Why War Is Inevitable

PIC: Bob Satterfield, 1919 (PD)

PIC: Bob Satterfield, 1919 (PD)

(Editor’s note: This post was meant to run on Memorial Day, but extenuating circumstances prevented its publication. Nonetheless, the material presented is still worthy of discussion.)

Paul Craig Roberts writes at CounterPunch:

Memorial Day is when we commemorate our war dead. Like the Fourth of July, Memorial Day is being turned into a celebration of war.

Those who lose family members and dear friends to war don’t want the deaths to have been in vain. Consequently, wars become glorious deeds performed by noble soldiers fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. Patriotic speeches tell us how much we owe to those who gave their lives so that America could remain free.

The speeches are well-intentioned, but the speeches create a false reality that supports ever more wars.  None of America’s wars had anything to do with keeping America free.  To the contrary, the wars swept away our civil liberties, making us unfree.

President Lincoln issued an executive order for the arrest and imprisonment of northern  newspaper reporters and editors.  He shut down 300 northern newspapers and held 14,000 political prisoners. Lincoln arrested war critic US Representative Clement Vallandigham from Ohio and exiled him to the Confederacy. President Woodrow Wilson used WWI to suppress free speech, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt used WWII to intern 120,000 US citizens of Japanese descent on the grounds that race made them suspect. Professor Samuel Walker concluded that President George W. Bush used the “war on terror” for an across the board assault on US civil liberty, making the Bush regime the greatest danger American liberty has ever faced.

Lincoln forever destroyed states’ rights, but the suspension of habeas corpus and free speech that went hand in hand with America’s three largest wars was lifted at war’s end.

However, President George W. Bush’s repeal of the Constitution has been expanded by President Obama and codified by Congress and executive orders into law. Far from defending our liberties, our soldiers who died in “the war on terror” died so that the president can indefinitely detain US citizens without due process of law and murder US citizens on suspicion alone without any accountability to law or the Constitution.

The conclusion is unavoidable that America’s wars have not protected our liberty but, instead, destroyed liberty. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn said, “A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.”

Southern secession did pose a threat to Washington’s empire, but not to the American people.  Neither the Germans of WWI vintage nor the Germans and Japanese of WWII vintage posed any threat to the US.  As historians have made completely clear, Germany did not start WWI and did not go to war for the purpose of territorial expansion.  Japan’s ambitions were in Asia. Hitler did not want war with England and France.  Hitler’s territorial ambitions were mainly to restore German provinces stripped from Germany as WWI booty in violation of President Wilson’s guarantees.  Any other German ambitions were to the East. Neither country had any plans to invade the US.

Japan attacked the US fleet at Pearl Harbor hoping to remove an obstacle to its activities in Asia, not as a precursor to an invasion of America.

Read more here.

22 Comments on "Why War Is Inevitable"

  1. Ted Heistman | May 28, 2014 at 11:07 am |

    I think being willing to put your life on the line to defend your country is noble. Its still a noble sentiment even if its manipulated for selfish ends.

    • Foot trails | May 28, 2014 at 11:39 am |

      Yes we can’t blame the soldier for the politics, but we also can’t credit the soldier for saving our freedom and liberty. In some situations, they protect our safety. The other thing we never think of is that other countries also have soldiers and veterans who fought against our veterans. On both sides, soldiers were just trying to protect their safety while the leaders were manipulating power.

      • BuzzCoastin | May 28, 2014 at 12:55 pm |

        soldiers are programed human robots
        they have no civil rights
        they must obey every order without question
        there is nothing nobel about being a pawn of the elites

        • ‘Drill Sergeant: Gump! What’s your sole purpose in this army?

          Forrest Gump: To do whatever you tell me, drill sergeant!

          Drill Sergeant: God damn it, Gump! You’re a god damn genius! This is the most outstanding answer I have ever heard. You must have a goddamn I.Q. of 160. You are goddamn gifted, Private Gump.’

          ~ h**p://w*w.imdb.c*m/title/tt0109830/quotes

      • InfvoCuernos | May 28, 2014 at 5:16 pm |

        In every glorious victory, there are wrapped up a thousand tragic ends. If you study both sides of any war, you’ll see heroes and villains on both sides. Just look at the Iliad. That one work of literature informs the West that no matter how much you may vilify your enemy, or lionize your king, the other side is still human. This is lost on the majority of westerners when their own leadership grinds them up in pointless battles or outright betrays them. Something I have seen recently is the idea that soldiers are not fighting for their country’s government, so much as they are fighting for each other. While I can follow this logic to some degree, this breaks down when you realize that almost all of these “brothers-in-arms” didn’t know each other before deciding to join the military in the first place, and that those bonds have intentionally been forged during training.

      • The SS were acting defensively?

    • BuzzCoastin | May 28, 2014 at 12:53 pm |

      there’s nothing nobel about defending a gruberment
      gruberment defines the kuntery
      defines the “enemy”
      defines the roles of the players
      and reeps the spoils of war
      while short changing the combatants

    • Gjallarbru | May 28, 2014 at 1:02 pm |

      Noble sentiment, of course. The problem is that sentiment is not reason, and blinding yourself to what you are actually doing because of sentiment just isn’t adequate. At that time, you are on the brink of saying “I was just following orders”. History has shown us what “sentiment” can do.

      • Ted Heistman | May 28, 2014 at 1:35 pm |

        no, I am not saying that. I think being willing to do that is part of being a man, the world over, yes. So that is probably why those sentiments can be manipulated.

        • Gjallarbru | May 28, 2014 at 1:47 pm |

          I see your point, but I maintain mine. The sentiment, as noble as it is, shouldn’t be followed so blindly that it becomes subject to manipulation in the first place.

    • I would have agreed with this wholeheartedly once upon a time. The problem I have now is, it’s impossible to detach that conceptual “nobility” (read: societal propaganda/myth) from the very real lever of control it actually is, wielded against the suckers who fall (and die) for it.

      It’s always manipulated for selfish ends. Which I agree is a shame, but if it’s always manipulated, always used as a tool of control by the powerful to get the less powerful to do their killing (and dying) for them, then maybe it’s time for us to put aside the myth, recognising it for what it is – just another control they’ve put in people’s minds to get the powerless masses to defend someone else’s status quo.

      And that’s why they tell us it’s the measure of a “real man”. So that we build our own mental prisons, and so we build our own mental control switches for them to flip when they need us.

    • ‘The comic [Frankie Boyle] said later: “The Ministry of Defence? At least in the old days we were honest, it was the Ministry of War. ‘Hello Ministry of War, department of nigger bombing, how can I help?'”‘

      ~ h**p://w*w.theguardian.c*m/media/2010/dec/23/frankie-boyle-tramadol-nights

  2. Liam_McGonagle | May 28, 2014 at 11:23 am |

    Cruel to be kind:

    “Your kid died for nothing. Choke on THAT, sucker.”

    • Liam_McGonagle | May 28, 2014 at 11:31 am |

      BTW: I hearby prescribe all use of the term ‘sheeple’. Don’t tell people they’re too stupid to understand the objection, tell them they’re too big a pussy.

  3. erte4wt4etrg | May 28, 2014 at 12:27 pm |

    Ridiculous planet

  4. BuzzCoastin | May 28, 2014 at 12:57 pm |

    someone recognizes Lincoln was a dictator

    • Cortacespedes | May 28, 2014 at 5:19 pm |

      And FDR.

    • InfvoCuernos | May 28, 2014 at 5:20 pm |

      All the nobility of the civil war bleeds out when we realize that it was basically a war of egos between Lincoln and Davis. Black people have known from the start-that’s why there aren’t a lot of black “Lincolns”.

      • BuzzCoastin | May 28, 2014 at 5:46 pm |

        Lincoln sets in motion
        the shift of power to DC
        and the focus on the legal system

        the Gettysburg address
        was his attempt to spin it
        so that the war was about freedom
        (which it was)
        butt freedom lost
        and 1 millon ancestors of the slaves
        make up the majority of homeland prisoner slaves

  5. Liam_McGonagle | May 29, 2014 at 12:14 pm |

    I enjoyed this very much.

Comments are closed.