Reply #55: A parallel with Spanish American war?

[ngant17]

Interesting that you brought up the old 1898 Spanish America war in this thread. 1898 and 2001, yes, I'd say there's a lot of comparisons to be made between the Maine disaster (which ushered in the Spanish-American War) and the WTC/Pentagon attacks (which ushered in the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Beside the obvious, that a major war by the US was based upon attacks against US military targets -- Sept. 11, 2001, the Pentagon. In Feb. 15, 1898, the USS Maine was destroyed. Whether by sabotage or accident, the flagship of the US naval fleet and its sinking was a tremendous loss for Washington at the time. (In the case of the USS Maine, I assume sabotage. Probably by insiders in the US, a deliberate conspiracy by parties unknown. Likewise, the 9-11 conspiracy. Who benefited?)

What was the Pentagon doing while 3 highjacked planes were circling the White House and and violating our national securitys for over one hour, with no response from tactical air defenses? Just look what happened in the case of Payne Stewant's plane when it ran off-course. Why was there no response in 9-11 and why isn't anyone being questioned about this?

Perhaps because 9-11 was also planned to be a bait for a new war. A new aggression under Pres. Bush, via Afghanistan and Iraq, to signal a new era of imperial policy. Perhaps there is a Bush Doctrine in place now, maybe we'll see the rebirth of some imagined destiny for US ruling classes.

Along with the birth of imperialism, in 1898 and at the turn of the century, yellow journalism was borne. It is a form of the preying on human emotions, often events being exaggerated for some effect, to the point it would be little more than wild rumor and imagination's fancy. It was the Hearst newspaper which turned the Maine disaster into a war, by printing on its pages a "diagram" of a possible Spanish mine which was responsible for the explosion. The repeated stories of war atrocities in Cuba benefitted the war planners. They purposely made mistranslations of Spanish statements to the press.

Since 2001 and the beginning of the wars in 2003, journalism hasn't turned so much yellow as it has olive-drab and camoflaugue green. Reporters are "embedded" into military units, beholden to the the general's commands. It benefits the war planners. The atrocities by the Iraqis are given constant attention, but little is said of US involvement in similar situations.

We know in 2003 that there were clearly two different wars being reported from, say the Russian military sources at the time, as compared to official US military dispatches. We really don't know what is happening in Iraq.

The problem is that events can purposely be distorted, like yellow journalism, and we have no way of comparing the accuracy of events, whether they are in fact probable or improbable based on previous experience.

In 1898, I suppose there wasn't enough enough time to build an anti-war movement in the US in 1898, notwithstanding Mark Twain and other notable personalities of the day. The Spanish-American War lasted 3 months at most and then it was all over. By comparison, in 2003, the brunt of the war in Iraq lasted less than a month. Despite the wide opposition by artists, musicians, writers and ordinary people across America. But as long as these wars drag on, the anti-war movement in the US will tend to get bigger and bigger.


The corporate mass-media have become highly centralized and monolithic today, maybe it isn't sensational as it was with Hearst in 1898, but it certainly is strange to read in the news that depleted uranium is not a health hazard, according to the statements from a general in the Pentagon. Aside from the fact that it will be 'hot' for a few million or billion years, I assume they meant it was not an immediate health hazard. Not like falling off a 100-story building, or walking on railroad tracks toward a speeding train. The general's statement wasn't so much a mockery of medical science as it was a bold-faced lie to the public at large.