2008 candidates lack promise
February 25, 2008
E-mail
Comment
While there is an absence of complete bipartisan consensus on many issues, it is rare to hear a presidential candidate from either party to harshly criticize past foreign policy.
Though the lack of criticism should be expected from Republican John McCain, Democratic nominees Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's reluctance to speak up on the negative aspects of twentieth-century American foreign policy should trigger disbelief.
Perhaps Clinton and Obama react with such reluctance because most Americans lack the desire to hear about American war crimes or terrorism. The 1953 coup in Iran has been largely forgotten, Vietnam remains controversial and civilian deaths in the First Gulf War are rarely mentioned.
If a politician even mentioned the phrase ?American war crimes", he or she would risk incurring the wrath of his or her voting base. Yet the subject of American war crimes must be openly discussed to have a friendlier relationship with neighbor nations.
One case would be the 1989 invasion of Panama. The historian Howard Zinn has noted that the number of civilians dead from the 1989 U.S. bombing of Panama could have exceeded the number of students killed during the Tiananmen Square protests that same year.
While that particular use of aggression against civilians in China garnered international condemnation and even sanctions, the American ousting of Manuel Noriega and bombing of Panamanians received no such punishment.
It is doubtful that McCain, who has sharply criticized nations in Latin America that stand up to American imperialism, will apologize for or recognize American crimes in this hemisphere.
Obama, who stated he has not ruled out military force as an option if Iran ?resists outside pressures,? apparently misunderstands the main reason for the hostility towards the United States.
The 1979 Iranian revolution occurred primarily because the revolutionaries felt the United States had wrongly interfered in their political system by aiding the coup of 1953. This hostility has continued with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?s presidency, with the leader regularly labeling the CIA as a ?terrorist organization.?
Of course, the ?Islamic Republic? is now a far cry from the socialism of the leader elected in 1953. However, some present the argument that that extreme religious conservatism arose in response to nearly forty years of living in a police state.
This is not to justify the theocratic leanings of modern Iran. Yet the 1953 coup should certainly not be ignored; exactly what Obama does in keeping military action as an option, possibly choosing it over apology and diplomacy if elected president.
Must the US continue to think it is any different from its enemies? War crimes are war crimes, regardless of whether they are committed by Pol Pot or the most powerful military in history.
It is time to come to terms with the past. It is time for a new American leader, one who will recognize the nation?s historical use of indefensible aggression and apologize to the victims.
I have been watching the presidential race. The odds do not look promising.
Posted by "Nigel Alcorn" on March 20, 2008 at 12:27 a.m.
Ryan,
It seems you are dismissing the actions mentioned as "inappropriate choices" or "mistakes." You say the casualties we inflicted in our war with Panama were strictly military, when they obviously included more civilians than soldiers. One can justify our military action, but why ignore our murder of those we had no issue with?
Your fear of Iran's nuclear capabilities is likewise misguided. The nation canceled its program quite some time ago, although this has been ignored by our president, who continues to use threats and warnings. All of this amounts to historical revisionism.
Posted by "Mike Wilson" on March 17, 2008 at 12:27 a.m.
Nigel, you should take Ryan's post in consideration. You have made America seem like gutter to live in,...Why? It may just be me, but it seems that after the first or second paragraph, you shift attention to all the "horrors" that the American gov't has been in.
Sure, Like Ryan stated, we have made mistakes, but what does that have to do with the election and the candidate's lacking of promises if they aren't in office yet?
-Just thought I'd throw that out there-Mike
Posted by "Ryan Swain" on February 28, 2008 at 12:27 a.m.
Nigel,
I do agree with you on the fact that the 2008 presidential elections do not look very promising. In my opinion we have liberal Republicans and liberal Democrats running for office. For conservatives, it's a lose/lose scenario.
As per your claiming that the US is no different from ruthless genocidal mad men, I completely and whole heartedly disagree. After looking at the link under Pol Pot's name, I find it hard to believe that the United States has carried out war crimes such as torture and senseless murder like Pol Pot did on a grand scale. However I am not saying that the US government has not made mistakes.
The Bible tells us that all sins are equal in God's eyes. However from the world's view point and the law's view point some things are more severe than others. For example, stealing candy from a gas station is less severe than murder or armed robbery. My point being that our government may have made some inappropriate choices but last time I checked, the US government wasn't guilty of mass genocide.
According to the link under the US invasion of Panama, the Panamanian government clearly stated that they were at a state of war with us. How was it wrong of us to take military action when they clearly had the notion that we were at war?
As per your reference to Iran and the Middle East, I think that it might be plausible to conclude that Iran hates us simply because of the fact that we are Americans. Another possibility might be that they despise us because of our alliance with Israel.
I personally do not believe that Iran's animosity toward us is based completely on a coup in 1953. After all they are supposedly building up a nuclear arsenal, and I sincerely doubt that a simple apology will turn their intense hatred for westerners into love.
This is simply my two-cents on the subject.
Posted by "John Dinsdale" on April 8, 2008 at 12:27 a.m.
I agree. Our canidates lack promise. Obama and Hilary that is. If I wanted entertainment I'd tune in to American Idol not watch a presidential election by two fame hungry, sorry excuses for hopeful canidates.
Anyways I agree with Ryan on everything thing he said! Iran is a Muslim country. They kind of, sort of, hate us. How could anyone argue that?
Any country that teaches their children and military to hate Americans and to kill Americans do not deserve an apology as far as I'm concerned.
I've been to Panama in recent years and I did not feel any hostility from them. In fact they were very welcoming and even have American retirment communities. I don't see them begging for our appology.
Panama wouldn't be our first attack on innocent people. Try Hiroshima. The fact is Truman was unaware of it's lack of military personel. It's very likely that we accidentaly attacked a place in Panama we thought maybe was a different purpose.
I do not see Panama, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Germany or any other past victims of our military giving the least amount of care to hear Clinton, Obama, or McCain say sorry?
As much as everyone wishes the world was a fairy land where war and pain were absent that is not the case. I think our enemies know that which is why they are our enemies.