Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Stupid wars

Expand Messages
  • WarrenS
    So far, the USA has entered at least 3 wars based on reasons which actually were completely wrong. 1. Spanish American war (Spain allegedly blew up US
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 27, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      So far, the USA has entered at least 3 wars based on reasons which actually were
      completely wrong.

      1. Spanish American war (Spain allegedly blew up US Battleship "Maine." Actually,
      later, divers showed it was an internal boiler explosion).

      2. Vietnam war. Allegedly, US boats were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin. However it
      appears there was no attack, merely some nervous US sailors firing in the dark at enemy targets that did not exist. "Attack" caused no damage and there was no evidence whatever it ever really happened.

      3. Iraq war, Saddam Hussein allegedly had weapons of mass destruction. He didn't,
      wasn't even trying to get them, and let in UN inspectors who concluded+said exactly that, but to no avail. (Hussein had earlier used poison gas though, and his poison gas was supplied to him by... the USA. Oh yeah, and Hussein also had been a former CIA employee.)

      ---

      And now what? Now, we are told we need to enter war with Syria because Assad
      killed 500-1300 of his own people in a poison gas massacre (suspected to be the gas "sarin"). Well, I agree there was a massacre, but as of today (27 Aug 2013) see no evidence whatever Assad was the attacker.

      As far as I can tell, the claim was (a) there was attack, (b) seems like sarin, (c) Assad is only contender in Syria who clearly has sarin weapons, (d) Q.E.D.

      But actually, lots of people could have done a sarin attack. I myself believe I could synthesize Sarin if nobody was stopping me and I wasn't worried about killing myself.
      Don't believe me? OK, we know the Japanese amateur cult/nut-group "Aum Shinriko" made their own sarin and used it in an attack on Japanese subways. Further, the delivery method could have been simply "a briefcase with a hand grenade." I believe that would have been adequate to kill 500-1300 people mainly in their sleep. And further, lots of people had motivation for such an attack, namely Obama had publicly announced he'd intervene exactly if such an attack occurred, and plenty of people wanted such an intervention to happen probably including various Syrian rebel groups, the Israelis, maybe Iran, maybe corporations who could make $billions from this war, plus maybe any foreign intelligence agency in the entire damn world who wanted that could have set this up. In fact, just about the only player who was NOT motivated to carry out this attack, was Assad.

      So, now we're told we need to enter a Syrian war, carried out, yet again, with no convincing proof at all (at least at the present time), just "trust us, we're your government."
      And after all, as we've recently seen, our government is so, so, so vastly trustworthy.

      So now, let's compare. There certainly is something to be said for going to war against the perpetrators of outrageous massacres. In the Syrian 2013 case, 500-1300 civilians were killed.

      In the case of the My Lai massacre (also called the Son My massacre) in Vietnam 1968,
      carried out by 26 US soldiers, somewhere between 347 and 504 civilians were killed,
      depending on who is counting. Only 1 US soldier was ever punished for this,
      Lt. William Calley, who ended up serving 3 and a half years of house arrest for it. (Compare that, with, say, Pfc. Bradley Manning, recently sentenced to 35 years prison plus
      he's already been tortured, for leaking embarrassing information to wikileaks, such as a video of a US massacre of innocent Reuters journalists.)

      OK, so if you think Assad has to be warred on because of his (if he did it) sarin massacre, then you must also agree the world should have gone to war versus the USA in 1968
      because of the My Lai massacre, which was of the same order of magnitude (albeit with far, far, far vaster proof the USA really did it, in fact the USA has admitted it) and as part of an entire war which was based on a lie. Right? I mean, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right?

      Or, maybe you don't think that. Because the USA in Vietnam 1968 was way nicer than
      Assad in Syria. Sure. So what we need here, is a little proof. The standard of proof
      required for a war, should far exceed, the standard of proof required to convict somebody in court, of a crime punishable by death. Because 1000s will die in a war.

      And we're nowhere near that level of proof. But as history has repeatedly shown the USA does not need proof to go to war. It just needs "some powerful people would find it convenient" and a neat slogan like "operation enduring freedom."
    • Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
      ... This is far from conclusive. It s certainly possible. The sinking of the Maine, while it became a popular cause To hell with Spain, remember the Maine,
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 28, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        At 07:42 PM 8/27/2013, WarrenS wrote:
        >So far, the USA has entered at least 3 wars based on reasons which
        >actually were
        >completely wrong.
        >
        >1. Spanish American war (Spain allegedly blew up US Battleship
        >"Maine." Actually,
        >later, divers showed it was an internal boiler explosion).

        This is far from conclusive. It's certainly possible. The sinking of
        the Maine, while it became a popular cause "To hell with Spain,
        remember the Maine," may have had little influence on the actual
        outbreak of war. The Spanish declared war after an American ultimatum
        that they surrender control of Cuba. There was never an official
        charge by the U.S. that Spain blew up the ship. It was considered
        possible that a mine sank the ship. That remains a possibility,
        various inquiries conducted over the years have come up with
        alternate theories. The Communists generally have asserted that the
        U.S. blew up its own ship, but that looks like just one more popular
        theory, merely popular in different circles.

        >2. Vietnam war. Allegedly, US boats were attacked in the Gulf of
        >Tonkin. However it
        >appears there was no attack, merely some nervous US sailors firing
        >in the dark at enemy targets that did not exist. "Attack" caused no
        >damage and there was no evidence whatever it ever really happened.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

        Again, Warren's interpretation is oversimplified. The consensus is
        that there was no attack on Sept. 4, but there was an attack on Sept.
        2. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident did not cause the Vietnam War, there
        seems little basis for that claim. It was used as a pretext, for sure.

        We do not learn from the past. The Incident exposed serious flaws in
        our political *structure*, but our common, knee-jerk tendency is to,
        instead, blame the players for playing their roles. Basically, with
        the GoT incident, the Wikipedia account, at least, claims that
        intelligence agencies did not pass on correct and complete
        intelligence, only passing on what they thought would meet with the
        President's approval. That's a consequence of our political system.
        Congress commonly has avoided the responsibility for declaration of
        war, but has palmed that off on the President; that I ascribe to
        Congress not having a responsible intelligence capability, it is
        almost entirely a political activity. The judicial branch, which is
        set up to produce (at least theoreticalally) deliberative process,
        doesn't get involved in "political decisions," though the need for
        sound and complete intelligence is obviously crucial to such
        decisions being sane.

        We have a system, then, that is dominantly political. That was by
        design, to put the "people" in charge, but the structure created
        insitutions that do not actually represent the people in any way that
        would reliably generate true deliberative process. What might have
        done that from the original design was corrupted and changed, away
        from true representation by trusted representatives, toward
        structures that rely on political affiliation and collaboration to
        the end of maintaining power.

        >3. Iraq war, Saddam Hussein allegedly had weapons of mass
        >destruction. He didn't,
        >wasn't even trying to get them, and let in UN inspectors who
        >concluded+said exactly that, but to no avail. (Hussein had earlier
        >used poison gas though, and his poison gas was supplied to him by...
        >the USA. Oh yeah, and Hussein also had been a former CIA employee.)

        The United States has been radically self-serving, in many ways. And
        most Americans don't care, as long as the war and most killing is
        *over there.* When our policies came home to roost in 2001, our
        response was to blame *them.* Certainly there were some very hostile
        and dangerous players out there, but originally their beef was not
        with the United States. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, and we
        had betrayed those elements in Iraq who were attempting to overthrow
        him, we almost literally threw them under the bus, particularly the
        Shi'a in the South, who had supported the U.S. in the first intervention.

        Saddam Hussein, my sense is, wanted to create fear in his enemies, so
        he encouraged the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction.
        Yes, I followed this one closely, and the best intelligence was that
        this was just a bluff. So what happened? Again, I see the problem as
        structural. Congress heard testimony, publically and privately, about
        the situation, and trusted what they were told. What other option did
        they have? It's a no-win situation: the Administration collects the
        intelligence and passes what they choose to pass on to Congress, and
        Congress does not generally want to put too much pressure on the
        President, our system almost requires that the President be trusted.
        If the President is not trusted, that could mean that Congress does
        not trust the American people. Can't have that, can we?

        But we, the people, can make huge collective errors, and we depend on
        leaders to prevent this. Or do we? Or do we only want to hear what we
        want to hear? When a President tells us the truth, as Carter did, how
        do we respond?

        When Bush was re-elected in 2004, I saw it clearly: his supporters
        knew that he was a liar -- or "incautious with the truth," perhaps --
        but he was *their liar,* i.e., he wss telling them what they wanted
        to hear, whereas the Other Guy was telling them something they didn't
        like. Surely Our Liar will do the right thing, to keep our support, right?

        It's really pretty stupid, but what options do we have?

        We *have* options, but we don't believe that we do, so we might as
        well not have them....

        >--
        >
        >And now what? Now, we are told we need to enter war with Syria because Assad
        >killed 500-1300 of his own people in a poison gas massacre
        >(suspected to be the gas "sarin"). Well, I agree there was a
        >massacre, but as of today (27 Aug 2013) see no evidence whatever
        >Assad was the attacker.

        This would be a pretext, in itself. It's part of a build-up of
        justification for the war. To me, the ultimate issue is how much
        trust we place in those we select as leaders. We don't have a system
        that selects for trustworthiness, it selects for appeal to some sort
        of political vision.

        It's an error to focus on the single incident. As before, there has
        been a whole build-up to war that was much more the real cause.

        Without knowing if I can trust the intelligence agencies, I cannot
        know what is actually our best option for the welfare of the United
        States or the world.

        Invading Iraq may have been justified based on an error, but it was
        not necessarily the wrong thing to do. Yet our subsequent behavior
        made sure that it was a disaster in many ways.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.