Replies

Kosta: "Historical facts show that the reasons we often went to war over were as bogus as a $3 bill, staring from "the Maine," the sinking of "the Lisutania," te War to End All Wars, the Make World Safe for Democracy, the Pearl harbor "surprise," the Gulf of Tonkin "incident," the Makrale bombings, the Rachak massacre, and now the "would-you-believe-if-I-tell-you" ready-to-shoot thousands of WMDs story for the Dumb and Dumber."

Let's set the record straight:
1-The USA did not fight the Spanish-American War over the sinking of the Maine, although that event further inflamed the already significant anti-Spain popular opinion in America. Before the Maine blew up there were already numerous calls for war based on the considerable "pan-American" sentiment & sympathy for the Cuban people fighting for independence, plus outrage at the brutality of Spanish tactics. Although many in the USA blamed Spain for the explosion, the debate and President McKinley's stated reasons for the war centered around the fighting in Cuba, not what hapened to the Maine.
2-The USA did not fight WWI based on the sinking of the Lusitania; which occurred two years before the USA entered WWI. America declared war because of the German declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare. The declaration of war would have happened if the Lusitania had never existed.
3-The USA did not fight WWII based on "surprise" at Pearl Harbor. America declared war because Japan attacked the USA at Pearl Harbor--a few conspiracy theorists out on the whacko fringe believe that FDR knew about the attack ahead of time, but even if we grant that very dubious point--so what? Are we not entitled to respond to an attack unless its a surprise? Or are you saying that FDR somehow ordered Admiral Yamamoto to bomb Pearl Harbor?
4-In spite of lefty mythology, the Gulf of Tonkin incident did occur; i.e. N. Vietnamese patrol craft attacked U.S. ships in international waters. Two attacks were reported, the first one in broad daylight with battle damage to both NVese and USA participants. The second attack, a day or two later, was at night with no visual, only radar & sonar contacts. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution (giving LBJ authority to pursue military action in Viet Nam) was passed within a few days of the attacks. Afterward, there was controversy among the crews of the ships, with some asserting that there had been no second attack==that the radar had picked up "ghost" images while the sonar operators were inexperienced and had identified friendly ship propeller noises as attackers. However, no reputable historian doubts that the first attack was real or that the second attack was believed to be real, by both the Navy and the government, at the time it was reported (and is still believed to have been real by many of the crewmembers).

And so on. Your apparent willingness to believe this nonsense you write about American history casts significant doubt on your credibility when it comes to what you say about current affairs.

Mark, I am not sure that you ever ask yourself a critical question, for if you did you would have never said some of the things you said.

If we were so "outraged" about Spanish brutality, why were we willing to tolerate brutal Latin American dictators without any problems when we got rid of the Spanish? Answer: they were scum, but at least they were our scum, to paraphrase a famous American political figure. Your explanation for the Spanish war is simply naive. The US was guided by "providential" self-appointed "destiny" -- to first expand from coast to coast and then to rule sovereign over the hemisphere, and now the world. It's called imperialism, plain and simple. Why sugarcoat it? Let's face it: war was good for America. Wars have in large part contributed to America's power. America sought wars at it does today.

I am not an apologist. I just don't have problems admitting that we are doing what every other Empire did -- go to war on its terms. We waited until 1917 to eneter WWI. In the meantime, we traded and made huge profits with both warring sides. We entered the war when it suited us.

One thing that always came in handy -- to our shame -- was our yellow press. In a democracy, the press has a duty to check on the government (whose job is to serve and not to rule!), to keep it honest, etc. That's why we need a free and independent (critical) press. Unfortunately, our press has often served as the unofficial mouthpiece of the government, using its ability to shape public opinion the way the government wanted it. In the case of "the Maine," the press played a cruicial role in raising the public mood for war, just as FoxNews has done in a fine tradition of "presstitute" reporting.

The yellow press also palyed a part in the raising of the war mood in America in WWI -- helped along with the yellow journalism of our British counterparts. British tabloids were pumping out alleged "massacres" of Belgians, rapes in open squares of Belgian women by Germans, and dead baby stories of Germans impaling little toddlers on Belgian fences. The falcities of such stories became obvious after the fact (always too late), but the important thing is: the war came when we wanted it.

Pearl Harbor did not just happen out of a clear blue. Economic sanctions imposed on Japan were destined to force Japan to either retreat from China or to do something esle to break the sanctions. They chose the latter -- duh! In view of that, one would think that the US would be a little more vigilant about being jumped the way it happend in Pearl Harbor. But, the world was at war, and Hitler was a menace and also a Japanese ally. The US was eager to enter the war to stop the Axis from encroaching on our interests. Until then, we were neutral. But when the time came for a war, we got our war. Mice don't just go to raps, they are coaxed to go to traps. Things do not happen out of a clear blue -- they are usually scripted and choregraphed!

No point in going into the Gulf of Tonkin because there is more than lefty mythology involved. It was a convenient excuse to get Congressional approval.

One must really be naive and believe the rallying calls of politicians who (by definition must) lie. It is totally amazing to me that the words of politicians, the people who rank lowest on the trustworthiness and honesty -- somewhere next to lawyers, are suddenly taken for gospel when it comes to sending American people to die in a far off land with a rallying cry such as a "War to End All Wars."

People don't want to know the truth because they can't handle the truth. We can't just say -- hey, this is what we want because we are the Empire and we set the rules. You don't like it? Sorry, maybe you will call the shots in the next round, but right now this is our show. Why beat around the bush? Because to most a "noble lie" is better than the "naked truth."

If you are looking for lack of credibility, you need to look at the "official truth" and not at those who question it. Critical thinking is always in short supply.