Parallels between the Iraq war and the Spanish-American -> American-Philippine war

jon_prezjon_prez thestatelessman.com PExer
History does repeat itself.


"Kipling, the ‘White Man’s Burden,’ and U.S. Imperialism"

http://www.monthlyreview.org/1103editors.htm

http://www.blackcommentator.com/68/68_reprint_philippines.html
«1

Comments

  • from the above link

    " In fact, right after Roosevelt's own "mission accomplished" proclamation, the "Brigandage Act" was imposed on the Philippines. An act which classified resistance to US rule as "banditry" and which caused the hanging of Filipino heroes such as Macario Sakay, who was part of the revolt against Spain and whose forces -- years after Roosevelt's proclamation -- continued to resist American occupation."

    The US has since replaced the word "banditry" with "terrorism"
  • Taco_GrandeTaco_Grande Marxist PExer
    Thanks jon_prez. Interesting articles. And timely.
  • jon_prezjon_prez thestatelessman.com PExer
    The article was written 12 months ago though....
  • joshmarlojoshmarlo formerly THE SAINT PExer
    Americans (or rather the U.S. Government) know they are imperialists ... period. They are a democracy, they need facades to disquise their imperialist motives... and its working not only on is own citizens but to most of the world as well. Frankly, I'm impressed. If only Filipinos would learn how to take advantage of this strategy but apparently, they'd rather blame the government on everything.
  • arciearcie Member PExer
    Originally posted by jon_prez
    History does repeat itself.


    "Kipling, the ‘White Man’s Burden,’ and U.S. Imperialism"

    http://www.monthlyreview.org/1103editors.htm

    [url]http://www.blackcommentator.com/68/68_reprint_philippines.html
    [/url]
    Certainly there were American atrocities in the Fil-Am war of1899-1902. But how does that period of history repeat itself in Iraq? Iraq is a sovereign nation, the Philippines in 1899 was not. I don't hear news of colonization of Iraq in the making. I don't read of brutalities in Iraq similar or even near similar to the brutalities of 1899-1902.
  • kelunjikelunji Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Originally posted by arcie
    Certainly there were American atrocities in the Fil-Am war of1899-1902. But how does that period of history repeat itself in Iraq? Iraq is a sovereign nation, the Philippines in 1899 was not. I don't hear news of colonization of Iraq in the making. I don't read of brutalities in Iraq similar or even near similar to the brutalities of 1899-1902.

    Back then those who fought against Americans were called "bandits and brigands", now they are "terrorists".

    Atrocities? How about bombing a sovereign nation on trumped up charges of "WMDs"? Aren't pictures of Abu Ghraib Prison under "New Management" enough proof? How about that recent video of a marine shooting an unarmed and wounded prisoner at point-blank? I don't know what you read or watch but I suggest you change papers and channels once in a while.
  • arciearcie Member PExer
    Again! You are one of those who use emotions in making arguments. When can you people learn to debate?

    The atrocities at Abu Ghraib prisons and other incidents of abuses in Iraq are nowhere near the atrocities committed by the Americans in the Philippines in 1899-1902. Do the Americans execute 15 captured Iraqis in exchange for one American life? Do the Americans burn Iraqi villages to flush out insurgents? Do they torture Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib and other Iraqi prisons like they did in the Philippines?

    But the commission of atrocities then and now is not the major analogy that I am asking. What I am asking is the parallelism between the Fil-Am war and today's war in Iraq, how history is repeating itself. That is what the thread starter wants to imply. That is what you should state here not your way of saying ad hominems.

    So you are trying to say that Americans call Iraqi insurgents terrorists? Maybe it is you who needs to read more. What the Americans call terrorists are the followers of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, a self-confessed Al Qaida-linked terrorist who accepts responsibilities for suicide bombings of Iraqi civilians working for the Americans and/or for the new Iraqi government in order to feed their families. Heck, the yanks at the early days of the war did not even call Saddam's soldiers and Republican Guards terrorists.
    Originally posted by kelunji
    Atrocities? How about bombing a sovereign nation on trumped up charges of "WMDs"?

    How does history repeat itself here? Can you explain?
  • kelunjikelunji Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    you missed the point, is it not an atrocity to punish the innocent on trumped up charges and non-existent evidence?
  • CrusherCrusher Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    The only parallelism or resemblance between the events mentioned is that they are both wars.

    So, anyone can say that there is a parallelism between all wars that happened since recorded history. They are all imperialistic moves, Conuering for one reason or another.

    And there will be more in the future.

    So what is the point here? Making the Pinoys of the past similar ot Iraqis heroes like the Pinoys who fought off American colonization?

    What does this thread really trying to make out of this parallelism issue?
  • arciearcie Member PExer
    Originally posted by kelunji
    you missed the point, is it not an atrocity to punish the innocent on trumped up charges and non-existent evidence?
    If the war was intended to punish Saddam Hussein then there should be no regrets even if wmd's will never be found.

    Speaking of trumped up charges and non-existent evidence, Bush thought that the intelligence information he was getting was accurate. That is different from knowing since day one that Saddam had no wmd's.

    But that thing has been discussed too many times. It would be better to talk about the topic of this thread.
    Originally posted by crusher

    The only parallelism or resemblance between the events mentioned is that they are both wars.

    So, anyone can say that there is a parallelism between all wars that happened since recorded history. They are all imperialistic moves, Conuering for one reason or another.

    And there will be more in the future.
    You took the words out of my mouth there, crusher. I was about to say that the first parallel of the Fil-Am War was WWI.
  • KrakistaKrakista Speak to Win! PExer
    Originally posted by ElizabethII
    The US has since replaced the word "banditry" with "terrorism"
    And in between there was "communism." U.S. imperialism is all about exploiting another nation's resources. Installing US-sponsored dictatorships or heads of state is their cheaper way of going about it.
  • gekokujogekokujo Original Fire PExer
    Originally posted by Crusher
    The only parallelism or resemblance between the events mentioned is that they are both wars.
    nope. there are wars, and then there are invasions: these days i believe the euphemism for the latter is 'intervention'.
    Originally posted by arcie
    I was about to say that the first parallel of the Fil-Am War was WWI.
    nope: 'one of these things is not like the others...'

    in 1917, Americans went to France to fight Germans.

    in 1899, Americans went to the Philippines to fight Filipinos.

    in 2003, Americans went to Iraq to fight Iraqis.

    ...?

    WWI was a war against invasion, the Philippine Insurrection and the Iraqi Intervention are wars of invasion.
  • Originally posted by arcie
    If the war was intended to punish Saddam Hussein then there should be no regrets even if wmd's will never be found.


    The americans would have more credibility if when they went to help the Kuwaitis in the gulf war they had invaded Iraq at that time. The reasons given then was because the Iraqis had invaded Kuwait (even if the real reason was oil) There would have been a parallel then between that war and WWI and WWII.
  • arciearcie Member PExer
    Originally posted by ElizabethII
    The americans would have more credibility if when they went to help the Kuwaitis in the gulf war they had invaded Iraq at that time. The reasons given then was because the Iraqis had invaded Kuwait (even if the real reason was oil) There would have been a parallel then between that war and WWI and WWII.
    Lizzy, there could be no parallel. The yanks were not looking for oil in WWII. They only wanted to save the British asses who were then being kicked around by Hitler.
    Originally posted by gekokujo

    WWI was a war against invasion, the Philippine Insurrection and the Iraqi Intervention are wars of invasion.
    Ok granting for the sake of argument that the US invaded the Philippines in1899. Can a parallelism be established with the US invasion of Iraq in 2003? Except for the invasions I can see more divergences than parallels in the two wars.

    1. Iraq was a recognized sovereign nation in 2003. The Philippines was not in 1899.
    2. US interests in the Philippines was clearly colonization. US interests in Iraq was purely pre-emption.
    3. US brutality in the Philippines was nowhere in Iraq. (Isolated cases of abuse in Iraq is non-sequitur).
    4. Philippine fighters did not resort to terrorism in spite of the savagery of both sides. Iraqi insurgents resort to kidnappings and deliberate killings of non-combatants.
    5. Filipino fighters followed the ethics of war. They raised white flags when they surrendered or sent emissaries. The Iraqi fighters raise white flags to stop the Americans from shooting then do the shooting themselves.
  • CrusherCrusher Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Still. what's the point?

    That you are an expert in wars and invasions? Or that you are master of euphemisms?
  • Originally posted by arcie
    Lizzy, there could be no parallel. The yanks were not looking for oil in WWII. They only wanted to save the British asses who were then being kicked around by Hitler.
    The yanks joined WWII when they were attacked by the japanese and they sure got their asses kicked....right...remember the Philippines when the yanks ran like chickens. It was only because of their geographical location that they weren't invaded
  • arciearcie Member PExer
    If a parallel between WWII and today's Iraq war is to be established, it is in the military operations. In both wars the British were then and are now playing second fiddle to the yanks. In Philippine parlance we call it "panakip butas." It means the yanks are just using the Brits to plug leaky holes. Of course I mean in military operations. On the political fronts of both wars, the British government could not be discounted.
  • joshmarlojoshmarlo formerly THE SAINT PExer
    Arcie,

    First of all, America wanted to join WWII because Hitler threatened their commercial activities in Europe. If you closely study American History and the events leading to their involvements in war, its always because of trouble in certain trade routes, destruction of American shipping, and threatened trade relations especially with Great Britain in which the U.S. was prosperous. That is why they prioritized the European front and left their defenders at Bataan and Corregidor to die.

    American Revolution - England taxed
    commercial activities.
    War of 1812 – British seizing of U.S. merchant
    ships in war zones.
    Spanish-American War – access to huge
    Chinese Market via Philippines
    World War I - German sinking of U.S.
    merchant ships

    Secondly, Filipino soldiers had their share of atrocities in the Filipino-American War. They sliced of the ears of their American captives and sprinkled the wound with salt. They sliced off the noses of the yankees too. It was a war, and war is brutal.

    Third, the Philippines was already an independent nation when the General Otis ordered an American attack on Filipino lines. When the Americans arrived here, the entire archipelago was occupied by the Philippine Army except for Manila. The Americans just conquered us so quickly that the world didn't have time to recognize us.

    I think American intention in Iraq is to establish a pro-American regime in the Middle East to defend American interests in that region. Call democracy or the American way. Just like what they did to the Philippines and Japan, established a pro-American culture and political tradition that would guarantee them an ally in the Far East.
  • arciearcie Member PExer
    Joshmarlo,

    I believe that most of what you have said is accurate. I just want to make some comments about some of it.

    1. The Philippines was declared independent by the Filipino fighters in 1898 but the short-lived independence was not recognized by a single nation. By contrast, Iraq was a sovereign state when invaded by the US, recognized by the international community and a member of the United Nations.

    2. The American intention "to establish a pro-American regime in the Middle East to defend American interests in that region" is just a consequence of the war. The US already has a strong ally in the region - Israel - that could protect American interests in the region not to mention Afghanistan and the moderate GCC countries that have largely pro-American governments. The primary intention in invading Iraq was to pre-empt Saddam's capability to strike (not necessarily at the US) with wmd's and to stop him in developing chemical and biological weapons that could result in some of them falling into the hands of the Al Qaida.
  • Taco_GrandeTaco_Grande Marxist PExer
    Originally posted by arcie
    The primary intention in invading Iraq was to pre-empt Saddam's capability to strike (not necessarily at the US) with wmd's and to stop him in developing chemical and biological weapons that could result in some of them falling into the hands of the Al Qaida.
    That was the stated intention. That was the politically correct explanation that would help them get more support and less opposition (internationally and domestically) to their goals of establishing a larger military presence in the region that would enable them to influence the politics and course of events in the region more effectively. And to see the Wests economic lifeline (oil) protected from any threat that may arise. For years the Saudis had been badgering the U.S. to get off their soil... now their off. And Iraq now serves as a convenient substitute.

    "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction [as justification for invading Iraq] because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
    Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file