicans and the Democrats. They will touch the screen for candidate SSDD: Same Shit Different Day.
If all that fresh water stacked up on Greenland melts and floats out to cover the more dense but warm ocean waters of the Gulf Stream nothing else will matter.
In the meantime, we can always entertain ourselves by voting on whether the sub-tundra methane or the sub-oceanic methane is the “lesser evil”.
Well said, Mordechai. Bulls eye.
An article that worries about corporate domination and does not weigh in the importance of Supreme Court appointees in this particular near future is a dumb and lacking article.
Good grief. Are we that dumb?
That depends on what you mean by “dumb”. The vast majority of USans (80%) are not unaware of the vast gulf between the “democratic” theory and practice of the “greatest democracy on earth.” In fact, they are third (after Ukrainians and Mexicans) in believing that their government is being run by “a few big interests.” They’re just incredibly bewildered by the dilemma it poses and seemingly unable and/or unwilling to take the kind of coordinated actions required of that vast majority in order to resolve it.
Progressives here are constantly bemoaning their supposed status as a small and ineffectual minority, but that is certainly not true of the numbers who agree on the underlying problem. A real awakening of that 80% majority to their true power and potential is what the “elite” fear most.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_chris_ri_080513_bring_bush_to_justic.htm
Yes, Arvy, you’re right. It explains in part why college-background liberals like Obama better and high-school-or-less prefer Clinton. Us Obama people “hear” and “see” between his lines what he could do in eight years to cause the “awakening”.
The article is much better than it might appear at first sight. It reflects a very-well developed political consciousness; things that Schecter refers to quickly & only in passing, are points that would require lengthy explanation, if he were talking at the level of naive Demo-bumpkins (such as DD’s comment at 5:09).
Consider how much is conveyed in these few lines: “…The military industrial complex often has a mind of its own….And so does Wall Street, which won’t take marching orders from any president. Both Clinton and Bush turned to Goldman Sachs to run the Treasury, and it’s not clear if their former execs were ambassadors to The Street or from The Street. Financial power trumps political power in a country dominated by a corporate system…”
That’s saying quite a bit. Actually, Schecter knows perfectly well the Treasury secretaries were ambassadors FROM the Street. They came down to Washington to make sure the federal government submitted to Wall Street’s dictates.
Despite my post urging that Donald Duck be elected the next President, Hilary is still clinging on to her dream of pressing red buttons. Is she a slow learner or what?
Look, if Donald is not in favor, why not elect a horse? In Ancient Rome, an Emperor elevated his favorite horse to the Senate. Horses are fickle animals I know but most Presidents are too! Then most horses are smart but most humans aren’t. I’ll bet that all the horses on the Crawford ranch are smarter than George. Any takers?
P.S. Did you know that your car is more important than you? Check my blog for details.
Daniel David May 13th, 2008 6:05 pm
“Yes, Arvy, you’re right. It explains in part why college-background liberals like Obama better and high-school-or-less prefer Clinton.”
That may be true in our primary, but I don’t know it will hold up in the general election.
I’d like to ask why you feel Obama is qualified to be President? What exactly are you basing your opinion on? How do you think he might change things?
This isn’t a rhetorical question.
wsws.org website May 13th, 2008 2:12 pm
There were less than a million or so Indians in the United States during the period you refer to.
Heck there weren’t that many Whites till the early 20’s.
As to Japan and an apology for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not a chance. We owe them no apology for that. What did you think of their apology for Iwo Jima or Guadalcanal by the way? And their apology for Manchuria and China?
Other than those two on the list OK, if it would make them feel better. I doubt it.
I’ll bet that all the horses on the Crawford ranch are smarter than George. Any takers?
You win!
Too bad the author pulled out with the last sentence. It does not matter deeply who is the next president. What matters deeply is the character of the average American. What matters deeply is education, real education. The people need to change their way of thinking. Obama said that. Of the three only Obama said that. He is the best choice of the 3. That doesn’t mean much though. Gravel said it best. He said he can’t promise change, all he can promise is to fight congress which is owned by special interest groups. Of course he is right. The presidency and congress are tools of the owners of the country. Now, that matters deeply.
If a horse simply rolled over he would never be ridden. Horses are not smart. George doesn’t mind his rider at all, his masters feed him well. How can we tell who is brighter? The horse wants freedom but doesn’t know how to get it. George wants to share the power and he did it by being obedient. George wants to feel good about himself. A horse wants freedom. I like the horse more, stupid as he is. Ultimately, neither gets what they want.
Thomas More May 13th, 2008 6:41 pm — “There were less than a million or so Indians in the United States during the period you refer to. Heck there weren’t that many Whites till the early 20’s.”
Huh?! What “20’s” are you referring to? The colonial (later U.S.) population had exceeded “a million or so” by 1750 and more than 2 million by the time of the Revolutionary War. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States
As for the native population, estimates of how many people were living in the Americas when Columbus arrived have varied tremendously; 20th century scholarly estimates ranged from a low of 8.4 million to a high of 112.5 million persons.
…while the USA is critical of one-party nations and those that have nationalized economies; when it appears that the USA model shows many reasons for contempt.
Capitalism rears its ugly head…FINALLY! This has taken a few decades to happen. After Capitalism completely wreaks havoc on the USA economy (which is what Capitalism inevitably does in the long run) than Socialist programs come in to rescue it (FDR’s plan to fix the Great Depression is a good example). Sometimes lessons have to be learned more than one time. Unfortunately, the stakes are much higher now.
After 7 years of a Unitary Executive issuing one EO or PD after another, and Congress, even under Democratic control, unable or unwilling to do anything constructive, and even when a bill gets passed, it is destructive and if not, there is the infamous signing statement, and we get this analysis.
“Whoever becomes President may not have the power he or she assumes goes with the office. (In fact, after the fact, in their memoirs, most presidents complain they often felt powerless, besieged by lobbyists, party factions and reticent bureaucrats at every turn. They see themselves constrained by institutional obstacles at every turn.)
In many ways, Mao was right, the occupant of the oval office is a paper tiger.”
Mao of course was history at about the same time the Trilateral Commission took over the Presidency, I mean, find a more current and reputable source to judge the power in the oval office.
The message seems to be, don’t expect change when the Democrats take over, because the President is just a paper tiger, and that is just not so.
I mean, in all fairness, he is right that there will be no change, but not because the President does not have power, he/she will have too much power. We will not have change because the life expectancy of any President going up against the psycopathic elite representing Global Inc would be measured in weeks if not days should he/she do anything stupid, like nationalize the banking and oil industries and ending our perpetual war and credit- debt bubble economy, and providing free health care with money created by government debt free. Or even kicking the UN out of the US, withdraw membership, and repudiate our Globalist and Free Trade agreements. The UN is controlled by elite neo-malthusian psychopaths whose one mission is to rule the world under Totalitarian One World Government
We will also not have change, because the only candidates you get to vote for are hand picked by the psycopathic elite. Anyone else either does not get funded, is ignored by MSM or smeared by MSM, and will do terrible in the fraudulent polls. And since every American wants to pick a winner, those who by conventional wisdom do not stand a chance are eliminated as being worthy of their valuable vote.
Obama, Hillary, McCain = NO CHANGE
Frankly speaking, we need to clean house. New elections for the entire Congress and Presidency where the financing is public and not private, and nobody having anything to do with this current or past governments being allowed to run. The national news agencies known as MSM or CM would need to be shut down for the duration of the campaigns, with only local news agencies allowed to cover the race, and under the rules of the Fairness Doctrine that was repealed. I don’t see that happening voluntarily. I don’t see change without it happening.
To Thomas More,
Since you asked, here are several reasons I feel Obama is qualified and should be preferred to be our President:
Mitt Romney recently asked: WHAT has Obama accomplished in life? Answer: He is in the middle now of assembling a coalition of voters in the United States of America to recapture the largest government on earth from complete corporate control (the main goal, and understandably understated—for now).
He is doing this under the head-spun noses of every politician and pundit and from a starting point of being a complete nobody on the national scene just five years ago. The feat is purely amazing, including waters parting twice in Illinois to make it possible. If he can get Hillary on as VP, his election is virtually assured.
He has taught the constitution enough to law students to understand what it is, what it means, and what we need in federal judges.
He as been called the most liberal member of Congress (for a reason, and carries a tone that we need in the White House and all the agencies even moreso).
He is young enough to have not had “all the hope boiled out of him” by too much time in Washington (his words.)
He can help overcome the remnants of racism by being both a GREAT and (partly) BLACK president. Michelle and their daughters will be like a cultural revolution for our “white” house and everything about it.
He will respect military members and their families MORE (not less) that either McCain or Bush. And he will listen to his generals, not get a Rumsfeld to slap them around.
He has potential to get the immediate attention of the entire Arab world, merely on his middle name.
He has an amazing knack to reduce complex issues to a few short words—”bitter” was tough to hear, and on target.
He does not have the questionable “experience” of his opponent, John McCain. The 25-year “experience” gap between 71-yr-old McCain and 46-yr-old Obama was consumed entirely in McCain’s case by dumping an older wife for a young trophy-girl version and getting ever richer on her daddy’s beer business—for all 25 years of the difference.
McCain “learned” a lot, no doubt. None of it anything for Americans to value or be proud of.
Arvy May 13th, 2008 7:03 pm
“Huh?! What “20’s” are you referring to?”
Sorry! I was referring to the 1920’s. There weren’t a hundred million Americans till then.
As to Indians, I doubt there were more than the lower number then. But a hundred million indians killed? Can’t see it.
Daniel David May 13th, 2008 7:53 pm
Thanks very much. I’ll have to think about what you said.
Oh gawd, the Obama crap is flowing again.
The man is a US Senator. That makes him one of the most powerful people in the country today. From that seat, he could create change if he wanted to. At the very least he could be such a fighter that like Paul Wellstone you’d have no doubt of where he stands.
Instead, you have to see the Obamabots making up crap about why we should vote for him. If the best they can come up with is complete nonsense like every single line in Daniel David’s post above, then that alone should be a very clear indicator that you are dealing with a fraud.
How on earth can someone rise to the highest reaches of the political system pushing a message of change, but the best his supporters can come up with is “he’s young enough not to have the hope boiled out of him”. What utter crap.
There is absolutely nothing of substance attached to Obama that would make anyone think that he is going to “recapture the largest government on earth from complete corporate control”.
Ask yourself this. Wall St has pumped millions into Obama’s campaign. Do you really think Wall St is spending millions of dollars to “recapture the largest government on earth from complete corporate control”.
Yeah right. If you believe that then I’ve got a great full-size replica of the Brooklyn bridge that I’d be willing to let go for only a couple of million dollars …. no make that euros please.
who gives a crap. best to terminater all now
use for Soylent Green, all right wing evangelical hypocrites,
best for engineers, like Mr Carter[last DECENT-[key word] Jefe}
to get off butts and run the world, well he OF COURSE is doing this
common sense, ………….is NOT common
but it is the best policy
Viva La Revolucion
12 million Mexicans and Indigenous with guns no e mail, all word of mouth and cell phone text
I am laughing my ass off,
arrogant, OBESE, ignorant,xenophobic,greedy gringos
what was the history in 1847?
jaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
know your targets, espera de senale
vale verga……………………………………
Good article. More important than the red phone is the golden phone–the one used by lobbyists, major campaign contributors and other high rollers to influence policy. And we can be sure that all three of the candidates would be quick to answer cheerfully, but none more than Hillary Clinton, who shamelessly sold pardons to criminals through her brother.
It also matters not just who wins, but how he or she wins. I don’t think Hillary is a racist in the conventional sense, but it’s clear that she’s willing to pander to and inculcate racist sentiments to win, and in this she reminds us of George HW Bush and his Willie Horton advertisements. We don’t need, at this time of unprecedented economic, military, foriegn relations, environmental, healthcare and constitutional crises, a divisive, polarizing and zero-sum-paradigm driven chief executive. We need not only someone who can offer plausible solutions (as both Democrats can and McCain manifestly cannot), but someone who can unite, inspire and conciliate. And of the major candidates in the contest, only Obama can do that.
The only really good news in all this is the deposing of the empire at least in the eyes of other lands. If America (not just the geographical “USA”) ever regains its position as a place of liberty, non-aggression and unlimited possibility (the pursuit, etc.), wherever it is located within the universe, it may once again be the fulfillment of the dreams of Jefferson, Franklin and so many others (some even predating them).
One large step in that possibility is Presidents discovering they are little more than administrative officers …
Thomas More May 13th, 2008 8:24 pm — “Arvy May 13th, 2008 7:03 pm …”
All okay. I see now that it was just a typo in your reference and reply to the original wsws post (a million instead of a hundred million) that caused my puzzlement about your comment on population numbers.
In any case, whether the slaughter of native Americans reached the higher figure is obviously less important than the simple fact of its occurence.
It is the Democrat’s fault. Period.
And now it is ‘08 CD.
