As a Japanese person, I am grateful that the United States thoroughly defeated the Japanese military government abt.70years ago. I shudder to think that militarism had continued.
Note that the War on Terror and the War on COVID were both inward-fighting wars; the US was not trying to destroy a foreign enemy, but was fighting against its own citizens. A horrible result of Gorbachev's plan to deprive the US war machine of an enemy.
Yet the US has decided that Russia is an enemy again. So it looks like his plan failed in the end.
"the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Second World War — they were all perfectly avoidable tragedies" Please explain this claim, for the first two at least.
This is not my specialty, and even if it were, historical counterfactuals are always subject to legitimate interpretations. Read David Swanson's books for historical details and cogent arguments.
Revolutionary War: Americans might have achieved independence with civil disobedience, refusal to pay unfair taxes, continuing to use the Colonial scrip for money in defiance of the King's orders. We didn't need to go to war. Canada and Australia achieved independence without wars.
Civil War: Slavery is an abomination. War is an abomination. Did we need one to get rid of the other? Many countries abolished slavery via changes in culture over a period of time, and the same thing would certainly have happened in the US. The only question is how long it would have taken. Remember that the war started two years before the Emancipation Proclamation, and that the EP only applied to the rebel states, not to Kentucky which stayed with the Union, and was "rewarded" by being permitted to retain slavery.
Second World War was the result of punitive sanctions after the The Great War, imposed unfairly on Germany, crippling its economy and driving a prosperous country into poverty. All during the 1930s, the US was lending money to Germany, selling supplies and vehicles and armaments to Germany. A more reasonable Versailles treaty would have prevented all the causes of WWII, and even after that, if the Allies had economically isolated Hitler in the 1930s, we might have avoided war later on.
Once again, I refer you to David Swanson's well-informed analysis.
David swanson seems a run of the mill socialist / pacifist ideologue. Not that he doesn’t have many good points regarding modern wars, but they are rather obvious points which don’t necessarily lead to his preferred idealistic conclusions. I agree that no wars are “just” but so what? Life in general isn’t at all just, so why should wars be any different? They have their upside and downside as every action we take does. Wars are not some special aberrant human behavior that can be eliminated from human behavior entirely. I refer you to that famous section of the. Bhagavad Gita where Khrishna tells Arjuna he must participate in a fratricidal war regardless of personal feeling, no matter how grievous, if your station in life calls for it, as arjuna’s did, though the actions must be performed dispassionately and without thought for personal gain. From this point of view, in many cases conscientious objectors are not behaving in a principled manner, but are living a selfish fantasy. I think mr. swanson gives off this fantasyland vibe at times.
The civil war was not primarily about ending slavery and the emancipation proclamation was a tactical move, not a moral one, as you seem to have pointed out. Allowing the south to secede for your 50 year period would have resulted in permanent division and a sometimes hostile britain - aligned neighbor to the south. I’m pretty sure the preservation of the union was Lincoln’s prime objective, and after the confederate attack on fort sumpter, the military option won out over his previously favored reconciliation schemes. I’ll take a wild guess and assume the slaves in 1860 would not appreciate the pacifist notion that they remain in slavery for 50 years longer waiting for their owners to wise up.
The war of independence. The civil disobedience strategy you suggest was already happening for years - refusal to pay unjust taxes or follow lesser dictates from KGeorge. In fact, according to British law at the time any taxation without representation was illegal, and of course the colonists had no representation in British parliament.
The result was more oppression and more british troops. No doubt submitting to gross economic oppression for another 50 years might have resulted in a limited independence such as Australia and Canada have, but what Canada and Australia do not have is a constitution and the Bill of Rights and they are suffering dearly for that now. Some things are worth dying for but of course people who think non-violence is the prime directive won’t agree with that. As an aside, you may not be aware that non-violence as prime directive originated with the Jains, an extremist suicidal cult from ancient India, not unlike some quaker groups, which the Buddhists and some yoga outfits emulate. The nonviolent approach would absolutely not have resulted in the unique protections against tyranny Americans enjoy today. I’ll address the civil war in another reply later.
So true and so sad most Americans don't know it. Laid out exactly why WW2, "the good war", was so fraudulent to a smart friend but he just couldn't accept that. He worked in Government his whole working career, a job not high on logic skills, critical thinking, or thinking outside the box, and that may be part of the problem. As government has grown so has the "government is good" mentality. As I explain to people the risks of The WHO or the UN taking over US Healthcare (and a lot more), I run into that mindset all the time. "But aren't they good and didn't they save us during Covid?" Facts don't change that mindset and until we figure out a way to get through on an emotional level, we probably won't change it. Good article. Happy Fourth of July, if you can keep it.
