Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Nobel War Lecture
In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, President Obama, one of the world's great orators and purveyors of hope, gave a speech that must reflect the divisions within himself and his personal struggles to reconcile them. It was a surprising speech for the occasion. Rather than a speech of vision and hope, it was a speech that sought to justify war and particularly America's wars. The speech was largely an infomercial for war, touting not only its necessity but its virtues, and might well be thought of as the "Nobel War Lecture."
How troubling it is to see this man of hope bogged down by war, not only on the ground but in his mind. As he put it, "I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars." One of these wars he seeks to end, but the other he has made his own by recently committing 30,000 additional troops and justifying it as "an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks." The president persists despite his recognition that "[i]n today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflicts are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred."
Where was the vision that was so hopeful in Barack Obama the campaigner for the presidency? Has a year in office reduced him to a "reality" from which he cannot raise his sights to envision a more peaceful future - one without war or Predator drone attacks, one in which international cooperation in intelligence gathering and law enforcement could bring terrorists to justice?
The president tells the world, "I did not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war." This is certain. He tells his audience, "We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified." Perhaps his decision to bow to the generals and increase the US presence in the war in Afghanistan is weighing heavily on him. Perhaps he seeks a way to find it both "necessary" and "morally justified."
President Obama acknowledges his debt to Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., leading proponents of nonviolence, but he cannot find a way to follow their example. He finds instead that "as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone." From the lofty visions and practical actions of Gandhi and King, the president brings us down to earth, to his reality that in his position he is fated to carry on with war. "So yes," he tells us, "the instruments of war have a role to play in preserving the peace."
What does he offer in the stead of peace? He argues that there must be standards governing the use of force. Yes, this is long established, although not often adhered to. One such standard is no use of force without the approval of the United Nations, except in self-defense to repel an imminent attack. But America and its NATO allies often take war into their own hands, ignoring this rule of international law to which all states are bound.
Having justified war, the president offers three paths to building "a just and lasting peace." First, he argues for "alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior." This makes sense so long as it is applied to all states equally without double standards. Second, he argues that peace must be based upon human dignity and human rights. Of course, this is so. Of course, America should stand for human rights rather than torture and the worst abuse of all - aggressive war. Third, he makes the point that a just and lasting peace must also be based upon freedom from want. There is nothing to argue with here. Why not use our resources to help eliminate poverty and hunger and expand education and healthcare throughout the world, rather than pour these resources into waging war?
President Obama barely mentioned nuclear disarmament in his speech. When he did, he reiterated his commitment to upholding the Non-Proliferation Treaty, calling it "a centerpiece" of his foreign policy. He then moved quickly to pointing a finger at Iran and North Korea. "Those who seek peace," he said, "cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war." He is right; no nation should arm itself for nuclear war, including the United States and the other eight nations that have already done so.
The President might have built a strong, positive and hopeful speech on the need to rid the world of nuclear weapons, instruments of omnicide, but he chose instead to offer up a laundry list of reasons for war. When it came to peace, his message, sadly, was No, we can't.
- Posted in
77 Comments so far
Show AllWhen Obomba accepted the Ignoble Peace Prize he spoke the truth when he said: " I do not deserve it" but the man that is the epitome of casuistry, then lied because did not turn it down. If he really meant what he said, then why didn't he say: please find someone else that is more worthy!
Only those who voted for Obama will feel disappointed. Some of us smelled the same old stench of previous administrations.
Some of us felt he was too evil to vote for even in compromise, and now feel worse than we did.
I haven't heard or read the transcript of his speech, but from what I'm reading about it, it was FULL of hypocrisy; as usual, of him, and of other "elites".
I've been reading David Krieger's writings for years. He has always been thoughtful, accurate and passionate about law over war. Bravo for this essay David!
The "vision" was actually an hallucination of adoring fans desperate after 8 years of Bush. This was a "fear" vote, and no one took the time to look behind the curtain to see who was pulling the strings of the corporatist, militarist Obama puppet.
"Yes, I can!!" rush to the bathroom with projectile vomitus.
Having justified war, the president offers three paths to building "a just and lasting peace."