Chance to make a big difference by doing ANYTHING except voting Democrat in November.
Now you can all also feel good in December knowing you did not vote Democrat too.
And under McCain moan for eight more years about a party you helped keep out of office.
Because your pious souls don’t recognize ‘lesser evils’
Only Virtue & Absolutes! How charming.
I hate to beat a dead horse but ,I love this quote…
“I hold that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing…It’s the medicine necessary for sound health of government… God forbid that we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”
Thomas Jefferson
We are at one of those points in time that will determine the future of our ignorant species and maybe all species in this biosphere along with us.
I’d feel a lot better had I not had any children to hand this bullshit to.
Maybe they will understand that the vampires couldn’t do it with out them.
FUCK THE PRESIDENT!
I don’t think we’re in Kansas any more Toto.
The Excess Profits Tax…
Obama, with all his flaws, is perceived as the candidate of “change”, and he does seem interested in encouraging participation of people who have not been involved in political action of any kind. Young people, who are excited by his candidacy, are more likely to take their experience in the Obama campaign as the first taste of a life of activism to create a better world.
If Obama were to be elected President, most of the people of the world would perceive that as a victory for “change”, and a victory for the peace and justice movements. Progressives might be treated with more respect- both by the Obama administration, and the media, who would recognize that members of peace and justice movements were instrumental in creating the change that elected a black man.
This would not be a revolution, Cheney would not be thrown in jail immediately, and Kucinich would not be made Secretary of State. An Obama victory would still create the best conditions for movements for progressive change than a McCain victory (stay the suicical course), or a Hillary victory (and all the venom and militarism that she represents).
“Those chasing the illusive ‘hope’ agenda of Obama are in for a very big surprise even if he wins the election. As this article demonstrates, it makes no difference which status quo, corporate marching politico gets in: the results are always the same. Corporations win, and the rest of us become disenfranchised. Even the people voting for their own disenfranchisement. The utterly sad fact is, they don’t even know it yet.”
Huck,
Many of us who want to vote for Obama know the score. I know he’s a corporate candidate - he would have gone the way of Kucinich had he not been.
I do think that the ‘hope’ agenda is worth something. I think it will bring in more young energy into the system - as broken as it is - and give us some breathing room to get some work done. And that is a key point. WE have lots of work to do, and we need the space in which to do it instead of reeling from the latest daily assault by the neocons.
Lastly, I think it’s worth supporting Obama so that more people like my cousin, a 36 year old father of 3 young children, don’t have to be killed in a hell-hole like the one we’ve created in Iraq.
Perhaps when Obama sews up the democrat nomination, ole Hil Clinton will pull a Joe Lieberman and run independent. Now wouldn’t that be wonderful. Just think, Nader and McKinney would both have a better shot.
If McKlain and Klaintone and the rest of the GOP win, the people lose, as does democracy.
“More important than the red phone is the golden phone–the one used by lobbyists, major campaign contributors and other high rollers to influence policy.”
Now thats a beauty. The Golden Phone….love it, will use it from now on.
Arvy May 13th, 2008 11:02 pm
Right!
David Daniel…
Thanks again. I can see some of your points and I believe they are valid.
“bitter” was tough to hear, and on target.”
This one I don’t believe for one minute. He was just speaking to the audience he had and I hope it was just being a politician. That he doesn’t really believe what he said.
I would like to say I just don’t know so far. But, Samson May 13th, 2008 8:49 pm remember Cicero never did anything except orate and he was pretty effective, so was Socrates. Not suggesting he is of that stature, he is obviously not. Obama is young. The most important thing about a President to me is what he believes and who he hires.
This is one thing that is bothering me about Obama. Is he a racist? I can’t abide racism in any form from any ethnic group. There seem to be indications that he could be. His wife even more so. I’m not speaking about her “Proud” comment, her thesis indicates it and many small things she says. His judgement on Wright of course. Not his association with, but his judgement in being there. Or is it just a feeling of guilt for being succesful while other blacks aren’t or a natural resentment of whites from childhood? Or am I seeing something thats not there?
His answers to most of these questions will be forthcoming this fall of course. If he doesn’t answer the questions about Wright, Black Liberation Theology (I bet McCain’s folks are drooling, waiting to pounce on this), Ayers, etc. If he doesn’t he can’t win.
Can he possibly consider Hillary for Vice? Would she take it?
I’d prefer to decide who I am going to support before then….I hope!
Any thoughts that help appreciated?
– ” But it’s an insult to white voters as well, including white working-class voters. It’s true that there are some whites who will not vote for a black candidate under any circumstance. But the United States is in a much better place now than it was when people like Richard Nixon, George Wallace and many others could make political hay by appealing to the very worst in people, using the kind of poisonous rhetoric that Senator Clinton is using now.” —
Everytime Barack Obama is out of the limelight, all sorts of unsavory things pop up in the news. I miss him.
Hillary Clinton is no better than the worst racist. She does believe and is supportive of racist attitudes. The one thing she seems to do well is to be a fighter in a campaign, but there is no proof of the character that is needed at this time in our national history. Right now, she is sounding a lot like Strom Thurmon. It is so sad for her, and for those who she is reaching for. I pray for the good of this country, that those who do not share their prejudices will stand up for this country and all it stands for . . . at least in what we say we stand for. Ironically it is those people that Clinton is courting with her twisted message of division that will probably gain more with Barack Obama as president. The innovative collaboratives and innovations will go a long way to guarantee a better life for us all — even those who hang on to the old and tired and unproductive biases.
CLINTON SHOULD MAKE HISTORY: Run as an Independant
FARHAT MAQUAMI
Yes, we can! It can make a difference!
Instead of being humiliated, laughed at and pushed to the dustbin of history, Hillary can make history.
Hillary should and must run as an independent candidate in the presidential election and in a three way race she can win.
Clintons are a formidable force and their record speaks for themselves. They have more chances than Bob Bar, Ralph Nader, Ross Parrot and Pat Buchanan combined! Obama made history by becoming the Democrats Presidential Candidate which even he wins would not bring changes to American politics. Clinton running as independent would bring revolutionary changes to the American political system and Washington.
Anybody who really wants to change Washington must change the monopoly of power by two collaborating parties that has suffocated American Democracy.
Hillary changed from Republicn to Demodrat and now can tell the country that she has come to the conclusion that to save the country she would run as an independent.
Hillary Clinton should not permit to be insulted, ignored, derided and mocked by the Media Savoy Obama Democrats and rebuff them all by making history. From Obama’s speech in South Carolina it is Obvious there is no respect for Clintons and they would challenge her in the next Senate election. If In the next senate election 90 per cent of Blacks would go for Osama’s handpicked candidate, what would be left of her legacy.
