[PLUG-TALK] Anti-war vs war mongers. (ick)

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Russ Johnson wrote:
> Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> >I think that if you looked into your history, you'd find that WWII wasn't
> >about freedom at all and the U.S. didn't even consider entering the
> >conflict until the war started interrupting profits from trade with
> >England and France.
.
> Actually, if YOU check your history, there were some American
> companies doing business with German companies as well.

And the U.S. companies weren't ever really barred from interacting with
the Nazi regime.  Sure, they had to sever ties on paper and in the command
chain, but the companies just re-merged after the war.

> The US didn't want to enter "their" war. It was when it became
> apparent that Adolph had a possibility of taking over much of Europe
> that we chose to support our allies. That's what allies do...

I don't interpret the data that way at all.  First, if it was about
"allies", what was the purpose of the Neutrality Act of 1937?  The
Neutrality Act was amended to allow "cash and carry" weapons sales, but no
loans to belligerent states (because of their inherent instability and
potential inability to repay such loans to the private corporations making
all the money on weapons sales).  The U.S. didn't pass the Lend-Lease Act
and start allowing armed military convoys to travel along with those
commercial supply convoys until after the U-boat threat decreased the will
of U.S. companies to enter into trade with the British.

> >The "fight for freedom" argument is largely pasted-on after the fact.  
> >This is especially true with regard to the Nazi regime's treatment of the
> >jews.  Consider that when news of the death and labor camps first surfaced
> >in the United States, the New York Times printed it on page 8 of the
> >International section.  The threat to freedom was a non-issue (especially
> >considering the antisemitic sentiments of the general public of the day).
>
> Geez, talk about the revisionists. America was zenophobic. We didn't
> want to fight their war, our people didn't want much to do with the
> rest of the world. The Times chose to put it deep in that section, as
> the public didn't want to hear it. In those days, the papers printed
> what the public wanted to read, not what would shock the most people.

Right.  It wasn't about our freedom.  Never was.

> >Also consider that the Nazi's "counter-terrorist" and
> >"counter-insurrection" tactics were largely adopted by the United States
> >to fight the same enemies after the war (namely, the communist,
> >anarchists, syndacalists, etc.).
>
> Yes, we made some of the same mistakes. Your point?

My point isn't that we "made some of the same mistakes".  My point is that
the United States CONTINUES to carry on with the tactics and policies of
those whom are claimed to be "enemies of freedom".

> Does that make it right for either side?

Nope.  But it pretty much negates any argument that action against those
states is an attempt to "protect freedom".

> Does that mean that we can't call it wrong, because we did it at one
> time?

It means that we can't use it as an excuse for killing hundreds of
thousands of people if we're going to go ahead and do it ourselves for the
next sixty years.

> Your argument doesn't hold water.

I hadn't yet made my argument.  You just filled in the gaps with your own
leaky screen.

> >>I understand the sentiment you have, and I would lay down my life to
> >>defend freedom.
> >
> >I would argue that participation in an anti-war demonstration is very much
> >an act of defense of freedom.
>
> I agree. And I'll fight to the death to protect your right to protest
> my actions. Would you?

Right to protest?  Absolutely.  But I will do nothing at all defend
anyone's perceived right to exploit, enslave, or disempower people,
including the (hopefully) hundreds of thousands of future generations not
yet born to this planet.

> >Personally, I see George W. Bush as trying to take over the whole world
> >and exterminate certain classes of people (namely, the dissenting poor).
>
> I disagree. If you eliminate (pick your method) the "poor", then you
> simply create a new group of "poor" people. Whomever is at the bottom
> of the cash barrel is considered poor.

I didn't write that he was trying to eliminate the poor.  He needs the
poor so that his ilk can keep wages low and consumer goods cheap to
produce (and therefore keep profits high and the power flowin').

I wrote that he was trying to eliminate the dissenting poor.  His power
evaporates when working people show their power and demand something
better than profit allows them to have.

> >The best solution is, of course, to have the U.N. support elections in
> >Iraq to determine whether or not the power structure of that nation needs
> >to be removed.  Saddam would agree (considering the alternative) and we
> >would know whether or not a military action would be in the perceived best
> >interest of the poeple of the region.
>
> Who runs the election, and how do you ensure that it's representative
> of the people? Even in this country, our elections are a mockery in
> that we have such low voter turnout.

The UN has sponsored many internationally monitored elections around the
world.  It seems to me that these results are usually ignored by the
United States because the people rarely choose a government amenable to
the goals of the U.S. power structure (see Haiti, Venezuela, Chile, etc.).

I've got a sign that I made January 2001 that I bring out whenever an
appropriate gathering is assembled.  It reads:

INTERNATIONAL ELECTION MONITORING IN 2004

We don't have it here and our elections are a shambles.

> As he proved in October, they can't be trusted to run an honest
> election. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2331951.stm

This is common under a dictatorial regime.  This was not an
internationally sponsored or monitored election.

That's the whole point of having the UN run the thing.

> >Which is worse, high unemployment or the violent death of thousands of
> >human beings?
>
> If that high unemployment causes millions of deaths due to disease and
> starvation? I vote for the thousands and not the millions.

This is a wealthy nation.  There is absolutely no reason why millions
would die due to starvation and disease so long as national resources are
spent to save people's lives instead of take them (i.e., programs to
improve health and well-being over military spending).

> >This is a wealthy nation.  We can support ourselves through such a trial
> >as the migration from oil dependence.  It does not have to come at the
> >cost of tens thousands of foreign lives.
>
> We're only wealthy if our economy continues.

"Our economy" is a fiction.  What is REAL is our wealth in natural
resources (great farm land, etc.), technology, and man-power.  Producing
food and shelter and health-care does not have to be done at a profit to
be done successfully.

> If we're unable to keep our economic engine running, then our wealth
> will vanish. We need, and I think we're beginning to see, a transition
> plan from fossil fuel to other sources of energy.

Our wealth absolutely WILL NOT vanish.  We are smart, capable people on
fine land.  The MONEY might vanish, but the wealth that can sustain us
through a transition from coal and oil is not the kind that can be
destroyed by a poor economy.

> As you can see, I believe we'll be far worse off (globally) if the oil
> doesn't continue to flow, for now.

So we should kill for it until there's no one that can be killed for more,
then we drill everywhere we possibly can, polluting and strip-mining all
of the natural resources that might have been vital to our endless
progeny, then, finally, when we're just sure we can't squeeze another drop
from the planet, we start a transitional effort?

I don't get it.  Are people really thinking that some magical
energy-producing technology is just going to manifest itself one day and
be somehow easy enough for a transition that nobody currently in power
will have to lose a dime in profits?

> >It very well might be true that the "American way of life" depends on
> >constant war (especially for oil and cheap labor).  But I see that as a
> >reason to change the way of life, not continue the slaughter and
> >oppression of human beings.
>
> I think we should change it, in as much as we shouldn't be dependent
> on foreign oil. This takes time to accomplish.

So when does that time come?  When we can't find anyone else to kill for
a little more time?

> >>I support our military to protect us from all enemies, foreign and
> >>domestic. Saddam is an enemy. He has proven that he wants to take on
> >>the US.
> >
> >When, exactly, did that happen?
>
> He's stated on more than one occasion. 
> http://www.aipac.org/saddamhusseindod.pdf

First, consider the source.  The DoD logo in the upper left of that
document shouldn't fool anybody.  That's not a DoD document (though likely
the blurbs were taken from DoD documents).  This document is being
propagated by the Pro-Israeli lobby (the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee).

Second, these statements are both translated from a language neither of us
speak by people we don't know with an unknown agenda and are quoted next
to a date and vague headings signifying what other events were taking
place at the time but without assurance that the quote refers to the event
noted.

Third, no quote is of any significant length to show context or intent.  
For instance, the statements about biological and chemical warfare could
very well have been in the context of the potential threat Americans posed
to the Iraqi people.  Bush uses exactly those scare tactics when trying to
convince "his" people that they must fight brutally in the coming war.  
(At least Saddam Hussein isn't trying to get his people to attack for his
power, merely to defend his power.)  Simple statements like, "The United
States must get a taste of its own poison" aren't controversial in most of
the world.  The United States acts out violently and has almost no
understanding of what those violent acts are like when the guns are
pointed in the other direction.  (Consider that only about 3,000 died in
the attacks of September 11, 2001, while at least twice as many died in
the U.S. bombing raids in Kosovo on April 20, 1999 -- only one day of an
attack that lasted months and destroyed a nation.)  See this statement,
"Oh sons of Arabs and the Arab Gulf, rebel against the foreigner... Take
revenge for your dignity, holy places, security, interests and exalted
values."  That sounds very reasonable to me.  It's a call to arms for a
people to fight for their autonomy, self-determination and dignity.  
Surely, if a foreign nation actually threatened to overtake the United
States by force (as the U.S. has done to Iraq), statements like this would
flood our nation's media.

I don't read anything in that document that is shocking or surprising,
given the position into which the United States has pushed Iraq with
constant bombing, threat, and embargo.  Those are the words of a leader
trying to rally his people against an agressor that has beaten them to the
ground.

I don't think he's a fair, just, and democratically appointed leader of
the Iraqi people, but I don't think George W. Bush is a fair, just, or
democratically elected leader of the United States, either.

> He wants to take OUT America.

He wants to take America OUT of the middle east.  Personally, I think we
should oblige the man.

> >Well, I don't support the military.  I support the people who have,
> >through whatever circumstance, found themselves enlisted.  But I do not
> >support those who choose violence as a means for settling disputes.
>
> Well, here's news: the entire currently enlisted military is all
> volunteer. You don't FIND yourself enlisted. It's a choice you make. I
> enlisted in the Air Force. I worked for 3.25 years in a prime target
> zone. I got out in 1988.

And if you're an enlisted man, you're likely poor, socially dysfunctional,
of low intelligence, or all three.  Military service is pitched to young
men and women as a last-chance if you can't get into or afford college.  
It's a half-way house for the lost youth of this country.

Yes, they are there by choice, but what choices did they really have?

I understand that people who joined or served have to do all kinds of
rationalizing to make themselves feel better about the decisions they had
to make.  I don't begrudge them that.

> How long do you let someone else hit you before you stop them?
> Stopping them is violence too. Ask any domestic violence counselor.

That depends on whether it is a political or personal struggle.

In a political struggle, a path of absolute non-violence is the only way
to assure victory on the best possible terms.

When you resort to violence to achieve ideological ends, you only ensure
that the most brutal, aggressive, and physically powerful force wins.  In
a political struggle, the opposite is usually desired.

See the struggle of the Indian people against British rule in the early
part of the last century for an example of victory by non-violent
opposition to brutal, violent tyranny.

> >Any offensive military operation is murder and any defensive operation
> >outside the borders of the United States of America must be supported
> >internationally and with the full consent of the people of the regions
> >occcupied.
>
> I disagree. There are circumstances where offensive military
> operations are warrented.

Personally, I support a policy based on respect and the Golden Rule which
leads logically to a hard and fast "thou shalt not kill" rule.

> I would agree if you said, "Most offensive military operation is
> unwarrented, and borders on murder."

All offensive action is unwarranted.  The force of violence should only be
brought to bear against a violently oppressive minority.  Such an act is
by its very nature defensive.

> Keep in mind that military personel are bound to follow all lawful
> order given them by those in charge of them.

Then perhaps the order to kill should be made unlawful.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org