|
|||||||||
Posted July 13, 2003
Regarding "Mourning in America" by Justin Raimondo:
Kudos to Antiwar.com for printing numerous outraged replies to Justin's article "Mourning In America," without censorship or "counter-backtalk."
A few points raised by some of the respondents need clarification and rebuttal.
Many of the replies seem to have overlooked Justin's very important assertion that "Nobody denies that the Americans, both military and civilian, committed war crimes against native peoples...." This was ignored, while the PC crowd went "cuckoo for Cocoa-Puffs" over the remainder of that sentence: "...but the Indians were hardly the gamboling innocents depicted by Hollywood."
Much was made of Justin's invocation of John Locke's theory of establishing property rights through use of previously unused land. In reply, we are treated to a recital of the farms, cities, etc. created by Indians. Yes, Indians were civilized. Farms, cities, art, culture, industry, trade – and governments. Hundreds of different tribal governments, sometimes monarchies or dictatorships, which sometimes (though far from always) made absurd land claims and imposed unjust controls over unused lands (just like today's US government, which directly "owns" 2/3rds of the landmass of the continental US, almost all of it unused), and sent "war parties" (their police and military) to violently and often brutally evict settlers from "Indian land" – land which was often not used by Indians for hunting, farming, homes, or any other purpose.
In those cases, which were not rare, Indian governments were not "defending Indian people," they were simply aggressing against harmless settlers on previously unused land. Many of these Indian governments (like their latter-day patronizing apologists on the "Left") also had blatantly racist and culturally-bigoted objections to the presence of "whites" (note the frequent Indian use of that term, instead of "invaders" or "squatters") – they were just as racist as the US Government, with its atrocities like State-sanctioned chattel slavery and the extermination of the "Indian savages."
In other words, many of the Indian governments were unjust governments – murderous, ethnic-cleansing tyrannies if not outright empires. Note the ruthless Aztec and Inca Empires elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere; there were many smaller-scale equivalents in what is now the USA, Indian States which warred against and enslaved other Indians as often and eagerly as they massacred "whites."
Of course, just like Justin, I will now be accused of whitewashing or excusing the extermination of the Indians (not "natives" – most of the "whites" were native-born too), despite my explicit condemnation (which I now repeat) of the US Government genocide against Indians. Almost all of the victims of that genocide were innocent persons.
And for the sake of the handful of vocal Euro-wannabe Canadian statists who hate America to its historical core and cite the US Government's Indian-genocide as one of an endless parade of lame excuses for their own national bigotry, let me add that their own allegedly enlightened, gentle and beloved State has done a pretty good (and conveniently ignored) job of wiping out Indian people too (uh oh, here come the Indian-patronizing apologists for the wonderful "Indian-loving" or at least "less evil" – so what – Canadian Government).
A similar rebuttal applies to the handful of sanctimonious loudmouthed anti-American bigots in nearly every country in the world, especially those from European countries whose governments eagerly jumped on the colonial/ imperial bandwagon in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere. What, you don't approve of your government? Well, many of us don't approve of our government either.
These attacks on Justin stem from the very delusion he was combating, including with his tongue in cheek Politically Incorrect provocation about "firewater." That delusion is collectivism – the ideological root of statist oppression. In this case, it is anti-American "Leftist" P.C. collectivism in the form of delusional (and prejudiced) over-generalizations about Indians and other Americans.
Every single "white" American, the "Left" implies, was an evil, greedy, rapacious, racist, sexist, slave-owning Indian-hater and Indian-murdering land-stealer – or at least "collectively guilty" due to inaction (like everyone else on the planet at the time? – NOBODY stopped these injustices and precious few even tried). And every single "Indian" who ever existed, they imply, was a perfectly innocent, progressive-minded, unprejudiced, free and peaceful nature-lover, living voluntarily and contentedly in absolutely dissent-free, perfectly just, and utopian collectives, then gratuitously victimized by those awful worthless whiteys, every single one of whom should have stayed in Europe (or gone back there) because there was not one square inch of unused land anywhere on the entire North American continent for "their kind." The "Noble Savage" fantasy, with a vengeance.
Of course, the P.C. "Left" won't state this blatant racist nonsense explicitly. They want us to infer it on our own. Like today's right-wing anti-immigrant bigots and crypto-antisemites, they repeatedly recite all the bad things about the "group" they hate, ignore every single good thing that any member of the target group ever did, and wait for the ignorant and gullible to make the expected prejudiced conclusions. At the same time, any injustice committed by any member of their favored group is completely ignored, while every good act by the favored group is trumpeted to high heaven. These bigots of the "Left" and "Right" are brothers under the skin.
Reality check, folks. People are individuals. Indians (and the Mexicans in Texas and what is now the western USA) were, and are, people. So were, and are, "white Americans." Some people in ANY "ethnic" group do bad things, some do good things, most do some mix of good and bad things. It is the same at any time or place throughout human history. Generalizations about "America,""Britain," "the (which?) Indians," and "Mexico" are worthless and absurd, whether they are historical generalizations or present-day generalizations. There always were, and still are, both oppressors (usually members of governments) and victims within every "group" in American (and world) history.
Indian governments had no more "right" to much of the land that they claimed than did the British, French, Mexican, US, or any other Governments. Locke was right. The people who had the rights to this land were the individuals and voluntary organizations who peaceably used portions of it without forcibly kicking out or otherwise oppressing previous or neighboring users. Those individuals came from every "group," and they were expropriated, victimized, and oppressed by – and sometimes triumphed over – governments and other criminals from every "group," usually their own.
Of course this reality is much too complex for simple-minded victims of the Left/ Right statist-collectivist mass delusion. They prefer their history to be a simplistic cartoon battle between all-good or all-evil allegorical caricatures like Uncle Sam, John Bull, Pancho Mexicano, and Big Chief Indian – each "representing" millions of individuals who in reality had more differences between themselves than similarities. Well, "if it cooks for you, groovy," but don't expect this Libertarian to buy it.
As for the "REAL" cause of the American Revolution, there were more good reasons for Americans to fight the British Government than there were Americans. All this stuff about "the" reason is baloney. Check the extensive laundry lists of American grievances in Thomas Paine's Common Sense and The Crisis, or in the American Declaration of Independence, for just a few of "the" reasons. Or, for a change, read a history book written by somebody who DOESN'T passionately hate almost everything the American Revolutionaries believed in. Like all revolutions, regardless of where their leaders eventually took them, at the grass roots it was a revolt against oppressive government, in all its forms and manifestations, and a yearning for less government control. It certainly was not a bunch of crybaby demands for patronizing government "help," like the demands of today's System-brainwashed post-antiauthoritarian "Left."
Justin's basic point is correct. The core of American culture, as expressed through the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the struggles (on American soil) against British, Indian, Mexican, and other foreign and domestic governments, was anti-imperialist and anti-authoritarian. I think it still is, though obscured and repressed by an increasingly alien State.
Today this struggle continues, despite 200 years of mounting defeats. My only potential disagreement is on the prospects for victory and Liberty. I think that in time the deeply-rooted antiauthoritarian American culture will triumph over the doomed imperialist American State. Justin doesn't seem so sure. Only time will tell.
~ Peter Brow, Webmaster, Nation Of Liberty
"The Mexican army was beaten, badly, and took refuge within the walls of a fort known as the Alamo. Surrounded, they asked for terms of surrender, and the Mexicans were allowed to retreat with their tails between their legs."
What? Those were Mexicans? No, I'm afraid Justin wasn't paying attention in History class.
Those were Texians (note the spelling) in the Alamo, and they were surrounded by Mexican regulars. On March 6th, 1836, the final assault on the Alamo left the 88 Texian defenders dead to the last man. General SantaAna then marched eastward toward the present-day city of Pasadena. Along the way he besieged, captured, and raped Goliad, killing every inhabitant. On April 21st, 1836 during siesta time, Gen. Sam Houston's Texian militia swooped down on the Mexican army camped at Pasadena killing many and capturing the rest including Gen. SantaAna himself. That event ended Mexico's war against Texas, not the Mexican-American War which happened 10 years later.
Modern day Texans remember the Alamo because those 88 brave men delayed the Mexican army long enough to allow Houston to consolidate his forces. They made April 21st possible.
