One man's terrorist is another man's hero. The U.S routinely bombs other sovereign countries and this is show cased as a "hero" activity. If the bombed people retaliate, they are terrorists. The truth is not black/white. Same way U.S data surveillance is OK but same thing done by China is seen as backward regime.
People don't know the half of it, and in my experience, they don't want to know. It's comforting to feel like the good guys. The media is complicit, in that it intentionally leaves out relevant facts that might make us look bad.
For example, take Iran. In 1953, we overthrew their democratically-elected government in favor of the opposition, because their citizens didn't want BP to have control of their oil. We bribed politicians, street thugs, and demonstrators; incited deadly riots; bombed houses; etc. BP actually contributed funds to help out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
Or you've probably never heard of Iran Flight 655, where in 1988 a reckless US cruiser drifted into Iranian waters and shot down an Iranian commercial airplane in Iranian airspace. 290 fatalities, including women and children. 8th deadliest disaster in aviation history, nary a peep in the US media: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655. But they are the reckless terrorists to watch out for.
And it gets worse, much much worse. Look into our activities in South America, especially Guatemala. Our terrorist activities in Cuba. Our "defense" of Vietnam. Our thinly-justified and roundly-condemned embargoes. (Quite common to see UN votes that are 190-1, everyone vs the US. Or the US and Israel.) We've killed hundreds of thousands, millions of people in many cases. Often explicitly for US business interests.
Honestly, I somewhat doubt a thread like this could make it to the top of HN at a time when most Americans aren't sleeping. Americans don't want to read this stuff.
Of course, a few years later when the family of the Captain of the Vincennes was targeted in a failed car bomb attack, we heard a bit about this 'terrorist' activity. I thought it interesting that when Western forces eradicate an entire family of a suspected 'terrorist' via anonymous drone strikes, it is considered merely collateral damage, a byproduct of a dutiful and patriotic thing to do, but when Iranian operatives attempt to retaliate against someone who murdered 290 of its citizens in their own airspace, it is an underhanded terrorist activity.
Summary for those who like me didn't know about the incident. Our guy shot down a passenger flight, murdering 290 human beings, we gave him a medal but we then paid USD$213,000 in blood money per passenger to Iran without ever admitting fault.
" Iran Air Flight 655 was an Iran Air passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai. On 3 July 1988, the aircraft operating on this route was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes under the command of William C. Rogers III. The incident took place in Iranian airspace, over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, and on the flight's usual flight path. The aircraft, an Airbus A300 B2-203, was destroyed by SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles fired from Vincennes. All 290 people on board died
...
As part of the settlement, the United States did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran but agreed to pay on an ex gratia basis US$61.8 million, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims.
...
Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of USS Sides, the warship stationed nearest to Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported to have said that the destruction of the aircraft "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers's aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago".
...
In 1990, Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ... from April 1987 to May 1989.
"
In conclusion when an imperialistic superpower makes a mistake don't expect apologies.
The guy should have been court martialed, but at the very least not given a medal
It wasn't reckless: it was the right call based on the data Vincennes had, which showed that an Iranian fighter was able to kill it.
It was, at the most generous, the right call based on the misinterpretation of that data by the crew.
I can't find conclusive evidence, but I think that's unlikely, given that the planned cruising height was 4300m (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Shootdown_...), and it was shot down about halfway through its flight.
I'm not sure whether using binoculars at 20km distance makes sense, though. There's quite a size difference, but even if it would be easy to spot the difference from that far away having half a minute or so to find the plane using your binoculars would be challenging (it's about a minute of flight for a passenger plane, but if it were military, you would want to hit it before it had a chance to fire a missile, and according to Wikipedia, the Maverick that they feared an Iranian F14 might carry has a range of over 12 nautical miles)
Vincennes believed it was shooting down an attacking Iranian fighter, not a passenger jet. It wasn't murder; it was an accident (due to faulty electronic data). We didn't give the skipper a medal for shooting down the plane; we gave him an end-of-tour award. And I don't know what the big deal with paying weregild is: that's what you do.
Has Russia paid anything to the families of the Malaysian airliner shoot-down?
This was due to gross incompetence/negligence. This was a Ticonderoga class frigate equipped with the (then state of the art) Aegis weapons system [1] - capable of knocking down an Exocet missile out of the sky with a hose of lead.
From the linked article:
"The Aegis system was involved in a disaster in which USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988 resulting in 290 civilian deaths.
It was determined by a formal military investigation[17] that the Aegis system was completely operational and did not have any maintenance problems. The investigation ruled that if the commanding officer had relied on the complete tactical data displayed by the Aegis system the engagement might never have occurred. Additionally, psychological effects of the crew subconsciously manipulating the data to accord with a predefined scenario greatly contributed to the false identification."
Aside from the fact that the captain of the Vincennes was in Iranian waters (without authorisation - and which the US Navy lied about on formal reports), plus the reports of his rising aggression from colleagues working with him, should push this into a military disciplinary matter, along with demotion or discharge.
If you want to compare situations, the Malaysian airliner flew over an active warzone, along the same path as Ukrainian military planes that were targeting the rebels.
Surely you can see the situations aren't quite the same.
'Nary a peep in the US media'? Front page in the New York Times and Washington Post?
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/04/world/downing-flight-655-u...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/flight80...
I'm not sure what a would constitute 'a peep' for you.
That's what a peep looks like.
What do you think would happen if Iran were to shoot down an American commercial flight in US waters/airspace with hundreds of families on board?
Your points are fair, but there's no need to start an argument over misreading what the parent comment what trying to say.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/flight80...
The "Page A01" on the WaPo article is the front page.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuWOCLEuXu4
Which is not to say that such events are prominent in the memory of Americans, but it's just not true that they don't get put on the news. 2 of the biggest papers in the country (and I'm sure many others) and major TV news operations covered the event.
I completely agree with you, and I'm an American. To claim that Americans are the only ones that need to wake up is a bit disingenuous though. Perhaps we need a wakeup call from the outside. The nations that have allied with the US, or benefit from friendly relations with the US are also complicit in what the US is doing. Where's the sanctions on the US? There aren't as many because sadly others benefit from the actions of the US by simply turning a blind eye.
There's also an algorithmic penalty for "too controversial" topics with too many comments, I believe.
The flag link and the upvote button are both legitimate means for HN members to express whether they feel a submission is appropriate for HN.
In the Iranian Air Flight incident, a gung-ho boat captain could not get a positive identification after being fired upon. There was no terroristic intent. Bad judgment, but not to the point where the captain intentionally fired upon a commercial aircraft. As for your comment about media notes, the Wikipedia article has a lot of notes.
The 1940's through 1960's actions of the military were in a period of United States of America's mercantilism that was fighting against a sea of red dominoes that were showing up daily. Does this make it right, one cannot say based on the information available at the time.
The fog of war is not easy and that is why the United States of America from the 80's on is so great, we have actively tried to be a better nation. I want to read about this stuff and see that after the cruiser incident happened, there was an investigation and a new approach put in place.
The USA prospered economically, scientifically and socially all while Western Europe was on its knees. The EU has been, in my eyes at least an attempt at rebalancing of Western Power.
Economic warfare is murder all the same as gun and tank warfare. You cripple a nations ability to contribute to global society.
I encourage you to dive into the details of Mossadegh's overthrow. Did the US and British encourage the coup? Sure. Was there significant opposition to his rule among Iranians? Definitely. I argue he would have been disposed regardless of US or British involvement.
Regardless, my initial point wasn't that the Iranian government under Mossadegh were the "good guys". It's that average American's aren't aware of the kinds of operations our country runs and why we carry them out.
Claiming that if it weren't for the CIA that Mossadegh would have stayed in office and led a gov't with the confidence is the people is stretching it.
Since the internet, hopefully the average person is getting more information, and appreciates the depth of issues and history not to be so black and white on these matters.
With all this protesting about Trump, I was very surprised to hear him admit that America is no better than the "killers" like Putin. Has a president ever admitted to such a thing? He just comes out and says it. I'm surprised that didn't get talked about more.. perhaps it was.
"You think our country is so innocent?... A lot of Killers around believe me".
No, we didn't: the rightful government (the Shah's) overthrew an attempted dictator. Mossadegh lived out the rest of his life in peace, and died in bed.
> Or you've probably never heard of Iran Flight 655, where in 1988 a reckless US cruiser drifted into Iranian waters and shot down an Iranian commercial airplane in Iranian airspace.
No, it wasn't reckless: the electronic data gave Vincennes good reason to believe that it was being attacked by an Iranian fighter.
> Our "defense" of Vietnam.
The 2 million South Vietnamese who fled their country after North Vietnam conquered sure seemed to have appreciated our defence: while we were there, they didn't take to the sea in boats, fleeing for their lives.
Only if you define "rightful" as the government that the UK and US decided was favorable to them, and not the one supported consistently by the Iranian people via elections. I don't see how you can argue this point — both the US and UK have outright admitted to their actions (fomenting and supporting the coup) and to their reasons for doing so (oil). And Mossadegh was sentenced to execution, but his life was personally spared by the Shah.
> No, it wasn't reckless: the electronic data gave Vincennes good reason to believe that it was being attacked by an Iranian fighter.
"Three years after the incident, Admiral William J. Crowe admitted on American television show Nightline that Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles." Is this not reckless?
"Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of USS Sides, the warship stationed nearest to Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported to have said that the destruction of the aircraft 'marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers's aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago'." Reckless according to his own colleague.
"Throughout its final flight, IR655 was in radio contact with various air traffic control services using standard civil aviation frequencies, and had spoken in English to Bandar Abbas Approach Control seconds before Vincennes launched its missiles. According to the U.S. Navy investigation Vincennes at that time had no equipment suitable for monitoring civil aviation frequencies, other than the International Air Distress frequency."
Obviously the Vincennes didn't commit a brazen attack for no reason at all. They had some reason to believe they might be attacked. But sailing into another country's waters and airspace with no ability to differentiate between fighter and commercial jet is reckless, and furthermore it was done by a captain with a history of reckless behavior.
> The 2 million South Vietnamese who fled their country after North Vietnam conquered sure seemed to have appreciated our defense: while we were there, they didn't take to the sea in boats, fleeing for their lives.
They were forced to fight a war they didn't support for decades, under a brutal and unpopular autocratic leader, Diem. He forced his pro-Christian and anti-Communist sentiments on his people and oppressed those who disagreed until he was eventually assassinated. Meanwhile the US devastated the country and drove the North into a fight-or-flight state of desperation. Of course the people of the South didn't want to stick around to face their vengeance.
The world isn't black and white, indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103_conspiracy_t...
Prevention is better than the cure. Same with Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 shot down over eastern Ukraine in 2014. Very bad, Russia probably to blame, 298 fatalities. If only some common sense were applied prior to planning a flight route over a known conflict zone, the lives would have been spared.
Civil aviation is not exempt from negligence in these matters. In the case of the Malaysian Airlines flight, 16 military aircraft had been shot down in eastern Ukraine in the weeks prior to the commercial flight. In the report, Ukraine was also criticized for not closing its airspace to commercial traffic. Another hard lesson learned.
And most people only think of Vietnam itself regarding that conflict, yet Cambodia and Laos were absolutely decimated too. The US dropped more tons of bombs on Laos and Cambodia individually than the combined amount dropped by the allied forces in WWII. There are still 80 million unexploded bombs in the Laos countryside. Landmines sold by the US and China to the Lon Nol government and the Khmer Rouge respectively were up until recently killing 1000+ Cambodians a year. If you've seen these places and met the people there, it's hard to imagine.
In my mind that displays there is little remorse for past actions.
(From CmdrFred's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12187512#12190918)
I just wonder how much deaths did it cost them to get the knowledge and proficiency in clearing those mines.
I.e. you don't make it to week 2 of your job if you are clumsy
And to think there are so many of them buried around. It's just heart-breaking.
'The song is an attack on a stereotypical, moralizing, privileged American college student. '
Americans are finally waking up and realizing we need to do something to protect justice, or we'll be next.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out...
We're well past the time to speak out. The time to speak out is now. It's not against Trump. It's not against Clinton. Nor Obama. It's against all of them. It's against a broken system.
Keep in mind that 1953 was over 60 years ago. To keep on blaming US for acts committed that long ago and apply to today...well, it's ridiculous.
In addition, we simply don't acknowledge what we've done. Our media won't report on it. I would like to see an end to this mass propaganda and willful ignorance.
Finally, keep in mind that we only know what comes out during congressional hearings, via FOIA requests, and via heavily-redacted releases of classified documents. In other words, we only know the tip of the iceberg. This is not an accident. The US government makes heavy use of classification, often more to keep the public in the dark than to protect sensitive info from foreign enemies. Given these tactics, you can't fault citizens for relying on what information they have access to. And of course, there's no reason to assume that everything has magically changed and we are now angels.
This is spot on, and the biggest difference between America and other countries which commit atrocities. America is allowed to forget. And it's not a trivial or minor difference at all.
Americans barely even really reckon with slavery. Compare to Germans with Nazism. Where's the slavery Auschwitz? There are minor museums here and there but it's completely incomparable.
This is a completely subjective statement. The US has slavery museums in its Washington DC, and it's a topic that is never far from public conscientiousness.
Compare that to Brazil, who's slave trade dwarfed that of North American, no formal recognition or ongoing efforts.
Or Russia slowly and methodologically erasing the crimes of the Soviet union (and Stalin particularly) from public view.
Or China reintroducing Mao as a folk hero, a mass murderer on par with Stalin.
These are real omissions and cover ups. The US could be better, absolutely. But compared to others, it at least tries to reconcile their past with modern society.
Then you go on to compare the USA to China, Russia, and Brazil. High standards.
Lastly, there's a lot to be said for 1984-style repression like in those three, and Brave New World-style repression like in America.
Even comedians have nice bits about how a lot of Americans can't even really place slavery well in a timeline, it's something that happened aeons ago and descendants should "stop complaining". The majority of americans treat the idea of slavery reparations like a joke.
America doesn't really try. It makes a good show of trying, though.
I am comparing one country to another, one that does better than the rest. You know, how any comparison is made in any discipline. You can't just hold up an imaginary standard that no country fulfills to make your point that X country could be better.
Some people live in the real world.
I can't tell if you're joking. My post was literally about Germany, Nazism, and Auschwitz.
> Some people live in the real world.
The classic riposte of someone who prefers rationalizing to themselves why they are at an optimum than trying to do better. Nice try, Dr. Pangloss.
The reality is that every nation, every ethnicity, and every culture has been build upon a hill of skulls. As these things go, the USA has been less vicious than most.
The USA is, on the whole, an extremely, extremely unrepentant country. Your average american will admit to a good number of crimes, but immediately contextualize so as to not really feel guilt about it. "Why should I pay for the crimes of my ancestors" type stuff, a disconnect from te past.
This is why talk of e.g: reparations is incredibly, incredibly controversial.
The whole thing is like an original-sin (inherited, as from Adam and Eve) version of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism#Communism
Groups that fail to build a large enough hill of skulls end up being part of a hill of skulls. There is no shame in being on the winning team, but there is plenty of shame if you undermine the success of your team and thus snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Also, Iran was one example, the list of U.S. aggressions against sovereign nations without U.N. mandate goes on up to very recent times (Syria).
By all rights, there should be a UN mandate to fight IS in Syria. There should have been a UN mandate to fight the Assad regime, for that matter. Not intervening did not lead to less destabilization, just to more war crimes by the original regime.
You may not like the UN, you may not think it fulfills the mandate that the General Audience gives it (it doesn't). But it keeps the Security Council from nuking each other.
And in this case - that's the design criteria. No nuclear wars, not ever. Nothing more, nothing less.
This is in no way a moral judgement on either Russia or the US's activities in the Syrian-Iraq-Saudi-Iran quadrangle. Or any of the other players involved.
Russia, maybe. The invasion of Crimea may have been profitable, if it weren't for the sanctions. Which is one of the best arguments in favor of these sanctions.
It shouldn't be forgotten until there's some kind of admittance of wrongdoing and resolve to prevent it. Such as by supporting strong impartial international rule of law. Which would actually help the US when dealing with Russian destabilisation efforts - at the moment they can just argue "you say it's legitimate when you do it".
Yes it was a long time ago when nearly every adult alive at the time is dead now.
We have plenty of evidence to see what the US would do. When they defeated Germany & Japan at the end of WWII did they enslave their people? Use their nuclear advantage to conquer new lands and colonize them? No, they rebuilt their economies and tried to ensure that they had stable governments & trading partners.
What do you think ISIS would do with exclusive use of nuclear weapons? How about Iraq under Saddam etc? Do you think Hamas would be equally deterred by Israelis using their children as human shields as Israelis are by Hamas using theirs for that purpose?
Of course good & evil isn't black and white, the western world does a lot of bad stuff. But it's just as brainwashed to think that just because all sides cause some civilian casualties to think that everyone's morally equal, as it is to think that the US is some altruistic knight in shining armor that can do no wrong.
But saying that the US has not used its military strength for its own benefit and at the expense of the people of other countries is ridiculous.
The US staged a coup in Guatemala at the behest of the United Fruit Company, when the democratically elected Prime Minister of Guatemala wanted to end UFCs exploitative labor practices. This ultimately led to the US backed genocide of the Mayas in Guatemala.
The US supported the Contras in Nicaragua and blatantly violated the sovereignty of the nation for its own interests, and was found to be violating international law. The ICJ demanded reparations for the human rights violations Nicaragua, which the US refused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'%C3%A9t...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#U.S...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#U.S...
Of course the comparison is ridiculous. That's my whole point.
But this is the comparison the grandparent I'm replying to is making. I.e. that the U.S. bombs some countries while being concerned about civilian casualties, and terrorists respond with something like the 9/11 attacks where they're explicitly trying to inflict civilian casualties, and somehow this should make it less clear who the good & evil actors are, as opposed to more clear.
> But saying that the US has not used its military strength for its own benefit and at the expense of the people of other countries is ridiculous.
I'm struggling to see how you can read my comment and conclude that I'm trying to make that point, but needless to say, you're fighting a strawman.
Or, of course, simply not fighting the war at all. But it doesn't seem like that option is available.
Drone strike target to civilian ratio is over 90%. The reason, and the only reason that the US went to drones is to reduce the cost of operations, with the additional benefit of reducing danger to US personnel. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone...
If you want to talk about carpet bombing, look at what was done in the "Secret War" against approximately 5000 communist guerillas in Laos
http://i.imgur.com/wxYiyO0.gifv
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laotian_Civil_War
> US. aircraft dropped more ordnance on Laos than on all countries during World War II, leaving Laos with about 78 million pieces of UXO by the end of the war.[96]
> UXO remains dangerous to persons coming in contact, purposefully or accidentally, with bombs. Casualties in Laos from UXO are estimated at 12,000 since 1973. Thirty-three years after the last bomb was dropped and after decades of UXO clearance programs, 59 people were known to have been killed or injured by UXO in 2006.[97] So abundant are the remnants of bombs on the Plain of Jars that the collection and sale of scrap metal from bombs has been a major industry since the Civil War.[98] About 300 Laotians are killed or injured per year by UXO
lesser evil ain't no good in any book out there. we can and should strive for better
Saying we have no regard for anyone but US citizens is just plain disengenous. Saying we have less regard for the people of the world not allied with us then we do for ourselves and our allies is true. Who doesn't?
This is a zero-sum mentality in a sense. There are deals that benefit both sides, so there is no sense in selfish/altruistic dichotomy. One can be both "selfish" and "good" by pursuing positive-sum deals.
On the other hand, it's sort of a disingenuous thought experiment, because everyone is already in 100% agreement that Nazi Germany, ISIS, Saddam, etc are morally awful. However we've been brainwashed into thinking that we're saints. So which perception is it that needs correcting?
(I also think it's not that great to cartoonishly portray Nazi Germany / ISIS / Saddam as one dimensional stock evil cartoon characters; this is also a sort of "brainwashing" from my perspective. Yes, these cultures also have done some awful, awful things, however I feel it is important not to erase the human impulse and circumstances that caused these to develop.)
From a general audience perspective, I'm personally pretty cynical on addressing this though. In theory, it would be nice to see an end to "mass propaganda and willful ignorance". In practice, I honestly can't think of a country in which no propaganda occurs, and there is no such thing as state secrets. The United States may have done some awful things over the last 70 years, but so have other less powerful countries. Were the situation different, and another country dominant instead of the US... well, I personally would expect very similar results. I can't think of any nation / community / tribe that doesn't do some sort of bending and filtering of worldview.
So from my perspective this really isn't a nation problem, this is a core human issue: tribalism. Resolving the issues that come up with tribalism would be great. However, given that it's such a core behavior of humanity, I think this is going to be terribly difficult, perhaps impossible, to do.
It would be nice if I was wrong...
Tribalism and propaganda are closely related, in that the former contributes to the latter. However, the same is likely true of slavery and racism, the oppression of women, discrimination against gays, etc. You can limit all of these things without ending tribalism. At least I hope so, because tribalism is baked into human nature itself.
So for example with propaganda, we can start by improving our history books and classes. And we've seen some of that over time. The way they taught kids about slavery in the 1920s, for example, was borderline criminal.
The record of history is pretty clear that world powers can and have acted within a broad latitude of barbarity towards weaker nations, mostly on the 'barbaric' end of the spectrum.
The record of history is also pretty clear that the US is the most docile and harmless of world powers that has ever existed. There's a reason we call it the Pax Americana--the 'overwhelming power' of the US has contributed to the peace, freedom and wealth of billions of people around the globe who aren't American. Let's compare that record with a random 'world superpower' selection:
- Ancient Rome (constant war on the frontiers, relentless expansionism and imperialism)
- Umayyad Caliphate (forced conversion by the sword, constant aggression towards neighbors)
- Genghis Khan (mass murdering, raping, genocidal maniac)
- the British Empire (slave trade, colonial domination)
- The Soviet Union (worldwide support and funding of mass murderer by proxy)
There has to be some perspective when talking about the US's role as the world police. There will always be a world superpower, and that superpower has the power to exercise restraint and civility when dealing with other nations. On that front 20th to 21st century America has taken an active role in:
- Stabilizing world order through active involvement in mediating inter-national conflicts (League of Nations, then the United Nations)
- Promoting globalization, free trade and free flow of capital and people amongst the nations of the world, including rival powers like Russia and China
- Protecting NATO allies from the specter of the Soviet Union (for decades a very real threat to international peace, prosperity & stability)
- Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons which have apocalyptic potential to end life as we know it
Now, it's hard to see how our (many admittedly unjustified) interventions in various regimes and countries throughout history outweighs the remarkable achievements of the Pax Americana. It would be hard to find another world superpower in history that comes anywhere close to the US in terms of stable, safe, prosperous and peaceful world governance.
The nuclear arms race was also hardly one sided, and Kennedy in particular has a terrible record when it came to the imminent nuclear destruction of the world. The Cuban missile crisis was sparked of by NATO and US troop movements in Turkey and Eastern Europe.
The United Nations in particular was deliberately crippled by the US. There are quotes from officials under Nixon and Ford who said they were deliberately instructed to sabotage UN proceedings relating to the Pakistani genocide in Bangladesh. There are also numerous such instances where the US has dramatically opposed international consensus and blocked the functioning of international agencies relating to Israel/Palestine, Rwanda, Cuba, Indonesia/East Timor and Nicaragua.
To be fair to Kennedy - I think he pretty much prevented a war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. A weaker president might have gone with the recommendations to invade Cuba and that would probably have turned out rather badly for all concerned (particularly the Cubans and Soviets).
So if the "Pax Americana" is failing, what comes next? How can we do better as a species this time?
I believe that it is inappropriate to apply a moral dimension to the behavior of nation-states. In conflicts, the logic of violence is weighed between costs and benefits. When your adversary is an enemy of God, a spawn of Satan or some other type of evil, there is no moral good, no benefit in showing them mercy, it is in fact weakness and a moral failing not to expunge such evil. When you think of yourself as the "good guys", the other side is necessarily evil. Evil must be vanquished.
That's my main argument against having a "good vs evil" worldview. It becomes easier to justify horrific actions directed at evil-doers. It's a binary, and, frankly, very naive and ignorant way of thinking about the world. Even in the canonical conflict of good vs evil in the 20th century, WWII, there were heroes on both sides, "good" and honorable men such as Erwin Rommel.
One should always be wary of any group that explicitly refers to itself as the good guys. That should not need to be stated. Usually when someone says that, they're doing some heinous shit and are saying it to convince themselves that their actions are a means to an end for the "greater good"
Let's be honest, this is tribalism, a matter of where in time and space you happened to be born. You are a westerner. Your side, where you are born, is the side that is the force for good. Try this thought experiment: imagine you were born in the ungoverned area of Pakistan, and, while attending a wedding, a faceless drone drops a bomb on the reception. Are you going to blame uncle Nazir, who came out of hiding to attend? Maybe he bears responsibility, but most bystanders will blame the perpetrator of the bombing. If one happened to be around a CIA station director when a suicide bomber detonated, I doubt many people are going to blame him or the United States for that.
Except we completely stiffed Russia, who without which we wouldn't have won WWII, at least not so easily.
And then since things were peaceful we decided to make the USSR the enemy for then next 40 years, via the threat of "communism" spreading. And that led to Vietnam, Korea, etc., and all the military action in virtually every country of Central/South America.
No one is claiming we're all morally equal.
“stiffed” would imply we didn’t pay a debt we had previously agreed upon. Obviously that is not the case. As to why the Soviet Union or eastern Europe was not part of the Marshall Plan:
>...Although offered participation, the Soviet Union refused Plan benefits, and also blocked benefits to Eastern Bloc countries, such as East Germany and Poland. The United States provided similar aid programs in Asia, but they were not called "Marshall Plan".
You're forgetting Stalin colluded with Hitler to split up Eastern Europe. That included murdering thousands of Polish officers who were a threat to Soviet rule. The only reason why Russia was fighting the Hitler was because he was double crossed.
Russia's threat to European democracy was clearly evident even before WW2 started.
Yes, but Khrushchev was in power for the majority of time right after the war and was like a total 180 from Stalin, who seemed to honestly want to improve relations.
But I suppose this is all hindsight.
This 9 min. excerpt on propaganda terms in the Media is especially appropriate.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vmoXze-Higc
*I don't mean some objective truth out there but a viewpoint which is rooted in his very well informed worldview and his obvious commitment to integrity.
Regarding media, I think this one is by far the best compilation of Chomsky excerpts, and I highly recommend watching it all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPp69gKVe9o
The inevitable day of his death will be a huge loss to the world.
That's not to say there are no complexities to whether or not a Pax Americana is better than the alternative (based on previous U.S. govts.), or that all governments records are equivalent when it comes to propaganda or human rights (for their own citizens). But no other country sees the U.S. unequivocally as "the good guys". A few see it as "the less-bad guys", but plenty of countries in Latin America saw the U.S.S.R. as "the less-bad guys" by comparison too.
well you would have to be a complete ignorant to last 60 years of history and present to consider US the good guys. Economically strong police state with more innocent blood on their hands for last 20 years than any other state in this world. Axis of evil my ass
Again, not saying that making attempts to legally commit and then follow through with principles on the part of nations is a bad thing. I am a constructivist, I think nations can "improve morally". But is more a matter of which nation has the best institutions to curb their own (or each other's) abuses in practice, rather than anyone being "the good guys".
But now I almost appreciate it.
He seems to speak in broad generalities, rather than getting down into the details. I've reached a point where I need to hear the down and gritty rather than airy statements.
Other than that, this ones seems to go into details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68wFDvTBHys
As did Norman Finkelstein in his own showdown with Dershowitz.
It is entirely within the realm of likely possibilities that our national elections are a complete farce: https://i.imgjar.co/jar/jz_ITKGNR0StdBBIoT8dyw.gif
Part of becoming an adult is realizing how terribly awful people can be. But part of that is also realizing that there are many good people out there. I hope the good people take back control, somehow.
Most ballots are not cast by direct electronic voting: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/08/on-election-...
US presidential elections are "fundamentally local," meaning that an overwhelming number of officials would have to be corrupted to rig them: https://www.wired.com/2016/10/wireds-totally-legit-guide-rig...
Electronic voting has its problems, but it is not plausible to suggest that the national elections are a complete farce.
I'll freely acknowledge his flaws but by Gods it felt good to see someone acknowledge the tricks of perspective we use to justify our actions whilst condemning others.
He was shrugging off the use of murder as a political tool.
America may be in a bad place right now, and we've done a lot of awful things in other people's countries. But unlike Russia, we are not at a point where our leaders simply "disappear" domestic political opponents and journalists. Things can get a lot worse.
Trump was expressing admiration for Putin. The reporter incredulously reminded him that Putin has personally had his opponents killed (Litvenenko, etc).
Trump basically said "whatever, nbd, we do bad stuff too".
I predict ugly surprises.
How is that point leftish in any way? The left are not defined by the idea that there is a moral good and a moral bad, and they want the moral good. Left good Right bad is one of the most infuriating assertions to see casually chucked into a sentence.
You're right, of course, that he wasn't trying to suggest that America should pay for it's sins or change it's attitude/foreign policy. I happily acknowledge that you think it's worse to murder high profile people in your own country compared to, say, exploding nobodies in a foreign one. I'll at least argue that the president being honest about them both being murder is pretty refreshing
i didnt say that.
it just happens that in American politics, admitting that our foreign policy has been amoral is something done almost exclusively by the left.
writers like noam chomsky, glenn greenwald, jeremy scahill. politicians like tulsi gabbard. etc.
that's why i called it a "leftish point"
politicians on the right, even when they favor less foreign intervention, tend to justify it in terms of cost savings, constitutional limits, and smaller government. rand paul, for example.
Nice how you snuck "domestic" in there, as if that makes it so much better.
Morality doesn't exist along the left-right spectrum. Also, this is simply your perception.
> But unlike Russia, we are not at a point where our leaders simply "disappear" domestic political opponents and journalists.
No, they magically commit suicide, get killed in a car crash, or get murdered in a botched robbery.
In the west, name one.
Of course, we know the US government lies about a lot, that's how we know about CIA actions to overthrow governments, the Iran-Contra affair, etc... We know the US government engages in assassinations abroad, whether it's a covert action or via drone.
To think that none of the politicians who are killed in plane crashes, gym accidents, car accidents or have heart attacks were expedited along is naïve.
lol you are a excellent troll. "My unverifiable claims are just as true as yours are." No, there is a Russian opposition leader in a coma right now and you can't point to a single western journalist or politician suffering the same fate.
> We know the US government engages in assassinations abroad, whether it's a covert action or via drone.
Whataboutism, changing the subject, etc. I hope you are entertaining yourself b/c there is no other value to this thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Congress...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/10/prominent-politicians-k...
> No, there is a Russian opposition leader in a coma right now
Which one? I mean, they call Navalny an opposition 'leader' even though he's never led a political party or held office, so odds are it's some random protester or blogger.
The problem is that the democratic deficiencies and atrocities committed by the US are not really comparable to the democratic deficiencies of countries like Russia or China. They are based on entirely different history, motives and mindsets, and there is a fairly huge qualitative difference between them. The people who relativize them tend to play right into the hands of various propaganda machines and usually also commit a tu quoque fallacy.
To give an example, while many bad things about Trump can be said, it seems unlikely (at least, I hope so) that he's planning to poison political dissidents, while it's almost certain that Putin ordered exactly that. Interpol and Scotland Yard would still like to have a word with someone who is now sitting in the Duma.
Unless you think that Trump plans to poison someone or hire thugs from the underworld to assassinate reporters, there is no trick of perspective involved.
The problem is that pointing out other people's or countries' wrongdoings relativizes both and detracts from your own wrongdoings in public perception, while both remain as wrong as before from a moral point of view. It's never legitimate to reply to critique by pointing to someone else's flaws.
Yes "we" are. The west doesn't murder people for their politics or their opposition to people in power. This false equivalency only empowers aspirating dictators to act worse.
Takes a thief to catch one and all that. Problem is, what happens when the thief caught the other thieves? :-/
There's a lot of nuance here, because there isn't really a (current) clear-cut case of the US bombing a sovereign nation where the government has not given the US permission. Of the current active campaigns:
- Afghanistan
- Iraq
- Pakistan
Each of these countries has a functioning government, even mostly democratically elected, and all US military involvement is with the permission of the host -- if Pakistan told the US to stop using their airbases, it would happen.
- Syria
There's less explicit permission here, but the US is bombing a current enemy of the Syrian federal government, so there's no real complaining.
- Somalia
- Yemen
- Libya
It's completely ambiguous which government you consider to be the sovereign one (arguably, there really isn't one). Either way, at least the publicly backed government is OK with US airstrikes.
The government of Iraq did, in fact, say "no" to the presence of US troops, which is why they all left: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from...
The much smaller recent bolstering of US troops in Iraq was also by invitation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_I...
Whether or not it would be a great idea for Afghanistan to tell all UN troops to book it is a different question. But at the end of the day, they have not asked that.
So, you destroy the security apparatus, leave almost a million weapons trained without an income for their families and sack most competent civil administrators.
This was basically telling the Shia majority to get even with the Sunnis. 15 years later, the resentment is cemented and Isil is using it to their advantage.
Yes, technically a democracy but large parts of the populace cannot vote because they're under Sharia rule.
Thanks, Paul.
Not by any means. The US vetoed all candidates they didn't like. That's as un-democratic as it gets.
That may be true, but having the permission of these governments to launch bombardments shouldn't be a moral argument.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/world/middleeast/yemen-sp...
Looking farther back you find Iraq and Afghanistan on the list with similar disclaimers. In any case, neither was a "lob a few missiles from the stratosphere and peace out" strikes the parent comment implies.
Let me know if I'm forgetting something.
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/deadly-drone-strike-on-mu...
FWIW the Philippine military denies that it happened -- http://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/07/09/12/philippine-military-.... Which is at odds with objecting to it.
Or the government would be replaced by more sympathetic one.
- Iraq
- Pakistan
How is this different from when the USSR bombed Afghanistan with the permission of Afghani government which the Soviets installed?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/president-al-assad-to-belgian-m...
[I'm not endorsing this website in any way. It just was the first in the google that had a transcript of the interview.]
We also had forced demonstration of support for the government. Had to go into parades, etc.
The question is if you would be willing to go there now and publicly propose that Assad should not be a president, without fear of being thrown into prison?
Also what do you think of experiences of people who were tortured and killed by his subordinates for expressing dissent on facebook, or twitter, or in demonstrations?
Key words
>The question is if you would be willing to go there now and publicly propose that Assad should not be a president, without fear of being thrown into prison?
Not right now, they are in a state of civil war, I'd wait until it's over and things settle down.
[0] www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/middleeast/syria-executions-amnesty-international-report/
Oh right. So what's with all those people who want him to stop being in charge so much that there's been a civil war raging for years? How popular can he be if so many people are willing to risk their lives to move him out of power? To have a civil war, he's surely got to be massively unpopular with a large segment of society.
Also, some of the factions seem to be heavily influenced / supported by foreign powers [2]
Taken together, every war is somewhere on a scale between "civil war" and "ordinary war" and just calling it a "civil war" doesn't mean it's necessarily one.
Of course, since war is unpopular, all interventionist democracies would like you to believe that it's a civil war and they're not meddling at all.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012%E2%80%9...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria#War.2C...
but, we speak about Switzerland. don't forget many in middle east conflicts are mercenaries or volunteers from all over the world
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/07/saydna...
Why is the US empire (and the US oligarchy) so thirsty for war that it is willing (one could even argue: eager) to sacrifice lives, physical and psychical health of its people (soldiers)? Why is it not putting trillions into infrastructure, health, education instead of spending them to wage wars with nations which have not even thought to attack the US, let alone have done it? (And most of which don't have the resources to do it!)
Well, yes, it is about oil:
Syria: Another Pipeline War http://www.ecowatch.com/syria-another-pipeline-war-188218053...
But the issue is much deeper. So deep indeed, that I'll (again!) quote a man who knew what he talked about, George F. Kennan: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy." (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan)
So, it is not only the oil (or any other resource to be taken from others). And is is not only about money to be made from bombs (and private contractors who fight, spy, prepare meals for soldiers, wash their uniforms, repair their trucks, build military installations etc.).
It is the US economy at stake.
And that's why you need the POTUS, the Senate, the Congress, intelligence agencies, millitary-intelligence-indutrial complex, the media - to all pull on the same string. And to "invent" enemies: Russia, China, Vietnam, Serbia, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Syria... or "the Muslims".
But the truth is hidden by the fourth estate from the US citizen with slogans such as "we bring democracy, human rights and freedom to the world", or with self-aggrandizing "American exceptionalism" (cringe!).
This article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. deserves some criticism. Kennedy claims that there are 'abundant facts' to support the claim that 'the present crisis [is] just another proxy war over pipelines and geopolitics.' On any view, the conflict involves 'geopolitics,' but Kennedy claims that the Obama administration lied about its humanitarian justification for intervention in Syria,[1] and really intended to advance US economic interests in the construction of the Qatar-Turkey pipeline.[2]
The 'pipeline war' thesis is not credible.[3] Syria, a Russian ally, may have blocked the Qatar-Turkey pipeline to advance Russia's interests as a supplier of natural gas (but see [3] for a critical view), and the US and its allies in Syria (France, UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Australia, Jordan) are undoubtedly concerned with matters other than the humanitarian considerations cited in Obama's appeal to Congress, but Kennedy fails to engage with any alternative explanation for the conflict and distorts the facts to support his argument.
For example, he claims that the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria in 2009, 'soon after Bashar Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline,' but the source he cites[4] states that US funding of opposition groups began in 2005. Kennedy uncritically repeats claims that the 2011 civil uprising[5] was 'at least in part, orchestrated by the CIA,' but the source he cites is derived from a report from Al-Manar, an anti-Semitic media group affiliated with Hezbollah, which has been designated as a terrorist entity by the US and banned by several other Western democracies.[6]
What Kennedy doesn't mention is the Obama administration's explicit justification[1] for intervention in Syria: the regime's long record of human rights violations ('arbitrary arrests, systematic torture, prolonged detention of suspects, and grossly unfair trials')[7], culminating in the 2013 Ghouta chemical attack, a response to the civil uprising which killed over 1,000 civilians.[8]
There is plenty of room for intelligent debate about whether the US should have intervened in Syria.[9] The debate continues, including in the mainstream media[10] – but Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., an anti-vaxxer with a history of misinformation,[11] isn't a constructive contributor. Dismissing the conflict in Syria as an oil war is dangerous and reductive thinking.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/31/barack-obama-s...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline
[3] http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2016/09/23/war-assad-regi...
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-secretly-backed-syri...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Sy...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Manar
[7] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2005/country-chapters/syria
[8] http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2013/08/syria-s-w...
[9] https://www.lawfareblog.com/syria-obamas-fault
[10] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/opinion/dont-intervene-in...
[11] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-robert-f-kenn...
Hardly, to be honest. Most folks dont care about surveillance at all, and ask for more state powers.
If only there were a way we could inform Americans that they aren't actually doomed.
That "another man" is brainwashed too. Everyone's brainwashed by their local media and not just that, but we all are deeply biased because, at a personal level, we all look at our own interests first. Countries do the same. And since the planet is only this big, those interests quickly come in conflict with other side's plans and then countries do nasty things justifying them with "national interests". That's just how the world works...
Maybe the world needs to change then :)
Edited: typos.