Abolish the U.S. Military?

[e_dog]

yes. abolish the US armee.
then cure cancer.
outlaw death. immortality and youth for all. global warmin, let's end it. world peace.

[eyelidlessness]

But more to the point of this thread, who was it that stopped Hitler? Did not the U.S. military play a significant role?

Russia did the hard work. But why did the US stop Hitler? Certainly not because of what he stood for, or what he did.

Right. Give one example, eyelidless? That's one. WW2.

The US defended itself in WWII? How? Against what threat?

And what about WW1?

There's another one.

Now, the US didn't even have a pretense of defense in the Great War, so I'm lost.

[e_dog]

The US saved tha world from the red commies. Hooraay for the USA!

[mnaz]

well, someone had to save the world from those competing slogans...

and for the record, i think both frickin' world wars and korea and vietnam (and now iraq) should have showcased the general pathology of random, showcased murder. they were lessons that got away from us in our exhaustion and haste and hate and greed.

[mnaz]

Eyelidlessness... Admittedly, the threat to the U.S. in WW2 was and is debatable, and undoubtably influenced by U.S. actions prior to the war. But Japan did attack U.S. soil in Hawaii and Hitler did declare war on the U.S. shortly thereafter, and vow to "sink its remaining ships" (Some precedent to this, given German U boat attacks on the east coast shipping in 1918/19).

But of course, I can see the folly in bothering to mention any of this, since you'll simply say that the U.S. only claimed Hawaii through imperialism in the first place and Hitler hadn't actually attacked the U.S. in WW2's first two years (1939-41). And there is some truth there, I suppose. It's not like I'll ever be able to refute your basic POV on the general nature of U.S. dealings with the world, nor would I want to, because frankly, I find a hell of a lot of truth and insight therein.

[eyelidlessness]

Japan did attack U.S. soil in Hawaii

No, they didn't. There was no US soil in Hawaii. Hawaii was a US-occupied colony, not even claimed as domestic territory. It's like when they said Hizbollah were terrorists for attacking US marines in Lebanon.

and Hitler did declare war on the U.S. shortly thereafter, and vow to "sink its remaining ships" (Some precedent to this, given German U boat attacks on the east coast shipping in 1918/19).

After the US declared war on Germany's ally. "The U.S. and Britain declared war on Japan Dec. 8, and Japan promptly declared war on the U.S. and Britian; Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S. Dec. 11". That's about as automatic a response as you can get. I'm fairly certain Germany wanted the US as an ally, and I'm not convinced that it wouldn't have gone that way if not for Pearl Harbor. The nazis idolized US genocidal/imperial policies, and used the US extermination of Indians and "manifest destiny" as an historical precedent for their lebensraumpolitik. And Jews faced similar discrimination in the US at the time as they'd faced in Germany only a few years earlier.

But of course, I can see the folly in bothering to mention any of this, since you'll simply say that the U.S. only claimed Hawaii through imperialism in the first place and Hitler hadn't actually attacked the U.S. in WW2's first two years (1939-41). And there is some truth there, I suppose. It's not like I'll ever be able to refute your basic POV on the general nature of U.S. dealings with the world, nor would I want to, because frankly, I find a hell of a lot of truth and insight therein.

I'm just saying, the US wasn't attacked on even its claimed territory.

[mnaz]

Good point on Hawaii. Still though, seems to me it's statehood was imminent at the time.

Your connections drawn between U.S. "manifest destiny" and Naziism are thought provoking and sobering. Again... no way for me to refute this basic POV.

Whether technically claimed territory or not, the U.S. was attacked, and this technical distinction in and of itself does not prove that no credible threat to the U.S. existed at the time.

[e_dog]

The Nazis were customers of IBM right? So if you use an IBM computer, can it be claimed that you're a Nazi-sympathizer? Likewise for driving a VW automobile, more so.

The US only enters wars b/c its good sound business. Sells more guns, tanks, tires. War is great for business, escalates the GDP. We need to rethink our peaceful pieties. War is destiny, economic BOOM!

Whats so wrong with imperialism anyway. Worked quite well for the British Empire. How could they be an empire without it? Great tea. Sun never sets. World cricket has thrived ever since.

[eyelidlessness]

Good point on Hawaii. Still though, seems to me it's statehood was imminent at the time.

Why does it seem that way? Hawaii was as much an interest of Japan as it was an interest of the US. Nevermind what the Hawaiians thought…

Your connections drawn between U.S. "manifest destiny" and Naziism are thought provoking and sobering. Again... no way for me to refute this basic POV.

I want to be clear that it was Hitler who drew the connections.

Whether technically claimed territory or not, the U.S. was attacked, and this technical distinction in and of itself does not prove that no credible threat to the U.S. existed at the time.

That's simply untrue. Hawaii was not the US, not even claimed as the US.

Was the US attacked in Lebanon? The US isn't in Lebanon, is it?

Hawaii was a sovereign nation. Not the US. Its sovereignty had been compromised, true, but it was not the US.

* * *

The Nazis were customers of IBM right? So if you use an IBM computer, can it be claimed that you're a Nazi-sympathizer? Likewise for driving a VW automobile, more so.

No, I don't agree with this, and I don't really see your point.

The US only enters wars b/c its good sound business. Sells more guns, tanks, tires. War is great for business, escalates the GDP. We need to rethink our peaceful pieties. War is destiny, economic BOOM!

I agree that this is a major motivation for US war, and certainly was the motivation for US entry into both world wars. The US entered World War II as a second-rate world power, and left it the most powerful country in history. There was no danger to the US in that war.

[mnaz]

Hawaii was claimed ("annexed") as a territory of the U.S., wasn't it? And that territory was moving fairly steadily toward statehood at the time, or so I thought. (Whereas none of this can be said about Lebanon). Not making a value judgment on such annexation here, btw...

I guess I just disagree with your basic premise that other nations and movements have never posed a threat to the U.S., nor will they ever pose a credible threat. I just fundamentally disagree. Who's to say how much of a threat to the world Hitler may have become if left unchecked?

That said, it infuriates me when the Hannitys of the world try to shove their various "Saddam is Hitler" arguments down our throats in "defense" of particularly brazen and transparent indefensible corporate wars of aggression such as Iraq.

But you do raise some valid points on the connections between the the U.S. (international businesss dealings, etc.) and the Nazi regime (see Prescott Bush, et al.) Firsty posted a thread on this

[e_dog]

of course therell always be threats to US b/c the US creates the threats it fights. It's Blowback.

theres no question of abolishing the US military. states have militaries. until the US empire collapses and there is a new world order -- in which the Venezuelan dictatoship and EUROPEAN UNION and Chinese paN-EURASIAN totalitarian system reign supreme -- the US will have an armee. even the Germans didn't have their military 'abolished' despite their vicious evil warlikeness.

abolish the army, abolish the State. keep dreamin of Utopia.

[mnaz]

abolish the army, abolish the State. keep dreamin of Utopia.

Yes. What a fine world that would be... Indeed...

Yes. Abolish the military. And the CIA and NSA while we're at it. Hell, abolish the Bush dynasty (or "crime family", if you prefer). I should probably embrace this kind of thinking, not argue against it. The legacy of human rights abuses in the name of U.S. imperial reach is undeniably real, and more pervasive/extensive than many people realize. Can't really argue that.

[eyelidlessness]

Hawaii was claimed ("annexed") as a territory of the U.S., wasn't it? And that territory was moving fairly steadily toward statehood at the time, or so I thought.

"1959 - Voters of Hawaii approve statehood. Hawaii becomes a State." Prior to that, Hawaii was an "annexed" territory of the US for about 60 years, but that can't be seen as legitimate. It was, essentially, a unilateral nullification of sovereignty.

Considering the fact that Hawaiians still are pushing for independence, I find the suggestion that Hawaii was "part of the US" disingenuous and really beside the point. If Hawaii was a part of the US, then Germany was "defending itself" against "invasion" by Russia in Russia.

(Whereas none of this can be said about Lebanon).

The point was that neither Hawaii nor Lebanon were part of the US by any standard that's recognized as legal or moral in any corner of the world except the history books of the victors.

Not making a value judgment on such annexation here, btw...

Well, I think a value judgement is important in understanding the event. Is it "aggression" to attack the occupier in an illegally, immorally occupied territory? I think not.

I guess I just disagree with your basic premise that other nations and movements have never posed a threat to the U.S., nor will they ever pose a credible threat. I just fundamentally disagree.

That isn't exactly my premise, and I wouldn't defend that premise.

Who's to say how much of a threat to the world Hitler may have become if left unchecked?

He wasn't unchecked. Russia defeated Germany. I'm not even saying it was wrong for the US to be involved in WWII, by the way, but the US' motives were sinister and not at all what they've been rewritten to be in retrospect.

Just ask a quarter million Japanese civilians who were burned alive on 6 and 9 August 1945. Or similar atrocities against Japanese civilians and to a lesser extent German civilians by the US.

Not to mention that in 1946, shortly after the war, the US passed the Indian Claims Commission Act, which has been used as the preeminent tool of ethnic cleansing in North America since. And the 1949-1960 ethnic cleansing of 35,000 Indians by relocation. Oh, and not to mention the 4 million or so Indochinese slaughtered by Americans not so long after that.

I'm pretty sure the US' interest in WWII had nothing to do with stopping Hitler's (or Tojo's) genocidal crimes.

That said, it infuriates me when the Hannitys of the world try to shove their various "Saddam is Hitler" arguments down our throats in "defense" of particularly brazen and transparent indefensible corporate wars of aggression such as Iraq.

Well, given the power and influence the US gained in WWII, I'd say it's pretty obvious that was behind the US' entry into that war as well.

But you do raise some valid points on the connections between the the U.S. (international businesss dealings, etc.) and the Nazi regime (see Prescott Bush, et al.) Firsty posted a thread on this

I think the Bush-Nazi connection is pretty silly. Bush isn't his grandfathers (his other grandfather was also involved with the nazis, by the by). I find it much more compelling that the US was a model to the nazis. (Incidentally, the US was also a model to the South African apartheidists).

[mnaz]

From what I've read and been told, Russia along with the other allied forces stopped Hitler. it was a combined effort.

So what were the primary U.S. motives and interest in for involvement in WW2? And where does your 4 million Indochinese slaughtered figure come from? Or are these things covered in your cited reading material?

[e_dog]

"I find the suggestion that Hawaii was "part of the US" disingenuous and really beside the point. If Hawaii was a part of the US, then Germany was "defending itself" against "invasion" by Russia in Russia."

really? so Japanese imperialism is the same as Russian self-defense? Hawaii was an imperial possession of the US. USA WERE DEFENDING ITS PROPERTY. THATS QUITE SIMPLE.

BUSH FAMILY'S NAZI CONNECTIONS is pretty significant. facts made public if ever are uncomfortable for them.