DISQUS

"Japan was a racist nation bent on subjugating the lesser peoples for its own benefit."

Well, certainly much of its nationalist leadership was racist and xenophobic. But if you watch "White Light", you'll see different attitudes by those who were civilians, including a Korean woman who survived Nagasaki, though many Koreans, forced to live in Japan or starve, did not.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of wartime Japan, Germany and the US held racist views about their enemies. I don't know how you would measure it, but one could start with a look at each country's propaganda and popular culture. All created ugly stereotypes and images which made it easier to slaughter civilians -- something that hasn't gone away, I'm afraid.

I've never denied that imperial Japan committed mass murder and war crimes. Japan at that time was a very brutal regional power. But their brutality wasn't the reason why the US and the Brits were opposed to their aggression -- it had to do with Western access to Asian markets and resources, which the Japanese were cutting off. The oil embargo against Japan pretty much guaranteed a war, and Japan thought that if war with the US was inevitable, then they should strike first and try to throw the US off balance while consolidating their territorial gains. Thus, Pearl Harbor.

Once the US triumphed, we went on to wage war in Korea and, most destructively, against Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, killing millions. If the justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki was based on Japanese atrocities in Asia, then what punishment do we deserve?

Tom K -- you've lost me completely. I more than made my case, direct link to a Reagan speech during the Central American wars included, and you pitty-pat around with some minor point only you seem to understand. Later for you.

"Of course, he said no such thing, as you have now been forced to admit."

What -- that his war on Nicaragua was justified as a defense against Soviet "expansionism"? I linked to a whole speech where Reagan said exactly that. What the fuck are you talking about?

The Central American wars led to much more death and destruction than was seen in the Balkans. Check the body counts sometime if you doubt this. In Nicaragua alone, there was the equivalent of some six Sebrenicias. Add to that some seven Sebrenicias in El Salvador, and some nine-10 Sebrenicias in Guatemala. And as far as Nicaragua goes, the Sandinistas held presidential elections in 1984 and 1990, exactly when they said they would. Both elections had observers from Latin America and Europe, but the US ignored the '84 results (having its hand-picked puppet, Arturo Cruz, boycott the elections, due to lack of popular support, among other reasons), and financed the UNO opposition that won in '90. All this, mind you, while Nicaragua was being ripped to shreds by a foreign-backed terrorist army, and while the US controlled Nicaraguan airspace. And the Sandinistas still honored the '90 results and stepped down from power. Wonder if the USG would act the same if the roles were reversed? Judging from, say, the Wilson administration, I seriously doubt it. And Bush? Please.

"The Soviets' plan is designed to crush self-determination of free people, to crush democracy in Costa Rica, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Panama. It's a plan to turn Central America into a Soviet beachhead of aggression that could spread terror and instability north and south, disrupt our vital sealanes, cripple our ability to carry out our commitments to our European and send tens of millions of refugees streaming in a human tidal wave across all our borders."

Ronald Reagan -- March 25, 1985

Of course, this address is chock full of lies and bizarro fantasies and projections. But that was Reagan all over.

I compared what Reagan did to Central America to what Milosevic did in Bosnia and Kosovo, only in Reagan's case, the body count was higher and the destruction more widespread. But it was Milosevic who went to the Hague. Imperial double standard at its finest.

You said that you thought Nicaragua "benefitted" from the contra war, which, to my eyes, suggests endorsement of the terror policy of mass murder and political subterfuge. At least have the fucking balls to own it.

"As it happens, I do believe that Reagan’s instinctive opposition to the Sandanistas [sic] was prudent, and that Nicaragua has benefitted from it."

So you supported state terrorism in Central America. That helps to clarify your position. Appreciate your honesty.

But recall that Reagan said that his destruction of Nicaragua, and his turning the entire region into a mass grave that made Milosevic look cheap, was part of US "resistance" to Soviet "expansionism." The fact that all three Nicaraguan communist parties, one of which was pro-Moscow, opposed the Sandinistas and sided with the CIA-funded UNO coalition, apparently made no impression.

"That we should overlook Reagan’s prescience in this regard because he didn’t appreciate exactly how quickly the SU might collapse, and wanted to take measures to counter its expansionist ambitions while we awaited its demise?"

Reagan talked out of both sides of his mouth. One minute, the SU was nearly in the dustbin. The next, it was the most harrowing giant that the meek and pure US ever faced, and that our lives were in danger. Depended on the audience or the rhetorical/political need. And do you honestly believe that Soviet "expansionist ambitions" -- which paled compared to US imperialism -- was stemmed by shooting Salvadoran schoolteachers in the back of the head and tossing them in a ditch? Or backing Rios Montt's ethnic cleansing in Guatemala? Or destroying Nicaragua, putting it back into the proper "regional mode" where it became a beggar state after some 60,000 people were killed? All that helped the Berlin Wall to fall? Who's the one denying reality?

"Nor, I suspect, would the millions freed from dictatorship by American policy, which Reagan maintained against 'sophisticated' opinion, find much to laugh at."

Wow. It's amazing, but not really surprising, that this old myth lingers on. Fact was, Reagan's admin was perhaps the biggest and deadliest terror operation in the 80s.

Remember how Qaddafi was portrayed as a Global Terrorist Mastermind? Please. Compared to Reagan, Qaddafi was a Keystone Kop. Shall we go down the list? El Salvador. Nicaragua. Guatemala. Southern Africa. East Timor. The West Bank and Gaza. Lebanon. South Korea (under the generals). Backing Afghan Islamic fanatics. Backing Saddam's Iraq. Backing the Khmer Rouge in the UN. As Darrel Plant put it, the SU was falling apart by the time Reagan came in. The Gipper's true legacy is one of effective state terrorism.

This sketch doesn't get anywhere near this, since very little of the above had yet happened. The writers seemed more interested in comparing Nixon to Reagan, which missed the point altogether. But again, this was early on.

It's clear that Chase left the ending open to interpretation, which is probably the only way he could have closed the show. But I doubt that Tony got whacked. If so, by who? Phil was killed, and his former crew sided with Tony. The Feds? If so, why?

Slappy sez --

"Sentimentality requires fondness. Anyone owing Falwell anything requires Falwell having contributed in anyway anything positive to society."

Umm, no it doesn't. I was referring to Falwell contributing to his own rancid caricature, which too few comics took advantage of until it was safe.

"'Liberal Media' is a term I’d expect Falwell and his ilk to use."

Context, Slappy, context. I used the term against itself, which I thought was obvious, given my overall tone, but it was clearly lost on you.

"A clown is a joke and is not worthy of concern."

A clown who fronts for death squads and statist criminals is still a clown. Indeed, Falwell got more ridiculous as the years went by.

"I think you are greatly mistaken on all counts."

Obviously.

"You get sentimental over Falwell who you describe as a 'dreadful' man. You tell us humorists in a way owe Falwell. Use the term 'Liberal Media' in capital letters. Refer to Falwell as a clown."

Yes, I wrote those things. What's your point?