- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Amen to the Imam

Sometimes editors like to have fun with their writers — like this week when my editor at the Charleston City Paper declared that controversial Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and yours truly are actually the same person. Explains Chris Haire:

“You want proof? Well here goes: As you know, Rauf is the guy behind the so-called Ground Zero mosque. Not surprisingly, Sean Hannity doesn’t like him. On his Monday afternoon radio show, Hannity played an audiotape of Rauf, one which Sean believes proves just how anti-American the imam is … The funny thing is, the main point that Hannity offers as an example of Rauf’s virulent anti-Americanism is more or less the same point that the City Paper‘s own Jack Hunter has been saying for years now … . Namely that the United States has killed more innocent Muslims than Al Qaeda has killed innocent Americans.”

This is true regardless of who says it. Rauf specifically cites “the U.S-led sanction against Iraq [that] led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children” in the 1990s, a death toll confirmed by the United Nations, approved of by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright (who said it was “worth it”) and apparently deemed irrelevant by Hannity. Using math over emotion, the Iraqi death toll due to U.S. sanctions equals about 170 9/11s. Despite Hannity’s outrage, the imam is absolutely right.

Trying to get Americans to comprehend the weight of the damage their government sometimes causes overseas is comparable to how some wives react upon learning that their husband is a child molester — many simply shut down, emotionally and morally, refusing to believe it even against overwhelming evidence. The very thought is so traumatic that they go into denial, preferring to ignore or endure the tragedy rather than let it upset their worldview. There are other, similar examples of such denial: many now ask about the decades-long sexual-abuse allegations against the Catholic Church — did they not know or simply not want to know? Some question whether Germans during World War II were aware of the death camps in their own backyard — did they not know or simply not want to know?

A half-million dead children is not insignificant, in Iraq or anywhere else — yet did Americans not know or simply not want to know? Separated by an ocean from the situation and captive to a media that barely reported it, for most Americans it was probably a mix of apathy and ignorance, but the degree to which that ignorance remains willful is worth noting. Writes Haire: “for both Jack and Rauf, this simple stat — that 500,000 innocents died as the result of American actions — is proof that the U.S. has blood in its hands too. But for Hannity, to point out this fact is to commit chicken hawk heresy. It is a challenge to Hannity’s unchallengeable worldview, and as such, it must be wrong.”

Naturally, most Americans want to believe their nation acts in a largely benevolent manner abroad — something conservatives hardly ever believe about their government domestically — and any stark evidence to the contrary is often too heavy to absorb or to hurtful to consider. Pundits like Hannity spends hours keeping their audiences focused on relatively trivial controversies like whether some random mosque should be built next to Ground Zero, but consider it heresy even to consider that overseas the U.S. puts ground zeros next to mosques all the time. In an audio clip Hannity features on his website, intended to condemn the now-famous imam, Rauf makes a more salient and valuable point than any of his critics: “What complicates the discussion … is that the fact that the West has not been cognizant and has not addressed the issues of its own contribution to much injustice in the Arab and Muslim world. It’s a difficult subject to discuss with Western audiences, but it is one that must be pointed out and must be raised.”

Many Americans might dismiss, as Albright did and Hannity does, the death of a half-million children as an unfortunate, yet necessary fact of war. Funny enough, this is exactly what many in the Islamic world consider 9/11. Racking up deaths with government approval does not excuse it in the minds of Muslims whose children perished, any more than those children perishing excuses 9/11 in the minds of Americans. There is no excuse for either. Blood is on the hands of both parties, something that too many Americans still refuse to acknowledge, weigh, or even consider, and now Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is being attacked for merely pointing this out.

There will continue to be reasonable arguments on both sides of the Ground Zero mosque controversy — but what is most detrimental is the extent to which its central figure has become even more controversial simply for making a perfectly reasonable argument.

73 Comments (Open | Close)

73 Comments To "Amen to the Imam"

#1 Comment By omikaberidze On September 2, 2010 @ 3:11 pm

Michael Hardesty,

As President Ronald Reagan would say, you can have your own opinion but you can’t have your own facts.

Let’s look back on “non-interventionist” and “non-expansionist” foreign policy prior to 1898:

1785 North-West Indian War
1801 First Barbary War
1811 Tecumseh War
1815 Second Barbary War
3 Seminole Wars from 1817 through 1858.
1832 Blackhawk War
1845 Annexation of Texas
1846 American-Mexican War
1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and annexation of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and parts of Colorado and New Mexico.
1865-1870 Indian Wars
And 1889 Spanish-American War.

Good going on “non-interventionism” and “non-expansionism”. As you will notice, I skipped the War of 1812 because that was strictly defensive war, and I did not list the territorial expansion of the United States through purchases from the colonial governments of Spain and France without the consent of the native Indian tribes. As I said, learn history and maybe, just maybe, you will realize that what Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are selling is nothing but a pipe dream.

I can explain situation in the Latin America, Indo-China, and Middle East (we had absolutely nothing to do with Africa with exceptions of Liberia; Somalia was strictly the UN mission) but I am afraid it will have absolutely no point as long as you are wearing rosy glasses of denial.

#2 Comment By Michael Hardesty On September 3, 2010 @ 12:53 pm

War of 1812 was NOT defensive, the Federalists tried to annex Canada and the Brits kicked their butts.
US backed Congo’s Mobutu, Kenya’s Jomo Kenyatta, the Nigerian, Liberian, and Uganda dictaotorships.
US backed South Africa’s invasions of Angola and Mozambique, which killed MILLIONS in the late 70s
and early 80s. US backed Selaissie tyranny in Ethiopia
and Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt is the SECOND biggest recipient of US aid. US backed tyrannies in Morocco,
Tunisia and pre-Khaddafy Libya. The list goes on, so you
know nothing about Africa AT ALL.
You can’t explain the US genocide in Indochina nor the massive US backing of murderous regimes in Latin America,
which was the single, inglorious exception to our general non-intervention great policy until 1898. I’ve already explained that to you and you had nothing at all in response.
Somalia was a Bush 1-Clinton intervention all the way as much as the Gulf War of 91 with a transparent UN fig leaf.
The US started the 1898 (NOT 1889) Spanish-American
War, see Walter Millis’s The Martial Spirit.
The 1865-1870 “Indian” Wars were wars of US against the
savage Indians STRICTLY FOUGHT ON US TERRITORY.
Ergo for the other Indian wars AND they were all on US territory. The Indians themselves were often violent and aggressive too.
Texas seceded from Mexican tyranny and later voluntarily joined the Union. The Barbary Wars are the only ones that you list NOT on US continental territory and they were brief skirmishes compared to the real wars from 1898 onwards.
The Indian tribes were nomadic savages that had no control over US territory purchased from anyone because the Indians
didn’t recognize the concept of property rights and sedentary
civilization.
So you are wrong in every instance, it’s fitting that you quote a Know Nothing Statist Interventionist like Ronnie Reagan and your history EXACTLY vindicates Pat and Ron.
But that’s what happens when you rely on neocon hacks like Robert Kagan for your “history.”
You get an F and proceed with your cap on gto the back of the class.

#3 Comment By omikaberidze On September 3, 2010 @ 8:40 pm

So let me get this right, Indians were nomadic savages who didn’t have a say about their own lands yet Congo and Rwanda were civilized nation states? What about Tecumseh and federation of Indian tribes in the North East? They were savage nomads as well?

I hate to take this to a personal level but you need to lay off that pipe. Spanish and French had as much, probably less, ownership of the land they sold as Indians who hunted and lived on those lands for centuries. They didn’t recognize European forms of ownership, that doesn’t mean they didn’t have their own standards of ownership. By the same logic, African, Middle Eastern, and Indo-Chinese are barbarians because their traditions and laws are markedly different from European ones so we can plunder and kill them indiscriminately. Do you even comprehend what you are talking about?

Let’s say Native Americans deserved what they got because they were “savages”, what about Mexico? What about Spanish-American War? What about Tecumseh and Federation of Indian Tribes? What about the South West? How is invasion of Tripoli harbor any different from the invasion of Afghanistan?

Fortunately, you don’t get to decide what grade I get because you are a confused and misinformed ideolog who zealously guards the “dogma”. You accuse me of being a neocon, I wonder what differs neocon philosophy from the classical Realism? What is “neocon” anyhow? I keep hearing people being called neocons but I would like to know what makes one a neocon? Is it classical realism? Is it neo-realism? Is it “all of column ‘A’ and some of column ‘B’?” Why am I a neocon?

#4 Comment By Michael Hardesty On September 3, 2010 @ 9:36 pm

I am opposed to the Spanish-American War as anyone with a functioning brain could see from my previous comments.
I never wrote that Rwanda and the Congo and subharan Africa were civilized, WHICH STILL DOESN’T JUSTIFY US SUPPORT FOR DICTATORSHIPS IN ALL OF BLACK AFRICA AND TOTALLY IGNORING THE GENOCIDE IN RWANDA ON CLINTON’S WATCH AND THE FIVE MILLION CONGOLESE KILLED BY EACH OTHER SINCE 2000.
We wouldn’t even denounce it ! Not advocating military but the
criminal government wouldn’t even denounce it !!!!!
Under Ford and Kissinger the US gave the green light to Indonesia to invade East Timor and commit the largest proportional genocide in history, 200,000 out of 600,000
were slaughtered, equivalent to the murder of 100 million Americans. I am ashamed to be an American AND NO, I’m
not leaving, I’m going to stay here and bury the John Boltonesque crackpots like you.
You seem to feel that we can’t oppose both sides, that we can’t have more than one enemy. But we can.
Spain and France had ownership of the nomadic lands precisely because they civilized them, they mixed their labor with the land a la John Locke, the philosophical father of the American Civilization.
Your a neocon because you think and write like a neocon with your endless apologias for America’s unjustified interventions in WW1, WW2, Korea, Indochina, both Iraq
criminal slaughters by the US Empire and Afghanistan.
You walk like a duck, talk like a duck, quack like a duck,
your a duck. Surprise, surprise.
In the invasion of Tripoli Harbor we didn’t kill thousands of noncombatants as we did in Afghanistan.
Read Advance To Barbarism by F.J.P. Veale to see how the barbaric warfare since WW1 differs both qualitatively and quantatively from previous conflicts in terms of mass civilian slaughter (only excepting Lincoln’s genicodal tactics in the
War Betwwen The States and the US in the Philippines in 1898).
Africans, Chinese and Middle Easterners ARE barbarians by western standards BUT that doesn’t mean we get to kill and invade them as you neocons advocate. You don’t define what mean by “realism” and your crack pipe comment is what the shrinks call PROJECTION.
You are a cockalorum and don’t waste anymore of our time here. The interventionist policy has been a proven failure since 1898.
The southwest was open to battle, there were never more than 4,000 Mexicans in California prior to its becoming a republic. I’m not defending US treatment of Tecumseh as I know the US was wrong in trying to annex Canada during the
1812 war and many of the worst atrocities against Indians were committed after the War Between The States by Union
generals of the genocidal Sherman stripe BUT it was done on American soil. The original “isolationist” or non-interventionist was Washington in his Inaugaral Address.
You get an F again. And you can’t even SPELL ideologue.

#5 Comment By omikaberidze On September 4, 2010 @ 7:55 am

Let’s look at inconsistencies in your argument:
“TOTALLY IGNORING THE GENOCIDE IN RWANDA ON CLINTON’S WATCH AND THE FIVE MILLION CONGOLESE KILLED BY EACH OTHER SINCE 2000.” How is this consistent with non-interventionism? Either we ignore or we get involved, which one is it?
“Under Ford and Kissinger the US gave the green light to Indonesia to invade East Timor and commit the largest proportional genocide in history, 200,000 out of 600,000”. Again, you fault President Ford and Kissinger for apparently not getting involved because we stopping them would constitute an involvement.
So, neo-con is a person who “apologizes” for the US policies, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck; interesting formulation of an argument. From what I have gathered, the term neoconservative was first used in 1973. I guess, by your definition, no one “apologized” for the US policies before that time while walking, talking, and quacking like duck. I feel privileged!
Ok, so degree of civilian casualties determines whether a war is just or not? If no civilians die then the war is Just, if tolerable number of civilians die then it’s just, and if lots of civilians die then it’s unjust, gets automatically dubbed as “imperialist-interventionist”, and anyone who tries to defend it automatically becomes a neocon. I hope you see how absurd this sounds.
So, you call me neocon yet you haven’t got a clue what classical realism and neorealism stand for? Enough said there.
I am glad you brought John Locke into the argument. Have you read his work? I am surprised you would base your argument on his vision of the social contract. Did you know that he was one of the first philosophers who argued that people, through their actions, can forfeit their natural rights? I wonder if that fits with your non-interventionism?

#6 Comment By Michael Hardesty On September 4, 2010 @ 10:12 am

False dichotomy, dude.
I said that Clinton never denounced it and as the greatest nation on earth his denunciation would have gone a long way to stopping it, possibly motivating the French, who have half a million Rwandans living the Paris slum suburbs to use their vastly greater influence in Rwanda to stop it.
FORD AND KISSINGER DID GET INVOLVED, THEY FURNISHED THE WEAPONS AND THE MONEY FOR THE INDONESIANS TO COMMIT GENOCIDE AND THEN GOT MOYNIHAN AT THE UN TO VETO ANY SECURITY COUNCIL AGAINST THE INDONESIAN GENOCIDE.
THEY GAVE THE GREEN LIGHT TO THE INDONESIANS WHEN THEY (FORD & KISSINGER) VISITED INDONESIA SHORTLY THE INDONESIAN INVASION OF EAST TIMOR.
Hope this penetrates your skull.
If you murder or enslave another person you do forfeit your rights by going to jail and by compensating the other person
EXCEPT your rights do not include the right to violate another person’s individual rights. Don’t see anything contradictory
about Locke’s position here.
Deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime and,yes, it does make a difference whether six died or six million. Some quantitative differences can become a qualitative difference.
There were plenty of US State apologists before 1973 but the neocons are a specific, tightly organized, extremely influential school and you parrot their arguments. Hence the label.
You have never defined either classical realism or neorealism,
they have different meanings in the epistemological branch of philosophy, history and political theory. Kissinger was fond of both terms and he’s a total neocon.
Your striking out yet again !

#7 Comment By Michael Hardesty On September 4, 2010 @ 11:35 am

In my capitalized portion on US intervention for Indonesia to commit mass murder in East Timor, I left out two words,
“before” should be after “shortly” in the last capitalized sentence and “resolution” should be after “Security Council.”

#8 Comment By omikaberidze On September 4, 2010 @ 9:02 pm

“Deliberate targeting of civilians” – During the North-West Indian War (1786) US troops, under the leadership of Gen. Benjamin Logan, invaded Shawnee towns which were populated by civilians because warriors were fighting in Kentucky and Ohio. He burned several villages, food supplies, killed women and children, etc. I guess since these people were barbarians, it was ok to kill them? Since it was just a couple of hundred of Indinas that was not as big of a deal as say couple of thousand of them? This was but one of many deliberate targettings of the Native American settlements by federal troops in 19th century.

Mexican-American War – Pres. Polk wanted to buy the land between Rio Grande and Nueces from Mexico (Nueces being recognized by Mexico as the US-Mexican border post Texas secession), it was rejected. This offer de facto recognized Mexico’s legitimate standing in claims to the “disputed” land, why would you want to buy your own land? After this, the US built a military fort on Rio Grande and introduced a military patrols into the disputed territory. This led to a confrontation which Pres. Polk used as the bases for declaring war on Mexico. Wow! I think this reminds me of something! That’s right! Pres. Bush used the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 as a justification for invasion of Iraq. I guess Pres. Polk was a neo-con, he just didn’t know it yet.

We sell many things to many people; it’s called a global commerce. For example, during the Crimean War (1854-1856) French and Russians (I believe English as well) used weapons manufactured by Colt. Most of the wars in Europe were sponsored by US money from sales of colonial lands to the US and much of the steele which produced massive arsenals was from the US as well. How is that different from what Ford-Kissinger did?

Non-interventionism includes the UN as well because some UN Security Council Resolutions infringe on sovereignty of member states because they compel all members to action, such as recognized genocide. You can’t say you are for “non-interventionism” and then use the UN as a platform for intervention. Consistency in argument please!
In the 2nd Treaty of Civil Government, John Locke argued: ““In the state of nature…[we can punish] each transgression, to the degree, and with as much severity, as would suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify other from doing the like”. I wonder what spin you can put on this. This is quite a bold statement regarding punishment. We were attacked by individuals who planned, practiced, and led the 9/11 attacks from Afghanistan. Afghan government refused to turn them over. I believe John Locke is pretty clear that we had to punish transgression with as much severity as would suffice to make it ill bargain for Taliban not to turn the criminals over, and terrify others from doing the like. I guess John Locke was a neocon as well!

