To Make War, Presidents Lie

LewRockwell.com ^ | 1 October 2002 | Robert Higgs

[JohnGalt]

So anyone who supports closing the borders or a classical defense of the Second Amendment is beneath you to debate with? I suspect you are more a Conservative in the mold of an English Tory/Kipling Imperial Conservative/Neo-Con than you are American Conservative. So be it, I reckon we pull the lever for the same R's, but Center-Right rightousness has let the barbarians into the city and reduced political debate to troop movements in the Middle East rather than reducing the size of government, lowering taxes and increasing personal liberty.

[wasp69]

I am not defending the actions taken by the German Navy in a moral sense, but a strategic sense. Kaiser Bill and Ludendorf believed they were morally, and legally, justified to attack American shipping because the United States was viewed as violating the terms of their neutrality.

I understand what you are saying and would agree if it were not for the attacks on passenger craft. That's where their tactics lose any and all support from me. Attacking a merchant vessel is a smart tactical move especially if a neutral is violating it's promise and you are in a blockade.

Your naval anecdote reminds me of the soccer game the Germans and the British played in no-mans land, Ypres, Belgium, Dec 24, 1914 (The Germans preportedly won 2-1.) It certainly was an age of warrior-poets.

I definitely agree with you on that point and submit that we will probably never see two powers fight each other with the same honor in our lifetime. On the other hand, I think the Germans were sending a message to the US that they could send their subs across the Atlantic and sink shipping off our coast at will and we had better remember it if we knew what was good for us. Know what I mean?

[JohnGalt]

I think less about honor, but a real abscence of 'hate' as a motivating force for the boys in the trenches. I believe the German General Staff violated von Clauswitz instruction about strategy and purpose of the war. The Germans were clearly winning the land war, suffering significantly fewer casualties than the Allies, and yet fought the naval battle as if they were desperate.

German children were starving so I see an easy rationalization for attacking passenger ships by the German High Command, and personally, I do tolerate some moral relativism between an inhumane blockade and the attacks on passenger ship reckless being used to move munitions.

One of two conclusions can be made: ambition in the Navy which was crushed in the North Sea in the opening naval battles of the First World War over ruled pragamtic (Clausewitz) strategy or Kaiser Bill and Ludendorf were simply bitter that traditionally neutral America, with a large German population and the role von Stueben played in the Revolution, were clearly Anglophiles.

The other question which has been lost to the history books with the distintegration of the anti-war, anti-Wall ST Republican progressives, is the belief that Wall St bankers, who stood to go bankrupt if their loans were defaulted on in the event of an Allied loss, ensured to the Germans that the Americans would never see the Allies fail.

[wasp69]

German children were starving so I see an easy rationalization for attacking passenger ships by the German High Command, and personally, I do tolerate some moral relativism between an inhumane blockade and the attacks on passenger ship reckless being used to move munitions.

Okay, maybe you can help me out on this one. It was my impression that since Germany had the resources of the European Continent, they were not being strangled as bad as the UK who depended on shipping. Also, it has been my understanding that the skipper on the U-boat that sank the Lusitania had no forehand knowledge of munitions on the Lusitania; only Wilson and the British Admiralty.

or Kaiser Bill and Ludendorf were simply bitter that traditionally neutral America, with a large German population and the role von Stueben played in the Revolution, were clearly Anglophiles.

Can't say I've seen anything to support that but, like I said, it would seem that Germany was sending us a warning to stop shipping with the Allies or else.

The other question which has been lost to the history books with the distintegration of the anti-war, anti-Wall ST Republican progressives, is the belief that Wall St bankers, who stood to go bankrupt if their loans were defaulted on in the event of an Allied loss, ensured to the Germans that the Americans would never see the Allies fail.

You know, it's funny you would mention that since JP Morgan had a meeting with Wilson and told him pretty much the same thing just before setting sail on the Lusitania and being lost at sea.

[JohnGalt]

The effects of the illegal British blockade is a realm unto its own, but statisticians argue that between 400-700,000 German and Austrian civilian deaths were attributed to a lack of nutrition during the First World War. This trend is not seen in the capitals of Paris and London. You are correct in so far that the Army was responsible for distributing food and you can bet they took their share so that mostly potatos, turnups and dark bread were left for the masses. By 1916, the population was litterally starving which prompted my comments about the rationalization of unrestricted submarine warfare.

After Nov. 11, 1918 and well into 1919, the Allies continued to prevent American farmers from selling their food stuffs to the Germans, as they had done illegally during the war.

[JohnGalt]

I think I can put it more clearly in the scope of American politics, the Germans simply could not believe that the Americans were not demanding the British cease their immoral and illegal blockade. Midwest farm states produced several anti-intervention, anti Wall St. Progressive (i.e. Big Government) Republicans who claimed until well into the 1930s that the First World was fought in the interest of a corrupt Wall St. As a political entitity, the liberal Republican, anti-Intervention, anti-Wall St, ceased to exist with the formation of the anti-New Deal 'Old Right.'

Anyway, politics gave the victory to Wall St, and the farmers who simply wanted German Gold for their products lost out.

[talk2farley]

A classical defense of the Second Amendment protects the rights of a arms-bearing "Well regulated militia." Two key terms there.

One, well regulated. The Second Amendment is unique in that it specifically grants the federal government the authority to regulate the rights it grants. Meaning a prohibition of guns on airplanes is NOT a violation of your rights, based on the Lockean/Jeffersonian consent theory. You chose to fly.

Two, militia. While I disagree with this, a convincing argument was made by a buddy of mine (Democrat) that the 2nd Amendment protects only state militias and national guards. It does not specifically protect the individual citizens right to bear arms.

My disagreement, however, is rooted in the language:

"A well regulated militia being necesarry to the security of the state, a persons right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Not an exact quote, but you get the idea. It mentions the individual person specifically, while only refferencing towards militias.

And while you may not make that the President has made a convincing case for action against Iraq, 69% of Americans think he has done just that. Only 28% disagree.

And my problem with your assertion that we should "close the borders" is two fold. One, all seventeen of the 9/11 hijackers were in this country legally. Two, your handle is JohnGalt, which implies a Randian philosophy, which likewise implies a pro-open borders policy. Someone who claims to be something he is not is beneath me to debate with.

The promise of freedom (politically and economically) has enticed millions to imigrate to this country. And these citizens have proven themselves the most productive and patriotic among us time and again. You don't punish them, and this nation which relies on them, for the actions of a few whack-o's.

[talk2farley]

Deplorable. Im sure a good liberal could have easily defended the actions of that asshole, however, explaining that his "oppresive socio-economic status, for which I as a white middle-class male am to blame, contributed to his behavior. So you see, its really the GOP thats to blame." I dont see the connection either, but it always is...

[L.N. Smithee]

Presidents lie to justify war? Yes, they have. Just as true, antiwar idealist figures lie to justify themselves.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt began the maneuvers by which he hoped to plunge the nation once again into the European cauldron. Unsuccessful in his naval provocations of the Germans in the Atlantic, he eventually pushed the Japanese to the wall by a series of hostile economic-warfare measures, issued clearly unacceptable ultimatums, and induced them to mount a desperate military attack, most devastatingly on the US forces he concentrated at Pearl Harbor.

Oh, here we go again..."Pushed the Japanese to the wall..."

I have fresh-as-a-daisy memories of rhetorically beating bloody this nonsense with the aluminum baseball bat of truth when Harry Browne penned his infamous "When Will We Learn?" column September 12, 2001.

---

#367: HARRY BROWNE: "When will we learn?"
To: Derville

I asked you: "How many people did the [Japanese] oil embargo kill?"

You reply: Did you laugh derisively when Bush the Elder and his supporters,including Limbaugh,described a potential embargo of oil by Saddam as a legitimate cause for war?

What I remember is Hussein being given half a year by Bush the Elder to evacuate Kuwait before a single bomb dropped on Iraqi soil.

Successive regimes in our country have taken military action arrogantly against many and frequently where our interest was,at least,highly suspect.As a result,Browne's point as I understand it,we may be reaping the whirlwind.

What people like you can't get through your skulls is that just because some of us don't subscribe to Browne's Pollyanna Barney philosophy doesn't mean we all shout "my country wrong or right!" The history books are filled with suggestions and baldfaced evidence that "American interests" were really simply corporate interests and nothing more. I am not denying that -- I wouldn't dare. Capiche?

Your assertion that we were some kind of altruists in confronting the Japanese rather than Imperial rivals gives me little hope.This arrogant and deluded posture that it was the U.S.'s duty to save the yellow peoples from one of their own is not only untrue,but the inverse corollary that we know what's good for everyone laughable.

What a lying weasel you are! I said nothing of the sort! THIS is what I said:

---

The Japanese struck at the USA when it would not cooperate with their attempt to make Japan the power of Far East Asia and the Pacific (including Australia and New Zealand). Are you suggesting that it was the United States' obligation to sell fuel to the Japanese? Should Roosevelt have endorsed the Japanese version of "manifest destiny?" Would that have fit Browne's definition of "minding our own business?"

---

I laid out the way Hirohito had drawn up the projected Japanese Empire as the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" -- was or was not Roosevelt, under Barney Browne's principles, morally obligated to help Tokyo build their empire to avoid their being 'provoked by [their] anger' at the United States?

So often, I hear people say, "Well, the Japanese had to attack," as if the USA fired the first shot! What a pile of steaming, stinking nonsense! A tiny island nation above the equator that imports 4/5 of its fuel has business trying expand its influence as far as north of the Antarctic without the cooperation of the governments of its importers? The plan was doornail-dead as [soon as] it was proposed.

I note that you don't want near the hot potato of Pearl Harbor with the despicable conduct of Roosevelt,Marshall;in your reality,evidently,it is alright for your government to have your own servicemen as lambs to the slaughter to serve their 'higher purpose'.

In what passes for YOUR reality, you know what would have happened if things had gone differently. I don't make such claims. Do you read tea leaves, too? Do you know Cleo, the Jamaican psychic? You make just about as much sense!

367 posted on 9/13/01 6:24 PM Pacific by L.N. Smithee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

[JohnGalt]

You believe rights to be granted to us by governments; I believe they exist with or without a Consitution. That is a sharp difference in ideology.

As far as the "open-borders claim" goes, try reading some Rothbard. I believe community and culture entittle the citizens to some level of property rights (political man versus economic man). Rand was not an anarcho-capitalist, she was a minarchist.

The welfare state imports voting blocks into urban areas to win precints and votes. These immigrants have no concept of the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, the 14th Amendment, Anglo concepts of liberty, or the Federalist Papers. They simply cannot be expected to 'conserve' the elements of the culture the way a German, Italian, or Irish immigrant can.

[Man of the Right]

We all know the leftist mantra by now. Whatever the outrage of the day, White male native-born Christian or Jewish Americans of European descent are responsible. If all of us would only hand over all of our assets and then die extraordinarily painful lingering violent deaths, the world would be a wonderful place.

[talk2farley]

"Anglo" concepts of liberty? You contradict yourself on so many levels. You propose to tell me that rights (liberties) are not imposed by the state (implying "natural right," a philosophy I wholeheartedly agree with, its the duty of state to PROTECT natural right), yet one paragraph later tell me rights are racially specific. More bluntly, you claim only the Anglo race has the "appropriate" notions of liberty and right. Sounds dangerously collectivist to me.

[JohnGalt]

Anglo concepts of liberty include the Hobbes-Burkian debates, that's the point. It's not racial (i.e. in the genes), its an ethnic/cultural difference. From your tone, I assume you find the Anglo debates on liberty to be the end all, however, regardless of how I personally feel on the subject, I am quite certain that 99% of Somalian immigrants to the country really don't care.

You and I can debate 'liberty' all day and we are only off a few degrees; that debate simply does not exist when you import alien cultures.