Not Tyrants but Liberators

[michael]

“Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."

Who said this in 1933?

February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe's successful terrorist attack on a famous European building.

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, new legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

He began to refer to his country as “The Homeland”.

He formed the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (The Office for the defence of the homeland) and its SchutzStaffel, known simply by its initials: the SS.

He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire.

Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us.

Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933.

After coming to an agreement with Britain he annexed Austria.

In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, he said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle, won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me, such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators.”

A year later, Adolf Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia.


All sounds a bit familiar, doesn’t it?




(Acknowledgement to T. Hartmann)

[Northlander]

It does indeed.

I will let you in on something. Ive heard rumours about prisoncamps on the other side of the atlantic. Prisoncamps where people are held without being charged for any crimes. Alot of different nations have tried to get home their own citizens but its impossible. Apparantly the strong militaristic nation over there with god on their side, can keep people imprisoned for as long as they choose without telling anybody.

These are still just rumours and that is very good because then we can pretend we didnt know later on when they use this method on other people. Maybe homosexuals and communists. Maybe muslims. Its a new phenomenon called pre-emptive imprisonment which we will see alot of. Since they might become terrorist by beeing muslims or militant homosexuals or about anything they are a threat and must be dealt with.

Dont speak about this because your grandchildren will only ask you why you didnt do anything and belive me, there is absolutely nothing you can do this time.

[Mediocrates]

Your European friends did nothing about Omarska until it became painfully obvious to the rest of the world they were ignoring it.

[Northlander]

Agreed. I personally were involved in trying to get rid of the weaponembargo against the bosnians. They were often called terrorists you see. No weapons to terrorists was the melody that time. And do you know? It was the lack of weapons on one side that made the other capable of massacres like srebrenica and camps like omarska.

Your actions in bosnia which BTW were UN sanctioned does not excuse prisoncamps and lack of laws in US territory. Maybe you are just smarter than the serbs and keep media out.

[Mediocrates]

Well I'm not sure that's a concious decision it might be but it probably has more to do with physical access. Actually I was expecting us to use some of those people as bargaining chips but the conclusion I reached is that their home countries want less of them than we do.

[michael]

Strange that there are so few comments about the striking parallels, even in language, between the actions of 1930's Germany and the USA.

A bit too close to the truth perhaps?

[Mediocrates]

only in your mind

[Northlander]

In quite many mens minds actually.

[elke]

Originally posted by Northlander
In quite many mens minds actually.

Well, so is the belief in alien abductions in "many men's minds". Therefore, it's real?

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Northlander
In quite many mens minds actually.


But isn't that the great thing about allegory? It doesn't have to be real or even accurate. See people want to resurrect Hitler but the best allusion for what we're experiencing is the Cold War. So to me Bush sounds like John Foster Dulles and Saddam is like Malenkov or Mao.

[Mediocrates]

Martin Kramer, author of Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle East Studies in America, writing in his blog (March 21, 2003):


Read these words, written by an esteemed Iraq expert:

There are present in Iraq civilian forces possessed of brains, literacy and organizing experience, and reflecting a meaningful diversity of interest and opinions. However, the men at the head of these forces have not yet developed the ability to coexist, to play the game by recognized rules, to compound their differences for the sake of an agreed higher denominator. In addition, it is doubtful whether a sufficiently large part of the population can be interested in orderly and sustained political activity—distinct from the appeal of rabblerousing catchwords. Lastly, and most important, the civilian forces lack the prestige and forcefulness to induce the army to accept the role of a non-political guardian of public order, in times of disturbance as well as in normal circumstances.
That assessment could have been written this morning. In fact, it was written by the late historian (and my colleague) Uriel Dann 35 years ago, in the conclusion to his book Iraq under Qassem. Note that Dann located the core of the problem in the weakness of Iraq's "civilian forces," not in oppression by its military ones. Dann did not believe that the Iraqi people could be led; they could only be incited or intimidated, a combination that later worked perfectly for Saddam. I don't think Dann would have suffered fools babbling in his presence about Iraqi "civil society."