I thought this webpage is a political one, since it does have politics as its main theme. I apologize for not specifying that when I speak of Classical Realism and Neorealism, I am not talking about Mims’, Collins’, and Levin’s paintings. I was puzzled by reference to philosophy, when I “googled” it, I realized the confusion. Wikipedia links Neorealism (International Relations) to New Realism (philosophy). I guess I should have guessed it was the source of your “brilliant” and factually “accurate” argument. I think you meant New Realism when referring to philosophy, I think neorealist theory regarding international relationships, presumably a topic of the current discussion, put forth by Walt and Waltz is rather different from topics of New Realism which I am not familiar with. BYW, neorealism is not as well developed theory as Realims which has been “vetted” for centuries starting with Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”, and ending with Kissinger’s “The Diplomacy”. I would love to hear who has dubbed Kissinger a neorealist, since the theory was “born” in mid 1970’s and by then H. Kissinger was quite well developed diplomat and already had negotiated SALT I (1972) and was working on SALT II. I think Wikipedia is wrong there, what a surprise.

Can you please explain neocon and what it means. I know I am one, you have repeated it many times, but just becuase I am one, doesn’t mean I know what it stands for. Let me know about neocons and what is their principle foreign policy ideology. Excuse my ignorance in this matter.

#9 Comment By Michael Hardesty On September 5, 2010 @ 11:43 am

Mexico was just as belligerent as Polk in the war and the majority of the Texas population wanted to secede from Mexico which is why Mexico lost the territory.
If you look at a map you can see the territory is on the North American continent, it was not a foreign war like 1898, WW1, WW2, Korea, Indochina, the Gulf Wars, Kosovo, et cetera.
This proves my point about noninetervention abroad. Unless
your claiming that intervention in our own country in our own continent is the same as foreign intervention then what you are advocating is the abolition of the USA. Frankly with more of the interventionist policy this will likely happen.
Do you really think a one-sided Howard Zinn like recycling of all the battles with the Indians is going to prove anything ?
Undoubtedly Union soldiers committed war crimes AS DID THE INDIAN TRIBES AS A NORMAL ROUTINE.
Locke’s statement conforms with my own views AND the military is not the same as the police. When the police go to arrest specific criminals they normally don’t pulverize whole cities and kill thousands of noncombatants. Philly under the
Negro Goode in 1985 was the very rare exception.
Afghanistan didn’t hide the 9-11 criminals, they were all SAUDIS, a US supported tyranny since FDR, who were also all killed.
Maybe Bin Laden was the mastermind but the Afghanis had no control over him, he was out of there long before the US began bombing. So there was no retributive justice, we killed
OTHER INNOCENTS. That’s not what Locke advocated.
Your equating the sale of land in the US to the US Government’s conscious support of genocide in East Timor ?
Most of the wars in Europe were started centuries before there was a USA. Nor was any funds received from sales in the US the primary funding for Europe’s wars. Where did you get this cockeyed nonhistory ?
I never wrote I was in favor of the UN anymore than I favor the Stalinist Nuremberg “Trials”, the IMF, the WTO, GATT, the
World Bank, NATO, SEATO, CENTO, ad nauseum.
I DID say the US hypocritically picks and chooses what parts of the UN Charter and World Law it will obey, if it disagrees
as in Nicaragua it just blows off the World Court decision in that case.
Politics is the fifth branch of philosophy after metaphysics, epistemology, aesethetics and ethics. I have no idea what you mean by neo-realism or realism. But the political theory
of realpolitik was not born in 1975 but in the 1815 after the
Congress of Vienna. Kissinger was an admirer and practitioner
of that worldview. You have been lead astray by neocon Robert Kagan’s Dangeous Nation. All of your arguments on domestic and foreign history come right out of that book.
Am I supposed to be your secretary and lookup neocon history for you ? Get off your butt and do your own research.
A good start is C. Bradley Thompson’s Neoconservatism:An
Obituary For An Idea. It’s only marred by the genocidal advocacy of Israeli Yaron Brook in Chapter 8 on foreign policy.
Brook is the Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute and thinks killing hundreds of millions of Arabs and Iranians is a
peachy idea along with billions of Muslims too. He thinks we have been insufficiently murderous in Iraq and prefers the more massive WW2 style war crimes like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, et cetera. He used to be in Israeli Intelligence, probably a war criminal.
Neocons are former Communists and New Deal Democrats who left the Dems & Libs because they thought they were insufficiently supportive of a “muscular” US foreign policy needed to protect Israel, their Holy State. Most are Jews but not all and they came into the GOP in 1980. They advocate retention of all the bad statist legislation of the Wilson Progressive era, the New Deal-Fair Deal, Great Society and their only criticism is that some of the Civil Wrongs legislation
went too far, affirmative action. They are the Big Government Conservatives that dominate the GOP, they loved Bush 2 and especially McCain. Their organs are Commentary, The Weekly Standard, The New Republic, the National Review
and the Wall Street Journal editorial page. They want to retain and expand the warfare-welfare state of 1940 to present.
Their political heroes are Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey,
JFK, FDR, Truman and Reagan. David Brooks is their leading mainstream pundit.

#10 Comment By omikaberidze On September 5, 2010 @ 2:11 pm

So you believe the “manifest destiny” was ok, but expansion of the US interests beyond the North American continent is somehow criminal? Interesting view of the World.

I am glad you defined neocon because NOTHING I have written so far aligns me with those ideas. My political view is more akin to Sen. Robert M. La Follett then to President Wilson. If you want to see some of the views I have, before making rush and uninformed judgments, read the website [1]. I dislike “non-interventionist” argument because it is a false dilemma argument. We live in a global society, whether we like it or not, and our decision or indecision has consequences for us. We are in the 21st century and things we confront today are different from things our founding fathers confronted at the end of the 18th century. We need to make our policy reflective of this reality.

I see the US as similar to the Ottoman Empire. Both were built on expansion, be it economic or political. Both attracted disenfranchised, the US through immigration, Ottomans through reducing tax burden from what was imposed by Byzantine. Both reached limits of rapid expansion. The way Ottomans reacted to it was to “purify” their ranks. They blamed misfortune and crisis on abandonment of their “Islamic” ghazi roots. They abandoned all the things they had learned over nearly 5 centuries and tried to do things the way they did in first years of the Ottoman rule. Needless to say, it was disastrous for them because their solutions were aimed at treating symptoms not the disease itself. The problem was not that they weren’t “Islamic” enough; the problem was that Europe had passed them by in terms of civil and military governance and technology. Their state bureaucracy had become so big it was choking it.

We face the same crisis. We have reached the outer limits of our rapid expansion. As a result, much like the Ottoman Empire, some “political” forces fault the end of expansion on abandoning of principles of founding fathers and advocate return to “what worked”. That will only treat a symptom and, much like Ottoman Empire, will spell our own demise. The problem is not that we abandoned our way. The problem is our way has reached the edges of its incompetence, beyond which we may not advance without significant change to our policy and wirhout the new ideas.

Our current crisis is not a result of interventionism and expansionism but of complacency and loss of competitive edge. People like Ron Paul, who I agree on the economic issues almost 100%, offer disengagement as a solution to our policy wows. Historically, it has been proven to be disastrous for everyone who has employed it and worse yet, it was not the bases of our success, as much as we would like think it was. Naima, an Ottoman historian described exceptionally well 5 stages a state goes through which either leads to reformation or dissolution. He wrote that each state goes through “the heroic period of its establishment, the period of consolidation under the dynasty and its slave-servants, the period of security and tranquility, the period of contentment and surfeit, and finally, the period of disintegration and dissipation” (Itzkowitz, Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition). Analyzing history through this formula one can see its accuracy. Romans, Byzantine, Ottomans, British, Soviets, Russians, Persian, Arab, Mongol, Chinese, etc all went through these stages. If you look back on our short but eventful history we went through the first phase from 1776-1815. Second phase we entered in 1830’s which ended in 1865 with the Civil War and Reconstruction. We went through the third stage from 1880’s through 1950’s. The fourth stage, the stage of contentment and surfeit, started with 1960’s and has been going through the 2008. We study history so we don’t repeat it. The choice before us is a. to enter the fifth and final stage which will lead us to disintegration and dissipation, or b. find a solution to the systemic crisis we are experiencing and in the spirit of our forefathers defy the odds and make our own destiny. Disengagement and isolationism leads us to the fifth and final stage because when we disengage from the World, it is one way process.

What I propose is to continue engagement but through new multilateral regional organizations. We must leave IMF, the World Bank, and all other “global” organizations. Global and “comprehensive” solutions are never global, are never comprehensive, and never end up being solutions. We should divide the World into regions and get involved through regional organizations. This will introduce stability as well as reduce the “negative” impact of lesser powers on regional politics. We allow China to hold us hostage due to the insane fiscal policy we are pursuing. If we cut our global footprint (this includes the military as well as financial involvement such as IMF and the World Bank) we can relieve some of the fiscal pressure. I would even entertain an idea of defaulting on the foreign debt altogether. At least use the threat to impact China’s monetary and trade policy.

I am pretty far from neocons as you can see. I just don’t share the view that the World would be a better place and we would be safer and more prosperous if we disengage. I don’t think that makes me a neocon. I do think it’s ok if sovereign states let us employ them in our interests as long as it’s done not through military intervention but through mutual benefit. We are not morally or any other way responsible if these states act in the best interest of their own people. People should hold their own governments accountable not us.

#11 Comment By Michael Hardesty On September 5, 2010 @ 5:38 pm

Yes, expansion of the US IN the US was okay.
Intervention outside the US is wrong and how many times do I have to repeat myself ?
People SHOULD hold the US Government responsible because we mess up peoples’ lives all over the globe and that is the consequence of the interventionist folly that neocons like YOU promote.
None of these states ever acted in the best interests of their
own people precisely because US intervention every time
caused them to act against the interests of their own people
AND BY THE WAY YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS ON GLOBALONEY, ADVOCATING INTERVENTION FOR THE USA WHILE DENYING THE OBVIOUS EFFECTS OF IT PRECISELY CAUSED BY THE US GOVERNMENT INTERVENTIONIST ACTIONS THAT YOU NEOCONS ADVOCATE.
The neocons are statist-interventionist progressives, just like
you.
US is not similar to Ottoman Empire because we rule entirely through local satraps rather than permanent occupation.
You are no different in principle at all from the neocons, you
might not have the same loyalty to Israel but on your basic interventionist thinking you are identical.
On Paul you repeatedly assert that on-interventionism, which hasn’t existed since 1940, is a failure, you give no arguments, you give no references, just your totally unsubstantiated assertion.
“Competitive edge,” what the hell is that ? Competing with low cost labor across the globe ?
The only “complacency” has been with numbskulls who advocate yet more of a 70 year failed interventionist policy.
Non-intervention was never “isolationism,” that was a New Deal-Communist inspired smear term, we always had trade relations, NOT entangling military alliances before WW1
and we were much better off.
You are so ignorant of American history, we were never meant to be an Empire bjut a Republic. Read Buchanan’s book of the same title, read The Decline Of American Liberalism by Arthur Ekirch, Jr. and read Rothbard’s four volume history of the American Revolution.
LaFollette was a fool and he was replaced by a great patriot,
Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1946 GOP primary.
The Ottoman thesis is irrelevant and spare us your dimestore
Spenglerism.
The interventionist nationalism you advocate is a proven failure under the Bush 2 Moron Administration, all based on BS and big lies.
If we default on the foreign debt we will hurt ourselves much more than China. What we should default is the national debt
as Rothbard advocated for decades.
I’m frankly sick of your neocon, Kissingerian vomit and am tired of repeating myself. Go away, little man.

#12 Comment By omikaberidze On September 6, 2010 @ 11:44 am

Name calling and insults are not good arguments, FYI.

Want an evidence of positive side of the US engagement? Here it is:

Let’s compare 20th century before the US’s active engagement and after. We were out of global picture before WWII started. Total Casualties from 1900 to 1945 runs roughly 100 million civilians and military personnel dead, x4 that injured. From 1945 – present number is about 10 million. 100 million vs. 10 million. I don’t know what moral or political norms you are using to measure failure but reducing total deaths from 100 million to 10 million over longer period of time is pretty significant testament to the positive impact of the US’s international involvement.

As a result of our “interventionist” policy, the Soviet Union is no longer a threat to the US, Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East. As a result of our “interventionism” a major economic and political philosophy, communism, was defeated and exists on the fringes of the world no longer threatening us. As a result of our “interventionism” over 750 million people around the world have been uplifted from poverty to become economic consumers, some of which has benefited the US citizens immensely.
Sounds like a colossal failure!
Opening new markets for the US goods, ensuring stability of those markets, ensuring stability of currency and energy trade which directly impacts you and me; all of these must be truly a colossal failure.
Let’s look at non-interventionism: 1803 Louisiana Purchase funded Napoleonic Wars 1803-1815. The Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819 gave Spanish Empire enough funds to continue fighting with Mexico for its independence. Alaska purchase gave fund to the Russia to renew war on Ottoman Empire in 1877.
Now let’s look how expansionism through war and expansionism through purchase of land is similar. Ottomans expanded through war by occupying the land and defeating weaker powers. The US expanded by buying land from the weekend powers. Any resistance of indigenous population to such expansion was subdued through violence both by the US and Ottoman government. Indigenous population didn’t benefit from expansion, and any benefit which was ripped was post factum.
You can rationalize your misguided ideology all you want. I am getting tired of showing you how inconsistent your argument is and you calling me names in return. Good luck! I can only hope that you and your ideology will be restricted to very small minority, along with communism, and other fringe ideas.

#13 Comment By Michael Hardesty On September 6, 2010 @ 2:57 pm

Your last sentence would be true IF all I’d done was
label you but I correctly labeled you and I refuted your
general thesis insofar as it is intelligible and I refuted all
of your specific examples.
No, Mao killed 100-110 million after 1949 up to 1976 and
he was brought to power by the US government, see Anthony Kubek’s How The Far East Was Lost (Regnery, 1962.)
US intervention in WW1 and WW2 was RESPONSIBLE FOR TENS OF MILLIONS OF CASUALTIES THAT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED OTHERWISE.
Your 1900-1945 figures include the tens of millions of deaths caused by the US intervention. The 100 million is way off but the great majority of deaths from 1900-1945 were caused by US intervention so your thesis is wrong and THERE HAVE MANY MILLIONS MORE DEATHS CAUSED BY US INTERVENTION SINCE 1945. Four million in Indochina alone,
one million in Indonesia, 300,000 in East Timor, at least a million by US backed regimes in Latin America and millions more in Africa and Asia by US puppets like Mobutu.
Some “enviable” record, eh ?
US interventionism HAD NOTHING WITH THE COLLAPSE OF THE USSR OR COMMUNISM AS GORBACHEV NOTED IN HIS MEMOIRS. IF ANYTHING THE US INTERVENTION DELAYED THE COLLAPSE OF COMMUNISM, WHICH WOULD HAVE COLLAPSED MUCH EARLIER WITHOUT THE FEAR OF A US NUCLEAR ATTACK. CENTRAL PLANNING NEVER WORKS, THE US AIDED THE SOVIET BLOC SINCE THE 1920S THROUGH DUAL TRANSFER TECHNOLOGY AND CREDITS.
See Antony Sutton’s massive work in this regard.
No one around the world has benefited in the least from US military intervention or foreign aid, ONLY private sector trade.
With the current depression your typically false “750 million”
figure rings as false as the rest of your assertions.
The libertarian ideology and America First are growing stronger every minute and gaining more adherents by the day.
The failures of US interventionism are all around us in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iran, most of Latin America now neo-communist, et, cetera.
All of your statements on US funds financing Napoleon, Russian war with Ottomans, Spanish in Mexico are flat out falsehoods with which you have no documentation whatsoever.
We didn’t pay Russia enough for Alaska to finance anything.
Aren’t you getting of having your butt publicly whipped here ?
My argument has been consistent throughout while yours is wrong empirically, morally, constitutionally, philosophically,
economically and is totally inconsistent in claiming benefits
for insane interventionism while totally whitewashing the downside and blaming it on the natives, the victims.
Always glad to demolish warfare state interventionism which has been the major cause of the growth of US government
since WW1.
Glad you finally learned to spell ideology.

#14 Comment By Michael Hardesty On September 6, 2010 @ 4:00 pm

US intervention in WW1 prevented a likmely stalemate,
cemented the Bolshevik Coup, brought the Versailles Treaty
which later brought Hitler to power.
US intervention in WW2 again prevented a likely stalemate
and brought the Communists to power in half of Europe.
The victory over Japan brought Mao to power a few years later.
The police action in Korea led to the disaster in Vietnam
and later all of Indochina. Bringing the Shah to power in 1953 later led to the Islamic Reolution of 1979.
Supporting the Afghan Contras later led to 9-11.
Both unjustified US invasions of Iraq killed millions of people
over the last 19 years and Iraq now is an ally of Iran.
The policy of backing death squad rightist regimes in Latin America has brought the Left to power everywhere but Colombia and Mexico. Mexico had its own Red goverment
from 1910 to just a few years ago, this was after many US invasions south of the border. The US killed hundreds of thousands in 1898 in the Philippines and still controls Puerto
Rico, which obliges by having its folk commit a very large share of crime in New York City. US intervention in Nicaragua supporting the Somozas and the Contras has twice brought the Sandinistas to power and the US intervention in Cuba led to Castro in due course. US troops are still in Jaoan and Germany 65 years later and our military leaves the moola to finance their European socialist welfare states so they can brag about “free” everything and six week vacations. NATO has been a socialist boondoggle from the beginning as Taft warned it would be in the late 40s.
Ah, the glorious successes of interventionism………….
wait, what’s that sound of air going out of the tires ??????

#15 Comment By omikaberidze On September 6, 2010 @ 8:39 pm

Where do you get these “facts” from?
WWI started in 1914 without any involvement of the US. We were not part of the Entente or Central Powers. First revolution happened in Russian Empire in February 1917, second, the Bolshevik Revolution, happened in October. At this point Russia withdrew from Entente and capitulated. From 1918 through 1920 Russia was involved in a civil war. Bolshevik control of the Russia was not cemented till 1922, four years after the end of the WWI. Who cemented what? Where are you getting this misinformation from? It was a civil war and if anything, Americans and English were helping Whites against the Reds, Germans on the other hand sponsored Lenin and Bolsheviks hoping to neutralize Russia on the Eastern Front and they succeeded well before our involvement.
The US got involved into WWI in 1918. In 1917 we declared War on Germany (a mistake). First US troops arrived under the command of Gen. Pershing in March of 1918 and we were fully involved in summer of 1918. So the US fought in the last leg of the WWI, well after the last German offensive failed in 1917. Our involvement brought the war to faster end than it would have otherwise happened, and saved many million lives. By the time we got involved Europe was already in ruin and over 20 million people had perished.
Our mistake was not taking active role in the Versailles Treaty. If you knew your history we were never part of the Entente and as such we didn’t have a say in the peace accords. As a result, French and English “raped” Germany, against the US objection, which was partially responsible for the WWII but was not the main reason for it.
The US got involved into WWII after Poland, France, Belgium, Czechs, Dutch fell, England was on the edge of capitulation and the Soviets were not looking so good. What stalemate are you talking about? We were attacked by Japan, one of the Axis powers. What intervention are you talking about? JAPAN ATTACKED US!!!!!!
Mao came to power not as a result of the US aid but as a result of the Soviet aid to Mao. At the end of the WWII the Soviet military was probably the most capable fighting force in the World. Japan would have no chance against them as evidenced by Khalkhin Gol battle in 1941 which Japan lost with significant casualties and at that time the Soviet military was not at the peak of the power which it achieved in 1945 when it invaded Manchuria, occupied Sakhalin and Kuril Islands. If you think Japan could have withstood Soviet pressure in China you are out of your mind.
Count all the casualties in wars and persecutions after 1945. ALL TOGETHER THEY DO NOT EXEEDE 11 million! Unless you count Mao’s reforms which we had absolutely nothing to do with and even then it doesn’t get anywhere close to 100 million. WWI and WWII alone account for over 100 million, close to 110 million, dead. We had absolutely NOTHING to do with either one of the conflicts starting.
I guess when facts do not support your claims, you start to make things up. I won’t hold breath that this gets through your head but if there is a remote chance, it was worth the effort.

#16 Comment By Michael Hardesty On September 7, 2010 @ 8:13 am

It was US intervention in WW1 which prevented a stalemate
which led to the Bolshevik takeover of Russia, 67-75 million victims from 1917-1991. See America Goes To War by Charles Callan Tansill and The Genesis Of The World War by
Harry Elmer Barnes, just two out of a dozen books that document what I claim here.
US intervention in WW2 again prevented a stalemate because the UK would have had to have peace with Germany and Germany would have withdrawn from western Europe and
Scandinavia and focused their intentions on the east where they always were. It was the UK-France declaration of war on Germany that started what became WW2 AND they knew the Germans were right in their issue with Poland over the German city of Danzig and the German populated “Polish” Corridor. US intervention caused at least 40 million more deaths than would have occurred with a cessation of hostilities in 1940.
See The Forced War by David L. Hoggan, The New Dealers War by Thomas Fleming, President Roosevelt And The Coming Of The War by Charles Austin Beard, The Origins Of The Second World War by A.J.P. Taylor, Design For War by Frederic Sanborn, Getting Us Into War by Porter Sargent, Back Door To War by Charles Callan Tansill, Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace edited by Harry Elmer Barnes, The Churchill Legend by Francis Neilson, The Tragedy Of Europe
by Francis Neilson, five volumes, a day by day history from 1939-1945, Churchill’s War by David Irving,2 volumes, Pearl Harbor:The Story Of The Secret War by George Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor by John Toland, The Roosevelt Myth by John T. Flynn, Churchill:The End Of Glory by John Charmley and particularly America’s Second Crusade by William Henry Chamberlin for an indictment in one book of US interventions in WW1 and WW2.
Mao did indeed kill over 100-110 million, see Mao:The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday.
Originally the authors estimated 70 million Mao victims but then realized their figure of three million victims of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966-76) was understated by a factor of MORE THAN TEN.
So many more victims than 11 million have died as a result of US interventions since WW2. It probably is in the hundreds of millions because you to count the 2-4 million Sudenten Germans killed by Polish and Czech Commies after WW2 from homes they lived in 800 years, you have to count the continuing millions killed in the Soviet Gulag, which said state was saved by US intervention in WW2 and created by US intervention in WW1. You have to count the four million victims of the US in Indochina, the one million in Indonesia (1965-1968), Pol Pot would have never come to power without the 1970 US invasion of Cambodia so you have to count the half million victims of US bombing of Cambodia AND the three million Pol Pot Communist victims. The US abandonment of South Vietnam added another one million victims to the death toll. you have to count the five million Congolese murdered in the last decade as a result of decades long support of Mobutu, you have to count the 1.5 million victims of the US
(under Reagan) support of South Africa in invading the surrounding frontline states from 1981-1985, you have to count more than 250,000 victims of the US coup in Guatemala from 1954-1981, another 250,000 victims of the US supporter Shah’s 1953 coup in Iran, another 250,000 victims of US supported El Salvador junta, another 250,000 victims of the US supported Contras in Nicaragua, hundreds of thousands of Haitians by US support of Duvalier AND US support for overthrowing Aristide in 1991 under Bush Sr.
And the list just goes on and on and on. Way more than 11 million victims of US policy alone since WW2 and most of the pre-1945 victims were also the result of US intervention.
FDR deliberately provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor by his oil embargo a few months earlier. He knew that would be the result. See the Morgenstern, Tansill, Beard, Barnes,
Toland and other books referenced above. He tried to get the Germans to attack us in the North Altantic but they wouldn’t take the bait hence the back door to war in the Pacific.
It was US support for Britain by the Anglophile Wilson that got the US into the war, I didn’t write that the US started the war BUT that our intervention turned a stalemate into a one-sided victory. The Bolsheviks were supported by the bankers over here like Schiff and others. See Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution by Antony Sutton. These financiers had great influence with Wilson who did far more to help them than the Germans did with Lenin’s sealed railway car. It was known in Entente circles that Wilson was going to bring the US into the war on their side. See Road To War by Walter Millis and America Goes To War by Charles Callan Tansill,
Why We Fought by C. Hartley Grattan and Shall It Be Again ? by John Kenneth Turner.
Mao came to power because the traitor Geirge Marshall disarmed 39 Nationalist divisions with the stroke of his pen.
See The China Story by Freda Utley. Marshall accidentally got a copy of Mao’s spies in the Chiang government and returned it to Chou En-Lai ! Pure treason. See the Mao book referenced above. See McCarthy’s 60,000 word speech written by Forrest Davis, a New Deal interventionist, titled America’s Retreat From Victory.
The USSR was very weak militarily after WW2, trhey had barely survived, they certainly aided their protege Mao but the
US aid to Mao was the decisive factor, see How The Far East Was Lost by Anthony Kubek.
Japan not only was withstanding Soviet pressure before WW2 but they were beating the hell out of the Soviets’ stooge, Mao,
and were a far more effective foe than Chiang, which is why all the Commies around FDR like Currie and Lattimore supported Chiang before 1940 and then turned against him after 1945 because they knew Japan could not stop them.
When you refer to Japan’s weakness, you are referring to after the unjustified war crime the atomic bombings and you dishonestly ignore the fact that IF Japan had honored the Axis Treaty with Germany AND had come in on the German side the USSR would have been crushed, they barely beat Finland in 1940. See Shanghai Conspiracy by Major General Charles A. Willoughby for the account of the Sorge Communist spy ring operating from inside the German Embassy in Tokyo. They did everything to sabotage Japan’s support of Germany against the USSR. The Soviets only managed to take over eastern Europe with traitors in those governments and FDR sanctioned this, as did Winnie The War Criminal, at Yalta.
The US did play a major role in starting WW2 as FDR encouraged the UK to support the intransigence of the Polish Fascist Junta over Danzig. All the blood of WW2 is on the US State’s hands.
By the way, nowhere 110 million people died in both world wars. It was closer to 30 million in WW1 and 35-40 million in WW2. The Soviet figure of 27 million in WW2 is exaggerated by a factor of three, see Stalin’s War, and the figure of 30 million Japanese killings in China is similarly exaggerated by a factor of three. Far more killings were done in both countries after the war and that was directly the result of the
Communist infiltrated Roosevelt-Truman Administrations.
On Ike’s genocidal anti-Germany policy after WW2 see After
The Reich by Giles Macdonogh and we have to add several million more victims of US intervention listed above. See The Politician by Robert Welch and Operation Keelhaul by Julius Epstein for the millions of Russians sent back to Stalin and killed after WW2.
You have to count all the effects of US intervention and it is the most murderous world record since Genghis Khan.

#17 Comment By Michael Hardesty On September 7, 2010 @ 8:57 am

Misspelled George Marshall’s first name when I first referenced him. It was the US who supported Mobutu
for decades in the Congo. Forrest Davis’s speech given by
McCarthy was all about Marshall.
You will notice that “Omik” has never given any references and that every assertion he’s made has been hotly contested
and refuted with argumentation and multiple references.
The USSR was never a military threat to anyone before WW2
and afterwards only to the former German allies near their borders. See East Minus West Equals Zero by Werner Keller
(1962.) Liars from Truman to Reagan have completely exaggerated Soviet military might. Remember JFK’s lying “missile gap” in 1960, authored by the godfather of neocon politicians, Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson,
Democrat, Washington State, Boeing Company and State of Israel, not necessarily in that order.
Is “Omik” a Turkish name ? I forgot to add the numerous Turkish atrocities against the Kurds supported by the US for decades. The Trurks also killed around 300,000 Armenians during WW1 (not 1,500,000.)
“Omik” reads like one of the establishment clowns on the PBS Newshour, his nonarguments are always within the frame of untainted US interventionist virtue EXCEPT for the US itself, which he imagines was one continuous war crime.
I’d say my only criticism of traditional noninterventionists is that most turned a blind eye to US involvement in Latin America. IF all the Monroe Doctrine meant was keeping Europe OUT of there, great. But it shouldn’t have a license for continuous US intervention IN there. So the only problem with the noninterventionists is that they have not been noninterventionist enough.
And by the way, Paul’s or any sort of free market economics does not work under interventionism, either at home or abroad. That has been the main cause of Big Government. WW2 did far more to institutionalize Big Gov than the New Deal. The withholding tax as prime example.
See Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr.’s The Decline Of American Liberalism, 1955. The Founders were opposed to a standing military, hence the Second Amendment.
We had everything to do with Mao’s murderous reforms which took 100-110 million lives since WE made it possible for him to come to power. See The Lattimore Story by John T. Flynn.
“Omik” you strike out TOTALLY yet again !

#18 Comment By cfountain72 On September 7, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

Hello omikaberidze,

I heard that you were looking for some more in-depth reading on the deaths of Iraqi’s as a result of sanctions. Here are two good pieces from two disparate sources (Reason and The Nation):
[2]
[3]

In fairness, the estimates are lower than the 500,000 often mentioned…but certainly not ‘lower’ enough. Most of the revised totals are in the 250,000-300,000 range…doesn’t make me feel any better.
Also, I think you make the none-too-rare assumption that non-interventionism somehow equals disengagement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Non-interventionism applies to governmental actions–not to commercial and private ventures. Would anyone claim that Japan is disengaged from the world? Only if one measured disengagement purely by governmental/military activity. This is common debating tactic used by neo-clowns (which I’ll take you at your word, you are not), whether it be by Hannity or Kristol.
Additionally: yes it is morally wrong to invade a country and kill its civilians without being attacked, or under imminent threat of attack. I’m not sure how much clearer a case can be.
Contrary to what you stated, the invasion of Iraq did not follow our laws, since no actual declaration of War was passed (an AUMF doesn’t count.)
I would also argue that, ironically, the Founder’s vision of non-interventionism is actually a ‘new’ idea. As you enumerated, we haven’t live up to that ideal in the past, and it’s high time we start now. Closing up our bases, reducing our global military footprint, moving back to Enumerated Powers, engaging the world on the basis of voluntary commerce, and focusing on liberty and success (in whatever form that may take for each individual)…that would truly defy the odds.

Peace be with you.

#19 Comment By cfountain72 On September 7, 2010 @ 1:47 pm

Hello omikaberidze,

I heard that you were looking for some more in-depth reading on the deaths of Iraqi’s as a result of sanctions. Here are two good pieces from two disparate sources (Reason and The Nation):
[2]
[3]

In fairness, the estimates are lower than the 500,000 often mentioned…but certainly not ‘lower’ enough. Most of the revised totals are in the 250,000-300,000 range…doesn’t make me feel any better.
Also, I think you make the none-too-rare assumption that non-interventionism somehow equals disengagement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Non-interventionism applies to governmental actions–not to commercial and private ventures. Would anyone claim that Japan is disengaged from the world? Only if one measured disengagement purely by governmental/military activity. This is common debating tactic used by neo-clowns (which I’ll take you at your word, you are not), whether it be by Hannity or Kristol.
Additionally: yes it is morally wrong to invade a country and kill its civilians without being attacked, or under imminent threat of attack. I’m not sure how much clearer a case can be.
Contrary to what you stated, the invasion of Iraq did not follow our laws, since no actual declaration of War was passed (an AUMF doesn’t count.)
I would also argue that, ironically, the Founder’s vision of non-interventionism is actually a ‘new’ idea. As you enumerated, we haven’t live up to that ideal in the past, and it’s high time we start now. Closing up our bases, reducing our global military footprint, moving back to Enumerated Powers, engaging the world on the basis of voluntary commerce, and focusing on liberty and success (in whatever form that may take for each individual)…that would truly defy the odds.

#20 Comment By Michael Hardesty On September 7, 2010 @ 2:15 pm

Actually the more reasonable estimates range from half a million to a million killed in Iraq as a result of the US invasion and countless more millions who have fled the country.
Why would you take Omik’s word for anything, he’s shown himself to be totally uninformed and I save supplied him with many references, which he’ll not read AND his arguments are neocon to the bone, right out of Robert Kagan’s Dangerous Nation wherein Kagan uses the North American Indian wars as a justification for US military action in other continents.
We never declared war in Korea or Indochina either or Grenada, Lebanon, Nicaragua, El Salvador, East Timor
and Kosovo.
Good luck with your appeasement here of the unappeaseable,
it’s a total waste of time and I’d never wish “peace be with you” to a total warmonger.
Disgusting !

#21 Comment By omikaberidze On September 7, 2010 @ 5:24 pm

Allnen Dulles “The Craft of Inteligence” shows that the US had significant disadvantage on the ground due to the armored divisions stationed in Europe and only deterrent was the Missiles in Turkey which gave the US first strike.
Richard Helms A Look over My Shoulder: A Life in the Central Intelligence Agency will show that the US started gaining an advantage in the mid 1960’s with new technology and new defectors exposing the Soviet military technology capabilities. Before that time conventional battle field belong to the Soviets.
Let’s go by authors you have quote because I have had experience with some of them:
Freda Utley – as it happens, I have read 3 of her books. I used her as a source when I was debating the nationalism vs. Communism in Stalin’s Communist party and foreign policy. If you have read her book, China Story, you would know that she writes in Ch1 regarding the Soviet influence in China. Let me quote:
“According to its terms, China gave Soviet Russia vital strategic and economic rights in Manchuria in exchange for a pledge that Russia would “render to China moral support and aid in military supplies and other material resources, such support and aid to be given entirely to the National Government as the Central Government of China” (that is, the government headed by Chiang Kai-shek).
This pledge was promptly ignored. As Japan was surrendering, the Red Army poured into Manchuria ahead of Nationalist forces. As a condition of allowing the latter to reenter Manchuria, Moscow tried to get the Chinese Government to agree to joint ownership of all Manchuria resources and industries. Failing in this, Russia looted the area of eight hundred million dollars’ worth of industrial equipment and handed over huge supplies of captured Japanese arms to the Chinese Communists, whom they had meanwhile allowed to enter Manchuria. By the time the Red Army withdrew, the Communists were in possession of Manchuria and the captured arms.”
American’s, who transported Nationalist forces to Manchuria, were forced to withdraw because communists were already digging trenches under the Soviet protection. Thus Americans were forced to land Nationalist forces in North China to march over land to Manchuria. Soviets denied them use of railroads and they marched right into the fortified positions of Communists who were armed and reinforced by the Soviets. US didn’t disarm anyone! They were de facto faced with a “partner”, the Soviets, who ignored every treaty responsibilities and no one could stop them because of their military power. I reference earlier “Unthinkable” which was a result of Soviets breaking their premises, and the fear on the part f Brits and Americans that they might march to occupy the rest of the Europe.
Ch3 of the same book she writes “The task which confronted the Chinese National Government when it came to power in 1927 would have been colossal in any case. It was rendered too great for China to cope
with unaided, because of the interference of Japan and Russia, which both, by different means, intervened to prevent China’s developing into a li’estern-style democracy.”

In her book, much like I wrote in the previous post, she alludes to the socio-economic difficulties plaguing the National Government of China as principle reason for its collapse. Inflation and reduced standard of living resulting from fielding large armies to fight Communists in the North, is her worlds not mine. Next time read the whole book, not just look up some quote from wikipeadia or some other opinion webpage.

We are often told that nuclear bomb was dropped on Japan to save American lives. That is partially true. If you have read Utley, and I seriously doubt you have, you would know that she thought Japan was ready to capitulate in February of 1945. She also criticizes theory that America needed the Soviet help in the Pacific, I quote “By February 1945 nothing but the inane demand for Japan’s “unconditional” surrender stood in the way of victory and a peace which would have ensured America’s lasting security in the Pacific.” So why did we drop the bomb? Is it possible that the military power of the Soviets was such that they had to be forewarned?
The event you refer to in your post occurred in 1946, well after the Communists had demonstrated their power in the North and the US’s contingency policy was to entice them to form a coalition government with the Nationalists. This effort was aimed at not giving the Soviets a pretext to further intrude into China removing all hopes of retaining some balance of power. These efforts were born of necessity because in 1946, America was not ready to face the Soviets in China, or Europe for that matter. It was in 1946 that the Brits and Americans started working on contingency plan to stop the possible Soviet advance in Europe with the help of Western European countries +Germany and Poland. Let me repeat, to stop the Soviets in Europe they required Britain, France, Germany (what was left over of it), USA, Poland, Netherlands, and Belgium (incidentally these states formed NATO) to stop the possible Soviet advance. I guess they all were delusional about the Soviet military power.
Let’s look at the real military power of the Soviets. In 1930’s them and Germany were the only powers who were writing doctrines of mechanized and maneuver warfare. The Soviets had the best tanks in the World MBT KV-1 and medium tank T-34. At that time Germans had inferior tanks to both Soviets and French. They were much less mechanized then Soviets, used inferior tanks only 10% of the armored corps had Mark IV most had mark II (with a machinegun) and mark III (with 50mm cannon) neither of which could penetrate French tanks or Soviet tanks. French actually won the first tank vs tank battle of WWII but their tanks run out of diesel and Germans captured them on counter offensive. So what happened, why did soviets retreat for 7 months? Because the Soviet military went through purges of 1937 which cleared most of the experienced junior and general officers, and purges of 1940 cleared survivors. Another reason was that its doctrine was designed for offensive operations and was not prepared for a defensive war. They didn’t expect Hitler would try to fight on 2 fronts. But battle weeds out bad officers and showcases good ones and by the December of 1941 Soviets had stopped German advance and counterattacked clearing Germans away from Moscow. After the brief counter offensive of Germans in Summer of 1942 when they retook Rostov they were stopped at Stalingrad and in the Winter of 1942 their demise started. Whether or not US got involved in the European campaign didn’t matter. By Churchil’s own admission in his memoires, neither the US nor British Empire expected Soviets to recover so fast. They stabilized front in 7 months and went on offensive in 18. In June of 1944 Soviet troops were on the border of Romania, Poland, and the Baltic States, Ukraine and Belarus was liberated. If you have questions whether the Soviets were winning or not, read the notes of Teheran Conference held in Nov. 1943, where 3 powers divided the Europe after the victory would be achieved. The course of war was decided in the winter of 1941, it was just a matter of time. I don’t know what stalemate you are talking about.
W. Churchill: “Red Army decided the fate of German militarism”. 75-80% of casualties sustained by Germany were on the Eastern Front.
Reading material, not opinion but actual statistics and documents:
David Glantz, Colossus Reborn: The Red Army at War 1941–43
People write all kinds of BS. Here is a REPORT by a British General regarding balance of military power in the Europe post WWII written for the PM. [4]
[5] more DOCUMENTS not opinion how to stop the possible Soviet expansion.
If you care to note the ability of Russians to fight prior to WWII, in the battles of Lake Khasan (1938) and Khalkhin Gol (1939) Japanese were defeated so soundly that they abandoned all ambitions to invade Russia and occupy Siberia thus concentrating on Indo-China.
Your statements about reasons for Japanese attack on the US are in conflict with your assertion that the US had to “prop up” National Government of China. Reason why we imposed embargo was precisely to help China’s Nationalist government.
You state “FDR deliberately provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor by his oil embargo a few months earlier. He knew that would be the result. See the Morgenstern, Tansill, Beard, Barnes,”. That is in a contradiction with “The immediate, although not the basic, cause of our entry into World War II was our refusal to recognize Japanese conquests in China, as definitely stated in the Hull “ultimatum” of November 26, ‘941.” Utley “The Story of China”. I would take her as a greater authority over our policy in Indo-China. I guess when you don’t read a book, you are bound to take some quotes out of context.

Another book you should really read before quoting things from it is “Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution” by Antony Sutton. It specifically states that the money from the Wall Street was procured by German and Swedish Banks and then channeled through German espionage officers to Bolsheviks, I believe I alluded to that. A quote from the book, Ch IV: “During World War I Germany raised considerable funds in New York for espionage and covert operations in North America and South America. It is important to record the flow of these funds because it runs from the same firms — Guaranty Trust and American International Corporation — that were involved in the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath. Not to mention the fact (outlined in chapter three) that the German government also financed Lenin’s revolutionary activities.” American International Corporation and Guaranty Trust were fronts established by Germany for that specific purpose. American banks, such as JP Morgan directly financed Tsar’s regime not Bolsheviks.

Another reference used by you is John Kenneth Turner. I hate to tell you but he isn’t a competent authority on anything remotely related to the United States. He was an opportunist switching from one party to another; embracing Marx, then criticizing him; working for Democrats than switching to Republicans; being socialist, later embracing anarchism of Magonistas. How can you in all honesty take such an erratic person who was an activist who went to Mexico to advocate regime change, and use him as a legitimate source of your information? Good job with that one!

You state “Far more killings were done in both countries after the war and that was directly the result of the Communist infiltrated Roosevelt-Truman Administrations.” If a country can penetrate another country’s administration to the extent to so dramatically alter its foreign policy, isn’t that a show of that country’s power?

You reference “East Minus West Equals Zero by Werner Keller”, as a source to show how weak the Soviets were. I think this is another reference out of context. This book is about economic cooperation between the Western capitalists and the Soviets. This cooperation was done through contracts. “These Americans were obliged by their contracts to stay until the Russians were capable of operating the machines themselves.” A quote from the book. They were paid for it and the companies sought profit. I fail to see relevance, unless you are trying to argue that private corporations shouldn’t conduct business with foreign governments who are willing to pay them for their services? If government got involved, that would be embargo and intervention which you are against. If the government doesn’t get involved then by not selling to paying buyer they would be violating the trust of their share holders and could be fired.

#22 Comment By Michael Hardesty On September 7, 2010 @ 8:27 pm

Freda Utley and Anthony Kubek and others have specifically
documented how the US State went along with the Soviets because the US government was heavily infiltrated by Communists. See the M. Stanton Evans 2007 opus on McCarthy titled Blacklisted By History which goes case by case and vindicates McCarthy and shows the US Govt & the
USSR on the same side since 1940.
No, the Keller book shows how the US Govt encouraged the
leftwing capitalists like Harriman and Hammer to aid the Soviets, it’s an interlocking directory of the same CFR types that go from Big Biz to Big Gov all the way down to the present day. There’s no dichotomy or anomaly here, it’s the
same CFR crowd. The Feds have no business either sponsoring trade with the Communists OR subsidizing their loses if nationalized. Their obligations to us citizens comes before any shareholder obligations. Of clourse private corporations shouldn’t supply the rope to hang themselves and if they get hung they alone should suffer, so your last paragraph is corporate-statist garbage.
Turner’s book Baranarous Mexico is quite good and documents the horrors of the Diaz Regime BUT that has nothing to do with Shall It Be Again ? which demonstrates
the same US Govt lies that got us into WW1 would happen again.
He was a true prophet because that is exactly what happened
so your argumentem ad hominem fails again.
Soviet infiltration into the US State does not prove Soviet military superiority, quite the contrary, they have to use the
infiltration so much precisely because they are so militarily weak. See From Major Jordan’s Diaries which proves how US state lendlease SAVED the Soviets in WW2.
The Glantz book is simply Soviet propaganda recycled via the Communist infiltrated UK Govt and media.
Next time read the Sutton book all the way where he shows how US corporations and financiers financed the Bolsheviks,
he does NOT say the Germans & Swedes were the main financiers.
Ergo with the Utley AND Kubek books, they both state the corruption in Chiang’s Govt was overshadowed by the Communist infiltration of same AND by US Govt support of the Communists in China. Don’t try your selective quotes here.
There was no military rationale for dropping the atomic bombs, the Japanese had been trying to surrender for six months, see Assault On A Beaten Foe by Harry Elmer Barnes in National Review, May 10, 1958. Gar Alperowitz’s
Atomic Diplomacy backs Barnes here though he gives the warning to the Soviets more credence but ultimately decides it’s a war crime like Dresden and Auschwitz. No military justication whatsoever. Utley was close to the China Missionary Lobby and somewhat anti-Japanese so her apologias for the bombings can be discounted.There is
no reason to take Utley’s book as a greater authority
on the origins of the war than the much more documented
and massive works of Tansill, Kubek, Barnes, Beard,
Sanborn, Sargent and Chamberlin. She is good on the issue
of Soviet infiltration of the Chiang and Truman governments
and that’s all and that’s the only reason I referenced her.
And she is good on the insane unconditional surrender policy
and Japan did NOT surrender unconditionally.
Ukraine and Belarus were NEVER “liberated” nor was any other country in eastern Europe ever “liberated” by the USSR. The Nazis were libertarians compared to the Soviets, as bad as the Nazis were by western standards.
The Hull ultimatum was garbage and came AFTER FDR in conjunction with the UK and the Dutch had cut off Japanese oil. That’s why I referenced Tansill, Morgenstern, Barnes, Beard and Chamberlin among several other works, you need to look at it in context, not mindlessly swallow official US agit-prop. The Soviet victories over Japan in Soviet territory were nothing in the larger scheme as they were victories on Soviet territory. To repeat myself.
Which was the only victories they had before 1945 except
maybe Finland and that one was close.
By the way, the banks you list were not fronts for Germany and Sutton admitted to me in July 1974 in his home in Cupertino, CA that he deliberately downplayed the Jewish financing by the Schiffs, Warburgs and others so he could get his book published. He also conceded that there were no gas chambers in Buchenwald as he had previously thought.
Anywhere from 40% to 85% of the Bolsheviks were Jewish and it was a Jewish triumph and NOT a German one.
The Germans wanted Russia out of the war to be sure but the
Bolshevik Coup was a Jewish one.
Churchill routinely swallowed Soviet garbage about their alleged progress and the Irving, Neilson and Charmley books totally rebut that. They were basket cases till well into the 50s. I never use or quote from Wikipedia in lieu of reading the books I reference, all of which I’ve read many times.
Marshall did indeed boast about disarming the 39 Nationalist divisions with the stroke of a pen, his exact words and not only was there no military justification for it, it was positively harmful to the Nationalists. THe US Govt under Roosevelt-Truman was on the Soviet side in all aspects in foreign policy before, during and after the war.
We imposed the embargo on Japan PRECISELY to provoke Japan into war which was the only hope for FDR’s failed New Deal and at the time seemed the only hope to save the British, Dutch and French Empires in colonial Asia.
Japan had been in China for a decade and that was not the reason for the embargo.
The course of the war was NOT decided in 1941 but not until late 1942 or even later in 1943. Irving and Neilson document this thoroughly.
The Tehran Conference was a total Communist operation on the US, UK, and Soviet sides, don’t peddle yet more Communist lies as “history.”
The stalemate was before the US entered the war because the Germans were winning but wanted to disgorge western Europe and Scandinavia and concentrate on the USSR where they winning big time too, up till late 1942. If the US hadn’t entered the UK would have had to sign a peace with Germany and Germany would have disposed the Soviet Government, which was unpopular and losing badly. The Germans would never have been able to permanently hold on to Russia but we would have been rid of the Communists.
By the way, my great maternal Uncle was in that pathetic US
invasion of Siberia after WW1 and it was never a serious effort
to overthrow the Bolsheviks, all for show. Nothing more.
There was no reason to save American lives by dropping the atomic bombs as Eisenhower, MacArthur and others have stated. There would never be a US invasion of the Japanese
mainland and the Japanese had been trying to surrender for six months prior to the bombings.
The Soviet tanks were the mostly vastly overrated military garbage on the planet exactly on a par with their lying “industrial” statistics, which is why they were so desperate for more and more and more lendlease as Irving documents in Churchill’s War, 2 vol., number 3 to come out
soon.
Ok, enough of your Soviet megaphone lies for one night, you do exactly what you always accuse me, selective reading of the sources, at least all the ones that I recommended that you
claim to have read but only very partially.
You just spout the Establishment-Communist Lie line on WW2. No surprise there.

#23 Comment By Michael Hardesty On September 7, 2010 @ 9:52 pm

A few typos above, in paragraph two “of course” comes out as “of clourse” in mentioning private corporations shouldn’t supply the rope to hang themselves.
Turner’s book on Mexico is Barbarous Mexico, I typoed barbarous in paragraph three.
Antony Sutton’s three volume Soviet Technology And Western Economic Development (1970-1972) updates and surpasses Keller’s East Minus West Equals Zero and Sutton documents the intricate links between pro-Soviet businessmen and the US Government. Nelson Rockefeller, a prime example in 1969 with his joint corporate venture with pro-Communist industrialist Cyrus Eaton to arm the eastern bloc through dual technology while they were killing US servicemen in Vietnam. I was opposed to US intervention there but why would anyone want to help the Communists ?
General Edwin S. Walker, who commanded US troops in Europe, once stated that Stalingrad was way overhyped and probably smaller than some of our Civil War battles in the US.
During the war for World Communism (1939-1945) the Communists were in control of the media and government in the West as much as in the USSR. Nothing they claimed OR
written about them during that period can be taken at face value.
Omik avoided my query if he was Turkish, why ?
Just curious because it is either one of the strangest pseudonyms or strangest names I’ve seen here.
And why anyone should believe Allen Dulles or Richard Helms on anything is beyond me.
Dulles ‘s CIA was totally infiltrated by Communists as NY Times reporter Tim Weiner documented in a book on the subject and McCarthy was going to investigate it but got sidetracked by Roy Cohn’s shenanigans rgarding Schine’s draft status, which also sabotaged McCarthy’s Army investigation. The CIA is a spinoff from the Communist controlled OSS of WW2 infamy. Helms lied on Chile before Congress. In 1956 Khrushchev showed boats in a Moscow lake to US Admiral Radford and said “that’s our navy.”
The Soviets never intended to take western Europe so their numbers meant nothing. Half of their troops were Asiatics who didn’t even know where they were when they invaded Hungary in fall, 1956. They barely had eastern Europe under control, they neither wanted or could take western Europe militarily, they used the same old Popular Front and infiltration tactics there after the war that they used here from 1933-1961. The CIA is worthless, they never saw the impending collapse of the USSR which people like me had predicted back in the 70s. Allen Dulles gave a list of all the CIA agents in eastern Europe to Otto John in Dulles’s CIA office in 1953 and John defected shortly afterwards to East Germany with the list and the US agents were all killed. Dulles may well have been a Red, see The Actor by Alan Stang on his bfrother John Foster and The Politician by Robert Welch on Ike.
Appreciate “Omik” revealing his true colors.