Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Clinton Ramps Up Rhetoric on Iran
Analyst: 'Given Time' Clinton Will Blame Iran 'for Global Warming'
Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, has said that Iran is heading towards a "military dictatorship" and warned it poses an international threat.
Hillary Clinton told students in Qatar that the she thought Iran was 'moving towards a military dictatorship.' Mohammad Marandi, a political analyst at the University of Tehran, dismissed Clinton's comments. "If we give Hillary Clinton some more time she will be blaming Iran for global warming as well," he told Al Jazeera. (Photo: EPA) Clinton made her comments to students in Doha, the Qatari capital,
on Monday as part of her Gulf tour seeking greater support for tough
new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme.
"We see the government of Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the parliament is being supplanted and Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship," she said, speaking at the Qatari branch of Carnegie-Mellon University.
The US is seeking to push Iran into curbing its nuclear ambitions, which it says are aimed at building a nuclear weapon.
Iran has repeatedly stated that its nuclear programme is purely to meet the country's civilian energy needs.
Iran blamed
Mohammad Marandi, a political analyst at the University of Tehran, dismissed Clinton's comments.
"If we give Hillary Clinton some more time she will be blaming Iran for global warming as well," he told Al Jazeera.
"Obviously the statements that she has been making over the past couple of days are quite dishonest, the fact is the United States has to deal with Iran on a rational basis otherwise it will get itself nowhere."
The comments by the US secretary of state mark a stepping up of pressure in favour of sanctions on Iran.
The US is hoping to use international pressure through the UN Security Council for a fourth round of sanctions on Iran.
Clinton said that those sanctions would expressly target the business interests of Iran's Revolutionary Guard.
Her comments come a day after she told delegates at the US-Islamic World Forum, also in Qatar, that Iran had left the world powers little choice but to impose harsh penalties against it over its nuclear programme.
She she told the forum, which is jointly organised by the Qatari foreign ministry and the US-based Brookings Institution, that "evidence is accumulating" that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon.
"Iran has consistently failed to live up to its responsibilities. It has refused to demonstrate to the international community that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful," she said.
'Less than peaceful'
PJ Crowley, the US state department spokesman, later echoed that sentiment in an interview with Al Jazeera.
"Given all the steps that Iran has taken and all the actions that Iran refuses to take, we can only begin to draw the conclusion that Iran's intentions are less than peaceful," he said.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, said last week that his country's nuclear scientists had completed further enrichment of the first batch of its stockpile of uranium.
Tehran has said that it stepped up enrichment to produce fuel for a medical research reactor, but the US and its allies have said that the move signals a rejection of a UN-backed plan to swap Iran's low-enriched uranium for processed nuclear fuel.
80 Comments so far
Show AllWe can all read this nonsense in Murdoch's JPOST before Hillary starts spouting the Tel Aviv line.
Iran calls for Global Nuclear Disarmament
Raw Story, Feb. 14, 2010
The American public has not been informed by the US news media about highly newsworthy statements made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday February 12.
He said the era of nuclear weapons is over, suggesting Iran has no plans to build "inhumane" A-bombs. Ahmadinejad called for a world free of nuclear arms in an interview with Russia's NTV channel.
"We believe that not only the Middle East but also the whole world should be free of nuclear weapons because we see such weapons as inhumane," he said.
"Today, no one can use a nuclear weapon and we believe that the US is taking a wrong move by stockpiling nuclear weapons," he added. "Those who claim that they are against nuclear weapons should dismantle their nuclear weapons first to prove that they are honest."
Full and unedited at:
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/media-omission-iran-calls-nuclear-disarmament/
Thank you for that link.
Short list of US aggressions since 1975:
CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.
GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ 1990-91 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
IRAQ 1991-2003 Bombing, naval No-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions
LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI 1994 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998 Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed.
MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S. troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into combat missions in Sulu Archipelago, west of Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases.
LIBERIA 2003 Troops Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader.
