Study: U.S. Mideast policy motivated by pro-Israel lobby

I'm not sure what 'parsing the details' means other than I'm examining what you say and challenging its validity. No, the Philippines is NOT an example of us toppling a democratic regime. Period. It would have had to be a democratic regime before it could be toppled. Jesus, I don't understand what is so hard about this.

A good way to threaten somebody is to light a stick of dynamite. Then you call the guy and hold the burning fuse up to the phone. "Hear that?" you say. "That's dynamite, baby."

-deep thoughts

No, but it might mean s/he's not democratic, lol.

 

Give me a break, with all due respect. I posted this-

The shift to guerrilla warfare, however, only angered the Americans into acting more ruthlessly than before. They began taking no prisoners, burning whole villages, and routinely shooting surrendering Filipinos. Much worse were the concentration camps that civilians were forced into, after being suspected of being guerrilla sympathizers. Thousands of civilians died in these camps. In nearly all cases, the civilians suffered much worse than the actual Filipino guerrillas.

The subsequent American repression towards the population decreased tremendously the materials, men, and morale of many Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.

While some measures to allow partial self-government were implemented earlier, the guerrilla war did not subside until 1913 when US President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed a change in policy that would, after a transitional period, grant the Philippines full independence.

I found this quote from Mark Twain to be eerily appropos to what we see in Iraq today. From Wikpedia:

Mark Twain famously opposed the war by using his influence in the press. He felt it betrayed the ideals of American Democracy by not allowing the Filipino people to choose their own destiny.

"There is the case of the Philippines. I have tried hard, and yet I cannot for the life of me comprehend how we got into that mess. Perhaps we could not have avoided it -- perhaps it was inevitable that we should come to be fighting the natives of those islands -- but I cannot understand it, and have never been able to get at the bottom of the origin of our antagonism to the natives. I thought we should act as their protector -- not try to get them under our heel. We were to relieve them from Spanish tyranny to enable them to set up a government of their own, and we were to stand by and see that it got a fair trial. It was not to be a government according to our ideas, but a government that represented the feeling of the majority of the Filipinos, a government according to Filipino ideas. That would have been a worthy mission for the United States. But now -- why, we have got into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater. I'm sure I wish I could see what we were getting out of it, and all it means to us as a nation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War


I also provided a quote from Mark Twain, which illustrated the opposition that existed to the Philippines acquisition. There were large numbers of Americans troubled by the prospect of America becoming a colonial power in the stiyle of the Europeans. It was morally indefensible, in my opinion. The people of the Philipines thought America had come to liberate them, not to buy them from Spain by force of arms.

Hayes, you forget the moral component of what we did with the Philipines. Why? You believe it is morally the thing to do... to invade and occupy Iraq for the current reason espoused by the Administration, "in order to place a democracy in the heart of the Middle East." Why do you dismiss the possibility that democracy could have been nurtured by the United States in the Philipines, instead of grabbing it as a colony?



Keep D&D Civil.

 

My objection is to your characterization of that action as 'the toppling of a democratic regime.' That's not accurate. As for my opinion on the Philippines, I would have preferred we let them have their independence sooner, but it is not correct to say we toppled their democratic government.

 

When you said to relax I thought of Jack Handy and Deep Thoughts, lol.

 

That's what I mean by, "parsing the details." I'm trying to point out that the United States blew off an independence movement that had wide support, and went for the colony option instead. I could quote myself, yet again, but I won't bother.

You don't see how possibly killing a democracy in the bud is germane to the apparent discussion we're having about American actions against democratically elected governments? I think it is germane.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Look, you said this: "Some examples of Democratic governments "we" didn't care for, and helped to topple? Tiger mentioned some a page or 2 back, but I'm happy to provide some for you:"

The Philippine example is not an example of a democratic governement we didn't care for, and helped to topple. There WAS NO DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT to topple. However, of course the general situation is germane to the topic of whether or not we act in our interests or otherwise. My objection is to your characterization of this action as the 'toppling of a democratic government.' Maybe you think that's 'splitting hairs' or 'parsing the details' but I think there is a substantial difference between the two.

Further, I think the context of the decisions surrounding the Philippines example would paint a little different picture. After purchasing the Philippines from Spain there was more indecision about what to do with them. Some wanted to annex them, some to give them independence. That wasn't resolved until Wilson's administration.

 

How can you say, "I think the context of the decisions surrounding the Philippines example would paint a little different picture. After purchasing the Philippines from Spain there was more indecision about what to do with them. Some wanted to annex them, some to give them independence. That wasn't resolved until Wilson's administration,"

...when this ended up happening?

(from Wikpedia)

During the war, 4,324 American soldiers were killed and 2,818 were wounded. There were also 2,000 casualties that the Philippine Constabulary suffered during the war, over a thousand of which were fatalities. Philippine military deaths are estimated at 20,000 (16 thousand actually counted) while civilian deaths numbered in 250,000 to 1,000,000 Filipinos.

The high casualty figures are due mostly to the combination of superior arms and even more superior numbers of the Americans. They had the most modern and up-to-date weapons in the world with the most superb bolt action rifles and machine guns and were also well led. Furthermore there were the U.S. warships at the ready to destroy Philippine positions when needed. In contrast, the Filipinos were armed with a motley collection of rifles, a number of which were taken from dead Spanish or American soldiers, or smuggled into the country by their fellow Filipinos. Their artillery was not much better, mostly worn out artillery pieces captured from the Spanish. Although they did have a few Maxim and Gatling machine guns, along with a few modern Krupp artillery pieces, these were highly prized and taken to the rear for fear of capture before they could play any decisive role. Ammunition along with rifles also became scarce as the war dragged on, and they had to manufacture their own, like the homemade paltik. Still most did not even have firearms. Many used bolos, spears, and lances in fighting, which also contributed to high casualty figures when such obsolete weapons were used against the Americans' superior arms. The Filipinos knew their own country and rough terrain well however, in contrast to the Americans fighting on foreign terrain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War



Wars have consequences. That's why you don't embark on them unless there's a bloody good reason. The decision to make a colony out of the Philipines, instead of, "birthing a democracy," was a catastrophe for Filipinos. It was also morally wrong. If it didn't matter, why does it matter in Iraq today?



Come on, Hayes... give me a break! I've been in a good mood today. It rained!



Keep D&D Civil.

 

I can say it because we bought the Philippines from the Spanish. That's certainly dissimilar to the situation in Iraq. We had a good reason to put down the rebellion. It was our property. Having said that, my point was that if you look at the actual context this was happening in you'd find that there was great debate about what exactly to do with the Philippines and I agree that it would have been better to let them be independent sooner than we did.

 

We bought a colony by force of arms, and a few million dollars. What on earth does that have to do with what happened? Is that an excuse? We bought it, so we can do what we like with it, and if they wanted to be independant at the time we bought them, the fact that we "bought them," trumps the fact that we had a choice. We could have done what you say Bush is attempting today in Iraq... create a democracy.

I'm not getting it, Hayes.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Thanks for the work Deckard.

1. On occassion, we clearly intervened where we had no right to;
2. We took actions in our own interests and against the expressed interests of peoples in their own nations...whether fully democratic or not.

We are clearly not the only Western, democracy-loving nation that has done this. Doesn't make us right, but not like we should be singled out for it either.

Pretty simple, arrogant, wrong.

 

dont forget the congo as well they had a democracy under patrice lumumba in 1960 until he was murdered by the us and belgium, but back to this study on the israeli lobby...the two men who authored this report are two of the most respected political scientists in all the us, but they said they could not get the article published in the us and thats why they had to go the london review of books or whatever and get it published....one of the authors said that a few editors told him straight up that we would like to publish this and this is a great article, but politically we cant....if these two prominent scholars cant get this article, which was very objective and i read it all, published in the us, what about the rest of us who might disagree with the mainstream view, how do we get heard and here's a link to the full study by the way if it wasnt posted earlier:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

 

yeah its true, it was said that he planned on leaving his post for a while, but its just funny how the announcement coincided with the publication of this article....i'm no supporter of israel, but i agree with your statement, israeli society, their media, and so on have a much more critical debate about the arab-israeli situation than you'll ever see in the US...a professor told me (Jewish professor, mind you ) that when you talk about the arab-israeli conflict in the US, its like you're entering the twilight zone of international politics where irrational and ridiculous ideas become mainstream, thats why i think it's difficult in the media anyways to have a real and honest debate about this issue based on the facts, which needs to happen, because a lot of discontent with the US in the Muslim world is due to this issue