The Real Reason Behind The War On Iraq

[Domarius]

http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

 

Wow. Kind of scarey. I mean I know people are saying a lot of things about the US government, but I never knew it was as bad as all this.

[Macsen]

Putting the old devil's advocate halloween horns on--

 

There's a lot I dislike about America as an empire. But there's always an Empire, and I'd rather it be America/Britain or some other European country than a country with a bad human rights record like China.

 

If one semievil empire needs to kill a lot of people to stop itself collapsing so another really-evil empire can rise elsewhere maybe it is worth it.

[obscurus]

The US human rights record is scarecely any better than China's. The US makes a great a great show of protecting the rights of its own citizens (even then it hasn't got much to clamour about it is mostly show and little substance), but when it comes to the human rights of non-US citizens, it has an absolutely appalling record that makes the Chinese tiger look like a pussycat. Tianenmen Square etc pale in comparison to US atrocities:

 

Flying prisoners into international airspace so they can torture them, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, the CIA meddling in the democratically elected governments of oil rich countries so they can install a US friendly dictator, Vietnam, Gulf Wars I and II, litering the planet with cluster bombs, land mines and depleted uranium, Hiroshima, Nagasaki need I continue?

 

The US is estimated to have been directly responsible for the deaths of over 70 million peaople since 1900 in various nations in which it has meddled or attacked, by causing dictators to rise, causing wars to sell more arms, impoverishing whole nations with crippling debt and leaving countries destitute. America gives foreign aid with one hand and crushes and despoils with the other.

 

In the First and Second World Wars, American businessmen like Henry Ford, Geroge Bush's grandad etc financed and supported the Germans as well as their own side, using the war as a means to amking themselves even richer.

 

The irony is that while China represses any mention of democracy amongst its citizens, it is in practise a far more democratic and egalitarian nation than the US. In China, it is pretty clear what your rights are and where you stand, while in the US it is all double speak. In the US, a country that champions itself as the beacon of democracy, elections are rigged, half the population doesn't vote, and all the senators, congressmen and presidents are beholden to the companies that finace their election campaigns.

 

American freedom is a false freedom. while countries like China may seem to have very restriced freedoms, and the US very liberal freedoms, the reality is quite the opposite.

 

I don't hate all americans, but people in the USA need to learn that they are not the centre of the universe, and that people have good reasons not to be very fond of the USA.

[Renzatic]

Your argument is very one-sided and more than a little myopic, Obscurus.

 

For example, explain to me how Hiroshima and Nagasaki are any more atrocious than other notable events in WWII...such as Dresden, The Holocaust, the entire Eastern Front war, or The Rape of Nanking.

[obscurus]

Do I really have to? Laying waste to entire cities using nuclear weapons that left generations of people affected, and a radioactively contaminated water table for thousands of years... In terms of sheer number of human beings killed, and human misery caused, the US outstrips every other nation in history, and not by any small margin. On their own, Hiroshima and Nagasaki might seem to be a relatively small atrocity compared to other isolated events, but the cumulative and consistent manner in which the US has raped most of Africa and South America, South East Asia, and most third world countires, and generally bullies the rest of the world really makes it stand out as being not very nice.

 

I am not being one sided or myopic at all. There are numerous nations and desposts who have commited terrible crimes against humanity, numerous terrible events, but the US sits at the top of the list, and it has managed it all in the last 150 years or so.

 

I am not saying China (for example) is a wonderful and free country, merely that it is freer and less destructive than the US.

 

In terms of nations that really stick out as being generally very nice, I would mention places like Sweden, The Netherlands (they have a chequered imperialist past, but they have been pretty nice for the last odd hundred years), New Zealand...

[Ishtvan]

I am not saying China (for example) is a wonderful and free country, merely that it is freer and less destructive than the US.

 

Except to the 25-60 million Chinese citizens that died during the worst famine in history when natural disaster combined with Mao's Great Leap Forward policies of diverting manpower away from agriculture and into failed industrial communes that officials were too afraid to report as failed and instead propagated false reports of success and refused to acknowledge grain shortages until it was too late. But that can all be blamed on the US somehow, right?

