The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > How America is always at war - and why > Comments

How America is always at war - and why : Comments

By Jake Lynch, published 6/7/2009

For the United States to be at war should not be surprising, but seen, instead, as normal.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
'The modern era of American warfighting started with what President Roosevelt called the “date of infamy”: Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which brought the GIs into World War II.'

The ‘modern era of American warfighting’? What’s that supposed to mean? As compared to the ‘PRE-modern era’ of American warfighting, I suppose.

Let’s go back to 1898, when the US declared war on Spain in order to get its hands on Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. These were made US colonies in that year, with Cuba being allowed independence but with full US control of its foreign and financial policies.

And then there’s the independent nation of Hawaii, under Queen Liliuokalani, which was overthrown by the US in the period around 1900 and later made a state. And then there’s the time when the US sent gunboats to secure Panama’s separation from Columbia for control of the Panama canal (in 1903).

In fact, according to the publication ‘Addicted to War’ by Joel Andreas, which I’d highly recommend: (http://www.addictedtowar.com/book.html):

‘Between 1898 and 1934, the US invaded Cuba 4 times, Nicaragua 5 times, Honduras 7 times, the Dominican Republic 4 times, Haiti twice, Guatemala once, Panama twice, Mexico 3 times and Colombia 4 times’ – and in most cases, left occupying armies/bases of marines to ‘protect’ its interests, mostly sugar and oil.

And let’s not forget Mexico, which the US started a war with in 1848, in order to sieze what is now California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, for their gold and land (contrary to Remember the Alamo propaganda).

In its 230-year history, the US has made more than 200 military interventions abroad ... an average of one every 14 months.

I doubt if the people who have suffered and died as a result of these invasions would care whether they were part of America’s modern or pre-modern addiction to war.
Posted by SJF, Monday, 6 July 2009 10:41:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to the United States Constitution all the wars that the United States has been in since World War 2 have been illegal. Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution gives only Congress the power to declare war. No wars since WW2 have had a declaration. There have been congressional authorisations in some cases but no declarations. The Congress has tried to limit the power of the president by such laws as forbidding the executive branch to supply arms to the contras in Nicaragua, but the Reagan administration supplied the arms anyway. Bush 41 got the Senate to authorise action in Iraq by having fake testimony about the Iraqi atrocity of tossing babies out of incubators. Bush 43 told lies about Hussein's attempt to buy yellowcake, possession of WMDs and connection with Al Qaeda. Neither Reagan nor either Bush was called to account for lying the US into war and ignoring a Congressional resolution.
Posted by david f, Monday, 6 July 2009 10:52:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you are good at it, being a bully works well in a "law of jungle" type situation.
It helps if you have learned to not look like a bully, thus avoiding retribution. "The land of the free"...etc really takes on a different meaning when you know the history!
Being appeasers of the bully, Australia is not exactly in an honorable position...but at least it is pretty safe. When the bully dies of stupidity (in progress), we can shift allegiences fairly cheaply.
Politics is a grubby business. It's tools: Nationalism, Religion, Hype and Ignorence are far grubbier, but are held in high esteem. Western civilisation: A good idea yet to be tried.
Posted by Ozandy, Monday, 6 July 2009 2:22:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"War is the health of the state."
Posted by Wing Ah Ling, Monday, 6 July 2009 2:35:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wing Ah Ling wrote: "War is the health of the state."

The health of the state is the sickness of the people.
Posted by david f, Monday, 6 July 2009 2:50:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seeing that if us English clans could turn dirty historics like colonialism into big Biz, one could guess that any Good Lord if there is one, surely will have us pay Pay the Piper, even just for telling God knows how many lies about it.

Certainly that Iranian female judge was spot on when she said to our media that we are quite capable of forming our own democracy thank you, and very certainly not in the English American way.

Cheers, BB, WA.
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 6 July 2009 4:16:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An unusually informative set of comments correcting the truncated chronology of Jake Lynch, who should also acquaint himself with the taboo concept, "imperialism". Leslie
Posted by Leslie, Monday, 6 July 2009 5:45:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While we are not forgetting all the points mentioned by OLO writers lets not forget the fact that Europe never repaid its financial obligations from WW II to the USA. If they would or did American tax payers could enjoy a tax holiday of approximately 10 years.

Lets also not gloss over the habit of duplicitous Europe basking in a security blanket the US military has provided for the last 60 years. One might also consider the trillions Europe saves by not having to fund a military to a level that would be required without the USA.

The premise that Europe is possessed of a higher state of enlightenment ignores the fact that they no longer posses the will to shed blood for freedom except as a token effort. This results from their blatant enactment of self interest which ensures that they will sit on the sidelines for another 60 years if they can get away with it.

The average American would dearly love to pull up stakes and let the rest of the world fester. But then they consider what would eventuate and once again conclude that America has more than most because it pays a higher cost than most.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Monday, 6 July 2009 6:10:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Britain paid off it’s WW2 debt (plus interest) to the USA in 2006.

In most cases, the remainder of Europe’s debt was deliberately “forgiven” to allow the European bloc to rebuild enough to help stand against the Soviets.

An exception was West Germany but much of this debt was also written off. A more significant contribution to Europe was the Marshall Plan.

Meanwhile the widespread establishment of US military bases throughout all of Europe (for their own interests) may also be considered a significant form of repayment.

Like all other countries, America only acts in it's own self-interests - not out of some sense of benevolence.

Remember that Hitler’s personal rise to power was helped by deliberate funding from Wall Street and many American corporations (such as Ford. Standard Oil, Chase Bank) actively traded with the Nazis during the war and Churchill believed that the late entry of the USA actually extended the war's duration.
Posted by wobbles, Tuesday, 7 July 2009 12:06:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is all about making money and power.Why spend billions on R&D and defence and get no return?The industrial military complex that JF Kennedy and others alluded to is alive and well.Th Global Reserve Banks provide the finance for the likes of Halliburton to sell arms.The US tax payer then foots the bill for both principal and interest.This is why so many in the US are so poor.

The war against terror is just a ruse to further perpetuate the industrial military complex aided and abetted by the banksters.Real suffering people are just pawns in the game of The Grand Chessboard of Zbigneiw Brzezinski.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 7 July 2009 8:10:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...and a fair few months in the 1860s when they were at war with themselves. All rather Orwellian really.
Posted by hugoagogo, Tuesday, 7 July 2009 8:12:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The US has been at war in Korea since June 1950, there has been an armistice NOT a peace since 1953.
Posted by Vioetbou, Tuesday, 7 July 2009 10:42:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes I agree with a lot of the above. The trouble is the same people who always jump on the bandwagon about America’s terrible war history are the same one’s that scream out for America to intervene every time a war or crisis breaks out in some country around the world and then condemn them for not doing so.

I read it all the time on this forum, for example; Why doesn’t America do something about the genocide in Sudan? Why doesn’t America do something about deposing Mugabee in Zimbabwee?. America should be acting now to stop the rape and killing in Kuwait, why are they taking three months to decide? America should be leading the United Nations to send peace forces to Bosnia. Why doesn’t America protect the Palestinians from the Israelies? etc. etc. Leading peace forces is not just a matter of standing there, it is a matter of fighting against one side to protect the other. America needs to establish military bases when they need to deploy peace forces in a country.
Posted by sharkfin, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 12:44:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozandy is obviously not South Korean.

Sharkfin - careful you may upset the slobbering love affair that has resulted on this OLO topic.

Sounds like a good title for a book, doesn't it? Slobbering Love Affair?

So, in the process of attempting to save a person from being hit by a bus a pilgrim accidentally knocks said person into the said path and the person is mortally injured.

Most OLO writers apparently feel that the paralysed bystanders are morally superior to the arrogant, red necked, septic tank who intervened.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 8:36:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozandy opines, "Being appeasers of the bully, Australia is not exactly in an honorable position...but at least it is pretty safe. When the bully dies of stupidity (in progress), we can shift allegiences (sp?)fairly cheaply".

Allegiances? Hmmmmmmmmmmm, let me see? China (another business op for the filthy rich Rudds)or India or Russia or Latvia or Saudi Arabia or Argentina or that gutless black market buyer of Iraqi oil, France? (After all it was only about the oil) The French would sure as hell come to the aid of Australia if the Greens asked them to. One appeaser to another, you know, birds of a feather.

I give up Ozandy. Who did you envisage?
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 9:21:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why has it become so quiet?
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Saturday, 11 July 2009 1:18:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy