Korean Job Discussion Forums

[R. S. Refugee]

America: Government of Cowards

by Charley Reese

Back in the 1970s, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, one of the giants of the 20th century, gave a commencement address at Harvard. It was, I believe, the last public address he gave in America. His criticism was so dead-on that he quickly became persona non grata.

I've always thought that it is a permanent disgrace that this great man, whom many Russians credit with bringing down the Soviet Union, was never invited to the White House, while all sorts of two-bit communists and other poltroons have been feted and dined there.

At any rate, apropos of the current headlines, one of the criticisms he levied was that we as a country had become cowards. He made it clear that he did not mean the American people; he meant the American government and the American Establishment. He said they bullied small and weak countries and appeased the powerful. That was true then, and it's true today.

Look, for example, at the contrast between George Bush's rhetoric directed at North Korea and his rhetoric directed at Saddam Hussein. Saddam, he said, had been given enough chances. He had run out of time. There was no point in any more talk. Blah, blah, etc. Saddam, of course, didn't have nuclear weapons, or even chemical or biological weapons.

With North Korea, the president says we must seek a diplomatic solution, and diplomacy, of course, takes a lot of time, etc. and so forth. Gosh, we hate to see North Korea so isolated.

What's the difference? Saddam was weak, his regime was a toothless old hag, and Bush and his war hawks knew it. We could bully and invade him without fear. North Korea, however, is a regime with very sharp teeth. It has a fully equipped standing army of more than 1 million men. It has artillery wheel to wheel along the demilitarized zone. Even without its missiles, nuclear or conventional, war with North Korea would produce casualties in the tens of thousands, and would do it in a matter of days.

So you're darn right Bush wants to use diplomacy, though his diplomacy is so inept that it is not likely to work. We are not going to attack North Korea or even try a "surgical strike," and North Korea knows this. It has a deterrent sufficiently strong to persuade us to let the sleeping dog lie on the Korean Peninsula.

You will notice, too, that all the tough rhetoric about Iran has suddenly quieted down. I think both the U.S. and Israel have finally realized that we have no military option with Iran. Iran is in a position to cause us unimaginable problems all over the Middle East. Our failure in Iraq and the Israelis' failure to cower the Palestinians have reminded both countries that the Middle East is not a good place to cause trouble. It is a place where conventional forces can win tactical victories, but not strategic ones.

T.E. Lawrence, or Lawrence of Arabia if you prefer, noted a characteristic of the Arabs: They can be suddenly seized with an idea so passionately, he said, that they will willingly lose everything for it. That's all the explanation you need for suicide bombers. There is a line in their psyche that Westerners would do well not to cross.

At any rate, our government and our Establishment remain as cowardly as they were in the 1970s. Look at the great military "triumphs" in recent years � invading Panama and Grenada, bombing Libya and Serbia, fighting two wars with Iraq. Any general who wanted a triumphal procession in Rome after victories that petty would have been limited to a single cart pulled by a donkey.

Probably, we don't have a real peace movement in this country because one isn't needed. We're not going to fight anybody who has half a chance of drawing real blood. We are never going to launch a preventative war against North Korea or Iran, and God knows not against China or Russia. Perhaps, if Bush ever extricates himself from Iraq and Afghanistan, we might have another go at Somalia.

We are, just as Solzhenitsyn said, the bully of weak countries and an appeaser of strong ones.

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=9270

[On the other hand]

[ddeubel]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[happeningthang]

[Mr. Pink]

Funny thing about that article:

Bush believed Saddam had WOMD...

Saddamn had a pretty good army at one time (pre-Gulf War 1)

Invading Iraq, one can say was about OIL and guarenteeing the US had a steady supplier - Iraq.

What does North Korea really have to offer? IMO if the USA could take down Saddamn's total military like it was nothing, they could do the same to North Korea...just one has to remember CHINA is the big dog in these parts and THEY do not want the US fighting on their doorstep.

It would take a North Korean first strike to tie China's hands. A USA first strike would probably bring about WWIII if China were to get involved. Hence the diplomatic solution Bush wants to pursue.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[bucheon bum]

China didn't become involved until genius MacArthur openly suggested crossing the Yalu.

[Octavius Hite]

and don't forget whacky MacArthur wanting to nuke the Chinese!

[Gwangjuboy]

[Gopher]

This article reduces complex international relationships and diplomacy (much of which is conducted secretly and we know nothing about -- until later, that is) to an overly simplistic thesis that is reprinted here because it strikes a harmonious chord with those who love to hear others allege that the United States is little more than a coward or a bully -- the actual historical record notwithstanding.

You have preached to your choir (again).

Congratulations.

[On the other hand]

[Octavius Hite]

Gwangjuboy wrote:

[freethought]

first, Solzhenitsyn was condemning western culture during that address.

Second, 'nuking' people is NOT a good thing. Nuking the japs or the chinese or whoever... NOT a good thing. I think the only people who advocate any type action such as that are stupid or ignorant as to what exactly a nuclear weapon/explosion entails.

As for the US being weak and who they 'pick on', the comment was made about the historical record. Well, let's look at that record.

a list of battles fought/opponents of the US:

1. aboriginals(indians)-- that sure was a fair fight
2. even more indians
3. the mexicans-- not much of a fight there either
4. the spanish-- still not much of a fight
5. the spanish/fillipinos--- oops, that wasn't much of a fight either
6. WW1 would have been a fight, but they stayed out of the war for most of it
7. various meddling in latin america
8. ww2, again, tried their best to avoid fighting, then fought japan, a country that knew it was going to lose, but attacked in the hopes of drawing a stalemate or too high of a cost so that they might keep some of their conquested territory. the US didn't enter the european theatre until hitler declared war on them...
9. Korea---
10. Cuba
11. Vietnam
12. latin America
13. Saddam

the list goes on. The point being that the historical record seems to indicate that the US has seldom if ever fought an equal opponent, or even an opponent of strength. And the 1 time when they did fight a strong opponent, they were forced into it. That said, part of this is due to the fact that the US is such a strong and great nation. Economically, militarily finding a nation that can match it is almost impossible. It has the benefit of geography that no other nation on earth has(except for maybe canada in that it is located right beside the US). There's also the little fact that taking on people who are big and strong will lead to large scale war and massive death tolls, and that;s something that should be avoided.

The issue in this thread is true, though, that for the most part the US has 'bullied' smaller, weaker nations, often to the detriment of the locals and for the benefit of the US. That is something worth criticizing and something that should be condemned.

[Gopher]

Your interpretation of the historical record is uninteresting and predictably U.S.-centric and anti-U.S. I especially like how you so casually dismiss the Japanese Empire as little more than a non-issue.

In any case, why did you leave the Independence War, the War of 1812, conflicts between the U.S. and Britain over Central America from 1850, the Civil War, the 1895 Venezuelan Boundary Dispute, the Quemoy-Matsu dispute, the U-2 program, the Berlin and Cuban Missile Crises, among other diplomatic conflicts and wars, off your list?

Also, the U.S. govt was not the only govt to treat "Indians" or "natives" abusively in the modern period (1500-present). Do you also, then, characterize the Canadian, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, the Vatican, Cuban, Mexican, Guatemalan, Nicaraguan (and I specifically refer to the Sandinista regime and those that came before it here), Brazilian, Ecuadorian, Peruvian, Bolivian, Chilean, British, Australian, New Zealand, French, Beligian, German, and other govts such as the South Africans and, in East Asia, the Chinese and Japanese as "bullies" and "cowards" on this count?

Also, if you go back one step further, you will find uncountable examples of these various "picked on" natives or aboriginals acting as "cowards" and "bullying" neighboring natives and aboriginals -- in the area that eventually became British North America; in Mesoamerica; in the Andes; all over Africa; in Australia and New Zealand. Would you, then, characterize these former native and aborignal peoples and cultures as "bullies" and "cowards" as well? I mean, it is hard, to cite but one example, to show how the Incas fought anyone of equal strength during their empire.

And how about the the Persians, Sparta, the Athenian Empire, Carthage, Imperial Rome while we are at it? Did they not act "cowardly" and "bully" and "meddle," etc., in the affairs of others as well?

Should not we criticize and condemn all of these peoples and cultures if, indeed, we object to this behavior, generally? Or is your and R.S.'s outrage limited to the U.S., and for the usual reasons? And has the fact that the U.S. is merely caught up in the same larger historical forces that have involved all of us and our ancestors in a complex web of influence and history for the last ten thousand years or so, somehow escaped your notice...

Who is Solzhenitsyn and, also, who do you think you are to claim moral superiority and pass judgment when we all so very clearly have the same blood all over our hands?