Why are so few willing to discuss real historical events?

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

Voluminous information is available that documents the myriad war crimes and terrorist actions of the US government since WWII (actually going way way further back) but no one talks about it.

Can anyone explain how this can be the case in all these western democracies, the ones that so frequently like to trumpet how open and honest they are, how free and open discussion is the essence of their being?

Michael Hardner · April 2, 2015

Omar - I was locking and removing this thread, when I had a second idea that I would allow you to try to redeem yourself by posting a cite or a link to something that could start the discussion.

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

I thank you for that, Michael. I guess I'm not yet completely familiar with all the rules of this site. The last time I posted only links, my new topic got zapped, telling me that I had to offer discussion.

I have offered up in various and sundry topics, proof positive of US war crimes and terrorism. No one discussed them which led to the title of this new thread.

One hardly knows where to begin, the examples are legion. Regardless, here we go.

The moral of my message to you is this: If your heart and mind tell you clearly that the bombing of impoverished, hungry, innocent peasants is a terrible thing to do and will not make the American people any more secure, you should protest it in any way you can and don't be worried about being called unpatriotic. There was, sadly, very little protest against the bombing of Afghanistan. I think it was a measure of how the events intimidated people. The events and the expanding police powers, led by Ayatollah John Ashcroft. I think it was also due to the fact that people felt that whatever horrors the bombing caused, it did get rid of some really nasty anti-American terrorists. But of the thousands in Afghanistan who died from American bombs, how many do you think had any part in the events of 9-11? I'll make a rough guess and say "none". And how many do you think ever took part in any other terrorist act against the United States? We'll never know for sure, but my guess would be a number in the very low one digits, if that. Terrorist acts don't happen very often after all, and usually are carried out by a handful of men.

So of all those killed by the American actions, were any of them amongst any of those few handfuls of terrorists, many of whom were already in prison? And keep in mind that the great majority of those who were at a training camp of al Qaeda in Afghanistan were there to help the Taliban in their civil war, nothing to do with terrorism or the United States. It was a religious mission for them, none of our business. But we killed them or have held them under terrible conditions at the Guantanamo base in Cuba for a very long time now, with no end in sight; with many attempts at suicide there amongst the prisoners.

It is remarkable indeed that what we call our government is still going around dropping huge amounts of exceedingly powerful explosives upon the heads of defenseless people. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Beginning in the late 1980s, Michael Gorbachev put an end to the Soviet police state, then the Berlin Wall came down and people all over Eastern Europe were joyfully celebrating a NEW DAY, and South Africa freed Nelson Mandela and apartheid began to crumble, and Haiti held its first free election ever and chose a genuine progressive as president ... it seemed like anything was possible, optimism was as widespread as pessimism is today.

And the United States joined this celebration by invading and bombing Panama, only weeks after the Berlin Wall fell. At the same time, the US was shamelessly intervening in the election in Nicaragua to defeat the Sandinistas. Then, when Albania and Bulgaria, "newly freed from the grip of communism", as our media would put it, dared to elect governments not acceptable to Washington, Washington just stepped in and overthrew those governments. Soon came the bombing of the people of Iraq for 40 horrible days without mercy, for no good or honest reason, and that was that for our hopes of a different and better world. But our leaders were not through. They were soon off attacking Somalia, more bombing and killing. Meanwhile they continued bombing Iraq for years. They intervened to put down dissident movements in Peru, Mexico, Ecuador and Colombia, just as if it was the cold war in the 1950s in Latin America, and the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, and still doing it in the 1990s. Then they bombed the people of Yugoslavia for 78 days and nights. And once again, last year, grossly and openly intervened in an election in Nicaragua to prevent the left from winning. Meanwhile, of course, they were bombing Afghanistan and in all likelihood have now killed more innocent civilians in that sad country than were killed here on Sept. 11, with more to come as people will continue to die from bombing wounds, cluster-bomb landmines, and depleted-uranium toxicity. And all these years, still keeping their choke hold on Cuba. And that's just a partial list.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/American_Empire_Dummies.html

carepov · April 2, 2015

Voluminous information is available that documents the myriad war crimes and terrorist actions of the US government since WWII (actually going way way further back) but no one talks about it.

Can anyone explain how this can be the case in all these western democracies, the ones that so frequently like to trumpet how open and honest they are, how free and open discussion is the essence of their being?

There are plenty of people that talk about it, like Chomsky.

Most people don't care; life is generally good and busy. Sports, entertainment and gossip are more interesting.

Some people accept the criticism, however they put historical events in context. Has there ever been an empire with less blood on their hands than the US? Also, it is important to recognize progress, many argue that today (1945-2015) it the most peaceful non-violent time ever.

Bryan · April 2, 2015

I agreed with Michael too, Bryan. Hence my post.

Now please do discuss.

Your post is dump of someone else's entire paper. It's lazy. Pick something specific and actually start the discussion yourself

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2015

...I have offered up in various and sundry topics, proof positive of US war crimes and terrorism. No one discussed them which led to the title of this new thread.

The answer is in your own copy and paste....other nations (including Canada) were/are complicit in such "war crimes".

The elephant has lots of "war crime" friends.

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

Your post is dump of someone else's entire paper. It's lazy. Pick something specific and actually start the discussion yourself

Gee, that sure makes sense, Bryan; damned if you do, damned if you don't.

TimG · April 2, 2015

Some people accept the criticism, however they put historical events in context. Has there ever been an empire with less blood on their hands than the US? Also, it is important to recognize progress, many argue that today (1945-2015) it the most peaceful non-violent time ever.

People who complain about war crimes in the past remind me of pacifists who reject violence but only have that option because they can can pay (via tax dollars) others to use violence (e.g. the police) in order to protect them from those who have no problems with violence. i.e. they are naive hypocrites that preach philosophies that have no practical use.

WW2 was brought to a definitive conclusion specifically because the allies did what they needed to do to win and did not waste much time worrying about collateral damage.

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

There are plenty of people that talk about it, like Chomsky.

Omar: To you, Carepov, one is "plenty".

Most people don't care; life is generally good and busy. Sports, entertainment and gossip are more interesting.

Omar: I've noticed. Except when it comes to all the other bad guys. Then the moralists get their panties is righteous twists.

Some people accept the criticism, however they put historical events in context. Has there ever been an empire with less blood on their hands than the US? Also, it is important to recognize progress, many argue that today (1945-2015) it the most peaceful non-violent time ever.

Omar: I invite you to put this in historical context.? And to discuss these other issues you have raised. That is precisely why I started the thread.

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

People who complain about war crimes in the past remind me of pacifists who reject violence but only have that option because they can can pay (via tax dollars) others to use violence (e.g. the police) in order to protect them from those who have no problems with violence. i.e. they are naive hypocrites that preach philosophies that have no practical use.

Do you mean like all the American politicians who are forever complaining about terrorists and war criminals when the people being complained about do not even remotely approach the levels of war crimes and terrorism that the USA has engaged in?

That is indeed hypocrisy, on the grandest of scales. How has this escaped you?

(Yes, there are others from other countries, Canada, Australia, the UK ..., )

WW2 was brought to a definitive conclusion specifically because the allies did what they needed to do to win and did not waste much time worrying about collateral damage.

I hardly expected this grand admission of western war crimes, especially from you, TimG, so quickly and with such wild abandon.

Is this not the very hypocrisy you rail against?

Edited April 2, 2015 by Je suis Omar

TimG · April 2, 2015

I hardly expected this grand admission of western war crimes, especially from you, TimG, so quickly and with such wild abandon.

Did you miss the part where I implied I don't care and think that people who claim to care are preening,self absorbed peacocks looking to inflate their ego by pointing fingers? Edited April 2, 2015 by TimG

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

Did you miss the part where I implied I don't care and think that people who claim to care are preening peacocks.

Actually, I did, Tim. Sorry about that.

I'll just put a tick by your name in the list of "those who don't care" about the millions slaughtered by US war crimes.

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

People who care went, in a flash, from some kind or other of "hypocrites" to preening peacocks".

TimG · April 2, 2015

I'll just put a tick by your name in the list of "those who don't care" about the millions slaughtered by US war crimes.

