RSSHiroshima
Aug 07
As reminded today by Danny Schechter’s daily mail (from MediaChannel) today is the anniversary of the US dropping the first atomic bomb on Japan.
Interesing quote from Danny’s email:
WAS ITS USE NECESSARY?
The debate over the necessity of using the bomb continues. Many historians say it was aimed more at the Russians in asserting post war supremacy. Many in the US military thought it should not have been used—including leaders like General and then President Eisenhower who said way after the fact “…the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” (Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63).
Admiral William Leahy: “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
“The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”
So, whether you agree with it or not, let’s all remember the first country to use a WMD.
Speaking of Nuclear Weapons, it always has suprised me how the nuclear-armed countries have tried to enforce a treaty saying all other countries should not produce such weapons. Seems kind of hypocritical, no? I’m not saying I want to see more nuclear weapons in the world – far from it. However, I’m totally not suprised that other countries are giving the “screw-you” attitude to the nuclear-club, and trying to get their own. By definition, creating an “elite” group of countries creates a circle of power. Other countries are obviously going to want to get into that circle.
To those people who might say “Are you saying you’d want to see Kim Jong-Il with nukes?” Of course not, but that thought doesn’t scare me more than that of W. Bush with nukes. I’d bet Bush is already responsible for more deaths than Kim Jong-Il, and that’s only in four years. And then of couse someone will say “Kim Jong-Il is totally unstable.” That may be true, but I haven’t seen him invade any countries lately and kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians. The argument gets very simple once you rid yourself of the delusional notion that the US is on some sort of moral high-ground.
Also keep in mind, that while Bush is supposedly trying to stop nuclear proliferation (except by Pakistan… Oh wait, was I not supposed to mention that?) he has also stepped up efforts to start building more nuclear weapons here http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/11/MN16775.DTL
Aug 08, 2004 @ 04:26:32
By most accounts, Kim Jong-Il is responsible for anywhere between two and three million deaths (by starvation) in North Korea. Even the most wildly exaggerated claims of innocent civilians killed by U.S. forces worldwide since January 20, 2001 are orders of magnitude below those staggering statistics.
Aug 08, 2004 @ 05:14:53
I think death in war is devastating. I think murder is abominable. I would love to live in a world where peace reigned supreme and wars were a tragic memory spoken of in history books and lectures on ancient civilizations. Unfortunately at this moment in time, we are engaged in a war, sanctioned or not, and my country, the United States, has interceded into a situation where people are losing their lives, both innocent and guilty.
The debate on both sides runs rampant and I find myself struggling to find where my piece of the puzzle fits….no I don’t agree with the invasion and no I don’t agree with the loss of life. I have a dear friend who is in the army and flies missions into Iraq — to think that he could be killed any day is a sobering thought. And for what? For us intervening somewhere else? In a sense, I think “why the hell are we over there? Let them deal with their own problems. After all, Saddam has been murdering the Iraqi citizens for decades. Let them get rid of him. Why exchange the lives of people I know and love for saving some country halfway across the world from a tyrant?”
I’ll say this. In 1994, a tiny country in Africa called Rwanda suffered one of the most devastating instances of genocide in the history of a single nation. There are two tribes in Rwanda, the Hutus and the Tutsis. Prior to 1959 the Tutsis were in power but after independence from western Europeans (who have done their share of slaughter and conquering over the centuries) the Hutus came to power.
Now radio came to Rwanda in the early nineties. This poverty stricken country was fascinated by radio and soon everyone had a radio but most were illiterate so many took the radio for fact. Three men owned the Rwandan radio stations and over the course of a few months anti-Tutsi propaganda was broadcast, starting with racial slurs and escalating to full scale lies. The DJ’s said that Tutsis were trying to take over, that they were trying to kill Hutus, that they were disguising themselves as peasants in order to form a coup against the Hutus and the radio encouraged the Hutus to take up their machetes and slaughter the Tutsis.
Over the course of 3 months almost a million people were slaughtered. Belgium and France who had troops in Rwanda pulled out and fled rather than help alleviate the potentially disasterous situation. The UN turned its back and our President at the time, Bill Clinton, ignored the situation as OJ Simpson carried the headlines in the United States. Canada, England, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Italy — the list goes on and on ignored these horrendous acts of genocide. No one intervened. The two tribes were subsequently caught in a tragic civil war and ten percent of the country was hacked up by machetes.
Should we have intervened? Could we have prevented even half of those deaths? Or was it better to allow them to just solve the situation on their own believing what three malicious men spouted on the radio. Belgium apologized and finally four years after the damage was done, so did Bill Clinton. (No word on France) He said we should have gone in. I don’t know…do I want my military, the one to which I pay tax dollars helping countries that are clearly unable to help themselves?
I’m proud of my country…proud to be here…proud of who I am and where I live. We don’t always get it right. We screw up a lot. But I’m sick of being damned if I do damned if I don’t. We either go in or we don’t. Human life is priceless, but where and when do we decide which ones to help and which ones to ignore? And if we take a stand on ridding countries of dictators and intervening…where were we when Rwanda needed us most? And why didn’t Bill Clinton send our troops over there?
So which is it world? Do you want our help or not? Because frankly, it would be easier if I knew my friends weren’t flying into a death trap. But we are told to whom much is given, much is expected. And I expect that maybe getting rid of Sadaam was a good thing — but I don’t know at whose expense, our men and women coming back in body bags? Or the Iraqis who aren’t being senselessy slaughtered anymore by a dictator who enjoyed the sport of watching people be tortured.
Aug 08, 2004 @ 07:03:24
Steve,
Can you provide some links to the evidence that Kim Jong-Il has killed millions from starvation? I’m not trying to dispute it, but would like to see the evidence.
Your argument about letting your own citizens die from starvation is not entirely sound, though. I could argue that the North American governments let hundreds of thousands die every year from use of tobacco. You’d argue that North Korea is spending money on it’s military at the expense of feeding some of it’s population. But what about the North American governments military spending, at the expense of education on tobacco? I realizze this isn’t as strong an argument as starvation, but it’s still valid.
Aug 08, 2004 @ 07:25:08
Sarah,
I’ll try to address the central point of your post: that the US is constantly between a rock and a hard place. This is quite true in general, however not in the current situation.
I don’t think there is anyone in the world, except those predisposed to an invasion of Iraq for multiple reasons, who would ever have said the US dropped the ball by not invading. The logical conclusions one must draw from this current situation are enormous. By current definition the US should have invaded Pakistan long ago in response to it’s nuclear proliferation. China should have been invaded for human rights violations. Who’s next? Should Canada be declared a member of the Axis of Evil because it didn’t support the latest diversion from the War on Terror?
It is quite true that the US is constantly under the microscope and it truly is between a rock and a hard place in most situations. There will always be people on both sides. That is why this Crusade against Iraq has been so mind-boggling. Knowing that it’s under scrutiny it’s so hard to believe how it could have ended up as such a disaster. Do they not think that trying to justify torture as official policy would make people mad? Do they not think it appeared as if they had absolutely no plan after the initial invasion when an admittedly small insurgency force caused so much damage and confusion? Do they not think giving no-bid billion-dollar business deals to mostly US corportations would make people question the reasons for the invasion?
To your comments on being proud of your country, this is the dilema I’ve had since moving here. On the one hand I’ve liked most of the people I’ve met, and in general they’re very well-meaning people. I’ve reached the conclusion that I like a lot of the US, but definitely not the government. If I were American I would be very proud of some of the achievements over the years. Having said that, if I were American I would be absolutely embarrased by my government. Anyone should be able to see the parallels in history about the grandeur of power and self-righteousness. I would be afraid, to my core, for the future my children or their children will be left to inherit. I’m an optimist at heart, but that optimism does not include the US maintaining it’s position of power in the world. I can only hope, for all the well-meaning people who live here, that it’s an easier transition than it likely will be.
Aug 08, 2004 @ 21:36:30
Neil,
I do not condone many of the reasons under which we invaded Iraq. I will agree with you. I’m politically centrist and so to me, as I watch my friends go out there and voluntarily put their lives as risk over a situation that smacks of being monetarily motivated I feel that we have lost the point of what America should be doing, and used to be the premises upon which this country was founded — protecting the liberty of the little guy.
Of course we went in for oil interests, you won’t find many people if they searched their soul who would deny that. But it’s not just our oil, it’s France’s oil, it’s Germany’s oil, it’s Canada’s oil etc etc. No one, not one of us, can afford to not have that access. And yes, we are giving out bids to US companies? Why? Because we did all the work. The United States said, whoever backs us will get the bids for reconstruction. So why should we give out lucrative jobs to people who condemn us? That’s just foolish business sense.
Please don’t mistake my explanation for these things as justification and acceptance on my part for the war — I am merely giving you reasons as to why the US is currently doing the things they are doing. My own feelings are very conflicted and this is an issue over which I struggle to define in my personal political arena.
To address Pakistan, China etc. I’m sure you’ve heard of the Truman doctrine, and basically these issues fall beneath the Truman doctrine. We didn’t invade Pakistan because we were too busy giving them aid in their war against Afghanistan. Why? Because under U.S. policy we endeavor to stop and eradicate the spread of communism. Afghanistan was attempting to take over Pakistan and with the help of our former communist enemy, Russia, turn Pakistan into a communist country under the helm of the USSR. The Afghans were slaughtering the Pakistanis and torturing their women and children. A favorite torture was to kidnap the women, strip them, take them up in a helicopter, rape them and then toss them out. In addition, to the men, the Afghans kidnapped them, put glass rods up their urethra and then beat them with a stick so the glass shards stuck inside their urethra for the rest of their lives. This was not isolated these tortures were rampant. So we can’t necessarily invade someone we’re trying to protect. Since then, Pakistan has become a valuable ally and has cooperated on allowing us to utilize air space and ground space in the hunt for bin Laden. Does this justify not invading them on their breach of nuclear non-proliferation? Possibly, possibly not. But the thing is Neil, but the world has trade-offs. Your country, my country — we all do it. Ethically it’s tragic, it’s disgusting to me the diplomacy trade-offs that all countries make in trying to find suitable ways to get along. But every single country in the world does it and as a student of this, it is something I have had to come to grips with, like it or not.
Now as for China, there is NO way we could invade China and win — certainly not on their turf. Like Vietnam, China would be a disaster. And so in learning from the atrocities of Vietnam we have had to sanction China economically in order for them to comprehend our position. We politically recognize Taiwan as an independent country and we do not condone China’s horrific human rights issues. The United States has historically condemned China for their communist activities and Maoist genocidal atrocities.
We don’t have the military might to invade everyone. As lovely (sarcasm here) as that sounds we can’t. Sometimes I don’t think we do enough and other times we do too much.
In regards to Iraq, truth be told, we should have eradicated Sadaam a long time ago per our policies but George H couldn’t get the job done and Clinton was otherwise occupied. So George W. did do it, albeit under false and tragic pretenses.
But, I am not sad for my children and grandchildren, because I know Neil, that there are people like you who will speak out against atrocities and not accept things for what they are and always challenge the system. And there are people like Steve who will constantly question the government and their motives. And there are people like me who will always look at both sides and try and see where the good will emerge and there are people like Jess who have a goal that peace will ultimately be at the forefront of everyone’s agendas. I think each of us do not accept things as they are and challenge each other toward the greater good. And so I hope for my country, that what will come of this, is that we see the mistakes as well as the good, because the mistakes are made and hopefully the good will emerge and we learn and we grow as humans and next time, we get it done right.
Aug 08, 2004 @ 21:39:36
Neil, there is an article here – //www.nationalreview.com/comment/triplett200403180915.asp – that discusses the famine-related deaths in North Korea, and how the North Korean government (ultimately, Kim Jong-Il) was diverting food aid from the U.S. and other countries to its military.
It’s not like we have other countries coming to the United States, offering to give us money to start up anti-smoking programs, and then the U.S. turns around and diverts that money to its military.
Aug 08, 2004 @ 21:41:26
Whoops, make that link http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/triplett200403180915.asp
Aug 08, 2004 @ 22:03:09
http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3789
Neil — actually, according to this article, the United States is leading the world on tobacco education. The tragedy about Tobacco, is that it’s a ‘social sin’ much like drugs or alcohol. And if we start banning it because of its harmful effects then we have to ban everything thats harmful, how do we pick and choose.
I think smoking is gross, personally, and as an asthmatic, I take for granted smoke-free restaurants in Austin whereas when I was in Europe it was like eating in a chimney stack and I walked out sucking on my inhaler. I didn’t see one place in western Europe where people weren’t inhaling cigarettes. And alcohol is just as damaging to the system. So while I would be just fine eradicating tobacco from the face of the earth for personal reasons, I have to be careful on my position on social sins, because where do you end up drawing the line?
I say, tax the bloody hell out of it and donate the money to cancer societies all over the world.
Aug 11, 2004 @ 01:42:00
Sarah,
I’ll try to address your many good comments.
Of course the US is going to give business contracts to themselves and others involved in the war. That makes perfect business sense. However, where it doesn’t make complete sense is in the public-relations war that really should be the focus of the War On Terror.
First of all we need to understand that al Qaeda, and groups like it, are not organizations – they’re movements. One of the most lacking parts of the whole discussion in the West post-9/11 has been the “Why.” Bush (and probably any Democrat equivalent) would have everyone assume it’s because they hate our values. Why? Because that’s the easiest way to frame the problem to the public. Any other answer to the question involves investigation into some of the bad Western behaviour in other regions, and that’s not popular.
A lot of people in the rest of the world, and especially in the Middle East, hate “us” because they feel marginzlized, taken advantage of, and controlled. This is a side-effect of the fact that “we” are the rich countries and “they” are the poor ones. You don’t get to be the rich country without stepping on some poor ones. Therefore, it makes perfect logical sense that there will be some of those marginalized people who are pretty mad. They feel their countries are being stripped for the luxury of the rich ones. They feel their governments are indirectly controlled by the West because they fear being in the bad books. This is recently shown in the bursts of nationalism in Iran since standing up to the internaltional community on the topic of nuclear research.
Having said that, I hope I’ve shown the point that the “War on Terror” should be as much a PR campaign as anything else. With a lot of pissed off people the statistical outliers will eventually produce some very-pissed off people who are willing to kill themselves because they’re so mad. So if the US could somehow take actions to improve public perceptions of themselves, even by say 10% of the population, the rate of recruitment into these movements would probably drastically decrease. Whether you agree with the invasion of Iraq or not, it’s very plain that it has inflamed the people of the Middle East. In fact, Bush has been the perfect al Qaeda recruitment tool. His arrogance makes people extremely angry the world over, especially in the Middle East.
On the topic of whether the US should invade Pakistan or China, I presented those as a logical argument that increases the level of hypocracy in the US governments position on Iraq. I understand the reasons why they haven’t invaded them, but that doesn’t make either case correct. Which also ties in to world opinion again. Hypocracy will always make people angry. It also makes people angry when the hypocracy always happens to work in the favour of the richest countries.
Also, as a side-note, you mention that US has condemned China for it’s “Communist Activities.” I hope you don’t mean that countries should be punished for being Communist, although that is what has happened. I’m sure you know that Communism, by itself, is nothing that the US should fear, aside from for economic and popular-support reasons. The fact that Communism was the style of economic structure which accompanied the ideals being spread by the dictator of Russia is irrelevant. It just so happened that this provided the Western governments a commonality they could demonize through propaghanda. If anyone doubts this we should have a wider discussion.
Your comments on world politics as an imperfect set of trade-offs is unfortunately true, but it doesn’t need to be that way. If you don’t think something is right, then do something about it. Just ask yourself “If world politics continues as it is for the next hundred years, what will the world be like?” What do you think will happen if wealth keeps concentrating in the rich countries and the poor countries get more poor? Do you think those people will get any happier if they keep being trampled on at the whim of some yuppies sipping Starbucks in LA? The only likely outcome in that situation is for the rich countries to be so afraid of everyone else that they build a wall around themselves (or, effectively around the poor countries) to isolate themselves. At that point we may as well ship a few smart people off to Mars and try to start over, as there’d be no way to save it.