The US, UN & Iraq III

We do not have the luxury of waiting for historical documents to surface 100 years hence when some library of Bush/Cheney documents is finally loosed from its kryptonite seal and allowed to be viewed.

Scrat's trick here is one he's been using for more than a year. "Show me" is the first move. "You haven't shown me" is his second. It's completely predictable.

Scrat might object here and say "But when someone shows me, I say so.".... Perhaps, but we'd probably have to be shown examples to prove his case.

a
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, 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 greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Origins: Another
timely quote in the vein of the apocryphal Julius Caesar warning about political leaders who can all too easily send the citizenry marching eagerly off to war by manufacturing crises that purportedly threaten national security and making popular appeals to patriotism. In this case the sentiment expressed is even more disturbing because it comes not from a venerated figure of antiquity, but supposedly from a reviled twentieth-century figure associated with the most chilling example of genocide in human history: Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall and Luftwaffe-Chief. We may be made somewhat uneasy by the idea that the head of a classic civilization recognized 2,000 years ago that the populace could be manipulated into sacrificing themselves in wars at the whims of their leaders, but we're outraged (and maybe even scared) at the thought of a fat Nazi fascist flunky's recognizing and telling us the same thing.

The notable difference here is that although the Caesar quote is a latter-day fabrication, the words attributed to Hermann Goering are real. Goering was one of the highest-ranking Nazis who survived to be captured and put on trial for war crimes in the city of Nuremberg by the Allies after the end of World War II. He was found guilty on charges of "war crimes," "crimes against peace," and "crimes against humanity" by the Nuremberg tribunal and sentenced to death by hanging. The sentence could not be carried out, however, because Goering committed suicide with smuggled cyanide capsules hours before his execution, scheduled for 15 October 1946.

The quote cited above does not appear in transcripts of the Nuremberg trials because although Goering spoke these words during the course of the proceedings, he did not offer them at his trial. His comments were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail. Gilbert kept a journal of his observations of the proceedings and his conversations with the prisoners, which he later published in the book Nuremberg Diary. The quote offered above was part of a conversation Gilbert held with a dejected Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946, as the trials were halted for a three-day Easter recess:

Setanta,

I must admit that I seized on your words in an earlier post mostly because they were the only coherent and substantive expressions in a rapid flood of opposing posts that were mostly mere invective and mockery. I needed a firm rhetorical starting point and only you provided it. I was also motivated by some chagrin, based on my earlier observations of your wide knowledge and understanding - an attitude of 'Et tu Setanta?'

I also acknowledge that, apart from the specific words I quoted, I have not observed unsupportable judgements about inner motives and intent on your part. My reference to you in the last paragraph - about not living up to the standards you apply - was ill-founded and unjustified. I apologize for that. I meant it for the others and mean it still.

I look forward to your analysis of the levels of deceit and/or misunderstanding in the communications of past presidents (and as well the leaders of other countries) in comparable situations. I stand by the analysis I put forward.

georgeob1, if we could only be as coherent and sincere and articulate and brillant and arrogant and have the hubris and style and patriotism and good looking and did I say sincere as you are.

We are just not schooled like you and Scrat. Jesus, what a mockery!

The American Revolution and the War of Rebellion are not exactly contiguous events. The representatives of some, but by no means all, of the American people were in Congress assembled when they learned that the Marines and the British light infantry under the command of Major Pitcairn had duked it out on the North Bridge in Concord with the Massachusetts militia, that Pitcairn had rejoined Lt. Col. Smith's column, and that that body, and the relief column under Hugh Lord Percy, had been involved in a running gun-battle that stretched for twenty miles and several hours. I think we can leave this out of our considerations of admihnistrations and wars, since the war predated the existence of the United States--and was inherited by the government, not declared or contrived.

I noted with approval that you had the sense to leave out of your reckoning the War of 1812. However, i cannot in good conscience omit it, simply to avoid embarrassing your thesis. By 1810, the United States was the only nation left on earth which was trading with France by sea. When Napoleon then issued his Milan Decree, which effectively made all American cargoes potentionally contraband, and the British responded with a nearly identical statement in their Order in Council, as well as refusing to consider negotiations on the issue of the impressment of sailors on American vessels, the stage was set for a war which did not have to be. Napoleon kept those fine back-alley political instincts which his family had carried from Genoa to Corsica, and he very quickly revoked the Milan Decree. The British were somewhat slower to come to their senses, and realize that the Americans were not about to roll over and play dead, as seems to have been their wont throughout history, and so their message to President Madison to the effect that they would repeal the Order in Council as soon as Parliament sat again did not reach our shores until war had already been declared. Those who suffered most from both the wrangle about the neutrality of nations and the cargoes their ships carry, as well as the impressment of sailors were the New England states. Nevertheless, they quickly sneered at "Mr. Madison's War," and busily went to work making hard cash quickly by selling supplies to the British in Halifax. And this is one of the few cases in which i would be willing to assert that the adminstration had been totally candid with the Nation about the war. As in the contemporary case, although the nation did not back the President 100%, he was still able to get a declaration of war out of Congress.

After Texas had achieved it's independence and repatriated Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, he immediately repudiated his accession to their independence, saying he was not bound by an agreement made under duress. Although Mexico was not in any condition to mount another expedition against Texas, given the near certainty of United States intervention, they quietly let the United States know that they would consider the admission of Texas to the Union as a provocative action. So not only did Congress give Polk a declaration of war, after he had engineered an incident, they and their constituents knew full well that war would be almost inevitable when Congress accepted Texas for admission into the Union. Nevertheless, New England (who weren't going to make big profits selling supplies to the Mexicans in this one) once again took the anti-war stance, and vilified Polk. Polk sent Taylor with a very small, but entirely professional army to the "no-mans-land" between the San Antonio and the Rio Grande, a deliberate provocation, and Congress gave him his declaration of war without quibble.

I cannot accept your analysis of Lincoln's motivation. He stated for the record that if he could preserve the Union by freeing all of the slaves, he would do so; that if he could preserve the Union by freeing none of the slaves, he would do so; and that if he could preserve the Union by freeing some of the slaves, an not others, the he would do that. His emancipation proclamation is a work of pure politcal genius. It did nothing to upset the rump governments he had in place in Missouri, Tennessee and Louisiana, and it paliated the "radicals" (it is just so damned hard to refer to Republicans as radicals) in Congress who certainly did see the war as a crusade to free the slaves. In this one, New England was firmly on the side of war, although it is worth noting that the former governor of Connecticutt, then a serving general officer in the United States Volunteers was accused of trading arms for cotton in Texas, and it was darkly hinted that he did so in collusion with his father-in-law, Salmon Chase, the former governor of Ohio, and the serving Secretary of the Treasury. The Boy Governor resigned, and Congress quietly deep-sixed the investigation, although, far be it from me to suggest his father-in-law pulled any political strings . . .

Again, you've left out a war--the Spanish War. I can't think why you would leave that one out, unless it were because the Nation backed the Prez, and there is little likelihood that anyone will ever prove any conspiracy theories about the sinking of Maine at Havana. But i'm willing to let that war slide if you are.

Although i think you oversimplify the situation with Wilson, it is not basically incorrect in my opinion. However, i would point out that the proximate cause of Wilson's decision to enter the war, which he did not reveal to the public (he needed not do so, with the submarine war as a causus belli), was the interception of the telegram to Zimmerman in Mexico City (fascinating book by Barbara Tuchman on the entire incident), which resulted from the British illegally tapping the transoceanic telegraph cable to intercept and decode Prussian Imperial dispatches to their embassies and missions. They wanted us in that war so badly, they could taste it. I cannot at all agree that the old professor Wilson willfully deceived people about his belief in and desire to see adherence to the Fourteen Points--and you've already pointed out how he was manipulated by Clemenceau (i'd exclude Lloyd George from that one, he was too busy trying to get his hands on the Middle East, spurred on by Arthur Balfour and Winston Churchill), but i lay the blame for the Versaille Treaty squarely with the French, hungering for revenge over the humiliation and reparations imposed upon them in 1871.

We certainly were involved in the Atlantic war before the attack on Pearl Harbor, and, in fact, United States Coast Guard reconaissance aircraft, and USCG weather ships kept the Admiralty informed of the whereabouts of Bismark in that famous hunt--and the Coast Guard was flying out of England at the time (we just "loaned" the planes to them, hmmm, someone apparently forgot to tell the aircrew to stay in the United States). I will happily laugh in the face of anyone who tries to foist upon me a conspiracy theory about Pearl Harbor. The lack of effective communicaiton between Lt. Gen. Short and Admiral Kimmel, and between Washington and both of those officers, combined with the incredible paranoia of Short about Japanese-American saboteurs more than adequately explains what happened there--as William of Occam says, entia non sunt multiplicanda--causes are not to be multiplied, and there is explanation and blame enought to go around. Also, we are so near the events, and so overly proud, that we cannot see and admit that Yamamoto and Genda conceived of, planned, prepared and executed one of the most brilliant naval operations in history. We can only be grateful that the Japanese Imperial Navy's seniority system put Nagumo in command of the fleet, and that old battleship warrior was readly to pull his stakes and run when he won big with little loss--he would not authorize any further attacks. The contention that Roosevelt knew about the planned operation is simply absurd. The pilots themselves did not know what they were training for, and were genuinely surprised when they were informed of the target.

I will give you Korea and Vietnam, as well. I consider the First Gulf war straight forward enough to accept it at face value, as well.

The consideration of all of which leads me to say that you should not have included World Wars I and II, because the opposition to those wars was negligible, and they don't really belong in this category of discussion. The War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Korean War, the War in Vietnam and this latest war are the only wars in our history for which there has been significant public opposition.

So i finally come to the conclusion, in which you and i do not disagree, that the Nation has been lied to before (although not by Madison in 1812), and i then ask you, do you consider that a justification for this adminstration to lie to us now? If you are willing to exculpate the Bush administration for entering in to war without being completely candid, i am not. And i look to the results of the wars of Mssrs. Madison, Polk, Truman, and Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson, and consider that sooner or later, there will be hell to pay for all of this. What is problematic for me is to know whether or not those responsible will actually be called to account.

I continue to respect you for your honesty, George, without agreeing with you. I will ask, however, that you not in future underate either my knowledge of nor ability to draw lessons from our Nation's history.

I'm which ya, BillW. c.i.

Well spoken, George, thank you for your consideration. May i hope that you have never felt that i've ridiculed you (although i may not have been so kind to your expressed opinions), and if you have felt that, you have my apology.

Re: a


I did not mean to imply anything of the sort (re bullying). sorry if it came across that way.

You had indicated that Scrat was not able interested in truth and that you were able to determine this by keeping watch on the time he posts.

I said that he might just diagree (as opposed to be disinterested in truth) and that determinations based on timing of posts is a small amount of data to base such a conclusion on. Substantiation is a good thing, I agree.

s
Setana, excellent ..... very impressive!

craven

I'm afraid there is more going on with scrat's posts here than simply seeking substantiation or corroboration.

The requests for data are so frequent that either Scrat reads almost nothing at all, or has the worst memory south of the sacred 49th, or he is just playing silly games.

ps... Scrat... start here. Come back when you've read all the whoppers. There WILL be a quiz.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2083761/

Blatham - Perhaps you can show us all where I have glossed over what you seem to suggest is plain for all to see. No one else has done so, but please, educate me, oh enlightened one...

This discussion is getting exponentially more absurd and it is getting there because Bush-hater after Bush-hater keeps stepping up and whining at me because I have the audacity to ask you to prove what you claim. The original person who claimed the article proved the WMD issue was a lie has long since slunk away without either attempting to prove his point or admitting his error, yet liberal after disgruntled liberal steps into the vacuum to whine that I just don't get it, don't want to get it or that I can't get it without paying for it. (Okay, that last is true but has nothing to do with this discussion.)

Words mean things. If you are going to claim that an article proves someone lied, be ready to prove it. With all the massive intellect arrayed against me and claiming I am wrong, why is it NO ONE can show me the proof? If you want to think they lied, fine. If you want to say it's likely in your eyes, fine. I'll buy that. But don't tell me an article PROVES it and then complain when I ask you to explain how it proves it.

This "Gee whiz, Mr. Scrat is so mean... he asks us questions an' stuff" garbage is getting very old.

Yup, I'd say so too. You touch on the fact that we are all basing our conclusions on the information we have available to us. We can no more predict the future than we can read minds. But we are obligated by intellectual curiosity to try.



I agree, but to some extent delienating uncertainty is impractical. Whenever I say anything about one's intent it's usually with the general understanding that there is no way one can be sure.

I personally think little of the decisons that have been made but do not ascribe it to evil intent (I'm not a big fan of moral absolutes, I believe in misguided and wrong more so than evils).



Some here may have taken note of the New American Century as an ideology proposed by some who retain positions of power.

Some conclude from this that US motives are largely driven by a notion that a greater projection of power is needed and that a more assertive superpower needs to strive to ensure its dominance.

I think it's somewhat reasonable a conclusion. some would take it a bit further and dislike expantionist plolicy to the point where they consider it negatively.



I couldn't agree more. Much of the point I was trying to make is that it's almost a given that all of the opinions presented are essentially educated guesses. I don't think it's always necessary to preface it with an IMO here or a little uncertanty there.

Bit tis a matter of style and taste. Nemind.



I get the part about delivery killing the chances of the idea being batted back an forth. as to the above I disagree. I do think Bush and company do, indeed, think this strategy is both neededand sound. I think they are wrong and in a big way.

I don't ascribe evil intent, I think it's due to convictions not dissimilar to yours that they do so, in a big way. My disagreement is so vast with that line of thinking that it makes it all the "wronger" to me.

I disagree with the fact that history does not reveal alternatives as well as the value of historical precedents in predicting the future.

I guess that's what it comes down to. I do not look at the same thing the way you do. We have different opinions on the dangers that exists as well as fundemental differences in the criteria I think should be paramount (e.g. I interpret your position as saying you think the US accessment of geopolitics is correct and that their methos are the best available, while I think the ultimate goal of geopolitical stability should be the inability of one nation to initiate the use force against another).

We look at the same thing and see different thigs. You see good strategy leading to more security and I see lunacy carried by paranoia.

As to telling one's intent a funny example is can be found with my brother.

He thinks Bush is "straight forward", "honest", "strong", and an all around good fella who he was honored to meet.

He is quite surprised at my inability to see these, to him, obvious traits.

Bush claims to be able to look PutPut in the eyes and tell he is a good man.

My point, which is long in coming, is that we all guess. Right up to the top dog.

Setanta and george, great discussion. Thanks. You are allowed a bit of spin -- no one is totally rational. And the issue of governments fooling the governed, well, yeah. But some foolings are worse than others. Of course, we live in a world that is light years different, communication-wise, than anything previous to ten years ago. Bad news and good news and misinformation flash around the world in seconds. Perhaps our leaders can be nothing other than straw men, posed in front of TV cameras. Statesmanlike leaders pause between sentences to think. That doesn't work on TV.

blatham, I do not see scrat's posts quite that way. He is playing devil's advocate, but he is not well practiced in the role, yet. He is practicing on us, which is okay.

Craven, I think many of us have been tempered by a number of abuzz posters who just used to put things out and then say "you show me," and never bothered to offer anything beyond their own criticisms of other people.

scrat sounds distressingly familiar, and plays games a lot. There are so many people here who do read and think, and want to discuss, and most of us seem to interact with each other quite well. While I disagree with georgeob on most things, as we both know, I do respect him and his knowledge and his opinions, and this holds true with many others.

One of the ways we managed to avoid some nasty conflict was by scrolling, because we learned the hard way that there was no debate or discussion available. So scroll has become a kind of play word. But Blatham's right - there's more to this scrat thing.

sorry scrat...do you own homework. When you get around to showing me where you've accepted evidence contrary to your previous notion (three ought to do), I'll take more time to help you out. For now, all you get is the slate examples...remember, there will be a quiz.

I'm inclined to believe it's a matter of style rather than a trick. After all it's not like we and he see things and draw the same conclusions.

e.g.

Member 1: X happened! (a is bad)

Member 2: Show me

Member 1: Here <link to an article>

Member 2: Hey, that's not X!

<pause>

At this point you can conclude that 2 people see the same facts and interpret them and draw their conclusions differently or you can conclude that the other member is simply refusing to see the truth that is being piled on him in heaps.

One option is more atractive than the other, especially for an involved party.

<pardon my manderings, tis fun>

Blatham - Forgive me, but I fail to see what "Whopper of the Week: Ari Fleischer" which discusses the Gitmo detainees, has to do with this discussion. Perhaps you should bow out until you understand what we are discussing.

How very elegantly put . . . thanks, Boss . . .

Come on Blatham, I cry "same difference".

I recall in a recent discussion that you were shown an example you requested and then used a clever analogy about one well running old car to discount its relevace and request more.

Now you are asking Scrat to give you 3 examples.

But you were complaining about him asking once, then again?

There's a good chance i could be wrong but I doubt it's easy for you to find 3 clear examples of a member showing you a link and you conceding error.

That particular set of criteria for the examples is a bit tough.

<it's fun to perambulate>