Was the Moon landing a hoax?
A poll conducted this year suggests that one in four Americans believe the US government faked the moon landing in its effort to win the Cold War. If the Apollo 11 mission was all science fiction, it was the greatest hoax ever pulled off in the history of the world. It would also have been a deception involving tens of thousands of people. Moon landing conspiracy theories are so popular that NASA's official website offers a point-by-point refutation of each claim made by the Apollo 11 deniers (including that allegedly fluttering flag). Currently, NASA is displaying recent photographs of the Moon landing sites, including the lunar module that's been up there since 1969. The evidence that human beings stood on the moon seems so overwhelming that one really has to take an interest in the persistence of the conspiracy theories. Why are so many people prepared to believe that politicians and scientists -- and presumably the media, too -- conspired to fake the landing? Apollo conspiracy theorists have taken an extraordinary leap of faith in believing that so many people could be persuaded to keep the biggest secret in the history of the world. We'll be talking about the faith of conspiracy theories on this week's edition of Sunday Sequence.
Buzz Aldrin was not only the second man to walk on the moon, but if some accounts are to be believed he was also the first to conduct a service of Holy Communion on the lunar service.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~01~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
It will no doubt not have escaped people's notice that exactly the same cognitive snarl-ups that drive Apollo-conspiracy-theorists also drive creationists, and perhaps even "ordinary" religious belief. That's the real story here - not the "arguments" and their rebuttal, but the dogged determination of some really wacked out loonies to cling on to their nutty ideas. I know some people who really *believe* that there is a lost continent submerged beneath the Pacific Ocean, Mukulia, where human civilisation began. I mean, where do you even *start* with such nonsense?
Complain about this comment
Helio,
Have you any idea on how they try to explain away the retro-reflectors left by the Apollo missions that we can lase from earth?
Complain about this comment
Not sure, but I bet they have some lame excuse - robotic landers or such.
Complain about this comment
The cognitive snarl-ups that drive Apollo-conspiracy-theorists also drive creationists, and perhaps even ordinary religious belief.
About Me
Complain about this comment
The LRO team have published pictures just yesterday from the orbiter, of the landing sites.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
I wonder how the conspiracy "theorists" discount this stuff.
Complain about this comment
With all the programmes rememering Armstrong andAldrin,s landing on the moon, one person seems to have been forgotten. What about Michael Collins?. He was the third member of the team but is constantly ignored. He was left in the control capsule by himself not knowing whether he would ever see the other two again. Many things could have gone wrong and very nearly did.He would then have had to return to earth alone.Apart from actually landing on the moon he shared all the dangers of the others and was an integral part of the achievment. blue-eyed Spacefan
Complain about this comment
Capricorn One was a good film, and highly plausible. However, it was just a film. I'd say it was partly responsible in fueling the moon landing hoax conspiracy though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn_One
The setting is the late 1970s, and the first manned mission to Mars is on the launch pad. NASA authorities including Dr. James Kelloway (Hal Holbrook) realize that a faulty life support system has doomed any chance of a successful flight, so for political and financial purposes they decide to fake the landing rather than cancel the mission.
Minutes before launch, the bewildered crew of Col. Brubaker (James Brolin), Lt. Col. Willis (Sam Waterston), and Cmdr. Walker (O. J. Simpson) are removed from the capsule and flown to an old abandoned United States Army Air Corps base deep within the desert. The televised launch proceeds on schedule, but the public is unaware that the spacecraft (Capricorn One) does not have a crew.
At the remote base, the astronauts are informed they will fake the television footage from Mars and it is their patriotic duty to participate. Initially they refuse, but authorities imply their careers and the lives of their families are at stake if they do not cooperate.
Complain about this comment
Yes indeed, Peter, but what about Capricorn Two, Three and Four, eh? Eh?! ;-)
Complain about this comment
Did a whole show on this topic on Friday afternoon. The hoax claims are ridiculous. But actually there may not be that many who believe it. Only 6% according to a 1999 Gallup poll, and even they just say they don't know if the government version was correct. 6% probably believe Elvis is alive, too. :-)
Complain about this comment
These reports are untrue. They are dreamt up by journalists trying to sell newspapers. I don't understand why the BBC picks them up.
Complain about this comment
Sorry to impugn the journalistic profession a wee tad here, but it's standard fare - identification of the crank view, e.g. creationism or lunar hoax, then juxtaposition with the "orthodoxy", leads to a false equivalance in the eyes of the publis; they think there are serious sensible people who have a reason to believe the crank side, so the crank side looks a little less cranky in the eyes of the non-expert.
But then there is the other side; flushing these wallies out into the open is potentially a useful public service too; does it vaccinate us against the really harmful nutters?
Who knows? Probably not, if the utterly contemptible libel case against Simon Singh by the British Chiropractic Association is anything to go by. Can't make your case with evidence? Take it to the libel courts. This is no way for civilised people who supposedly want "evidence" to behave.
Complain about this comment
One of the guests on today's show retold the story that Yuri Gagarin supposedly said, "I don't see any God up here." It's been reported that he in fact never said this, and was actually a committed Orthodox believer.
This is from Pravda newspaper:
"There are speculations in the media that from orbit Gagarin made the comment, "I don't see any God up here." However, no such words appear in the verbatim record of Gagarin's conversations with the Earth during the spaceflight. In a 2006 interview a close friend of Gagarin, Colonel Valentin Petrov, stated that Gagarin never said such words, and that the phrase originated from Nikita Khrushchev's speech at the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, where the anti-religious propaganda was discussed. In a certain context Khrushchev said, "Gagarin flew into space, but didn't see any God there"."
Complain about this comment
Well, whatever - he didn't see any gods there, but quite why one would expect to is beyond me. We don't see any gods down here either.
Complain about this comment
Do you know what's really hard to believe? The way you guys manage to attack creationism in almost every post regardless of the issue.
Complain about this comment
It's just that creationism provides such a darned good example of screwed-up thinking, that it invites comparisons when similar krazy kaperz are afoot.
Complain about this comment
Americans love conspiracy theories and don't trust government...any government. Many Americans are still convinced that the US Air Force is hiding the wreckage of an alien spacecraft and its pilot in the desert in Nevada in a place called Area 51 near Roswell and has gained enormous secret knowledge of alien technology from it. Among the many exponents or someone who exploited those beliefs for a while at least was the host of the most popular all night talk radio show "Coast to Coast America," Art Bell. He had guests who swore that they had been abducted by aliens, those who'd returned to life after being dead, had out of body experiences, believed in telekenesis, ghosts, time travel, extradimensional beings and extradimensional travel and on and on. Those who worked at night like long haul truck drivers and insomniacs like me could call in on an 800 (toll free) number to ask his guests questions and share their own experiences. It was broadcast all over the United States on many AM and FM radio stations. There are a lot of wierd people in America. I suppose if you don't take it seriously, it can be fun but some of these people couldn't tell the real world from their imaginations.
My own sister has been fascinated by conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy and is convinced "based on the overwhelming preponderence of evidence" that Kennedy was killed on the orders of Mafia Boss Sam Giancanna as revenge for Attorney General Robert Kennedy's prosecution of organized crime, the electon having been stolen, bought and paid for by the Mafia who in coordination with Mayor Daily's political machine in Chicago delivered the Illinois' electoral votes and the Presidency with it. So a conspiracy theory about the moon landing is hardly surprising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Bell
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/
Anyone for a good ghost story...and it isn't even Halloween.
Complain about this comment
Far more important to me than what may or may not have happened in Space was what America DID do on earth, namely the bombing of Hiroshima then Nagasaki.
They could have easily dropped the bombs on unpopulated areas and forced the surrender of Japan but instead chose to vaporize hundreds of thousands of civilians and poison generations to come in two of the most heinous acts ever perpetrated by humanity. This merely to test the capabilities of their bomb.
Instead of wasting their time on conspiracy theories, maybe people should focus a bit more attention on why such a murderous act was so celebrated.
"Well they started it" doesnt really do it for me.
While recently watching the Memphis Belle film, I found it hilarious to hear one of the actors cry, "We'll have to go round again. There's a school next to our target so we have to make sure we dont bomb it too."
Complain about this comment
rjb, war is hell. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki achieved several goals. It brought the war to an immediate end saving the lives of countless Americans who would have died while the Japanese government contemplated it. That might not mean much to you but it did to the families of those who came back alive and uninjured instead of in coffins and it was the sworn duty of the President of the United States. It didn't just send the fanatical Japanese government a message, it demonstrated to them that the US had not only the means but the will to bring an end to their civilization quickly if they did not meet the demands of unconditional surrender. Even so, there was a faction in the Japanese military that wanted to fight on to the last man. It also served as a warning to the world in general and the USSR in particular dispelling any doubts in their minds that America would use nuclear weapons in war to defend itself. It proved it could be as cruel and ruthless in the pursuit of its goals as anyone else. It could not be dismissed or taken lightly. It was the right decision made without hesitation by a man many Americans consider one of their greatest Presidents, Harry Truman. The buck stopped there.
Complain about this comment
I agree that many conspiracy theories are like religion because they rely on blind faith rather than evidence.
But that doesn't mean that there aren't conspiracies. A conspiracy is a secret plan and in this basic sense governments are conspiring all the time. Thus both the US and British governments conspired to go to war against Iraq but pretended to the public that they were trying to avert it and they also pretended that Saddam Hussein was better armed than he was. In other words, conspiracies by governments often involve lying about the true motives for action.
Mark raise the interesting case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The conspiracy here is spelt out in the later quotes below.
It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell, and was brought about by overwhelming maritime power. This alone made it possible to seize ocean bases from which to launch the final attack and force her metropolitan army to capitulate without striking a blow
- Churchill
"I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, based on the belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face"
- Eisenhower
"It was my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender...My own feeling was that, in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children" - Admiral William Leahy (Trumans Chief of Staff)
"The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war" - General Curtis LeMay
The use of the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view"
- General MacArthur
"The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Navy Minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms
- US Strategic Bombing Survey (1946)
"My fathers overriding concern in these first weeks was our policy towards Russia"
- Margaret Truman
There was never, from about two weeks from the time I took charge of this Project, any illusion on my part but that Russia was our enemy, and the Project was conducted on that basis" - General Groves (military director of the Manhattan Project)
"I cannot speak for the others but it was ever present in my mind that it was important that we have an end to the war before the Russians came i"
- James Byrnes (US Secretary of State)
"The use of the atomic bombs was precipitated by a desire to end the war in the Pacific by any means before Russias participation" - Albert Einstein
Complain about this comment
Gotta love this blog... a thread on the moon landings which weaves its way through creationism and ends up discussing the atomic bomb. Beautiful. Oh, and America sucks again, too, in case anybody ever doubted that the real evil in this world does not involve Hitler, or bin Laden, or Kim Jong Il, but rather the United States of America.
Complain about this comment
Oh come on John, of course the axis of evil runs straight through the good ship USA, and, no doubt, if you were to trace it's course as you might trace the Prime Meridian, you would discover that it passes through the centre of Dallas, TX, how could it not? Remember too, that in terms of evil and malice, Jesus comes second, just, it's a close run thing, then again America is Jesus Land isn't it, now where's Dana Scully when you need her?
And here, is it just me, or are the shadows in the picture a tad inconsistent?
:-)
Complain about this comment
"The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war" - General Curtis LeMay
So it was just a coincidence that the Japanese surrendered a few days after Nagasaki and Truman's warning that a rain of death unlike any the world had ever seen would fall from the skies on Japan. If it had nothing to do with how the war ended, it had everything to do with when the war ended and how many American lives were saved, or perhaps General LeMay was not concerned about how many Americans would have been killed and wounded in Operation Olympic Coronet planned for 1946. It was estimated that a million American casualties would result and Japan would have suffered far more casualties than the two atom bombs caused. BTW, the firebombing of Tokyo I think killed more than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
"It was my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender...My own feeling was that, in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children" - Admiral William Leahy (Trumans Chief of Staff)"
That was the whole point of the message to the Russians, that in their efforts at world conquest they faced an enemy who had no limits to the barbarity it would inflict in its defense and opposition to them. The USSR understood during the entirety of the cold war that the US would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons even in a first strike should it try to invade Western Europe for example even if it meant the end of human life on earth. It demonstrated without doubt to the world that ultimately the USSR could not win. It's a message that Europeans still don't get. Americans would prefer to die fighting then to ever be enslaved and subservient to anyone. That is still true and why the US will never accept world government even though many Europeans seem eager for it.
