Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama's Historic Victory
Those of us on the Left who have criticized Obama, as I have, for his failure to take bold positions on the war and on the economy, must join the exultation of those Americans, black and white, who shouted and wept Tuesday night as they were informed that Barack Obama had won the presidential election. It is truly a historic moment, that a black man will lead our country. The enthusiasm of the young, black and white, the hopes of their elders, cannot simply be ignored.
There was a similar moment a century and a half ago, in the year 1860, when Abraham Lincoln was elected president. Lincoln had been criticized harshly by the abolitionists, the anti-slavery movement, for his failure to take a clear, bold stand against slavery, for acting as a shrewd politician rather than a moral force. But when he was elected, the abolitionist leader Wendell Phillips, who had been an angry critic of Lincoln's cautiousness, recognized the possibility in his election.
Phillips wrote that for the first time in the nation's history "the slave has chosen a President of the United States." Lincoln, he said, was not an abolitionist, but he in some way "consents to represent an antislavery position." Like a pawn on the chessboard, Lincoln had the potential, if the American people acted vigorously, to be moved across the board, converted into a queen, and, as Phillips said, "sweep the board."
Obama, like Lincoln, tends to look first at his political fortunes instead of making his decisions on moral grounds. But, as the first African American in the White House, elected by an enthusiastic citizenry which expects a decisive move towards peace and social justice, he presents a possibility for important change.
Obama becomes president in a situation which cries out for such change. The nation has been engaged in two futile and immoral wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the American people have turned decisively against those wars. The economy is shaken by tremendous blows, and is in danger of collapsing, as families lose their homes and working people, including those in the middle class, lose their jobs, So the population is ready for change, indeed, desperate for change, and "change" was the word most used by Obama in his campaign.
What kind of change is needed? First, to announce the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and to renounce the Bush doctrine of preventive war as well as the Carter doctrine of military action to control Mideast oil. He needs to radically change the direction of U.S. foreign policy, declare that the U.S. is a peace loving country which will not intervene militarily in other parts of the world, and start dismantling the military bases we have in over a hundred countries. Also he must begin meeting with Medvedev, the Russian leader, to reach agreement on the dismantling of the nuclear arsenals, in keeping with the Nuclear Anti-Proliferation Treaty.
This turn-around from militarism will free hundreds of billions of dollars. A tax program which will sharply increase taxes on the richest 1% of the nation, and will tax their wealth as well as their income, will yield more hundreds of billions of dollars.
With all that saved money, the government will be able to give free health care to everyone, put millions of people to work (which the so-called free market has not been able to do. In short, emulate the New Deal program, in which millions were given jobs by the government. This is just an outline of a program which could transform the United States and make it a good neighbor to the world
83 Comments so far
Show AllWell said, Mr. Zinn, particularly the last three paragraphs!!
I admire the writing of Mr. Zinn but there is something that is niggling me here.
How white is half white and how much black makes for black? President Elect Obama is half white and in that reckoning he is not the first white president.. why the rush to make the first half black president the first black one?
In our history, anyone with a drop of African blood has been considered legally or culturally black and subject to rules, prejudice, subjugation as such. Perhaps you are new to the US?
Joe
Well you should be "niggled" by this! I have an adopted daughter who is genetically 3/4 white and 1/4 black, probably about like Obama. When we (my then-wife and I, both white persons) were adopting her the social worker asked what we would do about helping the child with her "black identity." This clearly goes back to a profoundly racist idea that black heritage is "contaminating," as "one drop" of Negro blood (one black ancestor) contaminates one as a black. I'm not aware that any black or part-black Americans ever "called out" the racist implications of calling Obama "the first black American President," so I'm glad to see your comment in this regard.
BRAVO.
HOWARD ZINN FOR DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR MORAL STRENGTH AND NATIONAL HONOR
While I appreciate Zinn's view that electing a black man President is a historic moment, he's overlooked other aspects of Obama's campaign that aren't a break from the past.
Obama wasn't a "dark horse" Democratic Party candidate (no pun intended). Instead, Obama gave the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was anointed by the party. He wasn't some people's choice kind of candidate.
In addition, Obama is much admired by Democratic Leadership Council members (the right-wing corporatist segment of the Democratic Party), although Obama's not a member of the DLC per se.
Obama's biggest campaign contributors have been Wall Street investment firms such as Goldman Sachs, which also was the No. 1 contributor to the Bill Clinton campaign.
