BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: GUEST,harpgirl
Date: 14 Aug 07 - 09:30 PM

Thank you, GUEST for initiating a thread on the ideas of Chris Hedges. I don't watch TV much but I do listen to radio and I recently listened to Chris Hedges on Alternative Radio.org He is a brilliant mind and a fine orator. I was unaware that such a voice of reason was ringing bright against the Christian fascist right. Chris's ideas seem to have been obscured here by a small minded argument about GUEST. Please, folkies, listen more carefully to Chris Hodges radio lectures.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 May 04 - 10:49 AM

Thanks, Gareth. I find it useful to sift through this "Iraq adventure" from a broader perspective, being an ex-Peace Corps volunteer myself in Ethiopia from 1965-68.

However, I will note that Rumsfeld's testimony at the Senate hearing yesterday is even more damning as he acknowledges being aware of even more photo images and videos of Iraqi prisoners being tortured and humiliated.

And it seems we are close to learning what general was responsible for encouraging the MP's in charge of those cell blocks to "soften up" their prisoners before interrogation. He appears to be Major General Geoffrey Miller, commadant of the Guantanamo Bay prison complex, who in the fall of 2003 "conducted an inquiry on interrogation and detention procedures in Iraq and suggested that prison guards could help set conditions for the interrogation of prisoners"; this is according to an initial report this spring by Major General Antonio Taguba. I find this information particularly damning, and it reinforces my concerns about the probable mistreatment of the prisoners in limbo at Guantanamo Bay itself.

Anyone want to draw parallels with the treatment of prisoners by Nazi guards? Probably the Reader's Digest will pass on "Lynndie England" as a story of patriotism and courage, and I doubt that we will see a NBC special equivalent to the "Jessica Lynch Story."

We've got a lot of work to do in this country to succeed in undoing the damage we have created with this Iraq adventure. It's even beginning to overshadow the evil that Saddam and his coherts committed.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: GUEST
Date: 08 May 04 - 08:29 AM

Jim, I think your description of the culture on the ground among US troops is dead on. I would agree that British troops have more experience in peacekeeping than most US troops, but you have to remember that some US troops have done peacekeeping duties too, including in Bosnia and Kosovo, where we still have troops stationed. Reports of torture and abuse on this magnitude never surfaced there.

There have also been rumblings out of the Beltway this week that "the rules changed" regarding the US' use of torture after 9/11. Which of course means that the US military changed it's position on what was and wasn't acceptable ways of obtaining information from detainees.

The veneer of respectability and honor is gone for the US in the short term, and I believe that is the most dangerous thing for Iraqis and the rest the world. The one check that the military has to prevent the troops from descending into wholesale slaughter, is the veneer of decency and honor.

Killing is a behavior that gives an immediate thrill, so they say. Jim you quote from someone above who speaks excitedly about it. In Rwanda, men would get drunk and then go out and just start killing people. Day after day after day. No military force is ever very far from order and discipline breaking down, and the soldiers doing just that--seeking thrill killing. Our own troops did it in Vietnam, as we know.

And Rumsfeld said yesterday, the worst is yet to come.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Gareth
Date: 07 May 04 - 07:44 PM

Charley Noble - A forthright post. I suspect it is objective.

As one of those who refused to go along with the knee jerk anti Bush/Blair hysteria which so defines many 'Catters posting on Iraq/Isreal I have my doubts as to wether the US of A clearly thought out the long term solutions.

But the decision was made, we must ride it through.

Those who took part in breaches of the Geneva Convention should be dealt with under law, be they colation powers, or Iraq residents.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: dianavan
Date: 07 May 04 - 07:19 PM

Foolestroupe - Please explain. I can't understand your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 May 04 - 07:05 PM

I note that Bush has decoded to rant against Castro trying to pass the Presidendcy to his brother... some of the rant seems to involve illegal international acts...

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 07 May 04 - 05:50 PM

"I'm sure you understand why I wouldn't want to open up a debate on Northern Ireland in this thread."

Absolutely, GUEST, and it was not really my intention to open one, for just as it is well nigh impossible to prove a negative, it is hard to offer tangible proof for my contention, also.
I accept that.

At the start of this 'war', however, most of the British media described our presence in Iraq as being the 'perfect peacekeeping force', "honed", indeed, on the streets of Northern Ireland.
Tabloid expressionism, and paradoxes notwithstanding (as you mention in your post..., and indeed, as I have covered also), I could see what they were inferring from that; that we essentially are more 'street-wise' than the US army.

I thought it was a reasonably fair point to make, as one does not get 'street-wise' by sitting by the fireside, as it were.
The Telegraph, here in the UK ran a story a while back, in which "a senior Army officer," speaking on condition of anonymity, remarked, "My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans' use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing."
He continued... "When U.S. troops are attacked with mortars in Baghdad, they use mortar-locating radar to find the firing point and then attack the general area with artillery, even though the area they are attacking may be in the middle of a densely populated residential area. They may well kill the terrorists in the barrage but they will also kill and maim innocent civilians. That has been their response on a number of occasions. It is trite, but American troops do shoot first and ask questions later. They are very concerned about taking casualties and have even trained their guns on British troops, which has led to some confrontations between soldiers."

American troops are trained to respond to and neutralize threats, GUEST. They are trained to fight a 'hot war'. Unfortunately for everyone involved, they are not adequately trained to exercise restraint and build connections with the peoples they occupy.

The Guardian reported in June 2003, "U.S. military officials have complained that they have received little or no training for peacekeeping. Most U.S. military police are reservists, given just one day of instruction on dealing with civilians."

One Day, GUEST

An American mother who travelled to Iraq in February in order to visit her son, wrote afterward that the most disturbing about the whole scenario was "how isolated the soldiers are over there. They're not interacting with the Iraqi people that much. The U.S. troops view things in very simplistic terms. It seems hard for them to reconcile subtleties between who supports what and who doesn't, in Iraq. It's easier for their soldiers to group all Iraqis as the bad guys. As far as they are concerned, Iraq is bandit country and everybody is out to kill them."

I wonder do many here remember the CNN video of American Marines shooting an Iraqi man... and cheering? In the following interview with one of the soldiers, the soldier said: "Man, those guys are dead now, you know? But it was, it was a good feeling ... And afterwards, uh, you're like, hell yeah, that was awesome! Let's, let's do it again."

I can only put forth a point of view, GUEST. It is in no way scientific.
I'll wait for the snuff movies to surface, and we'll see where we go from there.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: ard mhacha
Date: 07 May 04 - 12:34 PM

Guest to save you the trouble of an argument on British torture in N Ireland, Google on John McGuffin The Guinea Pigs.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Charley Noble
Date: 07 May 04 - 08:16 AM

(This is from a friend who was in the Peace Corps in the early days and has spent his life in international business and lived all over the world. He has been working in Iraq for over a year, trying to build a business. I find it particularly timely and insightful)


THE ONE YEAR TRAINING PERIOD is now over in Iraq. After one year of "playing at country building" the situation has gotten worse by the hour. Every day is another twist and turn in trying to democratize Iraq. This noble experiment is turning into our worst nightmare. Signs of another Viet Nam are everywhere. Start with the horrendous number of American and allied losses in April compounded by daily insurrections in Faluja and Najaf and you have civil war. Any nation liberated of a powerful dictator must have structure if it's to succeed as a member of the international community. Iraq has nothing but fragments created by civilian administrators overseen by a strong US military. Those interests conflict with each other and are leading all of us down a path of no return.

Since the beginning, a struggle for control of Iraq has been ongoing between the US State Department and the Defense Department. It?s obvious to all of us on the ground in Iraq, and should be noticeable to everyone outside the country that Powell and Rumsfeld are at odds with each other. Add a strong vice president and a bible toting president and what you have is "innocence abroad." Stir in factional rivalries in Iraq along with religious differences and you have chaos.

The year past has seen a lot of money spent but very little to create jobs and opportunities for the vast majority of Iraqis. Most are still poor and hungry. Southern Iraq from Basra to Diwaniya are some of the poorest areas I've seen anywhere and I've been to Haiti, Somalia and streets of Manila. Nothing compares to the poverty and lack of any future development. Compound this with the images on TV and over the internet of US brutality and you have the "spark" that can and will ignite this region. If we ever wanted to strengthen the terror movements in the Islamic world, then showing naked men hounded by a US female soldier is it. These images will remain for a long time no matter what the US does to try and diminish the impact. The damage was done.

There is hope but only if US national policy changes fast. We cannot turn over nation hood at this time. We must wait and implement a strong civil service with a mandated President and Vice President running the show. The US must bring the world into the fold and start acting as a partner and not an occupying power. Even as early as yesterday, General Abizaid told us in a press conference that the US is still the occupying force in Iraq. This doesn't sound like "country building" to me. We need to separate the role of establishing a government to a civilian authority under the auspices of a joint group headed by Washington. We have to ask the military to retreat to its bases and be on call when and if trouble arises. Iraq needs its own army and police force administered by those they know and trust, not raw recruits with no experience. We then have to abandon the huge contracts let to major US companies and bring money to bear on the areas which create the most benefit. Private industry will do the rest. It will find ways to build hotels, power plants, new factories, etc. What this new joint group must do is allocate the 18.5 B USD where it's most needed and do it through the Peace Corps, USAID, CARE, OXFAM and other agencies willing to go into these villages and towns and start living and working together with the Iraqis. Today, it?s "us and them" and as I said before, "them is winning."

We also need a change in Washington...quickly. Either the current administration re-invents itself or is voted out of power in November. The choice is up to the President and eventually to the American people. In the meantime Iraq resists daily and our men and women are being reduced to fodder and worse. The one year experiment in country building has taught everyone what the next step should be. Let's see who has the courage to make it happen?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: GUEST
Date: 07 May 04 - 07:57 AM

I'm not convinced Jim, that there is evidence to support your claim about the British military. And I'm not intending to be contrary or confrontational in saying that. I just don't think there is evidence to support the claim. British troops have been kept on a short leash in the last 30 or so years, and haven't been engaged in the imperial wandering that the American troops have, but that doesn't mean I think their culture is any less brutal than it has always been.

Perhaps the lives of those in the military has improved. But I don't think a legitimate case can be argued that their discipline regarding human rights and fair, decent treatment of those perceived as their enemy, has improved because in the places where that has been tested, like Northern Ireland, it hasn't been true.

How long did it take for a legitimate investigation and trial on the events of Bloody Sunday to be undertaken, for example? There were ongoing political assassinations involving the British loyalist paramilitaries working in collusion with British military intelligence that the BBC documented quite thoroughly that still have never been satisfactorily investigated and prosecuted.

But this is really a topic for a different thread. While the British military's culture and history of human rights abuses in Northern Ireland is germane to the conversation, I'm sure you understand why I wouldn't want to open up a debate on Northern Ireland in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 06 May 04 - 01:50 PM

Well, perhaps you might enlighten me, then, as to where you think the evidence to support my claim, might lie?

I'm not excusing anything, here, in case that is what you think I'm getting at. I could well discuss Northern Ireland at length, and detail many injustices that were perpetrated there.
The reason I mentioned Castlereagh in the first place, was to acknowledge how a 'Hearts & Minds' campaign shouldn't be conducted.
We had the Nationalist population on our side in 1969; by the time Operation Motorman was over, all that was history, and it has taken until the recent past for us to appear as something of an 'honest broker' in this regard...., something that President Clinton and Tony Blair took very seriously, when they were in their hay-day.

Northern Ireland may not be the best example in the book to quote you; we made large scale public relations mistakes there. But I would venture to say that our experience there gave our top brass something to think about when formulating 'psy-ops'.

Playing 'The Ride Of The Valkyries' from loudspeakers attached to the gunships, doesn't cut it anymore.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: GUEST
Date: 06 May 04 - 09:01 AM

That may be true Jim, but Northern Ireland certainly isn't evidence to support your claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: CET
Date: 05 May 04 - 09:42 PM

Chief Chaos:

I was wondering if I was the only Catter in uniform. I think you make some good points.

Cheers

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 05 May 04 - 09:39 PM

I would say that the British military have learned more lessons, and adapted better, over the years, however.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: GUEST
Date: 05 May 04 - 09:18 PM

I wouldn't say the British military is any more shining an example of honor and respectability than the American military. Some of us have longer memories and a better grasp of history than that, especially in the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: robomatic
Date: 05 May 04 - 09:14 PM

I can visualize a world without weapons of war.




I can visualize a world at peace.




And I can visualize us attacking and taking over that world, because they'd never be ready for us!

(Old Alaskan Proverb)

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 05 May 04 - 07:48 PM

And I think that is exactly the nub of the matter, Ake.
The notion that George Bush knows exactly what he is doing, and that his strategies will work.... eventually.

George Bush may lead a country which is the biggest superpower in the World, but that doesn't mean that he automatically is an expert on tactics, or on vision, and I am not happy at all that this Coalition is US led.
I find a lot that is unnecessary about the US MO, and have said it a number of times on this forum, that The British Army (for all its faults) has a better way of thinking, when it comes to dealing with those we are occupying.
One can quote the throwing of Irish terrorist suspects out of helicopters, forcing some to walk on broken glass; all the reams of allegations that came out of the Castlereagh Interrogation Centre, in Belfast in the 1970's, but the British Army have never alienated, like the US Army have alienated. Not in Iraq, anyway.
And I think that has to do more with experience of dealing with the public, than because of anything else.

The American Constitution gives ample enough leeway for almost everyone to achieve 'The American Dream' in their lifetime. 'The Pursuit Of Happiness' (though not specifically mentioned in the AC), is as much an invitation to exercise one's free will, as one can expect to receive embedded in one's Civil Rights. We have no such hinge in our door.
The upshot of this, is that one's limits (social and moral), are raised quite considerably, and the word 'excess' (among other words, of course), tends to get bandied about with much more regularity, than it does when discussing our own mores, for example.

The British are famous (or imfamous), for their reserve. The 'conservatism' that we are supposed to posses, reflects more, I think, on our deep down dislike of excess, and the trappings associated with it. The 'Stiff Upper Lip', that we are meant to have, depicts a resolve. A resolve without sacrificing principles.
This is hardly a recipie for a pursuit of happiness, but rather a line we try to draw in front of ourselves.
I believe that it is this 'conservatism', more especially, that has made our experience in Iraq a little... 'easier', let's say. Our soldiers exchange their helmets for berets as soon as it is reasonably safe to do so. We know not to interview people on the street while wearing sunglasses, for example. We do have a fairly developed sense of empathy, for a people of around 60 million.

We are quicker to trust.

Now, if one wants to draw parallels between social mores, and the manifestation of them in a conflict situation, we could widen the discussion to include what those social mores tell us is acceptable behaviour in the first place. I have no doubt that the limits are rising; not just in the US... but here, also. We are renowned however, for our resistance to change. It might take longer with us, as a result, but we are getting there, too.

I said in another thread that we have the 'PlayStation' generation upon us, and that we have to take this mindset into account.
Amos points out that not "all video games are military in nature and breed militarism", and indeed this is so.
They all basically have one object, though: To win. Outside of some of those football simulation games, I see nothing about any hindering rules to achieve your object, and as I said elsewhere, I expect to see more stories come out about 'prisoner abuse', for example.

To claim, as Teribus said (in another thread) that the psychos and the guys with a mission, get screened out in the selection process for the British Army, is a fair enough assertion; I wasn't actually criticising the selection process. But if the social limits are rising generally, anyway, we don't really need the psychos, then.
Just normal, everyday kids will do.

Whether it is a 'militaristic' or a 'violent' culture we have, is really only down to what label you want to affix to it.
It might even be too late to reverse that steam train, given that "The World is too much with us, late and soon".

Fact is, we live in changing World, where lots of things are 'cheap'. That can go from the consumer society, to accounting for every bullet.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Gareth
Date: 05 May 04 - 07:28 PM

Hmmm ! "Did you have a brother on the 'Rueben James'

About 4 feet away from this 'Puter is my wardrobe. In it is a US of A Coast Gaurd uniform jacket given to my Grandfather as survivors clothing after he was picked out of the North Atlantic in 1941 by a US of A nuetrality patrol vessel.

So please don't give me any of that crap.

I will also mention that he was also picked out of the water in 1939, by a German merchant ship heading into Norway, and released as a survivor. The basic converstion was "thank God we are heading into a neutral port"

My late grandmother kept up a post war correspondance with the Master of the german ship untill his death in the 1950's.

PQ17 did him, and it was a sailor's grave, as a merchant seaman.

Think about that one.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 May 04 - 06:06 PM

You never know, Guest...if Canada invaded the USA and took you over (which it most certainly will not)...you might just end up with more freedom than you have now! :-) Mexico? Well, no...probably a good deal less freedom in that case. Mexican governments have mostly been extremely autocratic.

I'm sure that you, like me, feel a loyalty and love toward the land you were born upon. That, however, doesn't necessarily equate to loving that land's present government, its corporate elite, or its military-industrial complex. Unthinking patriotism to those powerful entities is extremely naive, although very common. A true patriot is patriotic to his land and his community, not to its latest batch of tinpot leaders.

In a ruthlessly competitive Sy$tem the scum tends to rise to the top.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Peace
Date: 05 May 04 - 05:59 PM

GUEST: You have an historical blind spot to do with WWII. It had everything to do with your freedom. Do you think for a moment that those Nazi bastards would have stopped in Europe? Bullshit. If it wasn't for Allied soldiers (armed forces), you'd be speaking German and goose stepping or dead. Period. Part of the 'master race' by now. And certainly you wouldn't be writing so freely on the internet, assuming it would exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: akenaton
Date: 05 May 04 - 05:11 PM

Rapaire...Old friend, Guest may love America as much or more than you do,but that does not mean, he/she must blindly support any mad scheme that the White house gangsters dream up.
The American public appear in general to be kind people,prepared to see good in those rule them. I think they need a good dose of UK cynicism....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 May 04 - 04:59 PM

Dear GUEST, if you feel that way about the United States, why don't you move elsewhere? I'm asking this in all seriousness and out of curiousity, not being a smart ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: akenaton
Date: 05 May 04 - 04:08 PM

Chief chaos you are either ,a fool ,or simply trying to defend the indefensible.
Little Hawk and Guest have spent time posting lucid and reasoned arguments. Your attempts to respond,carry no conviction and come across as an emotional mish mash,containing little reason.
It always seems pathetic to me ,when people on the right, fall back on the flag and the war dead to justify your support of a system which care nothing for human life and happiness,but instead money is the God which rules all.
My own Grandfather fought and survived in WW1,but he saw the butchery,
he saw the simple young men who did not even know why they were there to be slaughtered.
When he arrived back to Scotland,he made a promise to my grandmother that not one of our family would ever take up arms ,in defense of king, country,flag, or any other lie the bastards come up with.
It gives me great pleasure to think that the young people of today know enough about our politicians,not to die for them.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: GUEST
Date: 05 May 04 - 03:59 PM

It was Eisenhower who coined the phrase "military-industrial complex" to warn us of just such an impending takeover of our government, Chief Chaos. Problems we face today are a result of no one listening to him.

You will never take up arms in MY name, Chief Chaos, no matter how much you like to use those military cliches.

WWI had nothing to do with my freedom. WWII had nothing to do with my freedom. Korea had nothing to do with my freedom. The Cold War had nothing to do with my freedom. Vietnam had nothing to do with my freedom. Gulf War I had nothing to do with my freedom. The invasion of Afghanistan had nothing to do with my freedom. The invasion and occupation of Iraq have nothing to do with my freedom.

In fact, unless Mexico or Canada is poised to invade the US, there isn't ANY military threat to my freedom.

Except from my own government's military.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 05 May 04 - 03:20 PM

I happen to agree that everyone helps keep it free. But if we are so effing evil then why haven't we taken over?

Guest - Well guest, it's your posts that seem to say that we have taken over with our militaristic society and our violent culture permeating the world. You want to spew at us, go ahead. I'll even fight to guarantee you the right. But if you think that lawyers protect the constitution your the real idiot. Lawyers (on both sides) fight for the interpretation, to constantly be able to change the constitution. I swore to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. The only things Lawyers swear to is to make as much money as they can before they get caught. I guess the lawyers and protestors forced the surrender of the British at Yorktown? I guess lawyers and protestors fought off the troops again in 1812? Oh my God! Look at all the monuments to the lawyers and the protestors that died in WW1 fighting the Kaiser. And I suppose that was a Lawyers monument they just opened in Washington DC and the crosses in Arlington are all the protestors that were killed by Hitler and Emperor Hirohito.

I will take up arms to guarantee your right to speak as you wish, and when I fall mortally wounded you can rush in and stop their tanks, bullets and bombs by waving flowers at them and singing Kumbaya.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 May 04 - 03:13 PM

Oh, lest I be misunderstood, I was not referring to the USA when I spoke of "a place that has little or no such tradition of freedom", I was just discussing the subject of freedom in a general sense.

I don't think that multi-party democracy is a very good way of achieving freedom and social justice, but it's superior to a one-party or one-man dictatorship, that's for sure!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 May 04 - 03:04 PM

Democratic freedom is protected partly by the democratic traditions upon which it stands, partly by the legal system, partly by documents such as the US Constitution or the British North America Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights. It is also protected by a free press and an alert, well-educated citizenry.

It's very, very difficult to establish such freedom in a place that has little or no such tradition of freedom to serve as a foundation. It's also difficult to maintain such freedom in a place where the media is owned by a few centralized conglomerates (whether governmental or corporate), and where the public is not too well-informed.

A press that has been bought out by a few rich men may be a free press in name only. It depends on the morality and will of the owners.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: GUEST
Date: 05 May 04 - 02:24 PM

The United States is not a free country because the military is keeping us safe. The United States is a free country because we have a system that is intended to keep the citizenry safe FROM the military taking control of the executive and other branches of government.

The US is a free country because we have a system where we change leaders every 4-8 years, without the military seizing control of the process.

You are one dumb idiot if you believe democratic freedom is protected by the military. The lawyers, maybe. But the military? NO.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 May 04 - 01:04 PM

Yup, Chief, it's pragmatism, that's all. The USA (like all countries) is concerned about strategic resources, trade, marketing, and military positioning. Who the USA makes a friend or trades with has absolutely nothing to do with how democratic or undemocratic that country is. The USA does business with China because China is the world's number one source of cheap, well-made, manufactured goods. It makes no difference whether China is a dictatorship or not.

When something pragmatic happens that is NOT in the financial interests of the USA (such as Castro nationalizing the sugar industry and throwing out the casinos and whorehouses), THEN the US media will focus on specific "moral" issues in order to demonize Castro, but those moral issues will have nothing really to do with it. (Castro was far less immoral than Batista...)

Likewise, Saddam's immorality and brutality had nothing to do with the US government's war on Iraq. It was done for pragmatic reasons alone, and clothed in moral rhetoric to get ordinary people onside.

The USA is similar to other big powers in this respect, it just happens to be the biggest right now, that's all.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 05 May 04 - 12:43 PM

LH Wasn't really questioning the reason for our embargo. Think its rather stupid after all these years of not working and not being supported by other countries anyway. If things happened to improve in Cuba it might be helpful to us in that we might not have to constantly monitor for and rescue refugees looking for a better life.

I'm also of the opinion that the US should, by our own constitution, not be deciding what kind of government other people should have. And like others I have a hard time with supporting the continued embargo when we're dealing with vietnam and china.

Guest-
from your own first post:

-I'll be coming back to this thread later, but I'd be interested to hear if people have any books or articles to recommend that critique the US military's culture of violence, and how it influences a societal culture of violence-

I have been trying to make the point that it is not the military which influences a violent society, but a violent society which is part of the military.

I know that you feel we are the root of all evil in the world. And if we military vets highjack your post, well tough shit! Because of us this is a free country. Try having an anti-government post in China and see how long you live.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 May 04 - 12:22 PM

Chief - The most sensible thing for the USA to have done about Castro, starting in 1959, would have been to be friendly with him and to help him set up a new and prosperous society in Cuba. Castro's heros, philosophically speaking, were the founders of the USA, such as Washington and Jefferson. Castro threw out an almost unbelievably corrupt government under Batista. The corruption and brutality of Batista's government had created such hostility in the general Cuban population that it resulted in enormous popular support for the revolutionaries. Castro was seen as a progressive force in many mainstream American publications prior to his entry into Havana, and he was a progressive force.

The mistake the USA made was to decide to make Castro an enemy. Castro came to New York (I believe it was in '59, but it may have been in '60), hoping to establish friendly relations, work out trade arrangements, etc. The US government wouldn't even talk to him! Instead, he got to meet the American press, some Europeans at the U.N., and that was it. He had been ostracized in a very deliberate way by Washington, and he knew it. He subsequently went to the Russians for help, because there was simply no other "game in town". He was forced to go to the Russians in order to survive.

That need not have been done. The reason it was done was this: Castro had nationalized the ownings of the big American sugar companies, and had kicked the American Mafia and their casinos and whorehouses out of Cuba...and given the country back to its own people!!! This meant he offended a lot of very rich and powerful people in the USA, and those people fund and lobby in Washington. They back the Democrats and the Republicans and provide campaign funding.

Castro had committed absolute sacrilege as far as they were concerned and he had to die for it.

A great shame. The nation that once said it was: "of the people, by the people, for the people" has become the nation that is "of the rich, by the rich, for the rich". It does not promote democracy, it seeks out markets.

Castro was George Washington, about 200 years later, but he made the mistake of assuming that he would be treated as an equal, instead of treated like a "dirty wetback" who had the effrontery to challenge Big Business.

Never get in the way of the corporations. They will crush you or turn you into an international pariah.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: GUEST
Date: 05 May 04 - 11:37 AM

No one is calling the military baby killers, and I for one am sick and fed the hell up with vets coming into the threads and acting like victims. That baby killer, they spat on us crap has no place in a serious conversation about militarism and the culture of violence.

Or as you vets are so fond of saying, get the hell over it, and deal with where we are at today.

There are many, many serious, thoughtful people on this planet, who do blame militarism and the culture of violence for most ills we face today, because that militarism and cultures of male violence are two root causes of the vast majority of human suffering on this earth today. The others are the greed and avarice of the global ruling elite, and it's mirror opposite, grinding, inescapable poverty.

I mentioned the Chris Hedges book because it is the most lucid account I have ever read of the allure of war, and the addiction to violence that is so prevalent today. The reason why his book is so right on, is because he himself has suffered the addiction as a war correspondent. But because he also happens to have overcome his addiction, he speaks with a power few Americans can match.

Chris Hedges also is the son of a Presbyterian minister who became a pacifist and anti-war activist after fighting in WWII. Hedges also studied at Harvard Divinity School. For those who would like to read a much different perspective on militarism than is being offered by the pro-militarism Vietnam vets here in Mudcat, from an excellent writer and thinker who has also been "in the trenches" in MANY wars, I have found a few more interviews with Chris Hedges I am linking to below.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week622/hedges.html

Chris Hedges NOW interview with Bill Moyers

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 04 May 04 - 06:52 PM

It would seem also that you at least give lip service to the idea that Bush was wrong in sending them, DougR

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: DougR
Date: 04 May 04 - 06:29 PM

Mebbe so, mebbe so, brucie.

After giving it some more thought, I think you are positively, absolutely correct. (you might want to clip and keep this message because it might be the only time in print that I agreed with you on something. BG)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Peace
Date: 04 May 04 - 06:24 PM

You knew Doug, because you know that GUEST loves to troll. He did not initiate a debate about peace, because who would be stupid enough to think that peace is a bad thing? It was a debate about the military. He is, of course, against the military, because the militaries of the world represent everything that is evil to him. Little does he seem to be aware that the military of the US, Canada, Australia, Britain go where the civilian leadership tell them to go. Often, they go against their own better judgment, but they go. For that, GUEST hates soldiers. He should be looking at the civilians who send them.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: DougR
Date: 04 May 04 - 04:50 PM

Question: how did I know, without first looking, that GUEST posted this thread? I swear I did!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 04 May 04 - 04:39 PM

Dianavan,

Never said it was, and again, I don't think the Iraq fiasco is right. But then again, your answer is not exactly specific. We, the military, are blamed for not taking action, and blamed for taking action and you can't have it both ways.

The question was posed to those who would like to blame the military for all the evils in the world. The few that would like to call all military baby killers. We're all jumping up and down frothing at the mouth to feel dead, burnt bodies, veins in our teeth shouting kill! Kill! Kill!

It's bullshit of course.

The unfortunate thing about wars is that they are sometimes necessary. All the diplomacy in the world is worthless unless your stick is bigger than theirs. It's plain that the embargos enforced against Saddam did nothing but hurt his people and open up all sorts of opportunities for corruption. They sure as hell haven't done anything to Castro.

If you want something bad enough, like preventing the systematic brutalization and genocide of a minority population by a majority population, chances are your going to have to have an armed intervention to establish peace. Chances are even higher that somebody is going to decide to attack members of the peace keeping force which will then have to decide to get the hell out, allowing the genocide to begin again, kill the offenders by returning fire, or hunt them down and bring them to trial which exposes more of your personnel to the possibility of getting killed.

The world is beautiful, man can be quite ugly.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: dianavan
Date: 04 May 04 - 02:30 PM

Chief Chaos - I will attempt to answer your question.

Its not a matter of numbers. Its a matter of careful negotiation and planning by an international community.

Its a matter to be decided by skilled diplomacy not by a government that thinks they can, "go it alone" guided by God.

Its should not be decided by the captains of industry whose aim is primarily economic or a Commander in Chief who accepts no responsibility for the private contractors who have been hired to carry out interrogations.

It is certainly not the responsibility of a military with inadequate training, low pay, few benefits, and a vague chain of command.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 04 May 04 - 02:02 PM

No answers to the question huh? I thought so. You want to demonize the "warriors" but when the feces hits the oscillating breeze generation unit who the hell do you call? Ghostbusters?

Sometimes diplomacy doesn't work. I hate war. Nobody I know wants to go kill anybody. Yeah, we'd like to skin the folks responsible for 9/11. That's how I feel and I won't apologize for that.

It is for certain that war has helped in the development of technologies. They may have evolved without the war but the urgency of developing the technology might not have been as great. The money needed to develop the technology might not have been spent because the price would have been thought to be too high.

If you don't stand for something, pretty soon you won't have anywhere left to stand!

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: LadyJean
Date: 04 May 04 - 01:03 AM

There is an idiot in the White House, an idiot with something to prove.
If we had a reasonable man in the White House 9/11 might not have happened. Or our troops would be looking for AlQuaeda terrorists, which wouldn't be such a bad thing. They aren't nice people.
The entertainment industry gives the public what they want. The public have been falling for tales of heroism in battle since 'omer smote 'is bloomin' lyre.
My father was a combat veteran. He wound up among Russian troops at the end of WWII, when the fighting got truly nasty. Dad was one of the kindest, gentlest men I've ever known.
Now Hollowfox and I know a man who claims to have been a Navy Seal. He never was. He is violent and aggessive, and a first rate asshole. People who fight don't, necessarily, love it, and people who love fighting, don't, necessarily fight. Chicken hawk George W. being a prime example.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Amos
Date: 03 May 04 - 11:46 PM

GUEST:

A very coherent description; I also enjoy Tom Paine.com's descriptions as they stand in your quotes. The myth of being the hero does not work well when it is built on premeditated violence, much in the way that the self-defence plea will not stand when premeditation is present. But the myth can be so attractive thaty people will overlook that little difference while they are plastering their vehicles with decals. The logical structure is something on this wise:

1. We were brutally attacked by terrorists; this was Evil and brutal.
2. We attacked Iraq because Saddam was associated with terrorist plots or weapons or some thing.
3. The Iraqis bomb our Humvees even though we overthrew the government fair and square; therefore they are terrorizing us.
4. Therefore our war in Iraq is now a war against Evil, and we are of the Good.

Of course this syllogism is about as rational as a TV advertsiement. But never mind, let's watch some TV...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 04 - 11:07 PM

TomPaine.com: When a country prepares for war and goes to war, there are changes in that country's politics and culture. You write that a myth emerges -- a seductive myth as leaders spin out a cause. You write that a patriotism, a "thinly veiled form of self-worship appears." What do you mean by this myth, this cause, this patriotism and what you then say is an intoxicating result?

Chris Hedges: Well myth is always part of the way we understand war within a society. It's always there. But I think in a peacetime society we are at least open to other ways of looking at war. Just as patriotism is always part of the society. In wartime, the myth becomes ascendant.

Patriotism, national self-glorification infects everything, including culture. That's why you would go to symphony events and people wave flags and play the "Star Spangled Banner." In essence, it's the destruction of culture, which is always a prerequisite in wartime. Wartime always begins with the destruction of your own culture.

Once you enter a conflict, or at the inception of a conflict, you are given a language by which you speak. The state gives you a language to speak and you can't speak outside that language or it becomes very difficult. There is no communication outside of the clichés and the jingos, "The War on Terror," "Showdown With Iraq," "The Axis of Evil," all of this stuff.

So that whatever disquiet we feel, we no longer have the words in which to express it. The myth predominates. The myth, which is a lie, of course, built around glory, heroism, heroic self-sacrifice, the nobility of the nation. And it is a kind of intoxication. People lose individual conscience for this huge communal enterprise.

TP.c: You write there are different war myths -- myths that fuel conflicts. What type of myth do you see animating the discussion today in the United States as it looks at Iraq?

Hedges: Well I think the myth is remarkably similar from war zone to war zone. At least, as it pertains to how the nation that prosecutes a war looks at itself.

We become the embodiment of light and goodness. We become the defenders of civilization, of all that is decent. We are more noble than others. We are braver than others. We are kinder and more compassionate than others -- that the enemy at our gate is perfidious, dark, somewhat inhuman. We turn them into two-dimensional figures. I think that's part of the process of linguistically dehumanizing them. And in wartime, we always turn the other into an object, and often, quite literally, in the form of a corpse.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Bobert
Date: 03 May 04 - 10:13 PM

Well, GUEST, this ol' hillbilly ain't smart 'nuff to know when he's being told to shut up. I ain't never worried too much 'bout these folks 'round here 'cause most o' 'um got good hearts. Sometimes their heads ain't quite caught up yet but that's jus' a matter of time. "er not. But hey, ya jus' gotta keep on pitchin'. Yeah, sure, I know that sometimes they just had 'nuff o' me and ignore me but guess what, sometimes I get 'nuff o' me, too. An' sometimes I get 'nuff o' one of them Catfolk and just try not to get in no scratchin' fight wid 'um 'til they get's their sanity back... 'Er I get mine back...

So don't quit on me, GUEST... Hey, we make a little progress now and then. Poor ol' DougR come a long way. Teribus won't never change but why should ne, he's on Bush's payroll... The rest of 'um???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: dianavan
Date: 03 May 04 - 09:58 PM

I guess we will have to give Guest the old, "shunning" treatment. Do not reply to threads started by Guest. Do not comment on Guest's posts. I have no use for cowards. Most cowards are also bullies. Do not give Guest any power or satisfaction.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 04 - 09:28 PM

As I said over in the Nader thread, the Mudcat warriors are starting to get a bit restless, and frequently use this peacenik's posts for target practice Bobert, so don't take it personally. Not too many true peace lovers around here, though there are plenty of apologists for war and violence.

See ya round, Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: Bobert
Date: 03 May 04 - 07:30 PM

Militarism is just yet one more control mechanism by the Ruling Class. And it's win/win for them in that they also use it to destribute wealth in their favor... Hey, it's their world and they're gonna do what they gotta do to kerp it that way, even if it means tunring militarism and nationalism loose on the working working class. It's quit a tight-rope that Boss Hog walks knowing that if the working class evr gets wind of the game that is bring played upon them, then Boss Hog's got some big troubles on his hands...

Jusat another thought. One of the first threads I ever started here was on the concept of a Department of Peace and though I found myself very much in the minority of its value, there seemed to be a few folks who thought it impractical because it didn't have the same profit potential as war.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 03 May 04 - 07:27 PM

Yes, it is important, but it shouldn't require wars to achieve.
That it did require a war, is an indictment on our species.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 04 - 07:25 PM

I didn't mean warrior cultures in that way. We know that tremendous advances have been made due to actions taken by the military organizations of the world. Don't you find it important that women can now participate in that culture as equal members?

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 03 May 04 - 07:17 PM

Ans Amos just put it better than me, and using fewer words too.

Subject: RE: BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 03 May 04 - 07:15 PM

GUEST, warrior cultures have always caused violence around the world. The Romans did. Alexander the Great did. Genghis Khan did. And so on. Nothing new or ground-breaking in that.

Did war ever produce more overall (for both victor and vanquished)benefit than the losses incurred? Mmmm, dunno but I doubt it.

Conflict (not just war) can focus energies towards new solutions, which can produce benefit. But to keep the balance sheet profitable, conflict has to remain non-damaging, non-destructive.

Does the US have a militarist, "greedy warrior" culture, as you say? I can't see it. A gung-ho culture, yes in part. A "strongest is right" culture, yes in part again. A "me first and damn the good of the many" culture, yes in part once more. I won't tar everyone who has a US passport with the same brush, but the overall signals are there. But militarist? I don't think so. This is not a latter-day Sparta.