Previous posts in this discussion:
PostDefending Against US Aggression? (Timothy Brown, USA, 08/09/17 4:12 am)
Tor Guimaraes's post of August 8th sounds like a great argument in favor of Kim and North Korea. Someone should bring it to the attention of Kim since, by this reasoning, because the US is gigantic and North Korea so small, it must be obvious to peace-loving people everywhere that all Kim is trying to do is defend his country against American aggression. Just look what happened in Europe during the 20th century when they didn't defend themselves well enough. The Great Aggressor forced Germany and the Axis to defend themselves against their will, thereby causing World Wars I and II. If the US had just left Europe alone, today Europe would be a far better place.
Just look at what would have happened if the US had just stayed out to the Cold War, this sort of reasoning did not apply to the much nicer Soviet Union. In that case, all the nice, peace-loving Soviet Union was trying to do was help its ungrateful neighbors escape from the claws of the real aggressor nation, the US. And on it goes. Today Nicaragua and Venezuela are, by this reasoning, not dictatorships. They, and all the Marxist dictatorships to come, are just innocent victims of the Great Empire, just as are all the other nations of the world.
I beg to differ.
JE comments: Tim Brown's point is well taken, but there is a middle ground here. The US is not innocent of aggression against its weaker neighbors, especially in its dealings with Latin America since the days of Monroe.
Defending Against US Aggression: Cuba, North Korea
(Tor Guimaraes, USA
08/09/17 10:39 AM)
The overdose of sarcasm and convoluted logic in Timothy Brown's last post go beyond my comprehension. How anyone could read my August 8th post and see an argument in favor of North Korea's present dictator, or any other Communist dictator, is totally made up in his own mind.
Just because it is impressive that Cuba's government be able to survive the US government's undermining influence for so many years is not an endorsement of all their deeds or objectives. Further, it is also beyond my understanding what the North Korean dictator hopes to accomplish with what I believe to be totally irrational behavior: he is verbally threatening the militarily most powerful nation in the world with a few nuclear weapons in his arsenal. He should know that the US can vaporize his entire country with just one MIRV missile launched from just one of our many nuclear subs.
Either Kim is crazy or I am crazy.
JE comments: I wonder what kind of advisers, if any, Lil' Kim listens to. The North's actions are pure evil, but madness, too? We could build an analogy with the schoolkid acting out in class. Kim knows that with his nukes, the West will pay attention when they otherwise would not, and maybe throw in some concessions to prevent the destruction of Seoul, Tokyo, and perhaps San Francisco. There's a cruel logic to all this.
Psychology of the North Korea Standoff; from Gary Moore
(John Eipper, USA
08/09/17 4:50 PM)
Gary Moore writes:
Re: the debate between Tor Guimaraes and Timothy Brown on North Korea,
with JE adding that Latin America shows US aggression can be wrong:
It's true that even General Grant later said we should never have launched
the confiscatory 1846 war on Mexico, and 1898 in Cuba was classic war fever,
though subsequent notorious interventions like Nicaragua were embroiled in
such local chaos that they are arguable.
But unfortunately on North Korea
there's a larger point of psychology: In the history of mass violence one
of the major mysteries is the tendency of far-outnumbered but emotionally
driven belligerents to suicidally and delusionally provoke their own doom--and the
doom of many others. There are sharper examples than the most familiar one,
the Confederacy in the US Civil War. Since nobody understands the grandiosity
x-factor in L'il Kim, or his willingness to manipulate that air of mystery, the
guesswork now called for is what makes policy makers turn gray. Trump has already
shown that his own blustering techniques can sometimes work--for example on
illegal immigration at the Mexican border. Both USA Today and, impressively, the
ferociously anti-Trump New York Times, have run stories saying that the flow of
indocumentados has been drastically cut--in part by increased enforcement but
in part by Trump's seemingly crazy rhetoric, which in this case has worked as a
tacit negotiating tool, scaring prospective immigrants, especially in Central America,
into refraining from shelling out the big smuggler fees, which they would lose if
Long ago on the brinksmanship front we managed to slip past
the Cuban Missile Crisis on a sheen of mistakes and illusions in the Kennedy ranks.
Do we now again face Russian roulette--or Korean roulette?
JE comments: Might war be the pursuit of psychology by other means? Regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, I have an analysis from Tim Brown in my inbox. Be sure to sign on to WAIS early tomorrow!
What Kennedy Knew during Cuban Missile Crisis
(Timothy Brown, USA
08/10/17 4:37 AM)
My apologies if Tor Guimaraes was offended. But it's the norm not exception that those who are not fully informed of the realities of history are the most fervent believers of falsehoods.
Two examples. Contrary to popular opinion, the Cuba missile crisis was not just about missiles. As President Kennedy knew at the time, there were nuclear warheads in Cuba that could have been quickly married to the IRBMs. While Soviet Spesznaz had control of the warheads, had Kennedy told the American public this it could have set off an essentially uncontrollable panic among the populations of Florida and our southern states because they would have been well within their range. This became public knowledge, and has been confirmed by the Cuban government recently. Personally, I applaud Kennedy for not telling the public everything he knew.
When Castro thought the Soviets were going to withdraw their missiles, there were a number of reports that he tried to block their removal.
(An aside. At the time of the Missile Crisis I was both a Thai and Spanish Marine Corps Intelligence-Linguist and received Flash orders to report to a unit that was deploying to Florida. The orders were countermanded just as I was mounting by a second Flash ordering me to report to the CG of Task Force 116,"wherever he may be" that turned out to be in Thailand because the Pathet Lao were making a lunge towards Thailand simultaneously, just possibly coordinated with the Soviet effort to install IRBMs within miles of our southern mainland.)
Another widely believed myth is that had the United States been nicer to Castro, since at first he was not a Marxist, he would never have established a Marxist government there. Therefore it was the US's fault, not Fidel's, that Cuba became a Marxist dictatorship. That's certainly what most of those I met during my decades serving in European and Latin America countries believed. But that's precisely the opposite of what my Marxist-Leninist friends who actually knew him say. But don't just believe me. Instead, check out what is said about Fidel in my When the AK-47s Fall Silent by a handful of his close revolution-era comrades.
They are all, to this day, proud Marxists. But they are also all very critical of Fidel (and, for that matter, Che Guevara). Their comments are listed in its index on pages 308 and 309. Unfortunately I was not prepared when I published it to include the strongest critic of Fidel, Noel Guerrero Santiago, the secret COMINTERN agent that worked closely with Fidel, Raul and Che Guevara before, during and after the Cuban revolution. So perhaps the myth-believers would have refused to believe what he said, either.
JE comments: Wouldn't a Marxist True Believer want to think that Fidel had their politics ingrained in his DNA? Especially, because Marxism preaches the dogma of its inevitable triumph. It's not as appealing to accept that Fidel may have sought Soviet sponsorship out of expediency or opportunism--or especially, that a Marxist system could ever be a second choice.
Just thinking out loud...
- Abelard's "Sic et Non" (Enrique Torner, USA 08/10/17 6:17 AM)
The latest discussions on WAIS, the one on the latest North Korea/US exchanges, and the one on Ellen Horup (whom I had never heard of before) hit me hard as I found it amazing how scholarly, intelligent people like WAISers can disagree so much about a given subject, even when it's not politics.
During the three years (I think) I have been a member of WAIS, if I had to mention one characteristic of this Forum, it would be how contradictory opinions can be on a single subject. This reminded me of a work written in Latin by French medieval philosopher and theologian Peter Abelard (1079-1142): "Sic et Non," translated as "Yes and No." This work is considered as one of the most important medieval theological/philosophical treatises in Western civilization.
It is a fascinating essay about the Church Fathers that examines the many contradictions among them about all kinds of theological subjects. For each one, he offers examples of contradictory statements. Peter Abelard offers rules for reconciling these contradictions, and provides suggestions on how to deal with these disagreements.
Here is an excerpt from "Sic et Non" I think you will find useful as you (we all, including me) think through and write about WAIS discussions:
JE comments: We should never deprive ourselves of a spirited discussion. As Abelard argues, it's an excellent intellectual exercise. An interesting aside is how Abelard excludes the Bible from fallibility. Any patent absurdity in Scripture, he assures us, is the work of a sloppy copyist or translator. Would that make him (Abelard) a Fundamentalist avant la lettre? Or rather, weren't all medieval theologians literal readers of the Bible? More creative exegesis came along with the Renaissance, or perhaps even spurred it.
We Romantics best remember Abelard as the ill-fated lover of Héloïse, whose uncle (father?) put an end to their hanky-panky by having him attacked and castrated. Yikes. And you thought your in-laws were mean...
- Kim as Nero? (John Heelan, -UK 08/10/17 5:17 AM)
There appear to be some parallels between Kim's reign and that of Nero (AD 54-AD 68).
Nero murdered relatives (mother and two wives). Kim killed his uncle and his family and allegedly more recently his half-brother. Perhaps he should learn from Nero's fate, as the Roman dictator eventually lost public support from food shortages and over-taxation as well as the trust of the military.
In AD 68, the Gallic and Spanish legions, along with the Praetorian Guards, rose against Nero and he fled Rome. The senate declared Nero a public enemy and to avoid assassination by the military, he attempted and botched suicide on AD 9 June 68.
JE comments: Ah, but does Lil' Kim play the violin? (I couldn't help myself with that one.)
The crucial element for Kim's survival is his continued control of the world's fourth-largest military. This I assume can only be achieved by fomenting paranoia, pitting one faction against another, and a purge from time to time.
I found this illustration, courtesy of artist Steve Vanderhorst.
- Abelard's "Sic et Non" (Enrique Torner, USA 08/10/17 6:17 AM)
- What Kennedy Knew during Cuban Missile Crisis (Timothy Brown, USA 08/10/17 4:37 AM)
- Psychology of the North Korea Standoff; from Gary Moore (John Eipper, USA 08/09/17 4:50 PM)