American Exceptionalism: How Murdering Children by Drone is Actually Saving Lives - When the US Government Does It!

If America ever passes out as a great nation, we ought to put on our tombstone:  America died from a delusion she had Moral Leadership.  ~ Will Rogers

I think America needs to order that tombstone to be made.

I think because I am an American, I meet and talk to a lot of Americans (of course). You know, birds of a feather and all that. I'm no Einstein, but all I can say is that there sure seem to be a lot of boneheaded Americans running around with some very twisted and weird ideas. I think that can be expected from the average Joe Blow, but you'd think that university grads might offer a bit more logical and clever insight... I am often really (unpleasantly) surprised at how dimwitted, sheltered, egoistic and naive my countrymen are. 


Of course, not all American university graduates are knuckleheads. But there are far too many of them that are. Maybe it's the schooling? As one of my favorite author's, Fred Reed wrote recently about US university education:


“Look, the US is in intellectual collapse. The average American university wouldn't qualify as a high-school in Japan. It's crazy. The whole world know it's crazy. But take out the Kims, Khans, Nguyens, Wangs, and Cohens, and what's left is Albania in 1750.”


Of course, the average American will have none of this when it comes to pointing out how low the mighty have fallen. Why? Well many of them will tell you; "Well, in spite of our problems, you've got to admit it: America is still the greatest country in the world."


Another writer, Mark Davis, adds:

"Self-glorification is a powerful narcotic. Every country has a state that promotes itself shamelessly, but since WW II Americans have been on a binge thanks to non-stop propaganda about how great that made "us". Many believe that 'It's hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way.' But the cognitive dissonance that is rising undermines this paradigm. It's hard to simultaneously believe that this is 'The best country in the world' and 'Everything is going in the crapper!' at the same time."

Now, hold that thought for a second... The one about cognitive dissonance. Americans are really bad when it comes to this. I think it's the schooling, or maybe it's the fluoride in the water. Or maybe it's too many fried and fatty foods (deep fried bacon covered hamburgers anyone?) I don't know. But there are A LOT of Americans who seem to have a problem in this area.


....


It's not often that I read something that really infuriates me. But usually, recently, if I do read it, it's something really cretinous written in the American media or said by some American who has a problem with cognitive dissonance. Incredibly, you see these people on American TV all the time so the general public hasn't a problem with parroting nonsense. Lately, I've been trying to ignore this trend, but last night I read something that was just simply unbelievable: It was, of course, an American guy regurgitating dim-witted detritus that he read in a newspaper. 

Japanese troops celebrating the fall of Singapore

I come from the most self-centered, conceited, ethno-centric nation in the world. And, no, I'm not talking about Japan. Japan may be Xenophobic, but no nation in the world can hold a candle to modern day American chauvinism, delusion and self-righteousness. Like I said, the Japanese may be Xenophobic but they are not bombing and killing brown skinned children on the other side of the world 24/7 like the USA is now doing in six Muslim countries... (As my friend Kevin Riley says, "Japan used to do that, but we grew out of it.")


Now, onto what made me so mad about how ignorant some Americans can be! (If, someday, they find out that the cause of this malady is 85% all of Americans suffer from dyslexia, then forgive me.) One of my friends (who lives in Japan) posted this picture on Facebook yesterday:

Underneath it, my friend wrote (now remember we're talking about someone who lives in the only country that has had atomic bombs dropped on it) :

To raise awareness of the horrific effects of war, I plan to place this photo of a dead child as my profile photo for the rest of January. He, and other innocents around him, were murdered in Pakistan by one of many US drone attacks internationally. According to one statistic, in Iraq alone, over 110,000 civilians were murdered by the US. Add to that deaths of innocent civilians in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and then add to that deaths authorized tacitly by the US through its sale of weapons, the toll of murders is mind boggling. And let's not get into the history of US aggression: Grenada and Vietnam are examples that come to mind.

Do you feel that the murder (and subsequent cover up by the US govt) of civilians is wrong and must stop now? If so, I encourage you to help raise awareness of these atrocities by making your profile picture that of this innocent child, for this month. Raising awareness can help save lives. You can help save a life.

Okay. So far, so good. Who wouldn't be against killing 2 year old kids? I mean, what's to complain about? That's what my friend posted. Pretty simple to understand. There were many comments and "likes." 


Except one. One commentator was an American male who completely misses the point. I couldn't believe how illogical his comments were. It would be okay if he were just your typical stupid Beavis & Butthead type, but I checked this guy's profile and he is a university educated man and the managing director of a company! 

Beavis and Butthead are not a problem. The problem is that 

there are 22 million American males with the same intelligence level.

I will write this guy's two comments below and let you read how absurd they are and mirrors of US government propaganda (there are still Americans who believe that stuff!?). It is astounding that a supposedly university educated American male can be so, well, so uninformed (I'm being polite, as you know). Before I pick his comments apart, here they are for you as written: 

"A depressing photo indeed, but hardly fair to label this as murder. The drone attacks have saved more lives than alternative courses of action. Muslims are not always labeled terrorist - this is the same type of misleading remark that people who are on the other side of the coin would make from their perspective. I find it more distressing that we don't make a bigger deal about the bombing that takes place in markets where innocent people are shopping and living their daily lives. There is more violence taking place between varying Muslim factions than are being killed in a military campaign. I was not in favor of going into Iraq from Day 1. But the regime in Afghanistan did protect the culprits from 9/11. Pakistan for a variety of reasons is trying to placate all sides and find it's own strategic advantages in Afghanistan. I find the photo sad but misleading as this is not a simple problem. The civilian casualties would be less if there were a more honorable government that truly cared about people more than power and money running Afghanistan..." 

He adds in his immediate follow up post:

"I looked this up a few minutes ago. "The reports make it clear that most civilians, by far, were killed by other Iraqis. Two of the worst days of the war came on Aug. 31, 2005, when a stampede on a bridge in Baghdad killed more than 950 people after several earlier attacks panicked a huge crowd, and on Aug. 14, 2007, when truck bombs killed more than 500 people in a rural area near the border with Syria." Excerpt from NYT...  the deaths are deplorable, but most of them do NOT come from U.S. military activities. If anything violence is likely to escalate after we leave."

This guy's comments are incredible. George Orwell, pick up the phone. America is calling you!... 


His first line, "A depressing photo indeed, but hardly fair to label this as murder"? Hardly fair to label this murder!? Hardly fair to label this murder!? An innocent child is killed by a missile fired by a robot drone and this isn't 'murder'!? What is it then? Oh? I see. It's an accident? If someone (like you or me) intentionally fires some projectile into someone's house and it kills a child, it's most definitely called "murder." But if the US government does it, it's not? OK. In that case, it's called "bringing democracy to them" or "collateral damage"? 

I think it's hardly fair to call this "flattening a house" or "killing family"

I'm sure this is the typical American who would say that, "World War II? Oh, dropping atomic bombs on civilian cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not murder... Because, of course, killing innocent people actually saved lives. Don't you know that?" 

All Americans seem to know this. Repeat after me: Killing actually saves lives. We need war to have peace. Slavery is freedom. Ignorance is strength.  

Yeah, sure. But this lady and her kid shouldn't have 

bombed Pearl Harbor in the first place.

The guy then goes on to write some more cockeyed litany, let's skip those (there's so much) and go to another one that really makes me want to slap my forehead with it's inanity and that is this one:

"I was not in favor of going into Iraq from Day 1. But the regime in Afghanistan did protect the culprits from 9/11."

Am I the only one who sees this glaring logical inconsistency? Let me get this straight: He was, "...not in favor of going into Iraq from Day 1"? Okay. I'm with him so far. Got it.... "But the regime in Afghanistan did protect the culprits from 9/11."??? 

Wait a minute (there goes that cognitive dissonance again!) clear-thinking people might ask "What's the connection between Iraq here and Afghanistan besides the letter 'a' in both names?" 


First off, that bit about the Afghan government protecting culprits of 9/11 is not true at all and US government propaganda. The government of Afghanistan said they would turn over Osama bin Laden to a third country if the USA would provide proof of his guilt, which the USA said they would do within 48 hours of the World Trade Center Attacks, but never did. And secondly, what does the regime in Afghanistan have to do with Iraq?

Oh, yeah. I forgot. We'll just conveniently forget that even president Bush admitted that 15 of the 19 supposed hijackers on 9/11 weren't Iraqi or Afghani, but from Saudi Arabia - a US ally. But, hey, what's the difference, right? Saudi, Iraqi, Afghani, all towel-heads and camel jockeys look the same, right? 

Japanese? Chinese? Korean? Asians?... Whatever! They all look the same, right? 

