6 ms·

The entire reason the war was fought was to enforce the principle that taking other sovereign territory by force is not acceptable. A better way for USA to sup

The entire reason the war was fought was to enforce the principle that taking other sovereign territory by force is not acceptable. A better way for USA to support that principle would have been not to invade the sovereign nations of Cuba, Philippines, Hawai'i, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Panama, North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Serbia, etc. Those are just a selection of the invasions our leaders admit. There have been far more unacknowledged actions in various parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, as well as violent actions that didn't include uniformed USA troops like when we paid Saddam Hussein to have a horrible war with Iran. Also there have been violent actions for which some local support could have been argued, such as when Suharto and his CIA handlers killed millions of people in Indonesia. Also we genocided American Indians for centuries. As soon as there weren't any more of them to kill, the exact same USA army officers were doing the exact same racist violence in Philippines. USA's existence is one continuous rejection of sovereignty. Crackpot realists ITT will gleefully point to my list of USA military victims and crow about "victories" in "war". Many of these were "police actions" in which there wasn't even an opposing force, just civilian victims. That's not war. Also, although every one of these actions served the someone's interests, not one accomplished a military objective that benefited the average American. That's not winning.

toss1 4y ago
And, in how many of those places in which actions took place in the modern era (I totally agree with harshest of assessments of the treatment of the Native Americans) did the US, or any other democratic country, ANNEX the place and take it for their own territory? ZERO. Yes, autocratic rulers were deposed, and in some cases, 'democratically elected' rulers who were openly working with autocrats (USSR, CCP). Was any of it done perfectly? No. But fighting authoritarianism, and in some cases using our authoritarian to fight a worse one was done. I don't necessarily agree with it or disagree, in any particular circumstance, and we'd have to review each one case-by-case. But none of the incidents you cite as "whataboutism" changes the facts of the one being discussed. You even correctly pointed out that it was not for the oil. It was to uphold that principle. The same goes for Ukraine. And many of the others. Geopolitics is an ugly game. But without pushing back, hard, on authoritarians, and building a world order based on forbidding violent taking of territory as Russia is doing in Ukraine (completely consistent with its history since the 1400s). There was a lot done badly, but that is no reason to not attempt to do it better. And leaving it to the Putins, Xis, and Uns of the world will damn sure make it worse in a hurry.
- krapp 4y ago
  >And, in how many of those places in which actions took place in the modern era (I totally agree with harshest of assessments of the treatment of the Native Americans) did the US, or any other democratic country, ANNEX the place and take it for their own territory? Hawaii.
  - toss1 4y ago
    Hawaii, annexed in 1898... not exactly modern era. The point is that there was an age of empire, where it was accepted to take territory by force. It was pretty much that way since Alexander, Ghengis Kahn, through all of European history since the middle ages. The point is that the era of empire by violent imperialist conquest is over. While authoritarians want to continue acting like might-is-right empires, the democratic nations of the free world reject that concept The free world understanding that it is unsustainable. The lands of previous empires are largely returned, India, most of Africa, Carribbean, etc. Just because governments since the age of empire still retain continuity and the same name, that does not mean they are the same. England, France, Germany, US, have rejected authoritarianism and empire, while Russia, and China still want to continue it. Treating something that has the same name but is different is a falsehood. (A caveat here is that there are authoritarian movements in all of the democratic countries, in no small part aided and fomented by the authoritarian govts as part of hybrid warfare, so it is possible for them to flip back.)
    - jessaustin 4y ago
      Congratulations on producing yet another specious half-assed defense of USA militarism! Wouldn't it be nice if its record spoke for itself? We still occupy Hawai'i, as well as the entirety of continental USA. We still occupy the eastern third of Syria, as Trump said and Biden hasn't contradicted "to steal their oil". The various nations we occupy in Africa invite similar explanation. We occupied Philippines for decades, as colonial masters, until Japan kicked us out, after which we reoccupied it. As observed above, that wasn't a different thing from the colonization of North America, because it was done in the same racist way by the exact same racist army officers. We maintain military bases all over, every one a direct threat to the host nation should they stray from our political line. For example, how successful can Korean reunification efforts be while our sword hangs above their heads? This isn't winning wars. This is terrorizing populations. Over the decades we spent in Philippines we pioneered the sort of financial colonialism we codified at Bretton Woods. This has been extensively documented by economist Michael Hudson. After we trick a nation (i.e. pay off whichever corrupt locals we can maneuver into power) into signing up for this program, we oppress working people, extract resources, privatize public assets, and financialize the whole mess. Most of the surplus in the economy is exported to e.g. NYC and London. This is the real explanation for USA capitalism's "century of success". Our system can no more support itself without victimizing other nations than the Roman Empire could have thrived without slavery. As developing nations throw off our yoke (witness the "Россия" t-shirts worn in every nation in Africa), we'll have to organize very differently, or else the American 99% will suffer the same predations from the American 1% that were previously focused overseas. In four thousand years, China has never fought a war on the other side of the world with a nation (or with a ragtag bunch of goat enthusiasts) that could never threaten the territory of China.
toss1 4y ago
>>not one accomplished a military objective that benefited the average American. That, again is ignorance. I agree that no one is talking about "winning wars" in those instances. Because that is most certainly NOT the point. The point is to contain authoritarianism. Yes, it is sometimes done badly and mistakenly. But, overall, it has been somewhat successful. The major authoritarian governments have been somewhat constrained, and we have not seen any foreign power doing on US soil what is happening in Ukraine right this minute. Without those consistent actions throughout the decades, it most likely would be happening, and being able to live without being shelled is a most definite benefit to every average American. Another related item is that it is the US Navy that protects shipping lanes globally (and not the Russian or Chinese navies). This brings massive benefits to world trade, and massively lowers costs and prices for every American. Another benefit, every day, for the average American, and they literally don't even notice, it just 'happens'. You don't want to see what happens if these US actions stop, but you can look to East African waters a decade ago to get a hint. And then remember that that carp stopped when the USN got involved.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  When you call me ignorant, and then do so again, is it projection or a desperate attempt to distract from the movement of goalposts? The way to refute a simple statement like "not one accomplished a military objective that benefited the average American" would be to provide a single example of such an accomplished military objective. Try harder! TFA claims explicitly, in the title, to be about "winning". I observe that the Pentagon doesn't have a recent track record of doing that. ITT that observation has been answered by novel definitions, references to WWII, appeals to sovereignty, and now you have appealed to anti-authoritarianism. Hold on to your history book, because our record in USA doesn't look too good on that either. Here is a short list of authoritarian dictators whom USA supported for years: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Saddam Hussein, Mohammed bin Salman, Ibn Saud and the half-dozen other Saudi "kings", Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Hosni Mubarak, Syngman Rhee, Park Chung-hee, Chun Doo-hwan, Mobutu Sese Seko, Sarit Thanarat, Suharto, Augusto Pinochet, Juan José Estrada, Manuel Noriega, Anastasio Somoza García, Luis Somoza Debayle, Anastasio Somoza Debayle, Carlos Castillo Armas, Fulgencio Batista, Phoumi Nosavan, Hugo Banzer, Jorge Rafael Videla, Hissène Habré, Ferdinand Marcos, etc, etc, etc. As before, I have left out many. Tens of millions of innocent people died due to USA support for these authoritarian dictators, not to mention the hundreds of millions more who lived in fear and penury. There is not a chance in hell that support for any of those awful men contributed in the least to USA not being shelled over any period of history. That has been guaranteed by our two giant oceans and two fairly large vassal neighbors. The more straws you attempt to grasp, the clearer the picture of USA militarism becomes. I stipulate that USA navy defends shipping, except of course in those fairly frequent events in which battleships mistakenly run into shipping vessels while tooling around in the dark.

toss1 4y ago

And, in how many of those places in which actions took place in the modern era (I totally agree with harshest of assessments of the treatment of the Native Americans) did the US, or any other democratic country, ANNEX the place and take it for their own territory? ZERO. Yes, autocratic rulers were deposed, and in some cases, 'democratically elected' rulers who were openly working with autocrats (USSR, CCP). Was any of it done perfectly? No. But fighting authoritarianism, and in some cases using our authoritarian to fight a worse one was done. I don't necessarily agree with it or disagree, in any particular circumstance, and we'd have to review each one case-by-case. But none of the incidents you cite as "whataboutism" changes the facts of the one being discussed. You even correctly pointed out that it was not for the oil. It was to uphold that principle. The same goes for Ukraine. And many of the others. Geopolitics is an ugly game. But without pushing back, hard, on authoritarians, and building a world order based on forbidding violent taking of territory as Russia is doing in Ukraine (completely consistent with its history since the 1400s). There was a lot done badly, but that is no reason to not attempt to do it better. And leaving it to the Putins, Xis, and Uns of the world will damn sure make it worse in a hurry.

krapp 4y ago
>And, in how many of those places in which actions took place in the modern era (I totally agree with harshest of assessments of the treatment of the Native Americans) did the US, or any other democratic country, ANNEX the place and take it for their own territory? Hawaii.
- toss1 4y ago
  Hawaii, annexed in 1898... not exactly modern era. The point is that there was an age of empire, where it was accepted to take territory by force. It was pretty much that way since Alexander, Ghengis Kahn, through all of European history since the middle ages. The point is that the era of empire by violent imperialist conquest is over. While authoritarians want to continue acting like might-is-right empires, the democratic nations of the free world reject that concept The free world understanding that it is unsustainable. The lands of previous empires are largely returned, India, most of Africa, Carribbean, etc. Just because governments since the age of empire still retain continuity and the same name, that does not mean they are the same. England, France, Germany, US, have rejected authoritarianism and empire, while Russia, and China still want to continue it. Treating something that has the same name but is different is a falsehood. (A caveat here is that there are authoritarian movements in all of the democratic countries, in no small part aided and fomented by the authoritarian govts as part of hybrid warfare, so it is possible for them to flip back.)
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    Congratulations on producing yet another specious half-assed defense of USA militarism! Wouldn't it be nice if its record spoke for itself? We still occupy Hawai'i, as well as the entirety of continental USA. We still occupy the eastern third of Syria, as Trump said and Biden hasn't contradicted "to steal their oil". The various nations we occupy in Africa invite similar explanation. We occupied Philippines for decades, as colonial masters, until Japan kicked us out, after which we reoccupied it. As observed above, that wasn't a different thing from the colonization of North America, because it was done in the same racist way by the exact same racist army officers. We maintain military bases all over, every one a direct threat to the host nation should they stray from our political line. For example, how successful can Korean reunification efforts be while our sword hangs above their heads? This isn't winning wars. This is terrorizing populations. Over the decades we spent in Philippines we pioneered the sort of financial colonialism we codified at Bretton Woods. This has been extensively documented by economist Michael Hudson. After we trick a nation (i.e. pay off whichever corrupt locals we can maneuver into power) into signing up for this program, we oppress working people, extract resources, privatize public assets, and financialize the whole mess. Most of the surplus in the economy is exported to e.g. NYC and London. This is the real explanation for USA capitalism's "century of success". Our system can no more support itself without victimizing other nations than the Roman Empire could have thrived without slavery. As developing nations throw off our yoke (witness the "Россия" t-shirts worn in every nation in Africa), we'll have to organize very differently, or else the American 99% will suffer the same predations from the American 1% that were previously focused overseas. In four thousand years, China has never fought a war on the other side of the world with a nation (or with a ragtag bunch of goat enthusiasts) that could never threaten the territory of China.

toss1 4y ago

>>not one accomplished a military objective that benefited the average American. That, again is ignorance. I agree that no one is talking about "winning wars" in those instances. Because that is most certainly NOT the point. The point is to contain authoritarianism. Yes, it is sometimes done badly and mistakenly. But, overall, it has been somewhat successful. The major authoritarian governments have been somewhat constrained, and we have not seen any foreign power doing on US soil what is happening in Ukraine right this minute. Without those consistent actions throughout the decades, it most likely would be happening, and being able to live without being shelled is a most definite benefit to every average American. Another related item is that it is the US Navy that protects shipping lanes globally (and not the Russian or Chinese navies). This brings massive benefits to world trade, and massively lowers costs and prices for every American. Another benefit, every day, for the average American, and they literally don't even notice, it just 'happens'. You don't want to see what happens if these US actions stop, but you can look to East African waters a decade ago to get a hint. And then remember that that carp stopped when the USN got involved.

jessaustin 4y ago
When you call me ignorant, and then do so again, is it projection or a desperate attempt to distract from the movement of goalposts? The way to refute a simple statement like "not one accomplished a military objective that benefited the average American" would be to provide a single example of such an accomplished military objective. Try harder! TFA claims explicitly, in the title, to be about "winning". I observe that the Pentagon doesn't have a recent track record of doing that. ITT that observation has been answered by novel definitions, references to WWII, appeals to sovereignty, and now you have appealed to anti-authoritarianism. Hold on to your history book, because our record in USA doesn't look too good on that either. Here is a short list of authoritarian dictators whom USA supported for years: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Saddam Hussein, Mohammed bin Salman, Ibn Saud and the half-dozen other Saudi "kings", Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Hosni Mubarak, Syngman Rhee, Park Chung-hee, Chun Doo-hwan, Mobutu Sese Seko, Sarit Thanarat, Suharto, Augusto Pinochet, Juan José Estrada, Manuel Noriega, Anastasio Somoza García, Luis Somoza Debayle, Anastasio Somoza Debayle, Carlos Castillo Armas, Fulgencio Batista, Phoumi Nosavan, Hugo Banzer, Jorge Rafael Videla, Hissène Habré, Ferdinand Marcos, etc, etc, etc. As before, I have left out many. Tens of millions of innocent people died due to USA support for these authoritarian dictators, not to mention the hundreds of millions more who lived in fear and penury. There is not a chance in hell that support for any of those awful men contributed in the least to USA not being shelled over any period of history. That has been guaranteed by our two giant oceans and two fairly large vassal neighbors. The more straws you attempt to grasp, the clearer the picture of USA militarism becomes. I stipulate that USA navy defends shipping, except of course in those fairly frequent events in which battleships mistakenly run into shipping vessels while tooling around in the dark.