Clinton has a tested brand-name, a loyal following, name recognition, an agenda for Middle Class Americans, all she needs to declare that “ the real Change in America needs the breaking of the corrupt two party system which has brought a once prosperous respected America to its needs by conspiracy against the middle class”.
Bob Barr could be the Libertarian Candidate and Joe Lieberman can thumb his nose at Democratic Party, win as an Independent and take Democrats hostage, then why Clinton has every right to split with the party that is trashing her and the whole Clinton Era.
She should have the gut to start a new party or refurbish the Green or Libertarian and become its candidate. She might win in a three way race.
In all Western style Democracies from Israel to India, from Italy to Canada when one side notices a fundamental injustice, then it immediately start a new Party.
Hillary Clinton, whose supporters are Middle America and women, has a constituency that might follow her and vote for her as a third party Candidate!
It seems that Obama Mania has blinded the so-called Democratic Party that is a hodge-podge of varying interest group. The time has come for Hillary to take a stand and make history. Splitting the Democratic Party would actually bring Democracy and real Change to Washington. The New splinter group can unite with other splinter groups and voiceless independents from the Republican Party, Green Party, etc and become a viable Party. Who knows what Blue Dog Democrat would do, they might join her too!
Hillary Clinton has more followings and more assets than Joe Lieberman, who defied the Democrats and survived as an independent candidate.
Hillary should not tolerate the daily attack, mockery, and the force of confused young intellectuals that are voting for Obama’s Hope message!”Until there is a two party system in America there would be no hope and no change is going to happen in Washington” Bob Barr declared today.
It is high time that instead of being fooled by snake oil salesmen, left or right, starting a new Party, who would defend the interest of hardworking American and would save our Democracy.
Hillary’s can only make history by becoming a revolutionary and bring a Real Change to American society. Only by this revolutionary act she would make history rather than be mocked by historian.
CLINTON SHOULD MAKE HISTORY: Run as an Independant
FARHAT MAQUAMI
Yes, we can! It can make a difference!
Instead of being humiliated, laughed at and pushed to the dustbin of history, Hillary can make history.
Hillary should and must run as an independent candidate in the presidential election and in a three way race she can win.
Clintons are a formidable force and their record speaks for themselves. They have more chances than Bob Bar, Ralph Nader, Ross Parrot and Pat Buchanan combined! Obama made history by becoming the Democrats Presidential Candidate which even he wins would not bring changes to American politics. Clinton running as independent would bring revolutionary changes to the American political system and Washington.
Anybody who really wants to change Washington must change the monopoly of power by two collaborating parties that has suffocated American Democracy.
Hillary changed from Republicn to Demodrat and now can tell the country that she has come to the conclusion that to save the country she would run as an independent.
Hillary Clinton should not permit to be insulted, ignored, derided and mocked by the Media Savoy Obama Democrats and rebuff them all by making history. From Obama’s speech in South Carolina it is Obvious there is no respect for Clintons and they would challenge her in the next Senate election. If In the next senate election 90 per cent of Blacks would go for Osama’s handpicked candidate, what would be left of her legacy.
Clinton has a tested brand-name, a loyal following, name recognition, an agenda for Middle Class Americans, all she needs to declare that “ the real Change in America needs the breaking of the corrupt two party system which has brought a once prosperous respected America to its needs by conspiracy against the middle class”.
Bob Barr could be the Libertarian Candidate and Joe Lieberman can thumb his nose at Democratic Party, win as an Independent and take Democrats hostage, then why Clinton has every right to split with the party that is trashing her and the whole Clinton Era.
She should have the gut to start a new party or refurbish the Green or Libertarian and become its candidate. She might win in a three way race.
In all Western style Democracies from Israel to India, from Italy to Canada when one side notices a fundamental injustice, then it immediately start a new Party.
Hillary Clinton, whose supporters are Middle America and women, has a constituency that might follow her and vote for her as a third party Candidate!
It seems that Obama Mania has blinded the so-called Democratic Party that is a hodge-podge of varying interest group. The time has come for Hillary to take a stand and make history. Splitting the Democratic Party would actually bring Democracy and real Change to Washington. The New splinter group can unite with other splinter groups and voiceless independents from the Republican Party, Green Party, etc and become a viable Party. Who knows what Blue Dog Democrat would do, they might join her too!
Hillary Clinton has more followings and more assets than Joe Lieberman, who defied the Democrats and survived as an independent candidate.
Hillary should not tolerate the daily attack, mockery, and the force of confused young intellectuals that are voting for Obama’s Hope message!”Until there is a two party system in America there would be no hope and no change is going to happen in Washington” Bob Barr declared today.
It is high time that instead of being fooled by snake oil salesmen, left or right, starting a new Party, who would defend the interest of hardworking American and would save our Democracy.
Hillary’s can only make history by becoming a revolutionary and bring a Real Change to American society. Only by this revolutionary act she would make history rather than be mocked by historian.
In a previous post in this thread, I wrote that the US government was responsible for the murder of 100 million Indians.
Thank you for correcting me, Thomas More. In your post you wrote:
“There were less than a million or so Indians in the United States during the period you refer to. Heck there weren’t that many Whites till the early 20’s.”
What I intended to type was that *10* million Indians were murdered, not 100 million.
Lest you think the 10 million figure is excessive, I refer you to the following website: http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2005w05/msg00265.htm
The above site brings together a great deal of research on the subject. Quoting from the site:
“The Indian population estimate of as many as 100 million, which is far in excess of Churchill’s (1994) very conservative range of 12.5-18.5 million…… (Kowalewski and Hatch, 1991), it is certainly possible that the number of Indians…far exceeded 16 million. Dobyns (1983)… figures imply 20-60 million Indians in the USA if the other of the 2 million square miles of hospitable land in the USA were equally densely settled. While MacLeod (1928) has estimated that… the numbers still indicate at least 15-45 million Indians in the USA… by1890…their number in the continental USA had dropped further to only 250,000 (Thornton, 1987).”
There’s no agreed upon number of just how many Indians were murdered, but it’s generally concluded that the Indian population was reduced by 90% — clearly a genocidal ”cleansing” of one of the earth’s five races.
(Continued)
Also, Thomas, in response to my point that the United States government owes the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki an apology, you wrote:
“As to Japan and an apology for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not a chance. We owe them no apology for that. What did you think of their apology for Iwo Jima or Guadalcanal by the way? And their apology for Manchuria and China?”
