"America has never fought a war against a democracy"

[EFerrari]

"America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens." --- President Barack Obama, December 10, 2009

I set out to listen to the president's speech today after only catching bits of it here at work. And to read the text, too, after all, as the Rude Pundit said, this is Obama talking to History. The occasion requires careful attention.

Clearly, Americans listen to Obama differently than the rest of the world listens. But for the people of Latin America, this claim of his is a stomach punch. The window of hope and goodwill and support Barack Obama inspired among progressive Latin American leaders and even among the peoples of Latin America during his campaign just slammed shut.

(I have to wonder, considering that Latinos are the fastest growing demographic in the United States, what Obama is thinking just at the political level. Forget all that talk about listening and partnership. What about all these new young Latino voters?)

The United States has waged war against democracy in Latin America by other means relentlessly from the 1954 overthrow in Guatemala to the latest crime against the Honduran people -- a president's kidnapping fueled at our base, the coupster's mouthpiece a Clinton veteran, Negroponte advising both the coup and the Secretary of State. Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Venezuela, Honduras, Chile, and Haiti -- yes, I know that's a different region but we are connected with our brothers and sisters in Haiti by the motive, means and opportunity of the aggressors.

Our "closest friend" in Latin America is Uribe's murderous regime in Colombia -- one that kills civilians with impunity and dresses the bodies in FARC uniforms to cover their murders, that builds crematoria in the jungle to dispose of the evidence, that at last count has killed over 150 school teachers just this year and that leads the world in the murder of union organizers.

I am stunned that an American president could make such a claim even as Mel Zelaya is being denied safe passage out of Honduras. And in particular, I am stunned that this president could make such a claim given his experience in "third world" nations and what I hope is his knowledge of the long history of the United States aiding and abetting dictators and turning a blind eye to the slaughter of people demanding democracy, from East Timor to Tegucigalpa.

And while Barack Obama is certainly not responsible for the war on Latin American democracy that the United States has waged for decades, I hold him responsible for giving a truthful accounting of that history and I hold him accountable for what is today happening under his governance.

[ShortnFiery]

1. Yes, those trained at the "School of Americas" during the 80s were not up to anything GOOD.

[FarCenter]

2. Tom Lehrer is alleged to have given up writing satirical songs after Kissinger won the Peace Prize

Supposedly he said that he couldn't think of anything funnier than that.

[midnight]

45. Nothing tops that response.... I wondered why I had not heard anything

from him... My father loved National Brotherhood Week.

[dflprincess]

65. I always liked "Send the Marines" n/t

[ProudDad]

78. Actually, the quote is...

"After Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize, I knew Satire was dead." T. Lehrer...

[DissedByBush]

108. That's not why

But he still had the sentiment against Kissinger.

[Unca Jim]

133. We'll try to stay serene and calm, when Alabama gets the bomb!

According to his autobiography he quit mostly because he disliked touring and repeating the same songs.

I grew up listening to his music on The Electric Company and discovered him again in college. I always liked his math and science songs as much as the political ones. "The Elements" still makes me laugh.

I'd recommend you buy or torrent Rhino's box set of Lehrer, "The Remains of Tom Lehrer", which includes his Electric Company songs, "That Was the Year That Was", and some newer (late 90's) songs.

He's still alive and he claims he voted for Obama.

[freddie mertz]

3. Chile, anyone? nt.

[KG]

14. Iran - 1952

[hileeopnyn8d]

26. And he stood in Cairo

and acknowledged our part in stealing democracy from Iran. But it wasn't a war by definition or at least not in the context of this speech.

[EFerrari]

69. For a long time, Viet Nam wasn't called a war, either. It was a police action.

[truth2power]

54. That was my first thought. Mossadegh. I don't understand...

What in holy hell is going on? Obama is not stupid. How can he keep making these statements that are demonstrably contrary to the facts? "American has never fought a war against a democracy." "We were attacked from Afghanistan." And on and on.

You know, as I'm typing this I'm thinking...the takedown of Mossadegh wasn't, technically, a war. Is Obama really parsing his statements to that extent? If so, it's really low IMO. I hate feeling manipulated.

[DutchLiberal]

138. Because he's a politician. He doesn't work for the people. He works for the MIC...

Like all presidents before him. It doesn't matter if he's intelligent or not... Besides, the intelligent ones often are the most dangerous...

[change_notfinetuning]

74. And Allende was the ONLY democratically elected leader in South America

at the time, if memory serves me correctly. But it wasn't a "war". We only helped Chileans overthrow him. Some distinction.

[heliarc]

190. The US helped Assassins murder him and 5000 of the people...

who voted him into office.

You call the Assassins Chileans... As a Chilean American living in exile, the irony is a little hard to bear.

There is some distinction between Chileans and other Chileans, Between Democrats and Fascists.

[change_notfinetuning]

205. In the interest of clarity, I guess I should have said "anti-democracy Chileans"

instead of just "Chileans", but I thought my point was clear - that by helping to overthrow a democratically elected leader, we were not on the side of the Chilean people. Rather, we were on the side of the right wing/military dictatorship, a minority of Chileans, but still Chileans as far as I knew.

As for my use of the word "distinction", I was sarcastically saying there was no distinction in my mind between sending in thousands of troops and calling it war and sending in the CIA and overthrowing a democracy. I was so outraged by our actions in Chile at the time, that it was the first thing that popped into my mind when Obama made that ludicrous statement, demonstrating either his deficient historic knowledge, or the fact that he is a bald-faced liar.

As to what you said, and what I was trying to say, I don't think there is any distinction. Peace.

[enigmatic]

85. yep

First one I thought of, too.

[burning rain]

4. Smart analysis, EFerrari!

Very well done. K & r.

[EFerrari]

11. No pleasure in it, at all.

[chandler2]

5. Definition of "democracy" might explain how Pres. O

believes he has plausible deniability in making that particular claim.

[KamaAina]

7. Also depends on what the meaning of the word "war" is

"Police actions", "armed interventions", etc., etc. ad nauseam apparently don't count. :eyes:

[SteppingRazor]

22. I think the definition of war is the more important distinction.

Our belligerent history in Latin America is one of proxy wars and CIA-backed coups, neither of which comes close to fitting the definition of a "war" in the traditional sense.

[treestar]

28. Yes, I wouldn't have called it "war" bad as it was

I don't think many would interpret it in this way. Not even most Latin Americans or U.S. citizens with Latino backgrounds.

[mike_c]

52. well, that certainly makes all those dead and maimed feel better....

It wasn't really war. And you know, if you try hard enough, you can probably even parse the tortured and disappeared into a Club Med sort of vacation something, with the CIA as social directors! Party on, Garth!

[stevenleser]

184. So, if it is war, it would make them feel better than if it wasnt?

Which reason for being killed feels best then? War, crime, accident...

[EFerrari]

30. The hundreds of thousands of dead bodies would probably disagree.

The common name for what Reagan did in Central America is "the dirty wars".

ETA: The War on Democracy, Pilger
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3739500579629840148#

[SteppingRazor]

120. Despite this and subsequent replies, my post is not in any way defending American foreign policy...

in regard to our treatment of Latin America practically throughout the history of our country. Indeed, Reagan's "dirty war" that you pointed out was only one chapter in a history that stretches back almost to the founding, but especially marks the entire 20th century -- Smedley Butler, the author of the seminal War Is a Racket, kicked off the century with American interventions throughout the region, and it really never let up for more than a couple years at a time.

The only point of my post is that, by the "traditional" definition of "war," it's easy for Obama to keep his and America's hands clean with the above statement.

[EFerrari]

148. Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. n/t

[asdjrocky]

46. Oh come on!

Hunter would puke if he heard you say that.

[SteppingRazor]

121. See post #120.

I'm not defending American interventionism in Latin America by any stretch of the imagination.

[liberation]

126. Dude... I don't think you got the gist of what the previous poster was talking about....

... how did you even infer support for those policies from his words?

[SteppingRazor]

149. Thank you. n/t

[freddie mertz]

100. But it is still war, especially for those who are killed and otherwise

Oppressed and misused by our CIA operatives and their proxies.

[man4allcats]

115. A half truth is still a lie.

Call it what you want. The dead are no less dead by virtue of semantics.

[GodlessBiker]

34. Maybe it is the word "has" he is finessing. As in really has or just figuratively has.

Either way, it is a load of crap.

[Mass]

119. Yes, he was clearly playing with the meaning of the word "war".

[TygrBright]

155. Does the definition of "is" have any relevance here, too? n/t

[stevenleser]

177. Best I can find on that is here...

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/W/War.aspx

Now I have to figure out what that means.

Note that we should be using whatever the accepted international standard definition of war is to judge the statements issued.

[Mass]

118. Chile WAS a democracy!

[arcadian]

6. The U.S. President needs a history lesson.

[Better Believe It]

113. Do you really think President Obama isn't aware of that history? He's trying to rewrite it ....

to fit in with pro-war propaganda.

[leftstreet]

8. K&R

I, too, have to wonder about that:

(I have to wonder, considering that Latinos are the fastest growing demographic in the United States, what Obama is thinking just at the political level. Forget all that talk about listening and partnership. What about all these new young Latino voters?)

:shrug:

[Echo In Light]

9. Quack

[ret5hd]

10. k&r

[Octafish]

12. Wish I could rec this a million times.

I love my country, right or wrong. When she's wrong, I work to put her right. That's hard to do when CIA -- or whoever runs the spookworld that is America's secret government -- calls the shots.

President Obama needs to brush up on his history. Same goes especially for his speechwriters.

Thank you very much, EFerrari. Outstanding. KR&B.

[Solly Mack]

13. K&R

[netania99]

15. Excellent piece!

Mil gracias!

[EFerrari]

58. Welcome to DU, netania

El gusto es mio.

[KG]

16. +infinity. it was a steaming pile of revisionism to justify americas current hegemonic actions

of which, he is now in charge.

[glitch]

17. He's counting on American ignorance. One good thing about this speech

it removed any doubt from my mind about his motivations.

[EFerrari]

19. It requires some kind of contortionism to put a benign construction

on such a claim. I'm not as limber as I used to be, I guess.

[glitch]

37. I now know that where he is coming from is not a place of forward, holistic thinking

The benefit of the doubt I gave him was getting slimmer and slimmer anyway, it is now completely gone.

I would have preferred a wiser leader for the extremely tough times facing us, but since we have the one we have I do take some small comfort in hearing who he is in his own words from his own mouth. And I do consider this Nobel acceptance speech far more blatantly pro-empire than any he has made previously.

No more illusion of a transition to be eased for us by the Feds, those resources will continue to be squandered on WAR. We will have to create systems all on our own, locally, with very little help and more likely continued hindrance.

But no more throwing good energy after bad either.

[jgraz]

18. Just once, I'd like a president who trusts the American people enough to tell the truth.

:argh:

[Solomon]

20. Yeah. Let's get Palin.

She will be much better.

[EFerrari]

23. So your defense of Obama's revisionism is that he's better than Palin?

That's pretty sad.

[jgraz]

24. This post makes even less sense if you treat it as sarcasm

Are you trying to say that Sarah Palin would tell the truth? That somehow the left-leaning critics of Obama would prefer Palin? That you seriously like Palin and want her elected?? :shrug:

Or is this just the general poo-flinging that seems to follow any criticism of Dear Leader these days?

[laughingliberal]

35. Another effing false dichotomy

"If you don't 100%, blindly, support President Obama and every word out of his mouth and action he takes, you must have wanted McCain/Palin."

I call foul! These kind of arguments would not fly in a 7th grade debate class but they are becoming SOP on DU.

[Forkboy]

39. Fucking stupid.

How low are you going to set the bar?

[JoeyT]

41. How much lower could the bar be set?

Apparently they're willing to set the bar as low as they have to, even if it requires heavy equipment to get it down there.

We may as well carry that silly argument to its logical conclusion: "At least he isn't as bad as Hitler! Do you want Hitler for President?!"

[Raster]

82. Wisdom, eh? Must have stepped out for a smoke while you wrote this post.

[chimpymustgo]

101. So we should cheer Obama's LIES? Put down the pom poms and slowly back away...

[Johonny]

21. USA fought a war with the USA.

Make what you will of that.

[jgraz]

25. Technically, neither side was a democracy

Since women and blacks couldn't vote.

[Johonny]

31. well we're a Republic

but I think such semantics go beyond the spirit of the original statement. :D

[liberation]

129. Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive terms

Republic pertains to whether or not the head of state/government is/are not a permanent position (election vs. the selection/entitlement in monarchies for example).
Democracy pertains to whether or not there is a representative electoral process where citizens are allowed to vote.

Thus our political system is defined as a Democratic Republic (France is another example), technically you could have non-democratic republics but I don't know of any examples. In the same approach, there are Democratic Monarchies (Spain, Denmark, Holland, the UK, etc.) where the head of state is a king/queen but the rest of the offices in government from the prime minister on down are democratically elected.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

198. Yes, you can have a non-democratic republic

since the strictest definition is that a republic is just a country without a monarch.

[anonymous171]

27. Didn't Chavez give Obama a book on this very subject? nt

[truth2power]

55. "Open Veins of Latin America". I started reading it..

Had to return it to the library because it was on interlibrary loan. Excellent as far as I got in the text.

[Goldstein1984]

68. Sorry, I posted the same before seeing your post...

Great reading. Worth buying and owning. I purchased another copy and sent it to my son, who is in Military Intelligence. Should be required reading.

[anonymous171]

171. Thanks! It is now on my reading list.

:hi:

[Goldstein1984]

67. "Open Veins of Latin America"

"Las venas abiertas de America Latina" by Eduardo Galeano.

Required reading for anyone wanting to understand our brothers and sisters en el sur.

Also recommended: "The Epic of Latin America" by John A. Crow.

[SHRED]

102. Here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTlBzdhpLYs

[slipslidingaway]

29. knr - thank you! n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. He just didn't have time for the numerous "except fors".

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. I suppose technically speaking - if one defines fighting a war as the U.S. sending in large numbers

of its own American direct combat ground troops - directly engaging in large scale direct combat and directly providing its own air power for multiple and aggressive bombing and attacking missions with its own pilots, planes and missiles - one could plausibly make that case.

But, yes that would be sophistry, to say the least. Still the vast majority of Americans would not know that.

[LooseWilly]

93. I guess that's why the incursions into Pakistan aren't counted either.

They're remote piloted drones... so it's not a war... it's just some "casual bombing"... (or maybe the election of Zardari wasn't democratic enough for Pakistan to count?... or maybe war within a democratic country, secretly waged, with secret complicity of the Democratically Elected Government, is ok...)

[FrenchieCat]

36. America acting overtly and the United States Government acting covertly

are really two different animals.

So what pres. Obama said is true, "America has never fought a war against a democracy",
although its government has, but without America's approval.

[Forkboy]

40. You're making me dizzy.

[freddie mertz]

127. "Depends what the meaning of is is."

Covert warfare is still war.

Obama got it wrong.

Can your circuits accept that computation?

[CRH]

164. Two different animals? ...

Amazing sometimes the arrogance of US citizens with patriotic blinders forbidding national introspection.

Lets see, ... a foreign nation enters the United States, promotes then provokes a coup, possibly by bloody methods, then installs a new government they prefer, ... and this is not an act of war because it was handled by a national secret service shielding the elected political body with bogus plausible denial?

[amborin]

38. it's a shocking & totally false claim! scary! K & R

[Fumesucker]

42. Error: You've already recommended that thread n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

43. In 1898, Spain was a constitutional monarchy. -nt

[amborin]

44. just a few examples of how untrue that claim is:

"Perhaps the most far-reaching United States intervention in Central America was the C.I.A.'s 1954 coup against President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman in 1954. That coup ended Guatemala's 10-year experiment with democracy, which the Eisenhower administration feared would give Marxism a beachhead in the Western Hemisphere. Though a short-term success from the American point of view, it set off a decades-long paroxysm of war and terror that took hundreds of thousands of lives and shattered an entire nation.

Guatemala's war has been over for several years. But the country is far from healed. Countless families are still grappling with their losses. Half a century during which calls for land redistribution and civil rights were met with fierce repression have left some of the world's most gaping social inequalities. Violent crime is surging, partly because so many young people learned violence from the example of their brutal leaders.

In Nicaragua, society was also profoundly shaped by the 40 years the United States maintained the Somoza family in power. That policy led to the 1979 Sandinista revolution and a subsequent counterrevolution sponsored by the United States. The Sandinista leader, Daniel Ortega, whose admiration for Fidel Castro made him anathema in Washington, often delivered a monologue about how American intervention had disfigured his country. He would end: ''This leaves scars.''

<http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/28/weekinreview/the-world-us-and-central-america-too-close-for-comfort.html?scp=13&sq=us intervention in guatemala&st=cse&pagewanted=2>

[seeinfweggos]

47. the us has backed right-wing anti-democratic forces in latin american civil wars

so in a broader context you are right, but in the sense that people traditionally think of war i'm not sure it is the same. i don't think you could say france and england were at war with the US while propping up the confederacy.

[asdjrocky]

48. Very good work here.

I hate it. It hurts to the bone, but you did good.

[Orsino]

49. But how often has America fought a war AS a democracy? n/t

[ProudDad]

80. Never

USAmerica is not and never has been a democracy.

That's the biggest lie of all...

[harun]

130. 100% correct.

[CRH]

166. spot on n/t

[chill_wind]

50. K & R. That was one troubling speech on a lot of levels.

eom

[LostInAnomie]

51. That claim is a linguist's dream.

The meaning of almost every word in it can be parsed and disputed.

What does he mean by "America"? Is it the country as a whole? Is it just the government? Does a government agency count as "America"? If a governemnt agency counts, do their actions have to be authorized to count as "American"?

What does he mean by "never"? Does he mean it as "has not ever happened"? Does he mean it as "not to my knowledge"? Does he mena it as "not officially"?

What does he mean by "fought"? Does he mean actually physical combat? Does he mean "waged aggressive actions"?

What does he mean by "war"? Does he mean a war officially declared by Congress? Does he mean when the president orders the military into a country? Does he mean any military action? What about "military policing"? What about non-military actions? What about covert operations?

What does he mean by "Democracy"? Does he mean only Jeffersonian domocracies? Does he mean countries with elected leaders? Does he mean a republic? Do countries with obviously flawed elections count? What about countries with rigged election systems? What about countries with low voter turnout? What about countries where certain groups are barred from voting? What about countries were certain people are barred from running for office?

It's amazing how little a declarative statment can mean when you actually take a look at what is being said.

[EFerrari]

53. Yes, that's very true. n/t

[swilton]

56. America may not fight with other democracies -

it certainly likes to prey upon non-democracies and states that are militarily and financially weaker...

Grenada, Vietnam, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq

How are wars defined anyway - I have heard it said that war is terrorism with a bigger budget.

[EFerrari]

57. I have to remember that definition. It's an apt one.

[swilton]

62. Oh and providing that those non-democracies

have resources or products that our corporations need to maintain the 'American way of life'

[G_j]

59. that is so wrong

That is an absolutely false statement. Did he skip history class?

[BeHereNow]

61. Agreed, a shocking display of either dishonesty or ignorance.

Embarrassing either way.

BHN

[G_j]

64. it can't be ignorance

it just can't. I suppose he's parsing words. It really bothers me when presidents play word games around something as deadly as war. Frankly, I never heard of a war-time president who didn't lie about war. I know the ones in my lifetime have.
It's always shameful.

[swilton]

150. Perhaps he thinks that the American public is ignorant -

It's very arrogant and hubristic approach

[liberation]

156. Or maybe he is using the American definition of democracy as "countries which agree with us"

I have heard in numerous occasions, both in the media and even by people in this forum, the democratically elected of a country to be referred or defined as a de facto dictator... based mostly on whether or not that specific country is aligned or not with the United States. In fact, I am of the opinion that a significant portion of this country believe that a country not being aligned with us and it being a democracy are mutually exclusive.

[EFerrari]

66. Today is International Human Rights Day.

A good day to remember the dead and to respect the living. And to say happy birthday to me. lol

:hi:

[G_j]

71. =

Happy Birthday!
:party: :hi:

[varelse]

60. He's too intelligent and well educated for this to be an honest mistake :(

[BeHereNow]

63. And that is the sad part. n/t

bhn

[Goldstein1984]

70. Obama is a scholar...

He knows who starts wars.
He knows why they start them.
He knows who benefits from them.
He knows who dies in them.

I voted for him. I still think he's better than the alternative.

But he has no excuses.

[bertman]

72. President Obama. Lawyer. Lawyers live on technicalities.

If we could have seen one of those little thought bubbles over the President's head today in Oslo, when he made his comments about "never fought a war against a democracy" I'm absolutely sure that bubble would have read: "war in this context means DECLARED war. Yeah, I'm good."

Thank you for posting this EFerrari. When I heard the President say that I reared back in my chair. Could not believe he had the audacity -- no, the GALL -- to say that in front of the world.

Rec.

[EFerrari]

73. Did we ever declare war on Viet Nam?

Yes, your point is well taken.

[bertman]

117. No, but there was a "resolution", the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, that Congress passed to

allow us to take military action in Southeast Asia.

[change_notfinetuning]

75. He either flunked history or he's a liar. They say he was a good student, so ...

[aquart]

145. He's continuing a land war in Asia.

So he definitely flunked history.

[Quantess]

76. "When The Mountains Tremble" about the people's struggle in Guatemala

http://skylightpictures.com/site/film_detail/when_the_mountains_tremble/

I recently saw this EXCELLENT documentary, and it's a must-see for anyone who cares about politics in the slightest. Rigoberta Menchu tells her amazing and horrifying accounts, and the film images are incredible. It really opened my eyes.

(In case anyone has noticed that I have posted about some documentaries that I've seen lately, it's because I've seen several documentaries lately. I have an injury.)

[EFerrari]

77. So sorry to hear that, Quantess.

Are you all right?

Thank you for the recommendation. I haven't seen this one yet.

[Quantess]

79. When The Mountains Tremble should be required viewing for everyone, LOL

It's not for the faint of heart. You'll be glued to the screen. I borrowed it from my local library

"So sorry to hear that, Quantess."
My injury, you mean?

I have a knee injury but I have no insurance and not much money to afford non-emergency health care such as MRIs, so I'm hoping it will get better on its own, as long as I keep it elevated and rested, and take Advil, glucosamine, etc. For the past 2 months I can only walk on crutches. I haven't had a job since August, and that was just temp work, and how can I compete with job seekers who can walk normally? I had to move back in with my Mom, which is embarrassing at my age.

Anyway, go rent/borrow that film.

[EFerrari]

107. Yikes. I had to do that with a hand a few years ago.

The whole time it was healing, I had to cross fingers on the other hand that everything would heal in the right position.

I will find that movie. Thanks again. :hi:

[dixiegrrrrl]

112. Most excellent doc, I agree.

To note a prior review of the doc:

The intrusion of American military aid to prop up the raping of the people of Guatemala for the sake of some profit by corporate interests and landowners, is almost a study in the classic “Banana Republic” version of serfdom that continues to oppress many in the world.

[Truth2Tell]

81. Spectacular post. Dead on. And sad. K&R. nt

[Raster]

83. I would recommend multiple times if I could! Damned good analysis!

Thank you for posting!

And let's be frank: Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize because he wasn't bush*, not for anything specific he has done. The Nobel was actually more for the American people for coming to their senses this Presidential electoral cycle.

[Kitty Herder]

84. Haven't you heard?

If a nation won't do what we want, they're an evil dictatorship. :sarcasm:

[Mithreal]

86. K&R

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

87. Words must mean something

:kick:

...and recommended

[stevenleser]

88. I suppose that depends on your definition of war.

When I read the first sentence of your OP about what Obama said, I thought to myself, OK, that sounds right. Then I read your explanation and that of many commenters and thought, OK, I see that too.

"War" like "Terrorism" probably means different things to different people. I went to the UN website to see if they had a definition of "War". I'm sure they must have one, but I cannot find it. I went to the UN because it seems to me that the international community's definition of war should be the one used here, just like their definition of torture, war crimes, etc. Governments should not be able to exceed international law on torture, or any war crimes or crimes against humanity, but neither should any group be able to accuse other countries or people of those crimes if they do not fit the definition.

The UN needs to have a specific definition of "war" because an unjustified war is a war crime (i.e. Iraq).

If you send an intelligence team into a country to kill the opposition leader of a party, did you just engage in war? How about if you send a few people to advise the military of a country against insurgents? What if you cut off exports of a vital commodity to a particular country, is that war? What if that commodity is water and the country which was cut off has no other access to water?

I want to see the UN and international community's definition of war before I decide if what Obama said is deserving of criticism.

[EFerrari]

105. According to the same speech, true peace doesn't exist without freedom

from fear and want or without security. By his own definition, there has not been peace between the United States and Latin America.

[stevenleser]

167. Since there is no such thing as 100% freedom, I'm afraid that means everyone is always at war

I dont think that works either.

[EFerrari]

172. But the Faux "everything is everything" defense also doesn't work.

When you put programs in place to destabilize democratic governments at the Pentagon and at State, when you fund assassination attempts against democratically elected leaders, when you sabotage attempts to help a people gain participatory democracy, when you help oligarchies steal elections, that is war on democracy.

And as far as always being at war by that definition, that was Obama's baggy language.

[stevenleser]

179. Well, he's wrong on that.

I dont accept people other than the UN and international community deciding the meaning of words like war, torture or terrorism, otherwise, as you said, everything becomes everything.

[stevenleser]

89. Dupe

[gtar100]

90. Did he really say that? Christ, what a load of bullshit.

Nobody believes that nonsense but right-wing, American fascists.

So what does that make Obama?

[dbmk]

94. Come on

Just say it.
I have the perfect picture from Bergen-Belsen for your poster as well.

[Locut0s]

91. Sadly the answer is "because it's not a war unless we say so"....

Of course those were wars but the US only engages in wars when they "declare" it's a war. If not it never happened, or it was some small "CIA" operation you needn't worry yourself about. Doesn't matter what the consequences are or who is killed if it's not declared as a war it's "not a war".

Of course often when it is declared a war it isn't like the "war on terror" or the "war on drugs".

[Vidar]

92. No wars, just 15,000 police actions.

[Vattel]

95. no wars in the sense of armed conflicts between nations

but many acts of international aggression.

UN definitionn of aggression: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/GAres3314.html

[SkyIsGrey]

96. Corrected.

"America has never fought a war against what was considered a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens, in our best interests."

[malaise]

97. All I'll say is

Jamaica 1980.

[Duende azul]

98. k & r

[a la izquierda]

99. This is a joke, right?

Ugh, why do I read this in the morning?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

103. let's see... the UK we fought twice

I think they were a democracy then.

How about Indians? they were pretty democratic

Spain?

as already mentioned, many Central and South American countries....

[blindpig]

104. No surprise

The velvet glove is off.

[Demeter]

106. Tell It to Allende, Aristide, Zelaya, etc.

This is beyond scary. Obama is a fraud.

[Doctor_J]

109. Except in Chile, Nicaragua, and Grenada

off the top of my head. And that's just in the last 35 years. True, Nicaragua was more of a terrorist exercise, and Grenada was a one-sided slaughter. I guess we need to carefully parse...

Edit: 35 years, not 25

[EFerrari]

111. A couple of things. I heard another clip of the speech this morning

where Obama describes true peace. He didn't mention invading armies but security, freedom from fear and so on.

The other thing that comes to mind is, either the "fine men and women of the CIA" are in service to their country or they're not.

"CIA is on the front line of the defense of this nation. As we speak, CIA officers are spread out across the globe in some very dangerous places, putting their lives on the line, tackling the threats of our times from terrorism and nuclear proliferation to narcotics trafficking and espionage and every other global challenge and threat." -- Barack Obama, April 20, 2009

If you ask someone who lived through the war in El Salvador, they might tell you that there is no doubt that the CIA was there in service to their country, fighting to keep the right wing oligarchy in power via death squads, torture and other atrocities.

[dixiegrrrrl]

114. And now we find that Blackwater was right alongside of them.

So far, Blackwater's secret ops have been exposed in Iraq, but one has to suspect they have been used
in other countries, not to mention New Orleans.

[EFerrari]

116. Scahill has said they're in Latin America. I don't remember where

but he could have said Colombia.

[DissedByBush]

163. That was a tough situation all around down there

It seemed we had an either-or choice, support the dictatorship and allow it to murder those who threaten it, or allow communism to take over, which always results in the murder of those who threaten it, plus anyone else who doesn't fit in with the new ideology.

Remember, communism has more victims than everyone else in the 20th Century combined had with their wars.

Nobody was going to come out looking pretty.

[EFerrari]

165. Mel Zelaya was a moderate, not a socialist let alone a communist.

And, btw, the Cold War is over.

[DissedByBush]

176. Zelaya is a socialist

He was following Chavez. And communism still exists, and Cuba is still trying to export it.

And yes, we won the Cold War. I'll leave it to the historians to tell whether the nasty stuff we did during the Cold War, like supporting anti-communist dictators, was worth it.

[EFerrari]

180. Raising the minimum wage doesn't make you a socialist.

And as far as all that "he was following Chavez", I defer to my betters at Fox News whom you obviously follow assiduously.

[DissedByBush]

191. Much more than minimum wage

You are being blind if you haven't yet realized that Chavez has imperialist dreams. He wants to be president for life of Venezuela and have influence over all other countries in the area. Chavez has supported Zelaya, and Zelaya has sucked at the Chavez tit in return.

[EFerrari]

192. All of Latin America has supported Zelaya except the US lapdogs.

[DissedByBush]

202. And their narrow vision has what to do with his socialism? n/t

[EFerrari]

203. Their narrow vision?

LOL

Your claim was that Zelaya was Chavez's puppet. Zelaya had broad support not only in Latin America but in the EU and at the UN. If you know more than all of those entities, you should contact them immediately.

You're wrong and probably need to look up "socialism" into the bargain.

[DissedByBush]

204. It's working for Chavez

He has the support now.

He doesn't believe in freedom.

And the only think keeping his idiotic economic policy afloat is a glut of oil money.

[EFerrari]

206. I think the gay couples that can worship together at the Reformed Church

in Ven would disagree with you as would the government rep that marches in each Pride Parade. I think the women in the cabinet level Ministry for Women would disagree with you. I think the poor kids that don't have the doors to education slammed on them there as they do here would disagree with you.

Your aversion to Chavez is irrational. You begrudge him the support he has, you don't know what he believes and the Ven economy has done very well under his government. But, I guess everyone has to have a hobby.

[noiretextatique]

110. he should be held accountable for such blatant revisionism

a crazy street lady i know said obama would be the first black man to uphold the ugly american way. i never had illusions about him, so i am not surprised, but i am sickened nonetheless.

[HughMoran]

122. I understand your point

But your implication that the Honduran issue was an act of "war" by the United States made your post an exaggerated attention seeking post with no credibility. I see nothing in your post that warrants any positive attention.

[EFerrari]

123. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict

Political/plato.stanford.edu/symbols/septop.jpg

War
First published Fri Feb 4, 2000; substantive revision Thu Jul 28, 2005

War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities. Thus, fisticuffs between individual persons do not count as a war, nor does a gang fight, nor does a feud on the order of the Hatfields versus the McCoys. War is a phenomenon which occurs only between political communities, defined as those entities which either are states or intend to become states (in order to allow for civil war). Classical war is international war, a war between different states, like the two World Wars. But just as frequent is war within a state between rival groups or communities, like the American Civil War. Certain political pressure groups, like terrorist organizations, might also be considered “political communities,” in that they are associations of people with a political purpose and, indeed, many of them aspire to statehood or to influence the development of statehood in certain lands.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/

"Actual, intentional andwidespreadd" all apply to Latin America and theCaribbeann and have for decades.

If you think I am exaggerating, I'm afraid that you are mistaken.

Edit to fix subj line

[HughMoran]

124. I'm not living in dictionary definition world

I have a brain and can think for myself, thank you very much. I was supportive (with you) of the effort to restore the elected president of Honduras. Your implication that this was a United States act of war on Honduras is ludicrous - no matter how many dictionaries you throw at me.

[EFerrari]

131. What would you have expected? We should invade Honduras?

We already occupy Honduras.

When you put the facts together, it isn't ludicrous in the least. Democratic, constitutional order was violently broken by people we trained in direct consultation with agents of our government and Susan Rice shut down the discussion of this situation at the UN Security Council -- she had the gavel. We never stopped funding the coup just as we never stopped training the SOA candidates.

The people have been censored disappeared, raped, tortured and murdered. This is still happening today. The constitutional assembly that would have likely produced something like participatory democracy over a number of years is at this moment beyond the reach of the people.

This is certainly war on democracy.

[stevenleser]

168. The two of you shouldn't argue about this. We should find out the accepted definition

according to the UN and international community.

[stevenleser]

175. Best I can find is here...

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/W/War.aspx

now I have to figure out what it means. :-)

[EFerrari]

181. I put up another def at 123.

But, you know, this is parsing.

The United States has been steadily impeding democracy in Latin America and steadily propping up homocidal repressive governments for at very least a half century.

There really is no sidestepping that.

[stevenleser]

182. I think when you diverge from the official meaning of those words, you get in trouble

Then war protesters become terrorists, waterboarding suddenly isnt torture, etc.

[EFerrari]

186. Diverging in the way you rightfullly point out is called propagandizing.

But overlooking covert and no so covert operations implemented against democracy, the much favored tactics, is to fail to bring all your experience to the issue.

[EFerrari]

178. It's not my habit to resort to authority but that would be fine with me.

[harun]

125. He jumped the shark on that one. The reason being our gov't's definition

of Democracy has nothing to do with what we think about "Democracy" or what we were taught Democracy is in school.

If we go by what we were taught in school what a "Democracy" is then the United States isn't a Democracy. It is a Corporate Representative Republic.

When Obama uses the U.S. Foreign Policy definition of Democracy he means a neo-liberal economic model where the United States is the top of the pyramid.

So his statement actually is "The United States has never gone to war with a country practicing neo-liberal economics where the leadership is sub-serviant to the United States." And of course that is a big DUH!!!, of course we wouldn't go to war with that.

If the definition is closer to reality, then it is pure bullsh*t as the original op has explained.

[whatchamacallit]

128. Hollow, inspirational, revisionism

I'm really beginning to believe we've been had.

[pleah]

132. K&R

[McCamy Taylor]

134. ROFLMAO

[berni_mccoy]

146. Are you laughing at the OP or at Obama, or something entirely I don't see?

[McCamy Taylor]

135. Mexico, anyone?

[pundaint]

136. I am embarrassed for my president, once again - didn't think it would happen with Obama

Is America so far gone that a good man can be so quickly corrupted, or have we been conned?

I hope it's the latter, but either situation must be corrected.

What have your incumbents done for you?

[DutchLiberal]

137. Yeah, Barack, tell that to the peoples of Asia and Latin-America...

I barf everytime an American politician boasts about America's role in the world in "protecting" or "defending democracy", or when they say people all around the world look to America for freedom and hope... Jokers!

[DFW]

139. Negroponte is a CLINTON veteran????????

This guy is a pure Reagan/Bush tool. He may have held some kind of holdover post at some time during 1993-2000, but
Negroponte is strictly a Reagan/Bush tool--one of the slimiest in their Central American arsenal. By what stretch of
the imagination does a guy who did some of Reagan's dirtiest work ten years before Clinton even took office become
a Clinton veteran or mouthpiece? Negroponte used to give totally unbelievable justification for atrocities in El Salvador
in the 1980s while Bill Clinton was the kid governor of Arkansas. In no way whatsoever did he suddenly turn up as some
nefarious operative after Bill Clinton took office. Negroponte serves Republican business and political interests,
period.

[EFerrari]

141. No, but Lanny Davis is. Negroponte is only Clinton's "adviser".

[DFW]

193. Ugh. Lanny Davis. I've run into him enough. DINO lawyer who gives the legal profession a bad name.

Not my kind of Democrat. Negroponte is pure Reagan/Bush. He may have been kept around for knowing ropes in Central America,
but everyone knows where Negroponte's sentiments lie, and they are not with us by any stretch of the imagination. I'd say
it's erroneous to call him a Clinton anything.

[EFerrari]

194. Right. Davis is the Clinton old timer and Negroponte somehow

wound up "advising" both the junta and Hillary Clinton. He's an animal.

[DFW]

195. I've never met Negroponte

I don't do Central America anyway (only been to South America twice for work, and those were exceptions). But scum
as he is, I got the impression that he's easier to take in person than Lanny. Hell, if I can be friends with Richard
Viguerie, then you KNOW I have a high tolerance level, but Lanny just rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it's just me.

[EFerrari]

196. He gets attention from a lot of people, remarkable for such a little sleeze.

lol

[DFW]

197. Probably because he represented Gore in Bush v. Gore

People should remember just how well that turned out.

[EFerrari]

199. I didn't know that. Oh, God. nt

[DFW]

201. Oh yeah. Lanny probably made some snide remark that rubbed O'Connor the wrong way or something n/t

Hey, he may have changed the course of history with his grating personality!

[roody]

143. and Obama.

The recs on this give me hope for DU.

[totodeinhere]

140. Most in the US are too preoccupied with their own problems to care about democracy in Latin America.

As long as a lot of US soldiers aren't dying down there, most people will have several other issues such as health care reform and the economy higher up on their radar screen. So don't look for any change in these things that you are complaining about anytime soon. And it might get worse before it gets better. If history is any indication of what might happen, the political pendulum will start to swing back in the other direction, and the next time the GOP controls the White House again, they will make Barack Obama look like a saint by comparison.

I also don't think that this issue will translate into political problems for the Democrats with Latino voters. Where else can Latinos go at this point? And especially if Obama can help to push through some meaningful immigration reform next year, his political standing with most Latinos in this country will have been secured.

It may not be secured with you, since you obviously have an agenda. But how many other people do you think will share your passion on this issue?

[EFerrari]

142. Immigration from and democracy in Latin America are

inextricable. How many Latino voters do you believe are unaware of that? :)

[berni_mccoy]

144. Well done. Obama was clearly mistaken or there is play in the words "Democracy" or "War"

We never engaged in an all-out war, but certainly engaged in war-like activities.

Your point is more accurately on spot than Obama's is.

[EFerrari]

147. Thank you, berni. I appreciate that.

[Gregorian]

151. Thanks. Even if I now feel like an idiot again.

I never pay the attention I should to the details. I was posting last night about how I figured he had some great plan. It's disturbing to see more lies being propagated.

He's a young guy. I doubt he even has that much knowledge of history. Why would he even say what he said about that?

[EFerrari]

152. Imho, there's more than one thing going on here, Gregorian.

Maybe even a confluence of elements. There's US LatAm policy which precedes Obama by decades, party politics, his plateful of Bush leftovers, his speech writers who may be having an attack of sloppy.

But there is also some kind of tone deafness on his part toward Latin America and imho, that's a mistake.

[dem mba]

153. i'm probably splitting hairs

because I get what the Rude One is saying, but acts of espionage, intelligence and counter-intelligence don't seem like acts of "war" to me. Propping up dictators, economic hit-men and the like are not military operations. Having the CIA or NSA advise other countries or factions is also, not exactly the same as having a US Army platoon advise or fight for or against other nation-states.

Using the old and quaint definition of having Congress declare war would prove Obama correct, but we haven't exactly been going by the standard for a few decades, if not more.

[EFerrari]

157. Obama said the CIA is the front line of our national security.

Which way shall we have it? :)

And, btw, green lighting coups, propping up dictators, arming murderous thugs like Uribe are mostly done out of the Pentagon.

ETA: If it's any help, I constantly have to do reality checks with myself when I research what we do in Latin America because I have a hard time believing it even when the facts are staring me in the face.

[Moonwalk]

154. I see a lot of people arguing that this is semantics, a lie, a half-truth, etc...okay...

Fine. So. What IS war and who gets to define it? Is it war if one soldier fights another on a border, but no war has been declared between countries? Is it war if a president sends in troops to help one group overthrow its government--or keep that government from being overthrown--but the American people don't know anything about it and have not had a chance to vote on it (via their representatives in congress. Remember, only congress gets to declare that we are at war)?

Yes, you're right, it makes no difference to those who die or are wounded and maimed. But does that mean that if an American or group of Americans in a foreign land, with or without government approval, kills others, than the U.S. is at war with their country? No argument that the U.S. is to be held responsible for what our soldiers do in foreign lands, but if their actions include murder (approved or not by the president) does that mean that the whole of the U.S. is at war with the country they're in? If ONE U.S. soldier kills ONE civilian in Japan are we at war with Japan? Or is that just murder? If a group of American soldiers kills a group of British soldiers--or British citizens, are we at war with England? At what point do the actions of our soldiers abroad, even if they've been welcomed into that country by the del facto government, constitute a war?

I mean, you're quite right that it makes no difference to those killed if it's declared a war. But it doesn't make any difference to them if it's not declared a war either. People get killed by Americans, including American soldiers, and we don't always call it "war."

Try to understand, I'm all for putting the president's feet to the fire here for defining himself to victory. But I'm very much against us defining ourselves to victory as a way of doing that. What are we defining as war? And why should we be given the right to define war as we like and Obama not? At what point does an American (or Americans) abroad killing people = War and at what point does it not? You can't convince me that Obama should be taken to task for defining war as he likes if all you can do to argue the point is define war as you like.

[EFerrari]

158. You might check out #123. Also, for the record, I am not at war with the president.

:)

[CRH]

159. Excellent post, ...

Reinventing history for political speeches does distract and detract, from a change we can believe in.

[nicky187]

160. Except for ...

... the constant war against democracy in the United States, waged by the military-industrial complex.

"America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens." --- President Barack Obama, December 10, 2009

[EFerrari]

161. Touche and welcome to DU, nicky187.

[nicky187]

173. Mille grazie ... ;)

[winyanstaz]

162. yup...k & r...

There is something terribly wrong in America today and it has been wrong for some time now.
The question is..how to stop this slide into fascism, and save our nation and our Constitution?

[Moochy]

169. More Fiction

To bolster the 'Just War' storyline.

[Overseas]

170. K&R. How sad that he used semantics to ignore our history.

We haven't declared many wars, as others have noted here.

I also wondered, after hearing about the amicus brief in support of John Yoo from the Obama Admin DOJ, whether some people might walk out on the Nobel address.

[EFerrari]

174. Amy Goodman aired footage of some protests.

They probably won't be aired anywhere else.

[hayu_lol]

183. The War Of Southern Secession...

when Union troops were fired upon at Ft. Sumter by the people of Charleston. I believe there was one poster who mentioned this already.

We have interfered greatly in our own hemisphere.

[Overseas]

185. Thanks. I'll check that out. //nt

[Ignis]

187. Kick for decades of dirty wars in Latin America.

Here's hoping (in vain, most likely) that Obama has the good sense to retract this falsehood.

And a happy belated to EFerrari! :yourock: Keep fighting the good fight.

[Raster]

188. Yep, I'll help kick for the decades of dirty wars in Latin America...

...some of which are still going on today!
:kick:

[G_j]

189. another kick for the decades of dirty wars in Latin America!

[bread_and_roses]

200. I'm too late to R, alas - but will kick in the hope that anyone who missed this

sees it - thank you for laying that out, even briefly. I remember it all too well, especially how hard it was in the pre-internet era to get non-MSM info - so that when you found some, all that was going on in SA, and elsewhere, with OUR support came as a fresh shock. Even today it seems few know much, if anything, of our history.