Watching the shifting U.S. responses to criticism of the bombing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan makes one marvel at the gall and efficacy of changing narratives to duck responsibility. What if others used the same techniques?
Kunduz 911
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is 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 "2024: Revisited."
26 Comments. Leave new
This Ted, is called the “Scared-bunny-rabbit” defense, most famously used during WWII. You know, “We were so scared that their comprehensively decimated military would still kill so many of us that we were forced to A-bomb two civilian populations of hundreds-of-thousands of people.”
While simply demonstrating the effectiveness of the bombs on some relatively low-population real estate would have been just as effective at motivating an unconditional surrender, America’s Cauc-government really wanted to see how these radiation-toys would effect a human-intensive infrastructure. Them slopes were just enough like us to fit the “dead-meat” experiment category.
America is still the only war-crooks on Earth to use nuclear weapons on a civilian population.
DanD
… and yet we feel that we have a moral right to decide who else can have nukes.
Seems to be two categories: those who are too powerful to oppose, and those who are just as indiscriminately bloodthirsty as we are.
This is not a recipe for peace and happiness.
Indeed, CrazyH, America has no moral authority to dictate does and does not have a right to nuclear arsenals. This has LONG been an assumption that has irritated me.
While I have long argued that using an A-bomb let alone two was unnecessary and indefensible, it hadn’t occurred to me that of course a demonstration on an uninhabited area was another option that should have achieved the same purportedly desired results. Interesting, Dan.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had absolutely no military value as targets.
That is why they were never targeted during the entire war until after the outcome was certain, and Japan had sued for peace.
The cities’ value was purely a scientific value, not a military value, as a means of measuring the devastation the bombs would cause on cities not previously bombed, thereby eliminating that source of “noise” from the blast “signal” evaluation.
Some 70 cities had already been destroyed by fire bombing, so to bomb these cities again with an atomic bomb would have merely “bounced rubble” without giving a clear indication of atomic bomb damage, distinct from fire bomb damage.
How can you tell the good guys from the bad guys when they both act the same?
There is nothing we can do militarily to make the situation in the muddle east any better. We could go back to imposing military rule – but that’s how we got in this situation in the first place. We could choose one side at random, and support them – but that hasn’t worked out so well in the past. And now we’re building up to another proxy war … which likewise hasn’t worked out so well in the past.
We could provide humanitarian aid to all sides & let ’em sort it out themselves. Whoever wins out would have at least some positive memories of the US. Somehow, I doubt our leaders have even considered that notion. It could lead to terrible repercussions – like Exxon’s profit margin might decrease. Oh, the humanity!
As we both know though, the goal of US foreign policy is to retain hegemony through creation of chaos worldwide. IOW, everything is going according to plan.
What’s missing here?
“It was an inside job to instill fear and justify an unnecessary war.”
Oh, wait! That might not have worked with hospital bombing.”
Old age and having seen too much has left me rather cynical. I wrote a comment to Cohen’s column in the NYT, referencing Hersh. The response to my comment: ‘Hersh has been proven to be a liar.’ Meaning, the White House Press Office SAID the articles by Hersh were all lies, they SAID that Zero Dark 30 was a very accurate documentary, and whatever the White House Press office says is the TRVTH.
None of Hersh’s eye-witnesses’ evidence can stand up to a White House Press release.
I have tried to sell your latest book on Afghanistan. ‘Rall says the US is NOT doing any good there.’
The response: ‘Haven’t you seen the experiment with the gorilla who ran across a ball field during a game, and no one saw the gorilla? The US is doing a LOT of good in Afghanistan, but Rall, like the people in that ball game, just couldn’t see it. The experiment shows that eyewitnesses are useless. Only the omniscient US government really knows what is going on.’
(I’ve stopped phoning those friends.)
So it’s ‘proven’ that the North Vietnamese launched an unprovoked attack on US Naval Ships in International Waters. That US students in Granada were in mortal danger until Reagan rescued them. That Panamá was bent on World Conquest, and was only stopped by Bush, sr’s prescient action. That Saddam had nuclear tipped missiles with the fuses lit when Bush, jr sent in the US military just in the nick of time. That Saddam (and Qadhaffi and Assad) sent the 9/11 hijackers. Etc. Etc.
And a very large numbers of Americans believe all this. Including most New York Times readers.
The propaganda machine of the government cannot ever be underestimated. The U.S. government is no less devious than the German government of the 1930’s:
http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007697
(I still remain skeptical of the NIST report regarding the “collapse” of Trade Center Towers on 9/11 — who knows?)
Come now, neither one of you is talking like a good leftie! After all, you know that the government is indeed trustworthy enough to task with providing medical care and retirement, regulating every facet of the economy, declaring some thoughts naughty a la hate crime laws, redistributing income, redefining marriage, and mandating men pay child support for children who are not their own.
@Jack – Lefties talk, it doesn’t match your preconceived notions, and you assume that means there’s something wrong with the lefties.
Interesting symptoms you’ve got there.
Did ever occur to you that some of your preconceived notions might just be wrong? Your first step towards enlightenment might be to check on whether your beliefs come from things that lefties have actually said – or whether they come from things right wing radio talk show hosts have said…
I don’t like talk radio. Are you denying that leftists support these things? I can provide links rather easily. I’m rather stunned really. Or you’re just saying that there are no contradictions here? No hypocrisy? Leftists love seeing it in rightwingers where it often is not. Check your premises. If people are corrupt or at least often easily corrupted, how does it follow that the solution is to give some individuals increasing amounts of power? That’s what your policies do. Expand government. Do you just not understand that simple concept? “Government cannot be trusted, therefore let’s give it more power.” So you don’t trust it to be truthful, but you’ll trust it with deciding what income everyone “deserves” for example.
I had preconceived notions–when I was a leftist. Then I discarded them. So I’ll ask you the same. Did ever occur to YOU that some of your preconceived notions might just be wrong? I really doubt it.
I love it when two TROLLs attack each other much to the amusement of objective observers.
😀
Gee whiz, derlehrer – I disagreed with you on one whole issue. Don’t you think it’s about time you got over it?
CH,
He is becoming childish in his advanced age. You made a remarkably good argument in that thread, and he made a couple decent points at first. But at the end you heard him: you’re on his list now! You don’t exist anymore. All because you don’t think anyone should be able to gun down children on a snap decision. I was shocked. You used to get along. But no one is quicker than he to toss out the “troll” accusation. As Dan has said, he’s the one derailing and failing to contribute so much of the time…
Shit, even I don’t think you’re a troll. I figure he just doesn’t know what one is. I hardly “attacked” you here. And I just teased him a little. Gee whiz indeed…
I have nothing to add other than I agree with most of the comments of my fellow posters – but I do want to say that the ignorance of most of the American public and their apathy is exactly what has allowed the constant erosion of our rights over the last 30-40 years. Once a population cannot see or refuses to acknowledge what their “leaders” (masters?) are doing, then it is so easy for the leaders to apply their greed and twisted logic to the people themselves…. sad.
The US has a long history of bombing hospitals, wedding parties, foreign embassies, journalists, whatever – after all, the rules are for the other chaps ; when did you last see a US commander arraigned before an international tribunal for war crimes ? This state of affairs will continue until such time as that polity no longer can enforce its writ on the world – only then will the impunity come to an end….
Henri
I guess you haven’t heard that the U.S. Congress passed a law — signed by George W. Bush — that exempts the U.S. from criminal prosecution before the International Criminal Court with regard to war crimes. Authorizing “…all means necessary and appropriate….” the law would allow armed invasion of The Hague to secure the release of U.S. war criminals. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act )
On the contrary, mein verehrter Lehrer, I am very much aware of this law, the existence of which corroborates, to my mind, my conclusion above : «This state of affairs will continue until such time as that polity no longer can enforce its writ on the world – only then will the impunity come to an end.» When it becomes no longer practical for the United States to threaten military action to free military and other personal from prosecution before an international criminal court, this law will fall into desuetude….
Henri
I beg your pardon for my erroneous assumption, for I learned about this law only recently, perhaps a month ago. I had wondered why no nation was prepared to try the war criminals, especially in view of their having been convicted “iin absentia” by a court in Kuala Lumpur.
Except for one teensy-weensy problem – the US doesn’t have the authority to exclude itself from the international laws it helped to write.
It was all fun and games while we were prosecuting the Nazis. Too bad they didn’t think of that, “Hey, y’know what? Your laws don’t apply to us. We’re leaving now.”
Oops! I should have said “arrest” instead of “try.” 🙁
Logic and rational argumentation without “ad hominem” attacks and “non sequitur” conclusions are welcome, but the introduction of either (or both) is abhorrent and in my estimation yields this judgment:
A TROLL is a TROLL is a TROLL — not deserving of my further consideration.
Frankly you have a poor understanding of logic. You don’t seem to know what non sequitur or ad hominem means. You use the terms so liberally as for the first to mean “I can’t follow your argument” and the second to mean “Stop pointing out my logical inconsistencies and mistakes.”
If that’s the way you feel, derleher, then why on earth did you introduce ad hominem attacks in the argument that ruffled your feathers so much? Go back & read it again. I even asked you to ‘be nice’ before I got tired of your insults & responded in kind.
Disagreement is *not* an insult, and argument by analogy is *not* a non sequitor.