First of all, as you know, Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima were military targets, with virtually none of the casualties in those battles being civilian-casualties. Whereas, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden were *not* military targets — the sole purpose of those attacks was to terrorize the civilian population.
(Continued)
Why did the US government drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
In 1945, defending the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Truman and his people claimed that a land invasion of Japan would result in the death of “hundreds of thousands” of US soldiers. Recently releases government documents, however, indicate that Truman commissioned a secret study in 1945 that concluded that a land invasion of Japan would result in approximately 30,000 US casualties.
Note: the battle for Iwo Jima cost the lives of 28,000 American soldiers.
Note, too, that after he left office, the Bible-quoting, poker-playing haberdasher/war criminal upped the ante, claiming that not “hundreds of thousands,” as he previously claimed, but rather “over a million American boys” would have been killed in a land invasion of Japan.” Indeed, shortly before he died, Truman proclaimed that “millions of American and Japanese boys” would have died as a result of a land invasion.
Perhaps the little man should have listened to one of his military men, Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II. Leahy stated that:
“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender…in being the first to use it (the atomic bomb), we … adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”
See the following website for more information — http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/truman.html
(Continued)
Today, the overwhelming evidence points to the fact that the US dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki (bombing both cities within a span of only eight days!) not to bring about a quicker end to World War II, but rather to send a message to the Soviet Union.
And the message was unmistakably clear. …
“We have this devastating weapon, Joe Stalin, and we’re not only going to show you quite clearly and quite graphically what it can do but, moreover, we’re going to show you that the US government is ready, willing and able to use this horrible weapon *recklessly* — that is to say, even when it’s not militarily necessary.”
Quoting from the George Mason University website entitled “History News Network” –
“Harry Truman knew well that the use of ‘The Bomb’ was not to stop the War or stop killing American soldiers, but to show the Russians what the United States was capable of.” — http://hnn.us/articles/189.html
Shortly before Hiroshima, Truman said to his advisors: “If this thing explodes, we’ll have a hammer on those boys.” And the “boys” he was referring were Russians not Japanese.
(Continued)
Also, Thomas, when you state that the Japanese government, in effect, “did the same thing” in Manchuria and China, i.e., indiscriminately killed civilians; surely, you realize that that doesn’t let the US off the moral hook. If it was wrong for the Japan government to indiscriminately kill civilians in China and Manchuria, then it was just as wrong for the US government to do the same thing in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and General Curtis LeMay’s fire bombing of Tokyo shortly after Pearl Harbor. (Note: LeMay freely admitted that had the US lost the War, he and his co-pilots would have been hanged as war criminals).
Saying that “Well, you know, they did it too!” means nothing morally. The US is supposed to be different, no?
Isn’t that why we fought the fascists, the Nazis and the Japanese warlords? Because we’re supposed to be “different,” exceptional, re. American exceptionalism.
Or does American “exceptionalism” only apply to the excessive portions of the world’s resources the US consumes?
(Continued)
Finally, the idea that the US fought World War II for moral reasons is highly questionable. …
– Was World War II fought to stop racism? Obviously not, since racism existed in the United States before, during and after 1941.
– Was World War II fought to stop colonialism? Obviously not. Consider the neo-colonialism engaged in by the Allied powers *after* World War II …France in Algiers and Vietnam … the US in the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama .. the US and the British in Iraq. … Clearly, World War II was *not* fought to end colonialism!
– Was World War II fought to end anti-Semitism? Obviously not, since anti-Semitism existed in the State Department all during the 1930, with the State Department making it extremely difficult for Jews to enter the United States.
Also, Thomas, you are perhaps familiar with the US government turning away in 1939 the SS St. Louis from Miami harbor — the SS St. Louis having on board hundreds of Jews who were seeking asylum in the US. Quoting from the following website http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?ModuleId=10005267
“Sailing so close to Florida that they (the Jews onboard the SS St. Louis) could see the lights of Miami, passengers on the St. Louis cabled President Franklin D. Roosevelt asking for refuge. Roosevelt never answered the cable. The State Department and the White House had already decided not to let them enter the United States. …
“Following the U.S. government’s refusal to permit the passengers to disembark, the St. Louis sailed back to Europe on June 6, 1939. … Many of the passengers in continental Europe later found themselves under Nazi rule.”
(Continued)
For a morality-check on the *real* reasons the United States government entered World War II, see the following website: “World War II. The Good War?”
http://www.isreview.org/issues/10/good_war.shtml
The simple realpolitik fact is that the US entered World War II to protect the interests of America’s economic elite. If, as many feel, the US government fought World War II for “moral reasons,” then why didn’t the US government enter the War when the Japanese warlords were indiscriminately killing civilians in China and Manchuria in 1937-38? Rather, it wasn’t until the Japanese government threatened *US markets* (not innocent civilians) that the United States committed to the War.
So, Thomas, there’s a lot of apologizing the US government has to do — to millions of people, dead and alive. And, no, it’s not, as you suggest, to make them feel better, but rather to make *us* feel better. That is to say, so that millions of Americans can sleep peacefully at night.
Good grief. Are we that dumb?
You’ve only noticed the tip of the iceberg.
This article AND many of the responses to it are the most heartening things
I have read in a very long time.
What I intended to type was that *10* million Indians were murdered, not 100 million.
Seems reasonable to me. You should see some of my typo’s!
WOW! That was quite an opinion!
I don’t remember suggesting WW2 was fought for moral reasons.
“Why did the US government drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?”
There is a lot of revisionist history going on today. You could perhaps be right for all I know. The one thing I’m sure of is that we should have dropped those bombs.
My Dad was on Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal with 3rd. Marines (and Bougainville and a few other places) and he would tell you that anyone that says that the Japanese were about to surrender is stuffed quite full of little green apples.
Rather than have another 28,000 (actually we lost over 30,000 at Iwo Jima) killed assaulting the beaches in Japan I’d drop 5 more bombs if they wouldn’t quit. They didn’t treat our troops too well.
We entered WW2 as I remember it because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and when we declared war on them Germany and Italy declared war on us.
So no apologies to the Japanese. We might want to apologize to the Iraqi since we attacked them without provocation. I wouldn’t mind an apology to the Viet Namese while we were about it. Never to Japan. Their atrocities didn’t rival the Nazi’s but were more than enough.
We don’t stand blameless but at the same time we are not to blame for all the worlds ills. Nor can we spend the rest of our lives looking back. Bad things done, you bet. But we can’t fix them now. We can be more careful going forward.
The one thing I am absolutely sure of is looking back is easier than being there and deciding. This had come up before and my Dad said if the Marines were given a vote between assaulting the Japanese mainland and dropping the bomb, you’d have 100% for the bomb.
Right or wrong can be very confusing. I remember talking to a few VC we took in late 65 and one of them spoke English fairly well, he asked us for one of the others why we were there? I said because we were drafted. They laughed and said they understood. He asked if we wanted to rule Viet Nam as they were told, I said heck no, we just wanted to go home. They talked for a minute and told us they thought we should get our wish. Then they laughed their butts off.
Did it really make any difference to them or us if Corporate America wanted their rubber or whatever or Johnson wanted to rule Viet Nam?
I’m trying to say that if you are there its harder to accept that someone feels you should die rather than the enemy because of someone else’s scruples.
( I reread this before I posted it and felt it could be misconstrued, so let me say anything I’ve said is not meant personally in any way. I’m not sure I’m even getting my meaning across very well, but its the best I can do.)
“Japanese government, in effect, “did the same thing” in Manchuria and China, i.e., indiscriminately killed civilians; surely, you realize that that doesn’t let the US off the moral hook.”
Your point here is correct. So from your viewpoint you are correct. The problem is I believe it would have been morally wrong not to drop the bombs or use every measure at our disposal to end the war with the least casualties to us.
“There’s no agreed upon number of just how many Indians were murdered, but it’s generally concluded that the Indian population was reduced by 90% — clearly a genocidal ”cleansing”
I meant to put this on the end and say it was the number not your definition of genocide I disagreed with. And even with the remainder we didn’t live up to our treaties. Indians are the one group I feel were really abused by the government per se.
That presidents are constrained is exactly what we want.
The US is at war with the world and the world is fighting back. Happily they are using non-violent means. They are destroying the value of the dollar. Without money D.C. can not wage war. It can not buy oil to fuel ship, tanks, aircraft, etc. The very big down side is the massively lowered standard of living for working Americans. But since Americans are unwilling or unable to control the butchers in D.C. the rest of the world will have to take care of it.
Thomas More,
Thanks for your interesting response to my post.
Just a couple of points.
You write:
“The problem is I believe it would have been morally wrong (for the US) *not* to drop the bombs (on Hiroshima and Nagaskai) or use every measure at our disposal to end the war with the least casualties to us.” (Emphasis and words in parenthesis mine.)
I’m sure you know that the US suffered the least in WWII. Not only was America never attacked by either Germany or Japan, but the total number of US casualties was 418,500, with all but 1700 of those casualties being *solider* casualties.
By contrast, 23,100,000 Russian died, 11,400,000 of whom were civilians! For the complete figures, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Casualties_by_country
(Continued)
Therefore, by your moral logic, Thomas, if the Soviet Union had the atomic bomb during World War II, they would have been morally justified in dropping however many A-bombs on Germany and in doing so killing 20 or 30 or perhaps 40 million Germans; millions of whom would have been innocent civilians — as opposed to fighting the Germans *militarily,* i.e., without killing innocent civilians.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of American GIs in the Pacific wanted A-bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But, then again, no doubt the vast majority of GIs — on BOTH sides of the lines — never wanted to be on the front lines in the first place!
(In civilian life, only someone mentally deranged goes around killing complete strangers. In war, on the other hand, it’s quite alright; completely and blindly accepted by society ar large.)
You know as well as I do that the average soldier gains virtually nothing in the aftermath of the wars THEY fought. Less than nothing! (That doesn’t seem like a very good deal, does it?)
Many GIs came home from WWII traumatized, unemployed and with illnesses that played themselves out in the years that followed. My dad, for one, faced all three situations.
The same can be said for ANY war.
(Continued)
So what the average foot-soldier “wants” is not the issue. I imagine if you said to a soldier seriously wounded in combat and close to death: “Listen, here’s the deal. Your life can be spared if instead of you dying, 10 enemy soldier die instead. … In fact, make it 100 dead enemy soldiers instead of YOU dying. … Or maybe 1,000, or maybe 100,000.”
That’s only human nature, the strongest human drive, aftr all, is self-preservation.
But foot soldiers don’t have a say as to which bombs should be dropped and on whom they should be dropped. If you want to say that a soldier’s “preference” should determine government policy, then, to be consisent, ask the soldier what he wants BEFORE the war starts!
His answer would be: “You know what: I don’t want to be here in the first place. And if I am here fighting, how come when the smoke clears and the war is over, I get very little if anything for risking my life?”
These are obvious questions, easily answered, but as we all know the same questions are skillfully and assiduously avoided by those in charge.
Who bombs who and what tonnage, mega-tonnage and mega-death rains down on whom is a *government* decision — the decision of those light-years and several bank books away from the actual fighting. (As a Vietnam veteran, Thomas, you know that as well as anyone does.)
As such, Truman, as a representative of America’s ruling elite, decided that dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki — and in doing so killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians — was morally justifed. Clearly, it wasn’t.
(Continued)
The immediate death toll following Hiroshima and Nagasaki was 250,000, the vast majority of whom were civilians. Eventually the total reached approximately half a million. If Truman knew, from the secret study he commissioned in 1945, that roughly 30,000 US *soldiers* would have died as a result of a US invasion of the Japanese mainland, then, no, killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians is NOT morally justified.
One can’t accept your argument, Thomas, and then turn around and say that the US ruling class was “justly fighting a just war.” They weren’t. The rather obvious evidence that WWII was an imperialist war fought on behalf od the ruling elites of Europe and the United States must also be coupled with the barbarism of the United States dropping two atomic bombs on a country that more and more historians agree was days away from surrendering. (If not, why then did the US drop two A-bombs on Japan only 8 days apart? Answer: For the future, i.e., to impress on the Soviet Union, not Japan, just how reckless and barbaric the US ruling elite can be.)
As Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II, put it:
“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender…in being the first to use it (the atomic bomb), we … adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”
(Continued)
Sadly, Harry Truman’s mentality isn’t very different than Hillary’s “obliterate Iran” comment; or, for that matter, the mentality of all the recent mainstream presidential hopefuls, none of whom are willing to take the use of nuclear weapons “off the table.”
No, Harry, no Hillary — obliterating millions of innocent people is NOT morally defensible. If America in WWII suffered relatively few casualties in relation to other countries, what about the number of Americans *soliders* killed in Gulf War II — 4077 — as compared to the number of Iraqis killed in Gulf War II — 1,206,950 — many of whom are innocent *civilians.* See http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html
That notion of “moral equivalency,” a.k.a. “American exceptionalism” (read: American lives are more precious than foreigners’ lives) spells doom for the entire species.
It simply can’t — and *won’t* — go on.
“ask the soldier what he wants BEFORE the war starts!
His answer would be: “You know what: I don’t want to be here in the first place.”
You certainly have that right!!!!!!!
I was not speaking of the morality when it comes to the final decision to drop bombs on Japan. The only valid point my father made is that they did not have to assault the Japanese homeland, saving hundreds of thousands of lives.
Remember Iwo Jima was part of the Japanese homeland, the first we reached. the Japanese had about 21,000 there and we lost over 30,000. The projected math isn’t that hard.
In my view and my fathers for sure, if we had those and didn’t drop them, we both would have been willing to see the person(s) responsible for the needless deaths of our Marines and soldiers. I don’t know why anyone would think that the mainland would have been different than Iwo Jima. Almost all the Japanese soldiers were killed. They had no intention of surviving if they didn’t win.
I would say that in a war, the lives of my soldiers and the citizens of my country are worth far more than the enemy.
The point is NEVER to go to war. We were in this one because some cowards that never served, dodged service, were so eager to play war with others lives. We continue the occupation because these same people listened to a bunch of policy wonks that had never been closer to war than a paintball fight.
“more and more historians agree was days away from surrendering. (If not, why then did the US drop two A-bombs on Japan only 8 days apart?
Answer”
My answer is that the further you are along, the more historians interpret facts to suit their theories. The Japanese were no where close to surrendering according to the officers and men in the South Pacific. The general officers are still laughing when they see the reports that the Japanese were about to suurrender. The closer we got the harder they fought. 8 days apart should tell you everything you need to know. After the first, anyone else would have surrendered. They didn’t. And if they were about to surrender anyway, that would have done it. The timeline tells you the truth.
“(As a Vietnam veteran, Thomas, you know that as well as anyone does.)”
Thats the truth! But my point is, if you face that other soldier, you have to win or he will kill or capture you. So the whole point which we will agree wholeheartedly is, never, never go to war if there is any other way. Any other way.
Dropping the bombs is a point we won’t agree on as we view it fron different perspectives, but I’ve appreciated other points you’ve made and some interesting facts you brought up.
We certainly agree on a few things, no more wars if we can help it, never use that weapon again except in extremis, never have another draft and if its unavoidable, everyone is in. No deferments for the Cheneys of the world.
I’ve been in most parts of the world and for all our faults and all our mistakes I know we still live in the greatest country in the world. I’ve not seen anywhere else I’d want to live yet. Nor have I seen a country that has given as much to the world, in all areas.
We still have a long way to go till we hit the best we can do though.
Thomas More,
You’re keeping me on my toes, man! Your sincerely offered comments bring to mind a few additional thoughts. If I may …
You write:
“The Japanese were no where close to surrendering according to the officers and men in the South Pacific. The general officers are still laughing when they see the reports that the Japanese were about to surrender.”
Quoting from the following, article, published in 2004, “59 Years After Hiroshima”:
“While the actual casualty count remains unknowable, it was widely known at the time that Japan had been trying to surrender for months prior to the atomic bombing. A May 5, 1945 cable, intercepted and decoded by the U.S., ‘dispelled any possible doubt that the Japanese were eager to sue for peace.’ In fact, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported shortly after the war, that Japan ‘in all probability’ would have surrendered before the much-discussed November 1, 1945 Allied invasion of the homeland.
“Truman himself eloquently noted in his diary that Stalin would ‘be in the Jap War on August 15th. Fini (sic) Japs when that comes about.’
Click here for the entire article, http://www.counterpunch.org/mickey08042004.html
So:
a.) The US intercepted a Japanese cable that “dispelled any possible doubt that the Japanese were eager to sue for peace.”
b.) The US Strategic Bombing Survey reported shortly after the war, that Japan “in all probability” would have surrendered before the much-discussed November 1, 1945 Allied invasion of the homeland.
c.) *Truman himself* indicated in his diary that Japan would be “Fini” by August 15th, 1945. You’ll recall that the A-bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and on Nagasaki a few days later.
(Continued)
Quoting again from the previously cited article:
“Although hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives were lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bombings are often explained away as a ‘life-saving’ measure-American lives. Exactly how many lives saved is, however, up for grabs. …
“Fortunately, we are not operating without the benefit of official estimates.
“In June 1945, Truman ordered the U.S. military to calculate the cost in American lives for a planned assault on Japan. Consequently, the Joint War Plans Committee prepared a report for the Chiefs of Staff, dated June 15, 1945, thus providing the closest thing anyone has to “accurate”: 40,000 U.S. soldiers killed, 150,000 wounded, and 3,500 missing.”
Note: In a previous post, I had the 40,000 figure as 30,000. Sorry. But the point is still valid — we’re talking about the contrast between perhaps 40,000 *soldier*-deaths, versus hundreds of thousands of *civilian*-deaths. And in a city, Hiroshima, that was of absolutely no military value to either Japan or the United States.
The above-cited article also quotes General Dwight Eisenhower. These are Eisenhower’s words:
“I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives,”
The article also quotes New York Times military analyst Hanson Baldwin,
“The enemy, in a military sense, was in a hopeless strategic position. Such then, was the situation when we wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Need we have done it? No one can, of course, be positive, but the answer is almost certainly negative.”
(Continued)
Given the general consensus – then and now – that Japan was about to surrender, and that therefore dropping the two bombs was militarily unnecessary, why then were they dropped?
The above-cited article quotes then Secretary of States James F. Byrnes:
“Our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable in the East . . . The demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia with America’s military might.”
And here are the words of U.S. General Leslie Groves, military commander of the Manhattan Project:
“There was never, from about two weeks from the time I took charge of this Project, any illusion on my part but that Russia was our enemy, and the Project was conducted on that basis.”
Secretary of War, Henry Stimson considered the bomb to be a “diplomatic weapon,” indicating that:
“American statesmen were eager for their country to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip.”
The above-cited article goes on to quote historian Charles L. Mee, Jr.:
“The psychological effect [of Hiroshima and Nagasaki] on Stalin was twofold, the Americans had not only used a doomsday machine; they had used it when, as Stalin knew, it was not militarily necessary. It was this last chilling fact that doubtless made the greatest impression on the Russians.”
There is also the famous exchange between Harry Truman and J. Robert Oppenheimer, the science director for the Manhattan Project. Upon learning of the horrible devastation the bomb produced, Oppenheimer is reported as saying to Truman: “Mr. President, I have blood on my hands.”
To which the Bible-quoting little man replied: “It’ll come out in the wash.”
Whereupon, after Oppenheimer left, Truman turned to his aide and said: “Don’t bring that fellow around again.”
(Continued)
In your post, Thomas, you write:
“I would say that in a war, the lives of my soldiers and the citizens of my country are worth far more than the enemy.”
Certainly that’s a widely held opinion; on both sides of any war. But may I ask a couple of questions?
1.) Does it matter if the war is just?
2.) Does it matter if a particular operation in a war is morally justified? In this case the particular operation was the dropping of nuclear weapons on two cities of absolutely no military value to either side.
3.) The civilian-to-soldier death ratio in WWII was higher than the civilian-to-soldier death ratio in WWI, and today, that ratio is even higher, much higher. Today a war *guarantees* a high civilian-to-soldier death ratio, raising the question: Can *any* modern-day war be justified, given that so many civilians will inevitably die?
4.) When you write: “… the lives of my soldiers and the citizens of my country are worth far more than the enemy.” Indeed, *who* is the enemy?
Some see the world more in terms of class than nationality. To their way of thinking “the enemy” is the economic exploiter; the class that brings misery via economic deprivation; and often, in turn, war.
There was a great deal of misery created by WWII. Who started it? Some would say Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini. Other would say the war came about because of imperialist powers vying for economic dominance.
They would contend that WWII was fought for the same reasons WWI was fought for: to protect the interests of the economic elite.
Now, if that’s the case, then, as an average walking around citizen, of either Japan or America or Iraq or Afghanistan — *who’s my enemy?*
Put another way: does it matter that, ironically, foot soldiers in a war have more in common with each other than they do with their generals? See the following — http://www.eliteskills.com/analysis_poetry/The_Man_He_Killed_by_Thomas_Hardy_analysis.php
Isn’t it human nature to “value” the lives of people we have the most in common with? WWII Japanese privates and WWII American privates certainly had more in common with each other – socially, politically and economically – than a US private had in common with, say, George Patton. Would you agree?
Finally, I admire greatly the following sentiment, you write:
“So the whole point which we will agree wholeheartedly is, never, never go to war if there is any other way. Any other way.”
No question. War in today’s world is not only morally indefensible (it’s a two-fer!), it’s also species-suicide.
And suicide is for losers.
Speaking of on your toes!
1. In my opinion, not when you are in it. Before for sure and after perhaps.
2. Yes and no. As to the bombs my opinion is it was morally justified, but in the grand scale we have lost control of that decision. No in the respect of battlefield operations. It matters a great deal if you are shooting unarmed civilians or prisoners, torturing, etc. Emotions run high and things do happen, but our troops are better than most. We know what we should and shouldn’t do. (usually when something happens like Abu Grebb (?) its caused by slack officers and 3rd. rate undisciplined troops.) THAT was immoral!
3. If we are attacked….of course. Or to help another country thats been attacked, possibly. I don’t know that war is ever “justified”, but I’m sure it is sometimes unavoidable. WW2 was unavoidable.
4.The causes of WW2? Most that you mentioned, but Germany mainly because of an unjust and unsustainable treaty of surrender. Japan was intent on building her empire to control the raw materials she needed. And to preserve the owners equities too. It all came together to produce it. My opinion of course.
“They would contend that WWII was fought for the same reasons WWI was fought for: to protect the interests of the economic elite.”
I believe that was the reason for WW1. It was the end of real empires and was started because of them. I think.
The enemy is always easier to identify on the battlefield. They are shooting at you. And they are the enemy and my soldiers and citizens are worth far more to me.
In the broad sense you are correct, but once a war is started you have to win. Iraq is not a war, neither was Viet Nam in my opinion. A real war is if you lose the enemy comes to your country and takes over, like WW2.
But there is no difference to that poor sod thats in the field. Dead in Iraq or Viet Nam is still dead.
“WWII German privates and WWII American privates certainly had more in common with each other – socially, politically and economically – than a US private had in common with, say, George Patton. Would you agree?”
Putting German instead of Japanese in there I would…I would also say many times you have more in common with your enemy than your own civilians. Speaking of morally corrupt, those stories you hear of the little cowards spitting on returning troops was true.
“Put another way: does it matter that, ironically, foot soldiers in a war have more in common with each other than they do with their generals?”
A good point and true mostly. I think the Japanese were an exception. But once again, if they are fighting you, it makes no difference. You either win or die (unless you can run fast enough if you are losing)…..we had a couple of track meets.
“Isn’t it human nature to “value” the lives of people we have the most in common with?”
In the end I’d say yes, except when they are shooting at you.
“Finally, I admire greatly the following sentiment, you write:”
Thats a kind thing to say, but I think any combat veteran feels that way. If they don’t they are absolutely crackers or lying about being in combat.
No one wants to remember it really. I was 26 years old before I knew my Dad was on Iwo Jima ( he says the hardest and worst battle of the Pacific, 4 of his company came off) or Guadalcanal, Saipan, Bougainville and Guam. He was in his fifties before he told me about them.
I talked ( 1st. & 3rd. Marine reunions) to a number of Marine generals and other officers that were there during the Pacific campaigns and they didn’t buy that “the Japanese were about to surrender” I trust their judgement rather than an historian that is putting together facts far past the time. Remember when the last Japanese soldier surrendered?
“it’s also species-suicide.”
Funny thing is, I seem to remember there are always more people after a war than there were before. Maybe not next time.
“So the whole point which we will agree wholeheartedly is, never, never go to war if there is any other way. Any other way.”
Everything you have written just says the same thing, and I can assure you that I value it highly. I just can’t express things as well as many here.
Thomas More and wsws:
Wow.
Fascinating dialog.
Thanks for sharing your perspectives. You obviously have some emotional connection to the events of WWII.
What I have read is that the Japanese were preparing for a US land invasion and not to surrender. This is really insane after the damage done by napalm to many of their cities which were nearly wiped off the map. Yet they also proved that they were willing to fight to the last man. I cannot believe only 30,000 were predicted to be killed in a mainland invasion when that many were killed in the tiny, undeveloped island of Iwo Jima.
Thanks Hamster
Obviously I agree with you but wsws doesn’t. wsws cares about our country and so do I. Its funny how we can differ on the journey and still agree on the destination.
“What I have read is that the Japanese were preparing for a US land invasion and not to surrender.”
wsws if you come back I forgot to tell you about the fortifications on the mainland. My Dad was in the occupying forces and he suggested he thought it would have been a “bit tough,” his words.