[Most Recent Entries]
Saturday, June 10th, 2006
|American threatened by Third world countries.
.Franklin D. RooseveltHitler has often protested that his plans for conquest do not extend across the Atlantic Ocean. But his submarines and raiders prove otherwise. So does the entire design of his new world order...For example, I have in my possession a secret map made in Germany by Hitler's government -- by the planners of the new world order. It is a map of South America and a part of Central America, as Hitler proposes to reorganize it. Today in this area there are 14 separate countries. The geographical experts of Berlin, however, have ruthlessly obliterated all existing boundary lines; and have divided South America into five vassal states, bringing the whole continent under their domination. And they have also so arranged it that the territory of one of these new puppet states includes the Republic of Panama and our great life line - the Panama Canal…This map makes clear the Nazi design not only against South America but against the United States itself…The whole continent under their domination.
Franklin D. Roosevelt Nancy Mitchell, Germans in the Backyard: Weltpolitik Versus Protective Imperialism", Prologue, Quarterly of the National Archives, Summer 1992, 174-183 (The map was planted by the British, and was fake)Ronald ReaganOn the small island of Grenada, at the southern end of the Caribbean chain, the Cubans, with Soviet financing and backing, are . . . building an airfield with a 10,000-foot runway. Grenada doesn't even have an air force. Who is it intended for?
The Caribbean is a very important passageway for our international commerce and military lines of communication. More than half of all American oil imports now pass through . . . .
The rapid buildup of Grenada's military potential is unrelated to any conceivable threat to this island country of under 110,000 people and totally at odds with the pattern of other eastern Caribbean states, most of which are unarmed.
The Soviet-Cuban militarization of Grenada . . . can only be seen as power projection into . . . this important economic and strategic area in which we are trying to help the governments of El Salvador, Costa Rica, Honduras and others in their struggles for democracy against guerrillas supported through Cuba and Nicaragua.
Ronald Reagan, televised address "A Decision Which Offers A New Hope for Our Children" The Washington Post March 24, 1983
Months before the overthrow of Grenada's Bishop, Ronald Reagan made a televised address in which he displayed an aerial reconnaissance photograph of the Point Salines international airport under construction in Grenada. Pointing to the 9,000-foot runway and the oil storage tanks, he asserted that these were unnecessary for commercial flights, and could only mean that the airport was to become a Cuban-Soviet airbase. Reagan failed to mention that the airport had been first proposed by the British government in 1954, when Grenada was still a colony; that it had been designed by the Canadians, underwritten by the British government, and built in part by a London firm; that the runway length was required for landing the jumbo jets flown by Caribbean airlines, and that no fewer than six neighboring islands have runways at least as long. As for the oil storage tanks, they would have been underground and, ironically, out of sight, had the airport been intended for military uses. http://worldpolicy.org/globalrights/carib/1984-0430-C&C.htmlThe defeat of the Sandinistas of Nicaragua " would be a major defeat in the quest for democracy in our hemisphere and it would mean consolidation of a privileged sanctuary for terrorists and subversives just two days driving time from Harlingen, Texas."
Ronald Reagan (United Press International, March 3, 1986)Lyndon B. Johnson"If we don't stop the Reds in South Vietnam, tomorrow they will be in Hawaii, and next week they will be in San Francisco."
Lyndon B. Johnson, 1966 (Washington Post, Dec. 28, 2003)George W. Bush"Our military is confronting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other places so our people will not have to confront terrorist violence in New York or St. Louis or Los Angeles."
George W. Bush, August 26, 2003The Exaggeration of American Vulnerability
See also: John Thompson's The Exaggeration of American Vulnerability: The Anatomy of a Tradition.
"Throughout American history, it has been a practice to invoke vast enemies about to overwhelm us. "The exaggeration of American vulnerability—in the most basic sense of the vulnerability of the North American homeland to direct attack form outside—has been a recurring feature of debates over American foreign and defense policy for at least a hundred years, "historian John Thompson points out; and indeed can be traced well beyond. Naval construction in the 1880s was justified by "harrowing pictures of British, Brazilian, and even Chinese warships shelling" American cities. The annexation of Hawaii was necessary to fend off British attacks against mainland ports, which "lie absolutely at the mercy of her cruisers" (Senator Henry Cabot Lodge). The Caribbean and the homeland itself were threatened by the German navy before World War I." Naom Chomsky, World Orders, Old and New p. 30
"If the United States and its allies are granted the right of what's called 'anticipatory self-defense against terror', then Cuba, Nicaragua, and a host of others have long been entitled to carry out terrorist acts within the United States, because there is no doubt of its involvement in very serious terrorist attacks against them, extensively documented in impeccable sources…The conclusions are, of course, utterly outrageous…No one would argue that Japan exercised the legitimate right of anticipatory self-defense when it bombed military bases in the U.S. colonies of Hawaii and the Philippines, even though the Japanese knew that B-17 flying fortresses were coming off the Boeing production line, and they were surely familiar with the public discusions in the United States explaining how these planes could be used to incinerate Japan's wooden cities in a war of extermination, flying from Hawaiian and Philippine bases to 'burn out the industrial heart of the empire with firebombing attacks on the teeming bamboo antheaps,' as Air Force General Chennault recommended in 1940. That's a far more powerful justification for anticipatory self-defense than anything conjured up by Bush and Blair and their associates."
Noam Chomsky (Edward Said Memorial Lecture, Edinburgh University, Scotland, March 2005)
|Amazon book review on Just and Unjust Wars
At a lecture at West Point United States Military Academy April 6, 2006, Naom Chomsky argued, "Just war theory" literature "deserves special attention but is ultimately not very instructive about just war". "Just war theory" is "declarations of personal preference", which "never tells you anything. It doesn't tell you when it is proper to intervene, what it tells you is 'I think it is proper to intervene'…there is a big gap between assertion and argument, between surmise and evidence." "We learn very little about just war from 'Just war theory'" what we do learn is "mostly about the prevailing moral and intellectual climate in which we live." Walzer's book relies crucially on such premises as "Seems to me entirely justified, or I believe, or no doubt." Chomsky then discusses scientific studies on human behavior which is noticeably absent from Walzer's book.
In a book which suffers from terribly bad organization, on page 62 Walzer surprising systematically lays out his arguments, stating that "Once the agressor state has been militarily repulsed, it can also be punished."
On December 29, 2005, in an interview on NPR Morning Edition ('Just and Unjust Wars' Author Critical on Iraq.) Walzer stated that the Iraq war was not a just war:
"If you are going to use military force in someone else's county...There has to be a cause of some urgency, a massacre in progress. A massacre in memory is not a just cause."
Therefore, if you follow Walzer's assertions to its obvious conclusion, the Iraq war was not a just war and therefore "the agressor state", the US, should "be punished."
But Walzer signed and endorsed The Euston Manifesto, which states in part:
"We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's infrastructure...rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention."
Therefore in Just and unjust wars, Walzer argues that "agressor states" should be "punished" but yet Walzer signs a document which criticize those who "pick through the rubble of the arguments over intervention."
In addition, Michael Walzer also endorsed Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
Although the Iraq War is not covered in this book, Walzer's inconsistent views on the Iraq war should give serious students of International affairs pause before subscribing to his arguments. It is one mans opinion, full of statments such as "Seems to me entirely justified" "I believe" or "no doubt."
Walzer's arguments are unscientific rablings of one intellectual which are "ultimately not very instructive about just war".http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2006-05/20chomsky.cfm