This is a really great piece, and overdue as the clarion of patriots. "Our leaders invented the War on Terror to keep us in fear and to distract us from asking questions." More than that, they used it (and these other manufactured crises) to strangle our liberties, and implement surveillance and food control -- 911 was used to transfer the Department of Agriculture under the oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. And Bush alleged Saddam was behind 911; the Wilsons exposed lies about Yellowcake uranium -- but still the war went forward. Your summary of the Ukraine conflict echoes eerily of the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh by the CIA (and British MI-6) in 1953. Same old tricks that keep on working.... until they don't work anymore. Either We the People wake up and reclaim our national heritage, or we decline into a dystopian collapse that will rival the suffering of all human history. Right here in America.
Thank you for publicly acknowledging the unpolished truth. How can we spread this knowledge ? Both chambers of Congress are full of fatuous phonies beholden to manipulative corporations and ignorant loud mouths. Hollywood has done a good job at breaking down bigoted social constructs. A few big budget films could display the intrigues that propel our foreign policy
"To lose a friend is a tragedy. To lose an enemy is a catastrophe." Unknown source
After the Cold War & nuclear arms race we had a "Peace Dividend" which lasted about 5 minutes before ushering in the "Rogue State Doctrine" before the war on terror. It's "enemy du jour."
Good to see you today at the Takoma Park parade and get booed at for RFK signs.
Wars are not created/entered into to create new markets for companies. That sounds like a socialistic dogma. It's an incredibly costly way to expand markets. Unjust wars are caused by politicians and military people seeking more power. To the extent that corporations have an incentive to encourage war (let's see your evidence -- and the occasional anecdote won't do), the solution is to separate government and the economy, not to increase the connection.
Two of the best articles I have read in the 21st century are "Twilight of the Psychopaths," by Kevin Barrett, and "Lest we forget the ultimate price of warfare," by Michael Leunig. Today I will add this article to complete the trilogy!
Some years ago I read Smedley Butler's book. He also helped prevent a coup against FDR. Yesterday I finished reading BULLSHIT JOBS, by David Graeber, a book that helps one to understand some of the issues with government and corporations that I highly recommend. And another book I read recently that I also recommend to complement Kevin Barrett's article above is HUMANKIND: A HOPEFUL HISTORY, by Rutger Bregman.
Thank you for your thoughts and insights. Happy 4th!
As a Japanese person, I am grateful that the United States thoroughly defeated the Japanese military government abt.70years ago. I shudder to think that militarism had continued.
Note that the War on Terror and the War on COVID were both inward-fighting wars; the US was not trying to destroy a foreign enemy, but was fighting against its own citizens. A horrible result of Gorbachev's plan to deprive the US war machine of an enemy.
Yet the US has decided that Russia is an enemy again. So it looks like his plan failed in the end.
"the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Second World War — they were all perfectly avoidable tragedies" Please explain this claim, for the first two at least.
This is not my specialty, and even if it were, historical counterfactuals are always subject to legitimate interpretations. Read David Swanson's books for historical details and cogent arguments.
Revolutionary War: Americans might have achieved independence with civil disobedience, refusal to pay unfair taxes, continuing to use the Colonial scrip for money in defiance of the King's orders. We didn't need to go to war. Canada and Australia achieved independence without wars.
Civil War: Slavery is an abomination. War is an abomination. Did we need one to get rid of the other? Many countries abolished slavery via changes in culture over a period of time, and the same thing would certainly have happened in the US. The only question is how long it would have taken. Remember that the war started two years before the Emancipation Proclamation, and that the EP only applied to the rebel states, not to Kentucky which stayed with the Union, and was "rewarded" by being permitted to retain slavery.
Second World War was the result of punitive sanctions after the The Great War, imposed unfairly on Germany, crippling its economy and driving a prosperous country into poverty. All during the 1930s, the US was lending money to Germany, selling supplies and vehicles and armaments to Germany. A more reasonable Versailles treaty would have prevented all the causes of WWII, and even after that, if the Allies had economically isolated Hitler in the 1930s, we might have avoided war later on.
Once again, I refer you to David Swanson's well-informed analysis.
David swanson seems a run of the mill socialist / pacifist ideologue. Not that he doesn’t have many good points regarding modern wars, but they are rather obvious points which don’t necessarily lead to his preferred idealistic conclusions. I agree that no wars are “just” but so what? Life in general isn’t at all just, so why should wars be any different? They have their upside and downside as every action we take does. Wars are not some special aberrant human behavior that can be eliminated from human behavior entirely. I refer you to that famous section of the. Bhagavad Gita where Khrishna tells Arjuna he must participate in a fratricidal war regardless of personal feeling, no matter how grievous, if your station in life calls for it, as arjuna’s did, though the actions must be performed dispassionately and without thought for personal gain. From this point of view, in many cases conscientious objectors are not behaving in a principled manner, but are living a selfish fantasy. I think mr. swanson gives off this fantasyland vibe at times.
I appreciate your well-informed rebuttal. As you can tell, I remain a passionate passivist, and I realize I can learn a great deal from you.
It’s nice to see principles aligning with action. Personal integrity doesn’t seem to count for much these days.
The civil war was not primarily about ending slavery and the emancipation proclamation was a tactical move, not a moral one, as you seem to have pointed out. Allowing the south to secede for your 50 year period would have resulted in permanent division and a sometimes hostile britain - aligned neighbor to the south. I’m pretty sure the preservation of the union was Lincoln’s prime objective, and after the confederate attack on fort sumpter, the military option won out over his previously favored reconciliation schemes. I’ll take a wild guess and assume the slaves in 1860 would not appreciate the pacifist notion that they remain in slavery for 50 years longer waiting for their owners to wise up.
The war of independence. The civil disobedience strategy you suggest was already happening for years - refusal to pay unjust taxes or follow lesser dictates from KGeorge. In fact, according to British law at the time any taxation without representation was illegal, and of course the colonists had no representation in British parliament.
The result was more oppression and more british troops. No doubt submitting to gross economic oppression for another 50 years might have resulted in a limited independence such as Australia and Canada have, but what Canada and Australia do not have is a constitution and the Bill of Rights and they are suffering dearly for that now. Some things are worth dying for but of course people who think non-violence is the prime directive won’t agree with that. As an aside, you may not be aware that non-violence as prime directive originated with the Jains, an extremist suicidal cult from ancient India, not unlike some quaker groups, which the Buddhists and some yoga outfits emulate. The nonviolent approach would absolutely not have resulted in the unique protections against tyranny Americans enjoy today. I’ll address the civil war in another reply later.
So true and so sad most Americans don't know it. Laid out exactly why WW2, "the good war", was so fraudulent to a smart friend but he just couldn't accept that. He worked in Government his whole working career, a job not high on logic skills, critical thinking, or thinking outside the box, and that may be part of the problem. As government has grown so has the "government is good" mentality. As I explain to people the risks of The WHO or the UN taking over US Healthcare (and a lot more), I run into that mindset all the time. "But aren't they good and didn't they save us during Covid?" Facts don't change that mindset and until we figure out a way to get through on an emotional level, we probably won't change it. Good article. Happy Fourth of July, if you can keep it.
This is a really great piece, and overdue as the clarion of patriots. "Our leaders invented the War on Terror to keep us in fear and to distract us from asking questions." More than that, they used it (and these other manufactured crises) to strangle our liberties, and implement surveillance and food control -- 911 was used to transfer the Department of Agriculture under the oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. And Bush alleged Saddam was behind 911; the Wilsons exposed lies about Yellowcake uranium -- but still the war went forward. Your summary of the Ukraine conflict echoes eerily of the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh by the CIA (and British MI-6) in 1953. Same old tricks that keep on working.... until they don't work anymore. Either We the People wake up and reclaim our national heritage, or we decline into a dystopian collapse that will rival the suffering of all human history. Right here in America.
Curious to know what motivated you to write on this today. Because it's Independence Day?
Thank you for publicly acknowledging the unpolished truth. How can we spread this knowledge ? Both chambers of Congress are full of fatuous phonies beholden to manipulative corporations and ignorant loud mouths. Hollywood has done a good job at breaking down bigoted social constructs. A few big budget films could display the intrigues that propel our foreign policy
"To lose a friend is a tragedy. To lose an enemy is a catastrophe." Unknown source
After the Cold War & nuclear arms race we had a "Peace Dividend" which lasted about 5 minutes before ushering in the "Rogue State Doctrine" before the war on terror. It's "enemy du jour."
Good to see you today at the Takoma Park parade and get booed at for RFK signs.
Wars are not created/entered into to create new markets for companies. That sounds like a socialistic dogma. It's an incredibly costly way to expand markets. Unjust wars are caused by politicians and military people seeking more power. To the extent that corporations have an incentive to encourage war (let's see your evidence -- and the occasional anecdote won't do), the solution is to separate government and the economy, not to increase the connection.
Two of the best articles I have read in the 21st century are "Twilight of the Psychopaths," by Kevin Barrett, and "Lest we forget the ultimate price of warfare," by Michael Leunig. Today I will add this article to complete the trilogy!
Some years ago I read Smedley Butler's book. He also helped prevent a coup against FDR. Yesterday I finished reading BULLSHIT JOBS, by David Graeber, a book that helps one to understand some of the issues with government and corporations that I highly recommend. And another book I read recently that I also recommend to complement Kevin Barrett's article above is HUMANKIND: A HOPEFUL HISTORY, by Rutger Bregman.
Thank you for your thoughts and insights. Happy 4th!