[obscurus]

No, but the 70 million (at least) and counting who have died as a direct result of US policy make the US the worse nation. And China has improved markedly over the last decade or two (OK, they still have a way to go to redeem themselves for the situation in Tibet), while the US is getting much, much, worse. The US is accelerating its atrocities towards countires like Afghanistan, Iraq, Venezuela, and is rapidly stripping the rights and freesoms of its own citizens.

 

When the US gives foreign aid to other countires, they do it in the form of a loan, which is expected to be repayed. Poor third world countries can't hope to afford the repayments, and so are forced into further debt as they borrow more to pay the US back, in the process futrther bankrupting them and ruining their nation, as their people starve to death or die from disease. The US could wipe out world hunger, a lot of wars, and an enormous amount of human suffering within a couple of weeks if they wanted to - all they need to do is cancel the debts of most of the third world, start being less greedy and rapacious, and to stop propping up the military industrial machine. weaning themselves off their oil addiction would be a nice idea too...

 

As destructive governments go, the US is the worst of them all, by any objective measure. Other governments might be relatively worse than the US, but the scale of destruction casued by the US is what makes it the number one bad nation.

[Ishtvan]

Where are you getting this 70 million deaths number? I'm not saying I support the current policies of the US, especially giving "wartime powers" to a government for something that is not a war and can never be won as a war. Personally I would be happy with a much more isolationist foreign policy. On the other hand, I don't like seeing psuedo-facts thrown around. You say 70 million deaths is an estimate, who's estimate is that? What is it based on?

 

I gave a range of 25-60 million deaths over a 10 year period under one government, and that encompasses a wide range of opinions. You can't just pick the highest number accounted for over 100 years from the historian who's most biased and then claim that as the truth.

[obscurus]

It is a modest estimate based on figures from Pilger, Chomsky et al. It could be wrong, but if it is, it is more likely too low. It is based on the last 100 years, but whether the deaths occured as a concentrated short term action, or a drawn out, insidious policy is not really relevant.

[Renzatic]

I am not saying China (for example) is a wonderful and free country, merely that it is freer and less destructive than the US.

 

I don't understand how it's "freer". I can openly criticise my government if I want, and there are thousands of people that do it daily without any interference. I can move wherever I want to whenever I want, I can switch jobs easily at any time, the goverment is doing to me that's holding me back. Course it's not perfect, and it's hard to deny we've done more than our fair share of dirty deeds, but it's not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be.

 

To me it seems that your image of the US is built upon all the leftist propaganda you've been reading recently and is only barely grounded in reality.

[Ishtvan]

I don't know Pilger, but Chomsky is hardly someone I would call unbiased.

 

So what does the US plan to do when this insidious plan to kill the rest of the world's population is complete? Who's going to buy US exports when everyone else is good and dead?

 

The problem with being viewed as a "superpower" is that you're pretty much damned if you do, damned if you don't. Let's say the UN gives no food relief to a country that's starving. They get blamed for everyone that starves to death that year, because they could have helped. Now suppose they air drop some food, but local warlords gun down anyone who goes for it and horde the food to get more leverage over the local populace; the UN gets blamed for those deaths. Now suppose they send in some infantry to secure the food shipment and make sure it actually gets to people; now they're an imperialist power that's bullying a sovereign nation with their military might.

[sparhawk]

There's a lot I dislike about America as an empire. But there's always an Empire, and I'd rather it be America/Britain or some other European country than a country with a bad human rights record like China.

 

What's exactly the difference? Oh, I see! China is more honest about it's politic. It does supression openly, without hiding behind "God" or "The Good Cause", not trying to look like the benevolent big brother.

[sparhawk]

For example, explain to me how Hiroshima and Nagasaki are any more atrocious than other notable events in WWII...such as Dresden, The Holocaust, the entire Eastern Front war, or The Rape of Nanking.

 

You know that scientists warned against using the nucelar bombs, because they didn't know for sure wether it might have ripped earth apart? They used it nevertheless, even though they didn't know beforehand, that it is "safe" to be used.

