Daily Archives: September 11, 2007

U.S. war since WWII

Whille cleaning out the maze of crap that I have accumulated on my computer I came across the following, which (in a slightly different form was a flier that I had made and posted around during the flurry of activity that was the VT anti-war movement before the war started).  

I thought I'd re-post it a) because I think it's interesting and should be known, and thought about; and b) I'm on the fringes of being so fed up with the sad state of the so-called anti-war movement (in VT and nationally) that I may just have to jump into gear, get in touch with some of my old “partners in crime”, and start amping-up the action.
See bellow the fold.

U.S. war since WWII

Since WWII, here is a partial list of countries that the United States has either waged a bombing campaign or fought an all-out war against. Notably not on this list are proxy campaigns, like fighting the Soviets by arming and funding the Afghans during the 1980's, or the “drug war” in Columbia, etc.

 

China (1945-46, 1950-53)

Korea (1950-53)

Guatemala (1954, 1967-69)

Indonesia (1958)

Cuba (1959-60)

Belgian Congo ((1964)

Peru (1965)

Vietnam (1961-73)

Laos (1964-73)

Cambodia (1969-70)

Grenada (1983)

Libya (1986)

El Salvador (1980's)

Nicaragua (1980's)

Panama (1989)

Bosnia ((1995)

Afghanistan (1998, 2001-present)

Sudan (1998)

Yugoslavia (1999)

Iraq (1991-present)

 

Notice that none of these countries are currently being run democratically. There is no reason to believe that the United States has any intention to spread “democracy” to any country, especially ones that we bomb or go to war with. The goal of U.S. military action is always to provide stable markets for capital.

 

Also, note that the U.S. is the only country in the world to be reprimanded by the United Nations for committing acts of terrorism! Places where the U.S. have used terrorism to overthrow democratically elected governments include Chile, Haiti, and Columbia.

Our Congressional Delegation on Iraq

It's the day after Petraeus's first appearance in Congress and all three members of Vermont's congressional delegation have given their reactions. Here's what they say:

 

Welch:

“The conclusion I reached as a listener is that Gen. Petraeus came in on behalf of the administration requesting a sixth and seventh year of the war,” Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., said in an interview. “But the fundamental question that Congress and the American people have to ask is whether a military approach to refereeing a civil war is wise and effective. There has never been a situation where a third party successfully refereed a civil war.”

Welch said the federal government should begin withdrawing U.S. troops immediately.

Sanders:

 

 “I will continue to demand a timetable for the withdrawal of our troops, a withdrawal which should be completed within the next year,” Sanders said. “Although we must continue to support the Iraqi government and their military so that they can defend themselves, the time to begin bringing home our American troops is now.” 

 

 Leahy:

“Six years ago, our troops had cornered Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan,” Leahy said. “Then the Bush administration diverted our military resources to Iraq, and he slipped away. He remains on the loose today, and terrorism has increased worldwide. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II, squandering hundreds of billions of U.S. tax dollars. The president wants to keep the pedal to the floor in this war, dumping the Iraq mess onto the next president's doorstep.”

Keep your eyes on what they do, but Welch isn't acting too conciliatory to the administration at present. 

Who’s Honor?

                                         

           Preparatory to General Petraeus’ testimony today, some Congress members, incensed by a Move-On.org full page ad in the NY Times referring to him as General Betray us, lashed out at that organization and the “Left” in general for daring to utter a doubting word about the General. Then they extolled grandiloquently about his virtue, honor, patriotism, truthfulness, and their utter faith in his every word. The military code of honor would forever hold its finest.

            There was a time not long ago when these overwrought protestations would have at least been grounded in truth. There was a recent time when our nation looked to such a General, a man whom we could trust without reservation. In fact, without this fine General, the very embodiment of military honor, George W. Bush would not have been able to convince the Congress and the public to let him start his criminal and murderous war.

            But General Colin Powell let us down. He stood before the United Nations and the world, and when he pointed at the little maps and smudgy photos, he presented “facts” that were no such thing, made sweeping conclusions that were dead wrong, and when he was finished, America lined up behind the administration and smartly saluted.

Years later, when it was too late to do any good, Powell owned up somewhat to his failure. But in the meantime a country has been turned into a nightmare, millions of people have had to flee their homeland, and upwards of a million have been killed outright as a result of the policies which he helped scam into place.

            When Colin Powell enabled Bush/Cheney to launch their crooked war, he had the same credibility and was accorded the same honor as General Petraeus today. It is not any slur against Petraeus if people are skeptical about his testimony. This administration has politicized the military to an alarming degree. They have plowed through Generals at a steady pace during this war and hope that finally Petraeus will be the one to achieve their impossible dreams.

            General Petraeus assures us that he wrote his own speech, and he probably penned the words. But what exactly was the purpose of all of the work being done at the White House to help prepare the report?  This General’s job is to do the bidding of the Commander in Chief. This report was about justification and cheer leading and there is no way that it can be seen as anything other than the military leadership’s attempt to spin the war on the administration’s behalf.

            Whatever you think of Move-On.org, they have every right to question this General’s testimony. The Bush/Cheney administration has shown us that they will lie and lie and lie again. The fact that anyone is willing to give them any credibility at all is astounding, let alone to presume that we should automatically trust anyone who is associated with them not to misrepresent reality when convenient.

            Increasingly lost in this swirl of debate over the quality of the surge’s “successes” is the fact that the surge was not to prove that thousands of American troops could control isolated areas of a small nation that has been crippled by years of war. No, it was to create breathing room for the politicians to organize their democracy. But since that hasn’t even begun to happen, they’ve just changed the debate, as they always do, and now they’re all talking tactics and strategies and we’ll soon see if the politicians are all corrupted enough, and we’re all numb enough to follow them once again down the yellow brick road. Peace is War. Lies are Truth. Go Shopping.