I care more about the the 70 years of relative peace and prosperity that were a direct result of a decisive WW2 victory. You see, unlike you, I look at the past in the historical context and don't judge decisions based on the pampered, narcissistic outlooks that have become trendy among progressives who are primarily interested in inflating their ego by pointing fingers at others. Edited April 2, 2015 by TimG

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2015

The answer to the OP question has already been provided....complicity, economics, geo-politics, "empire", civil war, etc.

Somewhere in the world today there will be a "war crime".

So what ?

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

I care more about the the 70 years of relative peace and prosperity that were a direct result of a decisive WW2 victory. You see, unlike you, I look at the past in the historical context and don't judge decisions based on the pampered, narcissistic outlooks that have become trendy among progressives who are primarily interested in inflating their ego by pointing fingers at others.

I take great issue with your comment that you look at the historical context, Tim. You are doing nothing of the sort.

Your "relative peace" is an absolute myth. While you have been enjoying your creature comforts, you care not at all, by your own shocking admission, of the millions slaughtered, the more countless hundreds of millions who have had their lives and homes destroyed, relatives and loved ones taken from them, children poisoned, ... by the USA.

Could there be a more pampered, narcissistic hypocrisy than that?

TimG · April 2, 2015

I take great issue with your comment that you look at the historical context, Tim. You are doing nothing of the sort.

People were fighting a war. People were dying. No one should care today that civilians were killed when Dresden was fire bombed or Nagasaki was nuked. The allies needed to end the war and they did.

Now you can argue that war should be avoided whenever possible but once a war starts the most humane and moral approach it to end it as quickly as possible.

As for narcissism, I ask why are you so obsessed with labeling past actions as 'war crimes'? It can't be because you want to stop 'war crimes' in the future because you are debasing the meaning of the word. This forces people to discount the accusation because it is impossible to deal with conflict without resorting to actions that people like you will call 'war crimes'. The result will be more 'war crimes'. Not less.

Edited April 2, 2015 by TimG

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2015

Well, at least the other favorite words havn't been invoked yet...."genocide". Soon to be followed by "apartheid".

Oops...I shouldn't have mentioned those...let's just stick with "war crimes" and, logically, "peace crimes".

GostHacked · April 2, 2015

Good thread example of trolls trolling trolls... What a travesty of a thread.

carepov · April 2, 2015

Omar: I've noticed. Except when it comes to all the other bad guys. Then the moralists get their panties is righteous twists.

Omar: I invite you to put this in historical context.? And to discuss these other issues you have raised. That is precisely why I started the thread.

Just to be 100 % clear, the US government, and its western allies, have committed inexcusable war crimes and I do not want you to have the impression that I am justifying or appeasing. Most notable to me (1939-2015) are:

-Fire-bombing of Tokyo. Arguably, dropping the first A-bomb on a city but definitely, dropping a second A-bomb

-Dresden

-Vietnam

-Latin America in the 70's and 80's

-2003 Iraq War

Some of the recent historical context includes:

-~100 million casualties in the "Great Wars"

-The Korean War

-Soviet Gulags and other war crimes

-The Cultural Revolution

-The War Crimes of Saddam Hussein (yes I know he was at one time supported by the US)

It is fine to be a little idealistic. Yes it would be great is the West fully respected international laws, human rights and stopped their blatant hypocrisy.

On the other hand, one needs to be realistic. Real progress is being made! I would argue that without the West there would be no international laws nor UDHR.

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

Good thread example of trolls trolling trolls... What a travesty of a thread.

There can't be anything wrong with the thread, G. That's what threads are for, to discuss things. That's what I'm told - those that came before fought and died for. In fact, that very notion is even being advanced about those in these modern day conflicts that are erupting all over the globe.

carepov · April 2, 2015

People who complain about war crimes in the past remind me of pacifists who reject violence but only have that option because they can can pay (via tax dollars) others to use violence (e.g. the police) in order to protect them from those who have no problems with violence. i.e. they are naive hypocrites that preach philosophies that have no practical use.

