Reflections

The United States and its citizens certaily do seem to be suffering mental impairment of some kind, based on the bad political and government decisions that are being made, but the cause goes far deeper than concussions.

As far as the American military is concerned, it is the strength of the military of the United States that has prevented another world war since the last one.

The idea of trying to avoid war with agressor nations was tried just prior to World War II. America was isolationist until Pearl Harbor. It didn't work. And had Japan attacked Russia rather than the United States (they may not have had that option, but if they did), the U.S. might have continued to stay out of World War II, and if that happened it is possible that Hitler could have won the war. Then the U.S. would have faced a far deadlier enemy, one possibly too strong for it, and we could have been conquered and enslaved.

Define "aggression", please.

By any reasonable standard, you will find that the U.S. has been one of the most aggressive countries of all time.

I'll let two-time Medal of Honor winner Smedley Butler explain it to you:

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
+(
War is just a racket.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people.

Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight.

The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
....
)+
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by USMC Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler.

The racketeers have convinced you that they are "Saving the World" with their relentless aggression. They are spending as much on their war racket as all other countries on the planet combined. That is your money: You are paying for this corruption, with your taxes, and countless others are paying with their lives.

+(
We destroyed the village in order to save it.
)+
-- U.S. colonel in Vietnam, as he looked out over the ruins of Ben Suc.

The true savior of the world is Christ -- if you are a Christian -- not the Pentagon. To turn the Pentagon into a savior is idolatrous. If you want to save people, treat them as people: Talk to them, learn from them, love them! Allowing your war-machine to use people and even whole countries for target practice is not the way to save the world.

Yes, I know, you are addicted to the Fear Drug. You cannot stop being Very Very Afraid of non-existent "Threats": They have you hooked.

+(
Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it.
)+
-- Douglas MacArthur

- -

Who is the aggressor?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy/US_ForeignPolicy.html
+(
From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair.
)+
-- William Blum

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html -- A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present

What is the real reason for this aggression?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy/US_ForeignPolicy.html
+(
With unfailing consistancy, U.S. intervention has been on the side of the rich and powerful of various nations at the expense of the poor and needy. Rather than strengthening democracies, U.S. leaders have overthrown numerous democratically elected governments or other populist regimes in dozens of countries ... whenever these nations give evidence of putting the interests of their people ahead of the interests of multinational corporate interests.
)+
-- Michael Parenti, political scientist and author

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/American_Empire_Dummies.html -- American Empire For Dummies (10/02)

http:://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy/US_ForeignPolicy.html
+(
If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indespensible nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.
)+

The idea that "We" get to decide who lives and who dies is megalomania. It's playing God. It is insane. It is unbridled arrogance, and arrogance precedes the fall.

+(
The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology.
)+
-- Michael Parenti, political scientist and author

- -

You speak of "isolationism". That is a term invented by the gangsters of war to make you think that peace and trade between countries is somehow bad. They want to box you in and sell you on the idea that "We" have "No Choice" but to be constantly at war.

These racketeers of war have it exactly backwards. It is not trade and peace and justice that isolates the U.S.: It is the relentless war-making. The whole world is sick of our killing. The world is sick of our increasing disregard for international law and our disregard for our own Constitution. The world is sick of our lies and our self-pity and our fear. Imagine! -- the biggest military empire in all of history, terrified by a few tribesmen on the other side of the planet! Is that not hilarious? Is that not pathetic?

Someday, I hope you will finally get sick of the lies and the madness and the slaughter. You will then open your eyes and start looking for alternatives. You will begin to notice all that you have missed, and you will be shocked. You will be like a man who emerges from a very dark tunnel -- or like the Japanese who emerged from their caves after World War II.

Aggression is when one country attacks another without due cause or in defense of itself or its ally. When Hitler attacked Poland, it was aggression. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, that was aggression. When the United States attacked Nagasaki and Hiroshima, that was not aggression because we were defending ourselves in a war that Japan started. When Sadaam Husain attacked Kuwait, that was aggression. When the United States attacked Iraq to free Kuwait, that was not aggression because we were doing it in defense of an ally and because Iraq started the fight.