It was time for Admiral Leahy to go back to school and learn the realities of war or retire and make way for those who did understand it. One thing America does not need are generals who do not put the lives of their fellow citizens and of their own troops above any and all other consideratons.
Complain about this comment
It's funny to see so many fingers typing to protect their dream of footsteps on the Moon. Whereas many research say that in US and UK almost one of every four person simply does not believe it. It is obvious that such giant amount of money from American tax-payers could be taken away only by such a giant story. I wish I could believe that it was simply understandable why no one did not try such 'journey' during 40 years after Nixon.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
You say: "It was estimated that a million American casualties would result and Japan would have suffered far more casualties than the two atom bombs caused".
Truman repeated this nonsense after the war. Numbers increasing with the telling, almost as if the passage of time was increasing both his guilt and his self-deception, he talked about a 'quarter of a million' American lives (December 1945), then 'maybe as much as a million' (12th January 1953) and finally 'the dropping of the bombs... saved millions of lives' (28th April, 1959). Yet we now know that in June 1945 Truman ordered the military to calculate the cost in American lives of a planned assault on Japan, and on 15th June they produced a figure of 40,000 US soldiers.
As for the Japanese, the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on 6th August 1945, killing 80,000 instantly. By 1950, 200,000 people had died as a result of this bomb. Between 1950 and 1980, a further 97,000 people died from cancers associated with the radiation caused by 'Little Boy'. Thus Hiroshima alone killed 377,000. The second bomb on 9th August - 'Fat Man' - left a final death toll of over 200,000. Since both bombs were responsible for the deaths of over half a million people, you are asking us to believe that if they hadn't been dropped, a great many more Japanese lives than half a million would have been lost defeating Japan. Thats nonsense.
"Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s", according to former Japanese Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoye. The sticking point was the question of the Emperor. At Potsdam Churchill argued for more flexibility, but to no avail. Yet in the event, after the war Japan was allowed to keep the monarchy. Why, then, did the US insist on 'unconditional surrender'? America had no intention of dethroning the emperor, but this implicit modification of unconditional surrender was never communicated to the Japanese. Moreover, after Nagasaki, and when emperor Hirohito announced Japans acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on 15th August, Washington acceded to the Japanese desire to keep the dynasty and even to retain Hirohito as emperor.
So the question remains: why insist on unconditional surrender before the bombs were dropped and drop this insistence afterwards? The answer has to be that Truman was determined to use these weapons and his stated motive was not the real motive at all. In other words, there was a conspiracy to use the weapons, irrespective of Japans intentions.
The Russians were marching across Manchuria when the innocent civilians of Nagasaki were being incinerated. So the fact of the matter is that the US did not want the Japanese to surrender to anyone else, especially a new enemy. So the bombs were a flexing of American muscle, the first shots in the Cold War. They were telling the Russians: Dont mess with us, or the consequences will be prompt and utter destruction (the latter phrase being the Potsdam Declarations chilling words to Japan). Moreover, America had not only used a domesday machine; she had also used it when it was not militarily necessary - an even more chilling fact to impress upon the Soviet dictator.
Secretary of War Henry Stimson admitted as much on 11th September 1945 when he called the bomb a 'diplomatic weapon' and explained that "American statesmen were eager for their country to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously above our hip". As Studs Terkel put it at the time of the fiftieth anniversary of Hiroshima: "so little Harry could show Molotov and Stalin weve got the cards. That was the phrase Truman used. We showed the goddamned Russians we've got something and they'd better behave themselves in Europe. That's why it was dropped. The evidence is overwhelming. And yet you tell that to 99 per cent of Americans and theyll spit in your eye".
None of this implies that I think the moon landing was a US conspiratorial hoax. But it does demonstrate that people believe want they want and will often wilfully ignore contrary evidence, even when those involved in the conspiracy, in an unguarded moment, spill the beans about their true intentions.
Complain about this comment
brianmcclinton
I don't know where you got your numbers from but every reference I've seen in my entire life to Operation Olympic Coronet referred to an estimated 1 million Americans dead and wounded. The Japanese were fanatical and would have fought fiercely and doggedly to the end if they had been invaded on their homeland territory. As it was, decades later after the war there were isolated Japanese soldiers on remote islands still eager to fight the Americans. MacArthur was clever in accepting surrender aboard the USS Missouri, not on Japanese territory. They symbol meant a lot to them and they later revered him when he was temporarily in charge during the transition to civilian rule.
Unconditional surrender was demanded in order to bring about an end to the Japanese military structure. Even today more than 70 years later, the prospect of Japan re-arming itself frightens everyone in east asia including China. Japans Constitution forbids them to have such a military but that could change if the threat of North Korea doesn't disappear. The US is the guarantor of peace in the Pacific. Since none of your relatives lives were at risk of dying in battle in the Pacific, who are you to say what was reasonable from the point of view of the American commander in chief? And what was wrong with the US telling the USSR not to try to invade Japan and that they would be faced with nuclear attack if they tried to invade Western Europe, not by possibly empty threats but by explicit example? I know your sympathies lie with Communism but to us in America communism was a cancer just like fascism, Nazism, and militant Islam that had to be destroyed to preserve civilization. It is the sworn duty of American Presidents to act in the interest of Americans, not of the international community, not as seen through the rear view mirror of history but as it is seen from the perspective of the moment. And that is exactly what president Truman did.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
"One thing America does not need are generals who do not put the lives of their fellow citizens and of their own troops above any and all other considerations."
"It is the sworn duty of American Presidents to act in the best interests of Americans."
American Presidents have generally acted in the interests of corporate business and "rich" American citizens.
Bush certainly didnt seem to care a jot about its black citizens in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
It sent thousands of nineteen year old kids to their deaths in Vietnam and attacked and beat up those American citizens who actually really did care about their troops and took to the streets to say so.
The American military has always recruited in poor (mostly black) areas and has been callous in its disregard for returning troops suffering all manner of physical and psychological trauma. (How many members of the Congress or Senate presently have sons or daughters in Iraq? Not many.)
Anyone who has criticised this state of affairs has been labelled "un-American" or "Communist" (as you did above - "I know your sympathies lie with communism.")
America even set out to destroy Oppenheimer when he showed remorse about the bomb and its use, labelling him (falsely) a communist.
Sure, any President does not have the benefit of hindsight and can only act with what he has at the time. But we do have hindsight and history will judge each President's tenure. Anyone can make a mistake. But any man who makes a mistake, realises its a mistake and does it again, is a fool.
Marcus, it is actually okay to say that America has made mistakes, that it has at times behaved badly. An acknowledgement of that truth is a good thing and also means that Americans (and the world) can truly celebrate all the many, many good things that the United States has done well.
Complain about this comment
The real conspiracy is a hatred and jealousy of America. I've even heard theories that Nagasaki was selected by Protestants because it was the main centre for Catholicism in Japan!
You may quibble of some things America does but there has rarely been a country so powerful in world history which has abused it's power less. Twice in forty years it saved Europe, rebuilt it and didn't turn it into an American colony. Same with Japan. America saved Japan from itself. And was it keeping an eye on Russia? You betcha and thank God they were.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
You are so highly critical of religious myth, yet succumb without so much as a whimper to all the nonsense myths perpetrated about America and her good intentions. Then, when you are faced with all the evidence that so often it is merely self-interest, you then proceed to justify it nonetheless. Whether out of altruism or, in reality, self-interest, it becomes a sycophantic defence of 'my nation', and to hell with anyone else. This is clearly a huge critical black spot which you should address promptly.
The estimated figure of 46,000 American dead is an official one. It was a report on 15th June 1945 by an advisory committee within the joint Chiefs of Staff.
Dropping the bombs was one of the biggest acts of terrorism in human history, a 'criminal act on an epic scale', as John Pilger suggests.
I give you a poem:
"Throwing a bomb is bad,
Dropping a bomb is good;
Terror, no need to add,
Depends on who's wearing the hood".
R.Woddis: 'Ethics for Everyman'
I would also refer you to:
Mark:
You are so highly critical of religious myth, yet succumb without so much as a whimper to all the nonsense myths perpetrated about America and her good intentions. Then, when you are faced with all the evidence that so often it is merely self-interest, you then proceed to justify it nonetheless. Whether out of altruism or, in reality, self-interest, it is my nation, and to hell with anything else. This is clearly a huge critical black spot which you should address promptly.
The estimated figure of 46,000 American dead is an official one. It was a report on 15th June 1945 by an advisory committee within the joint Chiefs of Staff.
Dropping the bombs was one of the biggest acts of terrorism in human history, a criminal act on an epic scale, as John Pilger suggests.
I give you a poem:
"Throwing a bomb is bad,
Dropping a bomb is good;
Terror, no need to add,
Depends on who's wearing the hood."
R.Woddis: 'Ethics for Everyman'
I would refer you to:
Mark:
You are so highly critical of religious myth, yet succumb without so much as a whimper to all the nonsense myths perpetrated about America and her good intentions. Then, when you are faced with all the evidence that so often it is merely self-interest, you then proceed to justify it nonetheless. Whether out of altruism or, in reality, self-interest, it is my nation, and to hell with anything else. This is clearly a huge critical black spot which you should address promptly.
The estimated figure of 46,000 American dead is an official one. It was a report on 15th June 1945 by an advisory committee within the joint Chiefs of Staff.
Dropping the bombs was one of the biggest acts of terrorism in human history, a criminal act on an epic scale, as John Pilger suggests.
I give you a poem:
"Throwing a bomb is bad,
Dropping a bomb is good;
Terror, no need to add,
Depends on who's wearing the hood."
R.Woddis: 'Ethics for Everyman'
I would also refer you to:
https://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/reviews/2943hiroshima.html
Complain about this comment
Chaps,
Can we please go back to the moon now?
[Double entendre intended]
:-)
-H
Complain about this comment
Brian
Terrific article. Certainly puts to bed the notion that Truman was the greatest American President. He was actually a liar and a mass murderer.
Complain about this comment
The problem with any 'hoax' theory about the moon landings is that there are still so many people around who were involved in the Apollo programme - not least those who actually walked on the lunar surface.
In the same way, it strikes me that those who regard the Resurrection of Jesus as a hoax are confronted (among other things) with the eye-witness testimony of the Gospel writers and many others (see Paul's list in 1 Corinthians 15)who saw the Risen Christ alive. Even Dr Luke was convinced (Acts 1v3)!
I believe it was a former Lord Chief Justice who said: "If I have a weak case in court, I stand up a make a speech. If I have a strong case, I just call the witnesses."
Complain about this comment
Phil Phil Phil - we have so been here before. NONE of the writers of the 3 gospels (Mark, Q and John) saw Jesus alive. Paul's "witnesses" are mere hearsay. The stories in the 4 "canonical" gospels are hopelessly contradictory. And even "Dr Luke" shows no evidence of having been a doctor; this is purely based on the "good physician" reference in Colossians, which could be taken in loads of ways. I'm not saying that Jesus's resurrection story was a deliberate hoax or conspiracy, but that the actual evidence that we DO have supports the contention that this was a rumour that rapidly spread and got out of hand. We know that the story was embellished, and this gives us some insight into the reliability we should place on the stories. And it's not a lot.
The moon landings are in principle falsifiable. We can in principle *go back* and see whether they were there - indeed, that is what the LRO has done.
Complain about this comment
Heliopopolis
"The stories in the 4 "canonical" gospels are hopelessly contradictory."
Yeah, yeah, we've been here before, and you're still reading the accounts in a flat, linear, and then and then, what happened next, picture book, restricted (one might almost say 'tight') chronolollylical way, but that's OK ;-)
What version of the bible are you using anyway?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/73/172668486_8f57edf856.jpg
Complain about this comment
Peter, yes, you are absolutely correct. They are only hopelessly contradictory if you read it in a way where you assume it is describing actual historical events. If you accept that they are not an actual description of what *happened* back then, there is no problem. I agree fully with that point. I agree that you should cut them some slack - after all, they were written many years later by people who had only heard the stories third hand at best, and who were, after all, simply humans writing down a purely human story, with no serious quality control.
Complain about this comment
Helio
I think you'll find that that is not what I said, nor is it what I implied, and I think you know that too.
You are still holding a view which says that the accounts are contradictory and cannot be historical and switching to a, 'they're not historical so we can forget the contradictions', perspective doesn't change that.
Complain about this comment
On one of the lunar expeditions which spanned over Christmas, the three astronauts did a reading from the book of Genesis as their message to the world for Christmas Eve.
When they returned to earth, an American woman took them to court and sued them for bringing religion into it.
I'm beginning to understand how she felt.
Complain about this comment
"Bush certainly didnt seem to care a jot about its black citizens in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."
Bullshit.
Complain about this comment
Peter, Helio,
Yes.... either the accounts in the gospels are attempted history and their contradictions are a problem, or they aren't an attempt at history at all and are just interesting stories. I think they're an attempt at recording history, and I think they contradict each other, and I think they've been tweaked by later theological traditions which wanted them to say what they didn't say, and I think they've been added to and taken away from, and I think we need to consult other sources to make our conclusions..... etc....
That said, they contain true history, and they tell us a lot about the Jesus movement (which succeeded the John movement and preceded the James and Paul movements). In short, they provide limited context for the story... pile on a couple thousand years of theological entrenching and we need to be VERY careful to use them correctly.
I recommend everyone the book 'The Jesus Dynasty' by James D. Tabor.
Complain about this comment
there is no question the whole thing about the lunar landing is a hoax greater than bernie made off (madoff) with billions of dollars of people's lifetime savings! the perpetrators should be whisked off to the moon for 150 lunar (tic) years!
Complain about this comment
John Wright
#37
My apologies, John, I'll clarify my statement.
George Bush was moved to the core and cared deeply about the black victims of Hurricane Katrina. He just chose to do nothing about it.
Complain about this comment
John Wright
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_W._Bush:_Hurricane_Katrina
Complain about this comment
RomeJB - I think you mean the Democratic Governor of Louisiana did nothing. Most of the responsibility was at State level and as usual with Democrats, chats cheap.
While on the issue - do you want to compare Bush's support for Africa with Bill Clinton's? Even the super cool dead on Bono acknowledges the work of George Bush.
Complain about this comment
MCC
According to link I gave, Bush himself admitted responsibility for poor response, ignored warning of gravity of hurricane, didnt cut short his month's holiday, only "flew over" disaster scene, took four days to actually go there and then made crass remarks in numerous speeches to the affected population when he eventually did go there.
"While on the issue" Bush and Clinton's record on Africa has absolutely nothing to do with the issue we are debating i.e. American Presidents always place the welfare of American military and civilians over and above all other considerations. No they dont.
Personally, I cant remember an American President who did. Mind you, I'm only 47.
Complain about this comment
RJB-
"George Bush was moved to the core and cared deeply about the black victims of Hurricane Katrina. He just chose to do nothing about it."
There are a few responses to this.
1) Your statement is flat-out inaccurate. FEMA started work before the hurricane even hit, providing assistance from the federal level from the outset. The Coast Guard, also federal, rescued thousands. The National Guard were sent. The DOD responded. Bush's Secretary of DHS, Michael Chertoff, wanted to take over the response the day after the storm hit, and was refused by Governor Blanco. Bush signed over $62 BILLION DOLLARS of federal aid to the region, much of which disappeared in corrupt local mismanagement. Bush even went on a campaign to raise extra money for aid, recruiting Bush Sr and Clinton in the task. To say he did "nothing" is not only inaccurate and 180-degrees backward, but laughably so.
2) Admitting some aspects of the response were 'poor' does not doing 'nothing' make.
3) Maybe you are ignorant of the U.S. system of government. The primary form of government is local. Federal response is called upon as a last resort, when the local government requests emergency assistance. The messages Bush was getting were mixed, and it took some time to understand that he should ignore people like Governor Blanco who were mismanaging things at the local level. Properly, the U.S. Government CANNOT interfere in the jurisdictions of this federal republic without proper mandate; to do so would be the same as going to another country and interfering in their jurisdictions.
etc.
Complain about this comment
Thanks JW
Nice of you to give a considered response this time instead of the rude and bad mannered response you gave earlier. (Made all the more crass by your bleating on another thread that you desired to be "original" in your comments.)
I will accept your accusation that I am ignorant in the main of how U.S. internal politics work. I depend on editorials of such papers as the New York Times and Washington Post for my info and of course FOX News. (The latter being an excellent source. You just take exactly the opposite of what they say, and you get somewhere near the truth.)
I do however have to commend you for one thing though, John. You gave me the biggest belly laugh I've had in weeks-
"The US government cannot interfere..... to do so would be the same as going to another country and interfering in their jurisdictions."
Like, when have they ever done that!!!!
I refer you back to your own post # 37.
Complain about this comment
RJB-
I'm glad I made you laugh. With regards to:
"Nice of you to give a considered response this time instead of the rude and bad mannered response you gave earlier. (Made all the more crass by your bleating on another thread that you desired to be "original" in your comments.)"
I'm not aware that what I was saying on another thread was "bleating", or how it had any bearing upon the crassness of my response here, but the remarks I made about being original were about being original on-air (though I'll accept that it's a virtue to be as original as possible wherever you can).
But wasn't my response in #37 fairly original for W&T at least? I'm not aware of anyone having used that response in the history of this blog, which I've been on from the beginning. I'll give you that it may have been bad-mannered, though I'd argue that being right and bad-mannered is better than being polite and utterly wrong. :-)
Complain about this comment
I will say that I was amazed that it wasnt cast into moderator hell. I've said less and been bumped for it. I also wouldnt have complained myself as I believe in free speech and think that moderating is the worst type of #37 you can get.
Complain about this comment
Well, I'll come clean. I have in fact used the word before on W&T, and therefore knew it wasn't instantly kicked by the system (leaving it up to the readers to decide if it offends them or not and thereafter whether to refer it to the moderators, God Bless Them).
So, the asinine process of catering to the kinds of idiots who are offended by mere WORDS has a small loophole, and... much to the detriment of my originality, I confess I already knew about it.
Complain about this comment
Yes, RJB, it had me rolling in the aisles as well:
"to do so would be the same as going to another country and interfering in their jurisdictions".
What's the latest count? Something like 50 foreign interventions and the bombing of 22 countries since 1945.
The real conspiracy in the American system is the perpetuation of the pretence that the people have a real choice of government.
Instead they vote for money, personality and tweedledum and tweedledee parties and then fool themselves that they are the epitome of democracy. There is real bullshit.
Complain about this comment
John RJB
I was also a little surprised that John's post 37 wasn't removed, I had one removed recently for using a letter of the alphabet and the email I relieved said that posts would be removed if they "contain swear words" and interestingly, "(including abbreviations or alternative spellings)", you've been getting away with the latter for ages John, and mine was the most abbreviated form of abbreviation it's possible to get!
However, perhaps the use of "#37" as an alternative is a useful work-around. Who do we attribute it's originality to though, John or RJB?!
Complain about this comment
I used to come out with one or two choice ones while preaching in a max security prison. Someone complained to the bishop. I wasnt happy considering the guys were murderers, rapists, etc.. and thought it was a bit hypocritical.
The following week when I asked for the supergrass to own up.... the wee woman who played the organ put her hand up.
Complain about this comment
Brian
have a deek at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOWe4-KXqMM&feature=related
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V510t0ecluY&feature=related
and
andhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E&feature=related
a man after your own heart I guess.
Complain about this comment
RJB
"American Presidents have generally acted in the interests of corporate business and "rich" American citizens."
Yes like when it entered WWII after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. It's clear where you are coming from.
"Bush certainly didnt seem to care a jot about its black citizens in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.'
Or before. Guess they voted the wrong way.
"It sent thousands of nineteen year old kids to their deaths in Vietnam and attacked and beat up those American citizens who actually really did care about their troops and took to the streets to say so."
Hmmm, I keep thinking about those British generals who sent endless young boys to die in that ceaseless killing machine of WWI. No matter how many got slaughtered, there were always more to find and send. And now they send their conscripts to fight in Afghanistan under equipped while MPs pad their expense accounts with all manner of personal luxury items including dog sitting services. Seems America does't have a monopoly on that.
"The American military has always recruited in poor (mostly black) areas and has been callous in its disregard for returning troops suffering all manner of physical and psychological trauma. (How many members of the Congress or Senate presently have sons or daughters in Iraq? Not many.)"
Seems to me the UK wasn't too eager to acknowledge Gulf War syndrome and Prince Harry was a first class parade soldier kept at just the right distance from combat to take fine photos showing he was just one of the troops while never being allowed anywhere near danger.
"Anyone who has criticised this state of affairs has been labelled "un-American" or "Communist" (as you did above - "I know your sympathies lie with communism.")"
I think you've made your sympathies clear in the past.
"America even set out to destroy Oppenheimer when he showed remorse about the bomb and its use, labelling him (falsely) a communist."
Some may have been labeled Communists falsely but information discovered after the end of the cold war in old Soviet archives shows that much of what Senator McCarthy said was true after all. Most people would not want to hear it but I'm sure you can google documention on a report about it broadcast by PBS.
"Sure, any President does not have the benefit of hindsight and can only act with what he has at the time. But we do have hindsight and history will judge each President's tenure. Anyone can make a mistake. But any man who makes a mistake, realises its a mistake and does it again, is a fool."
Getting involved with Europe in WWI given President Washington's warning was a mistake. Remaining involved after WWII was strike two. Being involved with it now is strike 3. It is time for the US to cut all ties with Europe including the UK IMO.
"Marcus, it is actually okay to say that America has made mistakes, that it has at times behaved badly. An acknowledgement of that truth is a good thing and also means that Americans (and the world) can truly celebrate all the many, many good things that the United States has done well."
Getting out of involvement with Europe would be a big step in that direction. Europe is no friend to America and the sooner Americans realize that, the better off they will be.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
As always your reply is essentially "What about you lot?!!"
Eh, you are the one who introduced the subject of American Presidents always putting American military and citizens over and above all other considerations. I have argued that you are naive to believe that. I cannot remember anywhere extolling the virtues of British governments. Can you show me where I've done that? No, so what are you on about?
If you wish to start looking at the behaviour of British governments over the years, I'll be arguing that they have a similar record to your own.
The bombing of Dresden, for example, where the effects were the same as Hiroshima, namely, the incineration of thousands of men, women and children.
Or lets mention the Falklands war and specifically Thatcher's order to sink the General Belgrano and the murder of over three hundred Argentinian young men. Or her support for a vicious apartheid regime in South Africa or fascist dictatorships in South America.
Or Blair's attempt to hold people for up to ninety days without charge or trial.
I am not claiming and would never claim that British governments are any better than your governments over the years and why should they be - they have always been in your back pockets!
Your defense of McCarthyism is just a joke, Marcus, and shows how far gone you are.
I echo the bewilderment of another contributor. How can someone who argues so knowlegeably about the stupidity and absurdity of some of Christiaity's beliefs and behaviours, be so utterly gullable and unquestioning when it comes to the actions of his own government?
Tell me, do you believe in the existence of propaganda? Do you believe that American/British governments employ such tactics? And lastly, do you believe that you have been subject to it? Yes or no?
The battle to win hearts and minds might be failing in Iraq but it has won an easy victory where it really counts, in America. You are a perfect example of it.
Complain about this comment
RJB, if you are expecting me to reconcile war and your morality you've come to the wrong person. War on crime, war on drugs, war on terrorism, war on poverty, nuclear war. War is war. There are the winners and the vanquished. Then there is the degree of injury the winner has sustained. If Abel had known Cain was going to kill him in advance and had struck first to save his own life, how would you square that with your morality? How could he have been sure Cain would carry out his plot? Did he have to allow Cain to land the first blow to prove it? Why? Suppose after the first blow, Abel had killed Cain. Suppose he was ten times as strong and decided he wasn't going to give Cain a chance to kill him in his sleep, would it have mattered? Should he have constrained himself to a "proportional response" the way so called international law demands of nations? Why?
In the larger sense of the universe, your morality of men like all the other affairs of men are laughingly meaningless to me. But in its smaller irrational context, don't expect me to explain or rationalize or justify it. The instinct to survive by whatever means necessary is a part of every species that evolved and did survive and that includes man. You don't rationalize it, you merely accept that it is so.
Complain about this comment
So anyway, are we all agreed the moon landing was real?
What about the words Armstrong said? He claims he said "one small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind" while almost no one hears the "A" before man. Is he lying?
Complain about this comment
RJB:
Spot on, 54. I have argued this with John on another thread. The accusation of anti-Americanism is a kind of moral blackmail designed to silence criticism.
Mark (or Marcus) doesn't get the message. Being critical is a state of mind which allows of no exceptions. The world will not change for the better - America, the UK, Ireland, anywhere - without criticism. There is no logic in lambasting religion while swallowing whole a religion of America worship. He is praising his country in the same kind of emotional, illogical, erroneous, drooling language that he accuses religionists of using. This is a massive paradox which he needs to address.