HAITI 2004-05 Troops, naval Marines land after right-wing rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.
PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, bombing, covert operation CIA missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on Pakistani Mehsud network.
SOMALIA 2006-? Missiles, naval, covert operation Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist government; AC-130 strikes and Cruise missile attacks against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and insurgents.
SYRIA 2008 Troops Special Forces in helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians
YEMEN 2009 Missiles Cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians.
================
List of countries Iran has invaded in same time frame:
None
Coyote 10:06 good list. People should be aware that at least one of the Iranian jets shot down by the USN in 1984, was a regularly scheduled fully passengered civilian airliner out of Tehran.
Later the USN captain received a medal.
You listed the military response to the hijacked planes on Sept. 11th as an act of aggression?!
Really?
Sending fighter jets to intercept airlines that are being used as missles isn't an act of aggression fool.
Self defense and aggression are not the same thing!
OH and the Iranian funding and arming of Hezbollah and Hamas is most definitely an act of aggression...
You don't think Iran should assist the the people who are in the front lines of the defense of the peoples of Lebanon and Palestine against a criminal, racist, apartheid regime which goes on the rampage and kills a couple of thousand people every year or two?
Do we even live on the same planet?
Arming Hamas with the weapons it uses to attack Israeli civilians isn't noble or legal. If Hamas wanted to defend the Palesinians it wouldn't launch missles at cities.
I still don't understand why the rage against Israel that exists on this site seeing how Hamas and Israeli do the exact same thing to each other! The only difference is that Israeli is a little bit better at it...
Arming shitsrael with the weapons it uses to attack palestinian civilians isn't noble or legal. If shitsrael wanted to defend the shitsraelis it wouldn't steal land or commit genocide.
If you dont understand the "rage" again shitsrael its because you still have quite a lot of learning to do, ignorance is just an excuse up to a point and it seems you already passed that point so start studying if you really are interested in understanding the situation in Palestine, and no, the difference is abysmal.
"Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, has said that Iran is heading towards a "military dictatorship" and warned it poses an international threat."
Headline reads: "Pot Calls Kettle Black"
Just look at her face! I have read good argument that says she is the Vice-president of a Police State.
You really have to wonder what blowback AIPAC is going to get. Anyone think that they are just carrying on with Herzl's plan? As he said in his diary-
"It is essential that the sufferings of Jews.. . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends". (From hisDiary, Part I, pp. 16)
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
Yes Iran should give up its nuke bomb ambition. To set an example Israel, the US, Russia etc. should destroy nuke weapons from the face of the earth. Otherwise proliferation will continue and we will blow ourselves up.
shach ------ The USA's own CIA assessment is that Iran has no weapons program or plans for one.
Only warmongers claim Iran has a weapons program.
See Cygnus post below.
One of the primary luxuries that American politicians have is that the average American has the retention span of a small child and is easily distracted. When they start to become angered over the complete and utter failure of the administration's domestic policy, you simply divert their attention. It's not hard. You merely have to make up a story about a foreign bogeyman. The people in the home of the brave will then do what they always do. They'll pee their pants, shut their mouths, and do what they're told. They can't connect the dots because they can't hold two thoughts in their heads at the same time.
It's time to fire Hilary Rodham Klanton, this very dangerous war monger, who never should have been in this administration in any capacity! She apparently is a "Democratic" Sarah Palin.
AD
Better still, let's keep this whole current Administration in Washington, from the President on down intact for the next 2 and a half years, and then vote them out of office entirely in 2012.
Gee whiz how many Military Dictatorships has the USA installed or allied too?
In psychoanalysis this is known as projection.
The USA body politic is dead dead dead as a door post.
There is NO chance that working within the present system will restore it to life.
Look at the leaders, they actually really do look like vampires or zombies.
If you think that petitioning a Cabal of greedy vicious,dumb,psychotics,will result in positive change, you are hopelessly naive.
Voting third party and all the non-violent physical resistence you can muster is the only chance of improvement.
Glenn, I loved your movies.
Third party since '68
Best,
Alan
Hillary Clinton, Madam Secretary of State:
Selling your soul to utter the stupid remark that there is a danger Iran is becoming a military dictatorship is a very high price to pay for such a confirmed, and avowed faithful Methodist.
In representing our huge and hugely hypocritical U.S. military dictatorship, with its now 836 military bases around the world, and which rarely has hesitated to attack, invade and occupy other countries and territories, you must have to really swallow hard before you spew such nonsense.
You have mentioned already that you do not intend to continue on as Secretary of State after this term of Barack Obama's administration ends. That remark was an unexpected shocker on the talk-show program you were on, but one that faded from the news by the end of the day.
Quit now, Hillary, before it's too late, and before you help the United States government, along with its partner, Zionist Israel, do more damage and move us closer to a true nuclear holocaust.
Your former idol, Eleanor Roosevelt, primary author of the Declaration of Human Rights that is one of the underpinnings of the original mission of the United Nations, and the great soul you most wanted to be like in your activities and actions on behalf of humankind, must be rolling around in her grave and gnashing her teeth. The other even more important figure in your life with his simple, clear teachings, if you cut away the extras and militancy added many years later, was Jesus, as you yourself stated.
Quit now, Hillary. Your brilliance and strength could do much to expose The Grand Illusions by the Greatest Hypocrite of All Nations on the face of this earth and liberate all those in other countries whose lives may be cut short because of the aggressive military policies of the United States of America.
If you did that, you very likely might be "accidently" killed in a plane crash or similar, but you would leave a legacy of righteousness and courage that would be eventually celebrated as others who were true to themselves and the highest principles of truth, justice, freedom, and peace that they had internalized and acted on.
Remember what you once so fervently stood for in the days when your own principles were far stronger than the enticing corruptions of politics as usual, and now act accordingly.
You would be doing a monumental service, not only for yourself, but for all of us here in the United States and throughout the world.
At the very least, you could just resign and begin representing and doing the work for women and children, the poor, the sick, the vulnerable that you originally wanted to do.
More and more it shows in your eyes that you are ripped apart inside.
May God help you and restore you to yourself,
Carol K. Littlebrant
/cm
ditto, Obama
Hillary Clinton, hypocrisy incarnate, you servant of an Empire of more than 750 military bases that are holding the entire planet hostage and with the largest military budget in history, what on earth are you talking about?
Look at the heart of darkness, the black hole, the evil Empire you serve and are carrying within yourself.
Here we go again..........
Hillary:" Iran poses an international threat". To whom? Looks like Dracula is afraid of running out of blood!
Not really a surprise that Zionist Hillary wants what the Knesset wants - war on Iran.
I just don't get it. When we helped overthrow Mossadeque in 1953 in Iran, and the Shah, a military dictator stepped in, the US was jumping for joy; when we helped overthrow Sukarno in Indonesia in 1965 and Suharto, a ruthless military dictator took over, we blew our horns and put on party hats; when we helped overthrow Allende in Chile in 1973, and Pinochet, a ruthless military dictator took over, the US danced in the streets.
Is Ms Israel, 2010, now saying that a military dictatorship is bad? Not true to form missy.
When either Israel, or its client state, the United States, attacks Iran, they can strap H.R. Clinton to one of the bombs, a la Major Kong in "Dr. Strangelove", and let her ride it, whooping and hollering, to the target.
It's a shame the above article doesn't include some comments from the Qatari students she addresed. Did they find her credible? Did they ask any embarassing questions?
The comments or impressions of these students might be a lot more poignant than the scripted lies of this sweatshop duchesse.
*Comment deleted by site administrators for violating our Comment Policy*
see: http://www.commondreams.org/comment-policy
If it were true that Iran is heading toward a "military dictatorship," the sanctions and hardships we and others have already imposed on them would probably have had a lot to do with furthering such ambitions.
-30-
Madame Clinton is a hypocrite. She represents a nation that has used nuclear weapons on two civilian cities. No other country in the world has ever done so. She is the last person who should be lecturing anyone on the evils of nuclear weapons.
Yet most of the people born in the usa are still being indoctrinated that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary and justified.
You are not old enough to understand our hatred of the Japs during the second world war. At the time of the two atom bombs I doubt if you could have found anyone who would have objected to their use. The alternative would have been to invade causing millions of casualties on both sides, or to continue the blockade which would have led to mass starvation. All nukes should be disarmed starting with Israel's, and Hilary's.
What a load of crap.
The alternative was to accept the Japanese surrender PRIOR to Invasion of IWO Jima which was presented by the officials in the Government of Japan to General Douglas MacArthur who forwarded the same to the Government of the United States of America.
Those offers of surrender by the Japanese had only ONE condition. That being The Emperor would not be subject to trial.
The UNited States Government refused those terms insisting the surrender be unconditional.
There was no need to invade. There was no need for a Naval Blockade. All the USA had to do was say "we accept your terms of Surrender"
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html
This has a copy of the original article printed in the US Press in 1945. It refers to Macarthur receiving FIVE seperate surrender offers from the Japanese. Two went directly to the US and three went to the Americans through the British. This does not include other offers to surrender which were made through the Swiss Government.
The Japanese were trying to surrender for over a year before IWO JIMA happened and the US was refusing to listen. The US wanted to inflict as much punishment as it possibly could upon them.
See Afghanistan as another example of the bloodthirsty nature of the US Government wherein they offered to take Osama Bin Laden in Custody and turn him over to a third party.
GW Bush refused.
And allow Japans brutal rule of China and Korea to continue.
20 million Chinese killed by Japanese occupation from 1930 to 1945.
Your basically saying we should of let Hitler surrender on the condition he's allowed to continue the Holocaust ...
There are no "good guys" in history, all top 5 GDP nations have committed some type of serious war crime in the last 100, 150 years .
Now if you want to compare this to WWII, you can say Japan attacked us for the same reason we attacked Iraq... OIL, thats the lesson to be learned from WWII, its wrong to go to war for resources
The ONLY CONDITION the Japanese asked for was the Emperor not be tried for war crimes. As the article clearly states, the terms finally accepted by the USA were the same ones they asked Macarthur for a year previous.
They were not asking to be allowed to keep troops in China and Korea.
Got it?
You dont' get it.
That Japanese Military was never going to surrender.
High ranking members of the military launched a coup d'etat once the Emperor agreed to surrender! The War Minister Anami knew about it and did nothing to stop the planning.
Got it?
How can you say they would never surrender when they surrendered?
Somehow we are to believe the Japanese would have been willing to lose MILLIONS to Starvation and Millions more to an invasion of the Homeland, but were willing to surrender after they lost 500 thousand in Bombing attacks?
Explain the logic.
They would not make multiple attempts to surrender if they were never going to surrender and they would not have surrendered after Nagasaki if they were never going to surrender.
Even after being bombed twice with nuclear weapons there were enough members of the miltary wishing to continue the fight that a COUP was launched.
So yes, the military was willing to lose millions to starvation and millions more to an invasion.
Remember this is the nation that brought you suicide bombers on an unrivaled scale and this is the nation that has fighters still holding up in the jungle who refuse to believe the war is over.
Their surrender attempts were made through the Russians. They sought much more favorable terms than we offered. The Military Council refused to face war crimes trials.
That was unexceptable to the US.
It does not matter that there were still those willing to fight. There were still Germans willing to fight when Hitler died. There were Brits ready to give up when France fell. There were Russians who thought Stalin should surrender. There were French that continued to fight the Germans after French Surrender.This would not have justified Hitler Nuking Paris.
The FACT IS They surrendered. They did not fight to the last man. I do not know what world you live in but 400,000 dead is not the last man.
600,000 surrendering to the Russians BEFORE the Official Japanese Surrender is not fighting to the last man.