Obama has filled his advisory with Clintonites and militarists. He's even got former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin advising him. Rubin bears criminal responsibility for fostering the demise of the Glass-Steagall Act, which prevented the kind of Wall Street deregulation that led to the current economic crisis we have now.
Obama also has former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brezinsky, the guy who put weapons in the hands of the mujahideen in Afghanistan, advising him on foreign policy.
Obama has already said that the Wall Street meltdown will limit his social spending plans. As others have pointed out, healthcare for all was not an Obama plan during his campaign. He favored an insurance company solution - in other words, more of the same plan that currently funnels money into corporate larders, rather than into broadening care.
So, to a large degree, Obama doesn't represent a break from the past at all, except that he's black, and that's kind of a poor barometer. It's like saying the Bush administration was progressive by hiring Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powell, without asking what they did during the Bush years.
-TIA
Thanks for the Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice examples; exactly the kind of "accomodating" black leaders (otherwise known as black Republicans) who get elevated to power in "white" society per my post on the "historic" nature of the election of Obama.
Calling Obama's victory "historic" as Zinn and so many others have done betrays a peculiar (if highly popular) view of "history" as occurring whenever anything is done "for the first time." This reflects a profoundly neo-centric view of history that it is forever re-starting from the events of today; as contrasted with the view of history as representing the continuity of the present with a long historical past. It is only in this latter sense that the Obama win can be seen as truly historical. His elevation to the presidency is of one historical piece with a long history of white people in America using selected blacks as their allies in their domination over blacks. This began in slavery with certain "house" blacks and slave foreman in the field operating for the benefit of their masters. With the "freeing" of blacks, the form of this transaction changes, but the underlying reality remains the same. "Accommodating" black leaders are fawned over by the white power structure for their ability to keep black folks "in line." Obama's win is "historic" in the first sense only because it is the first time that a house black has become a U.S. President. If you think that judgment is harsh, look at the almost entirely whites-only faces in the faces of his campaign leaders and those of his transition advisers; and look at the faceless corporation heads who have contributed so mightily to his campaign funding. The writers at Black Agenda Report have understood this dynamics of the Obama campaign from its inception. Eventually we'll all come round to that understanding.
Dismantle the police state!
As a former, professional ghost-writer of resumes, I have to ask: Is there any noise more pitiful than that of adenoidal sad-sacks explaining on public radio why they voted for John McCain?
Barack Obama doesn't have enough experience, they say. But can they honestly accuse ANY person of color of lacking experience? And how do they evaluate the experience Obama does have? Do they know that editor of Harvard Law Review is other words for "best lawyer at Harvard Law School?" Do they understand that there could be connection between Obama's well-run campaign and his community organizing in Chicago?
And has one of these people ever asked himself: Did John McCain maybe have too much experience?
Physician heal thyself? Nope, won't work, never has. The middle and upper classes need to be told that they are going to pull in their belts and distribute the wealth and stop raping the world and it's poor inhabitants ----or else! This will never happen unless the United States is conquered, or at least faced by a united world (the UN?-- horrors!!!). Only the foolish think that the privileged will give up power and wealth without a fight. The United States is long overdue for a little reality.
They'll never do it. Any of it.
Besides, giving us the healthcare we deserve would free us from the heavy leverage capitalism has over us. We're not the "most productive people in the world" for nothing.
Work hard, be scared or DIE...mfkrs!
I sorry to say I’m over it. While I was moved by the first reports of people celebrating in the streets, and can still understand the feeling that many people (many of my neighbors) have, the plethora of bad analysis and false claims has left not wanting to here any more.
For example:
Obama’s Historic Victory by Howard Zinn
“But, as the first African American in the White House, elected by an enthusiastic citizenry which expects a decisive move towards peace and social justice, he presents a possibility for important change.
Obama becomes president in a situation which cries out for such change. The nation has been engaged in two futile and immoral wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the American people have turned decisively against those wars.”
No and no. What people did was vote against Bush. They didn’t like him any more, and took it out on McCain. The McCain tacit of claiming to have years of inside experience backfired when the economic went south and the voters blamed those in power for that happening. And they couldn’t tell or didn’t care that Obama was no different than McCain on the economy.
And the economy was the issue. Obama was a likely loser before it came along.
Not the wars. Not social justice.
I spoke or attended at several candidate nights with surrogates for the presidential candidates. I spoke for Cynthia McKinney, which included speaking against the Afghanistan war. The head of the Long Island campaign for Obama was so amazed that anyone could be against the Afghanistan war that he could first barely talk, and then mentioned it incredulously several times throughout the night. All the good liberals, I expect knowing Obama’s position on expanding the conflict, when right along with him.