That same assessment is implicit in this crucial passage from his book:

A climate of violence is part of the political scene in Iraq...It is an undercurrent which pervades the vast substrata of the people outside the sphere of power politics. Hundreds of thousands of souls can easily be mobilized on the flimsiest pretext. They constitute a permanently restive element, ready to break into riots which more than once in recent years have resulted in mass butchery. This climate of violence...has been the cause of more political and judicial assassinations than have taken place in any other Arab country in a comparable state of social advancement.
Notice that Dann did not locate the problem only in Iraq's military (he called it a "caste," easily distinguished by its various uniforms). He thought that violence was endemic to Iraqi society, and perhaps inherent in the very nature of the polity. "There is no 'Iraqi nation'," he announced at the very outset of his massive tome—and the rest of the book proved it.

Dann's skepticism about Iraq's political culture led him to this conclusion: "The army leadership alone can ensure for Iraq a modicum of stability and ordered progress." That was true, for some years, under the Baath. But Saddam brought out the army's fatal flaw: its weakness for "Arab" adventures, such as the invasions of Iran and Kuwait. Iraq's sole national institution showed itself to be defective at its core, and when it acquired some technology, it became an engine for the export of Iraq's violent malaise to places abroad.

Yes, only the army leadership can ensure a modicum of stability and ordered progress. The difference between Dann's perspective in 1968, and ours today, is that we know it will have to be the United States army. Dann would have welcomed the removal of Saddam: after Saddam was spared in 1991, Dann grimly predicted that "the day will come when he will hit, we do not know with what weapons....And when he does...the innocent will pay by the millions." But once Saddam is gone, it will fall to America to make Iraq a nation. What would Uriel Dann have thought of that?

CHRIS APPY: CREDIBILITY GAP (posted 3-19-03)

Chris Appy, author of the forthcoming Patriots: The Vietnam War Remembered From All Sides, writing in www.tomdispatch.com (March 19, 2003):


The phrase "credibility gap" first entered American political vernacular in 1965, in the middle of an era of "gaps" (from the "missile gap" to "the generation gap"). Journalist David Wise used it to highlight the gulf between President Lyndon Johnson's claim that American military escalation in Vietnam was limited and defensive and an emerging public perception that it was, in fact, massive and aggressive. In light of the current situation, it is important to recall that the Vietnam-era credibility gap took years to form and did not become a Grand Canyon until the Nixon years, late in the war, after some 35,000 Americans and at least a million Vietnamese had already died.
The war against Iraq, by contrast, begins at a level of unpopularity not reached domestically in the Vietnam War era until after the Tet Offensive of 1968. The President is gambling that a rapid victory will rally a dissenting and disbelieving world. No doubt he also expects the war to generate ex post facto evidence -- real or invented -- that Saddam Hussein was indeed plotting to use weapons of mass destruction in acts of international terror. For many years, the experience of Vietnam conditioned American leaders to believe all future wars must be brief and conclusive to prevent the erosion of public support. In this instance, the White House hopes a brief, conclusive war will provide the retroactive support it failed to gain at the outset.

[Mediocrates]

Douglas Brinkley, writing in the Wall Street Journal (March 17, 2003):


The Bush blueprint for a free Iraq is similar to the one the Truman administration imposed on postwar Japan. From 1945 to 1952, the occupation of Japan, overseen by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, created a strong foundation upon which Japanese democracy and capitalism could flourish. (MacArthur thought he'd stay for three years, but it took nearly seven to get the job done).
The first objectives of the U.S. occupation were to disarm the military and provide humanitarian aid to the war-torn island nation. This was followed by the creation of a constitution which continues to serve as the essential backbone of Japan. Wisely, MacArthur did not try to wipe out all vestiges of Hirohito's reign. Instead, he stripped the emperor of any political status while allowing him to remain a symbol of tradition. Likewise, MacArthur bolstered labor unions to provide a political balance to the all-powerful zaibatsu, the family-controlled banking and industrial combines of prewar Japan.

What MacArthur understood was that democracy wasn't made in a day, that his most important task wasn't to tout a particular leader or organization, but to let the idea of popular sovereignty take firm root. Boldly, he made sure that women were given full equality with men. He explicitly willed Articles 13 and 19 into the new constitution, banning discrimination in political, economic, and social relations on grounds of race, creed, sex, or family origin.

MacArthur also insisted on having "an absolutely immaculate occupation" -- proving it by limiting the profit foreign entrepreneurs could take from Japan. When he smashed the zaibatsu, for example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce bitterly complained, insisting that such measures would lead to socialism. MacArthur brushed such criticism aside. Looting of Japan, he said, was simply intolerable. The Bush administration, following the MacArthur lead, should make sure that no foreign or privileged internal powers rush in and seize the oil reserves of Iraq. Nothing will endear the Iraqi people to the U.S. occupation more than its safeguarding of these reserves -- the financial future of the nation.

It took MacArthur years to rebuild Japan, always relying on the Japanese bureaucracy to follow his directives. Together, they created a two-tiered mandarinate. When the U.S. finally left Japan, the native mandarins -- schooled in American-style democracy -- carried on. Creating a stable democracy in the Middle East will be a more complex task. Iraq has ethnic and religious tensions that threaten to tear the country apart. Moreover, there are legitimate fears that the Turks and Iranians will seek to expand their control within Iraq once Saddam is gone. But this is all the more reason for Gen. Franks's Central Command to follow MacArthur's lead and concentrate on institution-building, not merely naming successors to Saddam.

[localbrew]

Fancy words trying to draw parallels between Nazi Germany and the USA are meaningless. The proof is the pudding as we say. WWI, WWII, Korea, Panama, Kuwait and many other conflicts prove the noble intentions of the USA. We have nothing to prove or justify to anyone or any country.

The proof is in the pudding.

[michael]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Douglas Brinkley, writing in the Wall Street Journal (March 17, 2003):
The Bush blueprint for a free Iraq is similar to the one the Truman administration imposed on postwar Japan. .


With some rather vital differences.

Japan was defeated after engaging in aggressive military conflicts for over 10 years. It had accepted an unconditional surrender and after the war many Japanese also accepted that their country was at fault and was in need of change. As well, Japan had existed as a contiguous geo-political entity for over a hundred years

The leadership during the war (the emporer) was incorporated into the new political landscape as the head (albeit symbolic) of government.

But yeah, apart from that, it's exactly the same as Iraq.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by michael
With some rather vital differences.

Japan was defeated after engaging in aggressive military conflicts for over 10 years. WITH SADDAM IT HAS BEEN MUCH LONGER. IRAN, KUWAIT, NOT TO MENTION THE MASSIVE SLAUGHTER OF KURDS, SHIITES, AND COMMON CITIZENS OF IRAQ ITSELF It had accepted an unconditional surrender and after the war many Japanese also accepted that their country was at fault and was in need of change. SOUNDS PRECISELY LIKE WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN IRAQ. As well, Japan had existed as a contiguous geo-political entity for over a hundred years. SO?
The leadership during the war (the emporer) was incorporated into the new political landscape as the head (albeit symbolic) of government. HERE, THE NEW PARADIDM DIVERGES FROM THE OLD. But yeah, apart from that, it's exactly the same as Iraq.
By golly, you're right!

[michael]

Originally posted by MichaelC
By golly, you're right!

And it wasn't an illegal invasion in contravention of international law.

And when American forces occupied Japan they didn't have the civilian population shooting at them and telling them to "go home"(Iraqi on BBC TV).

It's becoming more like Vietnam than Japan.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by michael
And it wasn't an illegal invasion in contravention of international law.

And when American forces occupied Japan they didn't have the civilian population shooting at them and telling them to "go home"(Iraqi on BBC TV).

It's becoming more like Vietnam than Japan.

If a couple of countries could start shipping in arms and troops/advisors to support the Iraqis, as we're fighting them, it could be "just like" Viet Nam.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by michael
And it wasn't an illegal invasion in contravention of international law.

And when American forces occupied Japan they didn't have the civilian population shooting at them and telling them to "go home"(Iraqi on BBC TV).

It's becoming more like Vietnam than Japan. I kinda hate to say it, but the Australian posters on this board live in a weird fantasy world with hypothetical conjectures concerning situations that haven't yet come about.

At the moment, we are at war. Generally in a war, people will shoot at you. No surprise there. We have not arrived at your imagined turn of the road yet.

There are many psychopaths in Iraq and I don't expect it will be all that easy to round them up. uday hussein's heinous fedayeen, as nasty a gang of torturing killers as you're likely to find, will hope to fade into the populace to carry on the only lifestyle with which they are familiar, ie-murdering people and so, indeed, I do expect there will be law enforcement problems.

But it won't be the "people" of Iraq telling us anything. The country will not be allowed to fall back into the hands of such people no matter what the whiners from Australia hope for.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by michael
Strange that there are so few comments about the striking parallels, even in language, between the actions of 1930's Germany and the USA.

A bit too close to the truth perhaps?

I suppose you should get concerned when the vast majority of us are wearing black armbands and grim looks. I don't see any massive book-burnings being organized by the government, or hear any talk of racial cleansing.... I smell the aroma of bread being baked, and not human flesh....

Perhaps you find it strange that there are so few comments is because it's one hell of a stretch to parallel the United States to NAZI Germany? I hear the Aussies shot Aborigines like rabbits.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by MichaelC

But it won't be the "people" of Iraq telling us anything. The country will not be allowed to fall back into the hands of such people no matter what the whiners from Australia hope for.

I, for the life of me, can't understand "why" so many people are cheering for the US to fail. Why would these people wish the Iraqis to live under a murderous tyranical regime as Saddam Hussein's? It's as though they hate the Iraqis more than they hate the Americans.

[Northlander]

If a couple of countries could start shipping in arms and troops/advisors to support the Iraqis, as we're fighting them, it could be "just like" Viet Nam.

What are your opinions on the russian technicians working on iraqi SAM sites up until the first week of the war? Their selling of nightvision equipments?

I, for the life of me, can't understand "why" so many people are cheering for the US to fail. Why would these people wish the Iraqis to live under a murderous tyranical regime as Saddam Hussein's? It's as though they hate the Iraqis more than they hate the Americans.

I cant speak for everyone. But I have a guess. No one wants Saddam to remain in power apart from some arabs that sees him as the strong leader against west.
The rest are tired of USA. Not you as a people or because of your way of living or anything but you constant military foreign operations and aggressive politics.

This war is also seen by many as an illegal war against international laws. That means that it plays in the same league as for example Iraqs invasion of Kuweit.
It is impossible to support a war like that even if you support the basic values or ideas. No exeptions can be made since that would result in anarchy and the next time USA might get different ideas. Lets say you move in to a non-dictatorship the next time.
That is the most important issue I think.

You claiming that you are the good guys doesnt really matter since history, as Im sure you know, are full of examples of not so good american involvments.

Personally I would like to see USA fail so that you wont pull a trick like this again. On the other hand I really want Saddam to lose power so its sort of choosing between pestilens or colera for me.
The iraqis fighting against foreign troops period I can easily support. I also hope for a free kurdistan. The ones fighting for the Baathparty period I dont support. Do you see the difference? It doesnt mean I have to agree with you sending troops there.

[Mediocrates]

No not really - you're like takeo - you guess you have some secret mind reading machine and a scorecard of a million different people and 'liberations' you either support or ignore. Clearly you give lip service to Kurdistan as long as the Kurds are doing the heavy lifting. And if they all get massacred again - c'est la vie!

What about the people who support Ba'ath but only a little bit? What about the people who shoot but don't aim? What about the people who shahid themselves but only against Americans? What about people who only torture a little bit and only against people you don't support?

[michael]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
I, for the life of me, can't understand "why" so many people are cheering for the US to fail. Why would these people wish the Iraqis to live under a murderous tyranical regime as Saddam Hussein's? It's as though they hate the Iraqis more than they hate the Americans.

Here's a clue. By some miracle the Anglo-American forces are managing to become more unpopular in Iraq than Saddam Hussein. That is quite an effort , given that most Iraqis are looking forward to his expected demise.

Why is this? Well one possibility is that while Iraqis generally hate Saddam, they view him as their own, home grown problem. The Anglo-American forces are invaders and, as in football, the home team can always expect some support. Added to this, missiles landing in busy streets in the middle of the day and you have some very angry Iraqis.

The ill-will towards the US outside Iraq is, just possibly, something to do with hypocrisy, lies, bribery, threats and coercion. All normal diplomatic stuff, but all at once with a rather obvious agenda, despite the rhetoric of "humanitarian concern", spells distrust and anger.

[Northlander]

You do the same dont you Mediocrates? You support your own troops and when cruelties are revealed you shake it of because the cause is just.
I often hear that when IDF kills children its the palestinians fault. When US bombers kills children its the iraqis fault.
Some american soldiers also torture a little bit, some kills regardless. Does it mean you stop supporting them? What difference does it make to you really?

BTW, as I recall it was the brave honorable american troops in their helicopters that watched the kurds being massacred 12 years ago. It was not me or takeo that let it happen when we could stop it.

Just stay away from everything arab and things will get much better. Exactly what is so difficult to understand? Some people say you should clean up your own mess. I dont think you should. Just stay out as long as all you can provide is more troops and violence. Is there ANYTHING you dont think you can solve with force?

[Mediocrates]

What a self serving load of -

Yes yes whatever you say - they all drink blood and slaughter babies, OK?

I just want to know what crystal ball you refer to when you want to determine who's motives in Iraq are pure and therefore worthy of your support?

Me stay away? That would be nice. They should focus on destroying each other and leave me out of it. Believe you me.

[Northlander]

You said the "drinking blood". But your beloved troops do indeed slaughter babies. A whole lot of them in Basra and Baghdad. Do you think its different because you use airstrikes?
Do you think the parents care?

You might stay away. I give you that. You prefer to sit in the safety of your home wanting just another war in some distant land. One of many Im afraid.

Im sure you would love to see all arabs kill eachother. Old strategy like in the Iran - Iraq war. I thought that basically was why we had this war today?

[Mediocrates]

If you say so......

[Mediocrates]

Don't Cry for me, Argentina!

[michael]

Given recent developements it would seem our comparisons of Iraq to Japan or Vietnam are not very relevant.

With the arrival of the mujahideen, this does all seem a little reminiscent of the Russian invasion of Afganistan.

What do you think?

[mimil]

Originally posted by localbrew
The proof is the pudding as we say. WWI, WWII, Korea, Panama, Kuwait and many other conflicts prove the noble intentions of the USA. We have nothing to prove or justify to anyone or any country.

The proof is in the pudding.

Bravo !! Fantastic !! Magnificent !!

[Northlander]

Mark Franchetti, journalist at London Times and eyewitness to the battles of Nasiriya writes about what he saw:

"The light was a strange yellowy grey and the wind was coming up, the beginnings of a sandstorm. The silence felt almost eerie after a night of shooting so intense it hurt the eardrums and shattered the nerves. My footsteps felt heavy on the hot, dusty asphalt as I walked slowly towards the bridge at Nasiriya. A horrific scene lay ahead."

http://www.counterpunch.org/franchetti03312003.html

I think it answers the question wether US marines targets civilians or not. It does maybe also explain why they are doing it.

[Alfred]

Ok Northlander.....you got us.

I have to admit the Secret USA War Plans call for the deliberate killing of all women and children in Iraq.

You see, we are really cowards, and we have determined that the Iraqi military is just too tough for us to handle. We have determined that this war is a war of attrittion and that by killing women and children the Iraqi birthrate will fall and in 20 years there will be no soldiers left.

Then we can conquer Iraq.

We have the same strategy with Europe. As the French, Swedes and Germans are so powerful, we have sold them on the idea of euthanasia, abortion and a low birth rate. In 20 years, after we defeat the Arabs, we will be able to walk into Europe and no one can oppose us.

You have it all figured out.

[Donna]

Now he will have to be eliminated.

:cool:

[Northlander]

Ok, you can just pretend no iraqi civilians are killed at all. Guess its easier that way. Go back to your freedom fries and hope for a quick victory. After all its not any of you guys that have to pull the trigger, or take the bullet for that matter.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Northlander
Ok, you can just pretend no iraqi civilians are killed at all. Guess its easier that way. Go back to your freedom fries and hope for a quick victory. After all its not any of you guys that have to pull the trigger, or take the bullet for that matter.
I know that you don't take much thought before shooting off your mouth, but how could you possibly know who has, or hasn't, "squeezed a trigger", or "taken a bullet" for similar reasons. If they would take a person my age, with the history of injuries that I have sustained, I'd be with the troops right now.

Of course, I'd like to stop by your neck of the woods on the way.

[Alfred]

I agree....

You see, Northlander. Some of us here have served our country...have seen the enemy...and have, or have been prepared to pull the trigger for our country.

No soldier likes to kill civilians.


But the Arabs like to hide behind children. The Viet Cong used to put bombs on children and push them toward American lines.

I am happy I am not on the front lines today. Why?

Because I would shoot every Iraqi who carried and gun and was not in uniform. Regardless of whether they surrendered or not.

Americans are fair fighters until the enemy goes over the line....and Sadaams Gestapo has gone over the line.

After we got word that the German SS was killing our POW's after D-Day...and after they murdered our POW's during the Battle of the Bulge at Malmeday; there were very few SS prisoners taken.

I say same for the Iraqi Death Squads Fedayeen Sadamites.

I was pleased to see on the news just now that the locals are starting to ID the Iraqi Gestapo and our guys are carting them off. Ahhh, can you imagine the Nuremburg trials the Iraqis are going to throw....

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Northlander
Ok, you can just pretend no iraqi civilians are killed at all. Guess its easier that way. Go back to your freedom fries and hope for a quick victory. After all its not any of you guys that have to pull the trigger, or take the bullet for that matter.



It's amazing how much you guys start to sound like Henry Kissinger crowing about detente. You do understand don't you that what you and yours propose is basically an accomodation of a permanent stalemate much like Nixon pushed in confronting the Soviets and the Chinese. Basically detente allowed for opening up Communist 'markets' to western companies while doing nothing to foster anything resembling human rights, political development or economic freedom for those people.

Dick Nixon lives, and he lives in Europe. Viva la Realpolitik !!!!

[Northlander]

Do you actually believe your county will foster human rights, political development and economical freedom in ME?

Havent you learned anything from the past? Since when I wonder have US politics ever been about creating stability in any regions?

Now all of a sudden all that have changed and you wish them well? Why?

I dont think you are ignorant and that you do not know whats been done in ME from USA, France, Britain and others. Are you just trying to convince yourself that this time..this time finally we will do the right thing?

The Bush administration consists of some of the same characters that the reagan administration did. The same guys that gave Saddam go aheads to alot of things now care for the iraqi people? Excuse me, but my logic says something is wrong here.

Well maybe pigs can learn to fly by I doubt they can. I dont even think they want to. USA will take control, nothing else.
Dont jump me now. Im not saying its the truth or the fact. I just dont believe anything points in the direction that this will be different. Its my opinion and belief.

To convince me you shouldnt come up with reasons Saddam is bad but rather in what way your hawks have changed. Same guys. Same problems. Different methods? Do you belive that and why?