[sparhawk]

The problem with being viewed as a "superpower" is that you're pretty much damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

What was the reason again to start the Iraq war? Don't tell me that "Sadam has mass destruct weapons" as an answer though.

[Renzatic]

You know that scientists warned against using the nucelar bombs, because they didn't know for sure wether it might have ripped earth apart? They used it nevertheless, even though they didn't know beforehand, that it is "safe" to be used.

 

Meh? What does that have to do with the subject at hand? Though to correct you, they didn't think it'd rip the earth apart, they thought it might burn the atmosphere away in a firey chain reaction.

[sparhawk]

Not really much better isnt it? What it has to do with it? Well, you asked what was worse. Personally I think, if they willingly risked to destroy earth, than it's easily the worst you can do. How many poeple you ever kill, that can be recovered from, but risking to destroying earth just to get your revenge is much worse then anything you can do otherwise.

[Renzatic]

Not really much better isnt it? What it has to do with it? Well, you asked what was worse. Personally I think, if they willingly risked to destroy earth, than it's easily the worst you can do. How many poeple you ever kill, that can be recovered from, but risking to destroying earth just to get your revenge is much worse then anything you can do otherwise.

 

Destroying the earth was only a worry when they first tested the bomb out in the Mojave. When they dropped it on Hiroshima they were well aware of the fact that it wouldn't burn the atmosphere away.

 

Plus I doubt very seriously that the bomb was dropped for simple revenge for Pearl Harbor...more likely it was desperation and hopes for a quick end to what was by then a very long and brutal war. The invasion of Japan would've cost far more lives in total than the combined death toll of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[oDDity]

Balls. THey didn't even threaten them with dropping it befoirehand to give them a chance of surrender.

Even Hitler would hasve done that much, he wouldn't just have flattened London with it without warning.

There's also undeniable racism in there. No matter how hard the Germans had been fighting, or how many lives it would have cost to make them surrender, the US would never have nuked a European country.

[Renzatic]

I doubt they would have even if they were threatened. The Japanese were (and still are) a very proud people, and up til that point had never lost or surrendered to a foreign invader. Up til the bomb it would've been unimaginable for them to do so.

 

Though the Emperor did ultimately surrender after the fact, there were quite a few members of his cabinet willing to kill him just for a chance to go out in a blaze of glory.

[oDDity]

They're not idiots either, and if they surrendered after the bombings, there's no reason they wouldnt' have surrendered before the bombings had they known it was going o happen.

IT wouldn't have cost anythng to give them the chance, and if they said no, it would have been more justifyable to drop them.

Why did they have to drop two anyway? If it was just to prove the destructive power they had at their disposal, one would have been sufficent to prove that point..

[sxotty]

The irony is that while China represses any mention of democracy amongst its citizens, it is in practise a far more democratic and egalitarian nation than the US. In China, it is pretty clear what your rights are and where you stand, while in the US it is all double speak. In the US, a country that champions itself as the beacon of democracy, elections are rigged, half the population doesn't vote, and all the senators, congressmen and presidents are beholden to the companies that finace their election campaigns.

 

American freedom is a false freedom. while countries like China may seem to have very restriced freedoms, and the US very liberal freedoms, the reality is quite the opposite.

 

You should live in the US for a bit before you spout such bullshit.

 

I know a man who was in prison in China for years simply for being intelligent. He is a professor here now, and could not go back to China to visit family until he had US citizenship, b/c he knew he would be protectred from the thugs there.

 

You need to educate yourself a bit and not simply parrot stuff you have heard. If you read up on it you will realize that yes the US did a lot of stupid stuff, and the Bush admin is responsible for many stupid decision that lower the morals of the nation as a whole all the while spouting about God and crap to justify his torturing of people. But as a whole US action has really not been that terrible.

 

The A-bombs for example orignally they planned on invading Japan, and the documents said that they planned to wait 72 hours after dropping a bomb before occupying the area with US troops so that the US troops would not get harmed by radiation. It is clear they had no idea the long term affects of it if they though 72 hours would be sufficient.

 

 

Japan was threatened and there is plenty of debate now about whether they would have surrendered. But we will never know. Many say the reason the US did it is so that We could cut Russia out of it.

 

PS.

 

If you cause a dictator to rise and he kills folks that means you are not DIRECTLY responsible. Try to at least use coherent english when you are trying to make the point. Directly responsible means US troops or citizens deployed the bullet, bomb, etc that killed the person.

 

Afterall by your definition the Euros are directly responsible for every death commited by the US b/c they spawned the US, those dirty rats.

[Maximius]

The U.S. is the "most evil" nation, not because its the most inherently evil or amoral but rather because its the most powerful nation on Earth right now with the most powerful imperial system in history. So the apes that happen to be fortuitously seated in its ranks get to bomb and slash and kill with almost unchecked impunity, from an antiseptic distance to boot. China would do(and does) the same, in fact any nation that found itself the polestar of wealth and influence would embark on a similar course or would risk losing its position.

 

When attempting to understand the playing out of human power in an abstract way, which is what this discussion is about, it is the mode of production that needs to be examined first and foremost. This is the era of truly global capitalism, the stage of its development where it can truly reach around the world with relative ease, though far from perfectly. Capitalism is about exploitation of labor and resources and transforming those items into human wealth, namely capital. (Of course this is a gross oversimplification but you get my point.) This involves killing people, stealing from them, enslaving them. Of course other factors play a role, racism, nationalism, religious idiocies, and their impact is not to be discounted but the bottom line goal of the actions of nations and empires is, well, the Bottom Line.

 

Now that we have isolated the mechanism, we can look at particular manifestations at a particular point in history. Right now the U.S. is the 800 lb. gorilla and it is using that muscle to horrid ends. But again, China is doing the same in its own way, Germany, France, Britain, Japan, Korea, Russia are all guilty to greater or lesser degrees, the only countries that dont seem to be so inclined are the handful of Northernmost democracies (Netherlands, Sweden, Finland(?)) and those nations to weak to carry out such international policies. And you can bet that if Sweden were to find itself magically catapulted to the position of lead dog tomorrow, there would be groups and interests that would seek a course very similar to the one the U.S. and the other world powers are following.

 

So please lets move beyond the notion that one nation is more moral than another. Moral questions are for human affairs at a much finer level of magnification. Nation states and empires seek to secure and expand their power, thats what they do, its how they are born and how they remain alive. To defend one while attacking another is to ignore history and fall prey to the superstitions of patriotism/nationalism.

 

Domarius, here is some more reading for you:

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/shaefer04232003.html

 

This is an interview with Mike Hudson, who wrote "SuperImperialism" available for free in PDF at his homesite:

 

http://www.michael-hudson.com/

 

This is a pretty detailed book but Hudson is a good writer and it reads with a real sense of excitement, not something easy to find in economic history books. If you want to get a really solid understanding of 20th/21st c. U.S. history and world history to a lesser degree, check it out.

Edited January 25, 2006 by Maximius

[OrbWeaver]

It's not just nations; human beings are innately aggressive, violent, dominating creatures and will never be anything else, no matter what political ideologies are put in place.

[Macsen]

Check out Google's new censored version of its search engine for China.

 

I like how the translator just gives up on this discussion half way through.

[SneaksieDave]

Re: teh bomb

 

1. The US was trying to beat Hitler and the Nazis to it. Because it was in development in Nazi Germany too (though not very far along). You think Hitler wouldn't have replaced his B2's with atomic warheads raining down on London if he could have? He directed his armies to destroy what he couldn't take easily, especially toward the end.

2. Japan didn't surrender after the first. That should say something.

3. I still think it was a bad thing to do. But what the fuck can you do? When is war black and white? There's a reason it's referred to as hell. It makes no sense, it's horrible, and it's the worst thing humans can be involved in.

 

 

Edit: Macsen, is that the real thing? I put "democracy" into it and it comes back with a ton of links. I figured that would have been censored out, since that's what all the hubbub was about.