NationStates Jolt Archive

"On September 11, 2001, about 30,000 children under five years of age around the world died of "largely preventable causes", mainly starvation and disease! We can all be so grateful to Our President, George W. Bush, who apparently recognizes the magnitude of this. In commemoration of That Day, Georgie stated: "Every one of the innocents who died on September 11 was the most important person on Earth to somebody. Every death extinguished a world." So we are sure that all the vast resources of the USA government will soon be channeled into finding and punishing the perpetrators, that the media will do their utmost to learn the identities of these victims and inform us in great detail of the anguish of their families and friends, and that all Red-Blooded Americans will make the noble sacrifices necessary to unite behind the campaign to avenge this horrific Attack Against Humanity!

Some details. The same thing happened the day before, September 10! That’s right - 30,000 young children unnecessarily dead. Think what their parents and relatives must have felt about that!

The same thing happened on September 12 as well - 30,000 more young children’s lives snuffed out. And…every single other day of the year 2001 30,000 more children died of the same "largely preventable causes". Can you imagine?

Let’s give this a little more context, for that is not the end of it. A similar number of such deaths occurred on September 11, 2000, as well as on every other day of that year. And a roughly similar number of deaths of young children have been the norm every day for years and years before that.

Such deaths continue today without interruption. The total is in the hundreds of millions and counting of preventable deaths of totally innocent children, who often suffer horribly as they slowly die in front of those who love them. Every one of those 30,000 or so children who died on September 11, 2001, as Georgie seems to understand, just like every one of the other 100,000,000-plus dead children in the past several decades, were as special to their friends and families as you and i are to our friends and families; unique human beings with special gifts to develop and share with others, and with potential to lead long and fulfilling lives.

Shocking? Or are you numb to such suffering? Is it too overwhelming? Let’s broaden our view some more. Perhaps all this will not be so surprising if you know that over a billion people, half of them children, have income of less than $1 a day, which itself will not be surprising if you know that 500 or so billionaires are hoarding as much wealth as that of half the world’s entire population!

A little more context: Interventions by or backed by USA military might have maintained conditions of inequality throughout the world that were, and are, a major contributor - perhaps the major contributor - to those deaths. And to many other premature deaths…totaling roughly 1 billion since World War II!

Yet more context: An estimated 50,000 children died in Iraq during 2001 due to a combination of bombing and sanctions carried out primarily by the USA government.

Before the end of the year, by a conservative estimate, nearly 4000 people, mostly civilians, had been killed by bombs in one country -Afghanistan. Nobody seems to know how many died as an indirect result of that bombing, though the figure could easily be greater than that of those directly killed. At any rate, very many more were left at risk of death, and put in conditions of extreme suffering. One might ask here: Whose bombs? Who dropped them? Who paid for them? Who gave logistical or moral support to this bombing? Or simply: Who sat by and let this happen without protest?

In another year on September 11 - 1973 - the presidential palace in the supposedly sovereign nation of Chile was bombed as part of a military coup that was planned, financed, and carried out by or with substantial help from USA forces. That day and in the following weeks roughly 3000 people were killed by Chilean military and police forces that had been trained, financed, and in part directed by USA government personnel. Well over 10,000, some say 50,000, were killed in the first few years of the long dictatorship that followed. Recently the General who directly led that coup has been indicted for war crimes, and its prime USA mastermind, Henry Kissinger, has expressed fear of being similarly indicted.

How about a little more context, specifically within the (somewhat artificial) borders of the USA? During the year 2001 over 400,000 people died prematurely as a result of their addiction to tobacco. That is an average of over 1000 deaths on September 11 and every other day of the year. They were killed by the knowing actions of several of the largest drug dealers in the country, led by the Philip Morris and R. J. Reynolds corporations. The USA government continues to subsidize these companies, with special support to help them addict people in other countries throughout the world.

About 40,000 people died in crashes involving cars or trucks (about 3 million were injured) in 2001. At least as many, and probably many more, were killed due to air pollution caused by those vehicles. Almost all those deaths would be preventable with a rail based transport system. But directors and other officials of General Motors, Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, and a number of other large corporations made sure, starting in the 1920s, that our country would not have a viable rail based transport system. Several of these corporations and a few of their officials were finally convicted of this conspiracy in 1949, but given only nominal fines and allowed, for practical purposes, to continue business as usual. They spent the next two decades, virtually unhindered, in mopping up operations.

An estimated 60,000 people or more died in their workplaces in 2001 due to unsafe working conditions, mostly from job-related disease. These deaths would be mostly preventable with sufficient concern for worker safety, but business lobbying groups that have been largely calling the shots clearly do not have that concern.

Nearly 30,000 people died from gunfire, the great majority from suicides and homicides.

On a minor note, 3000 or so people in the USA were killed - almost all of them on September 11 - in attacks by lone or small groups of people; people often referred to as "terrorists". That is about the same as the number of children killed by gunfire. Like any other instances of mass murder, this was horrible for the victims, their families, and their friends. However, unlike other such attacks involving state terrorism such as those backed by the USA government in Chile or Afghanistan or Iraq or Palestine or Guatemala or…, there were relatively few indirect casualties. Families and friends did not die of slow starvation, or freeze to death for lack of shelter, or watch their children die of easily preventable disease, or even face any greatly increased rate of robbery or rape or torture or other abuse or violent crime.