Complain about this comment
Brian & RJB-
I certainly wouldn't want to interrupt this love-in between you two, who reminded me of each other in the political sense from the first time I saw ye utter yer words on the subject. So please, continue, by all means! But I must take umbrage with one thing:
"I have argued this with John on another thread. The accusation of anti-Americanism is a kind of moral blackmail designed to silence criticism."
In actual fact, Brian, I was the first to qualify my statements about anti-Americanism by saying that I am expressly NOT trying to shut down criticism by offering it as an explanation.
After several exchanges between us on the thread you're referring to, I said, "[Anti-Americanism is] a perfectly valid thing to be, and [Brian] certainly shouldn't be made to feel like it's 'heretical'. (In fact, it's the majority opinion among Europeans, it seems.)"
So you certainly haven't "argued this" with me. I'm perfectly aware that there are those who try to shut down the opposing argument by saying, 'Ah, you're just anti-American.' Which seems like a silly point to argue in the first place, believing what you two do. If America is so bad, as you two claim, why would being anti-American be a bad thing? Wouldn't it be like being anti-terrorism, or maybe anti-cult or anti-dogmatism?
In fact, "anti-American" could mean anti-American-foriegn-policy, or anti-American-corporations, or anti-donuts or anti-jeans or anti-Apple or anti-the-spread-of-American-culture (as Brian said he was in the other thread). Perhaps, more than anything, if you appear to have a negative comment for anything and everything deriving from the United States, you could be said to be 'anti-American' in general, to the point where the love of American culture around the world really irks you (as in the case of Brian McClinton).
But, no, it certainly isn't an accusation of moral blackmail. If you're stupid enough to hate everything American on the basis of illogical extrapolation of the available facts and a willful ignorance of all that's good about it, then presumably you'll be happy to accept the label.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
I think your confusing my past religious affiliations with my morality/ethics. I'm not OT or Pastor P so dont throw the Old Testament at me. I gave up getting chalk flung at me when I left Primary School. You attempt to use Cain and Abel to explain your argument to me. Please, give me a break!! I prefer intelligence and logic.
I actually believe that it is in America's (and Europe's) own interests to act humanely towards its own citizens, the poorer citizens included, and towards other nations. Is it better to live together or to destroy each other?
Your bleak outlook that it is just tough cookies for the weak and the powerless, coz that's life, baby, is pitiful. But your welcome to it. (Even the founding fathers of your own country would be disgusted at such an outlook.)
You have also performed a complete U turn in your argument. The bomb was dropped to shorten the war.... The bomb was dropped to save lives in the long run... The bomb was dropped to save American lives.... (All highly moral arguments.) Now that, those arguments have been exposed for the tripe that they are, you're turning to - The bomb was dropped coz it was war and that's what happens in war.
Clutching at straws, Marcus?
Complain about this comment
Brian
As well as being communists together, we are now lovers.
xxx big boy!!
Complain about this comment
RJB
Then you know that morality was artificially constructed by men, before religion was invented. When it was formulated to save the species, humans were in danger of becoming extinct because of lack of numbers. Now humans are in danger of becoming extinct because of too many numbers. Why do you think we have global warming? There are simply more people alive than our planet can support with our current technology at the level of comfort and convenience most aspire to. I have yet to hear environmentalists talk seriously about drastic reductions in world population.
I see no conflict between dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and saving American lives in war. Lots of innocent people get killed in every war and lots of atrocities are committed by both sides. That's why it is to be avoided at all cost. Don't look for any sympathy or guilt for Japanese people who died or were injured in it from me. The Japanese government should have considered the possibility that something terrible would one day happen when they decided to build their cruel barbaric empire. The crimes they committed were horrific beyond measure an in numbers that boggle the mind. The US strategy to prevent the USSR from imposing a comparable nightmare on the world in the cold war, a clear unmistakable warning that human life would end on the surface of the earth before that would be allowed to happen. That was the only thing that could prevent it. The same message should be sent to al Qaeda and Iran, two more fanatical messianic groups who would rule the world through any means possible. I see no problem with a pre-emptive strike to neutralize their power no matter what the consequences. In chess, a real game of war, you do whatever you have to to kill the other side's king, decapitate the snake at its head. That includes wiping out all of your opponent's pieces to get to him if necessary. Where is your problem with that if not in your warped morality that would unnecessarily jaopardize my odds of surviving free of them.
I make no apologies for having my own comfort and safety as my number one priority in life no matter what else. I have as much right to it a anyone else. How fortunate for me that even in these troubled times, my government has more power in every meaningful way than any others. That is their number one job. The opinions of others to the contrary means nothing to me.
"I felt safe."
We'd all like that feeling to return again.
Complain about this comment
RJB:
How sweet! (though I found jelly beans a bit too sugary for my taste).
I see that the man who believes war should be avoided at all cost wants to nuke Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (anywhere where al Qaeda exists) as well as Iran. Frightening! Theres real aggressive atheism for you. Dawkins, Hitchens and co have nothing on Marcus. I have to say that it is light years away from my atheism, which is gentle and pacifist.
Warning the Soviets, although crucial, was not the only motive for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Revenge also played an important part. On 12th August in his address to the American people Truman said of the bomb that "We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor". The US experienced that attack as a humiliation - a 'a date which will live in infamy' in Roosevelts words - and her leaders felt that this affront had to be avenged. This would not happen with a mere showcase display of the weapons awesome power. No, in true Old Testament Christian fashion, the killers had to be killed.
Except that, of course, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was directed entirely against naval and army installations (American deaths were 2,300 military and 49 civilian) and only a few stray bombs fell on the city of Honolulu, whereas in the case of the nuclear weapons the cities themselves were the targets. Truman, in a radio broadcast on 9th August, referred to Hiroshima as a 'military base' - a ridiculous statement. The 80,000 killed in Hiroshima were almost all civilians. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey said in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population".
One motive for choosing Hiroshima was the reverse of Trumans reasoning: it had so little military value that it had suffered virtually no bombing to that point and would give a good standard for judging the bombs destructive capacity.
The desire for revenge was strengthened by a pervasive anti-Japanese racism in the US at the time. The Bulgarian Humanist Tzvetan Todorov describes it as follows in 'Hope and Memory: Reflections on the Twentieth Century':
"Anti-Japanese racism flourished not only in the popular press but also among Washington decision makers, who always referred to the enemy by the pejorative term of 'the Japs'. American propaganda depicted them as mad dogs, pigs, or monkeys, who deserved only to be put down. Truman defended himself against accusations of having killed civilians at Nagasaki in these words: "When youre dealing with a beast, you have to treat it like a beast".
The fact that the bomb was used against non-European nonwhites did not escape the notice of the black community in the United States, which was particularly alert to the question of racism. The poet Langton Hughes wrote on 18th August 1945: "Why wasnt the bomb used against Germany? They simply didn't want to use it against white people. The Germans are white. So they waited for the war in Europe to be over to try it out on people of colour.
This view is supported by a poll conducted in December 1944 which recorded 13% of Americans as saying that all Japanese should be exterminated after the war was over.
Far from saving lives, the bombs killed hundreds of thousands needlessly and it was America's insistence on unconditional surrender that prolonged the war and cost these lives. As Michael Waltzer, the American political philosopher, writes: "In the summer of 1945, the victorious Americans owed the Japanese people an experiment in negotiation. To use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorise civilians, without even attempting such an experiment, was a double crime" (Just and Unjust Wars, p268).
Complain about this comment
MA
Dead easy to feel safe again, just dont watch FOX news with their constant colour coded terrorist alerts.
Mind you, it is admittedly a terrific population control mechanism. Keeping all you poor wee bunnies frightened of your own shadows gave previous governments carte blanche to act with impunity.
Again, I come back to an earlier point. Why do you use your obvious excellent critical faculties to debunk organised religion, yet throw these same faculties out the window when it comes to evaluating your own government? I repeat, are you aware that your government uses propaganda to manipulate you?
If the object of the US military machine is survival of American citizens then I'd suggest you're going the wrong way about it. i.e. if you dont want to be killed, stop killing other people.
And if you are so concerned about the rise in global population, do everyone a favour, decrease it by one. Aaaah, therein lies the problem.
Complain about this comment
brianmcclinton;
I think that America's message to the world; if you attack the United States you and those around you will suffer a nightmare of the most horrific kind is a very good message. Add to that; if you threaten or attack American interests, the same will happen is another excellent message. In the industrial age, there is no distinction between military and civilian targets because unlike the pre-industrial age where wars were fought by soldiers while civilians stayed on the sidelines helplessly, in the industrial age civilians are part of a machine that produces the means for armies to sustain war. It wouldn't have been possible to defeat Germany and Japan had we not bombed their cities, denied their factories the means to produce weapons. Also, the consequences to civilians has to be taken into the calculus of the decision to fight wars. The reason the USSR didn't attack the US or Europe was because it knew its population would be wiped out. That's what deterrent means in the modern age, your population is held hostage by the enemy. The post WWII doctrine of putting civilians off limits as deliberate military targets is a naive and dangerous one. Our enemies do not follow that restriction.
RJB, the US didn't attack al Qaeda or the Taleban before 9-11. In fact it failed to respond to the sinking of the Cole, the bombings of the embassies in Africa. Your thinking is that of Neville Chamberlain, not merely a proven falacy but a dangerous misconception that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. Worse, in a world of WMDs especially nuclear weapons, we can't wait to be struck first. Hillary Clinton has been delivering thinly veiled threats to Iran and North Korea. How explicit they get, how far they will go, and if they are carried out remains to be seen but if the US is to have any credibility at all, it must not make empty threats, it must ultimately carry them out if they are going to be taken seriously. The UN has no credibility left and should be dismantled as a failed effort at mutual security. Europe would like the US to be as impotent as it is. Iraq was proof 7 years ago that it wasn't. We'll see if that has changed.
Complain about this comment
And could you name me the WMDs Bush and Blair continually swore were in Iraq but were, eh, actually not there at all and never were? Does the U.S use propagana, Marcus? Yes or No?
One reason why the UN is so ineffective is because the U.S. continually vetos anything which doesnt further its own ambitions. Hundreds of UN resolutions against Israel's barbarous behaviour have been tabled. Your country has vetoed every single - every single!! - one of them.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, think u mite be losing the plot lol.
No, really.
As for the love-in between RJB & Brian, long may it continue.
Its certainly preferable to the nuke 'em high, gun totin' american propaganda Marcus is comin off with.
At one point I thought/hoped he was pulling all our collective chains. Alas not so lol. He means it....
Complain about this comment
Guys,
Haven't you gotten used to Mark by now? There's nothing new in what he's saying. I don't agree with him on many things, but this obsession with 'Bush lied' about WMDs is so old, RJB. Can't you think of something new to throw at the United States, the Great Satan?
Complain about this comment
Come on, John, I did think of something else to criticise Bush about, namely, his handling of Hurricane Katrina - and you went for me on that one too!! I think it might be you who is biased.
Sorry but as long as there are apologists for Bush who pretend that his administration was all sweetness and light, I'll continue to attempt to 'enlighten.'
And if someone comes on here and attempts to canonize Blair or Putin, I'll do exactly the same with them.
If your conscience allows you to sweep over the graves of thousands of innocent Iraqis with 'its so old hat', that's up to you. Personally, I think the innocent victims deserve better.
Complain about this comment
RJB:
Again, on the button. Many of the points that you and I are making are in response to comments by Marcus, who shouldn't be allowed to spout his dangerous nonsense unchallenged.
This is, as you say, especially true where lives are lost or are at risk. And those lives are valuable and deserve respect, no matter where they live, what their skin colour is, or what they believe. American lives are not more important than other people's; Nor are British or Irish lives. Christian lives are not more important than other people's. Nor are Jewish or Muslim lives. Nor are atheist or agnostic lives. All are human beings and all are worthy of respect as such (beliefs are a different matter).
The fact that Bush (AND BLAIR, who is not American) lied about WMD is worth repeating. After all, the media gave amply publicity at the time to these lies and very little to the counter-view. Most of the media offered craven and supine support to the two leaders in the run-up to war and marginalised those who were critical.
This is their shame. They failed to perform their proper function.
This is not the way it should be in a democracy, especially in matters of war and peace. Governments should be scrutinised and challenged by the electorate, media, other politicians, pressure groups etc. And, to be fair, this is what often happens to some extent in the US on domestic affairs. Indeed, the founding fathers structured the constitution to try to ensure that the executive wasn't a tyranny. Alas, in foreign policy, there are ways that the Commander-in-Chief can get round the constitution, and the critical faculties of the media, other politicians etc. fly out the window in this area.
John:
You have already admitted on another thread that criticisms of a President or a system or aspects of a system do not imply criticism of an entire people. So why are YOU banging the same old drum?
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
I just moved to a very small town in the Scottish Borders. Last Sunday I was standing in a shop doorway sheltering from a sudden downpour when a woman ran passed. She saw me and stopped and shouted my name. I realised that it was a teacher from a school I worked at ten years ago. She invited me round for coffee.
I was asking her what the village was like and what the people were like here. She told me the following.
Just before the U.S. and Britain were about to invade Iraq and 'not in my name' marches were taking place all over, herself and her husband decided to hire a minibus and see if they could fill it with locals to go to the March in Glasgow.
The weekend before the march, her and a few friends began to give out leaflets in the street about the bus, inviting anyone who could to join them at the march. (Not an easy thing to do, by the way, especially if you have to face people like Marcus.)
She told me that the Baker came out of the shop with breakfast rolls for them while they leafleted. The man in the cafe brought them coffee. (Their way of expressing their support.) All along the main street in the shops, instead of people talking about the weather etc.., people were discussing what they thought about going to war in Iraq.
The following weekend, FIVE full coaches left from this village to go to Glasgow to protest.
As you say, the Press was so pro-invasion at the time, it just shows that not everyone was duped and the strength of feeling there was amongst ordinary people that what was about to happen was a crime.
Kinda glad I moved here now...
Complain about this comment
RJB
"And could you name me the WMDs Bush and Blair continually swore were in Iraq but were, eh, actually not there at all and never were? Does the U.S use propagana, Marcus? Yes or No?"
Well they certainly there once upon a time. For example when they used poison gas on the Kurds. And they were certainly working on nuclear weapons first when the French built reactor was blown up and then when Saddam Hussein's brother-in-law defected to Jordan and admitted that he was running a nuclear weapons development program in 1995...4 years after the 1991 truce which forbade it.
Lots of people use propaganda...including the marching fools of Northern Ireland who try to incite people through their hatred. You and your fellow traveler brian mcclinton have been using it all through this thread and many other times. So what else is new?
Complain about this comment
Yes, Saddam Hussein was indeed a genocidal maniac, Marcus.
Eh, so why did you put him into power?!!!
I'll ask again, how many WMDs did you find in Iraq?
Answer - NONE.
(You did find quite a bit of oil though, I hear.)
Complain about this comment
rjb, and exactly how did the US put Saddam Hussein in power. Why don't you read his biography and learn the facts? Contrary to popular myth, most of Saddam Hussein's arms came from Russia, some from France, not from the US. So did his command and control systems and fighting tactics. That is why they were so easy to beat militarily.
Thanks to President bush being wagged by the tail of the poodle, Tony Blair, the US wasted six months between September of 2002 and March 2003 trying to get a useless and needless 18th resolution from the UN to attack Iraq if it didn't cooperate completely with the inspectors. That was more than enough time for him to hide his WMDs or get them out of the country. As the world recalls, Saddam Hussein flew what was left of his air force to Iran in 1991 so that the US wouldn't destroy those planes like it destroyed the rest of them even though he knew he'd never see them again, so this is hardly unprecedented. Best guess is that the WMDs were sent to Syria. But some could still be hidden in Iraq. If he didn't have them, pretending that he did by playing his shell game with the UN inspectors, making every possible move for anyone from the outside to conclude that he had them and was hiding them if true turned out to be the dumbest thing he could have done. Had he cooperated with the UN inspectors, they'd have pronounced him clean, left, and he could have gone right back to planning mass murder while his two darling sons Uday and Kusay continued on with their merry little romp of torture and murder.
Supplying Iraq with some munitions like poison gas to use on the Irnaians to defend against their human wave attacks using children as cannon fodder was about as much as the US did for him. Supporting the losing side was the best way to keep Iran and Iraq at war with each other as long as possible. If it had just gone on indefinitely, the invasion of Kuwait might never have happened.
Complain about this comment
"You have already admitted on another thread that criticisms of a President or a system or aspects of a system do not imply criticism of an entire people. So why are YOU banging the same old drum?"
It's not for my love of America and its people that I find it necessary to get the facts right on Bush. Just because you can prove that he was wrong about WMDs in Iraq does not mean that he lied about their existence. In case you forgot, a UN resolution agreed with him, if not expressly for military action as a result. So if you were Bush, regularly getting information saying that Saddam was cooking up something that posed a threat to the entire region, and your advisors were all telling you that it didn't look good, and you were under some pressure to make a decision, you may have made the same mistake.
A mistake.
'Bush lied' is a leap in logic that is unsupported by facts. He was wrong, certainly, and many other nations with him. A five-nation coalition was involved in the effort to remove Saddam, and while I do believe the war was a tragic mistake, I don't believe Bush 'lied to get oil'. That particular view is ideologically driven.
Complain about this comment
Hi Marcus,
here is an outline of how Saddam's Ba'ath party came to power which you will no doubt ignore. There are also references to the other, at least 49, 'regime changes' (what a quaint way of putting it), which the U.S. has sponsored over the last thirty years.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html
My God, Marcus, your CIA has been slipping up recently. In previous years they were meticulous about knowing exactly what was going on in any given country.
Yet, when it came to Iraq, they got it absolutely, totally, completely, utterly wrong. Standards have slipped! Imagine invading a country because it had WMDs, then finding out thousands of deaths later, that there were none.
President Bush must have been very annoyed.
Complain about this comment
John
I really dont know where you're coming from. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can look back at historical evidence, testimony from people involved, records now released under freedom of information etc.. showing beyond doubt that The U.S. has been involved covertly and sometimes directly in 'regime change.'
The CIA has assassinated, murdered, tortured, imprisoned, threatened or trained others to do it for them. It has acted, not in the interests of its people, but in the interests of its corporate business, destableizing or overthrowing governments it saw as unfriendly and replacing them with right wing, often dictatorial, despots.
This isnt 'lets pick on Uncle Sam' week. I am simply stating a fact that American foreign policy over the last forty years has at times been murderous.
There are not many thinking people on the planet who would disagree with that.
Complain about this comment
Really, RJB, my view is so alien to you that you imagine few others hold it? Anybody who doesn't think Bush lied about WMD to invade Iraq is saying something so alien that you don't know where it's coming from? Dang, we live in different worlds.... and I think mine happens to be the real one.
Complain about this comment
And on top of that, you insult my intelligence?
"Anyone with a modicum of intelligence..."
You really think it impossible that someone "with a modicum of intelligence" could reject the hypothesis that Bush lied to go to war?
If you allow yourself to admit that this is as stupid as it sounds, then you have good reason to question your own ability to think clearly on these matters.
Complain about this comment
John
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/11/bush_began_iraq_plan_pre_911_oneill_says/
Your theory is, as you say, as stupid as it sounds.
Complain about this comment
Congratulations! You can use Google. How could I have been so wrong? All this time I thought there was a valid debate over the reasons for going to war in Iraq in 2003. Evidently I am "stupid" and lacking in "a modicum of intelligence" for believing so.
Complain about this comment
CHILE
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/pinochet/overview.htm
EL SALVADOR
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/deathsquads_ElSal.html
NICARAGUA
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=nicaragua
HAITI
http://www.haitiaction.net/News/HA/2_5_9/2_5_9.html
VENEZUELA
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/venezuela/USVZrelations.pdf
Need I go on?
Complain about this comment
RJB- When you feel like an actual conversation, let me know.
Complain about this comment
I have given my argument all through this thread, to no avail apparently. Thought I'd provide you with some opinion other than my own. Apparently to no avail also.
What is abundantly clear from the stance that you are taking is that you obviously CANT google.
"When you are ready for a convesation..." That is really rich coming from a man whose initial response to me was post #37 !!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
RJB- I wasn't engaged in a conversation at that point. I thought we were engaged in debate. Throwing link after link at me in response to a point I didn't even make is embarrassing. You seem to think that I believe U.S. foreign policy has never been wrong. Can you show me where I stated that? You also appear to believe that I loved the Bush administration because I defended it over Katrina and the initial reasons for going to war. I'm no fan of Bush, actually, but I do consider it important to get the facts right.
Complain about this comment
JW
Lets meander through your contributions thus far-
You leap to America's defense in post #20. Then the conversationally brilliant post #37. Post #44 gets the award for funniest ever comment allowed on a BBC blog site with the immortal one about America interfering in other nations. (You gotta admit, John, it was a beauty!!)
Post #67, your first defence ofBush knowing about WMDs in Iraq - The argument is old hat. Post #74. Okay, Bush made a mistake, but it was because all his advisers were lying to him every day.
I then posted an interview with one of Bush's administration who confessed that Bush had already decided to go to war with Iraq before 9/11 had even happened. Your conversational response, "Congratulations, you can Google."
I then took the time to post a list of examples of US aggression over recent years, or "interference in other country's jurisdictions" as you would put it,and you call my conversational skills into question. (You couldnt even see the relevance of me mentioning them i.e What was America's reason on those occasions, WMD's!!!)
You havent really covered yourself in glory on this thread, John.
Complain about this comment
JW...I told you rjb is a Communist. He proves it again and again with each new posting. Him and brian mcclinton, fellow travelers. Their ideology has been tried and failed. I only wish even half of the things he's accused the CIA of were true. How much better off we'd be.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html
Complain about this comment
John:
The project of the American administration to go to war against Iraq was in the nature of a religious crusade. And, as with any religious faith, those who tried to test its claims against reality were the victims of a collective and concerted contempt.
When some of the US military, intelligence, diplomatic professionals, US allies, journalists, writers etc sounded words of caution, they were ignored, muzzled, dismissed, rubbished, retired or vilified.
This is what happens in a conspiracy. When a group of people infused with a particular belief collectively decide or assume that their role is to enhance and protect the myth in preference to a genuine search for the truth, there is not necessarily a conscious collective plan to deceive; it may be a tacit assumption that deception is part of their role.
Thus it was with Bush and WMD. The reasons that the Bush administration went to war with Iraq were in reality nothing to do with the existence of these alleged WMD. There were other motives: revenge for 9/11 (the schoolyard bully hits out at any easy target when attacked); unfinished business from the 1990s; reassertion of US world power; OIL.
Vice-President Cheney spilled the beans to the Saudi Arabian ambassador when he said that the reason for attacking Iraq was that 'it was do-able'. He knew and Bush knew that Iraq was in reality a defeated, bankrupt country with no navy, no operational air force and a purely equipped army. Not only was it therefore 'do-able' but it could be done within 3 weeks!
But this was not the propaganda message. Incessantly, it was TERRORISM - AL QAEDA - WMD - IRAQ - SADDAM HUSSEIN - repeated ad neaseam.
The WMD story was essentially a convenient lie which some of the administration, perhaps even Bush, deceived themselves into believing. It's a bit like Jesus's missing body. Just as Jesus must have risen from the dead because his body went missing (allegedly), so Iraq must have had WMD because no one, including the inspectors, could find them (they must have been hidden away, in Syria or wherever, as Marcus surmises). Perhaps no Christian really, in his heart of hearts, believes this nonsense, but it forms part of the faith and must be upheld.
When you actually criticise aspects of US foreign policy, RJB and myself might begin to believe what you are saying. Otherwise, it's just empty rhetoric.
I also like the neat way YOU decide when you want a conversation and when you don't, and YOU decide when a link is justified and when it isn't. You should really reread some of your posts, which are a bundle of contradictions.
As for Marcus, and his reds under the bed comments, it proves my point about his lapse into religious faith where the US is concerned. Anyone who disagrees is a 'heretic' beyond the pale. Thus RJB and myself are 'communists' (what an evil word). How pathetic.
What is a WMD? Is it an air-detonated thermonuclear device? If so, then the country with most WMD is of course America.
Marcus writes: "Contrary to popular myth, most of Saddam Hussein's arms came from Russia, some from France, not from the US". This, of course, flies in the face of the facts. The US, China, France, Great Britain, Russia, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Sweden all supplied arms to Iraq in the 1980s, but the standout supplier to Saddam was the US. Twenty-four companies as well as the Departments of Defence, Energy, Trade and Agriculture all took part, as did the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories.
The US corporate contribution includes Hewlett-Packard (nuclear weapon, rocket and conventional weapons programs), Tektronix (nuclear, rockets), Eastman Kodak (rockets), Honeywell (rockets, conventional) and American Type Culture Collection (biological).
But for anyone with a 'religious faith', whether in God or country, the facts are an inconvenience which need to be ignored.
Complain about this comment
Thank God, Brian, you're okay. I was worried sick that you had become one of the disappeared.
Or that you had been honey-trapped and blackmailed into keeping quiet.
Or had your family threatened.
Or that you had become a victim of the death squads.
Or had met with an "accident."
Or had become a refugee and had fled the country.
Or had someone label you a 'communist' in an attempt to discredit you.
Thank God we live in a modern world and that none of these things happen any more.
Complain about this comment
You folks are hilarious! First, to RJB, who says-
"You havent really covered yourself in glory on this thread, John."
I'm not motivated by a desire to cover myself in glory dude. You can characterise my contributions to this thread any way you like, but asserting that America is not the evil you say it is and claiming there is no evidence that Bush lied to justify war in Iraq does not an 'unthinking supporter for everything American' make. What you're doing is to extrapolate my comments into the caricature of me that you have in your head, and argue as though I were making all sorts of points I haven't made.
Like the one about interfering in other nations. I assume you're referring to the single sentence in my post #44, which was not about justifying American interference in other nations at all, but rather about the internal U.S. system of government and how the states relate to the federal government. FACT: I have never addressed the actions of the United States in Chile, or El Salvador, or Nicaragua, or Haiti or Venezuela. Yet you've assumed I defend those actions and respond to me as though I had. It's a caricature that you're arguing with; like arguing with an action figure and imagining what he's saying. At least Brian McClinton sticks roughly to the point over the years I've spent disagreeing with him!
Speaking of whom, and speaking of which, Brian goes back to Bush and Iraq:
"This is what happens in a conspiracy...."
I love that you admit you're a conspiracy theorist, Brian. In reality, the U.S. justification for the war was that Iraq was, "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world...". It seems to me that all of that is true (with the possible exception of the WMDs, the intelligence behind which we could argue till the cows come home), and that therefore the coalition fulfilled its objectives, whether you agree with the action or not.
"When you actually criticise aspects of US foreign policy, RJB and myself might begin to believe what you are saying. Otherwise, it's just empty rhetoric."
Why would I want to join your choir? There are plenty of people criticising America. All the cool kids are doing it. Perhaps the primary reason I defend the U.S. so often is because I see that there is a need to do so against those who want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It seems what you want is for me to make some criticisms of America to prove I'm not just an unthinking supporter of everything the U.S. does. As a token, I'll be happy to do so:
1) Guantanamo Bay was a huge mistake and represented a sliver of ideology I despise. Everyone should be treated humanely, and the right to be regarded innocent until proven guilty in a court of law should apply equally to non-U.S. citizens as to U.S. citizens. Anything less is unacceptable and a breach of everything we're fighting for.
2) The Patriot Act removes freedom and rights from the public and should never have been enacted. It's also unconstitutional. As Ben Franklin wrote, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
3) The death penalty. I'm against it and would like to see it disappear from all U.S. states. (It is the jurisdiction of those states, though, and not in the remit of the federal government. Most U.S. states do not have an active death penalty anyway.)
4) Interfering in other nations. (Just for you, RJB.) It is not the duty of the U.S. to be the policeman of the world. Although I think in most cases the U.S. has intervened in world affairs, it has done so with good intentions - stopping genocide, giving aid, protecting people, ending corruption - it's clear that it's never appreciated and rarely works (observe the thread above). America should begin withdrawing its forces from around the world, and begin withdrawing aid too, for it is not the duty of the U.S. taxpayer to serve and protect the world; that is the domain of voluntary giving.
5) The land of the free still isn't free enough. The drug war is pointless; marijuana should be legalised (and Obama has at least stopped the DEA raiding marijuana dispensaries in states where it's legal). There's still a persecution of the sex industries. The federal tax code is complex and monstrous. Citizens are harassed way too often by law enforcement. There are too many stop signs and not enough roundabouts.
As for Bush, he was incompetent and in way over his head. (Oliver Stone's film 'W' does what I think is a reasonable portrayal of the man, one which leaves me feeling sorry for him above anything else.)
I could go on. But I'll leave that to you.
Complain about this comment
The luner lander was said to weigh fifteen tons. In the moon's 1/6 gravity it would have weighed two and a half tons. If it had to descend from an orbit of sixty miles it would need a proper rocket engine and a huge amount of fuel. Imagine a rocket that was to lift a two and a half ton payload sixty miles above the earth and you wil see how absurd the moon landings were. This rocket would produce more than a whiff of vapour.
The Moon's temperature ranges from 130 degrees celsius in the day (water boils at 100) to minus 270 degrees at night. The South Pole of the Earth in winter might hover around the minus 40 mark. No one could survive this, even in a top quality space suit.
Then there is the high energy cosmic radiation to consider. Without a magnetic field and atmosphere as a shield the levels of cell-destroying gamma and x rays would be instantly lethal at around a million times the intensity found on earth. One astronaut was shown walking around without his sun visor down. Even the best space suits would not help in this environment which would make Hiroshima look like a holiday destination. Several feet of lead shielding would be necessary.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
JW
Please read the following link about Bush's record on the death penalty while he was governor of Texas, then tell me that he is really a nice guy.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/061700-102.htm
Also, I think those who have suffered so appallingly at the hands of US foreign policy deserve a bit more than I'm not going to criticize coz "All the cool kids are doing it."
Complain about this comment
RJB-
"Please read the following link about Bush's record on the death penalty while he was governor of Texas, then tell me that he is really a nice guy."
This is indicative of the main difference between you and I. I believe someone can hold an alternative point of view to my own and still be "a nice guy." You're probably a nice guy yourself, even if we disagree. But this is also indicative of how poorly you are reading what I'm writing. I never said Bush was "a nice guy". I have no means to know how 'nice' he is. He strikes me as perfectly likable, and many of his political opponents attest to how personable he is to meet. Surely your thinking isn't so singular that you must think everything about Bush bad, including his 'niceness'? Does his armpits stink, too?
"I think those who have suffered so appallingly at the hands of US foreign policy deserve a bit more than I'm not going to criticize coz "All the cool kids are doing it."
What are you missing here? I told you I'd be more inclined to defend than to criticise; that doesn't mean I never criticise (in fact I spent half of my last post doing just that!). When are you going to engage in the logical, on-point discussion of which I'm sure you're capable?
You're all over the place, my friend.
Complain about this comment
"I think in most cases the US has intervened in world affairs, it has done so with good intentions, stopping genocide, giving aid, protecting people, ending corruption...."
You are deluded, JW.
Complain about this comment
JOHN:
Hey dude, talking like a Yankee doesn't make you one.
About the 'good intentions motive. All Empires claim this. No doubt supporters of the Roman Empire did the same. Certainly, supporters of the British Empire persistently claimed that they were bring civilisation or Christianity to barbarians. Jomo Kenyatta had the right answer. "The white man came and asked up to kneel down and pray. When we opened our eyes, all our land was gone".
You say that "Iraq was a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world...".
This is a description of almost any country, including the US. But let us tease it out anyway.
1. 'Developed and used WMD'. America has more WMD than any other country and is the only country to use a nuclear bomb.
2. Harboured and supported terrorists. There are so many examples, but the 'rebels' in the War of Independence will do for the moment.
3. Committed outrageous rights abuses. You have supplied some evidence yourself. Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, the death penalty in many states etc.
4. 'Defied the UN and the world'. Ha, ha! Isn't this what America did when it invaded Iraq!!! Since 1986 the US has vetoed UN resolutions more than twice as often as any other country.
Are you saying that oil and revenge for 9/11 had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq? That it would have happened without 9/11 and even if the country was not the world's second biggest supplier of oil? That it was primarily out of 'good intentions'? Gosh! What a surreal world we live in! No doubt America supplied Saddam with weapons 'for good intentions' as well!! I know which dude is deluded, man.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Expect JW to retreat into semantics as he did with me in his post # 94.
Complain about this comment
RJB-
Have you really nothing to say to my response that I never mentioned intervention in the nations you threw at me in a barrage of links? And no argument from you accompanying the cheap shot that I'm "deluded". One can disagree without being deluded, RJB. For the record, I haven't insulted your intelligence as you have mine, I haven't called you deluded as you did me, and I'm providing actual arguments which you are not.
Brian-
"Hey dude, talking like a Yankee doesn't make you one."
"I know which dude is deluded, man."
The beautiful thing about this response is it displays your spectacular prejudice towards America and its people. If I was a resident of France and had absorbed some of the local dialect while living there you wouldn't mock. It's good old-fashioned prejudice! Non?
"About the 'good intentions motive. All Empires claim this."
That's probably the case (though I must point out that that fact in itself doesn't mean America does not have good intentions). I clearly remember you condemning the U.S. actions in Somalia; the Black Hawk Down incident. Are you saying that because all Empires claim to have good intentions, and because America did with respect to Somalia, that America's intentions were not good in Somalia? It was a humanitarian mission, non? And I reiterate, whether they were 'good' or 'bad', that doesn't justify the action for me because I'd like to see a largely non-interventionist America. But much evil attributed to America is disingenuous.
RJB called me deluded when I argued that America's intentions with respect to the nations he mentioned were good. Perhaps either you or he can tell me what the REAL intentions were regarding those nations? I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist - most conspiracy theories are utter rubbish - but we'll see.
Complain about this comment
Oh, of course I should acknowledge that you've said motivations for Iraq were oil and revenge. What about for Somalia? And the list RJB threw at me earlier?
Let's fill in the blanks with America's intentions, shall we:
1) IRAQ: Oil and revenge.
2) SOMALIA:
3) CHILE:
4) EL SALVADOR:
5) NICARAGUA:
6) HAITI:
7) VENEZUELA:
8) WWII:
Complain about this comment
JW you missed one 'intention' for the invasion of Iraq, namely, keeping the investigation into the relationship between the Bush Administration and ENRON off the front pages. However, oil and revenge will do for now.
For a list of US interventions, the real reasons for them and the devastating consequences for the local populations involved, could you please read the link I provided in post #87. You obviously havent read it or you wouldnt still be defending the indefensable.
You pick out Somalia from the crowd. I wonder why. Could it be that you think that here is one country where America's intentions really were above reproach? This was Uncle Sam reaching out to poor, starving children and being kind for nothing in return. Rrrrubarb!!
In 1974 in neighbouring Ethiopia, a pro-Soviet nationalist group deposed Haile Selassie. The Russians who had military bases on Somalia's Red Sea Coast, suddenly dropped Somalia in favour of its new friends in Ethiopia.
The US offered arms and aid to the Somali dictator Siad Barre in return for military bases. The US State Department admitted that during the 80's they supplied billions of dollars to Siad Barre in arms and that whole towns and villages were wiped out in order to keep him in power.
The famine was a direct result of the Somalian people trying to rid themselves of the US backed Siad Barre.
This is merely a quick summary of what happened but I think even you, John, will see that it was not simply a case of good ol' America turning up with bags of flour for the poor.
Lastly, your posts (at least 4 of them) have been rude and sarcastic. You shouldnt be upset if some of that comes back at you.
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry, RJB, what was the motive for the action in Somalia? You gave an account of the background to it without giving the intention behind that action in particular. Is your theory that the U.S. was trying to save face?
And yes, I went for Somalia what I thought would be common ground between us as a place to start... surely you see the benefit in that. Rhubarb. (?)
(Oh, and I'm not upset in the slightest.)
Complain about this comment
I should also point out that I haven't yet had time to read your link to "Liberalism Resurgent: A response to the Right", but I had hoped we could support our points of view with unbiased factual sources rather than partial left-wing commentary. It's easy to tell one side of a story, and even easier to read into the news by speculating ideologically as these tend to do.
(I would also warn you against reading only the opinions of those you agree with. I don't know if you do this or not but it's very unhealthy. Of the links you've given me that I've clicked on, the majority were opinion pieces, not factual sources. This tends to indicate that you gravitate toward the sources that agree with the position you've already decided you agree with. I tend to do the opposite: I read the opinions of those I disagree with far more often than the opinions of those I do. Just a thought.)
Complain about this comment
Wikipedia is good.
Complain about this comment
JW you have surely read
http://www.commondreams.org/views/061700-102.htm
by now. Do you accept that American intervention, in the main, has been fuelled by self-interest rather than some urgent concern for the poor?
And that it has been catastrophic for the people America was claiming to be helping?
