War made easy

[M.Dancer]

Are you seriously opining that the US has not increased its militarism since becoming a Superpower? That's not even possible, I don't think.

That's only correct if you ignore american history. Barbary Pirates, Spanish American War, Manifest Destiny, Philipine Insurrection, China, Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaruaga....Tokyo Bay...all before the First World War.

[M.Dancer]

Korea is a small part of a large whole. All we have to do is look at the expenditures; and at the bases all over the world with their "leap-frogging" utility. The number of conflicts the US has been involved in since the War, as compared to before the war.

I think the point here IS to look at "peacetime" (although since 9/11 there has been an explicitly-stated perpetual state of war, which makes the idea problematic, I admit).

Are you seriously opining that the US has not increased its militarism since becoming a Superpower? That's not even possible, I don't think.

Although regardless of possibility, it's simply not the case at any rate. Of course they have.

This is not a judgement, by the way. It's reportage.

[bloodyminded]

That's only correct if you ignore american history. Barbary Pirates, Spanish American War, Manifest Destiny, Philipine Insurrection, China, Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaruaga....Tokyo Bay...all before the First World War.

Sure, there were a lot of interventions and adventures, but there have been more since. Korea, Lebanon, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, Grenada, Haiti.

[M.Dancer]

Sure, there were a lot of interventions and adventures, but there have been more since. Korea, Lebanon, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, Grenada, Haiti.

Also a much longer time frame...1865 to 1900 35 years-- 1945 to 2009 64 years. The period following the civil war was almost constant expansion spear headed by the military.

[bloodyminded]

Also a much longer time frame...1865 to 1900 35 years-- 1945 to 2009 64 years. The period following the civil war was almost constant expansion spear headed by the military.

Yes, but neither of us provided exhaustive lists by any means. We provided a few examples. Your list would be longer, certainly--mine would be longer by several times.

Hell, the US has military bases in 130 countries right now, and thei primary purpsoe is for leapfrogging into potential conflicts. How many foreign bases did the US have before WW2 (much less before 1900)?

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure, there were a lot of interventions and adventures, but there have been more since. Korea, Lebanon, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, Grenada, Haiti.

More since what....WW2? That's debatable given the known USA military interventions since about 1800:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155/26024.html

In short, America is the same as it ever was.

[M.Dancer]

Hell, the US has military bases in 130 countries right now,

That of course is nonsense. For that statement to be true, the US would need bases in 99% of the countries on the planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_military_bases_in_the_world_2007.svg

Count the countries.

[maple_leafs182]

More argument by Youtube. 2 1/2 minutes of instruction - stock war footage - followed by a sentence spoken by the narrator (that the US has dramatically escalated military action since WW2) with no supporting evidence.

Why do you continue to base your decisions on propaganda that has no supporting evidence ? It's quite concerning, especially since your film clips are always decrying this very behavior of yours.

Or u can just watch the entire film before you say there is no evidence.

Why is everyone so closed minded these days

It amazes me how many people are oblivious to the fact we are all slaves.

We have the illusion of freedom, this is why many don't question it.

The "ruling class" still exists, they never went away.

We just refer to them as Central Bankers, Corporate Leaders(not all), Politicians(not all).

The best part is, they don't give a damn about us, it's all about power and control.

They use fear to control us.

Most of us are too blinded by ignorance to notice this.

This is why wars are constantly going on, this is why poverty still exists.

And if you don't believe me I would say look it up, but most of you probably won't.

You guys realize we manipulate our reality, we don't need to live with all these problems in society, it's a choice between love and fear. We have to stop living in the sins of yesterday.

In August 2009, the SPP website was updated to say: "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is no longer an active initiative.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The "ruling class" still exists, they never went away.

We just refer to them as Central Bankers, Corporate Leaders(not all), Politicians(not all).

The best part is, they don't give a damn about us, it's all about power and control.

They use fear to control us.

Then why do "they" let us make and post stupid YouTube videos using "their" Internet?

What are you so damn afraid of besides your inability to cope with reality?

[maple_leafs182]

What is real?

Honest question.

The Matrix(1999) Morpheus

"If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

Albert Einstein

"On such things as matter we have all been wrong, what we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter."

Comedian Bill Hicks

"Today a young man on acid realised that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are of ONE consciousness experiencing itself subjectively there is no such thing as death for life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves..."

I believe psychedelic drugs are key to our evolution. Salvia, Marijuanna and Mushroom, there are others.

This is why I think these drugs are Illegal, because they don't want us to experience our consciousness. They being the people at the top of the pyramid. It might be the heads of religion, corporate leaders, central bankers, monarch. I really don't know who forsure, it may be several groups of people. All I know is they are there.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild

“Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws”

These guys have set up a system that controls us.

The Matrix(1999) Morpheus

The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

Moprpheus

The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Neo

What truth?

Morpheus

That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.

...I'm just gonna stop here, I know nobody will believe me, these are big claims i get it. But not one person has even entertained the idea.

[maple_leafs182]

What is real?

Honest question.

The Matrix(1999) Morpheus

"If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

Albert Einstein

"On such things as matter we have all been wrong, what we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter."

Comedian Bill Hicks

"Today a young man on acid realised that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are of ONE consciousness experiencing itself subjectively there is no such thing as death for life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves..."

I believe psychedelic drugs are key to our evolution. Salvia, Marijuanna and Mushroom, there are others.

This is why I think these drugs are Illegal, because they don't want us to experience our consciousness. They being the people at the top of the pyramid. It might be the heads of religion, corporate leaders, central bankers, monarch. I really don't know who forsure, it may be several groups of people. All I know is they are there.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild

“Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws”

These guys have set up a system that controls us.

The Matrix(1999) Morpheus

The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

Moprpheus

The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Neo

What truth?

Morpheus

That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.

...I'm just gonna stop here, I know nobody will believe me, these are big claims i get it. But not one person has even entertained the idea.

I'm not afraid, I'm just trying to free your guys's minds.

[bush_cheney2004]

What is real?

Honest question....

"Real" exists with or without your perceptions. It simply doesn't care.

Honest answer.

[bloodyminded]

More since what....WW2? That's debatable given the known USA military interventions since about 1800:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155/26024.html

In short, America is the same as it ever was.

Well, according to the list that you provide in order to make your point:

I count about 120 interventions in the 140 years between 1800 and 1940;

And about sixty interventions in the 64 years between 1940 and 2004.

True, the difference isn't as large as I would have assumed. But it IS larger since the war.

And let's not forget that your list allows for at least one (and so probably more) omissions which signify a sort of nationalistic indoctrination. For example, while they mention US intervention in supporting the brutal dictator Suharto, they leave out an interesting facet: the 25 years of direct material aid for the attempted genocide of the East Timorese by Suharto and his generals. I would think that 25 years of direct and intentional military aid for mass murder might qualify as an ongoing "military intervention"; furthermore, this aid (with the eager help of other rich, Western nations) was so egregious, so criminal and murderous, and so long-term, that it blows most other interventions out of the water.

Edited December 22, 2009 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

That of course is nonsense. For that statement to be true, the US would need bases in 99% of the countries on the planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_military_bases_in_the_world_2007.svg

Count the countries.

You're right and you're wrong.

There are bases in 63 countries--which means I was way, way off, you're right about that. I got confused with the number of countries who have permanent or semi-permanent US military personnel...but that's a whole different matter than bases, I agree. My mistake.

However, how in the world did you come up with the idea that 130 countries constitutes 99% of countries? that's not even close.

[Shwa]

No measure? The number of conflicts, including the global reach of such conflicts, including military expenditures, including "basing" the globe on an unprecedented level.

When you come up with formula in terms of real numbers, please let me know what the final tally is.

For instance - the number of conflicts for what? Does this mean military advice to client states during the cold war and 'war by proxy?' Or does it include direct intervention? When you say globe do you mean that in the relative sense of 'the world' or are you referring to the entire planet? Do you include UN sanctioned actions or policing actions? And then there is the tie-in with economic and US foreign policy, etc.

I think you will need to spend quite sometime on devising a decent formula. And then, once you get the tally, you will have to find a comparative to define what 'drastically' means. That is, drastically compared to whom and during what period? Themselves in a previous period? The USSR/Russia since WWII? China?

I am guessing that once you get your tally you will likely see that the US has been doing what they have been doing for a couple of centuries now and there has been no sudden upturn in military action. But I am just guessing.

[bloodyminded]

I just want a definition of what we're talking about, that's all. "Escalation" "Militarism" ... what are we talking about ? That would be a starting point.

The emotionalist laments against the U.S. are usually directionless and without any focus. At best, they're an educational illustration of the power of the US and at worst they're mini sketches of paranoia that lead to stupid 9/11 conspiracy theories and foment distrust in our institutions.

I agree with you absolutely in your "at best" and "at worst" parameters.

As for distrust in our institutions: I believe any institutional analysis (which to some degree precludes the bulk of the 9/11 conspiracy theories) has to be navigated carefully. For example, we can make some real distinctions between domestic and foreign policies. Certainly they're related, but there are a lot of distictions.

The use of the term "enemy combatant", and the dismissal (if not open support) of torture expose some stark differences.

And these are only the tip of the iceberg. Domestically, nations like the U.S. and Canada are vastly different from their status as foreign interveners.

And frankly, I believe the evidence is thoroughly in that we cannot and should not trust these institutions in this aspect of their behavior.

That doesn't mean that leftists (and to a lesser degree, sectors of the intellectual Libertarian Right, who are in surprising agreement with the radical Left on matters like US foreign policy) don't make grotesque errors in logic and reason. So okay, that indicts them to the precise degree as we can indict the self-styled moderates, who too often tend to believe in comforting, nationalist myths about a benign Superpower and its humanitarian allies, whose benevolence is not up for debate, though they (or we, rather) occasionally make "mistakes."

I'll give you an example, and I use it because 1.) it is a particularly egregious example of intentional criminality on an astonishing scale; 2.) it has been extensively studied, albeit practically unknown in mainstream opinion; and 3.) there has been no good rebuttal against it, though some sanctimonious outrage (ie "How can you say such terrible things about the US, UK, etc"--hopefully you agree that these "rebuttals" are nothing of the kind, and carry zero informaiton aside from wounded patriotism. And I care less about wounded patriotism than I do about my itchy foot. Less, actually.)

Ok: in 1975, the very brutal dictator Suharto of Indonesia decided it was time to invade East Timor, in an act of good old-fashioned colonialism-for-profit.

President Ford and Henry Kissinger gave the green light. This is now official record, since it's been declassified. Also mentioned was the timing, as the two Executive criminals were concerned about the pesky public's response to invasion and murder.

For the next 25 years, through five successive administrations, Indonesia brutalized the East Timorese. Hundereds of thousands were slaughtered. It ranks alongside the top handful of mass slaughters in the post-war era--no small achievement when you consider the competition.

Several Western countries were directly and unequivocally aiding the Indonesian military. We're not talking arms sales, either: we're talking direct government-to-government military aid. Tax-funded genocide.

The US was the most helpful to the mass murderers, but the UK and Australia put forth a useful effort as well. (Maybe Canada too--I can't say either way.)

The Indonesians, cognizant of Western matters like public opinion and political campaigns, were good enough to conceal lettering and numbering on arms and munitions so that it couldn't be easily traced back to their benefactors.

The few people outside of East Timor who were aware of the staggering atrocities kept pointing out that if the US--just them--were to stop arming the killers, the slaughters would be greatly lessened. They were proven incontestably correct when, in 1999, Bill Clinton, smelling a coming public awareness and outcry, ceased US aid. The murders stopped.

This was all ocurring around the same time as we preached our own nobility in stopping the (far less severe) atrocities in Serbia.

This is outright, intentional material aid for attempted genocide. It is quite a degree worse than anything achieved by such small-timers as al-Queda.

And this is where the arguments begin. Dissenters to historical truth have no facts, no counterevidence at their disposal, so they start chanting about "the Cold War" (a talismanic term...somehow, even in 1999) and "paranoia." As if it's something that may or may not have occurred.

Worse, they become immediately illiterate. It's a spectacle to behold, I'm not kidding you: a person with a skewed and morally-relativist sense of "patriotism" will usually at this point say, "Well, the US and her allies admittedly looked away, and didn't do enough...."

Indeed, that that was the official response of Bill Clinton's government. One trivial, nagging little problem: it's a direct lie. The great powers didn't "look away" or "ignore the massacres"--that's Rwanda. No, they helped the massacres. Directly, intentionally supplying the ongoing means for the ongoing killings to be carried out.

So, yes, an institutional analysis must be done with care, and should be committed to with total honesty.

That is, the opposite of those who reflexively deny such terrible truths as what happened in East Timor, based on spurious, vapid myths such as "we simply wouldn't behave that way."

By definition, we would.

[bloodyminded]

When you come up with formula in terms of real numbers, please let me know what the final tally is.

For instance - the number of conflicts for what? Does this mean military advice to client states during the cold war and 'war by proxy?' Or does it include direct intervention? When you say globe do you mean that in the relative sense of 'the world' or are you referring to the entire planet? Do you include UN sanctioned actions or policing actions? And then there is the tie-in with economic and US foreign policy, etc.

I think you will need to spend quite sometime on devising a decent formula. And then, once you get the tally, you will have to find a comparative to define what 'drastically' means. That is, drastically compared to whom and during what period? Themselves in a previous period? The USSR/Russia since WWII? China?

I am guessing that once you get your tally you will likely see that the US has been doing what they have been doing for a couple of centuries now and there has been no sudden upturn in military action. But I am just guessing.

Frankly, I'm becoming inclined to appreciate your point of view here. I may well be mistaken; and if I'm not, I am unable to argue the case too well, clearly.

To answer just one of your questions (which I find difficult to believe you meant seriously): of course proxy wars count as intervention. If a country arms, trains, and funds an anti-government milita like the Contras in Nicaragua, that is an obvious case of military intervention.

[Shwa]

Frankly, I'm becoming inclined to appreciate your point of view here. I may well be mistaken; and if I'm not, I am unable to argue the case too well, clearly.

To answer just one of your questions (which I find difficult to believe you meant seriously): of course proxy wars count as intervention. If a country arms, trains, and funds an anti-government milita like the Contras in Nicaragua, that is an obvious case of military intervention.

Frankly I am not inclined to care whether you appreciate my view or not, that is irrelevant. But I do think it is an interesting question: has US military action dramatically escalated since WWII?

So far you haven't given me any indication that it has which fits with my impression that the US has acted as it always has albeit with increased technological and economical capabilities which likely parallel any growth in military action. I am not saying that it is any less atrocious, just not all that different previous to 1945.

Making proxy war a part of the equation is a very important distinction for two reasons. For one, intervention-by-proxy also applies to the USSR/Russia or China when developing a comparative analysis. And secondly - as illustrated by your comments above about East Timor - record keeping could be an issue. For instance, records of some of those 'incidents' in Central America might be not as complete as the recent records from East Timor. There could have been genocidal tactics in Honduras or Nicaragua in the early 1900's but the information of those tactics were never recorded in a form that has made public record. As well, the issue of 'public record' in any comparative analysis with the USSR and China could be another problem area.

[Michael Hardner]

Or u can just watch the entire film before you say there is no evidence.

The last movie you posted for me (a 9/11 truth propaganda piece) was a similar waste of time. You should take the time to summarize the arguments and post them. I can read a post in under a minute, but these videos seem to take at least 5 minutes to get to the point.

Why is everyone so closed minded these days

I'm open minded enough to open the video, so your accusation is off base. I also gave your videos ten minutes of my time so far, which is almost equal to 1/2 the entire time I spend responding to threads in the morning.

It amazes me how many people are oblivious to the fact we are all slaves.

We have the illusion of freedom, this is why many don't question it.

I have questioned it, and I have responded to your posts but you haven't bothered to read my responses.

The "ruling class" still exists, they never went away.

We just refer to them as Central Bankers, Corporate Leaders(not all), Politicians(not all).

The best part is, they don't give a damn about us, it's all about power and control.

They use fear to control us.

Most of us are too blinded by ignorance to notice this.

This is why wars are constantly going on, this is why poverty still exists.

And if you don't believe me I would say look it up, but most of you probably won't.

I have already responded to your point about poverty. Funny how you say I'm not open minded, yet you didn't respond to my point and just left it hanging there.

Let me restate: Significant progress has been made on the problem of world hunger since 1970. For you to expect all hunger to have been solved within 40 years is completely unrealistic. If world leaders weren't concerned about poverty, how could they have made as much progress as they have ?

You guys realize we manipulate our reality, we don't need to live with all these problems in society, it's a choice between love and fear. We have to stop living in the sins of yesterday.

Your cheap propaganda videos are made for suckers who are willing to support these guys in their books and speaking engagements. The fact that they talk about closed-minded sheeple is a joke on those of you who blindly accept their groundless arguments and shell out money to keep these liars going.

The last video you posted was ostensibly about the WTC7 collapse, yet it was a humanities professor who gabbed on and on about lies for a significant portion of the film, without any scientific backing to his accusations. I didn't finish the film, not because I'm closed-minded but because I value my time somewhat.

[Michael Hardner]

That is, the opposite of those who reflexively deny such terrible truths as what happened in East Timor, based on spurious, vapid myths such as "we simply wouldn't behave that way."

The situation with East Timor was highlighted by Chomsky in the 1990s and I'm still not understanding why this didn't get coverage. These were thousands of deaths every year on average.

Your point about Kissenger reminds me of Vancouverite April Glaspie - the US Ambassador to Iraq who greenlighted Hussein's invasion:

Wikipedia

But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi (Chedli Klibi, Secretary General of the Arab League) or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.

[bloodyminded]

Frankly I am not inclined to care whether you appreciate my view or not, that is irrelevant.

Never take a sincere compliment as some sort of slight against you.

But I do think it is an interesting question: has US military action dramatically escalated since WWII?

So far you haven't given me any indication that it has which fits with my impression that the US has acted as it always has albeit with increased technological and economical capabilities which likely parallel any growth in military action. I am not saying that it is any less atrocious, just not all that different previous to 1945.

Making proxy war a part of the equation is a very important distinction for two reasons. For one, intervention-by-proxy also applies to the USSR/Russia or China when developing a comparative analysis. And secondly - as illustrated by your comments above about East Timor - record keeping could be an issue. For instance, records of some of those 'incidents' in Central America might be not as complete as the recent records from East Timor. There could have been genocidal tactics in Honduras or Nicaragua in the early 1900's but the information of those tactics were never recorded in a form that has made public record. As well, the issue of 'public record' in any comparative analysis with the USSR and China could be another problem area.

This is all reasonable, except for the "comparative analysis with the USSR and China," especially on the matter of proxy wars. That's not even faintly relevant to my comments.

That is (and whether I was mistaken about the central point is neither here nor there in this context): a claim was made about US military expansion and escalation; the claim was called into question because of problems of measurement and evidence; and I said "sure it's escalated" (again, perhaps incorrectly) as a response.

What has this to do with a comparative analysis of other States' militarism and use of proxies?

Edited December 22, 2009 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

True, the difference isn't as large as I would have assumed. But it IS larger since the war.

My only purpose was to disabuse anyone from this notion of a more docile America prior to WW2, an argument often made to erase the memories of many other colonial, national, and royal expansionist actions (e.g. Canada and the Boer Wars)

And let's not forget that your list allows for at least one (and so probably more) omissions which signify a sort of nationalistic indoctrination. For example, while they mention US intervention in supporting the brutal dictator Suharto, they leave out an interesting facet: the 25 years of direct material aid for the attempted genocide of the East Timorese by Suharto and his generals.

The web site served my purpose for enumeration; please feel free to offer up a better one that meets your needs vis-a-vis East Timor (which has been discussed at length in previous threads).

[Shwa]

What has this to do with a comparative analysis of other States' militarism and use of proxies?

If we are looking for a measurement of a 'dramatic escalation of military action,' then a comparative analysis to other state's militarism and use of proxies might prove useful to determine if there was a dramatic escalation by the US or a general condition of militarism by other large powerful states overall. For instance, lets say that in 1956 the US, the USSR & China all had a miltarism factor of n. Now if we look again and find that in 1976 the US had a factor of 3n, while the USSR & China still had n, I would say there was a dramatic escalation going on. Or at least a hint of one. And this presupposes that there is a suitable metric for n.

n could be military budget or percentage of GDP combined with number of conflicts or 'active military days.'

Interestingly enough, according to the CIA World Factbook on military expenditures, China spends 4.30%, the US 4.06% and Russia 3.90%.

[bush_cheney2004]

The situation with East Timor was highlighted by Chomsky in the 1990s and I'm still not understanding why this didn't get coverage. These were thousands of deaths every year on average.

There was no shortage ov coverage....it's just that most Canadians didn't give a damn about it or their own nation's complicity in the matter.

Your point about Kissenger reminds me of Vancouverite April Glaspie - the US Ambassador to Iraq who greenlighted Hussein's invasion:

She also gave Denmark the "green light" to invade Canada...so they did.

[bloodyminded]

There was no shortage ov coverage....it's just that most Canadians didn't give a damn about it or their own nation's complicity in the matter.

There was a massive shortage of coverage, actually. It's not only that Canadians don't give a damn (or, more accurately, are predisposed to look away at their own nation's crimes)--it's that very little information was published. Astonishingly little. Very, very, very few people are aware of this AT ALL. And when they are, they have usually imbibed the conventiuonal pieties: "We ignored the problem; didn't do enough"...and other, similar deceptions.

Also, your petulance against Canada is showing; Americans plainly have no more interest in or knowledge of the matter.

Edited December 22, 2009 by bloodyminded