Also, government leaders and major media have consistently called the victims of those particular attacks "innocent", and there is substantial truth in this, as nobody deserves to be murdered. But it is not that simple. Unlike the victims of those aforementioned state terrorist attacks, a substantial number of the victims of the September 11 jet attacks worked, either financially or militarily, to assure continued dominance over most people throughout the world. The Pentagon is the hub of the most powerful military establishment in the world, an establishment that is clearly responsible for a horrendous amount of oppression and suffering worldwide. The World Trade Center in New York was the premier such center of over 300 worldwide; the symbolic hub of an economic network "acknowledged by many people to be among the most powerful international organizations in the world". This network works for economic dominance of a relative few at the expense of the great majority. One of the smaller buildings in the complex demolished, it should be noted, housed the second largest CIA office in the nation. The WTC itself was built in an entirely undemocratic process largely to boost the wealth of the Rockefeller family and other prime hoarders of the world’s wealth, with the effect, among others, of contributing to the estimated 60,000 people presently homeless in New York City.

Even those flying in the planes that crashed are not entirely innocent. Average U.S. Americans use three times or more the amount of energy that would be sustainable worldwide, which means that for each of us, three others must get by on one-third or less the amount of energy that would be sustainable; that is, about one-tenth of what we use, on average. And jet planes use far more than the average amount of energy; roughly ten times what cars -themselves grossly unsustainable - use. So those who were flying in those planes were assuring that many others throughout the world will continue to lack the resources to have anything approaching the opportunities that we in the USA often take for granted.

In short, unlike the vast majority of victims of USA backed state terrorism, most of the victims of that attack (like most of us who are USA citizens) cannot be seen as entirely innocent, and some of them bore a substantial share of responsibility for perpetuating USA state terrorism.

Perhaps many of those victims were unaware of their contribution to that incredible suffering throughout the world. Perhaps even Georgie is unaware of some of it. If so, they need to become aware, because they are not only contributing to a huge amoung of unnecessary suffering, but they are perpetuating a cycle of violence that increasingly puts us all at risk."

Source: Radiant Justice (http://www.iserv.net/~ige/rj/terror1.html)

Another thread brought up the question of whether or not the losses due to terrorism outweighed the losses of other mortality statistics in the world today.

So, let's discuss that idea.

snip


9/11 was the reasonable consequence of our foreign policy in the middle east.
We need to change.

We need to change.

Care to elaborate?

snip.

Ok. Look up statistics on how much money the US has spent in the last 20-30 years on world-wide charity.

Ok. Look up statistics on how much money the US has spent in the last 20-30 years on world-wide charity. And then compare it to the amount it has actually promised to spend. (1% of gdp annually).

Why did you 2 have to quote the whole damn thing to say less then 2 sentences!

Ok. Look up statistics on how much money the US has spent in the last 20-30 years on world-wide charity.

That's not the point of the thread; the point of the thread is that the US doesn't prioritize the important things that are happening within our country and instead focus on the things that aren't even affecting us outside the country.

Care to elaborate?

Remove troops from saudi arabia and middle east.
Economic sanctions on israel until they return to their legal borders and allow the palestinians to establish a state.
Foreign aid money to palestinian.

Bah, troops were removed from Saudi Arabia as a consequence of the war in Iraq. That would not have happened while Saddam was still in power (or did you forget the reason troops were in S. A. to begin with?) Furthermore we already give money to the Palestinians. We also were the largest source of food aid to Afghanistan before the war.

I disagree that foreign issues are more important than domestic to the average American.

Bah, troops were removed from Saudi Arabia as a consequence of the war in Iraq. That would not have happened while Saddam was still in power (or did you forget the reason troops were in S. A. to begin with?) Furthermore we already give money to the Palestinians. We also were the largest source of food aid to Afghanistan before the war.

I disagree that foreign issues are more important than domestic to the average American.
We moved troops out of saudi before the Iraq war cause Saudi refused to allow us to use their land to launch the invasion. US forces invaded from Kuwait, not Saudi.

Why did you 2 have to quote the whole damn thing to say less then 2 sentences!


I was wondering the same thing.

@_@

We moved troops out of saudi before the Iraq war cause Saudi refused to allow us to use their land to launch the invasion. US forces invaded from Kuwait, not Saudi.

No, there were troops already stationed in Saudi Arabia before the war. Only after the defeat of the Iraqi army were troops moved from SA

Here's an article on the subject:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/29/sprj.irq.saudi.us/index.html

9/11 did serve the Americans right and they did see it coming and failed to prevent it. And today I think 9/11 was not bad enough yet, the Americans need a much bigger tragedy in their own country to finally stop being the bully of the world.

Yes, because more people need to die in order to prove a point, right, Giagtron? Ever heard of flamebait? :rolleyes:

9/11 did serve the Americans right and they did see it coming and failed to prevent it. And today I think 9/11 was not bad enough yet, the Americans need a much bigger tragedy in their own country to finally stop being the bully of the world.
I have a friend there who I care for dearly, so, I don't much care for anything that would hurt her. However, if you want, you may continue to wish the lovely tragic fate onto the stupid Americans in my family, who we can much do without; the same applies to my friend's retard of an ex.

9/11 did serve the Americans right and they did see it coming and failed to prevent it. And today I think 9/11 was not bad enough yet, the Americans need a much bigger tragedy in their own country to finally stop being the bully of the world.Saying "it served you right" when several thousand people died in a single event isn't very polite. Your country has done a lot of bad things too (every country has), how would you feel if you were killed in a terrorist attack in protest of those bad things and a few years later someone said "serves you right"? I know I wouldn't like it.

However much 'the USA' may have 'deserved' the 9/11 attack, the people who died didn't. Maybe a few did, if some ex-CIA director or something was among the causualties, but the vast, vast majority were completely innocent, and didn't deserve to die.

