# War, democracy and the US Constitution



## Warrigal (Oct 21, 2014)

I found this piece interesting and wondered what the reaction of Americans would be to it's basic premise that America is paying a heavy price for being enmeshed in conflicts all around the world. The cost is to openness in government, the common welfare of the people and to democracy itself.

Your reactions and opinions please.



> *Being the ‘indispensable nation’ is killing American democracy*
> http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...mocracy-by-waging-an-empires-continuous-wars/
> 
> By Robert L. Borosage
> ...


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 21, 2014)

There has always been a struggle between the isolationists and the expansionists which dances around the powers provided by the Constitution...


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 21, 2014)

Do you think America can extricate herself from foreign bases and perpetual conflicts overseas?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 21, 2014)

No, there might be some tweaking but there are too many interests at work here from employment opportunities of host countries, to military suppliers and global strageic considerations that will be there with old threats and new ones such as Isis...


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 21, 2014)

Ralphy1 said:


> No, there might be some tweaking but there are too many interests at work here from employment opportunities of host countries, to military suppliers and global strageic considerations that will be there with old threats and new ones such as Isis...



Not to mention, whenever there is a threat... conflict.... concern....humanitarian crisis..etc... the entire world looks to the USA to solve it...... In just the last few months.. ISIS...and now Ebola..  the world is crying and wringing it's hands over these.... and the USA is stepping in to try to help.    I think what pee's off so many Americans is that when we do..... we are criticized and denegrated for it..   My opinion... Don't call us...  and if you do??  Shut the heck up about our response... or YOU handle it.  Spend YOUR blood and treasure...or stop complaining about the USA.     It's happened all through recent history..  I for one don't give a rat's patoot if this ruffles the feathers of some here..  I'm completely done being asked to hang my head in shame for being born in the richest and greatest country on earth.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 21, 2014)

No shame here, either, and consider myself extraordinarily lucky...


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 21, 2014)

Looking on from the outside (and just for the record Australia has never invoked the ANZUS treaty to ask the USA to come to our aid but John Howard did invoke it to come to your aid in the war against terror after 911. Ridiculous, but true) I assume that all the foreign engagements that America has undertaken have been to protect your important foreign interests - either strategic or material, resources etc. There are a lot of crises that do not warrant interest from the USA. Three off the top of my head would be the Suez crisis when British interests were at stake (the US backed Nasser), the annexation of West Papua by Indonesia and the later annexation of East Timor and subsequent atrocities inflicted on the Timorese people by Indonesian backed militias.

I don't think it is really true that America is always there when there is some kind of crisis. We handled the Solomon Island crisis on our own. It was a small affiair by US standards. I doubt that the average US citizen is at all aware of Irian Jaya (West Papua), Timor Leste or the Solomons.

The whole world knows what the US is doing all of the time but most of the time Americans are blissfully unaware what happens in the rest of the world. For example, how many know that Australia lost a significant former prime minister today? If I said that it was Gough Whitlam, how many would have ever heard of him ?


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 21, 2014)

Are you aware of who Scott Brown is?   Scott Walker?....  How about Ben Carson?   I could go on and on.  Don't tell me that the whole world knows everything going on in the States... Everyone is much more intuned to what is happening in their own counrty and with their own politics.  NO... I don't know who Gough Whitlam is.. AND I don't care..  Not any more than YOU know who Pat Quin is.   ok... go ahead and google the names so you can pretend.


----------



## Meanderer (Oct 21, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Do you think America can extricate herself from foreign bases and perpetual conflicts overseas?


It's pretty hard for Sam to stop being the world's policeman.  A small town in the area had one policeman, by the name of Dave.  Because of economic reasons, they had to let Dave go and instead rely on the regional police force.  There was a vocal drive to "Save Dave", but it came to nothing.  Most of the world is still crying"Save Sam"!


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 21, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Are you aware of who Scott Brown is?   Scott Walker?....  How about Ben Carson?   I could go on and on.  Don't tell me that the whole world knows everything going on in the States... Everyone is much more intuned to what is happening in their own counrty and with their own politics.  NO... I don't know who Gough Whitlam is.. AND I don't care..  Not any more than YOU know who Pat Quin is.   ok... go ahead and google the names so you can pretend.


 I don't think any of those men have been presidents. I will now look them up to see how significant they are on the world stage.

 I now have to amend my earlier statement to add in an extra phrase for clarity.



> The whole world knows what the US is doing *in terms of foreign policy *all of the time


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 21, 2014)

Meanderer said:


> It's pretty hard for Sam to stop being the world's policeman. A small town in the area had one policeman, by the name of Dave. Because of economic reasons, they had to let Dave go and instead rely on the regional police force. There was a vocal drive to "Save Dave", but it came to nothing. Most of the world is still crying"Save Sam"!



Or rather CALL SAM!!    Then  "That damn Sam"


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 21, 2014)

But he also can be seen as Uncle Sugar...


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 21, 2014)

Ralphy1 said:


> But he also can be seen as Uncle Sugar...




Mike Huckabee is an idiot..


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 21, 2014)

How did Huckerby get in here?  Uncle Sugar is used by many...


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 21, 2014)

Ralphy1 said:


> How did Huckerby get in here? Uncle Sugar is used by many...



He's the last one I've heard use the term...


----------



## Debby (Oct 21, 2014)

Your question was can America extricate itself from foreign bases and involvement or something to that effect.  I don't think they will because corporate and military interests are at stake. Corporations supply the war effort.  They provide food and housing and machinery and infrastructure support not to mention the huge dollars involved in weaponry (both for US military and for terrorists in other countries).  Corporations also supply mercenaries when it's determined that that kind of intervention is appropriate.  Corporations also come in after the fact when a country has been invaded and they became the go-to source for many if not most of what's need to 're-build'.  An example  of that was Monsanto  being give sole seed supply rights in Iraq in the year or two immediately after that country was invaded.

From Global Research:  "....U.S. proconsul and head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), Paul Bremer issued “100 Orders” to transfer Iraq’s economy and legal ownership of Iraqi resources into the private hands of U.S. corporations....."http://www.globalresearch.ca/biopiracy-and-gmos-the-fate-of-iraq-s-agriculture/1447

And another link:  "..."As part of sweeping "economic restructuring" implemented by the Bush Administration in Iraq, Iraqi farmers will no longer be permitted to save their seeds, which include seeds the Iraqis themselves have developed over hundreds of years. Instead, they will be forced to buy seeds from US corporations...."http://www.rense.com/general62/seeds.htm


Huge amounts of money to be made on wars and politicians and the military, well those generals and majors and all the rest of them want to keep their jobs too.  And the multiplicity of lobbyists at work on behalf of those corporations also want to remain relevant and employed and so they hand over wads of cash to politicians for their campaigns, who then vote accordingly.  An example of this is Gerald Cassidy (apparently a leading lobbyist), who along with his wife handed over $1.3 million dollars for various Congressional campaigns. http://www.economist.com/news/speci...nies-try-influence-governments-grey-eminences


This is another link to an article about the power of lobbyists and how they've 'killed' democracy in America.  http://www.marketwatch.com/story/16-credos-for-our-new-lobbyist-nation-2009-09-01  (the article is entitled:  Democracy is Dead, Lobbyists Rule America)


"...The three major domestic arms manufacturers, Lockheed Martin (LMT), Northrop Grumman (NOG) and Raytheon (RTN) have delivered record-shattering returns to their investors, CEOs and investment banks during the past decade and a half...The power and influence of the *military-industrial complex in promoting serial wars has resulted in extraordinary rates of profit*. According to a recent study by Morgan Stanley (cited in Barron’s, 6/9/14, p. 19), shares in the major US arms manufacturers have risen 27,699% over the past fifty years versus 6,777% for the broader market. In the past three years alone, Raytheon has returned 124%, Northrup Grumman 114% and Lockheed Martin 149% to their investors.."
....The *arms industry lobbyists pressure Congressional and Pentagon decision-makers* to link up with the pro-Israel lobby as it promotes even deeper direct US military involvement in Syria, Iraq and Iran. The growing ties between Israeli and US military industries reinforce their political leverage in Washington..."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-soaring-profits-of-the-military-industrial-complex-the-soaring-costs-of-military-casualties/5388393


As I reread this, I have to point out in case you also didn't notice it first time around, US arms manufacturers share price rising 27,699% in past 50 years.  Cash cow indeed!



Those corporations and lobbyists and indeed the politicians are not likely to give up a cash cow that delivers investment returns as shown above.  And I would imagine that all of those CEO's who are raking in big bucks see the deaths and maimings and suicides of all those American soldiers who've been involved in these conflicts as on par with 'widgets' which out of necessity were simply discards.  

Just a note:  a 'widget' is a small gadget or device whose name is unknown or unspecified.  Those soldiers only have names to their family's, but to the corporations and lobbyists, unknown and uncared for.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 21, 2014)

Extrication could prove to be just as expensive  in economic terms but less expensive in terms of blood.
It all depends what the people decide is the preferred option.

That is putting it rather simplistically but at the core of things, it is a real issue.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 21, 2014)

Until we go broke we will keep as many bases as we feel necessary to protect our interests on a global scale.  Technology is helping to cut back on the manpower aspect and carriers are floating bases that can be shifted around to bring the attack where bases are not.  And with a volunteer service force the American public is not too concerned when Ebola and football is on many of their minds...


----------



## Debby (Oct 21, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Extrication could prove to be just as expensive  in economic terms but less expensive in terms of blood.
> It all depends what the people decide is the preferred option.
> 
> That is putting it rather simplistically but at the core of things, it is a real issue.



The people aren't going to decide anything because they don't know there is a problem and what's more, they would have to organize and send their own POWERFUL lobbyists to the White House to argue/lobby on the peoples behalf.  As one of the links in my comment above suggests:

"...Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans will never hear about all the day-to-day shenanigans: The buying, selling and bartering of sweeteners, earmarks, votes and senatorial seats. Most of the behind-the-scenes deals never cross the radar of Middle America.Most voters are destined to live in denial, trapped in mind-numbing illusions replaying over and over as they sit passively, dazed. Or they angrily feed their macho delusions of power at town-hall meetings, carrying AK-47s, convinced that grandma will be sacrificed by one of Obama's death panels. Either way, they aimlessly drift, unaware of how lobbyists rule America, how lobbyists help the "Happy Conspiracy" rob them blind...."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/16-credos-for-our-new-lobbyist-nation-2009-09-01

When you have a military industrial complex that garners 27,699% returns over 50 years, how can it be possible that miscellaneous citizens from across America, who are either now on food stamps, or working low paying jobs, or have lost their homes as a result of the banking fiasco that affected the world, or even just everyday families trying to get through life and raise children, are going to organize and come up with the kind of money and influence that would be needed to deliver a death blow to the power that corporations have over the government?  And especially if they don't understand what is being done 'in their name'.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 21, 2014)

The generals only advise from their perspective but the president has to consider all perspectivess...


----------



## rt3 (Oct 21, 2014)

no advantage for US to win any war. winning means occupation, costs to high, few if any US citizens are going to move and re-settle carrying traditions and values. wars fought today are financial. its easier to control the outcome in a country by making or breaking its currency, trade agreements etc. world policeforce etc. is a media term. How can the rest of world be aware of US foreign policy when the current Administration doesn't even know what it is? US military in world is to protect US interests, economic, nothing else (its about oil, mineral deposits, drug trade routes). If you start with morale stuff, (people's rights, suppression etc) whose moral code you gonna use? the guy in the white hat?
Ironically the current administration has the backing of corporate America, traditionally socialists, are at odds with the capitalists (both terms used very loosely) some of the worlds industrial leaders are aware of what the Yanks are up to, but 99.9% of the world doesn't have a clue. 
"Policy is determined by a loose affiliation of Millionaires and Billionaires"  ----  Paul Simon


----------



## Davey Jones (Oct 21, 2014)

Think of it this way....*Are Wars Good for the Economy?
*
The standard "a war gives the economy a boost" argument goes as follows: Let's suppose that the economy is in the low end of the business cycle, so we're in a recession or just a period of low economic growth. The unemployment rate is high, people may be making less purchases than they were a year or two ago, and overall output is flat. But then the country decides to prepare for war! The government needs to equip its soldiers with the extra gear and munitions needed in order to win the war. Corporations win contracts to supply boots, and bombs and vehicles to the army. Many of these companies will have to hire extra workers in order to meet this increased production. If the preparations for war are large enough, large numbers of workers will be hired reducing the unemployment rate. Other workers may need to be hired to cover reservists in private sector jobs who get sent overseas. With the unemployment rate down we have more people spending again and people who had jobs before will be less worried about losing their job in the future so they'll spend more than they did. This extra spending will help the retail sector, who will need to hire extra employees causing unemployment to drop even further. A spiral of positive economic activity is created by the government preparing for war, if you believe the story. The flawed logic of the story is an example of something economists call _The Broken Window Fallacy_


----------



## oakapple (Oct 21, 2014)

On the other hand, we here in the UK are very glad that the US 'went looking for monsters to destroy' in the last world war, Adolf Hitler certainly fits that bill!


----------



## oakapple (Oct 21, 2014)

If we leave China [the next big superpower] to police the world, God help the world.


----------



## oakapple (Oct 21, 2014)

Davey Jones said:


> Think of it this way....*Are Wars Good for the Economy?
> *
> The standard "a war gives the economy a boost" argument goes as follows: Let's suppose that the economy is in the low end of the business cycle, so we're in a recession or just a period of low economic growth. The unemployment rate is high, people may be making less purchases than they were a year or two ago, and overall output is flat. But then the country decides to prepare for war! The government needs to equip its soldiers with the extra gear and munitions needed in order to win the war. Corporations win contracts to supply boots, and bombs and vehicles to the army. Many of these companies will have to hire extra workers in order to meet this increased production. If the preparations for war are large enough, large numbers of workers will be hired reducing the unemployment rate. Other workers may need to be hired to cover reservists in private sector jobs who get sent overseas. With the unemployment rate down we have more people spending again and people who had jobs before will be less worried about losing their job in the future so they'll spend more than they did. This extra spending will help the retail sector, who will need to hire extra employees causing unemployment to drop even further. A spiral of positive economic activity is created by the government preparing for war, if you believe the story. The flawed logic of the story is an example of something economists call _The Broken Window Fallacy_


There is an old saying, 'It's an ill wind that blows NOBODY any good'.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 21, 2014)

If you want to thank someone for the most people lost during WWII probably better start with the Russians, protecting the oil supply lines out of Stalingrad. China will "police the world" to the extent of its economic interests. US policy on race in South Africa merely shut the US out while China invested heavily. 
"Swords or plowshare" philosophies have been around since biblical times. Most are based on demand and supply considerations, and some in the extreme such as the command economy of the Soviets. (production capacity is limited so choices regarding resource allocations are limited). They no longer apply, you should be more concerned about who is controlling "high volume trading" on world exchanges, and centralized market conditions, particularly the futures market. US military has been downsizing for some time. Use of drones, satellites, NSA monitors, control of information. Wars based on assets, (tanks,planes) and the math of attrition are over, one of the reasons terrorist groups can be so effective, they don't need them. The current war is insurgency. The US war machine is a mercenary one, the laws concerning warfare, and even the countries themselves do not apply to "private security companies".


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 21, 2014)

> How can the rest of world be aware of US foreign policy


The world notices the effects of American foreign policy. It always makes the news.


----------



## Susie (Oct 21, 2014)

Some terrific debating, but what does it really add up to: Severe criticism of everything America stands for???
I thought I would come across this "anti-Americanism" on a few Australian sites, but no: Here it is-- a highly intellectualized 'put down' of "Beautiful, spirited America"!!!!


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 21, 2014)

I'm not sure I agree with you Susie. I've been hearing quite a lot of posts along the line of "why does the rest of the world expect the US to solve all the problems of crisis and conflict?" but this thread was exploring the willingness to retreat from that role.

The responses appear to show ambiguity on this issue, possibly because there is an economic cost to isolationism. 
My opinion is that most interventions are strongly motivated by national and economic interest - not just for the United States but for other states as well, including our own country, Australia.


----------



## Susie (Oct 22, 2014)

Wish I had read the posts more carefully, Dame Warrigal!
It now seems to me, the main theme has to do with war and its benefits.
Taken out of context: " U.S. leaders have chosen permanent global intervention even at the cost of undermining the Republic."
Also: "For the cost of war can be measured in dollars not spent here at home".
It seems to me you are right about most interventions being motivated by national and economic interests.
If this is true, and endless greed the main motivation for interventions, then the future could seem indeed bleak.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Oct 22, 2014)

The future won't be bleak for those who are not in war zones or lose members in wars...


----------



## Debby (Oct 22, 2014)

Davey Jones said:


> Think of it this way....*Are Wars Good for the Economy?
> *
> The standard "a war gives the economy a boost" argument goes as follows: Let's suppose that the economy is in the low end of the business cycle, so we're in a recession or just a period of low economic growth. The unemployment rate is high, people may be making less purchases than they were a year or two ago, and overall output is flat. But then the country decides to prepare for war! The government needs to equip its soldiers with the extra gear and munitions needed in order to win the war. Corporations win contracts to supply boots, and bombs and vehicles to the army. Many of these companies will have to hire extra workers in order to meet this increased production. If the preparations for war are large enough, large numbers of workers will be hired reducing the unemployment rate. Other workers may need to be hired to cover reservists in private sector jobs who get sent overseas. With the unemployment rate down we have more people spending again and people who had jobs before will be less worried about losing their job in the future so they'll spend more than they did. This extra spending will help the retail sector, who will need to hire extra employees causing unemployment to drop even further. A spiral of positive economic activity is created by the government preparing for war, if you believe the story. The flawed logic of the story is an example of something economists call _The Broken Window Fallacy_




You make very good points here but I'm not sure what you mean by the 'flawed logic' that you mention at the end.  Could you expand on that please Davey?


----------



## Debby (Oct 22, 2014)

oakapple said:


> On the other hand, we here in the UK are very glad that the US 'went looking for monsters to destroy' in the last world war, Adolf Hitler certainly fits that bill!




I think if you do a search on who defeated Hitler, you will find ample links that suggest that Russia was a key player in the defeat of Hitler.  This is a pretty good web site that seems to discuss the demise of the Nazi effort.  http://www.2worldwar2.com/when-hitler-lost.htm


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 22, 2014)

I thought it was Spike Milligan.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2014)

I thought it was snoopy!


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 22, 2014)

No, Snoopy helped to defeat the Kaiser but only a little bit.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> No, Snoopy helped to defeat the Kaiser but only a little bit.



DUH..... that's right..   BUt you know us Americans... we don't know anything about the world or history...


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 22, 2014)

That's because you arrived late to the two biggest wars of the twentieth century.

:tongue:


----------



## rt3 (Oct 22, 2014)

Approx. 6% of the US is owned by the Saudis, at least another 6 probably closer to 10% is owned by the Chinese. Normal everyday folk in US have less stocks and bonds than many citizens of other countries. Besides the obvious, (risk profile is lower) why do these countries invest here?. World economics is warfare.

Daveys comments refer to ecomomic models based on allocation of resources. Countries and economies can only scale in those constraints. Resources include, labor, capital, industrial capacity to name a few. By regulating the allocation (command economies) the country is able to produce more of one item. The problem is deciding what that item is. Free market economies on the other hand let the demand side of the control. The downside of this spiraling inflation, large public debt, and fiat money. This, and what was explained by Davey comes from an economist by the name of Keynes, or Keysian ecomomics which has played a role in most political countries sense wwII. Like all models they have weakness, and his are pointed by a group (among others) called Monetarists, (Freedman etc).  Plows vs. swords is an expression that the country or system can produce one or they other of that commodity. Japan and Germany were very small countries that were having their oil shut off by Russia, on the one side, and the US on the Pacific side. Aside from the other stuff, fascism etc. this is why wars a fought.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 22, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> That's because you arrived late to the two biggest wars of the twentieth century.
> 
> :tongue:




Yeah..... but we FINALLY did.... I guess that's what counts...


----------



## Vivjen (Oct 22, 2014)

To be fair.....we were very grateful; and US was very helpful...


----------



## Debby (Oct 22, 2014)

Vivjen said:


> To be fair.....we were very grateful; and US was very helpful...



Are you referring to WWII?  Because if you are, better send some gratitude to Russia because they were  greatly instrumental in the end of that war.  Just finished reading this site:  http://www.2worldwar2.com/when-hitler-lost.htm  and it's really interesting.


----------



## Vivjen (Oct 22, 2014)

I know the Russians were allies too; however some of that was to enable them to take over Eastern Europe; US had no desire to take over Western Europe; I don't think!

I have gratitude to all the allies; Canadians; West Indies; Anzac troops, and all the others....free Poles included; but the end result for them was not quite so good...


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 22, 2014)

Being serious for a moment, most of the old Empire was involved in the world wars. Hubby and I make a habit of visiting Imperial War Cemeteries when we travel and we are always reminded that many Indians were sacrificed for Mother England. Many of them have headstones that are simply inscribed "An Indian soldier of the Great War" or similar. 

My mum used to tell us how she and her sisters used to tease my grandfather by referring to something in the newspaper that "Joe" had done. He would prick up his ears and ask "Who? Joe Stalin?" to which they would reply "No, Joe Palooka." (American comic strip about a boxer)

Yes, I do know that Russia was an ally during WW II because of the common enemy that was Germany. What a lot of people don't appreciate is the fact that in WW I Japan was an ally from 1914 to 1918.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 22, 2014)

US interests during wwII were stopped by the Russians with Germany split in half. Top military advisors (including MacCarthy, I think could be wrong) wanted to nuke Russia, because they knew Russia was willing to move all the way across europe. Nato was formed to stop Russian tank divisions, and secure air strike capability within flight time of Moscow.


----------



## Susie (Oct 22, 2014)

Spike Milligan? Snoopy?
Are you trying to trivialize a terrible war? Shame on you! (so inflammatory!!!!)
Guess you don't suffer from nightmares over and over again, watching 1000's of refugees walking past: Soldiers in torn, ragged uniforms,missing limbs; families with all their possessions in a wooden handcart, or in cardboard suitcases, or rucksacks; the lucky ones still with a horse and cart; haggard, skeletal former inmates of the KC camps, still in those awful clothes.
Only those of you who were unlucky enough to be part of this, will still be 'haunted' by memories.
(The arrival of occupying American troops was truly a "godsend")


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 22, 2014)

My bad.

No I was not trying to trivialise any war. I don't know of one that isn't terrible for the people whose homelands are the battlegrounds. In that I include the hapless people of the Middle East.

I guess it is human nature to resort to humour in the face of the unthinkable.
I am fully aware how close things came to victory for Germany over the British Isles and how Hitler's mistake of opening up a second front to the east and later the arrival of the US troops for the D Day invasion turned the tide against the Nazis. 

I'm also aware that it was the courage and resolve of the British people during those dark days of The Blitz, when instead of surrendering they withstood the endless bombings and rocket attacks on their cities, that thwarted the plan for the conquest of all of Europe. I am in awe of such civilian heroism.

I grew up with a girl who had been born in Berlin in the final phase of the war. From her I learned that war is hell for everyone under the bombs, whatever their nationality.

So sorry about the Spike Milligan joke.


----------



## Susie (Oct 22, 2014)

My apologies to Vivjen and Debby for hijacking the topic. I blame too many memories.
When the Russian occupation came to our little town, the rapes had stopped.
The soldiers were poor, had meagre rations, no watches-still, when they needed grandad for electrical work, he and I were invited to share their meal--Borscht-and believe me, we were hungry, so grateful for a meal.
All available potatoes had been confiscated (for "Vodka").
Women and girls were made to dig out cables from ditches--cable and anything else salvageable was sent to Russia.
Still can never forget the beautiful singing at night when individual soldiers were walking through the town!


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 23, 2014)

I don't see a hijack, Susie. just a tributary to the main stream, but connected nonetheless.

As the song goes "all God's chillum got a voice in the choir".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ytzaV95HZU


----------



## Debby (Oct 23, 2014)

rt3 said:


> US interests during wwII were stopped by the Russians with Germany split in half. Top military advisors (including MacCarthy, I think could be wrong) wanted to nuke Russia, because they knew Russia was willing to move all the way across europe. Nato was formed to stop Russian tank divisions, and secure air strike capability within flight time of Moscow.




I've read on several sites that the main reason that America nuked Japan was to show Russia what their capability was.  It should be noted that Japan was trying to surrender for several months before the bombs were dropped.  After the war, Russia moved to blockade Berlin to cut off Western consolidation and thus history shows the Berlin Airdrop resulting from the Soviet move.  The following year NATO was formed.  

During the time that Japan was trying to surrender, Russia was involved to a degree in the fight with Japan and was also the intermediary between Japan and America.

I guess at the time this was all going on the Soviet Union was in the process of developing their own bomb and it was first tested in 1949.

http://www.nato.int/history/nato-history.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/truman.html  "... a quote by Truman and the thinking of his Secretary of State Byrnes. Brynes view was that our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make the Soviets more "managable" in Europe. Truman said, "If this explodes as I think it will, I'll certainly have a hammer on those boys." indicating the Russians..."


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 23, 2014)

Japan was trying to surrender? That's news to me.
Do you have a solid link?


----------



## Debby (Oct 23, 2014)

Vivjen said:


> I know the Russians were allies too; however some of that was to enable them to take over Eastern Europe; US had no desire to take over Western Europe; I don't think!
> 
> I have gratitude to all the allies; Canadians; West Indies; Anzac troops, and all the others....free Poles included; but the end result for them was not quite so good...





I just looked it up and the Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact with Germany until Germany started invading Russia in 1941 and a four year conflict then began between the two of them.  During the time they weren't fighting each other, the Soviets invaded invaded Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and part of Romania, Poland and I think Finland.  

Later, in 1945 or thereabouts, Stalin met with Roosevelt and Churchill and they began a two fronted attack which 'ended' when they reached Berlin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_in_World_War_II


One thing that I have been totally amazed by is the willingness of governments all across the world to change sides and make enemies of the friends of enemies, 'just because'.  And the unfortunate victims for all these official manipulations is the soldiers who get sucked into the fights and of course the civilians.  I read one article a while back that says 95% of deaths in war are civilians.  So much for protecting the people from the maraudings of others eh?


----------



## Debby (Oct 23, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Japan was trying to surrender? That's news to me.
> Do you have a solid link?




Yes, as a matter of fact I do.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...ence/kent-csi/vol9no3/html/v09i3a06p_0001.htm

You will notice that the second link is from the CIA and opens by stating the the Japanese put out peace feelers in January of 1945 and discusses in a bit of detail the talks that went on in that time. Hiroshima was bombed in August.  I believe the biggest sticking point was that the Japanese were willing to concede to pretty much everything that was demanded of them except they wanted assurances that their emperor wouldn't be hurt or jailed or whatever.  I don't know what it's like now, but at that time, the Japanese revered their emperor as a 'Divine personage' which was why they were insistent on protecting him.  America initially wouldn't give that assurance but after the bombs were dropped, apparently that concession was finally made.

And the following link is a pretty good timeline of how that year went down.  http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/truman.html


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 23, 2014)

Germany and Japan were actively engaged in nuclear programs in WWII.... Perhaps it was to beat them to it, before they drop a bomb on the US or England?


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 23, 2014)

Interesting links, Debby.


----------



## Debby (Oct 23, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Germany and Japan were actively engaged in nuclear programs in WWII.... Perhaps it was to beat them to it, before they drop a bomb on the US or England?




No it wasn't.  The bomb was dropped for several reasons, two of which being that they didn't want to waste the development money and they wanted to impress upon the Soviet Union that they had this power.  Although it was apparently clear to America throughout 1944 that Japan was on it's knees or would be soon and despite Japan actively trying to surrender since January 1945  the bomb was dropped in August anyway.  The beauty of the Internet and Freedom of Information acts and declassification is that the facts are now available for the public to see.  If you check out the links that I left for DW, it's all there.

The following CSIS link explains it all quite clearly.   http://csis.org/blog/understanding-decision-drop-bomb-hiroshima-and-nagasaki


*Ending the war at the earliest possible moment - The primary objective for the U.S. was to win the war at the lowest possible cost. Specifically, Truman was looking for the most effective way to end the war quickly, not for a way to not use the bomb.*

*To justify the cost of the Manhattan Project - The Manhattan Project was a secret program to which the U.S. had funneled an estimated $1,889,604,000 (in 1945 dollars) through December 31, 1945.*

*To impress the Soviets - With the end of the war nearing, the Soviets were an important strategic consideration, especially with their military control over most of Eastern Europe. As Yale Professor Gaddis Smith has noted, “It has been demonstrated that the decision to bomb Japan was centrally connected to Truman's confrontational approach to the Soviet Union.” However, this idea is thought to be more appropriately understood as an ancillary benefit of dropping the bomb and not so much its sole purpose.*

*A lack of incentives not to use the bomb - **Weapons were created to be used. By 1945, the bombing of civilians was already an established practice. In fact, the earlier U.S. firebombing campaign of Japan, which began in 1944,killed an estimated 315,922 Japanese, a greater number than the estimated deaths attributed to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The firebombing of Tokyo alone resulted in roughly 100,000 Japanese killed.*

*Responding to Pearl Harbor - When a general raised objections to the use of the bombs, Truman responded by noting the atrocities of Pearl Harbor and said that “When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast.”*


(it should be noted that there are theories galore on the question of Pearl Harbour and whether or not America knew in advance that Japan was coming but I haven't looked into that so I can't say one way or the other and will leave that one alone.)


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 23, 2014)

Whatever...It's not something I have lost any sleep over...


----------



## drifter (Oct 23, 2014)

I think our economy is dependent on war and that still does not include anything close to full employment. Too many in congress and the country who think we ought to intervene at every opportunity. We will outrun our money supply some day.


----------



## BobF (Oct 23, 2014)

I think we have already outrun much of our value in today's markets.   In the last 8 years we have gone from about $7 trillion debt and possibility to pay down, as Clinton had tried to do and did, but after Reed and Pilosi took over in Bushes last two years they ran the unjustified debt up to $10 trillion and then our current government ran it on up to near $20 trillion.   Way too much debt if the government ever intends to get back on a pay as you go basis.   We have some very long years coming at the US with some hard years for the country coming soon.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 23, 2014)

I totally agree with Dame Warrigal and if we Australians can take the time to remember your Presidents over the last few decades it would have been rather nice to think that some Americans could at least have the decency to remember some of our Prime ministers particularly very good ones like Gough Whitlam and without googling I do not recall a President of America called Pat Quin so why should we know who that person is.  I didn't realise this forum would be one with rather distasteful and insulting people on it.  I shall have to reconsider my choice of a senior forum to be a member of.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 24, 2014)

remembering latest US pres.

hmm
Clinton --- womanizer and impeached by Congress
Bush --- gave us weapons of mass destruction (nobodies found any yet)  and nucular instead of nuclear
Obama -- can't show birth certificate  (no guns for him can't pass a backround check)


----------



## Debby (Oct 24, 2014)

Jenna said:


> I totally agree with Dame Warrigal and if we Australians can take the time to remember your Presidents over the last few decades it would have been rather nice to think that some Americans could at least have the decency to remember some of our Prime ministers particularly very good ones like Gough Whitlam and without googling I do not recall a President of America called Pat Quin so why should we know who that person is.  I didn't realise this forum would be one with rather distasteful and insulting people on it.  I shall have to reconsider my choice of a senior forum to be a member of.