So no “the American people have turned decisively against those wars” line is false, like many other claims we have seen. “The American people” have shot down the civil right to marry in all three states it was on the ballot. So no, “an enthusiastic citizenry which expects a decisive move towards peace and social justice” is not the crowd that voted for Obama.
It goes on and on. Trying to pull meaning were none is. Missing the meaning that is there. Many don’t seem to get the real positive of this election, that it is a step forward that an African-American was elected to the White House, not that _this_ African-American was elected to the White House.
–Roger Snyder
"What people did was vote against Bush". Please don't tell me why I voted for Obama. And I suspect that people voted for Obama for many different reasons. I expect some votes were garnered as a vote against Bush and his policies. I don't often give the American people much credit. But I give them more credit than you have.
I am in total agreement with you.............lizard
Of course, definitions of "national interests" and "security" would be in order in any discussion of militarism.
My own opinion is that the U.S. is stupidly militaristic and the best thing to do would be (after analyzing the above terms and their use in marketing the MIC) to reduce military spending and turn military organization and resources (including human) into a national "greening" project under strong government planning and control. Of course, a solid border has to be established between public and corporate interests or it would be destined to fail and fall into "market will solve everything" crap that has historically been proven to be deadly.
That said, the resulting (inevitable, I'm afraid) bureaucracy - would be dealt with in a process of decentralization which would serve two vital purposes: It would create a structure necessary to grow a sustainable culture and it would address the problem of "bigness" which undermines democracy and community whether in the form of government or of corporations.
I'm dreaming, of course.
Didn't the author vote for Nader or something like that? Let's see how President Obama attempts to clean up this mess in Iraq despite hiring Rahm Emanual to be his chief of staff.
He voted for Nader in 2000.
and in 2008 too.
tweck9:I think you'll have to prove it. I have only seen an allegation in a CD comment, but no proof.
And I always thought that had we Gore these past 8 years, this country wouldn't have been quite as bad. Oh well, things can't get worse with Obama I think.
Dr. Zinn's article is gracious and generous.
And perhaps-- well, if not tongue-in-cheek, at least pleasantly ironic.
He knows well that Obama's positions are the antithesis of renouncing militarism or continued patronage of the national security state. The venerable old boondoggle of ginning up "defense" spending to pump life into a moribund economy retains its magic for the duopoly. It's a treacherous end-run around the always-beleaguered peace and anti-militarization camps, already pitched in a muddy field of disempowerment.
And Dr. Zinn also knows that Obama isn't even a proponent of single-payer health care, much less "free health care" for all. That would be... socialist, no?
In fact, I think there's the merest possibility that Dr. Zinn's wise and good-humored commentary is bit of a cream pie in the face.
Right. And if you witnessed Obama's first press conference, well, I'm afraid you've seen the future, that is, yet one more vague, centrist, handled, slick politician, ready to jockey first for Wall St., second for his political future, and, like always, throw just enough crumbs to the peons to keep them out of the streets and watching teevee.....
i would feel fine thomas should the swiss be doing our protection..security is an illusion you know..
ken
vet (64-68)
"security is an illusion"
Actually thats true brother. But I'll still take a Batallion of Marines myself, just in case! No disrespect to the Swiss.
From Zinn's keyboard to Obama's ear!
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
Although I respect Howard Zinn and agree with almost everything he says, there is a glaring misstatement in this piece, where he says "with all the money saved (by taxing the rich and ending the war) the government will be able to give free health care to everyone". No, not exactly. Government-run health care wouldn't be free any more than Social Security gives out "free" retirement money. The total American expenditure on health care is between 2 and 3 TRILLION dollars a year. No amount of money saved by taxing the rich or ending the war will pay for that. Social security and Medicare do not give "free" money to the elderly and sick. The money comes from a dedicated special income tax. It is taken from everyone and given back to those that need it. (Gasp- socialism!) That is exactly where most of the money for single-payer health insurance would come from. It's misleading to make the assertion that a government-run health insurance program (like HR 676) would magically give everyone "free health care." What it would do, is provide complete health insurance for every American regardless of financial or employment situation, increase efficiency, weed out private insurers who profit from denying people coverage, and reduce the overall cost of American health care. But it would NOT be free-- unless you've never had a job or paid taxes.
.But what you overlook is that the numbers you cite are based upon for-profit health care. Medicare is the single most efficient and inexpensive health care option extant today, with an overhead of only three percent. Universal govt run health care can be our most inexpensive and inclusive option. Look at the costs of such in Germany, France, Great Britain and Canada for examples.