Yep, there are three paths for those who live in vulnerable nations that the international corporatocracy has more than a passing interest in:
(1) Totally submit to the will of the international corporatocracy, including turning over any rights to any property the corporatocracy may have an interest in;
(2) Agree to pay tribute to the corporatocracy to serve as profit for the predatory corporatists and to fund the arsenal of the corporatocracy, the US military; and
(3) In service to the puppet leader installed by the corporatocracy, join the native force that will collaborate with the occupying force of the corporatocracy.
Basically, it boils down to the only path to peace Obama offers to the vulnerable and weak of the world is accepting enslavement by the predatory corporatists that he himself must answer to.
It was no lecture just a pack of lies cut and pasted from Bush Jr./Cheney.
Another example of how we live in a sham democracy where candidates are pre-selected by the big-money interests. You only have a choice between a neo-Fascist or neo-Fascist Lite(TM). Some choice eh.
At least the current Emperor can give a speech and tell a lie without a goofy smirk. Now that is a welcome change.
cut the Commander in Chief crap!
Congress has declared no war.
the armed forces are not in actual service.
they are merely marauding at the whim of a politician.
obama has sold out to wall street and now the generals. i wonder if he would have more courage if he were a single man. i truly think that it has crossed his mind what these thiefs and war criminals might do to him if took away their playgrounds. i'm sure he is worried about his nice family, as well. no excuse, the speech was awful, but i wonder what you guys and gals out there think about that idea.
No one needs to put a bullet under Obama's pillow. Obama does what he does not because he is afraid of being assassinated if he doesn't play along but because he is totally corrupt, top to bottom and side to side. CORRUPT! No other reason. He believes in the death, pain, fear and suffering that he inflicts upon the people of this nation and other nations. His opinion of himself is off the charts. His ego must be truly monstrous . . . as are his actions.
>>>Mordechai Shiblikov wrote: Obama does what he does not because he is afraid of being assassinated if he doesn't play along...
Can you be sure of that? He may be corrupt, but fear of assassination (not by foreign enemies) MUST BE in the mind of EVERY American president. The only way to stay alive is by doing what the mafia establishment wants and not crossing a certain line drawn by this mafia, while making superficial "changes" here and there - or so it would seem.
obama has sold out to wall street and now the generals. i wonder if he would display more fortitude if he were a single person. i truly think that it must have occurred to him at some time that these thieves and war criminals might do harm to him or his family if he suddenly decided to take their playgrounds away from them. there is no excuse for such a bad speech, but i believe he has been intimidated by these folks with all the dollars and the dynamite.
I've heard this hypothesis in other places. "Obama would like to be a progressive, but fears he or his family would be harmed if he was."
If this is so, which I doubt, he's even weaker than I thought. He needs to go back and listen to MLK's last speech for an example of what real courage is. In fact, we all should. Right here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1L8y-MX3pg.
Listening to this great man, it is hard not be filled with revulsion when bankrupt politicians like Obama try to portray themselves as heirs to the leadership of the cause that Martin Luther King Jr. gave his life for.
The traditional Nobel Peace Prize lecture, given every year at Oslo’s modernist City Hall, does not usually include such words as: “I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed.”
LBJ, Richard Deathouse Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Wanker Bush would never have spoken those words, especially "Some will be killed.” FUBARack Obama thinks that by uttering them he has engaged in some spectacular act of candor and moral courage. It is indicative of his lying, yuppie, boy scout mind that he would think so. Each day that passes only strengthens the notion that FUBARack Obama is reminiscent of either Woodrow Wilson or Michael Corleone.
As an old white southern woman who has been a passionate supporter of Obama, I am stripped of any remaining hope for this country. His Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech destroys all the good will generated by his election throughout the world. Without moral leadership to find peaceful solutions to the many grave problems threatening people, not only in the US, but all over the world, there is no hope. Obama campaign irony: "Change we can believe in."
But we were young once, remember. O the days of wine and roses
when so sure we deserved more that with great pleasure we did
take all we could take.
So the purpose of this life must be to prove the harm in it,
that’s what I always say, now most grateful being old and gray.
Beware the obsequious. They do harm!
http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/12loweringtheante/loweringtheante.html
Sometimes I don't know who is worse, the Obama administration itself or his robotic followers who trash third parties and prop up their "make him do it" excuses. As you pointed out, this administration goes out on a limb to deliver for US militarism and corporate criminals such as Goldman Sachs and Big Insurance. The result is that no matter how many people try to pressure Congress or the White House, only the monied elites get their full say while the working class are lucky to get even a crumb. It is as if their efforts are rendered wasted and useless and I'm not even counting in those people who are overworked everyday and don't get much time to keep up let alone try to get an ear from Congress and the White House.
P.S.: I hope we can get a strong progressive third party out there to overcome the power of the establishment in Washington. However, there are two thoughts that I am unable to shake off. First, if more people leave the two parties, then it appears that both of those parties will play "nice" out of fear thereby making it harder for third parties to make inroads. Second, I have heard the notion that any third party that makes it will have to undergo corruption and major concessions on their platform, something I find too hard to believe even though money can control elections and make them depressing. I wished we could figure out the best ways to overcome the seductive nature of the two party duopoly and see to it that nothing seriously affects any progressive independent party or individual trying to make it to office.
You can always fight for movements: 'movement politics' - regardless of which party can help, put efforts into movements, for example, public elections. Some say that's the only thing that has ever worked. Chris Hedges recommends that also - I believe.
Public elections looks interesting. I need to revisit that idea. Perhaps it could lead to getting more people into voting with their hearts and minds instead of getting hooked into believing that only the candidate with the most cash wins. I believe that it was started in AZ and ME and has worked. I long for the days when elections will be less costly and less depressing.
Indeed, you made a couple of points that I wanted to make, TY.
* I don't see B.O. as "one of the world's great orators...". = I find his delivery stinted and self-conscious, actually rather self-important, too.
* B.O.: "I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation..." = Uh, no, at best he's CIC of the U.S. military, and there's no officially declared war going on.
* B.O.: ""We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes." = Why? His truth is not my truth.
* Krieger: First, he argues for "alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior." = Like imprisonment, impeachment, that sort of thing?
Obama is quite right to remind the Nobel audience that it was the US which saved Europe from a new dark age under Naziism and prevented a Soviet slave state from engulfing Europe after the war. The US was also the only power, under Bill Clinton, with the will to act against a resurgence of genocidal fascism in the Balkans.
That histoy is one that we as Americans are right to take pride in. The fact that Bush set out to undo America's legacy through his invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan does not mean we need to be ashamed of the honorable role that this country has played in the 20th century.
I do not agree with Obama's decision to enlarge the war in Afghanistan but that does not mean he is wrong to cite the above examples.
Your long explanation of events leading to the Nazi takeover does not implicate FDR, who was in the position of any president who inherits the historical baggage of his predecessors. FDR had no great interest in foreign affairs, beset as he was with trying to overcome the Great Depression. But, faced with the threat of Nazi and Japanese aggression, he did all that he politically could to help those fighting that aggression, specifically the Lend Lease program. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and Hitler declared war, FDR was finally in a position to bring US might to bear against the Nazis and Japanese. This included providing enormous material aid to the USSR which allowed the Soviets to turn the tide aginast Germany in the East. The end result was saving half of Europe from tyranny.
Your defense of Stalin's USSR is unbelievable, something not even heard in leftist circles for decades. Stalin was probably responsible for more murders than even Hitler and there can be no doubt that, were it not, for the long defense of Europe through the Cold War, that the Soviet Union would have reduced all of Europe to the status of puppet states. And by the way, Stalin's 1939 pact with Hitler was the direct cause of the invasion of Poland.
Certainly, American foreign policy since 1945 has often involved support for dictatorships (Iran, Chile, Nicaragua, and the list goes on) And the war in Viet Nam was an aggression based on deceit, as were Bush's wars.
But a critical attitude to much of recent American foreign policy, including Obama's decision to escalate in Afghanistan, cannot be taken seriously if it is based on an automatic anti-Americanism. Pride in our past achievements is what we need to motivate critical analysis of government actions that betray the mmeory of those achievements.
Could Hitler have risen to power if the German people were helped with a better treaty after WW1, and Hitler was never helped by Western industrialists? If the answer is no, it puts an asterisk on the 'savior' label.
Sioux Rose
RICH M: I nominate you for "The Super Man laser vision capable-of-seeing-through political bullshit award." I wish I had an HS social studies teacher way back when who possessed your acumen. Happy holidays, and thank you for these most excellent posts. You have a way of tying things together and succinctly laying out a strong case for what is true, no exemptions allotted to "the winning side."
Last night I watched a ridiculous movie on HBO with my companion. I really hate films with lots of bang-bang violence, but I felt the need to view it to play anthropologist analyzing what messages were being subliminally fed to mainstream US audiences. The plot involved US agents in Arab nations risking their lives to ferret out the plots of active (or would-be) terrorists. The ridiculous sense that our guys ARE the good guys unquestionably formed the underlying leit motif. There were depictions of the war rooms back "at home" where planning was being done, including close-up shots depicting the graphics allowing war planners to key in on targets thousands of miles away. It made me feel the movie was designed as a covert advertisement for the newest, latest military hardware. It was to make American audiences, primarily white males, feel empowered by all the new "toys" our nation now had to work with in its endless fight against terrorism.
I presented the analogy of how we would feel if soldiers from another land were on our streets telling us where we could go and what hours we were allowed out of our homes. Like many working men my guy has been trained to buy the party line that wherever American troops go, goodness follows; and I must gradually (with the care of a surgeon) deconstruct these idiotic assumptions. I mentioned that we (our troops) had no right to be there in other nations, in the first place. It would have been too tedious for me to go back to the US training such as Bin Laden to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan not too many moons ago.
I notice that many blue collar workers really take the entire sports ethos, its easy division into teams, not to mention winners and losers, and run poitically with "that ball." It serves as their chief model for understanding U.S. foreign policy. They really don't SEE nuance. They get very caught up in the dynamics of "the game." Weeping women, longer explanations, and sentimental responses are just not part of the acceptable equation in their all but closed minds.
I remember reading a story in Harper's about the CIA distributing money to those authors and artists that wove anti-communist messages into their craft, a trend that began in l947. Likely with all the money thrown at our military and its war-for-profit contractors, money is directed at Hollywood to create films that massage away any remote feelings of conscience in Americans who might otherwise begin to doubt the legitimacy of the now long "war on terrorism." Last night's number with its meta-cast was once again propped up like a holy ghost to work the psychic levers (of the populace) that manage to generate further homage to deadly rationales.
Valatius December 12th, 2009 6:52 pm -- I respect your eloquent comments and agree that the U.S. did some good things in the 1940's. However, Obama, after mentioning that a just war requires that it be waged as a last resort or in self-defense; that the force used be "proportional"; and that, whenever possible, civilians should be spared, made the following comment:
"[W]hile it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished." This to me is a candid admission that there were excesses that took our efforts in WWII out of the "just war" category. I thought it was a remarkable statement and I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed more.
Valatius, my views about FDR were somewhat similar to yours at first. But I've been reading about how FDR and Churchill had talked about getting the US into the War by first provoking an attack by the Germans. Germany didn't bite initially. The Tripartite Pact between Japan, Germany, and Italy in 1940 (where an attack on one country was to be retaliated by all three) gave an opening to FDR. After a couple of attempts (naval blockade, cutting off oil supplies), it was easy to draw Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor. I also read that the communication code used by the Japanese military had been cracked by the Americans several months earlier, and there was ample intelligence about Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor. Basically FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen - according to this version of events, so that the USA could finally enter the War officially. Sounds eerily similar to 9/11.
And as to Bill Clinton's war in the Balkans. There is no doubt that Milosevic had unleashed the kind of genocide not seen in Europe since the 1940s, and without US leadership, the European democracies would not have intervened to stop the carnage. The result was that the policy of mass murder was stopped and Milosevic was handed over to the justice of the World Court in the Hague. Clinton's waging of this war is in sharp contrast to Bush's invasion or Iraq, and the peaceful state of that region is evidence of what intelligent and moral application of US miitary force can do. And no, I do not think Obama can accomplish similar results in Afghanistan and that is why I oppose his escalation.