Some people however remind me of me when I first heard of Chomsky, Zinn, etc... while I was at university. Tim, we were all naive at one time, and many of us were idealistic in our youth. hmmm... Wouldn't the term naive hypocrite be an oxymoron?

WW2 was brought to a definitive conclusion specifically because the allies did what they needed to do to win and did not waste much time worrying about collateral damage.

Are you sure the fact that Japan and Germany's resources were depleted was not the primary reason for the end of WWII? The Allies certainly could have won the war with less collateral damage.

More importantly, what could have been done to prevent the wars? In Europe at least, I might argue that there was no actual WWI and WWII, just one Great War with a cease-fire.

GostHacked · April 2, 2015

There can't be anything wrong with the thread, G. That's what threads are for, to discuss things. That's what I'm told - those that came before fought and died for. In fact, that very notion is even being advanced about those in these modern day conflicts that are erupting all over the globe.

Either you are really new to the Internet, or you are a disgruntled former poster who was banned for some kind of continual forum rule violations. Just a hunch. It's happened before, and it will happen again.

TimG · April 2, 2015

Wouldn't the term naive hypocrite be an oxymoron?

Perhaps. I have lost much of my idealism of my youth.

Are you sure the fact that Japan and Germany's resources were depleted was not the primary reason for the end of WWII? The Allies certainly could have won the war with less collateral damage.

Hindsight is 20/20. When you are in a war you don't really know what is necessary and you have to rely on trial and error. This means that no matter what some of your "trials" can be viewed as "errors" in retrospect but that does not mean the decision made with the information available at the time was wrong. The best example is Nagasaki. We can reasonably argue now that if the Japanese were given a little more time they would have surrendered without the second bomb. However, at the time, the Americans could not known that for sure and using the second bomb just "in case" was a reasonable decision.

More importantly, what could have been done to prevent the wars? In Europe at least, I might argue that there was no actual WWI and WWII, just one Great War with a cease-fire.

You can't prevent wars unless people are willing to let go nationalist/religious ideas. For example, in the South China sea there is no rational reason for China to insist on "owning" a bunch of little islands. They only insist on it because there are a lot of nationalist bigots in China who think the reputation of China is some how connected to "owning" these islands. This in, turn, makes the countries that currently "own" the islands feel like they being bullied and that they have no choice but to stand up to the bully in order to prevent even greater bullying the future. The end result could be war but preventing it requires that Chinese nationalists give up their notions and accept that peaceful trade is a better for China's long term reputation than short term bullying. That is not going to happen.

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

People were fighting a war. People were dying. No one should care today that civilians were killed when Dresden was fire bombed or Nagasaki was nuked. The allies needed to end the war and they did.

Omar: Quite simply, Tim, you are making apologies for war criminals and war crimes. Can you point out to me where the poison chalice of Nuremberg was ever passed to US lips?

This notion of having to end a war quickly, couched in notions of humanity, was a lie. The allies, mostly the USA, was guilty of war crimes, great, vicious war crime and they then used the spectacle of Nuremberg/Tokyo to make a grand pretence that they are the noble ones.

That is one of the biggest, most pernicious lies in all of history. It's been going on since US colonial days but it never had any foundation in reality.

It restarted after WWII, and it continues to this day.

Now you can argue that war should be avoided whenever possible but once a war starts the most humane and moral approach it to end it as quickly as possible.

Within the boundaries of law and morality. Those have been established for some time. Those were reestablished right after WWII, but they have never been followed by the USA.

As for narcissism, I ask why are you so obsessed with labeling past actions as 'war crimes'?

Obsessed? First, I give you Simon Wiesenthal, Noam Chomsky, William Blum, John Stockton, ... .

Next, as an object lesson in hypocrisy, I give you the USA. Who is more obsessed than them, as they prance about pointing their finger at all the war criminals and terrorists who truly pale into insignificance next to their own carnage.

It can't be because you want to stop 'war crimes' in the future because you are debasing the meaning of the word. This forces people to discount the accusation because it is impossible to deal with conflict without resorting to actions that people like you will call 'war crimes'. The result will be more 'war crimes'. Not less.

I take it that you believe this to be the lessons of Nuremberg.