BS: Militarism & the US culture of violence

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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.