Obama: Peace Prize Speech . . . "War Plays A Role In Peace" . . .!!!

[defendandprotect]

There's a link in the body of the article to the ACTUAL text of the speech --

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/10/obama.transcript/index.html


Understand many were repulsed by his speech?

I didn't see it or read anything on it til now . . .

C-span had Norman Solomon on --
Institute for Public Accuracy --
prompted me to look at the speech --

Solomon was commenting that on Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "The Madness of War" . . .


Vietnam Redux -- "War is Peace" -- !!! :blush:



:nuke:




EDITED: Hope someone else is watching this C-span program . . .

Solomon just said the JOBS Creation program they've just put thru will be a

"trickle down" job creation run thru corporations!!!

Unfortunately, I didn't see this from the beginning -- and have missed a lot of it.

[babylonsister]

1. If you're really interested, there are plenty of links in GD/P with

reactions to the speech. Oh, and there's also the text of the speech and text of the speech from the guy who introduced the President and why he was selected. But I suspect you don't care all that much.

[defendandprotect]

5. Thank you -- I am interested, but wasn't able to catch up with this til now . . .

Evidently, in introducing obama, the guy made a comparison to Martin Luther King, Jr.????

"THE MADNESS OF MILITARISM" -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

!!!

One of the primary reasons MLK, Jr. was assassinated was because of his anti-war stand!!!

[defendandprotect]

10. ...but, btw, why isolate it in GD/Political . . . ??? This is general news . . .

[L0oniX]

2. Bizarro world. n/t

[Goldstein1984]

3. Off to the Ministry of Love with you...

Go directly to Room 101.

[unkachuck]

4. "War Plays A Role In Peace"

....black is white and up is down....the compassionate war-monger.

[defendandprotect]

6. Evidently, Kucinich called the speech "repulsive" . . .

I'd certainly agree --

Unfortunately, I'm late to this, but it looks like a few others may be as well?

[Lorien]

17. i am too. I was busy with work when all that stuff hit

it's disgusting, maddening, disheartening, depressing...if I could move to the EU or New Zealand tomorrow I would. The government is so deep in corporate pockets that I don't see how we'll ever pull them out.

[defendandprotect]

27. Glad to hear I'm not the only one behind on this . . .

and evidently it got buried in the General/Presidential -- ???

I've been busy trying to beat a computer virus -- like about 10,2000 of them!!!

Somehow my anti-virus protection was shut down . . . !!!

What a mess, but have had a lot of great help from the computer people here --!!

Agree with all you're saying --

We have to refer more often to our corporate-military, IMO --

MIC really doesn't make clear how our entire government and all its agencies have been

take over by corporatism.

I think you have to make the move while you are young --

If my children wanted to do it, I'd be heartbroken but would understand --

:) :)

[flyarm]

24. i call it repulsive as well, and it does remind me of the Vietnam years..i feel so sickened

by this shit and his speeches..

Who accelerates a war and gets a peace prize??

what a bazaar world we live in..
I am beyond disgusted..well beyond it!

[harun]

46. Me too, it was repulsive. A bunch of crap to excite the neo-cons.

Change means change in Foreign Policy as well. U.S. Foreign Policy hasn't changed in 40 years. Only bright spot is Bill Clinton at least reigned in some military spending, Obama isn't even doing that.

[NYC_SKP]

7. I wonder if people expected him to not contextualize our two wars in this speech.

If he had not, I believe he'd have attracted considerable criticism.

It's easy to pull bits out of context to construct critical editorials, but it's a masterful speech and deserves a careful read.

The pertinent sections are too long to post here, but I grabbed a few paragraphs worth sharing.

Obama referenced MLK, but he is NOT a spiritual leader, he is the Commander in Chief:

--snip--

...I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago -- "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of nonviolence. I know there is nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naive -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

--snip--

There will likely always be conflict, always be war, and the President addresses the paradox:

--snip--

...So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates -- and weakens -- those who don't.

--snip--

Pulling out Orwellian references when the President stepped up and offered a coherent and sincere discussion of the war is just silly.

:patriot:

[BeFree]

16. Ya know

That was pretty much the Cheney doctrine: I will do whatever I want to protect whatever I want to protect. Screw yall. Who cares what you think. I am the president.

So, tell me, what ""standards"" does Obama adhere to in this 'war' that Cheney did not? It is, as far as I can see, the same shit, different president.

[defendandprotect]

28. Misplaced . .

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

In fact, these wars should be addressed every day --

The bankrupting of our Treasury which is a direct and speedy route to destroying democracy -- !!!

And the continuing mechanization of our weapons which can kill faster, deadlier, and more, more, more.

The sacrifice of the lives of our own soldiers -- for what?

For 19 alleged hijackers, the majority of whom were Saudis???

For WMD which didn't exist -- as the disgusting Tony Blair is now saying . . . he would have found

any fig leaf to attack Iraq!!!

It's about time we changed HIS-STORY and began a new one of non-violence --

Patriarchy and violence are mirror images of one another -- !!!

Disgusting!!!

[defendandprotect]

29. It's an insult to both Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi --

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

In fact, these wars should be addressed every day --

The bankrupting of our Treasury which is a direct and speedy route to destroying democracy -- !!!

And the continuing mechanization of our weapons which can kill faster, deadlier, and more, more, more.

The sacrifice of the lives of our own soldiers -- for what?

For 19 alleged hijackers, the majority of whom were Saudis???

For WMD which didn't exist -- as the disgusting Tony Blair is now saying . . . he would have found

any fig leaf to attack Iraq!!!

It's about time we changed HIS-STORY and began a new one of non-violence --

Patriarchy and violence are mirror images of one another -- !!!

Disgusting!!!

[DefenseLawyer]

8. Do you really believe pacifism would have stopped the Nazis?

Or do you believe that they didn't need to be stopped?

[Amonester]

12. al-CIAda & the taliban ain't no nazies.

if you think they're the same, where are their warships, submarines, bombers, DCA, tanks, cannons and regiments?

oh those planes "they" (supposedly) highjacked....

nothing compares, really.

[DefenseLawyer]

18. I believe the complaint here was to the statement "War Plays A Role In Peace"

not to his comparison between the Nazis and al Qaeda. You can certainly argue against that comparison and I won't disagree. However, as to the original complaint, that war has never been necessary and/or there is no evil in the world, can you answer my question?

[Lorien]

20. Waging war never plays a role in peace.

Engaging the Nazis became unavoidable. The Nazis did not wage war to achieve peace.

[DefenseLawyer]

21. FAIL

"Engaging" the Nazis was a WAR, sport. Keep trying.

[MellowDem]

30. Sure they did...

all wars are waged to achieve some sort of better "peace" once it is won. The Nazis would have had quite a "peaceful" little empire if they had. Peace and war are relative terms.

[Euromutt]

60. "Peace without justice is no peace at all"

That's a quote from Antonio Cassese, the first president of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. And the fact is, to get the unjust to accept the just solution not infrequently requires the use of force. Often quite a lot of it.

The alternative isn't "peace," it's appeasement.

[Oregone]

13. I 'believe' they had a bombable country, economy, infrastructure & army

But, uh, Al Quada is a bit more comparable to the Aryan Nation than any German nation


Bonehead comparison to make for the morons of the American idiocracy

[tavalon]

26. Don't rub it in, you damned Canuck

There are still some of us down here in Idiotica who want to Canadafy.

[MellowDem]

32. Uhh, maybe the morons in Canada...

don't understand we're talking about the general idea of war and peace, not a specific comparison. Reading comprehension is your friend, eh?

[Oregone]

34. Ah yes, you're stuck on the false dichotomy that Mr Obama wove to ease your moral conscious

That being, whenever there is a problem, you either need to wave peace flags at it or drop bombs on it to make it go away, and "evil" problems can only be solved with bombs.

Unfortunately, the world is not black and white, and not every problem is the same. Furthermore, there are far more alternatives actions in the world besides dropping bombs and waving peace flags (war and peace). If only eliminating an international rogue terrorist organization bore any similarities to fighting a conventional army in a conventional war like Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, it doesn't, and perhaps its not a problem that either the military nor diplomacy can ultimately solve alone through conventional means (like occupations).

So while he bundled up a pretty little package of goods, his argument was riddled with so many logical holes that only a pile of shit is left over. And when you go to bed at night, at least you can feel better in your tired little heart about your precious pile of shit (the killing and maiming of citizens while occupying a tract of land for strategic, tactical and economic benefits).

But, whatever. I guess either I'm with you or against you.

[MellowDem]

55. I don't need my conscious eased...

Anyone who pegs their moral conscious to events and policies that are really beyond their reach and influence will always feel guilty about something. But since Obama's speech was about the general idea of war and peace and how war is sometimes necessary, I find people who find his argument to be only a pile of shit to have a very "black and white" view of the world. Of course war is sometimes necessary, and some peace can be worse than war. Anyone who doesn't at least acknowledge this basic concept has a very radical and unrealistic view of the world IMHO.

[Oregone]

56. "about the general idea of war and peace"

Please read the speech, in fulltext. Its a justification of policy intended for an American audience, not some ambiguous lecture on the general idea of war for our intellectual benefit. While themes of war and peace are central, they are oversimplified and used as a vehicle of justification for waging a "just" war against "those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan".

You can play dumb all you like.

[fascisthunter]

50. thank you

[Lorien]

19. Apples to sesame seeds. "Al Qaeda" doesn't have an army and doesn't

even exist as an organization or group. You can't fight an ideology with bombs when there's no army to engage in battle. The only thing we're succeeding in doing is making more widows, orphans, and radicals...oh, and securing the Caspian sea oil pipeline while controlling the flow of Opium to the West.

[defendandprotect]

31. They needed to be stopped in Franco's Spain, just to begin with . . .

The Catholic Church was pro-FRANCO . . .

Lots of Catholics in America at the time who supported the Pope --

so it was supposedly difficult for FDR to commit --

but some Americans did go to fight there --

Keep in mind that WWII was over in less than HALF THE TIME that we've been engaged

in Iraq/Afghanistan - that should tell you what crap it is --

At least 20 military bases in Iraq and a new Taj Mahal of an Embassy there -- $700 million?????

Wake up!

Had we intervened against fascists earlier -- or even gotten into WWII earlier -- all of it

would have obviously been easier.

So here we are in America with fascism having crossed our threshold ...

what do you recommend?

And are you familiar with Project Paperclip -- ???

[DefenseLawyer]

36. You are picking out particular examples

of mistakes, poor strategy and corruption. That's fine. My questions is a very general one. Would pacifism have stopped the Nazis? Or, even more generally, have there never been instances where factions doing objective harm could only be prevented from further violence with force? Pretty simple really. Requires a yes or no. The cost of Bush's embassy in Iraq doesn't really enter into it.

[defendandprotect]

37. Let's try your question this way: Will pacifism on the part of voters stop these wars . . .?

Will pacificism on the part of the American voter stop our corporate-military?

Will pacificism on the DU board stop corporate money from reaching our elected officials' pockets?

Will pacifism get us universal health care for all -- ?

In a narrow world, there is yes and no -- but there is still the Taj Mahal in Iraq to be

commented upon -- plus 20 and more permanent military bases there.

No one argues that at the time America sent troops to fight Hitler that it wasn't necessary.

What we are arguing is that fascism was allowed to take off where it could have been addressed

earlier.

And how would have argued against JFK's military withdrawal in Vietnam at that time?

Would you have called it "pacifism" . . . ???

Would you have argued for LBJ's war then?

Would you have argued for the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan . . . fearing more "pacifism"??

As they say -- Peace is harder than war.

[DefenseLawyer]

47. Why can't you just answer the question?

I mean you don't have to if you don't want to. It's a free country.

[defendandprotect]

57. Because it's a stupid question ... which you should be able to infer from my answers . . .

"Pacifism" is in the eye of the beholder --

Again -- would you have criticized JFK for removing troops from Vietnam?

Isn't it better to stop fascism before it takes hold than to have to fight wars

or violent revolution?

[DefenseLawyer]

58. Okay don't answer the question.

Just ask your own questions to try and prove some other point that no one took issue with in the first place. I guess it was a tougher question than I thought.

[defendandprotect]

59. Glad to see you acknowledging that neither are you answering my questions . . .

Think it over ---

[defendandprotect]

38. Fascism in Spain and rising in Germany later was ignored . . .necessitating war . . .

Further, if you've been around a while you know that Allen Dulles and Prescott Bush

had a lot to do with encouraging fascism in Germany and financing it --

Corporate interests also had a lot to do with Hitler being able to re-arm --

Where would Hitler have attacked without an army?

So again . . . America was responsible for all of that --

by the Establishment/elites had their way there --


And, I would also point to the similarities here in America with fascism having

crossed our threshold -- corporatism -- which we've been discussing for 30-40 years!!!

Corporatism which is bribing our elected officials -- with little resistance from them!



Apologies -- seem to have answered your post twice -- too late to consolidate --

[fascisthunter]

49. the Nazis belonged to a particular country with a head of state

whole different situation....

[DefenseLawyer]

52. The OP was not referencing the comparison

The OP was questioning the legitimacy of the assertion that sometimes "War plays a role in peace". Whether the comparison is apt or not (and I agree it is not), do you claim that war has never been necessary to curb violence and repression?

[fascisthunter]

53. I addressed your comparison

your comparison was a bad one. Everybody knows World War Two and our confrontation with Germany and the Japanese were unavoidable, and a necessity.

These war/occupations(Iraq, Afghanistan)were not unavoidable, nor were they a necessity.

War is necessary only when it is unavoidable. Some lower that bar to justify the wars now, I won't.

[DefenseLawyer]

54. I made no comparisons at all.

The general statement was made: sometimes "War plays a role in peace". The OP took issue with that statement. I gave an example that I believe illustrates when war was necessary to achieve peace.

[azul]

9. Sadness, the "The Madness of War"

is apparently contagious in DC.

Declaring peoples "evil" with the understanding that God is on our side just begets lawlessness and violence. Good one Mr President.

[LoZoccolo]

11. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

Some people will only stop fucking with people if they're afraid of getting their ass kicked.

In many instances, if someone were to force someone else into a cage, that would be considered a violent act. And yet it's perfectly acceptable for the government to put people in prison to teach them a lesson; I agree with that and I'm sure you do too. The same goes for war.

[rollingrock]

14. He's channeling King George II

...in the immortal words of Jon Stewart.

[mmonk]

15. Any peace prize should go to someone working for peace.

I'm afraid many see it as a sham. I think he got it because he sounds different from bush. However, the peace prize should not be awarded for public speaking but how hard one works to bring peace.

[MissDeeds]

22. +1

Well said.

[defendandprotect]

39. +1 .. . .

and I have not the slightest clue as to why he got it !!!

:eyes:

[patrice]

23. He inherited 2 wars. Here are the main points of what he said about Afghanistan:

It isn't as simple as you wish others to think.

Show me where he says "War is peace."

Key phrases from President Obama's Nobel speech: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/patrice

[flyarm]

25. They are "HIS WARS" NOW..it matters not what he inherited...THEY ARE HIS WARS NOW! eom

[patrice]

33. Yeah, right, none of us had anything to do with this situation.

You and I and others may be against it, but the fact is we do not exist independently, we are part of a collective and right or wrong the collective did this thing and what is done is done.

Please tell me how holier than-thou how high-minded insistence on absolutes contributes one constructive thing, in support of your point of view or against it, to this situation.

Do you think if you insult him and others enough and deny reality enough that will bring one person home any earlier?
Do you think if you get Obama out of office, you're going to get someone in who will do your bidding?
Do you think the World can afford to let a rogue nation such as the U.S. just go around invading and getting millions killed and then just up and leave whenever we want to, without consequences?
Do you think that just wanting peace strongly enough will make it happen?
Do you think robot parroting of your petty little jingoistic talking-points like "It's his war now" will actually contribute to one goddamn solution?

Well, you - are - wrong.

That is what the President is dealing with right now, one whole hell of a bunch of people have been wrong about a lot of stuff, and he has to deal with that while people try to take him down for their own political advantage, or, likely, given the particular talking point you chose oh so cleverly to repeat, in order to get revenge for the assholes who started this particular phase of our collective madness.

[defendandprotect]

41. You're totally missing the concept of corporatism ... and corporate-military . . .

That's what stands between the people and our president/Congress --

A lot of corporate $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ --

[flyarm]

44. oh bullshit.."what is done is done."..bullShit bullshit bullshit!

IT IS MY TAX MONEY KILLING PEOPLE..bombs are being made with my TAX MONEY..DRONES ARE KILLING INNOCENT CIVILIANS ..WITH MY TAX MONEY.

you say; "Please tell me how holier than-thou how high-minded insistence on absolutes contributes one constructive thing'...you tell me one constructive thing has been done, killing innocent people with my tax money in a war based on lies and deceit???????

Because both Iraq and Afghanistan have both ben wars based on nothing but fuc'ing lies!

And please don't give me the shit about AlQueada..I retired in 2002 after having been a flight crew for 33 years with one of the airlines involved on 9/11, my co-workers died that day, and I was Flight attendant of the year that year, for the NY base of my airline..and I will call bullshit each and every day of the rest of my life, that the story you were told, had any semblance of truth to it! So keep your naivety to yourself..it doesn't work with me.

We are in two wars of "CHOICE" We were lied into two wars of Choice. there is nothing collective about paying for fucking lies!

AND IT IS MY TAX DOLLARS PAYING FOR THE FUCKING WARS! iT IS MY MONEY KILLING PEOPLE..AND I DAMN SURE AM NOT ONE BIT HAPPY ABOUT THAT.. how many people have to die or be killed for a fucking lie and greed and the Military Industrial complex.. I lived that story already with Vietnam..with flight crew I worked with ferrying soldiers back and forth from Nam..i had one boyfriend go to Nam as a fighter pilot and my husband was drafted and an MP but didn't go to Nam..and lost precious years of his career...Enough of the fucking lies and enough of the killing for no other reason that greed, oil and $$$$$$$$$$ for the corporate fucking whores!

And I will not stay silent about it..I did not work my entire life for and with the Democratic party to be the party that keeps a murderous war going for greed , oil and $$$$$$$$$!

[fascisthunter]

51. it's because of people like you that I remain a Democrat

[defendandprotect]

40. Democrats have been re-funding these wars since '06 elections . . .

Pelosi the day after the '06 election -- on video . . .

"Democrats were elected to end the war" --

********************************************

[emulatorloo]

35. OBAMA and REINHOLD NIEBUHR. Good article, better than some talking heads you see

It isn't that long. <MORE AT LINK>

http://www.slate.com/id/2238081/

Obama's War and Peace
How the president accepted the Nobel while sending more troops to fight in Afghanistan.

By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Dec. 10, 2009, at 2:56 PM ET

<SNIP>

Yes, Obama's speech is filled with ambiguities, dilemmas, and contradictions. More to the point, it explicitly grapples with them. If there is a single theme to the speech, it's that a philosopher-statesman of our time (which is what Obama is trying to be) must recognize and grapple with both universal principles and contingent realities, with our ambitions and our limits, with—as Martin Luther King Jr. put it in his Nobel lecture (and which Obama quoted today)—the "is-ness of man's present nature" and the "ought-ness that forever confronts him."

Read in its entirety, Obama's speech seems a faithful reflection of another theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr, who, during World War II and the Cold War that followed, sought to reconcile the principles of Christianity with the imperatives of national defense. In his influential 1952 book The Irony of American History, he wrote that American idealism must come to terms "with the limits of all human striving, the fragmentariness of all human wisdom, the precariousness of all historical configurations of power, and the mixture of good and evil in all human virtue."

Obama's speech doesn't mention Niebuhr, but back in April 2007, early on in the presidential campaign, David Brooks asked Obama whether he'd ever read Niebuhr. The candidate replied, "I love him, he's one of my favorite philosophers." Asked what he took away from Niebuhr, Obama answered, "I take away the compelling idea that there's serious evil in the world"; that "we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate these things, but we shouldn't use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction"; that "we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naive idealism to bitter realism."

<SNIP>

The Nobel lecture that Obama delivered today is a fuller elaboration of the same ideas.

"As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work," Obama said, "I am living testimony to the moral force of nonviolence. … But, as a head of state, sworn to protect and defend my nation … I face the world as it is and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. … To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism. It is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man, and the limits of reason."

He made no apologies for this fact. To the clear discomfort of some in his audience, he pointed out that the global security of the post-World War II era was achieved not just by "treaties and declarations" but by the United States of America—"the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms." He added, "So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace." (Has anyone ever spoken like this while accepting a Nobel Peace Prize?)

============================

[mmonk]

42. He shouldn't have brought up international and human rights

since we have zero credibility in those areas now and violate both. And I don't care for any comparisons to this and past conflicts such as World War II. Apples and Oranges. We created the situation in Afghanistan through shot gun destabilization.

[yellowwood]

43. I Like Obama

But I don't have to agree with everything he says. Here's a graph of all the top losses by US This doesn't even count the many mained and disabled. So much peace that came out of this! Notice that the top five happened in the last 100 years.

Wars ranked by combat deaths
1 American Civil War 1861–1865 625,000 599 1.988% (1860)
2 World War II 1941–1945 405,399 416 0.307% (1940)
3 World War I 1917–1918 116,516 279 0.110% (1920)
4 Vietnam War 1964–1973 58,151 26 0.03% (1970)
5 Korean War 1950–1953 36,516 45 0.02% (1950)
6 American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 25,000 11 0.899% (1780)
7 War of 1812 1812–1815 20,000 31 0.345% (1810)
8 Mexican–American War 1846–1848 13,283 29 0.057% (1850)
9 Iraq War 2003–present 4,368 2 0.001% (2009)
10 Philippine–American War 1899–1913 4,196 5 0.006% (1900)

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war

[cbdo2007]

45. This is true - otherwise we'd all be dead.

[Cassandra2010]

48. Imagine

if the leader of Iran had said the same things. Or if Chavez had declared with such arrogance that Venezuela is so chosen that it may at any time and of it's own choosing declare war upon whoever it wants for whatever reason it manufactures.