Bush strategy says 'get real'

"The US has bombed 21 countries since the 2nd world war and has bases in over half the nations of the world."

Let's start by dealing with your preconceptions.

That's a mighty broad statement you've made. And it is loaded with accusatory connotations.

I ask you to:

a. Identify the 21 countries, to confirm that your source is correct. And, then, consider what motivation we might have had in each instance. You would object to the bombing of, say, North Korea? After it had aggressively invaded a free society, South Korea, to whose defense we came -- under the aegis of the UN?

b. "Half the nations in the world"? Really? Of the 31 nations in Europe, for example, I count only three in which the US maintains a permanent base of operations -- all secured by treaty and at the invitation of the host country. I'm unaware of any bases whatsoever on two entire continents -- Africa and South America.

Point being, you've cited as fact what are, in truth, some unsupportable and hyperbolic assertions. I suggest you review your preconceptions in that light.

Then, we can talk...

"http://www.newint.org lists the countries bombed."

And you believe them? They list China in 1950-53, for example. This was at the time of the Korean Conflict. And we took ridiculous measures to avoid doing just that. The reference, I suppose, was to the Yalu River bridges -- on the border between North Korea and Manchuria. Normally, a bombing run is along the bridge's axis. But, the USAF directed the B-29s to fly at right angles to the bridges, over the southern half of the river, expressly so as to avoid an incursion into Chinese airspace.

While on this course, they not only were less likely to damage the bridge, but were very exposed to AAA fire from the Chinese side of the river. While it was not the stated policy to retaliate against this fire, I presume that some unauthorized (and understandable) action was taken. People were getting shot...so they shot back. So, apparently, that is the flimsy basis for the website's claim.

Peru, 1965. Come ON! Says who?

Point being, this website is not interested in propagating accurate information. It is grinding its own axe, just as a U.S. State Department website would do...

"Curiously you have avoided saying wether you condemn or condone US support for terrorism."

I don't need to condemn or condone it. The U.S. has never supported nor condoned terrorism -- meaning groups that attack innocent civilians and third parties.

It is true that, for controlling geopolitical reasons (which are not necessarily "imperialist" or "bad", I would remind you), the U.S. has found itself allied with some relatively unsavory regimes.

The best example, perhaps, is Josef Stalin's USSR in WW II -- if anything, a scurrilous Communist regime with more blood on its hands than even Hitler's Germany.

I, for one, would have a hard time arguing against this alliance, though.

"Do you think the CIA backed coup against Allende..."

If I am not mistaken, knowing what they know now, the population of a free, prosperous and capitalist Chile would, in hindsight, probably deliver a majority vote in favor of Allende's deposition.

"History is littered with US interventions and attacks, some justified, others not."

History would also be replete with interventions by the Greeks, Romans, British, etc. It seems to be the lot of the world's pre-eminent power to become intrinsically more involved in world events than, say, Luxemburg.

I presume that you do not have the perspective of living through WW II nor the Cold War. Consequently, your "real-time" experience in these matters is somewhat limited and your views are greatly influenced by sources whom you have, perhaps, more faith in than they might deserve.

Using "littered" and "attacks" in this context, and assuming that "intervention" is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, suggests this interpretation to me, anyway.

I will grant you and the newint.org website this, though: American intervention in Kosovo and the bombing of Serbia was totally unjustified. It was arguably the most shameful thing that this country has ever done. The act was a mistake and the motivation for its commission was despicable.

That said, in a history spanning over two hundred years, if Kosovo was the worst we've done, that's a record that will stand up well to historical inspection...

"Anyone who suggests that oil is a big influence over Bush government is treated likewise, despite the fact that his government originally contained 51 senior members of Enron."

In the words of the immortal Ronaldus Magnus, "There you go again."

A confirming source and names, please!

And recognize one other salient fact: Enron was not an oil company. They were not involved in the exploration, nor the production, nor the refining nor the marketing of petroleum products.

Nor, obviously, did Enron have any effective influence in the Bush administration. For proof, you can ask those sifting through the ashes...

"This must mean that Bin Laden and Hussein never did those things while the US were providing them with weapons and support, they were just regular nice guys."

Red herrings. In Afghanistan, we never supported bin Laden directly. Only the mujahadeen, as a group, who were fighting the Soviet occupation. In fact, we withdrew from involvement in Afghanistan coincident with the Soviet withdrawal. And I don't believe the Taliban was even organized by the Pakistani ISI or bin Laden active in the country until after we had disappeared from the scene. Check the dates, if you would, please.

I characterized "terrorism" as conducted by a group, not a state. Nevertheless, how long after Hussein gassed the Kurds (innocent civilians) did we withdraw any support and found ourselves at war with him? Hmmmm?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.