Friday, May 26, 2006

The Realities of War

As we inch toward the mid-term election season, the Democratic Party is trying to market itself as the quasi anti-war party. With Dubya's approval rating plummeting toward the Mendoza Line and support for the war following suit, the Dems are starting to believe they have a legitimate chance to pick up several seats in both houses of Congress.

There's just one problem here -- The Dems are about as hawkish as the Republicans!! From Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) to Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Dems voted en masse to support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many, such as Hillary Clinton & Cantwell, seem hell bent on supporting a similar incursion into Iran.

In fact, if you look at the history of the US, the art of invading foreign countries has been perpetrated by Presidents on both sides of the aisle. We entered WWI under President Woodrow Wilson. WWII came about on FDR's watch. Nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan under Harry Truman's watchful eyes. We became bogged down in Vietnam under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.

All of the aforementioned US presidents were Democrats!!

More importantly, most of the wars the US becomes involved (ensnared?) in have little to do with specific military objectives. While our invasion of Iraq offers a current example, a recent revelation shows that the war against North Vietnam fits the same bill.

According to Canada.com,
Former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger quietly acknowledged to China in 1972 that Washington could accept a communist takeover of South Vietnam if that evolved after a withdrawal of U.S. troops - even as the war to drive back the Communists dragged on with mounting deaths.

The late U.S. president Richard Nixon's envoy told Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai: "If we can live with a communist government in China, we ought to be able to accept it in Indochina."
Of course, such a statement seems to fly in the face of the "we need to protect the world against Communism" argument foisted time and again on the American public. If we could accept a Communist government in Vietnam, then why in the hell were we there in the first place?

The sad answer to that question is that imperialistic powers -- and the US certainly fits the definition -- need to have an enemy. Enemies allow the hegemonic powers to funnel millions and billions of dollars to the military-industrial complex which, in turn, funnel money back to insure those same political leaders stay in power. Enemies also divert public attention away from all the shortcomings of any given administration -- things like poverty, woeful health care, the theft of basic civil rights and lackadaisical education.

It turns out that Vietnam, like Iraq, wasn't anything like our leaders told us it was. So, if you think electing a slew of Democrats this November will change the tenor and direction of this nation, you haven't been paying close attention to history.

7 comments:

  1. Well, I agree that such a change may not matter much in terms of the war thing but hopefully could bring some different perspectives domestically and roll back some of the environmentally disastrous policies of the current crop of nazi like power grabbers with a rather perverse idea of what freedom means. Whoops, my little comment is about to become a rant.
    Anyway, I know it's been a busy time for you and we miss hearing from you. I'll still check back from time to time.

    ReplyDelete

  2. One

    The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
    The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
    The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
    The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
    Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
    Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
    These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness.
    Darkness within darkness.
    The gate to all mystery


    Translation:

    From apparent chaos, we appear..we exist for a short time...and then we rejoin the way with our dying breath. While you are here, just enjoy what is, make what needs to be made, and respect your fellow living things.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ron's right... it's always about the lesser of two evils. It's always been that way, as far as I can tell. As long as we are ruled by a corporatist state within a two-party system, we will always be asked to select our masters from a list of harlots and thieves.

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://www.peacetakescourage.com/page-home.htm

    check it out!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Trey,

    I know this is your blog and your open forum to get things off your chest (thanks for having open comments!! :-) )...but I think you're getting pretty heavily focused on anti-Shrubism.

    I'd really enjoy it if you'd refocus the discussion back on Tao and such...i've enjoyed your posts about books you've read and modern applications of the Tao passages.

    In any case..
    thanks!

    FL

    ReplyDelete
  6. floundericiousmi,

    The Shrub does tend to make my blood boil -- that's readily evident. However, this particular post is more a complaint against the Democratic Party than our Republican [p]Resident.

    Over the next several months, my posts here are apt to be more political, in nature, simply because I am again neck deep in Green Party politics and administration. I tend to write about what I'm focused on and political endeavors are what I'm focused on until November.

    I do understand your plea, however. I'll try to work on achieving better balance.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah, I understand, Trey, it's not a huge deal..it's just something that's occured to me and I figured I'd ask.

    :-)

    ReplyDelete

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want. We may respond...or we may not. It depends on the mood and preferences of the specific author of the post. Ta-Wan generally responds in a timely manner. Trey responds some of the time and Scott rarely replies (due to limited internet access). You can be assured that all comments are read by this blog's two administrators: Ta-Wan & Trey.