Somalia reasons, - its geographical location i.e. its proximity to the Suez Canal and the Soviets being in neighbouring Ethiopia, the selling of arms and the belief that there were oil reserves there and off the coast.
If America was acting on a purely humanitarian agenda, could you please explain why it is so selective. Why didnt it intervene on behalf of the people of Sudan and Ethiopia? Or earlier, on behalf of the starving in Bangladesh and Nigeria?
Please dont be uttering nonsense about choosing Somalia first because "it might be common ground", a purely randomly chosen place to start.
You chose it because you thought you were on safe ground, probably having believed all the Black Hawk Down Hollywood nonsense.
Would you like to give me your reaction to the link I have now provided for you three times which claims (and gives examples) that American interventions have been in self interest and murderous?
Complain about this comment
RJB-
I did read that one (also an opinion piece, btw!). It's about Bush and the death penalty.
"Do you accept that American intervention, in the main, has been fuelled by self-interest rather than some urgent concern for the poor?"
I think foreign policy should be about self-interest. What right has my government to take my money forcibly (taxation is retrieved under threat of imprisonment at the point of a gun if necessary) and then use it for things which are not necessary to the running of our society? It's on that basis that I challenge most foreign intervention.
In the case of America, I think modern intervention normally comes on the back of older intervention, which at one time or another was about protecting people or giving aid. What happens is that America becomes so embroiled in these conflicts that it has a hard time pulling the plug.
Let's say Faction A is in trouble; some corrupt lowlife and his Faction B is committing genocide against them or otherwise making their lives miserable. America is in the position of stopping Faction B in their tracks and preventing the genocide. If it doesn't, it is allowing evil to happen without doing anything against it, and some feel that is ethically wrong. So it chooses to act. In the meantime there are casualties on all sides and it's hell; war is horrible. Now America is blamed from all sides. What's worse, to keep the peace America has to stay in the region, prompting allegations that they've taken it over. Later, the remnants of Faction B bring terrorist attacks against the Americans, the Americans defend themselves and they get blamed again. Sometimes America tries to help while being less involved, maybe by dropping arms to help Faction A instead of rushing in themselves. Now it's alleged they are too selfish to provide real help.
So, depending on who you listen to, America is either engaged in using its power for good in the world, or it is "invading", "occupying", mounting a "war" (wonderful stock terms if you are a leftwing zealot who can't think in more than one dimension). It's clear who you've been listening to. But I contend that to take these issues seriously, one must acknowledge a lack of easy answers and the utter foolishness and ignorance of pretending that it's easy to be as non-interventionist as it appears both you and I would like.
To be non-interventionist you must be prepared to watch evil take place on earth and resist acting to correct it. To be non-interventionist you must allow corrupt people to rule and allow genocide and misery, and poverty and hunger. To be non-interventionist you must be prepared to let Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons (yes, I know America has them; please try to remember I'm not arguing for the interventionism that allows some and bans others, I'm arguing for complete non-interventionism, and presumably if you agree then you know what could happen if Kim Jong Il gets them too and be happy to accept that).
I'm prepared for the consequences of being non-interventionist. Are you? Something tells me you may not be happy with what the world becomes when America steps out of it to merely defend its own borders (something which is fueled by self-interest inherently WAY more than the alternative).
Anyway, I don't believe America's interventionism is fueled primarily by self-interest, no. To believe what you do, America must have made the choice to lose its thousands of beloved young people in Iraq because they wanted to drive their cars more cheaply. If that makes a lick of sense to you, then perhaps this conversation is more fruitless than I thought.
Complain about this comment
RJB-
How could I forget this nasty little diatribe:
"Please dont be uttering nonsense about choosing Somalia first because "it might be common ground", a purely randomly chosen place to start.
You chose it because you thought you were on safe ground, probably having believed all the Black Hawk Down Hollywood nonsense."
What do you think Hollywood believes, that America is always right when it chooses to go to war? You clearly know nothing about it. Hollywood is firmly liberal on this, and would agree with you 99 percent of the time. What stance did 'Black Hawk Down' take about it?
And, for your information, I chose it because I thought it would be an easier place for us to agree that America's interventionism was justified. Clearly not. That's what I meant by 'common ground', numbnuts.
Complain about this comment
Yes, JW, this is a fruitless conversation. The people who run the United States of America do not give a damn about their 'beloved' young people. I repeat, you are deluded.
Complain about this comment
So your theory is that Bush's rich friends in Oil Company X got him elected so he could invade Iraq so he could send the beloved young people to die so that Oil Company X could have a chance to bid on the oil that would be left after Saddam was put out of Iraq so that Oil Company X could win for Bush's friends.
Brilliant!
(For the record, you've completely ignored almost all of what I just argued.)
Complain about this comment
Rarely have I come across such obtuse opinion.
Brian and myself have provided you with historical fact and opinion on those facts. You have ignored them all. Editorials and reportage from sources like the New York Times and the Washington Post as well as quotes from former Bush aides and from other Republicans.
There is a whole culture around you, like poetry, music, theatre, novelists, philosophers, comedy, tv - which give valid opinion on what the US has done in other countries. You choose to ignore it all and blindly follow your ignorance, labelling such people 'cool kids.'
You justify US invasion of countries stating that generally America had to go in, and conveniently ignore the years of CIA work destablising such countries leading up to the invasion. What do the CIA actually do in that daft wee world you have constructed inside your own head? Mow the Whitehouse lawn?
I have given you screeds of info and creditable opinion which you dismiss with, so you can google! You get all upset when anyone calls you names yet are quite happy to use swear words as replies to opinion.
I provide you with facts i.e. Bush's record as governor of Texas, as to why I and and many others think he is a wicked man and you go on about 'nice' and 'armpits' totally ignoring his record as governor.
I named countries and gave you examples - and many of them - of attrocities carried out by America. You dismiss them as 'opinion' and accuse me of throwing links at you.
To top it all, you end by accusing me of not answering your points!!!!
Not once, not even once have you provided one shred of evidence or fact to back up your stance that America has interfered in other countries for the good of those countries. When they invaded Iraq, did they make straight for the hospitals to help the sick? No, straight to the oil fields to help themselves!!
And as for Bush and his character, explain his record of refusing every death penalty appeal? Tell me why Americans themselves have slaughtered him for being in bed with ENRON. Why are so many Americans deriding him? Tax cuts for the rich and to hell with the poor.
And while you're at it, justify how he got elected. Most thinking people agree that he cheated. But, you prefer 'oh he's misunderstood!!'
Rarely has a thread seen such ill-thought out, poorly-argued, inconsistent nonsense. Go and read some modern history books before you start pressing buttons again, please!
Complain about this comment
PS
Funny how numbnuts and bullshit escapes the attention of the moderators yet when I suggest that you shouldnt indulge in grass before posting your comments, it is removed. I wonder who pressed the complaint button? And I wonder why?
Complain about this comment
RJB-
You're precious. What's clear is that we have a very different way of looking at things. That just means that we disagree. You feel your opinion is so much more obviously correct than mine, to a degree that makes me smile:
"There is a whole culture around you, like poetry, music, theatre, novelists, philosophers, comedy, tv - which give valid opinion on what the US has done in other countries. You choose to ignore it all and blindly follow your ignorance..."
and
"Most thinking people agree that [Bush] cheated... [in order to win the 2000 election]."
It's easy to see that you think yours is the obvious opinion, held by anyone "with a modicum of intelligence" didn't you say? Do you even acknowledge the existence of a valid debate between our two opinions? Or is the only intelligent worldview a left-wing one?! Anything else is "obtuse" "nonsense", right?
I suggest to you that this could only come from reading and listening to too many people who agree with you - like intellectual masturbation - and never learning from the spectrum of opinion that exists. Do you really think most thinking people believe Bush cheated to win the 2000 election?? LOL! I'm not being rude when I say you need to widen your experience. It's clear to me that in your mind there really isn't even a debate about most of the opinions you hold. "Thinking people" disagree over most of this stuff my friend; I host their opinions daily on my radio show from all over the world. Perhaps if I got as good as you at spewing out links to opinion pieces you'd begin to see that "thinking people" have a variety of opinions about the U.S. and about its foreign policy. (Or perhaps once you see that they agree with me, you won't consider them thinking people any more?)
I didn't see the point you were making with your barrage of links because you expected that it would be obvious to me why you were posting them and didn't give any accompanying argument. At the time, we'd discussed only Iraq, and I hadn't mentioned anything else. You were throwing Chile and the rest of the world at me with no explanation. What did you want me to say? I genuinely didn't understand why you were assuming that my position with respect to those interventions would be that America acted correctly in every case. Again, it seems that you were arguing with a caricature you'd constructed rather than with the real person on the other side of your little screen, who is very willing to admit the failures of U.S. foreign policy (and did so above!).
You're also wrong to say that I've ignored your allegations of atrocities. I simply haven't addressed most of them. Is that really what you want me to do, one by one?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
JW
In the eighties I lived and worked in Chalatenango, El Salvador. At university, I did my thesis on Performative Faith in Latin America. I saw at first hand the evil of the CIA.
I saw at first hand what happened to villagers who grew bananas and who decided to set up a cooperative and who decided to sell their product to buyers who would give them a decent price, instead of the American company who were paying them next to nothing. The leaders of the cooperative were shot, the villagers attacked and threatened, the coop smashed. It was the same story all over.
I witnessed the terror, the death squads, the youth leaders tortured, murdered, decapitated. And you accuse me of basing my "opinion" on "intellectual masturbation." I know who is ill-informed, John, and it is not me.
I find it galling to read the claptrap you have come out with on this thread. I actually held some of your opinions when I was a teenager but the harsh realities of the truth woke me up.
"You need to widen your experience...." What an arrogant assumption you have made. I think it is your head which is filled with caricatures which stand in dire need of deconstruction.
I gave you links to American interventions across the world in a vain attempt to inform you. A fruitless exercise apparently.
While accusing me of one dimensional thinking you also state your belief that the US should follow an 'non interventionist' policy but worry if I could handle the consequences of that. Who is being one dimensional there, John? The answer, as always lies in the middle.
America, given the wealth and power it has accrued, should take seriously the responsibility that comes with that wealth and power. It should intervene purely on humanitarian grounds or in the case of aggressive or rogue leaders. (So often it has been America which has placed the rogue leaders in power!!)
I would like to see a US foreign policy which actually takes into account foreigners and recognises THEIR rights to things like self determination. A foreign policy which sees the 'other' as a brother or a sister and not purely as someone to be exploited.
Your world view seems to be support for the global caste system which now exists where if you are born into poverty, tough. You accept your lot and you just get on with it. Your sole purpose in life is to live a life of poverty, degradation and slave labour in order to provide the standard of living the West in general and America in particular enjoys.
In many ways, your opinion is far worse than Marcus'. At least his poison is there for, even the unwary, to be nauseated by. Yours, on the other hand, is a wolf in sheeps clothing. You are actually saying that millions of people are worthless, sub-human, non-human. That Americans are entitled to rights, a decent life, etc... Millions of others arent.
What is also clear is that you have absolutely no empathy whatsoever for your brothers and sisters scross the globe. No understanding of their suffering. They are just numbers to you. (But you will argue empathetically for scoundrels like George Bush!!)
Yes, John, I would like to hear your justifications for American interventions in the countries mentioned. You might like to start with El Salvador and give me a detailed reason why 70,000 of the El Salvadoran people were butchered. I'd just love to hear your informed opinion on that one.
Complain about this comment
John:
Apparently, according to you, foreign policy SHOULD be conducted on the basis of self-interest but American intervention has been too altruistic! Are you attempting some kind of a joke here? Tell it to the Iraqis, Afghans, Nicaraguans, Guatamalans, Cubans, etc. etc. who don't want this kind of US altruism.
I'm afraid you have willingly imbibed the myth of American niceness: they (and you) are the good guys, the cowboys, the sheriff saving the town or the world, and other people are the baddies, evil gang or 'the axis of evil' (forgetting, of course, that it was the Indians whom the cowboys barbarically slaughtered).
I repeat: there was no niceness in the Sand Creek Massacre (1864), there was no niceness in the Tokyo fire bombs, at Hiroshimna or Nagasaki, at My Lai, inNicaragua, on the Basra Road in 1991, at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib.
Americans are no better or worse than any other people. Do I say have to say this again and again? BUT since they have more destructive power than any other people, and since they have proved a wilingness to use it mercilessly, the rest of the world HAS EVERY RIGHT to be worried, as Marcus suggests. The fear is: a lot of Americans think like him!
Complain about this comment
RJB-
Well El Salvador is the perfect example of good intentions gone awry. The U.S. saw what was happening and felt it should act to stop the massacre going on. In the process of restoring the country to peace (which the U.S. is generally credited for brokering), thousands of people died. This was largely because the U.S. was equipping the Salvadorian army, who were brutal. It took a while for the U.S. to realise this and do something about it, and in the meantime they did some heinous things, like murder those Jesuit priests in cold blood. Eventually the U.S. realised what was being done in their name with their equipment and their training, and moved to stop it by removing some brutal elements within the Salvadorian army. But that was too late for those who suffered the human rights abuses. One is left to wonder if things would not have been much better had the U.S. never been involved.
It sounds exactly like the sequence I described in post #105.
But this tells me much more about you, also. I had wondered why you were so emotionally involved in this; now I know. That's not necessarily a good thing. The most logical positions are those held most dispassionately. That said, I fully understand why you hold the opinions you do now. That doesn't make them correct.
I'll try to ignore all the gross personal inaccuracies through which you express that you imagine you know me enough to make the statements you did in the penultimate two paragraphs.
Brian-
"Tell it to the Iraqis, Afghans, Nicaraguans, Guatamalans, Cubans, etc. etc. who don't want this kind of US altruism"
I'll be happy to, as neither do I.
"I'm afraid you have willingly imbibed the myth of American niceness"
And you have conveniently bought into the alternative.
"Americans are no better or worse than any other people. Do I say have to say this again and again?"
No, I heard you the first time.
Hey Brian, I'd be interested to know if you feel similarly qualified as RJB to agree with him that I have "no empathy" for my fellow human being, that I believe they are "worthless, sub-human, non-human"?
Complain about this comment
Lol! JM. What a sanitized, almost poetic account of America's role in El Salvador you have provided. But, in fairness, at least you have provided a picture of what you believe.
Let me enlighten you. President Carter was actually very good in the human rights department. His administration provided aid to El Salvador. When the military government committed atrocities (only the ones which actually reached the attention of the outside world), aid would be put on hold, then restarted. (The murder of American nuns caused the aid to be stopped for a short while.)
Everything changed when Reagan came to power. His administration were worried about Communist expansion in South America and saw the right wing government as a barrier to that expansion. They then ploughed money, military aid and training into the government and military.
What followed was one of the biggest and most brutal blood baths endured by any nation. The world heard about the infamous killings, Archbishop Romero, Fr Rutillo Grande with a peasant and his son, the four American nuns who were raped, murdered and buried in a shallow grave and of course the Jesuits, their housekeeper and her daughter. (One Jesuit who survived because he was away on a speaking tour, was Fr Jon Sobrino. He has written extensively on what actually happened and America's role in it.)
So extensive was the American backed brutality that hardly a family in El Salvador was left untouched. This was all done because America perceived some sort of communist threat.
The CIA taught torture techniques and trained at least twenty groups of death squads. These squads terrified the population and murdered thousands.
The murder of the Jesuits eventually spurred the International Community into action. At this point, the State Department was still reporting to Congress that everything was fine. At last, under pressure from the International Community, Congress acted.
Tom Foley, the House Speaker set up a commission to monitor the investigation into the murders. Senator Moakley led that group.
During his investigation he revealed a massive cover up, lies, corruption and conspiracy. He directly challenged US policy in El Salvador. It was this man's report - not the US government - which was the catalyst for the UN brokered peace agreement.
During the truth commission, many people who gave evidence implicated the US and the CIA. Spoke of how they were trained in America, how they were told not to use guns when killing as the bullets could be traced.
Over 70 000 civilians were murdered in all.
I dont think it is good enough and certainly not just to describe what happened in El Salvador the way you did. (Although I thank you for taking the time to do so.) I could describe the second world war as Germany simply wanting to bring a few nations together. After a while, they realised that this policy wasnt working, so they stopped. Oh, and a few people were killed.
One of the conclusions (regarding fighting oppression) reached by the gathering of church leaders at Medellin and Puebla was, when a people is being oppressed, the structure(s) doing the oppressing has to be 1. Recognised. 2. Named etc...
It is based on that, the recognising and the publicly naming it, that I argue against your rather air-brushed version of events.
The United States, through the work of the CIA were responsible for the deaths of 70 000 innocent civilians in El Salvador, in order to protect its own interests. That is the unpallatable, un-sanitized, truth.
Complain about this comment
Could whoever keeps pushing the complaint button please stop? At this stage there about 3 of us involved in this conversation, and nothing one of us says is likely to offend the other. I'd like to hear everything that anyone has to say without some third party censorship. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
JW
Just spent about two hours replying to you. I havent got the heart to go through it all again.
Complain about this comment
RJB-
I'm sorry to hear that. It's frustrating as hell, and I'm fairly sure there was nothing in it that justified censorship.
Complain about this comment
John:
You say: I'd be interested to know if you feel similarly qualified as RJB to agree with him that I have "no empathy" for my fellow human being, that I believe they are "worthless, sub-human, non-human"?
No, I think that's wrong, but you are surely misrepresenting what he said, which was: "You are actually saying that millions of people are worthless, sub-human, non-human. That Americans are entitled to rights, a decent life, etc... Millions of others arent". In the context I think he means that is the implication of your position, whether you realise it or not.
I do think that in a world of finite resources some people are rich BECAUSE others are poor and I think that most Empires have become wealthy in precisely this way by exploiting other countries. The Roman Empire is an example. So is the British Empire, which exploited Ireland disgracefully (again under the guise of good intentions).
America is no different from these earlier imperial powers, except that she does not formally rule them but instead tries to ensure that the rulers do her bidding. Thus Saddam Hussein was an ally armed by the US until he became less cooperative, and no longer being America's puppet he became an enemy.
Self-interest is often given a moral dress and in this respect Americans are no different from other people. The 'conspiracy' element involves people tacitly imbibing the myth of naive niceness and deceiving themselves as well as others into believing that it is true.
Culture often reveals the truth. Hollywood shows that Americans are just as capable of lies, cheating, cunning, deception and destructiveness as any other nation. The mission to 'save the world' is all too often a facade hiding exploitation.
You say you have heard me when I say that Americans are no better or worse than others. But then you say that I have bought into an alternative to the myth of American niceness. This sounds like a contradiction to me. But then it wouldn't be the first from your fingers.
Complain about this comment
Thank you, moderators, for reinstating post # 116. There is justice after all. (sometimes.)
Complain about this comment
Moderators- thank you.
RJB- I think we can agree that there are two ways to look at anything, and the truth is almost always somewhere between the two extremes. My point about El Salvador was that the intentions of the people who sent the United States military (and CIA) were good, but I personally believe all such interventions are misguided however good the intentions behind them might be, and El Salvador is a case in point of how that kind of misguided idea can go wrong. (From what you say above you believe some interventions are justified, which is a reasonable position also.)
Brian- I'm inherently uncomfortable with the idea that anyone in America is rich because the interventions of his country abroad have made somebody else poor. The very idea couldn't make me angrier. But I don't think that that is the case, in the generality. Americans, as Ayn Rand said, realised that wealth had to be created. Where it impacts overseas it's overwhelmingly enriching rather than impoverishing: jobs created, etc. (though a debate about the effects of globalisation is probably the last thing we want to start at this late hour in this thread!). Suffice to say, I don't think Americans are 'nicer' than the people of any other nation (indeed they derive from all other nations!) and although I believe America is, generally, a force for good in the world, it doesn't take much bad to tarnish the entire image and I think that's exactly what's happened.
"The banality of evil"?
Complain about this comment
JW
Mmmmmm... not quite. This argument/debate has moved very sneakily from what America did do, into what the American people thought was being done.
I have no problem acknowledging that American people (including politicians) thought that they were simply helping out. They were blissfully unaware in the main. (In my experience, many Americans dont really take a huge interest in other countries.)
Whether that ignorance was culpable, well that's another debate.
However, what cannot be disputed is that many Americans new exactly what was going on. Those were the perpetrators.
Do you seriously think that the assassination of Oscar Romero was the unilateral decision of one disgruntled Salvadoran soldier? The order for such a huge 'hit' could only have come from the top, and not the El Salvadoran top. Evidence since points that way. The CIA still have documents they refuse to release.
The same goes for the execution of the Jesuits. The killing of individual priests was less worrying as the "Be a patriot, kill a priest!" campaign attested.
One American who came out of it all with flying colours was Senator Joe Moakley who said, "We've spent $6 billion down there helping to destroy the place. I think we should spend a couple of dollars putting it back together again."
He seemed to be in no doubt about who was responsible.
(Moakley had met a couple of El Salvadoran refugees in his local church, heard their story and had began to work to ease restrictions on refugees. He actually made some terrific speeches about the tremendous beauty he had discovered in the El Salvadoran people while investigating the murders there.)
He actually became 'emotionally' involved, thank God!! (Just a wee dig at your earlier comments about my emotional involvement LOL!!)
Complain about this comment
RJB-
""We've spent $6 billion down there helping to destroy the place. I think we should spend a couple of dollars putting it back together again."
I'm fairly sure that what he meant by this was that the U.S. had inadvertently helped destroy El Salvador, not that that's what any American sought to accomplish. I think our main area of disagreement is on intentions/motives... which are important. Americans did not by and large have anything to gain from destroying El Salvador, if that is what happened. On the contrary, peaceful and stable states are in a better position to trade with the U.S. and thus it would be very counterproductive to America's self-interest to have unstable and war-torn states around the world, and even worse that expensive U.S. resources are tied up in them.
(Either way, I think we agree that this kind of intervention - at least this kind - are not desirable and in many cases an outrage.)
Complain about this comment
JW
We're getting stuck on definitions here.
Someone didnt just inadvertently turn up at Mass and shoot Romero. A group didnt just inadvertently show up and massacre the Jesuits. The military didnt just kill dozens of people on the steps of the Cathedral on a whim.... etc...etc... X 70 000.
When I point to America, I am not speaking of all American people. I am refering to the American government and those who acted on its behalf, using American tax dollars to fund 'their work.'
When we heard, "America began its invasion of Iraq today...." Did anyone think that, that was all the people of America invaded Iraq today? Of course not!
Complain about this comment
RJB-
When I refer to "Americans" I'm including the government. Nobody in the government of the U.S. wanted to destroy El Salvador. To claim otherwise you must have evidence that somebody did, and then describe how they did it with evidence to back that up along the way. In the absence of such evidence my statement fits into my general belief that in foreign interventions of this type, the motives of the U.S. government are good. When things go awry (as they often - usually?) do, it's a different discussion than the original motive for intervening, which is usually humanitarian in some way. This makes the intentions very different from, say, the Empires of the past, which sought to invade, conquer and make the invaded country part of the Empire.
Complain about this comment
Your argument reminds me of one the Tories floated in this country for a while. They argued that, for example, everyone is free to fly on Concorde.
When it was pointed out that many people are not free to fly on Concorde because the cost would be prohibitive, their response was, "Aah! But they are still 'free' to travel on Concorde."
America never intended anyone to be killed. They were just hoping that all the arms they gave to the dictatorship would be kept in a cupboard. In what way can you say that supplying arms to a dictatorship, training them in torture, setting up death squads, etc..., etc... can in any way be termed, "Well intentioned?"
America prefered the near destruction of the country to a government being freely elected which might have Soviet sympathies (in their perception.) They prefered death and destruction than not having any say in El Salvador's future.
It really comes down to your statement, "The motives of the US government are good."
The motives of the US government have very rarely been good. They have been selfish, self centred and exploitative. They have also been savage and brutal in the way they have gone about this in various countries.
Complain about this comment
RJB-
Well I guess on that point, after 127 comments, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. I think it's certainly a point of perspective, and of course for historians the 'motive' is the most difficult thing to prove, so it'll probably continue to be a debate for quite some time. In the meantime, I'm glad we've been able to sort through a few of our differences, acknowledge the debate itself and move beyond, "Bullshit!". I do respect your opinion, just so you know. I still strongly disagree, but it's been an interesting discussion.
Complain about this comment
JW
And thank you too. I shall now join you on another thread to add my voice against those who are about to use Jesus (again) to give vent to their homophobia. (I notice one of the first comments being that we can now use what Jesus didnt say as well as what he did say!!) God help gay people!!!
Complain about this comment
Yes, oh, and - just to bring closure to the original post - was the moon landing faked - umm, no.
Complain about this comment
LOL!!
Now away with thee, Master Wright, thy humour is much needed on another thread. (Well on another three, actually!!)
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS