Conversations with History: Max Boot

Conversations host Harry Kreisler welcomes military analyst Max Boot for a discussion of his new book, War Made New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History 1500 to Today. He offers his reflections on the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War and the 2006 Lebanon War in light of his historical analysis. He also evaluates the successes and failures of the Bush Administration. Series: "Conversations with History" [1/2007] [Humanities] [Show ID: 12103]

Category:

Education

Tags:

• military
• Max
• Boot
• war
• history

[mdoob11]

lol, a "reaganite". Yes, the brutal, repressive, terrorist war Reagan waged against South America makes Reagan such a wonderful man.

Boot needs a boot in the ass.

[DjuroX3]

This scumb@g coward calls for nothing but war and more war for others to fight, but you don't see him sign on to fight himself. He is still eligible to enter the military too. He won't though. He is a flat out chickenhawk coaward. Don't call for something so vociferously your not willing to do your self Max-i-pad. Although I don't blame him for his cowardice. Look at him. The geek looks like he couldn't punch his way through a paper bag.

[regelemihai]

..remark(the original one) was that you were all too eager to blame one side, without providing the context, and by leaving out the crimes of the political party that was indeed attacked by the US- backed contras. That's all.

[regelemihai]

...independet reports from the time suggest that they rounded up hundreds of political dissidends and excuted them. Time magazine reported this, citing Nicaragua's Permanent Commission on Human Rights, taht also mentioned that hundreds of people were disappearing per month. The Inter American Comission on Human Rights echoes the same alligations.

Just to clarify, I didn't say that either side was perfect, nor did I negate the brutality of the Contras. my only beef with your disparaging...

[regelemihai]

"whereas human rights groups would have a more simple, obvious, mandate"

Well, like I said, what the name implies isn't necessarily what it enforces. The Democratic People's Republic of NK isn't a republic, nor is it democratic. These human rights organizations are by no means objective. Their bias ha sbeen exposed in the past, and their current standing on issues just solidifies it. The UJN Human Right Council is just one example of many.

As for evdience, for example...(cont)

[mdoob11]

@regelemihai The point I'm trying to make is that the Sandinistas represented hope for the Nicaraguans, and were on the right path, as praised by the World Bank and Oxfam. They were not perfect - no government is - and they were actually quite tame in the region in terms of abuses, especially compared to US client states, ie el salvador and guatemala, where more severe indigenous human rights abuses were taking place. Simply put, there was no justification for the criminal US-Contra terrorism.

[mdoob11]

@regelemihai I don't mind bickering over facts where it's merited, but I see now reason to disqualify a source because it's a human rights group - the opposite seems the most likely, namely, that other sources such as political entities, ie US Gov, would have the bias, whereas human rights groups would have a more simple, obvious, mandate. If you would at least offer counter evidence, your argument might be taken seriously.

[regelemihai]

...criticize almost solely democratic regimes, are by no means serious sources just because they're name suggest that. Sorry. I want statistics. Not something that appears on the "Essential Noam Chomsky Reader." And using Americas watch, or Human Rights Watch which have been shown to fall into the above group, isn't proving anything.

[regelemihai]

"It was supportive of the brutal Contras, and received financial support from the US"

You compeltely glanced over that one inconvenient details about Chomorro's family strident opposition to the Somozas while they were still around. It's peculiar how they turned against the Sandinistas who were also their political opponents. It's not unusual for Communistic regimes to silence freedom of the press.

[regelemihai]

" Terrorism against the Miskito indians wasn't any different than their treatment anywhere else"

Thousands upon thousands were banished, I think it's a bit of an understatement. Dismissing such a crime such callously kinda' exposes your bias.

Trusting so called "human rights" orgainzations blindly as oppsoed to sources that disagree with you isn't imprssive. Amestry International, UN hUman Right Council, and several other such faux human rights orgainzations who support despots, and...

[mdoob11]

@regelemihai I might add, there were recent slaughters of native Americans in guatemala and el salvador, both US client states, without a peep from the US media. As for repression of freedom of speech, the journal La Prensa to which you are most likely referring - again, let's be clear. It was supportive of the brutal Contras, and received financial support from the US. If a guerrilla army was terrorizing the US, I doubt a paper funded by those funding the guerrillas would be permissible.

[mdoob11]

@regelemihai Terrorism against the Miskito indians wasn't any different than their treatment anywhere else, as admitted by one of their leaders, Armstrong Wiggins, who specifically mentioned Mexico, the US, and Chile. As for scale of magnitude, refer to human rights groups' reports as opposed to US propaganda: Americas Watch observed "the most serious abuses Miskitos' rights have been committed by the Contras" and that it was increasing while that of the government decreased.