I do suspect we are arguing from the same point of view.....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The idea is that it is free at the point of transaction and that aspect actually counts for something positive in US health care. That taxes are paid to support it, is understood, and not a point of contention. We all are in agreement with you.
hamster November 8th, 2008 5:37 pm
"Social security and Medicare do not give "free" money to the elderly and sick. The money comes from a dedicated special income tax. It is taken from everyone and given back to those that need it. (Gasp- socialism!)"
Not exactly correct. Everyone who pays into social security and some who haven't draw it. Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in the world gets a social security check every month.
Lobo Gris
Health care costs would come down with health care reform. We have the highest costs in the world. One of the results of our dysfunctional system is that everything costs much more than it should. For example, administrative costs are the highest in the world, by far, because so much effort is spent on "passing the buck." With health care reform, these institutions would not be spending so much in the way of time and resources to find "someone else" to pay for procedures, etc.
You know what he means, but you are free to say it. Did you see "Sicko"?
I read this piece reprinted in Spanish translation this morning in La Jornada, and I had to stop and think about it before I decided, that although Zinn may have a point about citizens exerting pressure to form policy in the time of Lincoln, the world is a very different place now than it was is 1860--and more to the point, the US citizens think that all that's necessary to shape policy is to vote.
In fact, voting is a very piddling action. What's needed is a revolution in the US--to get rid of policy being owned and implemented by Big Oil and Big Guns.
But it isn't going to happen when the cup of tea chosen is SHOPPING!
Howard Zinn mentions media floating an awakening bear. The media might want to focus on an American populace awakening to ecological crisis that is the most salient directive for non-military governmental focus.
Oddly enough it seems that we simply need to refrain from a number of practices. An emerging culture of cease and desist, circumspection, local activity as well as very pointed attention to civil and human rights. The massive infrastructure transnational projects generate commensurately large problems. Humility is lacking from the corporate model of the individual as is ecological responsibility. These will require attention from the grass roots.
The informed consent of the governed; prior and informed consent is single most unifying concern of peoples around the world. That voice is something to contemplate.
Constitutions around the world are something we should be aware of.
Nice to see the great historian lend his perspective on ways in which history (and popular movements) can move Presidents.
This article works well in tandem with today's McKibben article on the need for drastic changes in energy, technology and jobs policy to create a long-term transformation of our economy and our society to reign in atmospheric carbon and avert the climate catastrophe that is already underway in its early stages. Sorry Zinn made no mention of climate or carbon.
For everyone at CD who insists "Obama will not lead" or "Obama will only work for his corporate masters", i hear you and recognize your arguments and your reasons. And, i continue to insist that the drastically transformational time we live in, with the cascading crisis roller-coaster we are on, creates opportunities for this country and this President to move in necessary directions, despite the power of the MIC and the momentum and inertia of the power elite.
.Opportunity does not ensure transformation, only provides a window wherein transformative policies can be enacted.
Those of us critical of the new President Elect base our critique upon solid facts, campaign rhetoric, votes in the Senate that predict future stances and now appointments and proposed appointments that bode ill indeed.
Even prior to the election those supporting Obama were basing that support upon far more ephemeral positions, wishes and dreams in fact.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
A great article by Zinn. But as usual overstates Militarism as a problem.
When you spend upwards of 1 TRILLION a year on the military, then there is no way to overstate it.
PK
Lets spend a lot less than that then. We don't need to spend near as much to have a much more efficient military. We need to reduce total military spending, first by spending only on our military and only on what we need.
Increase spending on the military itself, eliminate spending on a lot of contractors, close many of our bases we no longer need, stop providing protection for other countries and only protect our own shipping. That will get a huge reduction in spending, produce the military you need and everybody is happy.
"stop providing protection for other countries'
We're NOT providing "protection" for other countries. These are forward bases, the front line of the offensive strategy of empire. They will NOT dismantle or close them...ever.
These bases make up the web of empire.
Well you have to consider we protect all trading sea lanes and air freight and provide military protection for many countries like Japan, Germany, etc....we do provide protection for them.
I think we must close many of them. I think our economic situation will provide the perfect opportunity to get it done. Especially if pressure is put on to do it. Lets hope so. A lot of them are strictly political.
Thomas More November 8th, 2008 4:18 pm
"Lets spend a lot less than that then. We don't need to spend near as much to have a much more efficient military. We need to reduce total military spending, first by spending only on our military and only on what we need."
Obama as a candidate called for increased military spending and an increase in the size of the military.
Lobo Gris
Hopefully he is speaking of more military and no contractors. The whole thing needs to be reorganized from top to bottom. Our army is going to need a lot over the next few years.
You may be right....I just hope not.
Thomas I find myself agreeing with you again. I often wondered how much of the budget actually trickles down to the men and women of the United States armed services. Seems to be a lot of folks with their hands out trying to grab a piece of that budget.
(Is is true that a couple of years ago as much as one third of the military budget was unaccounted for? If this is true I wonder who got their hands on that money?)
Dante
Thanks! I'm always glad when someone dosen't throw rocks!
"(Is is true that a couple of years ago as much as one third of the military budget was unaccounted for? If this is true I wonder who got their hands on that money?)"
It is. And I hope somebody finds out.
Heres another thought for you. Ever wonder what the ratio of officers to enlisted was? We have FAR too many officers. Far too expensive.
militarism
a political orientation of a people or a government to maintain a strong military force and to be prepared to use it aggresively to defend or promote national interests
No country in the entire WORLD is as Militaristic as is the United States of America.
You can not deny Militarism not an issue, nor a substantial one. I suggest the policy of Militarism has done more to harm America, both financially and diplomaticaly then any other single issue and that it is coupled with Coporatism and you know where that gets you.
Pk
I agree. Short-sighted people in polls say the economy is the #1 issue right now, and pundits say the economic "crisis" is what pushed Obama over the top. I think a more long-range view would say that America's foreign policy is slowly killing us, is strongly linked to our economic troubles, and getting out of the middle east, reducing militarism, and improving relations with all other nations should be our #1 priority.
Sounds good to me. But I believe Obama won because of the two he was the best choice and it was also a repudiation of the last 8 years.
Long range I believe you are spot on, but short range, when the economic pain starts to hit in the next few months, its going to seem like its our only problem. Its going to be very painful.
GwNorth November 8th, 2008 4:19 pm
"militarism
a political orientation of a people or a government to maintain a strong military force and to be prepared to use it aggresively to defend or promote national interests"
True. And it won't change, except I believe we'll not be duped into another Iraq again. Nor will we respond to other countries plea's as readily I think. Though I'd happily dispatch Marines to Darfur with UN troops. I hate racism and slavery.
"You can not deny Militarism not an issue, nor a substantial one."
Nope, I simply say its usually overstated.
"I suggest the policy of Militarism has done more to harm America, both financially and diplomaticaly then any other single issue"
I would say its not Militarism, but the ill use of our forces as in Iraq, Viet Nam, Afganistan, etc. Every country is militaristic in the definition of militarism. But I don't want to get hung up on the word as I did with "Empire"....But I would also say you are right. Viet Nam on up.
"No country in the entire WORLD is as Militaristic as is the United States of America."
I would disagree....watch China. What would you have called Russia that was holding countries by force since WW2? Many other countries, simply a difference of scale. Would you call the Sudan Militaristic? Cambodia was horrible.
In the end, we pretty much agree I think, that we need to mind our P's and Q's and take care of our own business.
Nice post Mr.More....................lizard
The Swiss manage to enjoy a small efficient mobile military, no wars in 500 years, and a great quality of life.
cosmobilly
Ah....small mountain country, homogeneous population, doesn't allow any immigration (unless you are rich), everyone serves in the army, no domestic value to anyone and fought as mercenaries all over the world in many wars. Soldiers were their main export for hundreds of years.
Question...would you feel safe if the Swiss army were to take over our protection? Somehow I doubt it.
But its a great place to visit!
.Universal health care, cradle to grave, for all residents of that nation ( not even citizenship is required, just residency) Heck they could take over our government, not just our military!
I suggest that, while their fine armed forces were in much demand they also were famed as manufacturers of great skill. When Hitler was ascendent in Germany he sent to the Swiss a wire of the finest diameter German craftsmanship could make, to boast of the prowess of German engineering. The Swiss sent it back, drilled lengthwise.....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"Universal health care, cradle to grave, for all residents of that nation ( not even citizenship is required, just residency) Heck they could take over our government, not just our military!"
I hope you aren't going to try to become a citizen or a resident without bringing a LOT of money or great skill. They don't welcome anyone but well to do.
Great story about the wire.
.Not true actually. I know of a married couple living there ( he works there and is a British subject, she is an American citizen). Their daughter has MS and her care, both in home and in hospital is completely covered, and will be for the rest of her life.
It may be an expensive country to live in but your money wont go for education or health care because that is free for all.....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
>>Question...would you feel safe if the Swiss army were to take over our protection? Somehow I doubt it.
A poorly framed question.
Were the swiss sponsoring coups the world over, funding terrorist groups in other nations, propping up despots and dictators in order to protect corporate profits, dropping bombs the world over on Villages and cities, then it more then a little unlikely their military would be adequate.
The United States has manufactured its enemies. They have pursued a direct foreign policy USING thier military forces to create enemies the world over. Since the end of the second world war , no nation has been as aggressive as the United States of America in using its Military.
If they were more like the swiss in their foreign policy, then a swiss like army would be more then adequate for its defense.
PK
Sioux Rose
PK: Excellent posts, excellent logic.
I was replying to the statement that the Swiss have an army and havent been in a war in 500 years. I think my question was framed correctly....would you prefer to exchange our armed forces for the Swiss?
"The United States has manufactured its enemies. " We manufactured Russia, China, North Korea, etc? Hardly.
"Since the end of the second world war , no nation has been as aggressive as the United States of America in using its Military."
Fair comment.
Hopefully we can put more "Swiss in our foreign policy. I hope so.
I think you view the world as a number of peaceful nations that if nasty old America weren't around, would live in peace and harmony together. Or something on that order...not that simple of course, but thats the idea.
I view the world as having a number of dangers for our country and I'd prefer we maintain our military strength, where you'd prefer to eliminate it.
But I think we'd both agree on the only time it should be used.
Those last three were really questions. Your opinions are valued.
Thomas,
I too partly view the world as a number of dangers, but If a person looks at history and our interactions with these dangerous nations, It's not as if we are standing on the sidelines and watching as these nations become dangerous, we are sometimes complicent in this as well, to further our 'American Interests'
That's the reason the U.S. and the Brits ran into the Middle East, beginning in the 1910s, before, during and after WWI.
Very true. I don't have any illusions about our country really. I just won't accept America is the cause of all the worlds ills concept.
Thanks for the thought.
oops
>>I would disagree....watch China. What would you have called Russia that was holding countries by force since WW2? Many other countries, simply a difference of scale. Would you call the Sudan Militaristic? Cambodia was horrible
Read the description of Militarism again Thomas.
Cambodias experience was NOT due to Militarism. Nor is the Sudan. They do not have strong Militaries nor HAD strong Militaries to promote an AGRESSIVE foreign policy in order to protect national Interests.
China has attacked only one country in the past 30 years. As has Russia. The Russians staying In east Europe was an aftermath of the second world war. They pulled out. The United States remains in West Europe and remains in Japan. The United states is trying to get a MILITARY alliance with countries on Russias borders.
The United Statesby defintion is motre Militaristic.
The United States has flexed its military muscle to IMPOSE its will and "protect national Interests" in every region of the world. I do nto see Chinese Miltary bases in Mexico or in 130 plus countries around the world.
From the end of the second world war to today, it is the United States that has used military forces against other nations more then any other country in the world. Indeed no country comes close.
PK
GW
"aggresively to defend or promote national interests" I'd say thats exactly what the Sudanese are doing. Its not just foreign policy. But I'll take your point of view on this for this.
China has attacked South Korea, Us in Korea and a # of other countries there, Tibet and a number of smaller incursions. I'd hardly call Russia's withdrawal from Eastern Europe "pulling out"...using that argument then all our bases are just staying after the 2nd. world war, no different than Russia. Except that we didn't hold countries prisoner by military force.
"The United states is trying to get a MILITARY alliance with countries on Russias borders."
Thats because we have a stupid idiot in charge. I don't blame Russia for being pissed.
"The United States has flexed its military muscle to IMPOSE its will and "protect national Interests" in every region of the world.
True, but we have protected most of the world since WW2. That said, your point that "The United States by defintion is more Militaristic." is valid. No matter how you cut it, our leadership at various times has done exactly what you say. Thats the truth.
Hopefully we won't do it again.
"I do nto see Chinese Miltary bases in Mexico or in 130 plus countries around the world."
Nor will you. We won't allow it.
"From the end of the second world war to today, it is the United States that has used military forces against other nations more then any other country in the world. Indeed no country comes close."
Part of that is simply because we have been responsible for peace since WW2.
Protected most of the world? From whom? What latin american or african country has been protected? Was south east asia protected? I really don't see where you get that idea...lizard
China attacked Vietnam.
