Mass Murder by America in the Philippines

Politics International Politics
61

[quote=“fred smith”]European:

Get your crackpot sites right. It was not the Bush family that supported Nazi Germany but the Kennedys (or perhaps you are thinking of the Fords?)[/quote]

“George W. Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, was the Managing Director of the investment bank Brown Brothers, Harriman from the 1920s through the 1940s. It was Brown Brothers, in conjunction with Averell Harriman, the Rockefeller family, Standard Oil, the DuPonts, the Morgans and the Fords who served as the principal funding arm in helping to finance Adolph Hitler’s rise to power starting in 1923. This included direct funding for the SS and SA channeled through a variety of German firms. Prescott Bush, through associations with the Hamburg-Amerika Steamship line, Nazi banker Fritz Thyssen (pronounced Tee-sen), Standard Oil of Germany, The German Steel Trust (founded by Dillon Read founder, Clarence Dillon), and I.G. Farben, used the Union Bank Corporation to funnel vast quantities of money to the Nazis and to manage their American interests. The profits from those investments came back to Bush allies on Wall Street. Thyssen is universally regarded as having been Hitler’s private banker and ultimate owner of the Union Bank Corporation.”

disinfo.com/archive/pages/ar … d1706/pg1/

geocities.com/CapitolHill/Pa … sting.html

62

Kenny:

Thanks for the detailed information.

I guess what I am concerned about is that if we do not know exactly how many of the 200,000 civilian deaths were from what cause, etc. then they automatically get laid at the Americans’ door. No? And I think that is not necessarily fair.

Yes, the US may have been wrong about this. I still do not know enough about it, but we have so many apologists in the next thread for Muslims and how they cannot help it so I will assume that any Americans here would like to use the same logic and say the world was dominated by theories of imperialism, white man’s burden and manifest destiny so the Americans could not help themselves and it is very ethnocentric and racist as well a barbaric and cruel not to respect other cultures? Just kidding but you get my point surely.

Also, just curious. How did this discussion start and why is it so important? Is it genuine historical interest or is this just yet another beat up the evil imperialist Americans who have not learned their lesson yet?

fred

63

Soddom was pissed off because we were discussing the WWII POW camps here in Taiwan. Y’know how it is, no matter what may have happened, the Americans suck. :unamused:

forumosa.com/3/viewtopic.php?t=6191

64

Gerbil:

Cannot access the sites. They are expired. By the way, where did you dig that little information out of? haha kaboom!

Anyway, I am very skeptical for several reasons. An investment firm might loan money to the companies in question. Yes, possible, though like I said I cannot access the sites.

Second, it is possible that these companies gave money to Hitler like many companies give money to US presidents to win support and favor during election campaigns. Did they give money as well to other parties, though naturally I am not expecting them to support the very strong communist party for ideological reasons?

Third, the main reason Hitler was elected was because a very large percentage of the German people supported him. I seriously doubt that this too can be blamed on the Americans. Gosh those Americans are amazing.

Finally, if that is the case then cannot we say since Lefties would argue that DC is all about money politics that the British, Dutch, French and German investors put pressure on the American government to lend money to Hitler and therefore Americans are not responsible?

And since the Saudis today have such financial and lobbying clout in DC, then the whole war on Iraq could have been prevented by them. Americans are the only ones in the world that lobby governments effectively therefore they must take responsiblity for every negative action but positive actions ala the Marshall plan are not because the good intentions on the part of Americans were only cynical moves to sell more goods or would have occurred because of the hard working populations but all money going into DC never has an effect on US foreign policy? Seems like a balanced argument to me.

Just got the site. I notice that the Bush’s had a lot of business interests in what was then one of the leading industrial powers in the world. Strange. Must have been supporting dictators. Oh, they invested in 1923? That was the Weimar Republic. Oh and when Hitler came to power they did not abandon their investments? Strange too. Cut and run would have been wiser particularly since the whole world was in depression and I am sure they would have been able to recoup their investments and replay their investors. Oh and all this came to an end in 1942 (say a couple of weeks after the war officially began). So where’s the beef?

65

gerbil screamed:

[color=red]
ARMAGEDDON!
[/color]

66

[quote=“Kenny McCormick”]There were many diverse forces in the Phillipines

Andr

67

Gerbil should feel right at home talking to European.

68

So to date, no one has an authoritative figure on who killed who. I think that it makes a very big difference if as Coldfront has pointed out the Moro (same Muslims that are fighting now no?) were the primary victims of disease, famine, etc.

What about the other areas? How many were killed because of aguinaldo’s greed, power hungriness or mismanagement on the part of the new philippine government and how much can directly be attributed to the Americans?

This would go a long way to balancing this discussion since I think that the underlying message here is that there was a conflict, the Americans for whatever reason were involved and ergo all deaths must be attributed to them since they were there.

Nope doesn’t work with me anymore than announcing deaths in Iraq was indicative of American barbarity, especially since Saddam was putting people directly in danger. So… sorry but not convinced. Given that I trust the Americans to do the right thing most of the time, I will side with them on this until I see something that shows wanton, wholesale, intentional barbarity. Should the US have been involved in the Philippines in the first place? No. Were there difficult extenuating circumstances? Probably as Blueface has mentioned regarding the Japanese moving in anyway. Third, would the Philippines have been better or worse off without the American presence. We will never know, though I suspect worse off given that the Americans have usually been an enlightening influence.

69

Enough about those silly, amateur Americans…let’s talk about some real genocide, European style!

Historians will investigate charges of Congo genocide

Andrew Osborn in Brussels
Thursday July 18, 2002
Guardian Weekly

More than a century after King Leopold II of Belgium claimed Congo as his personal colony, an unprecedented investigation into his country’s murky colonial past and long-ignored allegations of genocide is to be carried out.
Doubtless to the fury of Belgium’s dwindling band of “old colonials”, the state-funded Royal Museum for Central Africa - formerly known as the Museum of the Belgian Congo - has commissioned some of the country’s most eminent historians to give the public the one thing they have been deprived of for so long: the truth.

Shocking claims - often well documented - that 10 million Congolese were either murdered or worked to death by Leopold’s private army, that women were systematically raped, that people’s hands were cut off and that the local populace endured kidnapping, looting and village burnings, have never been the subject of serious debate in Belgium, let alone brought an apology.

guardian.co.uk/congo/story/0 … 32,00.html

70

[quote=“Cold Front”]

OK. I would like to know… what is the US’ presence in the Middle East other than oil. What was the change in geopolitics from earlier in the century when the US didn’t give a shit about the desert? what makes the Arabian peninsula so goddam important to the US? If there wasn’t oil, what other US interests are there? Dates? Precious Assyrian art? Holy Mecca? Camels? to pretend that the US isn’t there only for oil (other minor interests are just bonuses) in a but for manner is not just dishonest, but totally in denial.

You’re missing the point. We’re talking about the native inhabitants of those islands fighting for independence against any aggressor Spanish or American. I’m not targeting the Americans per se.
The Moros aren’t separate. They do live in the Philippines right? That’s like saying the Sarawak people aren’t Indonesians or something. The Moros, the Luzon tribes and other tribes IN THE PHILIPPINES all fought for their own independence. They are only separate from the “Insurrection” because the uprisings took place on different islands.

and BLueface, good point. The crazy Belgian was one of the cruelest of the African conquerors… even other Europeans were appalled by his actions. Hitler could probably take a page or two from him. THe guy must have had syphilis or something. [fricking europeans spreading their fricking diseases.]

But he didn’t go and conquer Congo so much as the other European nations “gave” it to him as a token gesture of Royalty since they figured Congo was useless anyways. [Ok, his army still had to fight the people and the place.]

71

Kenny… you have changed the issue. Cold Front stated that oil does not explain completely the US presence in IRAQ. You are now asking about the US presence in the MIDDLE EAST. Different issues.

72

Yes, the U.S. wouldn’t give a shit about the Middle East if there was no oil, but you’re distorting my original point, which was why the U.S. military intervened in Iraq. The U.S. military largely stayed away from the Middle East for years until the first Persian Gulf War in 1990. There might be U.S. military advisors, arms sales and some navy boats moving in and out of the Gulf, but with the exception of Iran under the Shah, there was no significant U.S. military presence in the region. That is true even though the U.S. had major interests in the Gulf as early as just after WW2.

The Moros should be considered separately because unless you are trying to make the unlikely case that Aguinaldo planned to give them their independence, that struggle would have happened anyway regardless of what the Americans did. It has nothing to do with the U.S. so much as it does with the nature of the Philippines. The Moros are always rebelling against whoever is in control of the islands. Not just foreigners like the Spanish or Americans as you say here, but even other Filipinos.

73

Thanks Tigerman. I’m glad somebody else is paying attention to this.

74

Yes, the U.S. wouldn’t give a shit about the Middle East if there was no oil, but you’re distorting my original point, which was why the U.S. military intervened in Iraq. The U.S. military largely stayed away from the Middle East for years until the first Persian Gulf War in 1990. There might be U.S. military advisors, arms sales and some navy boats moving in and out of the Gulf, but with the exception of Iran under the Shah, there was no significant U.S. military presence in the region. That is true even though the U.S. had major interests in the Gulf as early as just after WW2.

The Moros should be considered separately because unless you are trying to make the unlikely case that Aguinaldo planned to give them their independence, that struggle would have happened anyway regardless of what the Americans did. It has nothing to do with the U.S. so much as it does with the nature of the Philippines. The Moros are always rebelling against whoever is in control of the islands. Not just foreigners like the Spanish or Americans as you say here, but even other Filipinos.[/quote]

yah, i did change it a little. if we talk strictly about Iraq and this invasion, then we go back to the whole WMD or not, etc argument which we all have posted on… and on and on. if we talk about iraq in the past and generally, then it’s still just oil.

but i simply extrapolated a little. what interests does US have in iraq (overall and not just this 2003 invasion since you said Iraq in general) that isn’t oil and that isn’t different from the rest of the middle east.

you will probably say oh, the extremists Muslims… but one might say that is just a consequence of the oil factor. i mean if the US weren’t so cosy with the saudis and kuwaitis, etc with troops in the holy land, what would the friggin mad suicide squads be mad about…

oh yeah israel… ok oil and israel. that’s 2 independent interests.

75

You’re right, they are not Indonesians, they are Malaysians :slight_smile: The Kalimantan peoples of Borneo are Indonesians or something.

And while we are at it, the people of Sabah are actually Filipinos! (manilatimes.net/national/200 … 1opi7.html) Boy, looks like we got a regular Middle East-type situation brewing down there :wink:

Oops, I digress (I think. It’s hard to tell these days)

76

You’re right, they are not Indonesians, they are Malaysians :slight_smile: The Kalimantan peoples of Borneo are Indonesians or something.

And while we are at it, the people of Sabah are actually Filipinos! (manilatimes.net/national/200 … 1opi7.html) Boy, looks like we got a regular Middle East-type situation brewing down there :wink:

Oops, I digress (I think. It’s hard to tell these days)[/quote]

Oops. I might have been thinking about the Sulawesi… :wink:

You’re right Sarawak - north part of Borneo (Malaysia), Kalimantan, the rest of Borneo (indonesia). Celebes is Indonesia right?
Damn, it’s as confusing as the Balkans. I easily lose track of which place has Croats, Serbs or whatever.

77

[quote=“Kenny McCormick”]yah, I did change it a little. if we talk strictly about Iraq and this invasion, then we go back to the whole WMD or not, etc argument which we all have posted on… and on and on. if we talk about Iraq in the past and generally, then it’s still just oil.

but i simply extrapolated a little. what interests does US have in Iraq (overall and not just this 2003 invasion since you said Iraq in general) that isn’t oil and that isn’t different from the rest of the middle east.[/quote]

I’m not sure why I have to prove these interests in Iraq are different from the rest of the Middle East. They are all integral to the U.S.'s engagement with the entire Middle East, but they are all relatively recent interests in the region as opposed to oil, which is an old interest.

In the short term, terrorism and WMD. In the longer term, stability and democracy in the Middle East.

I don’t want to get into a long debate about what the U.S. hasn’t found so far in Iraq or about its chances for establishing stability and democracy in the region. In any case, the important point is that in many people’s minds – scholars, policy analysts, the general public – these interests were all worthy reasons for invading for Iraq and they were all different from oil.

78

This has been answered before by someone with open eyes.
Yeah lie like a politician smith - feed the misinformation like a good revisionist and use the crackpot site card (when crackpots follow bush and don’t see they are pawns in the game).Then you brush it aside. The bush family are a family of amoral scum. They have no respect for any american, they only want to make their pockets swell…

Bush Property Seized–Trading with the Enemy

tarpley.net/bush2.htm

79

Northern part of Borneo consists of Sarawak and Sabah which both belong to Malaysia, and inbetween the Brunei (as an independent country). The rest belongs to Indonesia. Girls from Sabah are extremely pretty btw. though I couldn’t say they look like Filipina.

80

[quote=“Cold Front”][quote=“Kenny McCormick”]yah, I did change it a little. if we talk strictly about Iraq and this invasion, then we go back to the whole WMD or not, etc argument which we all have posted on… and on and on. if we talk about Iraq in the past and generally, then it’s still just oil.

but i simply extrapolated a little. what interests does US have in Iraq (overall and not just this 2003 invasion since you said Iraq in general) that isn’t oil and that isn’t different from the rest of the middle east.[/quote]

I’m not sure why I have to prove these interests in Iraq are different from the rest of the Middle East. They are all integral to the U.S.'s engagement with the entire Middle East, but they are all relatively recent interests in the region as opposed to oil, which is an old interest.

In the short term, terrorism and WMD. In the longer term, stability and democracy in the Middle East.

I don’t want to get into a long debate about what the U.S. hasn’t found so far in Iraq or about its chances for establishing stability and democracy in the region. In any case, the important point is that in many people’s minds – scholars, policy analysts, the general public – these interests were all worthy reasons for invading for Iraq and they were all different from oil.[/quote]

yes, I think we can argue this without going to the WMD…

I find that your last point begs the question…
it’s not what other people think what might be worthy reasons (and I argue that these are just incidental and used as the hey-look-at-this-while-I-do-that.)
i think the point was what interests does the US have… because of 911, ok terrorism for short term…
you say stability in the middle east… I argue that stability allows the US to achieve their real, ultimate goal: OIL, its assured availability and price.

I argue that oil is the but-for cause of all the other reasons you can name. I ask, what the hell would the US care if the entire Middle East goes to hell and everyone starts killing everyone else there if a) there isn’t a need for oil or there isn’t oil there or b) unless the chaos threatens to affect US interests outside said middle east. Historically, US business interests have pushed for US militarism e.g. Hawaii, Cuba, etc. (don’t interpret this as the sole and only cause and give me the exceptions… this is not a hard and fast rule… just a strong pattern)

PS if we continue this, perhaps a different thread would be the proper venue.