I also am not happy about the existence of the huge Halliburton-built Camp Bondsteel, but that does not change the reality of life as it is now in the nations of the former Yugoslavia. There is no genocide, no war, and moreover, the former combatant states are not about to go to war with each other. Considering the legacy of ethnic hatred in that region dating back to Nazi occupation and even earlier, this is a remarkable achievement for which Bill Clinton is seldom given enough credit. Do I wish Bondsteel was torn down? Sure. Do I wish the Serbs were still murdering and raping their way through Bosnia and Croatia? No.
The region is hardly "worse off" than before the NATO military action.
AGAIN.... any of us interested seriously in FACTS....before anyone concludes from stereotypical propagandas,,,should be GRATEFUL to RICHM for summing up clearly what the facts and history really have been.
SERBIA - which is the "heart" of the former Yugoslavia - just happens to be historically allied with RUSSIANS.
from that - the different provinces : Croatia (mostly catholic and/or muslim) , Kosovo (a small section of serbia proper but considered by serbians the historical birthplace of serbia) today is largely ALBANIAN ..as well as serbia were all part of yugoslavia...which was of course unified long before Josep Tito - the communist leader.
but the point is:
the NATO /US inspired bombing and propagandizing that SERBIANS were the ONLY ones that commited atrocities and wanted to commit genocide against others is simply US LED PROPAGANDA in order to justify the ILLEGAL and CRIMINAL bombing of serbia to submission.
THIS was done under clinton during the chaos and weakness of the collapsed USSR...
as simply the response of the USA to what Gorbachev hoped the USA and NATO WOULD NOT DO - in return for Gorbachev's opening up of the USSR and Gorbachev's dismantling of the WARSAW PACT counterpart to NATO .
instead of HONORING that "gentleman's agreement" between Gorbachev and Reagan in 1989...what DID NATO - UNDER INSTIGATION BY THE USA do? why it SLAPPED Russia in the face, and in order to HUMILIATE it some more - INCREASED its NATO presence , in direct contradiction of agreements that with WARSAW PACT GONE - unilaterally done by Russia - NATO would NEVER extend TO RUSSiA's BORDERS or threaten it!!
but that's EXACTLY what they have done, right until today!
what NATO/USA did to serbia - conveniently using Milosevich as "the new hitler" while turning a blind eye to the atrocities committed equally BY croats AND ethnic albanians IN serbia and IN yugoslavia against serbians - while egging them on to be "western" as opposed to the "easterner serbians" -- was to DISMEMBER , firstly , YUGOSLAVIA, through this instigations of so-called "democratic revolutions" ...
and THEN when yugoslavia was DISMEMBERED...as IF that was NOT enough
bombed serbia some more - to DISMEMBER Serbia itself - and DETACH KOSOVO FROM serbia.
ALL OF IT DESIGNED as a HUMILIATION of russia because NATO and CLINTON and the USA KNEW that russia being so weakened from the dissolution of the USSR and the Afghanistan wars...could only WATCH impotently as russia's
OWN LONG_TIME ALLY and Fellow SLAVS and Orthodox - and ethnic cousins were LITERALLY being dismembered BY NATO and the USA and the "west".
this was done so as to show russia :
":na, nah, nah---- we can DO WHATEVER WE WISH TO YOUR COUSIN SERBIA and DISMEMBER HER,,,,and you can't do a damn thing about it"!
that is the REAL story of serbia as "the new hitler".
PURE MALICE from the USA towards the Russians.
and it comes straight out of MUCH EARLIER HISTORY -- when the ENGLISH and AMERICANS LONG WANTED, like hitler, to have access TO RUSSIA's VAST RESOURCES!! such as OIL, GAS, URANIUM, DIAMONDS (considered by scientists rivalling in wealth with south africa), other minerals, the worlds' largest concentration of fresh water in teh northern hemisphere, fisheries and great rivers..the worlds' greatest concentration of Forestry in the northern hemisphere..etc. etc. etc. and ALL THAT REAL ESTATE!
it is revealed so well by Madeleine Albright's OWN statements during the clinton years:
refering TO RUSSIA:
"IT IS SO UNFAIR THAT ALL THOSE RESOURCES BELONG TO ONE COUNTRY....SOMETHING *OUGHT TO BE DONE ABOUT IT*"....
what does THAT really reveal?
even a CHILD can see it:
THEFT of another people's resources. LUSTING after it and ENVYING IT and CONNIVING towards THEFT!!
RichM December 12th, 2009 5:22 pm -- Your post is one of the most interesting I've seen in CD. I will review it when I have more time, as well as Valatius's.
I was wondering, given your views, how you weigh the merits of the two sides in the GWOT. I realize you haven't discussed the Middle East. Do you come down against the U.S. in that area as uniformly as you do in what you've specifically written about? What rationale do you have for opposing al Qaeda?
RichM December 13th, 2009 12:33 am -- I appreciate the response, and apologize for not being able to comment further until now. You didn't address my last question (What rationale do you have for opposing al Qaeda?). Well?
RichM December 13th, 2009 8:36 pm -- You and I have very different perspectives.
First, I have no doubt that al Qaeda, as demonstrated by 9/11, is the greatest threat to public safety and governmental integrity facing the U.S. It scored a victory that resonates loudly through our entire society more than eight years later. It can claim to have almost single-handedly, with a few dozen people and a few hundred thousand dollars, transformed our nation from a world leader into what is now seen as an unscrupulous world bully.
I'm not happy with the erosion of civil liberties, the open embracement of torture and trashing of national and international standards of decency, and the escalation of death and destruction being visited upon civilians. It bothers me that so many intelligent people, like you, now see everything in our history and values in the same negative light as bin Laden. I'm saddened and even scared by the fact that to perhaps a majority of Americans, patriotism now means personally arming yourself and mocking traditional notions of freedom of speech, religious freedom, and racial tolerance.
I believe all Americans have a duty to be vigilant against any schemes designed to repeat the stunning success of 9/11. If that happened, what's left of our national virtues could disappear like sand castles in the surf.
In my case, I feel that if we're going to be vigilant, the first thing we should do is have a complete investigation of what really happened on 9-11. The danger of another 9-11, imo, is only when it's used to stoke fears and use those fears (with info control) to control people. Terrorism is a law enforcement concern; the GWOT is a joke, used to create Straussian bad guys to bring about 'full spectrum response capability' (ie, military dominance - see James Baker in the movie "The American Ruling Class) everywhere in the world. We should be vigilant against all evil-doers - naturally - who wouldn't? But let's start with vigilance against problems at home, like corporate/elite control of the media, politicians, and the economy - considerably more dangerous than terrorism. It's not an unreasonable argument that the neo-cons are much more dangerous terrorists than AQ or anyone else.
THANK YOU RICHM
that's what I was also trying to explain. you put it far , far , far better than I did!
And he used capital letters properly!
>>>RichM wrote: "The USSR was not trying to engulf anybody. They were trying to defend themselves, & were fully aware they didn't have the power to "engulf" Western Europe."
That may be only partially true. Stalin was by no means averse to invading and creating Soviet satellites - though technically not "engulfing". Ask the people in Poland, Czechoslovakia and other countries in Eastern Europe. People there have such bitter memories of those days that it's easy for their ruling elite today to openly side with the US, join NATO and send their soldiers to Afghanistan. There is also the explanation that the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to hasten the end - because now that the European theater was somewhat settled, Stalin had his eyes on Japan - which was considerably weak by now. So, the bombs were also partially to stop the Soviets from taking bits and pieces of Japan.
I say this because while pointing out the many omissions & commissions of the USA, those of others are often overlooked, glossed over or just plain distorted. History is never black-and-white. We can never know fully what motivated Hitler or Stalin, but we can see what they did and try to place them in context, drawing our own conclusions.
Correction: OK, after I wrote the above, I realized that you were probably talking about the period during the WW-II itself - so it could be termed 'self-defense', whereas what the Soviets did towards the end of the War and in the years that followed was just plain expansionism, in my view.
Haven't read "Peoples History of the USA" by Howard Zinn yet have you?
Yes, I've read Howard Zinn but there is nothing he says that would have justified a supine response by FDR to the Nazis and Japanese. That would have been the response of Lindbergh and his Nazi friends on the America First Committee. FDR's refusal to bomb Hitler's death camps and the rail tracks leading to them, deserves condemnation. But to suggest, as some do on this thread, that every military action of the American government in the past must be condemned makes no sense. So, I applaud Obama's pride in what America's armed forces have done, when they acted on a moral basis, and I condemn his decision to widen the war in Afghanistan as inconsistent with our values and the best part of our history.
you might want to go back in History FARTHER than hitler...and find out -- it might even surprise you:
that it was AMERICA and ENGLAND that Together, connived to DESTROY germany's economy with naval and economic blockades BEFORE the first world war...
BOTH AmERICAN and ENGLAND were so worried that Germany was producing a very prosperous SOCIALIST society - albeit with its flaws, but DECIDEDLY "UN-british and un-american capitalist"
that it they decided to destroy the german economy by putting ships in the north of germany , the baltic sea, where germany was so dependent on its trade channel, and consequently led to germany's isolation...which led to germany's collapse as a n economy.
RESULT? germany became very very militant...and thus world war ONE was born ...
a RESULT OF AMERICAN/BRITISH COLLABORATION to become the rulers of Europe ....by NEUTERING germany as a RIVAL ECONOMY.
germany then was defeated in the FIRST world war - and TO SHAME GERMANY FURTHER - placing INSULT on top of INJURY that the USA and ENgland has instigated BEFORE the world war one -
they forced germany to agree to conditions that were INTENTIONALLY insulting to the germans...
RESULT? they became EVEN MORE militant - and THUS - seeking a way out of their HUMILIATION on top of the destruction of their economy by the usual "sanctions" by the USA adn ENGLAND (like it does with iran today and they attempted with china for decades) --
the NOW VERY RADICALIZED GERMANS voted Hitler into power -- NOT WITHOUT HELPT FROM THE USA FINANCIERS AND BANKERS who were SYMPATHETIC to the savage , racist nature of Hitlerism-- such as GEORGE BUSH's own grandfather, PRESCOTT who was a banker, who financed much of HITLER's MILITARY MACHINERY....
so -- you see -- BEHIND the Glorious "history of the USA as LIBERATOR"
is the DEEPER, FAR DARKER and HYPOCRITICAL reality that the USA
was a CHIEF INSTIGATOR of what PRODUCED the TWO WORLD WARS !!
it was also the SAME with JAPAN, did you know that?
BBTWEEN the FIRST world war and second world war - THE USA ALLIED ITSELF WITH JAPAN
to INVADE and CONTROL CHINA!! and THEN with JAPAN , Germany, Russia , England, France, belgium , NEtherlands -- THESE POWERS
connived to DIVIDE CHINA into "spheres of infuence" FORCING CHINA which was weak at that time - to sign treaties of "openness" to ANY demands by the USA and its "allies"......
RESULT?
JAPAN increased its militarism - and eventually - became a RIVAL to the USA in asia...for which the USA BLOCKADED JAPAN - economically and militarily -- turning a former "ally" INTO an ENEMY!@
RESULT"?
JAPAN increased its imperialism
and the second world war was BORN in the Asian Theatre.
WHO INSTIGATED SUCH THINGS?> \
your wonderful USA!
I know history as taught in high school is not complete, and sometimes not even correct. Thanks for the quick rundown on the events from a different point of view. Recently I was reading about how FDR and Winston Churchill had planned on how to get the USA involved in WW-II by first provoking an attack by either Germany or Japan, all the time when FDR was assuring the Americans that their "boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars". Also about how much was known about Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor (their communication code had been cracked several months earlier), but this was not passed on to those in Pearl Harbor. Nothing is what it seems to be.
Yes, it is clear that FDR knew that the US had to oppose Naziism but he needed a casus belli that would unite the American people. The antiwar movement of the time was ultraright, led by Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee, and supported by a very strong German-American community that was openly friendly to Hitler. The American people were very sour on foreign wars after World War I, which accounts for the US isolationism from 1919-1940 that in many ways permitted the rise of Hitler. I never bought the idea that he knew of Pearl Harbor beforehand. That old story was similar to the 9-11 conspiracy theories, and there has never been any documentation of it. I'd be curious to hear what you've been reading on this subject.
American actions prior to Pearl Harbor could be seen as a provocation to Japan, but only if one felt that the Tokyo militarists should be appeased. FDR had moved the fleet to a forward position in Pearl Harbor and had cut off trade in vital materials to Japan in Fall, 1941, and should have anticipated that Japan would strike south for oil and rubber, and that our Phillipine colony was in their probable path. But evidently, the attack was not expected since the Phillipines were just as unprepared as Pearl Harbor.
Some folks on this thread seem to believe that the US government is responsible for every kind of evil on Earth, which is a kind of mirror image of the rightwing fantasy that the US is the source of all good. The reality is better reflected in Obama's tortured attempt to chart a moral course in a chaotic world that he inherited. Like FDR and even LBJ, he is a centrist politician, guided by a basic moral compass, and apt to make mistakes. I do not question his intentions or sincerity. However, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions.
>>>Valatius wrote: Some folks on this thread seem to believe that the US government is responsible for every kind of evil on Earth...
Actually, my stand has been the opposite on *many* occasions where I point out how the US is not alone when it comes to international crimes and misdemeanurs. I have in particular pointed the roles of Britain, France and the Soviet Union (when it existed) in various aggressions and imperialistic ventures. And I include Canada and Australia when it comes to GHG emissions. I've also pointed out that the USA has been a convenient cover for these other countries.
Anyway, as for the Pearl Harbor incident, I have read on a few different sites, seen a documentary, etc., that talked about how the US government knew - not just the possibility, but very likely even the likely time of attack by the Japanese. I don't have all those handy - but here's something you can check out (as for the site's credentials, I don't know - but I clearly found it interesting):
What Really Caused World War 2?
http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-2/ww2.htm
I have serious questions of Obama's sincerity:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout
I believe John Conyers may also, for different reasons (healthcare)
Am I the only one who's already sick of this BS? We've heard it all before, from the Bush original not his Lite version: "Peace is war. War is peace."
I admit here on CD that I've officially stopped listening! The hypocrisy is unbelievable. I mean not stopping a war is one thing, but escalating it? And all in the name of peace or --to be more accurate--our security. So we have to kill the Others, and their children, so we can be safe. NOT IN MY NAME!
Saw a bumper sticker today saying Obama 2008 and "Stop this Wars." What a joke. It's all talk. I guess these people still believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Tell 'em anything and they'll believe. This is no different from the Germans who fell under the Nazi spell. Whether these people are liberal or conservative, they're gullible. People need to wake up and realize they don't elect their representatives, they're appointed by those with the most money, which they in turn use to buy the most influence. Look at the health care bill, adding 40 million unwilling customers to private health care insurance rolls. And the Barney Frank financial "reforms" engineered by the people who brought you the mess, who've been elevated to the top by Obama, according to the Taibbi article "Obama's Big Sellout." He sold out and you've been suckered. Admit it.
speaking of Santa Claus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Santa_Claus_Theory
Working people in America still don't understand that tax rates have no effect on them. Lower taxes = eventual lower take home pay. Look at the minimum wage and tax levels of 'socialist' europe countries. 50% tax (which give free education, etc) and 2X+ levels of minimum wage.
Maybe Obama thinks this way because he is an American, a christian and a capitalist. Maybe acceptance of violence as a legitimate way of furthering your self interest is part and parcel of all these categories, as it is part of nationalism, which christianity, capitalism and of course americanism are all part and parcel of. Maybe it is the entire structure of our identity as patriots, citizens, consumers, capitalists etc which locks us into this self defeating and self destructive cycle of violence. We never grew past the point of being members of aggressive, paranoid and greedy gangs.
Such is life when a majority feels it deserves more,
and takes all it can take to even the score,
even feels guilty if ever they fail to take all that
the law will allow.
To prove the harm in it being the only logical explanation.