If the presidential race comes down to a contest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, American voters will have to choose between a woman who never met a war she didn’t like, and a manic bull in a china shop who could easily start a war by accident.
How Do You Like Your Wars?
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
57 Comments. Leave new
If it comes down to a race between Trump and Clinton, I expect the Republicans in Congress will “hold their noses” and bring out all the dirt they’ve got on the Clintons. Trump in office will be easily controlled, just like Dubya was. He gets to wear the crown, wave his scepter, and someone else will call all the real shots. Trump gets what he wants, the Republicans get back into power just in time to tilt the Supreme Court for the next 40 years (is there a minimum age requirement for the Supreme Court? Because I can see the Republicans nominating 25 year olds who work out four times a week and have four grandparents who all made it to their 90s).
Hillary will still have Goldman Sachs and her throngs of people who think she was on their side. Everyone who matters will win.
> He gets to wear the crown, wave his scepter
Well, maybe “wave” is too strong a verb considering the length of the scepter in question. Perhaps “wiggle”
Ted has here nailed the essential difference between a Clinton-Trump race, on the one hand, and a Sanders-Trump race on the other, all without mentioning Mr Sanders with a word. Ted is far more subtle than one would first judge from his cartooning style….
Henri
Damned Uruguay and their legal pot!!!
And a president – now ex-president – who refused to live in the presidential palace and who drove around in a beat-up old VW and picked up hitchhikers. The only solution to governments led by such people is regime change, and Ms Clinton just the neocon who can do it : https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/22/libya-and-the-myth-of-humanitarian-intervention/ !…
Henri
PS : Tyler, on the subject of legal pot you might find Dan Baum’s article in the latest issue of Harper’s of interest : https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/?single=1 ….
Henri
Merci, Henri.
People say Trump isn’t as dumb as his public stump speeches imply, and he says those things just to get elected. (Even Ben Carson said that!) This would imply that he wouldn’t blunder into a war.
At the presidential level, being antiwar is the most important issue to me, and of the three (Sanders, Clinton, and Trump), Trump’s statements are the least bellicose. Sad to say, but true.
Agree with you about war and peace being the most important issue facing us all, Antiwar7, and that whoever becomes US president on 20 January 2017 will play a signal role in determining that issue. I am not sure, however, that your characterisation of Mr Trump as being the least bellicose of the triad Sanders, Clinton, and Trump holds – Mr Trump is admittedly open to accommodation with the Russians (which I find positive), but his attitude towards the Chinese seems to be on a par with Ms Clinton’s and his remarks about North Korea are beyond the pale. My impression, which may be erroneous (in which case please correct me) is that of the three, the one most open to the peaceful resolution of conflicts – and with, unlike Mr Trump, enough political experience to not cede these questions to the neocon establishment should he become president – is Mr Sanders….
Of course, here we haven’t even touched upon the views of Señor Rafael Edward Cruz, whom the neocons desperately want to see as the Republican nominee (if Mr Trump secures the Republican nomination, they threaten, they will vote for Ms Clinton)….
Henri
I don’t think Trump believes a single thing that comes out of his mouth. He’s a circus clown putting on a show.
indeed. But it’s a show, that like Mr Sanders’ campaign, strikes a chord among US residents who realise that the neocon establishment – among whom Ms Clinton is definitely to be numbered – has been screwing them over for years A pity that it seems unlikely that voters in the United States will be offered a choice between a fake and a real solution to this problem….
Henri
The ultimate reality TV show. Only with this one the repercussions are real.
But perhaps, CrazyH, the real repercussions of those other TV reality shows was that they prepared US voters for the one playing now ? But on the other hand, the feeling among many US working and «middle» class people that the establishment has been screwing them over for years is real and has a real basis. Had it not, I doubt that either Mr Sanders’ or Mr Trump’s campaigns would have gotten off the ground….
Henri
You may be on to something, Henri. Name recognition means more to US voters than trivialities like qualifications and experience.
Come to think of it, that applies to most US professions as well…
Well, name recognition seems to be what is allowing Ms Clinton to do so well among Blacks, at least in the US South, but why in the world should any Black person want to recognise her name ? I suspect, once again, that it has to do with the power of the churches and the pastors in those communities….
Henri
Come on, if North Korea didn’t attack the US over that ridiculous “The Interview” movie, then they’re certainly not going to go to war over anything Trump says.The Workers’ Party of Korea has a purely defensive military policy.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/dprk-isolated-demonized-and-dehumanized-by-the-west/
Funny, so does the US. :: rolls eyes ::
@Henri – while picking apart the details of my post, you have managed to completely miss my point. It is just as true that the Soviets “entered” the north while the US “occupied” the south.
The US made the world safe for democracy while opposing the evil soviets’ attempts to force their wicked ideology on the innocents of the world.
= OR =
The USSR made the world safe for communism while opposing the evil yankees’ attempts to force their wicked ideology on the innocents of the world.
It’s the same thing. That’s my point. ‘k?
Oops, managed to get my post in the wrong place. Henri will pick up on it, I’m sure
But CrazyH, it is the specifics which are important here. As I’ve mentioned several times – and you haven’t chosen to dispute mydescription of the facts -, Soviet troops, which came to Korea north of the 38th parallel under an agreement with the US in order to receive the Japanese surrender, while the Koreans were sorting out their government, were all withdrawn in 1948. US troops, which ostensibly came to Korea south of the 38th parallel to carry out a corresponding task, were still there in 1950, when the Korean War broke out – and are still there today, more than six decades later !…
The conclusions which can be drawn from these facts are, to my mind, mainly two in number : either 1) the Soviets were far better at carrying out their duties than their US counterparts or 2) US troops had – and have – other tasks which were not part of the agreement between the two Powers….
Henri
That’s right Henri – I’m not arguing with you, although you seem to be looking for an argument with me.
Korea got torn apart, not by their own internal struggles but by the proxy war the big boys played on their turf. Do you dispute that statement? I’m not interested in whether one party was 49% to blame while the other was 51% to blame; but rather the big picture.
So why is it you subject my posts to a fine toothed comb, while accepting Prolecenter’s at face value? He would place the blame solely at the US’s feet, yet you don’t seem to be disputing that at all. I try to present a more balanced picture and you want to argue over what the meaning of ‘is’ is.
Your obvious bias calls into question the veracity of your posts.
Sorry that you feel called upon to dispute what you call «the veracity of [my] posts», CrazyH – but please remember that in order to do so, you must dispute the specifics of what I refer to as the historical facts, not merely disagree with the point of view I express (which disagreement, of course, is entirely legitimate). I think we can all agree that Koreans – and many other peoples – have suffered due to being used as proxies for other conflicts which do not really concern them. But at the same time, it’s not enough, in my opinion, to cry with Mercutio, «A plague o’ both your houses» ; rather, we have to get down to the nitty-gritty of who did what and when. I confess myself a tad disappointed by the fact that you seem unwilling to accept the significance of the fact that while the Soviets withdrew all their troops from the North in 1948, US troops are still there today….
But since we now seem to have reached an impasse here in which no new information on the issue is forthcoming, but instead we merely rehash previous comments, it might be well to end the discussion at this point. Ted will no doubt provide us with sufficient impetus for other, hopefully more fruitful discussions in the future….
Henri
Okay, “I accept the fact that the soviets left sooner and the US is still there” since this is a point of indisputable fact, I really don’t understand why you think I”m disputing it. (please provide a link to where I disputed it)
(three weeks vs. a month. Seriously? I’m having difficulty understanding why you think it’s worth bothering with. Okay, “The Soviets entered Korea three weeks before the US” Let the record show you were right, yet it STILL doesn’t disprove my point.)
You still haven’t answered the question as to why you want to debate insignificant details of my posts while taking Trole’s at face value. I’m not the one with the hidden agenda.
«Okay, “I accept the fact that the soviets left sooner and the US is still there” since this is a point of indisputable fact, I really don’t understand why you think I”m disputing it. (please provide a link to where I disputed it)»
Good that you accept this fact, CrazyH – but if you read my earlier posts more carefully, you will note that I nowhere dispute that you do. What I wrote was the following : « I confess myself a tad disappointed by the fact that you seem unwilling to accept the significance [emphasis added, MHD] of the fact that while the Soviets withdrew all their troops from the North in 1948, US troops are still there today….», which is a different matter entirely. You regard this fact as a mere detail ; I regard it as essential for understanding the current situation on the Korean peninsula and in East Asia as a whole (just as I regard the fact that the US maintains some 800 – 1000 military bases outside its own territory, in effect garrisoning the world, as essential for understanding world affairs)….
But enough….
Henri
Henri – you really need to work on your reading comprehension.
You corrected my assertion that the USSR “occupied” NK a month before the US “entered” the south. You evidently think the difference between three weeks and a month is worth debating. You wanted to make a BFD out of my choice of verb. These are the insignificant details I’m talking about.
The US maintains more military bases across the world than any other country. This is indisputably a bad thing. I’ve said so on a number of occasions.
You’re looking for an argument where none exists.
I fear, CrazyH, that it’s not my reading comprehension that’s at issue here – please reread my previous comment. As to seeking differences where none exist, I suspect that if you consider the matter and read through our conversation on this thread, you will find that our views on the history of the Korean peninsula do, indeed, differ significantly. That, to my mind, is no problem, as a US (anti-imperialist !) once noted, «it were not best that we should all think alike; it is difference of opinion that makes horse-races». What is important, if the discussion is to be meaningful, is that we can come to some sort of agreement on the facts of the matter. You may regards such «details» as no «BFD» ; I happen to disagree….
Henri
No, prloecenter, the DPRK is not about to attack the US, but it would certainly like to get the US off its back. Alas, US strategy has goals much wider than the Korean peninsula and ever since Hideyoshi’s day, «Korea» has served as a code word for China. For more than six decades, ever since the Armistice of 23 July 1953, the DPRK has attempted to get the US to enter into serious negotiations to replace the Armistice with a Treaty of Peace between the two nations, but the US has always refused. Why ? Tensions on the Korean peninsula provide the US government with an excellent excuse to maintain troops in the RoK and Japan, more than 70 years after WW II came to an end and more than 60 years after the end of the war in Korea, troops which are there not because the US fears the DPRK, but to help in containing China. By contrast, how many Soviet/Russian and/or Chinese troops are stationed in the DPRK ? Zilch….
Henri
By contrast how many Chinese/Russian troops are stationed in Canada and/or Mexico?
«By contrast how many Chinese/Russian troops are stationed in Canada and/or Mexico?» Millions, falco, millions – it’s just that the powers that be won’t let people in the US know !… 😉
Henri
> Chinese troops are stationed in the DPRK ? Zilch….
How many US troops are stationed in the DPRK? Zilch… They are stationed in South Korea, clustered along the border.
https://sites.google.com/site/nzdprksociety/usa-bases-in-south-korea-and-japan
Just like the Chinese troops are clustered along their border with the “Democratic” People’s Republic of Korea.
Please, CrazyH, don’t pull a «Jack Heart» on us – my comment read as follows :
«Tensions on the Korean peninsula provide the US government with an excellent excuse to maintain troops in the RoK and Japan, more than 70 years after WW II came to an end and more than 60 years after the end of the war in Korea, troops which are there not because the US fears the DPRK, but to help in containing China. By contrast, how many Soviet/Russian and/or Chinese troops are stationed in the DPRK ? Zilch….»
Pursuant to agreements made among the allied powers, Soviet troops were to be stationed temporarily in Korea north of the 38th parallel and US troops south of that parallel to receive the Japanese surrender and preserve public order. Soviet troops withdrew from the northern part of the country by 1948 ; US troops remain in the southern part today….
You are, of course, quite correct in pointing out that no US troops are stationed in the DPRK today – they did indeed do their best to get there between 1950 and 1953, but those efforts didn’t quite cut the mustard….
Henri
Dude – them’s fightin’ words! 😀
I wasn’t trying to contradict you, merely add on to the conversation. While the US’s international actions are unsavory, it’s not like she’s the sole bad guy on the planet.
Korea, like Vietnam later on, got caught in a proxy war between ideologies the rice farmers didn’t give a damn about. We could have spent all that money helping people rather than killing them.
CrazyH, you are of course, quite right that the US is not «the sole bad guy on the planet.». But if we want to understand the situation in which the planet finds itself, we do have to keep in mind that the US has been garrisoning it ever since 1945, and at present has 800-1000+ military bases outside its own territory. Nobody else comes anywhere close….
«We could have spent all that money helping people rather than killing them.» Indeed ! But limiting ourselves in this election season to the role of the United States in these proxy wars, we need to ask ourselves just why that country’s government chose to spend the money was spent the way it was spent ; i e, not to the benefit, but to the destruction of millions of people. Cui bono, as the Romans would have said ? As far as I can see, the only person from the the two major political parties in your country running for nomination as a presidential candidate who provides anything like an answer to this question – indeed, the only person who even dares to pose the question – is Bernard Solomon Sanders. That is why I hope he does, in fact, become the Democratic Party’s nominee and wins the 58th US quadrennial presidential election on 8 November 2016. But admittedly, the odds do not seem to be in his favour….
Henri
Henri,
Yes, China is the big fish, but the US is also out to get the DPRK (just like Cuba) because of the threat of a good example – of successful defiance of the Empire.
DPRK defied one empire only to fall to another. I don’t see much difference either way. Had both the USSR and USA kept their mitts off, they would have found their own way.
However, it’s not exactly a ‘good example’ of anything. Massive famine, massive human rights violations, etc. (Yes, the US is likewise guilty of human rights violations, but at least we’re well fed.)
CrazyH,
<>
No, just the absolute worst bad guy, the king of all bad guys.
<>
That’s bullshit. The “rice farmers” as you disparagingly refer to them, cared a great deal. The communists had massive support from the people in both those countries – that is how they won.
CrazyH,
“While the US’s international actions are unsavory, it’s not like she’s the sole bad guy on the planet.”
No, just the absolute worst bad guy, the king of all bad guys.
“Korea, like Vietnam later on, got caught in a proxy war between ideologies the rice farmers didn’t give a damn about.”
That’s bullshit. The “rice farmers” as you disparagingly refer to them, cared a great deal. The communists had massive support from the people in both those countries – that is how they won.
“Worst” ? Or simply the most successful? (Jealous?)
As always, you’re cherry picking your facts. Some people supported the Commies, some people supported the Capitalists. Both types lost out in the long run.
And no, calling Rice farmers “Rice Farmers” is not meant as a disparagement. At the time, the population was primarily agrarian. They didn’t give a damn whether the dictators in Pyongyang called themselves “Democrats” “Communists” or “Kings” it simply didn’t matter to their daily lives. The war most certainly did.
My martial arts instructor was born in Korea just after to war. He likes it better in the US (that’s why he lives here) and has nothing but contempt for the “Communists” in the North.
I know him to be an honest an honorable man. I’ll take his opinion over a shill’s any day.
CrazyH,
There is no famine in the DPRK. The USSR was not an empire. In the Korean War the USSR and China assisted a country that they both shared an ideology and a border with.
Like with Cuba, the US has done its best to isolate and destroy the DPRK through economic sanctions as well as open war to punish these countries so the good example doesn’t look quite so good in the eyes of its citizens and the world, but again, despite the embargoes and the difficulties they cause, the North Korean and Cuban people are not starving – they are well fed and healthy, although perhaps lacking a bit in luxury goods.
Prolecenter:
Are you denying that the “Arduous March” ever happened?
The Korean War could just as easily be spun as The West protecting the poor beleaguered Korean people from the imperialist Russians. After all, they did liberate them from the Japanese empire just a few years previously.
The idea that the USSR was not an empire is ludicrous. They took Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and East Germany. They tried to take Afghanistan and failed miserably.
I could pretty much write your reply to this post. “Afghan Peoples lovink glorious Red Army! Greetink as liberators! Throwink flowers at feet!”
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah – the US invaded as well, but you see that as empire building. I see it as no different. The US built schools, the US built roads, the US had allies, same as the USSR.
But the USSR did do one thing better than the US in Afghanistan. They killed around a million civilians, while the US only killed about a quarter of that.
«Yes, China is the big fish, but the US is also out to get the DPRK (just like Cuba) because of the threat of a good example – of successful defiance of the Empire.»
I quite agree, prolecenter – while, as I pointed out, Korea main strategic significance has been as a gateway to China, there’s no question but what the very existence of the DPRK seems to still be taken as a personal affront to the higher echelons of the US military, as the first small country which successfully defied the global hegemon. I suspect that a majority of those few who are even aware of the Geneva Conference of (26 April – 20 July) 1954 regard as a conference on Vietnam, but the fact is that is was called as a result of a provision in Article IV of the Armistice Agreement of 23 July 1953, in order «to settle through negotiation the questions of the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea, the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, etc» ; the issue of «restoring peace in Indochina» was added to the agenda of the conference only later, on 18 February 1954. Due to the intransigence of the United States, however, no agreement was reached on the issue of Korea and the Conference was unable to adopt a declaration on this matter (if I recall correctly – it’s been more than 40 years since I published a brief pamphlet on the Conference – the open animosity exhibited by Walter Bedell Smith, then US Under Secretary of State, towards the Chinese and in particular to the Koreans was especially noteworthy)….
So yes, US policy towards the DPRK is not merely guided by the strategic position occupied by that country, but also by the affront to US arrogance that the very existence of this state represents. But I should argue that today, the strategic role – the use of tensions on the peninsula to justify, more than seven decades after the end of WW II, the stationing of US troops in Korea and Japan, i e, in immediate proximity to China – remains the main consideration….
Henri
«The Korean War could just as easily be spun as The West protecting the poor beleaguered Korean people from the imperialist Russians.» It has, indeed, been spun in that manner, but the fact is, CrazyH, as I noted earlier, that all Soviet troops had been withdrawn from the North of the country in 1948, while the Korean War did not break out until 1950. Thus, representing the latter as a liberation of the people of (North) Korea from «the imperialist Russians» is a bit of a stretch. US troops, however, were still in (South) Korea in 1950, and they remain there today….
«After all, they [i e, the US] did liberate them [i e, the Koreans] from the Japanese empire just a few years previously.» That, CrazyH, is a direct misunderstanding (due, no doubt, to the «spin» you mentioned above ; no US forces fought in Korea in WW II. In fact, the US forces which were to provisionally occupy Korea south of the 38th parallel did not arrive there until 8 September 1945, nearly a month after the Soviets had arrived in the North. The first things that US Army Lieutenant General John Reed Hodge did after landing were to order the dissolution of the People’s Republic of Korea, which had been established there in August and announce that the Japanese administration would remain in place under US supervision….
If this be «liberation», then make the most of it….
Henri
That is correct, Henri – the US did not fight “in” Korea.
They did, however, secure their freedom by stopping the Japanese empire which had occupied Korea since 1910. (anticipating your reply: Yes, the USSR helped in the case of that particular peninsula but they did not lead the war effort elsewhere. In fact, they were reluctant to take on the Japanese in the first place.)
After the war, the Soviets occupied the north at least a month before the US entered the south. It was the contention between the two which eventually lead to the Korean War. It takes two to tango, to lay the blame solely at the feet of the US is specious at best.
“. . . the USSR helped in the case of that particular peninsula but they did not lead the war effort elsewhere. In fact, they were reluctant to take on the Japanese in the first place.”
Wrong again, CrazyH. The Soviets had already whipped the Japanese in 1938 – 39. Hitler counted on Japanese support invading from the East while the Nazis invaded the USSR from the West. The Japanese didn’t want to tangle with the Red Army again and so they stayed out of that particular theater. If you don’t believe me see this link from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_border_conflicts
So why were the Japanese still in control of Korea until the end of WWII? How was it that they were able to mount an attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 if they were whupped in 1938?
«After the war, the Soviets occupied the north at least a month before the US entered the south.» (Not quite, Soviet forces entered Korea on 14 August, US forces landed on 8 September). Note, CrazyH, the different terms you use to describe the actions of the two countries, both of which were based on agreements made between them at the end of WW II (note also that the Soviets, which had fought along with Korean guerilla forces in Manchuria could easily have moved into the whole of Korea, but, to the surprise of US officials, accepted a US proposal that US forces take responsibility for accepting the Japanese surrender and securing order south of the 38th parallel – I suspect the Soviets rather naively believed that FDR’s policies and the wartime alliance would continue into the post-war period despite Roosevelt’s death) : «the Soviets occupied the north», while «the US entered the south». Once again, you choose a term which vilifies the Soviets as an «occupier», while describing US actions in a more neutral manner….
«They [i e, the US] did, however, secure their [i e, the Koreans’] freedom by stopping the Japanese empire which had occupied Korea since 1910.» (Occupied de facto since 1905, formally annexed in 1910.) Two things that should be noted here : 1) I suspect a scholar of Korean matters would have added that the United States, due to its rivalry with Russia, encouraged Japan in its incorporation of Korea (cf eg, the Root-Takahira Agreement of 1908), so the former’s dedication to «the freedom» of the Korean people is open to question, and 2) while the United States did defeat the Japanese empire in the Pacific, it did nothing on the mainland of Asia, where the bulk of Japanese troops were stationed – that task was left to the Chinese forces, both regular and guerrilla and Korean partisans and the Soviets (read up on the so-called Nomonhan Incident). Had it not been for the fact that Japan was never able to secure an base on the Asian mainland outside of Korea, therefore being forced to devote the bulk of its military resources there, the war in the Pacific might have taken another course….
The notion that the US essentially single-handedly defeated the Japanese Empire is as false as the equally popular (in the US) and self-serving notion that it was that country which essentially unassisted defeated the Germans in Europe….
Henri
I like my wars valiantly waged to liberate other countries’ resources, which call out to America for liberation from backward, local systems into the glorious global economy!
These statements by CrazyH pretty much stand on their own. Very odd statements for a Leftist. When challenged and backed into a corner, his true feelings come out:
“Yes, the US is likewise guilty of human rights violations, but at least we’re well fed.”
“ ‘Worst’ ? Or simply the most successful? (Jealous?)” [in response to claim that US is the worst “bad guy”]
This post is in response to “Are you denying that the “Arduous March” ever happened?” (which was in response to his assertion that there was no famine in North Korea)
We note that he didn’t actually address the topic – but rather evaded it. As usual.
I believe we were talking about current conditions in the DPRK, not something that happened 20 years ago. Yes, after the destruction of the USSR North Korea went through a difficult time after it lost its main ally and trading partner (along with the rest of the socialist bloc).
Same thing happened with Cuba’s “special period.” Both countries faced up to that challenge and are back on their feet today; although difficulties remain due to US aggression and subversion.
According to the Human Rights Watch food shortages in NK continue to this day.
> “destruction of the USSR”
yeah, I saw your laughable article on the subject. The USSR didn’t implode, it was those evil Americans that did ’em in. (Reagan said much the same thing)
So, if we believe your narrative then obviously capitalism is strong and communism is weak.
FIRST!!! (uh, eighth reminder?)
Prolecenter’s statements merely serve to underscore my arguments – when backed into a corner, he resorts to ad hominem attacks.
And probably twelfth reminder: if you don’t want to be taken for a shill, stop acting like one.
What ad hominem attack? I just used your own words against you. All that leftist talk of yours is just a cover. I would still dislike you, but I might feel some measure of respect for you if you would only be honest about your real ideological and political stance.
> What ad hominem attack? I
The one directly below, and the one directly above … duh?
> if you would only be honest about your real ideological and political stance.
WHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s either the funniest or the stupidest thing you’ve said yet. Keep it up, maybe you’ll make me laugh myself to death.
Prolecenter,
He’s impossibly slippery. He’s completely intellectually dishonest and never labels his own ideology. The only time he admits fault is to someone he agrees with the other 99% of the time…
Jack,
You nailed it. He’s more slippery than a snake.