Damn! I'm pulling my hair out with this! This should be a total embarrassment to all Americans and the entire educational system of that country! How can American people be so benighted? It embarrasses even me!

This guy is so brainwashed; so wrong on every level and so full of propaganda that I don't know whether I want to strangle him or just slap him silly. It drives me crazy that people who think this way actually exist on this planet. I could feel the fire coming out of my ears. I posted back:

"The drone attacks have saved more lives than alternative courses of action"? That's total and complete nonsense. Why are US forces bombing people in countries that haven't threatened or attacked us? Get out of this imperialist "USA is world's police force" BS. What right does the USA have to be bombing these people? Or, do I infer, that you consider US lives more important than the lives of brown skinned kids in the middle east? The best course of action would be to kill no one and that is to LEAVE THOSE PEOPLE ALONE! Japan, Sweden, etc., etc. do not have terrorist attacks against them. Can't figure out why? Because we are not killing these people in their own backyards. Americans need to wake up and get out of this stupid mindset."

My friend who made the original post wrote to me and said that "...we probably can't convince (that person), so we need to plant the seed." 


My friend is a very diplomatic and nice person. I am not.


To all Americans who believe that we have a right and we are special in god's eyes; to all Americans who think that the United States has a duty to be the world's policeman, and to all other peoples who are apologists for American state-sponsored murder, I say:


"Realize this, about Americans from this American who escaped the madness; (about) my brothers and sisters back home; after 150 years of history of US imperialism, exceptionalism and indoctrination - as well as 40 ~ 50 years of conditioning in US government public schooling are not quick to change their beliefs and thinking because of a few exchanges with you or me on Facebook or other social media.

It does anger me greatly when Americans think we are "saving lives" by killing people. I know people don't read anymore but the the classic book, "1984" has a lot to say in it about that sort of Orwellian nonsense. That this gentleman fails to realize that when it comes out of his mouth is astounding... In today's America, "war is peace," etc… Americans should know all about this… Need an example? In Vietnam, an American major was famously quoted as saying, ""It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it." 

US troops burning down Vietnamese villagers' homes in order to save them

Americans are in serious denial. The end of the US empire is coming soon (not soon enough) and people like this American guy will be suffering greatly because, like an alcoholic, they fail to acknowledge the sickness. Tough love is all they deserve, if that.

Why Americans can actually think we have the right to be bombing people in foreign countries or have our navy buzzing the coast of nations on the other side of the world shows the madness of the typical American… I wonder how much Americans would like it if the Chinese were buzzing the Gulf of Mexico or, if Russian drones were killing American children and then Russians claimed that "the drones actually saved lives because of we didn't use them, our soldiers would die"?

Americans who claim this sort of thing are idiots, or at best, liars and it should be pointed out for what it is (for their own good, at least). I do not take kindly to this sort of justification of killing children and think that when people do try to justify it, they should be put on the spot for it.

Killing children, no matter what the reason, is not necessary, cannot be justified and is simply murder.


To think that some Americans actually believe that "killing people by using drones actually saves lives" shows the depths of deprivation and lack of humanity that far too many in today's America show. There is no hope for those people and that country.


There are many Americans who have been waking up and realizing the truth in recent years. But, they haven't a good future in that nation and the awake ones know it.


It is too late.... America is over..." 


......


Later I calm down and unruffle my feathers... Now, dear reader, you know something that really infuriates me: US state sponsored murder of innocent children overseas 24/7 and American citizen's rationalization of it. 


But it's hardly fair to label it as murder, isn't it? And, you've got to admit it; America is still the greatest country in the world.

Reactions to the Truth About Atomic Bombings Nearly 70 Years Later

Yesterday, I posted an article filled with quotes from high ranking US and Allied military leaders about their misgivings of the atomic bombing of Japan both before and after he event. I even posted quotes from Douglas MacArthur the top US Commander in Asia and Dwight D. Eisenhower the Supreme Allied Commander and former two time US president in that article.


Eisenhower was firmly against the bombings, MacArthur wasn't even consulted and many others were firmly against. Read that article, "Why did the USA drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima?" here.


Even so, I got several comments and emails that completely missed the point and accused me of revisionism and called me not nice names (I've deleted those - if I want be be called names, I'll talk to my kids).... Besides the usual, "But they attacked us first!" nonsense that is the level of 5-year-old school yard argument that has fallen by the wayside from serious defenders of the bombings, some still think this and wrote that. I've deleted those too.

Remind me again of who this woman 

and child attacked in China or the USA?

As far as the "But they attacked us first" argument, here is a snippet from an article that I researched and wrote that appeared on Lew Rockwell in 2005 called "Dying for the emperor? No Way":

Japan attacked the United States first.

If you mean that the Japanese bombed the military base of Pearl Harbor, before the US bombed the Japanese, then this is a difficult question to answer (see #1 below). If you mean that Japan committed acts of war against the United States first, then the answer is a definitive, "No!" The United States committed at least two acts of war under international law against Japan before December 7, 1941. 

They were:

1. US military pilots — 40 from the Army Air Corps and 60 from the US Navy and Marine Corps — in a clandestine operation organized by and funded by the Whitehouse — flying bombing missions against Japanese forces in the famed Flying Tigers as early as 1937. These people did “volunteer” to fly for the Flying Tigers but they were paid employees of the US government. US pilots flying bombing missions for the Chinese was an act of war under international law by America against Japan. Even with the weak argument that these professional military men were “volunteers” (when they were actually sent by the US government), under international law, a nation is responsible for the actions of its nationals. To claim otherwise is hypocritical and completely irresponsible.
   
   
2. US initiated oil embargo against Japan. This is unquestionably an act of war under international law. The US was also totally hypocritical on this point as they forced the British and the Dutch to uphold the embargo, yet secretly allowed Japan oil from the United States as a way to spy on Japanese shipping. See: Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett.

Counting the above two, then President Roosevelt had a total of eight plans to incite hostilities with the Japanese. The rest, as they say "is history." There are a great many excellent books and articles on what really happened in World War II. The serious student (and professor) would do themselves and their country good to seek out the truth. Things are not as black and white as US public schooling and US history books would lead us to believe. The true causes of the Pacific War were the clash of the US empire in Asia and the Japanese empire. 


Of course, the next important point to consider here is that Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a civilian city. Under international law, attacks on military bases are not crimes. Attacks on civilian targets were and still are war crimes.


Some other readers sent messages that, today, are actually the reason I am posting. Their arguments about my post yesterday are painfully inadequate and ill conceived. Here are two. First from a US citizen:

"Seriously Mike? Keep in mind that revisionist views of history usually cause bad things to be repeated. What do you suppose the Chinese view of this perspective would be?"

Seriously? What sort of convoluted logic is it that takes the discussion of bombing a civilian city with a nuclear weapon into the "well they deserved it!" argument. How is this logical? Are you saying that the women and children of Hiroshima committed war crimes in China? Extraordinary!

The insinuation here is that the atomic bombings of Japan are, in some sort, of revenge for China. Let me quote what the great historian Ralph Raico has to say about that in a quote from his book, "Hiroshima and Nagasaki":

Great controversy has always surrounded the bombings. One thing Truman insisted on from the start: The decision to use the bombs, and the responsibility it entailed, was his. Over the years, he gave different, and contradictory, grounds for his decision. Sometimes he implied that he had acted simply out of revenge. To a clergyman who criticized him, Truman responded, testily:

Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

Such reasoning will not impress anyone who fails to see how the brutality of the Japanese military could justify deadly retaliation against innocent men, women, and children. Truman doubtless was aware of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9, 1945, he stated: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."

Seriously. This argument is so bad and illogical, that it would be nice to end it forever. If, say, in my commenter's post, I were to use the very same logic it would run like this: 

Japan had been at war with China since 1931 (well, actually, in recent times, on and off since 1894). If the USA were so concerned with Japanese actions in China, then why didn't they intervene earlier?

Secondly, taking it to an even more ridiculous extreme:

Japan had been at war with China on and off since 1894; continuously since 1931. The USA didn't intervene. But in early 1941, when the USA committed an oil embargo against Japan (an act of war under international law)... Japan had no choice but to attack the USA at Pearl Harbor. After all, what did the Japanese think about millions of native American Indians getting wiped out by US federal forces over the past 100 years - the most recent was a massacre at Wounded Knee in 1895 - where US forces exterminated nearly 300 native men, women and children? 

See? This argument doesn't hold water at all. What happened in China doesn't justify incinerating women and children. People, especially American people, deserve the title of Boobus Americanus if, after all this time of being lied to by our government, cannot see that they've been snookered. 

The next comment is just plain sad. She wrote:

"It's strange that it's not mentioned how many lives were massacred outside of Japan and my country suffered under the Japanese occupation. As for the dropping of the bombs, it remains controversial." 


No. It's not strange that the article doesn't mention Japanese atrocities. This was not an article about Japanese invasion and occupation. This was an article about use of a weapon of mass destruction on a civilian population.


If you want to read articles filled with vitriol that justify your racism and feelings for revenge, then, you've come to the wrong place. If you want to deal with those feelings, I'd suggest a counselor.


As a people, we're supposed to be getting smarter than the people of the past. When will people learn that it's not that country versus us. It is us versus our government. We as a people are supposed to be getting more forgiving and understanding to each other. 


The children are not guilty of the crimes of the parents. Racism, sexism and homophobia should not have anyplace in society today.


Frankly speaking, to the lady who wrote the comment above, I want to say, "Your racism is showing. It's 2011, get out of the 1940's." 


One more guy claimed that the bombings saved millions of lives: 

"I knew people that were part of our first occupying force in Japan. Even after the war ended, the japanese police were still hacking apart their own citizens that were happy the war was over.... Every single person I knew that was there, in actual combat, said they believed millions more people would have died if we had invaded." 

The idea that there was some sort of revolution against US occupation is not steeped in reality. In another Lew Rockwell article concerning this sort of propaganda, this time concerning Iraq, as some US commentators claimed such in early 2005 when the Iraq revolt was just getting off the ground. From Darkest before the Dawn:

I have heard before Rush Limbaugh claiming that Japan and Germany had a post-war insurrection. I do not want to make any claims about Germany — a subject that I am not well versed in — but I do consider myself much more of an expert on Japan than Rush Limbaugh or just about any person on American TV or radio and I can tell you for a fact: No postwar insurrection in Japan.

Which is it for Rush Limbaugh? Is he shamelessly lying or is he just ignorant on Japan's history and knows that no one will call him on it? Well, Mr. Limbaugh, I'm calling you on it now.

I have even heard Fox TV's Bill O'Reilly make the statement that "Postwar Iraqi is going better than Postwar Japan." With the insinuation that Japan's insurrection was worse than Iraq's.

Which is it for Bill O'Reilly? Is he lying again or is he just ignorant on Japan's history and knows that no one will call him on it? Well, Mr. O'Reilly, I'm calling you on it now.

Today, for the third time in the last few months, I heard this blatant lie — sans challenge to its validity — being made on CNN as Larry King interviewed a guest during his coverage of the Presidential Inauguration. I'm sorry, I didn't catch the name of the young man who made this absurd assertion, but he was wrong. There was no insurgency in Japan after the war. To claim that there was is out-and-out fabrication.

Which is it for CNN? Are they blatantly lying or are they just ignorant on Japan's history and knows that no one will call them? Well, CNN, I'm calling you on it now.

I have searched for months through Japanese language documentation and haven't found one single piece of evidence that there ever was any political violence against the U.S. occupation in Japan after World War II. There absolutely was no postwar insurrection in Japan.

Here are the facts from USA Today:

Iraq: 14-month occupation scheduled to end June 30 [2004]. Iraqis are to hold elections no later than Jan. 31, 2005, and write a constitution by the end of 2005. Occupation troops are attacked daily. There was no formal surrender by the former regime.

Japan: Adopted a constitution 15 months after the war ended, and put it into effect in May 1947. There was no postwar insurgency. Japan formally surrendered and was much more badly damaged than Iraq after the war.

Germany: Took three years to write a constitution and four years to hold elections. There was almost no postwar insurgency. Also badly damaged after the war and formally surrendered.

Certainly, from reading the above, it seems to me that I am not the one who is guilty of revisionism, but the one who is guilty of disseminating facts... Perhaps someone could show me where I am wrong.

Addendum! Excellent article today from the Boston Globe: 

Why did Japan surrender?

Sixty-six years ago, we dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. Now, some historians say that’s not what ended the war.

".... a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara - has marshaled compelling evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced Japan’s surrender. His interpretation could force a new accounting of the moral meaning of the atomic attack. It also raises provocative questions about nuclear deterrence, a foundation stone of military strategy in the postwar period. And it suggests that we could be headed towards an utterly different understanding of how, and why, the Second World War came to its conclusion.

“Hasegawa has changed my mind,” says Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “The Making of the Atomic Bomb.” “The Japanese decision to surrender was not driven by the two bombings.”


More: Why did Japan surrender?


Thanks to Michael Di Stacio of Rock Challenge Japan