If you are walking down the street, and a bully or a robber punches you (or your friend) in the face out of meanness or to take your money or your friend's money, that is aggression. If you then punch the bully or robber, back, that is not aggression - it is self defense or defense of your friend.

Is that hard to understand?

The wars the United States fought in Korea and Vietnam were defensive wars. We were trying to protect the southern portions of those countries, who were our allies and wanted to remain free and non-communist, from being conquered by forces from the north. In Korea, we succeeded, and South Korea today is one of the most free and prosperous nations in the region as a result, in contrast to North Korea, whose population is oppressed and lives in poverty. In Vietnam we failed because we did not have the will to win.

No, it is "very easy" to understand. Just as it was "very easy" for the German people to understand that they were attacked by Poland and had "No Choice" but to wipe Poland off the map.

"Polish Terrorists take over radio station at Gleiwitz" -- that is what the German people were told. And since the Authorities and the War-addicts would never EVER tell a lie, it must have been true.

"Vietnamese attack ships in Gulf of Tonkin" -- that is what the American people were told. Years later, even McNamara admitted it was a lie. You will find similar lies behind every other war the U.S. fought.

Yes, it is "very easy" to understand that vast wars and killing sprees are good and wonderful, when we ask no questions and believe every lie the War Party feeds us.

But some of us notice that the lies do not quite fit together. We start asking questions, and then the whole tapestry of lies falls apart. The truth is painful, but it sets us free.

- -

You write about a bully. Think about how the bully acts in the real world. He does not just beat somebody to a pulp. First, he taunts his victims. Maybe he even threatens his victims. He cuts off their oil supply and invites them to fight back. Then, when one of the victims looks at the bully the wrong way and refuses to bow down and worship the bully, the little guy is accused of "Aggression", and the bully has an excuse for killing the little guy and everybody else in the vicinity. After all, it is only "Defense".

Heed the words of George Washington:


http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm
+(
"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all ... The Nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."
)+
-- George Washington, "Farewell Address", 17 Sep 1796

You tell us that some slaughters are justified because a "U.S. Ally" was attacked. In Kuwait, for example, the U.S. ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam that the U.S. did not care how he settled his differences with Kuwait. So Saddam walked right into the trap.

The problem is that the U.S. has "Allies" and "Interests" all over the world. So every time someone breathes, a "U.S. Interest" is attacked or threatened, and the U.S. then has an excuse for starting a war.

Fortunately, the U.S. economy will soon bring this madness to an end. The number of trillions that can be stolen from America by the war-makers is finite. As soon as we go bankrupt, the banksters will move to some other country, and then THAT country will get to "Save The World" and make the bankers rich.

The real aggressor always hides behind a fig-leaf. The world often sees through that cover, but most people living in the aggressor state are fooled. They're fooled because the lie is all they are allowed to see. The masked-media are filled with stories about Michael Jackson, so the truth remains buried. So people go along with the slaughter and think it is noble. Meanwhile, the rulers and the chickenhawks at the top get rich.

If you like that system, that is your problem. I don't. I repeat what Smedley Butler said:

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
+(
War is just a racket. ....
)+
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by USMC Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, two-time Medal of Honor winner

He spoke from 33 years of first-hand combat experience. He's telling us the truth. The banksters lie to us, just as they lied to the German people. War-making is the quickest way for some people to get rich. I refuse to be a part of that racket.

- -

+(
The loud little handful will shout for war. The pulpit will warily and cautiously protest at first.... The great mass of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes, and will try to make out why there should be a war, and they will say earnestly and indignantly: "It is unjust and dishonorable and there is no need for war. Then the few will shout even louder.... Before long you will see a curious thing: anti-war speakers will be stoned from the platform, and free speech will be strangled by hordes of furious men who still agree with the speakers but dare not admit it... Next, the statesmen will invent cheap lies...and each man will be glad of these lies and will study them because they soothe his conscience ....
)+
-- Mark Twain

.

+(
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
)+
-- Hermann Goering

It has certainly worked well, here in America!

So how should we have dealt with Adolf Hitler?

Suppose you were the prime minister of England or of France or had authority to make decisions for those countries in the years 1934 to 1945? If you saw what Hitler was doing, what would you do differently? Would you negotiate with him more? Would you set a good example of non-aggression by not increasing your armies and air forces?

What is the right way for nations that were neighbors with Germany to deal with someone like Hitler? And likewise, what would be the right way for the nations of the world, including the United States, to deal with someone today who is like Hitler, someone who has a lust for power and wants to take over other countries, conquer them, take their land and possessions, take away their freedom, and in some cases even enslave them?

This is an interesting question pertaining to theory. I will answer it, but it is peripheral, because our information is wrong. No matter what our theory is, if the input is bad the result will be bad too.

My answer is that countries have a right of self-defense. I'm a strong believer in national sovereignty.

Now, let's look at what ACTUALLY happened prior to World War II. Chamberlain, the leading appeaser, headed the British CONSERVATIVE Party. Were these Conservatives really as naive as we are led to believe? Recall that Hitler was vehemently anti-Communist. Together with Italy and Japan, Germany founded the anti-comintern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Comintern_Pact

Britain was also vehemently anti-communist, Churchill having called for communism to be "strangled in its crib". British anti-communism dated from 1917, when the Bolsheviks pulled Russia out of World War I. Britain was one of the 14 powers that invaded Russia during the Russian Civil War, and Germany was another. Throughout the 1930s, Britain maintained a naval pact with Germany, and from 1932 onwards, Britain blocked Stalin's call for the formation of a collective secutity pact against Germany.

The British Conservatives were backed by big business and Hitler, likewise, was backed by big business -- steel, coal, armaments, banking. So Chamberlain and Hitler were backed, to some extent, by the same interlocked cartels.

When Chamberlain and Daladier appeased Hitler, they were not defending Britain and France. They were actually building Hitler up, turning him into a superman in the eyes of the German people. Whatever Hitler asked for, he got -- WITHOUT going to war. Why would they do that?

Today, we are led to believe that they were simply naive. But there is another explanation that is far more likely, in my opinion: They were hoping that Germany could be used as a cat's paw against the Bolsheviks. Notice that it is the gift of the Sudeten that enabled Hitler to attack Poland.

According to Will Durant, Germany was actually seen as the "Bastion of Democracy in the East". Major U.S. corporations helped to arm Hitler. Standard Oil supplied him with fuel. This collusion between big business and Hitler is mentioned in the movie Zeitgeist, but I have seen it documented elsewhere as well.

http://www.zeitgeist.com

Here then is my advice: If your neighbor is Hitler, don't build him up! Don't try to use him to start a world war! Don't give him the industry he needs to start a war. This Hitler may have a "lust for power" -- just like our own politicians! -- and may want to conquer the world, but if he lacks the industrial base to do so, he is harmless.

Here is what we should not do: Overreact. When we overreact, we end up losing our own freedom. We become the very thing we hate. As Randolph Bourne wrote, "War is the health of the state". With each new war, the state becomes more powerful. Under the guise of war-making the rights of the individual are abolished and human life becomes cheap. In addition, each war drives the country deeper into debt: We all become debt-slaves.

The global military empire that we run today is a vast (and deliberate) overreaction to a "Threat" that was largely imaginary. When we hold a gun to the head of every country on the planet, that is not freedom: That is a global dictatorship. Even if such a dictatorship were desirable -- and it isn't -- it's something we Americans can no longer afford. We are spending as much on war-making as all other countries on the planet combined, and the more we make war, the more we are despised.