The Republic of Texas was admitted to the Union Dec 29th 1845, a few months before the M-A War started.
Justin Raimondo replies:
There were two battles of the Alamo. In the second battle, the Mexicans retook the town.
I'm sure you have gotten a lot of feedback on this issue already, but here's my two cents anyway, as an Antiwar.com contributor.
For the record, Justin Raimondo has my utmost respect, and I don't know how he puts out so much good material. ...
Denial of the genocide that took place in this country is a major problem. As you know the worst campaign of genocide in recorded history took place over the last four hundred years in N and S America leaving ~100m people killed. Much of this history is not taught in schools today. Here it was never denied by the presidents of the time, who openly called for and carried out extermination. An excellent historical review of the events can be found in John Stannard's American Holocaust.
By claiming that colonists "mixing their labor with the land" entitled them to land possession, you remind me of the practice of skinning people to make tack for horses as carried out by Pres. Jackson, for one. Or slitting throats of women and children, saving noses or scalps as souvenirs. Were the nazis "mixing their labor with the land" in creating Auschwitz? Neither were the Californian settlers who created far more efficient concentration camps for inhabitants of the land they wanted.
Your claim that Hollywood depicted native people as "gamboling innocents" reflects ignorance or worse. Columbus's first publications depicted them as such, Hollywood demonized them.
Your claim that natives were "treading paths through a pristine wilderness" is deceptive. They also lived in ancestral homes, practiced advanced (for the time) agriculture, built elaborate cemeteries.
Of course, none of this was your point, rather just in passing, your intent was not to open up this can of worms. Just a reminder here to be careful! Lots of people are reading, and I for one was upset. ...
Good luck with all antiwar efforts!
Regarding "Casualties in Iraq," edited by Mike Ewens:
Really appreciate your Iraq Casualty page. The government would love for us to forget the human cost of this nightmarish fiasco.
By any chance, do you remember whose website it was that kept an alphabetical listing of soldiers killed during the war which was updated daily? The list had the name, a photo, their unit, date and how they died. It was linked here at the Antiwar.com site.
The reason I ask is that there seems to have been a change in parameters recently by the media and Washington as to what defines a death by "hostile fire" during the war, compared to what it means for deaths by "hostile fire" after the war. In other words, I have difficulty seeing two vehicles in a non-combat situation crashing into each other as anything but an accident, whether the unfortunate happening is after the "end" of the war, or during the war. I am using that to illustrate the point that I believe the totals have been deliberately skewed to show a much higher combat-death rate during the war to make this aftermath more palatable. For example:
"Since Bush declared on May 1 that major combat in Iraq was over, some 28 U.S. troops have been killed by hostile fire and 43 others have died in accidents and other non-hostile circumstances, a total of 71. The Pentagon on Monday was unable to provide an exact count of hostile deaths. 'In the approximately three weeks of fighting before Baghdad fell to US troops on April 9, 102 Americans died, including 87 killed by hostile fire.'"
They are apparently including in their 87 hostile-fire deaths during the war vehicle crashes, drownings, helicopter accidents, etc., all outside of combat. But the same circumstances after the war are declared "accidental" deaths – meaning "non-bullet" and "non-bomb," apparently.
I think it would be helpful to go into that old list and do a survey to determine the true nature of the wartime deaths and then use the same parameters for both time periods to get a truer picture of exactly what is happening now. I think it will be eye-opening. As a matter of fact, I am willing to bet we have a higher percentage of hostile-fire deaths now than we did during the war.
Appreciate any help you can give me,
Mike Ewens replies:
Here is the best listing that I know of: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm.
I have also noticed the change in definitions that you cite. Seems a rational response for the military and lapdog media. In my opinion, if they weren't over there, our soldiers wouldn't have died "accidentally."
Concerning your idea about a comparison of hostile v. non-hostile: I have added it to my long list of things to do. I will keep you updated on my progress. Thanks for the email!
Regarding "OnPower.org: The New Web Site That Traces Government Power to 'War Crises'" by David Theroux:
You have described the increase of power by the government, now how do retrench back to the constitutional process and regain our original form of government ?
~ Edward Tkacik, World War II combat veteran (previous government cannon fodder), Pennsylvania
David J. Theroux, Founder and President, The Independent Institute, replies:
As the process of warfarism and the interest groups that sustain it have created the US Leviathan of government power (see our senior fellow Robert Higgs' authoritative book, Crisis and Leviathan), the first order of business is to end US interventionism around the world, close the global system of US military and covert bases and operations, and radically reduce "defense" spending. To do so, intellectual and public opinion must first be redirected to understand and oppose this destructive process and why the adoption of a foreign policy of neutrality and non-interventionism is crucial for the safety, freedom, and well-being of Americans and people worldwide.
The first crucial target in this work is to illuminate the immense dangers inherent in and end the practice of the ongoing imperial presidency. It is the executive branch of government that makes up 99+% of the federal state in the U.S. (including the US war machine), and it this immense discretionary power to wage war internationally and manipulate the lives of Americans and foster corporate welfare, pork, and trample on the Bill of Rights domestically that must be profoundly rolled back.
Secondly, the corporatist, special-interest nature of domestic statism must be exposed. After many decades, most people have come to believe that government power is waged to protect the public, while in reality, the actual effects of such power are to cartelize markets, redistribute wealth from the many to the few.
Thirdly, the rule of law must be restored by establishing fundamental constraints on the use of political power and the recognition of the unconstitutional nature of presidential war-making, including the launching of preemptive wars.
Successful movements for peaceful relations and trade among people of the world have occurred in the past, such as the working class Manchester League movement in England in the mid-19th century, and humanity greatly benefited both economically and safety-wise.
The Independent Institute's new web site, OnPower.org, is dedicated to advancing understanding in this regard and we welcome your assistance in making the site widely known and linked.
Regarding "To Heck With Liberia" by Justin Raimondo:
I read the article "To Heck With Liberia" (Justin Raimondo) with utter astonishment. Who is this guy?
While most of his rendition of history is true, the conclusions he draws are baffling and as silly and irresponsible as the picture on the article (Is it a picture of him)?
Liberia was indeed founded/ established by the American Colonization Society for reasons that include the repatriation of freed slaves. So what? The nation eventually became independent and was run by freed slaves from America who pretty much adopted the American system of governance. American influence is pervasive throughout Liberian society and culture. Besides, Liberia over the years, was a staunch ally of the United States throughout the cold-war (his examples are a few cases in point). How is it in the interest of the United States to sit back and allow its former friend to fail – including an entire region ( as Mr. Raimondo prefers)? It'll be interesting to know what Mr. Raimondo's contributions to the freedoms that he enjoys have been. Liberians – especially indigenous Liberians (that he ironically seems concerned about) have contributed enormously. Through their sweat they worked on rubber plantations owned by Firestone for a pittance before and especially during World War II, providing a much needed raw material for the prosecution of the war. After all this suffering, shouldn't they at least benefit for once from U.S.'s intervention to stabilize the situation in Liberia and allow them lead normal lives. Fact of the matter is that part of this problem has been due to US meddling. All we ask now is that the United States work with other African countries to help.
His evaluation of Liberia's ability to exist as a nation is deadly wrong. Liberians (all Liberians) will come together with some help from other Africans and possibly the United States. We will defy the odds that people like Justin perceive!
If I were Howard Dean, I'll be concerned that I have some one like you agreeing with me, even in one instance, on the use of disuse of American power abroad. You'll get in the way of what would otherwise be a legitimate concern!
Justin Raimondo replies:
You say that "American influence is pervasive" throughout Liberian society, but how can this be true, since the country has been torn apart pretty much continuously by civil war for more than a decade? I look forward to your explanation of how the cannibalism practiced by Liberian rebel groups is due to this "influence." I do not look forward to the prospect of American soldiers popped into the cooking pot. Fix your own country, Mr. Sunday, on your own tax dollars: the American Colonization Society is long since gone, and don't look to Washington for a replacement.
This article happens to be one of the most interesting pieces of journalism I have had the opportunity to be privy to, in a long time. The only problem is that it is no way an objective piece that examines every aspect of Liberian history or African politics. It would be futile to attack your opinion, but pessimism is definitely not the best outlook one should take with the world. After thoroughly reading your article, I am faced with the question of whether or not you believe that the US should lend any aid to Liberia, humanitarian or otherwise.
It is true that the America-Liberian settlers of Liberia replicated, in almost every aspect, the inhumane tendencies that they were on the receiving end of in America. However, basic psychology will show you that just like a child imitates their parent, the forever oppressed will take on the characteristics of their oppressors, once set free. This was the only way of life that they were exposed and seeing as the majority of them were not completely educated I don't see how they would have gone in any other direction.
I am a Liberian, who has been raised in the United States. Additionally, I am direct descendent of the "disemboweled" President Tolbert. He happens to be my grandfather. Being that I am a Liberian and a Tolbert, I, still, make it a habit to evaluate all sides of an argument before I attack someone else's point of view or what they consider "facts". In your assessment of the Tolbert regime you failed to mention any of his accomplishments or initiatives, which were many. There were underlying problems within his regime, one of which was nepotism and general corruption, but there were many advances made in the country within a short period of time. Anyone that chooses to do the research can find that out for themselves, just as anyone still living from his time in office can attest to that.
The biggest problem that Liberia has faced is not the fact that it was predestined to failure, but rampant ILLITERACY. Only through a proper education can you prosper and have correct foresight. Tolbert vehemently promoted education for the masses, not just the America-Liberian population.
The problem was that there was much opposition within other powerful "families" in Liberia. Add a lack of an education with economic problems and you end up with Samuel K. Doe.
I do commend you on your assessment of the Doe regime, but you were wrong in one aspect of his rise to power. It was not Doe or any one of his cohorts that murdered President Tolbert. This has been proven through eye witness accounts. The most notable being the former first lady, Victoria David-Tolbert, who was present but was not recognized in the chaos.
Other accounts, coupled with her own, have pointed to the fact that it was actually a Caucasian male with blonde hair that slaughtered Tolbert, not Doe, as many had previously believed. What you choose to believe about that is your choice, but it is valid information.
The purpose of my response was not to correct anything that you may or may not have left out of your article, but only to let you know that Liberians are human beings. Yes, the country was founded by freed slaves, but we are not those people. In order for there to be peace in the West African region, Liberia has to have peace. Whatever the assistance may be, we need it. The US has played a bigger role in the chaos that is currently Liberia than you may have mentioned, but that is not the issue. The issue is the children being kidnapped and turned into murderers, the women being raped and slaughtered, and the people who are being skinned alive in the interior. This has to stop. The old way of thinking has begun to fade out and the older generation will be the first to tell you that. They have seen the error in their ways. It is time for us, the younger generation, to rebuild our country, but we cannot do so alone and without international support.
If you have ever studied capitalism you would understand that in order for there to be an upper class there must be a larger group of the poor. America may never see drug-free streets. What would happen to the police officers and their jobs? How about lawyers whose high incomes fuel more taxes? Crime creates jobs and helps to sustain this economy. So do all of the other problems with America. That is how capitalism survives. It does so on the backs of the oppressed. That is why the US government will never fully correct the problems within this country.
At any rate, I don't agree with your point of view, but it can be appreciated and has only served me as more of an incentive to help bring my country and it's people into the light. Africa may be the "Dark Continent", but that is only a name of ignorance.
I read your excellent commentary: "To Heck With Liberia!" As one who considers herself very much to the left, I couldn't agree with you more! (Great in-depth background in the article by the way.)
It doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum you are on, when anyone in the US government even mentions the word "humanitarian," we'd all best run for cover. This government has never done anything for purely "humanitarian" reasons, that should be the first clue. I have no idea what this administration thinks it is going to accomplish in Liberia but one thing is for sure: it ain't going to be "humanitarian". Another distraction seems more likely.
Anyway, just wanted you to know, some of us on the left are closer to traditional conservatives than we realize! Keep up the excellent work!
"Of all places for the US to intervene militarily, why oh why does it have to be Liberia?"
Because this "instability" in Liberia is an obstacle to the West African Gas Pipeline! See http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/wagp.html:
"...the current regional stability problems of several countries (Cote d'Ivoire, Liberia, Sierra Leone) that lie on the way to Senegal, will hinder any further extension of the WAGP."
I agree with some of your points – you certainly make a persuasive case. But for me it comes down to this: most of Africa, at this point, is a colossal failure, for which the former Western imperial powers are primarily responsible. Granted, this is mainly the fault of Britain and France, but Liberia is one area where America has to be seen as the primary culprit (you outlined our missteps in the past). Britain and France are taking the lead in peacekeeping missions in Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, and Congo, areas linked to their nations historically. I think, given America's history of neglect and the fact that Liberians are clamoring for American peacekeeping presence, it is our duty to do what we can. And we're not talking about a massive troop commitment – 1,000 would probably do the job. If we sent them with the understanding that they are there only as peacekeepers, and will be removed should full-scale hostilities recommence, I think it would be a good use of US foreign policy and military resources with fairly minimal risk. I think that's more or less what Dean's saying.
Don't believe that Dean's Liberal supporters agreed with Dean on Liberia. I went to his monthly meeting this last Wednesday, and there were an awful lot of people who were saying the same thing, and in the same terms, as you.
If anyone has an interest in Liberia, it is Liberia's neighbors, who have in fact attempted to intervene.
At one time the US's involvement in foreign wars was limited primarily to training native soldiers. Greece against the communist insurgents comes most strongly to mind.
Helping the West Africans establish order on their own seems an eminently desirable solution. So help them establish a West African West Point. My uncle John, a Presbyterian minister, has made great efforts to establish a Ghanaian seminary college, on the theory that we should help the Ghanaians help themselves. I would be willing to support the effort to help establish institutions of higher education in the area, including military ones.
But I cannot see the point of the rest of it.
... You know, just closing your eyes and hoping that "nature" will take care of a "man-made" is clever rhetoric, but that's about all you can say for it. In practical terms, what that really boils down to is: "What the f*ck do we care? These Liberians will shoot and machete themselves to extinction anyway, and we'll all be better off for it. Can't succeed, don't even try".
So, is that what you would really like to say? When you read that last paragraph, did you nod firmly to yourself and say: "damn right you are!, let the fools kill themselves"? If yes, spare us the euphemisms and state your viewpoint clearly. If no, I am afraid your article does disservice to your views.
And finally, this:
".. I'll tell you why: political correctness. Liberia, you see, gives us a chance to 'liberate' a country populated by blacks..."
Is it so bad, sir, to liberate a COUNTRY POPULATED BY BLACKS? How is Liberia any different from Nazi Germany, Bosnia or Albania? Why does it suddenly become an issue of "political correctness" when the country in trouble happens to be black? Is this an impending double standard? Are we witnessing racism masquerading as critical analysis?
I am Nigerian, and in this one respect at least, I am quite glad not to have been raised in North America. All of you Americans – black and white – are pathologically obsessed with issues of race. You know, it doesn't really matter if you are black or white. It matters that you try to be a decent person. And while we may not always be in a position to save the world, or stop unjust wars, just trying and doing what we can is, in my opinion, well worth the effort. Because, I think that a world in which people were concerned about massacres in Bosnia or Liberia is a better world than one in which all they did was watch American idol.
Cheers bud, and keep up your otherwise good essays.
You cannot lump Israel and the Middle East in with anything else. Israel is doing what Israel is doing because what is going on in Israel is the fulfillment of prophecy. God said "Three ball in the corner pocket" thousands of years ago and He is doing it now. We are supposed to be giving Him the praise and glory due Him and He is watching to see who does and who doesn't. How are you doing in that department?
A couple days ago I read an article at CBN that George Bush the elder first started this land for peace idea in Israel and he received the "Perfect Storm" at his summer home in Maine and Florida received Hurricane Andrew, the worst "natural disaster" in insurance history. I lived in a trailer in South Florida at the time and I was just fine. The interesting thing is that the families on either side of me fled as the law required and both had problems – I was fine. Praise the Lord! That is just one of the many benefits of following Jesus and doing what He wants.
You can read Psalm 103 and Psalm 91 for a beginning of the benefits – oh, and Isaiah Chapter 1. I love that. If you are obedient you eat the fat of the land. You can go look at Trumpet Sounds. Bob put Ezekiel Chapters 35 and 36 in the vernacular and there is no question the Dome of the Rock is going. You can read the prophecies at kcm.org and www.kimclement.com and also listen to the audio at Kim's site. Now if you really want to read something cool, The Book of Jubilees is on the Internet and you can read that. That goes into much more detail than the Book of Genesis does. Also, there is a Book of Enoch that I read that goes into a lot more detail about life before the Flood and then Noah picks up with life after the Flood. As to the plight our country has been in for the past one hundred years or so, here is an article I found on the Internet several months ago. I may have already sent it to you but I will again just to make sure: http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue07/apostasy.htm. You see, it is the Communists who have done it to this country. You might take heart in a prophecy I heard that was given in November, 2001 – everyone in the United States, Canada and Mexico is going to become a Christian.
~ (Mrs.) Beverly Ryan, West Palm Beach, Florida
In your recent article, you mention that you are expecting to get a barrage of critical emails from your liberal readers. I thought you might get some consolation from the fact that I, one of your far-left socialist readers, agreed with almost everything you had to say. Even your comment about dragging Africa into democracy in a mere decade is right to the point; any real student of socialism knows that the rise of the bourgeoisie is a prerequisite of bourgeoisie democratic government, and Liberia is barely at the stage of supporting feudalism, let alone capitalism.
Not only are you right on the particulars here, but also on the general theme. For the last 200 years every imperial adventure has been dressed up in humanitarian rhetoric, and there is little reason to believe today is any different. If a truly humanitarian intervention were possible, I'd support it, but I have no doubt that the 'liberals' and 'conservatives' are still playing good-cop/ bad-cop imperialism. Http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/lib-j18.shtml has a good description of the real issues involved, if you're willing to tolerate socialist rhetoric.
Anyway, keep up the good work! And talk some more with your leftist friends; I suspect the far right and far left have far more in common then they commonly think!
Only the Liberians can liberate themselves. If the frontier with the next door state dissolves, only the Libero-Sierraleoneans can liberate themselves.
And what happened to the stories that the reason the Great Powers are worried about the so-called blood diamonds, often the product of free labour and self-employed diggers, is because they threaten the Oppenheimer-De Beers diamond oligopoly (always a fragile thing and enforced by brutality against black working people for over a century)?
Your position that the US should show no interest for country like Liberia is irresponsible, and lessens your credibility on the other good causes you are supporting. Should it also pull out of Nato, of South Korea? Was the (modest) US support given to East Timor a mistake?
The Liberia situation, unlike Iraq, is a humanitarian one where there is overwhelming national, regional and international support for the US – alongside others to help.
At the very least the US should be among those providing logistic support and funding for assisting in policing a war-torn country.
And one which, as you confirm, was a creation of the US (never mind whether they were actual former slaves or other do-gooders, still it was a US responsibility – not Japan's, or Russia's).
~ Philippe Hein, Divonne les Bains, France
Wow, you paint a clear and grim picture of the politics surrounding war. Every day we are given a new target and a different justification for intervention – humanitarian crises, terrorists, evil dictators, WMD, etc. The intent is to drive us from one to the other, each time leaving us with a renewed feeling of righteousness. Most of us remain too confused to object consistently to this insanity, but you have managed to keep a clear head. I really hope a politician with a consistent, convincing voice will appear soon and straighten out our current leaders. Why don't you step up to the challenge?
~ Paul G., Pasadena, California
Justin Raimondo (7 July) says:
"Like King Canute, who tried to hold back the sea by the sheer force of his kingly demeanor, the efforts of the US to impose anything resembling order in most of the world are similarly laughable".
This is very unfair to Canute, who actually got his feet wet in order to shame the flatterers who surrounded him, and to demonstrate that there are limits even to the power of a king. I think the monarch in the story of the emperor's new clothes is a better comparison.
The English king did not try to hold back the tide. He demonstrated to nobles, who were asking too much of him, that he could not command the tides. Indeed he was a bit of a libertarian, believing that he, as the government, was limited as to what he could do.
~ Nors Loperes