However much 'the USA' may have 'deserved' the 9/11 attack, the people who died didn't. Maybe a few did, if some ex-CIA director or something was among the causualties, but the vast, vast majority were completely innocent, and didn't deserve to die.
Ok, all of Congress, the Senate, the Pentagon and everyone who makes the Oval office go round... and let's not forget Dubya, Cheney, and all those big evil mega corp CEOs deserve to die or be horribly mutilated.

I think this needs to be mentioned....

A large portion of the people killed at the World Trade Center not American citizens, but either resident aliens or simply visitors. A number of companies (see the 9/11 report for details) were also not US corporations.

It was not simply an attack on the US, but an attack on the West as a whole.

The United States spends about the same proportion of its GDP or more on foreign aid as most EU nations and most rich oil nations. If nongovernmental aid is included, the proportion is also similarly high.

Terrorists attacked Doctors without Borders in Afghanistan, UN agencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the NGOs have had to retreat from Somalia because the warlords refuse to let them provide assistance to the helpless.

Hundreds of Billions of dollars of aid has been spent on the Third World since 1945, mostly from North America and Western Europe, with smaller (in size and proportion) of aide coming from more developed Third World nations and the former Soviet Union. Nearly a third was military aid, and not particularly helpful in the long run (although South Korea wouldn't exist without it and neither would Israel and the Arab States didnt mind at all when they attacked Israel several times)

The simple fact is that in many developing nations the population is outstripping the capacity of the biosphere to handle them. Either they will eventually reach a level of development sufficient to support themselves (look at the birth rates of industrial vs non industrial nations) or they won't.

In many cases endemic corruption is making aid far less useful than it could be.

In Africa, and it would now appear in Southeast Asia (Thailand specifically), an AIDS panademic is sweeping through the productive (working age) population on a level not seen since the Black Death in the 14th Century.

There are no simple solutions, and blaming the US isn't going to solve the problems anymore than blaming the Soviet Union or the UN. (especially since the Russians are paying the price for their former system of economics and government)

the present population of the world is 6.5 billion, of these, only roughly 3.5 Billion are in nations that are either Western or reasonably close (China and India are pseudo western as they are industralized and have functioning economies)

Although the US uses energy far more than any Third World Nation, compare it with Western European Nations and Japan, adjust for proportions, and then look at productivity and output... the US produces more food for export than any other nation and more than most of the agricultural nations export combined.

Ok, all of Congress, the Senate, the Pentagon and everyone who makes the Oval office go round... and let's not forget Dubya, Cheney, and all those big evil mega corp CEOs deserve to die or be horribly mutilated.

You are so short sited, cynical, and a dumbass. You cant go and blame your problems on everyone in power. Gearge probaly didnt even know about it because some FBI agent didnt think it was relavant. The FBI probaly uncovers tobs of plots against the US. But you never know untill they mess up. They messed up 1 time out of how many? And hwo dare you say those people deserved to die? All the people at the WTC were innocent civilans who were just doing something that maybe afganistan should learn to do: work.

New Kern II, that was a well written, thought out post. Are you sure you're in the right place? :D

9/11 was the reasonable consequence of our foreign policy in the middle east.
We need to change.
Care to elaborate?Washington needs to stop promoting "regime change" in Oil-democracies like Venezuela and Iran...

Washington needs to stop installing pupet governements around thidr world countries...stop promoting assasination and torture...

9/11 did serve the Americans right and they did see it coming and failed to prevent it. And today I think 9/11 was not bad enough yet, the Americans need a much bigger tragedy in their own country to finally stop being the bully of the world.

I cant believe someone would say such a thing.

I cant believe someone would say such a thing.

I can. It's NationStates.

It's NationStates.Internet....the true land of the free.

TH - you post this but are against outsourcing/offshoring. I don't get it.

If you think 9/11 was the worst yet, then you are mistaken. I suspect we'll see a nuclear explosion in the US sooner or later.

If you think 9/11 was the worst yet, then you are mistaken. I suspect we'll see a nuclear explosion in the US sooner or later.

Which would still make it the worst yet.

I love the expectation of foreigners that America should fight for the interests of others abroad, but never promote our own. Keep dreaming.

30,000 people a day, eh? Bit staggering ...

That's 10,950,000 people per year.

Zowie.

Well, unfortunately, I have very little control over what my government does, so - like most Americans - I can only shrug and sigh.

Common De Underdogs. Let De Iraquis Live In Peace. Bush Stop Bein Gready.

-snip-
Any life lost is a tragedy, wheter from terrorism or otherwise.

as far as the majority of people who died at the world trade centers on 9/11,
forgien workers?, tourists? corporations? .... i know of 12 union carpenters that died there, not to metion the rescue workers.....as far as the US being a bully to the world if we left the world to it's own devices it would blame the US for not being involved...wtf do you want your cake and be able to eat it too?

TH - you post this but are against outsourcing/offshoring. I don't get it.

What does this have to do with outsourcing/offshoring? :confused:

Check ur foreign policy guys, America ONLY pursues its own interests abroad, and it does so because, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it can - as the only major, unchallenged superpower in the world. And look at the loons u have in government? I mean if even Colin Powell - speaking to Jack Straw, talking about the rest of the administration, said, "someone has to keep these fucking people under control" then I'd start worrying. But if the US got it in the neck, China would probably step in and behave in a similar manner. The only way any kind of global balance will be re-established is if there are two opposing states of more or less equal power, not ideal, but it works. Unfortunately the irony of all this is it won't be some major terrorist incident that destroys us all but the planet, I worry when the top scientific minds talk about "cataclysmic global warning" and are largely ignored, or sidelined....

Check ur foreign policy guys, America ONLY pursues its own interests abroad, and it does so because, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it can - as the only major, unchallenged superpower in the world. And look at the loons u have in government? I mean if even Colin Powell - speaking to Jack Straw, talking about the rest of the administration, said, "someone has to keep these fucking people under control" then I'd start worrying. But if the US got it in the neck, China would probably step in and behave in a similar manner. The only way any kind of global balance will be re-established is if there are two opposing states of more or less equal power, not ideal, but it works. Unfortunately the irony of all this is it won't be some major terrorist incident that destroys us all but the planet, I worry when the top scientific minds talk about "cataclysmic global warning" and are largely ignored, or sidelined....

Bah.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_national_story_skin/450898%3fformat=html

Don't sweat it. Get it, sweat? Eh? ;)

That's reassuring, because for the life of me I don't see how our interests were served by going to Kosovo, or Somalia.

That's reassuring, because for the life of me I don't see how our interests were served by going to Kosovo, or Somalia.

or Haiti or the foreign aid we give. The US could have turned imperialistic if we were so inclined. But we arent and yet we still get bitched at.

That's reassuring, because for the life of me I don't see how our interests were served by going to Kosovo, or Somalia.

That's Clinton's pandering to the UN for popularity. At least under Bush, our troops risk their lives for our interests. What a novel idea! ;)

That's reassuring, because for the life of me I don't see how our interests were served by going to Kosovo, or Somalia.

seemed like a good idea at the time? (frequent statement made for many many mistakes over the years)

or Haiti or the foreign aid we give. The US could have turned imperialistic if we were so inclined. But we arent and yet we still get bitched at.

We aren't very good at the Imperialism thing, the Romans would have levelled Baghdad, killed everyone in sight until tired, and sold the survivors into slavery.

We could have ended the First Gulf War by sending 50 B1s, each carrying 50 bombs or so (or 1 Minuteman III missile with nuclear warhead) and converting Baghdad into a moonscape like Dresden or Tokyo after World War II..... I am willing to bet the Iraqis would be very quiet now to avoid repetition.

We aren't very good at the Imperialism thing, the Romans would have levelled Baghdad, killed everyone in sight until tired, and sold the survivors into slavery.

I agree with you there. If the ancient Romans were still around, hell, America wouldn't be the superpower it is today... because Rome would've conquered the entirety of Europe and Asia, then, moved on as technology developed.

And then compare it to the amount it has actually promised to spend. (1% of gdp annually).

Proof? Link? Quote? SOMEthing???

We aren't very good at the Imperialism thing, the Romans would have levelled Baghdad, killed everyone in sight until tired, and sold the survivors into slavery.

We could have ended the First Gulf War by sending 50 B1s, each carrying 50 bombs or so (or 1 Minuteman III missile with nuclear warhead) and converting Baghdad into a moonscape like Dresden or Tokyo after World War II..... I am willing to bet the Iraqis would be very quiet now to avoid repetition.
You did not. But I will dance in the streets when New York looks like said moonscape sooner or later :D

You did not. But I will dance in the streets when New York looks like said moonscape sooner or later :D
So 7+ million people dead is something to laugh about?

Proof? Link? Quote? SOMEthing???

We signed a UN accord promising 1% back in '92, or some time around then. So did most of Europe. We broke the promise, and so did most of Europe. Surprise, surprise. Still, we give more than the rest, combined.

So 7+ million people dead is something to laugh about?
Oh, might not be 7 million at all. A nuclear bomb in NY is said to level lower Manhattan. Not the entire city, although large parts of it would probably become inhospitable due to radioactivity. Maybe they might hit Washington DC too and level the White Palace... whatever.

Oh, might not be 7 million at all. A nuclear bomb in NY is said to level lower Manhattan. Not the entire city, although large parts of it would probably become inhospitable due to radioactivity. Maybe they might hit Washington DC too and level the White Palace... whatever.

Because the entire idea that a nuclear bomb in NY or DC is just "whatever" to you, right? That's the point of your post, isn't it? To showcase that you care no what happens to millions of innocent citizens that neither have no idea what's going on in the world or better yet, don't care what's going on in the rest of the world like yourself.

Because the entire idea that a nuclear bomb in NY or DC is just "whatever" to you, right? That's the point of your post, isn't it? To showcase that you care no what happens to millions of innocent citizens that neither have no idea what's going on in the world or better yet, don't care what's going on in the rest of the world like yourself.

Eh.. antagonists come and go, they don't mean anything other than to try and mess with people. You get the odd militant communist or 'anarchist,' angry foreigners, etc. Just laugh it off. ;)

Eh.. antagonists come and go, they don't mean anything other than to try and mess with people. You get the odd militant communist or 'anarchist,' angry foreigners, etc. Just laugh it off. ;)

I try to laugh it off, but when you confront them on NS as often as I do, it's hard to keep smiling. :p

9/11 did serve the Americans right and they did see it coming and failed to prevent it. And today I think 9/11 was not bad enough yet, the Americans need a much bigger tragedy in their own country to finally stop being the bully of the world.

If 9/11 increased US interventionism and warmongering, how would something worse do the opposite? I understand your concern, but you ought not wish tragedy upon your fellow human beings, and I would greatly appreciate it if you would recognize that we Americans are not all happily marching behind our fearless leaders to oblivion. And even those who strongly support the current administration should share little blame for the secret actions (or lack thereof) of our government.

So 7+ million people dead is something to laugh about?

all I can say is see the thread "was bombing dresden such a bad idea" and remember that Dresden was in East Germany (communist) until 1989 and remember that gigatron probably has an anti western bias based on upbringing

and his knowledge of western, particularly American, history is going to definitely have the bias

just like those of us raised in British, Commonwealth or American educational systems aren't going to be too impressed by East German views of the world based on our bias

all I can say is see the thread "was bombing dresden such a bad idea" and remember that Dresden was in East Germany (communist) until 1989 and remember that gigatron probably has an anti western bias based on upbringing

and his knowledge of western, particularly American, history is going to definitely have the bias

just like those of us raised in British, Commonwealth or American educational systems aren't going to be too impressed by East German views of the world based on our bias

Nah gigatron's not german, that's just his schtick. Most Germans would be horrified with his point of view. I think he's an angry teen from the US.

Anyway in terms of all these deaths around the world, guess what, everyone dies, and the US is not to blame for most of them.

I think the war in Iraq was a good idea because the sanctions/saddam were killing so many people and there is some nexus there with the US. The sanctions were in place because the rest of the world wanted saddam contained back in '91 (if not toppled) and we didn't want to be bothered with garrisoning a "beheaded' Iraq for years to prevent it being dismembered by syria and iran. Well as it turned out the sanctions bothered saddam not one bit, he still got to do what he wanted, and only the poor in Iraq suffered. (Mostly by starving to death). So something would have to have been done at some point.

Lifting the sanctions was never really an option, despite what people say now. I mean look at north korea, another human rights train wreck, and no-ones suggesting (from any nation) that sanctions should be lifted there, despite the semi-regular famines these days. The fact that we could do something about iraq, and the fact that we were at least in someway involved already thorugh the sanctions program made it a unique case that militated for direct intervention. As it turns out, despite what the knee jerk lefties say, intervention is the best thing that could have happened to that country. If only we could beat up on north korea as easily. (Damned long range artillery and a-bombs, oh and that china thingy too).

A lot of these "other-problems" however are so-far removed from US policy that its hard to see why there is any cogent reason for direct engagement. Really, what is the US expected to do about them. I'm not even sure that our involvment in Bosnia was the right thing. That was a european problem and really had nothing to do with us - other than the Europeans screwed the pooch and asked for our help. It's funny though that the same people who decry US involvment in iraq, where we have had continual involvment since we acted to free kuwait (which would still be occupied if we hadn't got involved), seem to think the whole bosnia thing was just peachy. Ah well, I'm sure its nothing to do with partisanship, but I wonder what people are going to say if kerry gets elected and then - shock horror - has to invade somewhere.

Another thing is, that a lot of these worldwide human rights problems are the direct result of europe's mismanagment of the post colonial era. So maybe europe should fit more of the bill than the US, rather than pointing at the US and screaming bloody murder about how US policies are destroying world stability. Yes france, germany, turkey, england, belgium, holland and the rest, it was the US's large overseas colonies in the third world that sowed the seeds of much of todays international strife, oh, wait, well I'm sure its our fault somehow, just like aparthied in south africa.

Is the US perfect, no. But it's a hell of a lot better than the other western nations that are always held up as exemplars of model behavior. So really I don't think anyone in the US should really have to feel as guilty as many want us to.

It always struck me ironic, considering how much every one in the English speaking world tends to bash France, how well the French African colonies did compared to the other colonies (British, Belgian and Portugese colonies)... fewer coups, less military government etc.. of course they (the French) retained an interesting clause in the various treaties of independence allowing them to intervene if they wished.

In Europes defense, two world wars essentially shattered European economies so that there was no choice but to withdraw preciptiously from their empires (although if Europe had avoided World War I a lot of our problems wouldn't have developed to begin with)

maybe we should make the Turks take Iraq back, that would serve them both right.

It is easy for Europe to criticize the US, they haven't had to pay the same price in blood and treasure as the US has since 1960. Europeans tend to forget it was EUROPE that started both World Wars of the 20th Century however, and the principal reason Soviet and US troops remained in Germany until a few years ago (Soviet) and still do (American) is to make sure the GERMANS don't dominate Europe (Germany is the overwhelmingly most populous and economically powerful nation, France is a distant second and Britian an even more distant third)

And if World War 1 hadn't happened, there would be NO Iraq (it would be the Turks problem)

The British and French by the way set up Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon... Palestine was split up by the Israelis, Egypt and Jordan in 1948

So maybe the old saying of you reap what you sow has merit

You did not. But I will dance in the streets when New York looks like said moonscape sooner or later :D

Congratulations, you no longer have any right to complain about the bombing of Dresden being any kind of horrific act if you sanction the nuclear bombing of New York City. From now on, I am going to celebrate February 13-15 as a great day in American history. It's right after my birthday, so maybe I'll just go on four day benders.

I agree with you there. If the ancient Romans were still around, hell, America wouldn't be the superpower it is today... because Rome would've conquered the entirety of Europe and Asia, then, moved on as technology developed.


Yep, but Ancient Rome is as dust.

Yah, I alway thought that handing the middle east back to turkey owuld be pretty damn funny too . Well except for the civil war and genocide bit. :)

As to france, I don't know if their colonial disengagement is any more sucessful than the rest of europe's in the long run, although they certainly seemed more engaged by the problems for a longer time than the others, so it's a hard call. I'm sure a case can be made either way.

Still the bottom line still holds, a lot of the problems in the world today should really be laid at the feet of the europeans.

Ok. Look up statistics on how much money the US has spent in the last 20-30 years on world-wide charity.
Here

usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/trade/files/98-916.pdf

There's an HTML version but you won't see all the pretty charts and graphs that will cut through the congressional BS and tell you such facts as:

Of all the foreign aid budgeted in fiscal 2004 a whopping 12.3 percent was for humanitarian aid. While "Congress appropriated $5.4 billion, 26% of total assistance, for five major programs whose primary purpose is to meet special U.S. economic, political, or security interests." And 23.2 percent was for Military Aid (just feed the starving kids bullets, eh?)

In FY 1994 Israel topped the list of nations we gave foreign aid at $3 billion. Egypt ranked #2 at $2.13 billion. My guess is that very little of the humanitarian aid was going there. Interestingly, Afganistan didn't make the top 15 in 1994, but ranked #4 in 2004 after Iraq, Israel, and Egypt.

Here

usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/trade/files/98-916.pdf

- Edited for pertinence and brevity's sake -



Ah, he said charity, not government spending, there is a difference.

9/11 did serve the Americans right and they did see it coming and failed to prevent it. And today I think 9/11 was not bad enough yet, the Americans need a much bigger tragedy in their own country to finally stop being the bully of the world.

You did not. But I will dance in the streets when New York looks like said moonscape sooner or later :D

Oh, might not be 7 million at all. A nuclear bomb in NY is said to level lower Manhattan. Not the entire city, although large parts of it would probably become inhospitable due to radioactivity. Maybe they might hit Washington DC too and level the White Palace... whatever.
Lower Manhattan, a very Jewish choice...

Leave it to a German to say more people need to die before he is satisfied.
Das Fuhrer!!!Seig Heil!!!!

I raised this issue about the germans in the hiroshima thread, but no-one seems to care that we didn't nuke them in WWII. More's the pity.

the Germans were so rude they got overrun and crushed before we tested the first one in July 1945.... if only they had held out past May into August....

no question the Nazis deserved it more, but not too much more. It wouldn't have had the same political effect though. Hitler would have fought on no matter how many Germans were killed in the process. Hirohito finally had something he could show the Japanese Army to convince them that further resistance was pointless.

The Japanese Army wanted that last decisive battle to beat the Americans (never mind that the last few great decisive battles had already been fought and lost, but they simply blamed the navy)

I disagree that the germans deserved "IT" more then the Japanese, I bet I can find a few *hundred million Chinese who *would agree with me aswell.

I disagree that the germans deserved "IT" more then the Japanese, I bet I can find a few hunded million Chinese who aould agree with me aswell.

good point that.... on a personal note, my great uncle, who was captured at Bataan and endured horrific treatment at Japanese hands, would agree too

All salient points.

I do think, however, that the germans bear a little more blame over the whole world war II thing. After all I have to question how much futher the japanese could have gone if there had been no power vacuum in the western pacific because of the situation in europe.

In any event, it just seems unfair that the people who actually started the whole thing should get away without being A-bombed, especially as they only managed to do it bey quitting first.

You did not. But I will dance in the streets when New York looks like said moonscape sooner or later :D

Wow. I love this guy/girl.I am very sorry, sir/madame that the US does not have the fore thought to just load all the muslims into trains to head off to their "Final Solution". All countries have screwed up, as a previous poster said, but all countries have had bad leaders. Given the choice I would not continue to live in America. Yes, our politics are corrupt. Yes, are leaders are still under our ninteenth century colonial concept that we are unaffected by our affect on Europe. Yes, we soon may fall fate to some large catasrophy because of some of our leaders' foolishness.But, just so you know, that when it happens, and if I live, I am coming to Germeny to kick you in the teeth and live at your house, jerk.

Nah gigatron's not german....I think he's an angry teen from the US.

Anyway in terms of all these deaths around the world, guess what, everyone dies....
if "everyone dies" anyways...what is wrong with moonscaping New York?

9/11 did serve the Americans right and they did see it coming and failed to prevent it. And today I think 9/11 was not bad enough yet, the Americans need a much bigger tragedy in their own country to finally stop being the bully of the world.

My friend's little sister almost died from getting peppered with flying glass on 9/11.

Shut the fuck up.

gigatron sounds like one of the stupidest people in the history of humanity. nice going to reveal that for everyone to see.

Knock off the flaming or I'll lock the thread.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

It was an overexaggerated statement to show you how idiotic it is to gloat over the destruction of entire cities and the death of thousands of civilians. Naturally I don't want to see NY be nuked since it would mean the death of a lot of civilians. Unfortunately, NY is the most likely target of a terrorist nuclear attack, which will happen sooner or later.

It was an overexaggerated statement to show you how idiotic it is to gloat over the destruction of entire cities and the death of thousands of civilians. Naturally I don't want to see NY be nuked since it would mean the death of a lot of civilians. Unfortunately, NY is the most likely target of a terrorist nuclear attack, which will happen sooner or later.

Noone in this thread (except maybe you) said anything of the sort. :rolleyes:

Washington needs to stop promoting "regime change" in Oil-democracies like Venezuela and Iran...

Washington needs to stop installing pupet governements around thidr world countries...stop promoting assasination and torture...
Are you willing to say the same of Russia, Germany & France? When you do, at least you'll be consistent.

as far as the majority of people who died at the world trade centers on 9/11,
forgien workers?, tourists? corporations? .... i know of 12 union carpenters that died there, not to metion the rescue workers.....as far as the US being a bully to the world if we left the world to it's own devices it would blame the US for not being involved...wtf do you want your cake and be able to eat it too?
Isn't that exactly what the premise of this piece is? USA wrong or wrong. Everybody else in the world noble and enlightened.

I have to mention that I think September 11th happened as a direct result of US foreign policy and it seems to me that the US did not learn a lesson from it. This means that it is entirely likely that in the future sure events will happen again, as blowback from the current US foreign policy.

If the United States wants to be a leader in the world community it should reach its aims through peaceful humanitarian means and not by bullying and invading other countries.

So 7+ million people dead is something to laugh about?

Well, you guys did joke about nuking Baghdad and bombing Iraq back to the stone age, which would mean the loss of 22 million lives..

I dunno about you, but 22 million is a much greater disaster than 7 million..

...or.... are 7 million American lives worth more than 22 million Iraqi lives??

Oh... I forgot.. you're God's chosen people.. Each American life is worth 1,000 non-American lives.

Well, you guys did joke about nuking Baghdad and bombing Iraq back to the stone age, which would mean the loss of 22 million lives..


Uh, when did anyone in this thread joke about something like that? :rolleyes:

I have to mention that I think September 11th happened as a direct result of US foreign policy and it seems to me that the US did not learn a lesson from it. This means that it is entirely likely that in the future sure events will happen again, as blowback from the current US foreign policy. If the United States wants to be a leader in the world community it should reach its aims through peaceful humanitarian means and not by bullying and invading other countries.
What you have said is consistent with what about 1/2 of the American electorate are saying although few are convinced that it is not a component of the Muslim religious viewpoint as well. It is apparent that terrorist attacks by Muslims are not only directed at America or American interests. The genocide in Africa. The attack in Russia. The attack in Madrid. None of these involved American interests but show an Islamic agenda.

We here in NYC, especially in Lower Manhattan where I live and work, fully expect it is a matter of what & when - not if. February 26, 1993 to September 11, 2001 was a time span of over 102 months. The fact that there has not been an attack in America in 37 months is meaningless. Nukes are problematic and dirty bombs are too limited in their effect. Chemical is likewise too limited. The most likely means will be biological since it is easily spread and hard to detect. Besides, it is an attack that keeps attacking as infected people travel about.

I have to mention that I think September 11th happened as a direct result of US foreign policy and it seems to me that the US did not learn a lesson from it. This means that it is entirely likely that in the future sure events will happen again, as blowback from the current US foreign policy.

If the United States wants to be a leader in the world community it should reach its aims through peaceful humanitarian means and not by bullying and invading other countries.

9/11 had little to do with US foreign policy and almost everything to do with the fear of change. People like Osama are scared that exposure to Western culture (especially American culture) will make all of their people want to buy blue jeans, stop being Moslems and drink Pepsi (or Coke) and watch internet porn and Cinemax

They noticed that the Soviet Union collapsed and China changed because of the barrage of Western (mostly American) consumerism and desire for most people to go to the store and buy what we buy.

Its hard to maintain feudal control over people if they start making choices, and they definitely don't want anybody making choices as people might not chose to follow them.

Iran, where most of the population is under 25 and doesnt even remember the hostage crisis of 1979 is already changing.

So fear of our CULTURE is what led to 9/11, anger over our foriegn policy mostly has to do with the fact that American troops were in Saudi Arabia (at the request of that government since 1990) and Osama didn't like it.

He thought American troops were going to corrupt his people and the holy shrines of Islam (never mind that the closest American troops to Mecca were on the opposite side of the country)

That is what the current war between Islamic Radicals and the West is really all about

Are you willing to say the same of Russia, Germany & France? When you do, at least you'll be consistent.absolutely.... any country installing pupet Governemts....deserves to go to hell...Russia, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, Latvia, Slovakia...any country...

absolutely.... any country installing pupet Governemts....deserves to go to hell...Russia, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, Latvia, Slovakia...any country...
So then the author of the original blather should have included the entire western world then, eh?

...
Oh... I forgot.. you're God's chosen people.. Each American life is worth 1,000 non-American lives.how dare you? :mad:

actually its more like 1/500

So then the author of the original blather should have included the entire western world then, eh?Make your own list if you wish...As long as they all go to hell.

9/11 had little to do with US foreign policy and almost everything to do with the fear of change. People like Osama are scared that exposure to Western culture (especially American culture) will make all of their people want to buy blue jeans, stop being Moslems and drink Pepsi (or Coke) and watch internet porn and Cinemax

They noticed that the Soviet Union collapsed and China changed because of the barrage of Western (mostly American) consumerism and desire for most people to go to the store and buy what we buy.

Its hard to maintain feudal control over people if they start making choices, and they definitely don't want anybody making choices as people might not chose to follow them.

Iran, where most of the population is under 25 and doesnt even remember the hostage crisis of 1979 is already changing.

So fear of our CULTURE is what led to 9/11, anger over our foriegn policy mostly has to do with the fact that American troops were in Saudi Arabia (at the request of that government since 1990) and Osama didn't like it.

He thought American troops were going to corrupt his people and the holy shrines of Islam (never mind that the closest American troops to Mecca were on the opposite side of the country)

That is what the current war between Islamic Radicals and the West is really all about

Excellent analysys. Add that the Islamists deeply resent the fact that Islam once ruled all of North Africa, all of Asia Minor, most of Spain, and a sizeable portion of the Balkans, and no longer does so.

although considering how much trouble the Balkans have been since even before the fall of Rome maybe we should make them take it back.

What if we severed all foreign aid to other countries? Would they blame us or count there blessings?

.... American culture) will make all of their people want to buy blue jeans, stop being Moslems and drink Pepsi (or Coke) and watch internet porn and Cinemax

They noticed that the Soviet Union collapsed and China changed because of the barrage of Western (mostly American) consumerism and desire for most people to go to the store and buy what we buy.
Jeans, Pepsi, and Porn....Thats what collapsed the Soviet Union... :confused: :confused: :confused:

Where did you get your History Degree again?

What if we severed all foreign aid to other countries? That would get rid of the Israel Problem...

So it's the responsibility of the US gov't to stop all the ills of the world?

I'm sure you are one of the idiots who thinks the US should 'mind their own business' when it doesn't suit your silly leftist agenda.

What have YOU done to prevent all those deaths? What are your heroes in socialist europe doing about those problems?

Make your own list if you wish...As long as they all go to hell.
Can you name one country that should not go to hell by your standards. BTW - If there is a hell are you sure this isn't it?

Jeans, Pepsi, and Porn....Thats what collapsed the Soviet Union... :confused: :confused: :confused:

Where did you get your History Degree again?

care to refute me? Feel free.. what is your view?

Feel free to dazzle us with sharp concise analysis.

Can you name one country that should not go to hell by your standards.?sure...Lets start with an easy one: Panama.

BTW...I can name hundreds.

care to refute me? Feel free.. what is your view?

Feel free to dazzle us with sharp concise analysis.Soviet Union colapsed because Communist is somewhat Flawed...and Because their Leaders made a series of bad desitions (unlike China)...

But no, "Jeans, Pepsi and Porn" did not Colapse the Soviet Empire....I mean was that a joke...or something?

Soviet Union colapsed because Communist is somewhat Flawed...and Because their Leaders made a series of bad desitions (unlike China)...

But no, Jeans, Pepsi and Porn :fluffle: did not Colapse the Soviet Empire.

A more telling arguement you could have used is that from 1964 (when Kruschev was kicked out of office for cutting the military budget) until 1986 when the last of the old guard failed to keep Gorbochov from power, the Soviet Union spent an estimated 20% of more of its productive capacity on military forces, and a sizeable amount on aid to client states including Cuba and Vietnam (problem is that its hard to know for sure when even the Soviets didn't actually know)

By the mid 1970s the Soviet Union was having to buy wheat every year on the world market.

Basic consumer goods like toilet paper were rare most times and unavailable at other times.

The Soviets had the same problem with rising expectations as the Eastern European nations did. Its awfully hard to be convinced that you need to sacrifice for the Revolution when the Party members are buying Western Goods from special stores and you can't

And you want those goods too.

The Soviets allocated the most productive parts of their economy to military goods, and the least productive parts to consumer goods.

Clothing is a consumer good for example, and Soviet era clothing was of notable poor quality. Clothing is not a luxery good.

But you forgot to mention all that......

.....the Soviet Union spent an estimated 20% of more of its productive capacity on military forces, and a sizeable amount on aid to client states including Cuba and Vietnam (problem is that its hard to know for sure when even the Soviets didn't actually know)....LOL, That is a disgrace and it is freaking funny...all at the same time.
-----------------------
That is one of the main flaws of communism...There is little accountabily(less than in a democracy)...

the system need absolute honesty from the leaders...they are left to their good conscience...
And if they are not honest...the system abolutely fails....like it did.

yep, as a wave of the future goes, Communism seems to have crested a might early

You have to feel a little sorry for them though. Marx was absolutely convinced that he was right, and so did some of the leaders that Lenin and Stalin shot.

Oh well, on the plus side, Communism probably did keep the Third Reich from conquering them by forceably (and very bloodily) industralizing the Soviet Union sufficiently for them to survive the German invasion and win in the end (with some help but not as much as most Americans like to think)

With any luck, the current wave of Moslem extremism will eventually die too

although I doubt it will any time soon

What does this have to do with outsourcing/offshoring? :confused:

You argued that jobs should be kept here; screw everyone else. But you then complain about children starving in third world countries. How can they pull themselves out of poverty if we take away the chance for them to get better jobs?

sure...Lets start with an easy one: Panama.

BTW...I can name hundreds.
Virtuous drug dealing Panama! LOL!

Virtuous drug dealing Panama! LOL!Panama is not installing Dictators with Torture and murder...so it belongs in that list.

here is Country number 2 (in no particular order): Germany.

yep, as a wave of the future goes, Communism seems to have crested a might early

You have to feel a little sorry for them though. Marx was absolutely convinced that he was right, and so did some of the leaders that Lenin and Stalin shot.

Oh well, on the plus side, Communism probably did keep the Third Reich from conquering them by forceably (and very bloodily) industralizing the Soviet Union sufficiently for them to survive the German invasion and win in the end (with some help but not as much as most Americans like to think)

With any luck, the current wave of Moslem extremism will eventually die too

although I doubt it will any time soon

Feeling sorry for mass murderers is not something I do. The ideal of Communism never worked because leaders like Lenin were to concerned about staying in power than helping the populace. Being shot for saying "traitous things" or being sent to reducation camps was a pretty nasty thing. I sure as hell wouldn't want to die in a prison camp in Siberia. A strong Russia did help defeat the Third Reich though if Stalin didn't make his deal over Poland with Hitler maybe he wouldn't have been attacked by the Nazis and have nearly lost Moscow.

Feeling sorry for mass murderers is not something I do. The ideal of Communism never worked because leaders like Lenin were to concerned about staying in power than helping the populace. Being shot for saying "traitous things" or being sent to reducation camps was a pretty nasty thing. I sure as hell wouldn't want to die in a prison camp in Siberia. A strong Russia did help defeat the Third Reich though if Stalin didn't make his deal over Poland with Hitler maybe he wouldn't have been attacked by the Nazis and have nearly lost Moscow.

I indicated I felt pity for Marx, not Lenin.... and other deluded followers of Marx who Lenin and Stalin shot

They believed man is intrinsically Good, at best an arguable point philosophically

And yes, if Stalin hadn't sold out Poland Hitler might not have attacked Poland and ignited the whole mess... although just as likely he would have anyway. (maybe the Generals would have shot him then, we will never know)

Stalin did tried to get the Western Powers (France and Britain) to agree to an alliance at the time of Munich, but the West was just as nervous about him as they were about Hitler.

So after Munich, Stalin gave up on them.