Isn't that a funny coincidence.  I read something about your Prime Minister Whitlam just this morning in the following article, entitled 'The Forgotten Coup'.  All I can say is, nothing changes and the ripples in the 'pond of knowledge' just keep on spreading!   http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40040.htm


----------



## Elyzabeth (Oct 24, 2014)

Dame Warrigal:

You live on one of the many, many territories and colonies captured by one of the worlds 

 most ruthless colonizers in the history of mankind.

America is not the "Colonial Power" that set out to dominate all in the world who were weaker.

That would be England.

I get so tired of people trying to blame everything on America !

Americans are Saints by comparison, however I never hear this toxic past (still active in the 20th century)
 mentioned or acknowledged.

When there is a disaster and people need help. 

America is there, helping

All over the world Americans  are trying to make a difference in combatting hunger, AIDS and now ISIS

We are on the front line of Ebola helping people,
 trying to make vaccinations,
 trying to contain its spread  

An earthquake ..?  America
A tsunami,, America


America is not a perfect nation, no nation is, or ever has been  
but we do basically try to make a difference and to be of help to people in need. 

America does far more good, then not good in the world.

And puppet people who just drone on about the things that America does wrong 
 are terribly, terribly  boring.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 24, 2014)

Elyzabeth, I'm fully aware of the nature of colonialism but England was far from the most ruthless colonising power.
All empires from the Egyptians, Assyrians, Romans, the Mongols, Spanish, Chinese and the British have defended their power ruthlessly and subjugated weaker nations.

However, this thread is about the burden of being the most powerful nation of the modern era and whether it is inevitable that a high cost is paid to maintain that position. Perhaps it is also costly to step back from leadership. That is America's dilemma and I suspect the cause of much angst for it's people.



> America is not a perfect nation, no nation is, or ever has been
> but we do basically try to make a difference and to be of help to people in need.
> 
> America does far more good, then not good in the world.
> ...



In this life no individual and certainly no nation is ever perfect. 
All are flawed yet all may seek to move closer to perfection. 
That should always be the aim of humanity.

"Puppet people"?  Ouch!
Who is the puppeteer?
Who pulls the strings?


----------



## drifter (Oct 24, 2014)

I don't know if the US wants to extricate itself. Our infostructure is crumbling but it seems all we can talk about is the next conflict. I expect someday we will probably wind up like the Romans who out lasted their money supply. We've got a Congress that's about growing their wealth, getting re-elected, and little else. Old war hawks who know everything about everything to hear them talk, but do little. They don't have to ; they makethe rules.

Yes, some of us know about your Gough Whitlam. Labor loved him; he helped the little man a great deal in a similiar manner of FDR. Like FDR, some of your Liberals were not so impressed. Incidently, I found out something about him today, something the CIA said that i thought should have remained sealed. Perhaps you read it, too. Cheers.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 25, 2014)

There has long been talk that the CIA brought him down but I very much doubt it. Some of his ministers were real liabilities. One was conducting a very public affair with his political advisor and another was trying to raise money from the dodgiest of sources, a Pakistani who seemed to be a very shady character. Whitlam was too clever by half in offering a senator from an opposing party an ambassadorship to Ireland but the Queensland and NSW premiers refused to follow convention and Whitlam ended up worse off, especially after a senator from his own party died and was replaced by a stooge of his enemies.

Rupert Murdoch who had helped get him into office turned nasty when Whitlam wouldn't dance to Murdoch's tune and his newspapers ran continuous front pages that were extremely damaging (just like he does to this day). Also Whitlam was in a hurry and introduced his reforms too quickly. The electorate became very nervous. This allowed his political opponents to confect a constitutional crisis and the drunken sot of a Governor General, who had ideas above his station, decided to sack him. 

In the end he rose like a rocket and fell to earth like a stone but in the meantime he changed Australian society for the better and most of it has endured.

However, he was definitely not popular with the CIA who at that time thought all unionists were communists and by extension were very suspicious of the first Labor government in a quarter of a century. He did visit Communist China before Kissinger and Nixon and had a habit of calling everyone 'Comrade'.


----------



## Debby (Oct 25, 2014)

Elyzabeth said:


> Dame Warrigal:
> 
> You live on one of the many, many territories and colonies captured by one of the worlds
> 
> ...




I understand your discomfort with America being portrayed as I and some others have been doing here.  But we are only a few of the many who are saying these things and those other 'many' are busy documenting everything that they say and which I feel compelled to pass on.  Perhaps it is time that the American and Canadian and yes, the British and Australian public need to start listening to those other voices to hear what the real truth of the world situation is.

I'm going to give you a couple of websites although I'm pretty certain that you will make a point of not looking at them.  So maybe who they will be useful for is people who are seriously concerned with why the world is in the state it is in both democratically, financially and militarily and are prepared to truly look instead of accepting the misinformation that our governments make available to mainstream media for propagandizing the people with.  

Yes, America has done many good things but those good things are counterbalanced by the problems that that administration has caused throughout much of the world and the balance continues to tip toward the negative.  Where England may have held the title as world colonizer once upon a time, that government, like my own has chosen to accede to the interventionist philosophy that has come out of Washington for the past couple of decades and has brought us to a point in history where once again, there are rumblings of another world war.  The real 'puppet people' do what they are told and will not look beyond the strings that move them thus enabling the myth of exceptionality to continue to impact a globe that desperately needs peace.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/category/articles/

http://www.zerohedge.com


----------



## Debby (Oct 25, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> There has long been talk that the CIA brought him down ......However, he was definitely not popular with the CIA who at that time thought all unionists were communists and by extension were very suspicious of the first Labor government in a quarter of a century. He did visit Communist China before Kissinger and Nixon and had a habit of calling everyone 'Comrade'.




As I mentioned to someone else here, I just recently read an article that talks about the reasons and means that the CIA had and did to bring down Whitlam.  And I believe the catalyst was Prime Minister Whitlam threatening to close down Pine Gap which was a spy base near Alice Springs that was being run by the CIA.  Those other 'minor' issues that you mentioned may have been going on, but those weren't the reason he was sacked by Kerr apparently who was referred to by a CIA guy as 'their man'.  The article also mentions that the CIA had infiltrated trade unions.

It's a fascinating read.  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40040.htm


----------



## Jackie22 (Oct 25, 2014)

Elyzabeth said:


> Dame Warrigal:
> 
> You live on one of the many, many territories and colonies captured by one of the worlds
> 
> ...



Well said!


----------



## oakapple (Oct 25, 2014)

Elyzabeth; when YOU get tired of England bashing, maybe we can all get some peace.


----------



## Elyzabeth (Oct 25, 2014)

I read things BOTH for and against America,  I read everything!

I left the country because Bush was re elected !


Dame Warrigal  who pulls the Puppet's strings?

I would say people who are trying to be PC and accepted as going with the flow.. 

and stating things about America  to demonize it and try to pull it down

Mob thinking has it's own rewards, and responds to the pulled strings of popularity within the mob.


----------



## Elyzabeth (Oct 25, 2014)

In America criticizing is expected, and called for as part of our Democratic government.


In England and the UK, criticizing the government is called " bashing"

ALWAYS !


I am a citizen of both countries and I have heartily criticized America in the past.

I also vote in both countries and I know whereof I speak !


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 25, 2014)

Elyzabeth said:


> Dame Warrigal:
> 
> You live on one of the many, many territories and colonies captured by one of the worlds
> 
> ...




Well said!!


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 25, 2014)

Drifter, that article you have linked to is by John Pilger, who is far from clear eyed impartiality. He sees the dead hand of the CIA and America behind everything. Just as I avoid far right commentary I also tend to dismiss Pilger's far left conspiracy view of history. When choosing between conspiracy and stuff up, I go for stuff up 99% of the time.


----------



## Pam (Oct 25, 2014)

oakapple said:


> Elyzabeth; when YOU get tired of England bashing, maybe we can all get some peace.



:iagree:


----------



## Bee (Oct 25, 2014)

I also agree with Oakapple and Pam.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 25, 2014)

Personally... Everyone should knock off the bashing... If everyone stops bashing the States... I will be happy to NOT reciprocate..   If it's not stopped.. heck... game on.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 25, 2014)

It is a foolish king who only listens to flattery. A wise king hears the words of criticism too and ponders them.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 25, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> It is a foolish king who only listens to flattery. A wise king hears the words of criticism too and ponders them.



So I guess the USA bashing continues...  OK..


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 25, 2014)

Not at all. Let the Eye of Mordor fall on Australia for a change.
We can take it. You guys can take a break to lick your wounds for a bit.


----------



## Bee (Oct 25, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Personally... Everyone should knock off the bashing... If everyone stops bashing the States... I will be happy to NOT reciprocate..   If it's not stopped.. heck... game on.


----------



## Debby (Oct 25, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Not at all. Let the Eye of Mordor fall on Australia for a change.
> We can take it. You guys can take a break to lick your wounds for a bit.



I could tell from your 'mosque' photo that you have a sense of humour and this confirms it!  Funny lady!  (that's a pretty grim looking 'too by the way)


----------



## Debby (Oct 25, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> So I guess the USA bashing continues...  OK..




No QuickSilver, discussions and debates about global relations.  At some point I'm sure the discussion will turn to the environment and then you guys can have at Canada for our rotten record over the past 10+ years.  You can take the first swing okay?


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 25, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> It is a foolish king who only listens to flattery. A wise king hears the words of criticism too and ponders them.



I agree Warri. _ None _of us here should be bashing each other, IMO.  But there is enough criticism to go around I'm sure, including things done poorly in the past and present in the United States.  I wouldn't want to live anywhere else, I love America, but I don't turn a blind eye when problems with the running of the country are pointed out.  Born and raised in the USA, but open to hearing things that are not found in the history books, or spoon-fed to us by the main stream media.


----------