Just because one or two or even three Generals want to carry on the fight, it hardly means the entire nation will go along. You do not commit mass murder because a few generals are hot heads.
Now lets us "Pretend" for the sake of argument that the Japanese would never surrender.
Would this mean the USA justified in dropping Nuclear bombs until EVERY LAST JAPANESE dead?
The strategy of dropping Nuclear bombs until they surrender unconditionally in such a world would have meant the USA would have done EXACTLY That. I call a person who would order THAT a fanatic.
If the Japanese truly wished to fight to the last man as you and others suggest (which again history shows a crock and an utter lie) how many bombs would you have dropped before you decided it was enough? 10...20? 100?
Did you ever stop and think that it was the bombing that actually made the military leadership give up?
The purpose of the bombing was to bring them to their knees. IT WORKED.
Of course not every person in Japan wished to 'fight to the bitter end' but obviously a significant amount did at least until they were showed just was 'utter destruction' meant.
Also, it usually is a few general/leaders that lead a nation into destruction.
Japan was no democracy and the Emperor was a deity and the military for the most part controlled the Emperor. If the military wanted to keep fighting the Japanese would have kept fighting.
Actually the Potsdam Declaration made no mention of the Emperor at all the only individuals specified were the military leaders who committed war crimes. The British and Americans hadn't yet decided what was to be done with the Emperor but the leading thought was to leave him in a powerless figure head position..to allow him to save face.
It was the military members of the 'Big Six,' the Japanese War Council, that rejected the offer by a 4-2 vote.
It should also be known that members of the military launched a coup against the emperor that lasted a few hours. The Japanese military wasn't going to surrender.
The Potsdam Declaration told the Japanese unconditional surrender or the "alternative...is prompt and utter destruction."
They were warned.
I think, as someone already mentioned, you have to have lived during that era.
Japan's emperor was a sweet, remote, formal, reclusive, and weak man. As the Emperor, he was considered a God by his people, but he was not running things. And, then, in effect, he was overrun by the military of his own country. They were calling the shots. So the diplomatic messages from the Emperor were one thing; the military junta, led by Tojo, had other things in mind, like fighting to the bitter end.
My Uncle was in the first group who landed on Iwo Jima. The ferocity of the fighting was not indicative of a military remotely interested in surrender. It was hell.
The same thinking prevailed in the contemplation of dropping the atom bomb, that is, it was a way to end the war. However, other than scientists and other Los Alamos personnel who were on the test site in Los Alamos when one or the other of two tests were made, no one knew the extent of the devastation these bombs would cause when dropped on a populated area. Truman or other Washingtonians were not present at either of the two tests.
The second bomb dropped was at the authorization of Truman's Secretary of War. Truman had left a standing order ... to drop another bomb if it was considered necessary. Evidently, the Secretary made a decision that it was necesary. Truman was returning from a conference and was on the high seas, and out of communication range. Things were much more primitive then.
And I've written this aeons ago on this message board: When Truman returned and saw the photographic footage of the devastation, he turned white. Then he said in a very hushed and broken voice, "These terrible weapons must never be used again."
For the U.S. soldiers who would have had to fight their way across Japan, Truman and his advisors had estimated the potential loss of life. That factor was part of the decision to use the first bomb. The second bomb was unnecessary, but Truman never said, my Secretary of Defense was wrong for deciding to drop the second bomb.
The psychological make-up of the Japanese included protecting their Emperor/God to the death. And this attitude pervaded the military. Hence the kamikaze pilots and likely just about all of the other soldiers considered their respective suicides and battle deaths for their Emperor/God, an honor. This is very like the suicide bombers of the Mid-East now. Their deaths are considered virtuous, and it is believed that Allah will reward them for their courage and loyalty and faith.
My memories of that time are clear in that the leaders who were making decisions were torn up all the time. They really cared and you could feel that and hear that, and to the best of their abilities, I continue to believe that they were honorable men for the most part, and no one in our government now, other than a very few in both the Senate and the House, would be worthy enough to have sewn a patch on the underwear of their nearly 70-years-ago predecessors.
They are not the same breed, this bunch of bandits, sociopaths, greedheads, unprincipled screw-ups. These people disgust me at the deepest level because power, control and MONEY are their primary motivations, and who they kill and how many seems to be quite unimportant.
I think of the Marshall Plan and later the Berlin Airlift. These current assholes couldn't get their act together to undertake these things now, and they certainly don't have the same kind of heart stuff that conceived of these things in the first place, and made it happen in record time and/or with the precision that was required. And remember that things were more primitive then in communications and in what kind of planes and what kind of equipment and material goods were available compared to what is available now.
In Haiti people who might not have died, died during the first week because the U.S. took a week to fly in their military. Necessary supplies of water and food couldn't land at the airport. Heavy earth moving and dismantling equipment couldn't be flown in. Same reason. Katrina was the same debacle, for weeks and weeks and weeks and then extending into months and in some places, even years. But the Developers did just fine. They were there the first week. Same thing for Haiti. Checking out beach front property. My God.]
We all were proud to be Americans back then in World War II, which is not to say there were never underhanded deals struck or personalities which were similarly as obnoxious as certain personalities today. They just didn't happen to be the President and the Vice President and the Cabinet and members of the Congress, likely with a few exceptions. But wrong-doing was exposed and expunged pretty quickly and made public. We had real journalists then and newspapers with their own point of view, but the news got out there and fast on radio and in print.
Further, MacArthur did handle the surrender of Japan with utmost dignity and was very effective in helping stabilize and rebuild that country. The Marshall Plan worked magnificently because our former enemies, worked right beside our G.I.s and other U.S. personnel to rebuild their countries. There were no greedy contractors in there running things for their own profit and dismissing and not utilizing the professional and labor skills of the defeated population itself. Compare that to Iraq and Afghanistan and anywhere else we've been lately.
++++++++MORE+++++++++
CONTINUED =======
However, during the War, George Herbert Walker Bush's father, Prescott Bush was doing business with the Nazis on behalf of others, and the Rockefeller's of Standard Oil of New Jersey were supplying oil and gas to the Nazis and Ford and General Motors was supplying custom-made vehicles to them, and there were others. Truman discovered this before Roosevelt died and considered it treason, but it was hushed up by Roosevelt, and he instructed Truman to keep the lid on, because his reasoning was that the war was ending and the American people had had enough by this time. However, there were quiet Congressional hearings and fines of approximately $5,000 to the corporations and individuals involved. In other words, they got away with it. That, to me, was a major wrong precedent. Similarly affiliated rascals & sons learned what they could get away with too.
So I'm certainly not saying we were perfect back then. For example, Racism, especially in the South, was as ugly as it gets. But consider, Truman knew he would have to run for President on his own. Roosevelt had died after only four weeks into his 4th term. Truman and the Nation were in shock when he assumed the presidency. Yet, even still, knowing he would risk the loss of the Dixiecrats, the Southern contingent of his own Democratic Party, by executive order Truman ended the racial segregation in the military services, in the barracks and for the kinds of service each race had been assigned to. White, you flew planes, were in the briefings and fighting, drove vehicles, etc.; Negro, that time's polite term, you cleaned toilets, peeled potatoes, were kitchen service workers, did outside work, such as clearing brush or whatever was needed, disposed of garbage and unloaded or loaded supplies, and that kind of thing. Where you bunked and slept was ramshackle and inferior, sometimes without toilet facilities.
The Dixiecrats did walk out and eventually became the Republican Right Wing that we have now. Truman did what he did because it was right even though it would hurt him politically.
Again, this was not a perfect man nor was every decision a perfect decision, but he was driven by a sense of "the right" for all of the people of the U.S. because he now was the President, and he represented all of the people.
Frankly, I don't quite know right now who is representing the people. We have been and are being dissed for quite some time.
It's obvious. We have to find a way to reclaim our own country as it was meant to be.
/cm
>>My Uncle was in the first group who landed on Iwo Jima. The ferocity of the fighting was not indicative of a military remotely interested in surrender. It was hell.
Yet the Japanese surrendered to the British in Burma and India and to the Russians In Manchuria. Americans and Aussies had a habit of shooting the Japanese that surrendered. This is not speculation. It is fact and got so bad the US Military had to send teams of men out to the pacific Islands imploring the soldiers not to execute prisoners.
This was not limited to Americans and Aussies. In The Normandy Campaign a German General ordered Canadian Prisoners executed. This led to the Canadian forces of that unit having a reputation for refusing to take prisoners when they fought the SS. This led to increased casualties and more bitter fighting on either side.
On the Russian front early in the war, swarms of Russians, Ukranians and others surrendered to the Germans. Many were executed or sent to labor Camps. Ukrainians who once saw the Germans as Liberators, soon saw the Germans as worse then the Russians. They stopped surrendering.
The Germans lost more men in the single battle of Stalingrad then the USA lost in the entire war against Japan and Germany Combined.
Face it.
If you openly state "The terms of surrender are UNCONDITIONAL" you are encouraging greater resistance. Not less. If you have a reputation for not taking prisoners you face greater resistance. Not less.
Lastly. You do not kill women and children to save the lives of your soldiers.That should go without saying , and dropping the bombs on Cities is doing exactly that.
I would point out that more Civilians were lost in the fire bombing Campaign on Tokyo then wer elost in Nagasaki or Hiroshima. I would like to point out that the fire bombing was deliberate because the Japanese is was pointed out that while it would have mucg less effect agains factories that all the Homes the PEOPLE lived in were butil of wood and US MIlitary planners knew full well this would cause a conflagaration and indeed PLANNED on it. I would point out the US President was fully awar eof this and approved the attacks.
This does not suggest he was concerned with the Loss Of Civilians when he ordered the Nuclear weapons dropped.
The "unconditional surrender" was the final line in the declaration not the first.
Don't even try to start a debate about the treatment of prisoners! Japanese culture viewed surrender as a sign of great weakness. One reason behind the great cruelty of the bataan death march was the fact that the Japanese soldiers were offended that so many troops surrendered instead fighting.
The debate came down to who is gonna die, Americans or Japaneses?
You give humanity too much credit if you think there will ever be a time when a people voluntarily sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their own to spare the lives of hundreds of thousands of the enemy.
Hillary has aged quite a bit during the time she has been carrying out the Bush/Cheney/Obama agenda of empire building under the guise of the war on terror.
I guess telling all those lies and bearing the responsibility for justifying the killing of all those innocents so that corporations can profit is hard on you.
How do you think she'd look wearing a burqa? This is serious - wake up.
AIPAC's Hag - Hillary Clinton.
she is an expert on military dictatorships ... and jealous
edweg
Hillary Clinton must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the civilized world if she thinks any rational person is going to believe a country like Iran, who has no nuclear weapons and who has not launched an attack on another country in centuries, is a threat to the world's largest superpower who is super-militarized, armed to the teeth and itching for another war. Please, Hillary, use a little common sense. You sound ridiculous!
Come on now, Basenjis.
After all, Iran has nearly a thousand military bases through-out the world, spends more on military forces and weapons than all the rest of the world combined, accounts for over 70% of all international weapons sales (with particular focus on weapons of mass destruction), has in the last year nearly destroyed the economy of the whole world by the deceitful and explosive attacks of its financial saboteur investment banks, and right now is waging close to half a dozen simultaneous illegal and immoral preemptive 'wars of aggression' (as defined by the Nuremberg tribunal as the penultimate 'war crime').
Surely you can see, Basenjis, how such a vast, and vastly unchecked Global Empire of arrogant super-power as Iran would be an existential threat to all people in the world.
Best,
Alan