>>Part of that is simply because we have been responsible for peace since WW2
No you have not. That is the myth you keep feeding yourself on.
What PEACE have you created since ww11?
In the 1950s the old USSR under Kruschev realized they could not compete Militarily with the western block. They were willing to end the arms buildup. The very person who designed the containment Strategy resigned the US department in disgust over this very issue.
The United States pursued a policy of Militarism. American strategists continued to talk about destroying Russia in order to access her resources. Russia had every reason to be afraid of what the West intended given the history of Western nations invading her in order to seize territory.
The Cold war could have ended before it started but Truman embraced Militarism being sold on the idea thta by having a permanent war economy , The United States would always have a booming economy.
Through those years the CIA and the pentagon continued to lie about the intentions of the USSR. They admit they fabricated and inflated intelligence in order to have the US spend ever more on the Cold war.
You were not "Protecting the peace". You were perpetuating the conflict.
The first step in ending Militarism is to stop pretending it has led to the salvation of the Western World.
Now as to China invading South Korea, again a refusal to face the facts. China could have entered that war much earlier. Had they entered the war on North Koreas side at its beginning the US would have been defeated and thrown off the peninsula.
China was NOT INTERESTED in acquiring territory in Korea.
They OPENLY warned the United States that a US advance to the Yalu River would force them to act. They could not trust the United States nor should they off given the United States actions against Red China since the close of the second world war.
The Americans allied with the still disarmed Japanese to kill communists for God sakes!
Nor could they trust American leadership where General Macarthur was openly calling for China to be nuked.
Note there are NO Chinese Miltary bases or troops in North Korea while there are Americans in the South which emphasizes the point I am making.
If a Russian Army was marching its way up through Mexcio on its way to the American Border in 1954, rest assured the US would have sent forces south.
Such would have been "Militarism" on the part of Russia and would have been closer to Self defense on the part of America.
PK
"American strategists continued to talk about destroying Russia in order to access her resources."
If that were true, we would have occupied all the areas we took for their resources. Why do we not retain Germany, Japan, Italy, Cuba, many others. Thats an argument that doesn't stand up.
Thinking that we embraced the cold war is revisionist history supreme guys. Russia would have withdrawn from Hungary, Germany, etc if that were true. Not buying that one. Poor old Russia was willing to lay down their arms but nasty old us wouldn't allow them to? Bull Honkey. Tell that to my Hungarian friends.
I don't want to be put in the position of defending everything America has done, because I can't. We have made many mistakes, done things that we shouldn't have, still are (Iraq) but at the same time, if you believe the world would have been better with Russia or China in charge, there is nothing I can say. Or if you believe something like the UN can be effective, we really are on different pages. The UN is helpless and always will be.
Interesting to note that you interpret the Korean war as a US war. But North and South Korea do provide a good illustration of the two philosophies.
In the end we will disagree. I believe the world was better off with us and you will believe it would have been better off without us. Fair enough. You may even get your wish considering circumstances today.
I wanted to add that I always enjoy your civil discourse and cogently argued positions. Though we disagree sometimes I believe we are closer than would meet the eye on what we should do. My respects.
>>Thinking that we embraced the cold war is revisionist history supreme guys. Russia would have withdrawn from Hungary, Germany, etc if that were true. Not buying that one. Poor old Russia was willing to lay down their arms but nasty old us wouldn't allow them to? Bull Honkey. Tell that to my Hungarian friends.
Then you obviously have not read allt he documents released from the Soviet archives by Gorbechev, It very clear that the hardliners in Russia used American Military spending, its forces on Russians borders both in Western Europe and In Japan, its putting Nuclear weapons intio Turkey as examples of how the United States had designs on destroying Russia.
Look how the US reacted when the Soviets tried to do the same in Cuba.
I am definitely disagreeing with you.
This is not out of love for Russia. I am of Polish descent and recognize what they did to Poland. I am well aware of the massacre at Katyn forest and how Poles that were sent back from Britain after the wall (Forcibly) were then sent to camps from which many never returned.
I am simply stating an objective observation of the realities based upon trying to have as little bias as possible.
Part of those released documents showed that Russia lost far more people in the war then the 25 million often cited. It showed their concern that IF the West learned how many losses they sufferred they would be attacked.
It is also a FACT that Russia pulled outof east Europe and it a FACT that the United States is still there, even putting troops into ex Soviet republics.
As you your not "retaining" Cuba, Japan, Italy etc.
You still have your military based in each of these countries. Your Military remains immune from prosecutions in those countries. GITMO is in Cuba, not America.
Your CIA was involved in operation Gladio just as example In Italy where they perpetuated the myth that Communists were planting bombs all over italy.
In other owrds, perpetuating the conflict.
There is good bucks in it. The document that truman followe dto create a pro war economy is also part of the public domain.
You can also read the Book The grand Chessboard.
PK
"This is not out of love for Russia."
Never thought that for a moment.
"You still have your military based in each of these countries. Your Military remains immune from prosecutions in those countries. GITMO is in Cuba, not America."
My point was we don't control or rule those countries are many others we easily could have. I'd be very happy to close our bases in all of them along with a lot of others.
I'll trust something other than Russian documents that foster their view, but will certainly admit some of ours are no better. I'll read "The grand Chessboard."
"Look how the US reacted when the Soviets tried to do the same in Cuba."
A very valid point. I agree. If I were Russia I'd be talking tougher than they are. I wouldn't accept those missles there and we don't need them there. Russia is a paper tiger now. China is very dangerous.
The less we say about the CIA the better. Bunch of incompetent jackasses that have been where they shouldn't. Especially in South America.
My bias is probably more than yours I suspect, after all, America is my home.
I will do a bit of restudying....I was never strong on post war Russia, just WW2 Russia and before.
.Bravo Gw, bravo. Thomas is a good and decent man, but he lives with the typical myth of America...Its that water and air in Texas I suspect.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I second that........lizard
Thanks!
At least you aren't throwing me to the lions! Kind thing to say by the way.
Myths? Some. But just as many on the anti-American side.
I think I'm just ready to remove the Rovian rhetoric from conversation.
I forgot to say Texas air and water are remarkable, just think, thery nurtured my brilliant intellect! (LOL)
.When George Bush exited as Governor of the great state of Texas he left the state as the one with the worst polluted air and water in the nation...also the highest rate of teen pregnancies...Thought you'd like to know.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Very good exchange. excellent points.........lizard
Excellent.
GWNorth and Thomas,
Intersting discussion with very good points made by both of you. (It is nice to see a discussion where the parties involved remain civil throughout.
Exactly, dear Howard, Thank you for this!
I finally saw "Taxi To The Dark Side" last night. And it made me cringe all over again, to think that Colin Powell is being considered for a cabinet post.
I believe that until the renditions and torture are stopped, no light can even begin to shine. We are all connected. This evil and dark practice must be publicly denounced by Obama and then he must take decisive action. I honestly believe it must be his first step.
Powell is being considered for a cabinet post?
CAN America turn away from Militarism? There was a reson Eiesenhower warned against the growth of the MIC , namely that it would one day become too large and too entrenched inside the American Economy to dislodge.
Like the banks they will argue that the Military Industrial complex is too big to be allowed to fail. They will point out the millions directly and indirectly employed by that MIC and how the Corporations such as GE and Halliburtun rely on Government contracts for their very survival.
Already the press is advancing the notion of a renewed Cold War ,The Russian bear awakening, China Militarizing to threaten US Interests. The Military is asking for MORE, hundreds of billions more in order to ensure the "Security of America and Americans" and to advance the interests of America.
Personally I see no reason whatsoever the USA needs to spend more then 60 billion a year on arms, given their geography (They border only two countries, neither of which or militaryt threats) but I also see no way in the world a US Politician from either the democrats or the republicans will push an agenda of de-militarization.
The America THEY envision can not exist without a trillion a dollar a year Military. This in itself shows how flawed their vision of "America" is.
PK
Hoorah for Howard Zinn. Reminding us, again. Howard Zinn also has written, "You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train", which is my favorite. It's a memoir of his life. The introduction, in the 2003 edition, (not sure if it's in the older edition) speaks to the issue of how to make change, each one of us. It's a handbook for "doing" as can. To those who have said, well what change has Howard Zinn made? His book "A People's History of the U.S." has sold well over l million copies to the public (as opposed to school libraries).
. "You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train", What the heck does that mean? No atheists in a train wreck?
Look, I respect mr. Zinn's writings as much as the next guy, but I certainly respected his political opinions better when he was a Naderite. He seems to have drunk the Kool Aid.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Good one, ardee, criticize Zinn's book for its title. Have you even read it? You respect his writings as much as the next guy - if the next guy is someone who says "anyone who disagrees with me is drinking the Kool-Aid."
.Bite me...but I mean that in the spirit of cordiality and furtherance of debate . Now, did you have anything of import to say?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin