cj#624> re: America & NWO & credibility


Richard Moore

Date: 09 Dec 96
From: Robert Ward <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: cj#622> re: America & NWO & credibility

While I agree that US militarism has a lot to answer for, some of your instances
are open to debate.

For example :
1780 : The first shot may have been fired by the colonists, but they had
considerable provocation from the UK government's oppresive taxation, coupled
with occupation by British troops.

1812 : Undoubtedly some opportunism by the US, but this was arguably a
side-campaign of the Napoleonic wars being fought out in Europe. Again, there
was considerable provocation from the UK. It's somehwat surprising that these
have never been tagged "World War 0", as the battles were certainly as far
ranging and had as great social, economic and political impact as the later

1940 : It seems a little harsh to say this was "arranged by the industrial elite
in USA and other Western powers". Again, doubtless much opportunism, especially
by the US (just how much did the US government know about the impending Japanese
attack on Pearl Harbour?); but was WWII really distinct from WWI, or rather
round 2 with the exhausted combatants from round 1 just taking a 20-year break?
Arguably WWI kept going long after 1918 if you count the Turkish-Greek conflicts
and western intervention in the Russian Civil Wars. If you count the Spanish
Civil War, and Japanese attacks on  China, WWII started long before 1939 as



Dear Robert,

        Certainly these instances are open to debate, in fact they're
downright controversial.  This thread started with my article "America &
the NWO", and I refer you to that for a thumbnail substantiation of my
characterizations.  Meanwhile, here are a few responses to your comments...

        re/1780: A war never starts without some provocation, excuse, or
motivation -- but still someone finally takes the decision that war is the
solution, and it was clearly the colonists who decided to initiate the
Revolutionary War -- this isn't controversial (sorry).  The question that I
raised is what was really behind the decision.  My claim -- that the
wealthy elite was really behind it, and that democracy was secondary -- IS

        Oppressive taxation? Colonists paid less taxes than those who lived
in Britain.  Occupation by British troops?  The colonies WERE British, and
most colonists were proud of being British subjects, right up to the eve of
revolution.  The revolution was very controversial, and it took much effort
and propaganda to build a consituency that perceived the British as a
"foreign power".  The situation was not like that of India (much later),
where the British were obviously foreign.

        re/1812: Again, the record is clear that the U.S. initiated this
war.  Yes there were excuses, principally impressment, regarding which,
concessions were offered by the British.  But war-fever had started and the
concessions were ignored.  When the war was over, the U.S. caved in on the
claims it had made against Britain, and the pre-war British position was
largely accepted.

        Side-show re/Napolean?  ...of course... the fact that Britain was
otherwise engaged encouraged U.S. boldness.   What was controversial about
my position was only my claim that the primary U.S. motivation was an
attempted annexation of Candada.

        re/1940:  Well yes, I agree, WWI and WWII were both about global
imperialism, had diverse roots, and far too much focus is put on the "Guns
of August" and "Nazi expansionism".  My argument was about the U.S. role in
all this -- whether it was a kind of drifting reaction to events (as
concensus history claims) or whether a strategic design was in evidence
(subsequent to WW I).  I stand on the arguments in my article here.


    Posted by Richard K. Moore  -  •••@••.•••  -  Wexford, Ireland
     Cyberlib:  www | ftp --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib