NationStates Jolt Archive

I dont know why everybody bashes the U.S and see it as an evil powerhouse. its always the U.S, nobody ever blames any european powers for nukes, nobody blames Russia which still has nukes left from the Soviet Union.. I mean really, what the hell makes the U.S so freaking evil?

Cuz America guzzles down how many millions or gallons of oil a day.

(Coming from an American)

I dont know why everybody bashes the U.S and see it as an evil powerhouse. its always the U.S, nobody ever blames any european powers for nukes, nobody blames Russia which still has nukes left from the Soviet Union.. I mean really, what the hell makes the U.S so freaking evil?
I blame everyone. Well, both Europe and the US are both ass-hats (TM). The war in Iraq and the "war" on terrorism aren't helping. They have nukes from the Cold War, woopidy-fucking-do.

I have bashed Europe too. I mean, the US and Europe are pretty much alike.

Well if it makes you feel any better, I really don't give a shit about any world politics.

Well, both Europe and the US are both ass-hats (TM)..
You own the trademark on "ass-hats". Dude. Can I have some of your royalties?

Cuz America guzzles down how many millions or gallons of oil a day.

(Coming from an American)

Well withought those gallons were preety much screwed. With no cars, means no work, means no money or products. As selfish as the U.S might be, you cant say it dosent help the rest of the world. The U.S has never started a war withought a reason, it was 1950 and up when the Cold War and the Vietnam and Cambodia incident, while the rest of the world has been destroying each other since preety much the beggining of civilization.

The U.S has never started a war withought a reason, it was 1950 and up when the Cold War and the Vietnam and Cambodia incident, while the rest of the world has been destroying each other since preety much the beggining of civilization.
You mean the US has never started a war without a rationalization, right?
I could mention the Mexican-American war, in case you need an example.

No cars doesn't necessarily mean no work; it just means no suburbs.

Well withought those gallons were preety much screwed. With no cars, means no work, means no money or products. As selfish as the U.S might be, you cant say it dosent help the rest of the world. The U.S has never started a war withought a reason, it was 1950 and up when the Cold War and the Vietnam and Cambodia incident, while the rest of the world has been destroying each other since preety much the beggining of civilization.
I'd go with "Gulf of Tonkin" for 400$ bob.


Oh, and you don't need to use cars. It's called a bus. Or train. Or legs. We have legs.


We certainly don't need 50 gallon to the mile monstrocities that we have now.

And the U.S. stepping in has bettered the whole situation in which way?

You own the trademark on "ass-hats". Dude. Can I have some of your royalties?
I'll give you 20%. I have a family* to feed.









*Me, myself, and I

I'd go with "Gulf of Tonkin" for 400$ bob.


Can I gamble on Panama, 1989?

You mean the US has never started a war without a rationalization, right?
I could mention the Mexican-American war, in case you need an example.

Right. Can you compare that to World War 1-2? Can you compare that to the Crusades? or the 100 years war? Also the comment about oil. American do need cars, considering mosts of us live in suburbs and our jobs are downtown 10 miles or more away. The idea of a bus is just fine, until its overcrowded, paying a dollar everyday, not to forget the times.

I wont even answer the question about the U.S stepping in.. Just think World War 1 or 2

You own the trademark on "ass-hats". Dude. Can I have some of your royalties?

I thought Ass-Hat was ruled uncool after appearing on the O.C.

As you know, once a word reaches the O.C. it dies.

Damn Shame.

:(

Right. Can you compare that to World War 1-2? Can you compare that to the Crusades? or the 100 years war?

Are you claiming that the Great War, WWII, the various Crusades and the 100 Years War had no reason?

I thought Ass-Hat was ruled uncool after appearing on the O.C.

As you know, once a word reaches the O.C. it dies.

Damn Shame.

:(
Damn it! Then they owe me three million dollars.

its always the U.S, nobody ever blames any european powers for nukes,

Possibly something to do with the fact that the USA is the only country to have used nukes (technically atom bombs, but we'll let that pass) in anger, or the fact that they developed the first working versions?

I'd go with "Gulf of Tonkin" for 400$ bob.


Oh, and you don't need to use cars. It's called a bus. Or train. Or legs. We have legs.


We certainly don't need 50 gallon to the mile monstrocities that we have now.

We don't need it, but you don't need to eat 3 meals a day. You can make due with one and we can send the rest to starving people in third world nations. :rolleyes: Do you realize how rediculous it is for a government to legislate on need? The market will take care of it, if people can't affort to drive an Escalade or Hummer, they won't buy it. Simple as that.

We don't need it, but you don't need to eat 3 meals a day. You can make due with one and we can send the rest to starving people in third world nations. :rolleyes:

Better that people starve to death than the US reigns in its petrochemical consumption?

Are you claiming that the Great War, WWII, the various Crusades and the 100 Years War had no reason?

Are you telling me they did? Germany had no reason for expansion, the Crusades were pointless, and the 100 years war was ove royalty. You cant say those wars really had any reasons

We don't need it, but you don't need to eat 3 meals a day. You can make due with one and we can send the rest to starving people in third world nations. :rolleyes: Do you realize how rediculous it is for a government to legislate on need? The market will take care of it, if people can't affort to drive an Escalade or Hummer, they won't buy it. Simple as that.
Umm...if that one meal has about 2,500 calories, sure, but no meal that I know of (I'm going to get into problems with this and Micky D's, but let's not try) can reach that.

But that's not the point. The statement was in direct responce to someone bitching about oil prices. Quit buying cars that get 30 gallons to the mile, and you'll pay less. I'm agreeing with you. Surprise!

Are you telling me they did? Germany had no reason for expansion, the Crusades were pointless, and the 100 years war was ove royalty. You cant say those wars really had any reasons

Just because the reasons may seem bizarre to us now does not mean that they were not very real at the time.

If we are to accept your policy of judging whether a war had a reason on the basis of what we now know and believe, then that makes the Second Gulf War (launched on the spurious pretext of WMDs) a war without a reason.

You mean the US has never started a war without a rationalization, right?
I could mention the Mexican-American war, in case you need an example.

Quite a few actually -

Mexican-American War (which had an American army marching up and down on Mexican soil until 'something happened')

Spanish-American War (blame it on the MAINE which blew up, according to the inquiry, because of a Spanish mine or torpedo. Nevermind that the Spanish sailors were the first to help the half-drowned American sailors out of the water instead of shooting them or that the ship probably blew up as a freak accident as was later determined by a US Navy inquiry)

Filipino-American War (not the Philippine Insurrection) - where, after betraying their native allies and signing a treaty behind their backs, an American soldier shoots and kills a Filipino soldier then the government lies (again) to the people and to Congress saying that the Filipino fired first.

Vietnam - seriously guys, putting a ship in harms way and not expecting an international incident?

Cathenia

Right. Can you compare that to World War 1-2? Can you compare that to the Crusades? or the 100 years war? Also the comment about oil. American do need cars, considering mosts of us live in suburbs and our jobs are downtown 10 miles or more away. The idea of a bus is just fine, until its overcrowded, paying a dollar everyday, not to forget the times.

I wont even answer the question about the U.S stepping in.. Just think World War 1 or 2

Or the Opium War?

Or the Opium War?

That was a gas... the first great drug pusher :P The things we do in the name of civilization.

There was a great Chinese movie made about that, did anyone see it? Wonderful stuff.

Cathenia

I thought Ass-Hat was ruled uncool after appearing on the O.C.

As you know, once a word reaches the O.C. it dies.

Damn Shame.

:(
Actually, yes. According the the 2003 swear-word accords, anything said on the O.C. that falls under said list is now un-cool to say. XD

Quite a few actually -

Mexican-American War (which had an American army marching up and down on Mexican soil until 'something happened')

Spanish-American War (blame it on the MAINE which blew up, according to the inquiry, because of a Spanish mine or torpedo. Nevermind that the Spanish sailors were the first to help the half-drowned American sailors out of the water instead of shooting them or that the ship probably blew up as a freak accident as was later determined by a US Navy inquiry)

Filipino-American War (not the Philippine Insurrection) - where, after betraying their native allies and signing a treaty behind their backs, an American soldier shoots and kills a Filipino soldier then the government lies (again) to the people and to Congress saying that the Filipino fired first.

Vietnam - seriously guys, putting a ship in harms way and not expecting an international incident?

Cathenia


Vietnam and the Filipino-American war was pointless. The Spanish-American war, thats something different. Jose Marti had been asking the U.S for help, and the U.S REFUSED to help him, maybe with supplies in money but they would not send troops. Then the Maine blows up, its common sense that they would blame it on the Spanish considering Cuba was in complete chaos during that time, and your obviously not gonna point to the Cubans that wanted help. The U.S may have messed up some times, But its nothing compared to what Europe or Asia has done in its history. And for some reason their not getting bashed although the British are constanly agreeing with americans in the war of terror

Right. Can you compare that to World War 1-2? Can you compare that to the Crusades? or the 100 years war?
Dude, you said that the US has NEVER started a war without reason, not world war, or crusade, or Central European conflict. A war. Those were your words.

Possibly something to do with the fact that the USA is the only country to have used nukes (technically atom bombs, but we'll let that pass) in anger, or the fact that they developed the first working versions?
In anger? Haha. No. They were used because we feared the MILLIONS of casualites that were expected, as well as having to kill kids who were armed, as was done in berlin. Also, if we hadn't, then russia was well on its way to making a nuke. We did it not out of anger, but out of need. I persoanally believe that it was the right decision. Trading thousands of lives for millions.

In anger? Haha. No. They were used because we feared the MILLIONS of casualites that were expected, as well as having to kill kids who were armed, as was done in berlin. Also, if we hadn't, then russia was well on its way to making a nuke. We did it not out of anger, but out of need. I persoanally believe that it was the right decision. Trading thousands of lives for millions.
Do you have proof that it would have cost millions of lives?

The U.S may have messed up some times, But its nothing compared to what Europe or Asia has done in its history.


Does this seem fair to you: comparing one single still young country less than 250 years old to the hundreds of countries that have existed throughout European and Asian written history?


Are you suggesting that we should give the USA a by-ball because we can sit comfortably back and tell ourselves 'hey, at least we aren't still living under the tyranny of the Babylonians'?

*snip* And for some reason their not getting bashed although the British are constanly agreeing with americans in the war of terror As far as I've seen, it's mostly the government... the people just may be another story :rolleyes:.

I don't hate the US much (no country is perfect, obviously, inculding mine), but... we definatly have a number of faults that can rather easily tick off the international community. Both past and present.

Can I gamble on Panama, 1989?

ill take grenada for $200 please bob

The Atomic bomb was made in america using GERMAN scientists... So i dont know why the U.S is truly being blamed for it. But face it, the U.S may have started pointless wars once or twice, but the main reason why its bashed is cause its constanly in the spotlight. Alot of country out there have done as bad or worse than the U.S, I just dont understand why its always the U.S fault

In anger? Haha. No. They were used because we feared the MILLIONS of casualites that were expected, as well as having to kill kids who were armed, as was done in berlin. Also, if we hadn't, then russia was well on its way to making a nuke. We did it not out of anger, but out of need. I persoanally believe that it was the right decision. Trading thousands of lives for millions.

Figure of speech - you are in possession of a dictionary, yes? - used in order to differntiate between peacetime testing and use during wartime on lving human targets.

BTW, Iztatepopotla, just wanted to say I love your blog! :D
The vampire pope was AWESOME! XD

ill take grenada for $200 please bob

I'll raise you a Nicaragua, 1899.*


* or, indeed, just about any date you care to mention - 1894, 1896, 1898, 1907, 1910, 1912 through 1923, 1981 through 1990...

I'd go with "Gulf of Tonkin" for 400$ bob.


Oh, and you don't need to use cars. It's called a bus. Or train. Or legs. We have legs.


We certainly don't need 50 gallon to the mile monstrocities that we have now.
You havn't been to Texas lately have you? the is no way mass public transportation would work here since every place is just so spread out and walking.... pfftt most cities don't have sidewalks here.

The Atomic bomb was made in america using GERMAN scientists... So i dont know why the U.S is truly being blamed for it. But face it, the U.S may have started pointless wars once or twice, but the main reason why its bashed is cause its constanly in the spotlight. Alot of country out there have done as bad or worse than the U.S, I just dont understand why its always the U.S fault
But WE created and USED it.

BTW, Iztatepopotla, just wanted to say I love your blog! :D
The vampire pope was AWESOME! XD
Thanks! Glad you liked it.

But face it, the U.S may have started pointless wars once or twice, but the main reason why its bashed is cause its constanly in the spotlight. Alot of country out there have done as bad or worse than the U.S, I just dont understand why its always the U.S fault

Possibly something to do with the fact that it has arrogantly appointed itself the world's policeman?

But WE created and USED it.

So you would rather have Hitler with the Atomic bomb?

Ok, it seems to me that if you are going to compare what america is seen to be doing now, ie, being 'evil' and starting wars that have mass gains to be made and something like the crusades or the world wars, your history is a little screwy. The Crusades were military compaigns of religion, although the Pope and the Italian city states had much gain, the main aim at the time was to recapture the city of Jerusalem and the surrounding area because it was Holy, because it was seen as a relic of Jesus himself. This is something that is very much tied in with the whole religious social beliefs of the time. The people truly believed in God and truly believed what they were doing was right. Can it honestly be said America is doing or has done that since the end of WW2?

As for the World wars themselves, the First was a marking of the end of an era. It was the point where the imperial royal houses of Europe finally found themselves wiped away. The Pan-Serb nationalism that triggered the whole event due to the assasignation of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand (The Autro-Hungarian heir) is another key sign of the times. The people were looking for a new world order where they were able to have their independence. Although it is quite possible that when America went in to support people looking for a similar thing, such as in Vietnam or more recently to depose Hussain in Iraq they were doing a similar thing, but again, the blatant ulterior motives take such limelight away from any good cause that is very hard to always see it. In World War two, america entered because she had to, had she not, Hitler would have won and that would have been a terrible situation for all (and this is coming from a British person, who really dislikes the American view that they 'saved the day' - you helped, alot, and we probably couldnt have done it without you, but quit with the pro-US war films, its just counter factual and annoying). However, the war itself began not because anyone went looking for a war (Hitler planned for war, but he wantd it much much later), but as a reaction. The wars america have involved themselves in have the unfortunate position of being ones that America seemed to go looking for, as a way to look out for themselves.

As for the argument about cars, it is a sad fact that today cars are very important, although i do disagree that buses are not practical, as that $1 you spend on that per-day is alot cheaper than the gallons of petrol you have to pump into a car, especially the super sized people carrier things (that are ridiculous unless you have a huge family or a farm to run), whats wrong with a small run around car if you need one so badly?
Lastly, just to quote:

"The U.S has never started a war withought a reason, it was 1950 and up when the Cold War and the Vietnam and Cambodia incident, while the rest of the world has been destroying each other since preety much the beggining of civilization"

Again, history can easily provide us an answer; America has not been a nation, in the sense that America sees itself, since 'the beginning of civilisation.' It has infact only been a nation since the late eighteenth century and has never managed to avoid conflict since. It was a country born of a war, which then fought a civil war and has since fought many smaller wars around the globe when it has been deemed neccessary for her to do so. Now, one can not excuse Europe for doing the same, Britain and France fought for centuries and held vast Empires, but they don't anymore, and this is the key, America is now the only nation who truly can. America is now the richest nation going, it throws it's weight around and, as the unsanctioned war in Iraq proved, is not always for playing by the rules, just as the old Imperial nations would incite dispair and hatred in the colonial regions for thier runamuck actions, does the US now.

The world finds a way to hate America, but only because American actions, American attitudes and American views, coupled with plain envy that America can do what she does, causes us to do so.

Do you have proof that it would have cost millions of lives?
Please read the article on this website
http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/invade.htm

But WE created and USED it.
Yeah....but I'm not a big fan of the whole 'if we did X different this wouldn't have happened' debate .....considering that theoretically, changing an event back in time would have a sort of 'fractal' effect, chaning more than just one desired outcome.

So you would rather have Hitler with the Atomic bomb?

I thought your whole justification there was that it was used to minimalise casualties if Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet took place, no? - ie. after the fall of Berlin and the suicide of Hitler.

Figure of speech - you are in possession of a dictionary, yes? - used in order to differntiate between peacetime testing and use during wartime on lving human targets.
I wasn't trying to be an ass there, I was just making sure you knew the facts, man. Which apparently you do.

Umm...if that one meal has about 2,500 calories, sure, but no meal that I know of (I'm going to get into problems with this and Micky D's, but let's not try) can reach that.

But that's not the point. The statement was in direct responce to someone bitching about oil prices. Quit buying cars that get 30 gallons to the mile, and you'll pay less. I'm agreeing with you. Surprise!

Oh, I thought you were saying we should ban SUVs because we don't need them.

Better that people starve to death than the US reigns in its petrochemical consumption?
Who starves to death when someone commutes in a truck? Who starves when americans buy gasoline? No one!

Do you have proof that it would have cost millions of lives?
and if you don't want to pile through all that jazz, this should work too
http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/hiroshima/ytruman.htm

I'll raise you a Nicaragua, 1899.*


* or, indeed, just about any date you care to mention - 1894, 1896, 1898, 1907, 1910, 1912 through 1923, 1981 through 1990...
*smug smile*

i have a CHILE 1973

I thought your whole justification there was that it was used to minimalise casualties if Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet took place, no? - ie. after the fall of Berlin and the suicide of Hitler.

No.. that was the other guy. I wont justify the death of those in Japan thanks to the Nuke, other than the fact that it had to be done. And I forgot that the Atomic bomb was droped after Hitler killed himself.... So yeah that was my mistake

But really I just want you to answer me one thing.. Why the U.S and not Europe? Its simple, the U.S is in the blasted spotlight, everybody needs to blame something for their problems, so just go and blame the U.S its just that simple

Originally Posted by CSW
Umm...if that one meal has about 2,500 calories, sure, but no meal that I know of (I'm going to get into problems with this and Micky D's, but let's not try) can reach that.
Try sumo-wrestlers. A single (of about five) meals a day totals in excess of 5000 calories, all the way up to 9000!

*smug smile*

i have a CHILE 1973

That doesn't count - after all Kissinger got a Nobel peace prize out of it: therefore it couldn't have been an invasion, war or similar unpleasentness.

I agree, i say that in my essay like reply on page three, America is only hated/disliked etc, because she can do what she does without major consequence.

No.. that was the other guy. I wont justify the death of those in Japan thanks to the Nuke, other than the fact that it had to be done. And I forgot that the Atomic bomb was droped after Hitler killed himself.... So yeah that was my mistake

But really I just want you to answer me one thing.. Why the U.S and not Europe? Its simple, the U.S is in the blasted spotlight, everybody needs to blame something for their problems, so just go and blame the U.S its just that simple
Like how republicans blame bill clinton for everything? :D

No.. that was the other guy.

Apologies for that then.


But really I just want you to answer me one thing.. Why the U.S and not Europe? Its simple, the U.S is in the blasted spotlight, everybody needs to blame something for their problems, so just go and blame the U.S its just that simple

The US has 'consciously'* thrust itself into the spotlight. They have demanded that they take centre stage in world politics, and the production of entertainment media around the world (Bollywood not withstanding, as it is a localised effect), and through its repeated claims that it is 'number one' it has opened itself up to international criticism.



* as much as such a term can be applied to an entire nation.

I agree, i say that in my essay like reply on page three, America is only hated/disliked etc, because she can do what she does without major consequence.

Not entirely true: the attacks on the WTC are a pretty direct consequence of the US doing what it likes. I reckon it is time for the US to realise that the time for cavalier actions is long gone and to start concentrating on the talking softly rather than the carrying a big stick.

That doesn't count - after all Kissinger got a Nobel peace prize out of it: therefore it couldn't have been an invasion, war or similar unpleasentness.
ooohhhhh bwo, thats what makes its such a great trump card

the country that brings peace and democracy to the world overthrows the democratically elected president and installs a brutal military dictator. then the achitect of this plan gets the nobel peace prize! not even the base land grab known as the mexican american war can top that.

Although it is true that America has thrust itself in to World politics, she has done so out of neccessity. After WW2, when she dropped the Nuclear bombs, that was a threat, a statement that America was top dog. She needed to be. It was that or watch as most of the world would crumble to communism. Today, she continues that role because it is the only role she can play.

Apologies for that then.




The US has 'consciously'* thrust itself into the spotlight. They have demanded that they take centre stage in world politics, and the production of entertainment media around the world (Bollywood not withstanding, as it is a localised effect), and through its repeated claims that it is 'number one' it has opened itself up to international criticism.



* as much as such a term can be applied to an entire nation.

I dont think thats true.. Remember Vietnam? Nobody blames the French for losing the war, no everybody blames the U.S for it. The war on terror, its a coalition of a few countries, yet the U.S is once again blamed. I really hate the fact the U.S is dealing with everyones problems, But its even worse when their the ones to get the blame

Although it is true that America has thrust itself in to World politics, she has done so out of neccessity. After WW2, when she dropped the Nuclear bombs, that was a threat, a statement that America was top dog. She needed to be. It was that or watch as most of the world would crumble to communism.

I have yet to be convinced in the validity of the domino theory, and for that matter that post-Stalin the USSR was a greater threat to world stability than the USA.

Today, she continues that role because it is the only role she can play.

Like an aged harlot still walking the streets long past her prime?

Not entirely true: the attacks on the WTC are a pretty direct consequence of the US doing what it likes. I reckon it is time for the US to realise that the time for cavalier actions is long gone and to start concentrating on the talking softly rather than the carrying a big stick.

I stand corrected on that issue, the WTC attacks were a response to American activity, but at the same time, they held a deeper meaning for the fanatics who ordered them, one that may be both religious and political in nature. Bin Laden was able to justify the attacks because of the role America plays, but were also a firm statements that that role itself was not solid, America could still be damaged.

I dont think thats true.. Remember Vietnam? Nobody blames the French for losing the war, no everybody blames the U.S for it.

I don't blame the US for losing the war in Vietnam: I blame them for intervening.

The war on terror, its a coalition of a few countries, yet the U.S is once again blamed. I really hate the fact the U.S is dealing with everyones problems, But its even worse when their the ones to get the blame

It is unavoidable though, that the US was the one that sowed the seeds for the current crop of international terrorism due to its attitude to international intervention in the past.

The Atomic bomb was made in america using GERMAN scientists... So i dont know why the U.S is truly being blamed for it. But face it, the U.S may have started pointless wars once or twice, but the main reason why its bashed is cause its constanly in the spotlight. Alot of country out there have done as bad or worse than the U.S, I just dont understand why its always the U.S fault

errr... probably because they dropped it? Granted the Germans would probably have used it if they got it first but the fact of the matter is the USA was the one that dropped it. They released the nuclear genie.

There were options - explode it as a 'demonstration' for a Japanese delegation (granted I think that wouldn't have worked), explode it with warning on a military target or without warning on a military target. There's also the issue that the US government spent a lot of taxpayer dollars developing the 'gadget' so they 'just had to use it.'

It's only the US's fault because they're the only real superpower now and whenever they sneeze the world catches colds. It's lonely at the top isn't it?

Cathenia

I have yet to be convinced in the validity of the domino theory, and for that matter that post-Stalin the USSR was a greater threat to world stability than the USA.

The domino theory itself is flawed, i grant that, but as far as America could see, countries were falling all over the world, she needed to act. As for post Stalin USSR, she continued to be a threat because of the political situation, if she backed down, she'd look weak, and vice-versa


Like an aged harlot still walking the streets long past her prime?

If you cant see America in the role she now plays, what role would you have her in?

Lol, i managed to reply inside the quote, well done me!

If you cant see America in the role she now plays, what role would you have her in?

I would much prefer her as international mediator rather than international cop.

Possibly something to do with the fact that the USA is the only country to have used nukes (technically atom bombs, but we'll let that pass) in anger, or the fact that they developed the first working versions?
The nuclear bomb is often used as a fallback to bash the US and call them war-mongerers. People need to put things in context. At the end of the war in Europe, the allies (yes, all of them) were running nightly bombing raids over Germany. These things routinely killed 50,000+ civilians, especially when that night's target was a major city like Berlin. The atom bombs killed about 120,000 instantly, and maybe 200,000 from radiation. The air raids were run every night, meaning over all a lot more innocent people died there. Germany was weak at the time, they couldn't fight back, the war was over. How come nobody speaks out against that? Because it is a more old fashioned way of killing people?

The seige of Stalingrad killed countless people in Russia. They lost in total anywhere from 20-50 million (nobody knows for sure) civilians over a six year period. Taking the average estimate, that's 16000 civilians every single day for six years. Japan in total lost 300,000 civilians (all from the bomb), that's amateurish when compared to Russia. Nobody condemns the violence in Russia, why?

No I am not advocating the use of nuclear weapons, especially since they are now hundreds of times stronger, however, it becomes an easy scapegoat. The atom bomb attack on Japan was just the last hit in a 12 year period of severe human rights abuse, which fittingly enough started with the Japanese invading Manchuria. There was no way out of the war without more bloodshed, so don't get pissy because America choose the course of action which was in America's best interests (Truman eventually made his decision based on the fact that he was the president of America, not Japan. It was his job to protect American lives, and so he'd rather see lots of Japanese die than lots of Americans die in an invasion. Neither way was pretty).

I don't blame the US for losing the war in Vietnam: I blame them for intervening.



It is unavoidable though, that the US was the one that sowed the seeds for the current crop of international terrorism due to its attitude to international intervention in the past.

We got the world Trade Center bombed, thousands were lost. Surely you cant expect us to sit back. The only part they messed up was that they thought Saddam Hussein was protecting Bin Ladin and his buddies...

I dont think thats true.. Remember Vietnam? Nobody blames the French for losing the war, no everybody blames the U.S for it. The war on terror, its a coalition of a few countries, yet the U.S is once again blamed. I really hate the fact the U.S is dealing with everyones problems, But its even worse when their the ones to get the blame

That in itself is the problem, why do we HAVE to take care of everyones problems? Did we every consider some people might not want what we want? Or they don't want to pay the price for it (I.E. Losing thousands of their kin and having their homes destroyed). That in my opinon is the reason why we are the target for so much hate.

"Your either with us or against us" Remember that? Yah, well, can anything else spell it out clearer than that? Yes, yes, we didn't muscle all the other countries into joining "Operation Iraqi Scapegoats", but how much of a choice did we give them? That sounds harsher then I mean it too be but I am not sure how to phrase it more elegantly so I will leave it at that.

We got the world Trade Center bombed, thousands were lost. Surely you cant expect us to sit back. The only part they messed up was that they thought Saddam Hussein was protecting Bin Ladin and his buddies...
That is another reason for all the anti-American sentiments, alot (very many) people view the war in Iraq as a trivial persuit, I had no problem with going into Afghanistan, that is until we let Osama Bin Laden escape to go chasing after phantoms in Iraq, whoops.... ummm.. we were really trying to secure their freedom from the beginning, thats it... :rolleyes:

errr... probably because they dropped it? Granted the Germans would probably have used it if they got it first but the fact of the matter is the USA was the one that dropped it. They released the nuclear genie.

There were options - explode it as a 'demonstration' for a Japanese delegation (granted I think that wouldn't have worked), explode it with warning on a military target or without warning on a military target. There's also the issue that the US government spent a lot of taxpayer dollars developing the 'gadget' so they 'just had to use it.'

It's only the US's fault because they're the only real superpower now and whenever they sneeze the world catches colds. It's lonely at the top isn't it?

Cathenia

How expensive and how long does it take to make a brand new experimental weapon of mass destruction? You can say it was tested but it was still experimental. Plus if you show the "gadget" the plans for those gadgets might be stolen by spies.. and we really dont want that

We got the world Trade Center bombed, thousands were lost. Surely you cant expect us to sit back. The only part they messed up was that they thought Saddam Hussein was protecting Bin Ladin and his buddies...

It's an old argument, but when American people look at the WTC disastor and think 'Oh my God, we got attacked,' it does show the arrogance that makes the rest of the world dislike them. America has been bombing the middle east sparadically for some time, and although not blowing up famous landmarks, killing just as many, if not more people.

How come nobody speaks out against that? Because it is a more old fashioned way of killing people?

I'm probably the wrong person to answer this as I think that good old traditional artillery and dropped munitions are a bad thing.

As to why people are speaking out here about the US and nukes? Because the original poster raised the issue.

Japan in total lost 300,000 civilians (all from the bomb), that's amateurish when compared to Russia. Nobody condemns the violence in Russia, why?

Eh? Because we operate under the assumptions that (a) Hitler was obviously a bad man for invading the USSR, and (b) that Stalin was a monster, but due to the unindustrialised nature of the USSR during WWII, only by sacrifice of land for time and massive casualties for wins could victory over Germany be achieved.

That in itself is the problem, why do we HAVE to take care of everyones problems? Did we every consider some people might not want what we want? Or they don't want to pay the price for it (I.E. Losing thousands of their kin and having their homes destroyed). That in my opinon is the reason why we are the target for so much hate.

"Your either with us or against us" Remember that? Yah, well, can anything else spell it out clearer than that? Yes, yes, we didn't muscle all the other countries into joining "Operation Iraqi Scapegoats", but how much of a choice did we give them? That sounds harsher then I mean it too be but I am not sure how to phrase it more elegantly so I will leave it at that.

The U.S had wasted millions of dollars backing France during that blasted war... If they pulled out they would have lost their face in front of the world. That was the whole problem with vietnam, if they pulled out they would have been discrased in front of the world. And as a superpower that is extremly bad

I would much prefer her as international mediator rather than international cop.

But with her vast reserves of man power, money and technology, at what line would she be able to say ok, mediation failed, lets attack? and then if she does that, at what point does she go from an internation mediator to an international threat?

It's an old argument, but when American people look at the WTC disastor and think 'Oh my God, we got attacked,' it does show the arrogance that makes the rest of the world dislike them. America has been bombing the middle east sparadically for some time, and although not blowing up famous landmarks, killing just as many, if not more people.

Not to mention losing many more people over there, but I guess its ok, weve given many people freedom... in the afterlife albeit but non-theless we still gave it to them..

We got the world Trade Center bombed, thousands were lost. Surely you cant expect us to sit back.

My experience growing up with terrorism as a background to daily life has taught me that the terrorists are generally* not just insane: they have real honest concerns motivating them, and these concerns cannot be answered or crushed by use of force against them.



The only part they messed up was that they thought Saddam Hussein was protecting Bin Ladin and his buddies...


It remains to be seen if the invasion of Afghanistan was actually the solution to the major problems there, or just the catalyst for another wave of problems yet to come.


* with the exception of the loose cannons who are always drawn to such movements.

You have to think what the World Trace Center was to the U.S... Its like out of nowhere the Big Ben bombed and completly destroyed, you think the British will just stay put? Just remember how much damage the World Trade Center attack did to the U.S, not to forget that the American public was backing the war against Afghanistan all the way. Just think, if the U.S dosent attack, the public will be pissed and Bin Laden would have probably attacked again

Although it is true that America has thrust itself in to World politics, she has done so out of neccessity. After WW2, when she dropped the Nuclear bombs, that was a threat, a statement that America was top dog. She needed to be. It was that or watch as most of the world would crumble to communism. Today, she continues that role because it is the only role she can play.

You mean like the much ballyhooed domino theory that led to the involvement of US forces in Vietnam on the grounds that if it became a communism so would the rest of Asia?

Surprise. They were wrong.

But with her vast reserves of man power, money and technology, at what line would she be able to say ok, mediation failed, lets attack? and then if she does that, at what point does she go from an internation mediator to an international threat?

How about instead of using those massive reserves of man power, money and technology to crush the problems by force, instead using them to create a situation on the ground where a compromise can be reached. In other words 'another mile'.

You mean like the much ballyhooed domino theory that led to the involvement of US forces in Vietnam on the grounds that if it became a communism so would the rest of Asia?

Surprise. They were wrong.

You cant say they were wrong, we can simply say we dont know. America went in and fought, they had to withdraw, but they proved they were willing to go. If your a small nation, and going commie might lead to an attack as they had just seen happen.......what would you do?

Oh.. and remember. The U.S asked Afghanistan to hand over Osama Bin Laden.. they said no. The U.S wanted to send more inspectors to Iraq, and they said no. So the U.S tried to do this politically, it just dirint work

If your a small nation, and going commie might lead to an attack as they had just seen happen.......what would you do?

In other words, you are now saying that the US was a force during the Cold War fighting against democracy and national sovereignty by threat of arms?

How about instead of using those massive reserves of man power, money and technology to crush the problems by force, instead using them to create a situation on the ground where a compromise can be reached. In other words 'another mile'.

Because it isnt america's job, thats the job of the UN, something America disregarded and disrespected, not to mention utterly discrediting when it went to Iraq without any kind of sanction. America is in a position where she either does as she chooses, she plays by the rules or she tries to do things peacefully.......with the ever looming threat that if you dare say no, your going to feel some American military muscle.

The U.S had wasted millions of dollars backing France during that blasted war... If they pulled out they would have lost their face in front of the world. That was the whole problem with vietnam, if they pulled out they would have been discrased in front of the world. And as a superpower that is extremly bad
Or we could have pulled the rug out from under an ally, damaging our international credibility. Then, after France withdrew, we had to back the RVN, because we made committments. We couldn't invade NV because of concerns that China might pull a Korea on the US. And that isn't something we would have wanted to see.

At the time, a major issue amongst Europeans (and the driving force behind the French quest for a nuclear bomb) was a fear that the US wouldn't support the Western European allies if the Soviets launched an offensive war. They were asking "Would the US trade Washington for Paris?) By engaging in Vietnam, we thought we would reassure our allies of our commitments by taking a bloody nose in an irrelevant place, and therefore showing them that we'd really play the game if it were to start in an important place.

Beyond that, intervention in Vietnam was believed to demonstrate to the Soviets that we would go toe-to-toe in Europe. It was a key piece of deterrence policy in the fifties and early sixties..

Unfortunately, the US went beserk during Vietnam, the tactics of the war were run horribly (carpet bombing trees, brilliance MacNamara, brilliance).

In other words, you are now saying that the US was a force during the Cold War fighting against democracy and national sovereignty by threat of arms?

Not exactly, America was just scared, she went to fight because she believed she was at risk.

Oh.. and remember. The U.S asked Afghanistan to hand over Osama Bin Laden.. they said no. The U.S wanted to send more inspectors to Iraq, and they said no. So the U.S tried to do this politically, it just dirint work

However, time and time again it has failed to show willingness to the international community to go that extra mile for peace: instead it seems much happier entering into conflicts and ionvasions without a clear exit strategy.

Why? I don't know.

Knee deep in the Big Muddy
And the damn fools keep yelling to push on
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the damn fools keep yelling to push on
Waist deep! Neck deep! we'll be drowning before too long
We're neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the damn fools keep yelling to push on

Because it isnt america's job, thats the job of the UN, something America disregarded and disrespected, not to mention utterly discrediting when it went to Iraq without any kind of sanction. America is in a position where she either does as she chooses, she plays by the rules or she tries to do things peacefully.......with the ever looming threat that if you dare say no, your going to feel some American military muscle.

You are telling me what the US does, which I am all to familiar with: the real question, surely, is what should the US do?

Beyond that, intervention in Vietnam was believed to demonstrate to the Soviets that we would go toe-to-toe in Europe.

I've not heard that point of view before, interesting.

You mean like the much ballyhooed domino theory that led to the involvement of US forces in Vietnam on the grounds that if it became a communism so would the rest of Asia?

Surprise. They were wrong.
See my post above, Vietnam was about overseas committments, not the dominoe theory, despite what was said in public by the Johnson administration.

(And after Vietnam toppled, some dominoes did topple, but the result was not as catastrophic as we had feared it would be. Instead, we saw the the Khmer Rouge seize Cambodia, and the Pathet Lao seize (and maintain to this current day) power in Laos)

But, all the same, Vietnam was about something more fundamental than the dominoe theory.

You cant say they were wrong, we can simply say we dont know. America went in and fought, they had to withdraw, but they proved they were willing to go. If your a small nation, and going commie might lead to an attack as they had just seen happen.......what would you do?

Ah yes, the famed 'we didn't know' response. So if I were a bigger nation than America, I suppose I could use the terms 'pre-emptive strike' and 'posing a visible threat' to invade and subjugate it? It seems hypocritical doesn't it? Of course it is. But users of hypocrisy never see it unless it is used against them.

And all that it proved was that America was willing to spend lives and material in the name of preserving a political sphere that would be ideologically similar to it. And that is the public motive only. One has to wonder if said warship sitting in Vietnamese borders was actually attacked in the first place and just not shooting at phantoms.

Oh.. and remember. The U.S asked Afghanistan to hand over Osama Bin Laden.. they said no. The U.S wanted to send more inspectors to Iraq, and they said no. So the U.S tried to do this politically, it just dirint work
No, no. The UN wanted to send more inspectors to Iraq and the US said no.

Or we could have pulled the rug out from under an ally, damaging our international credibility. Then, after France withdrew, we had to back the RVN, because we made committments. We couldn't invade NV because of concerns that China might pull a Korea on the US. And that isn't something we would have wanted to see.

At the time, a major issue amongst Europeans (and the driving force behind the French quest for a nuclear bomb) was a fear that the US wouldn't support the Western European allies if the Soviets launched an offensive war. They were asking "Would the US trade Washington for Paris?) By engaging in Vietnam, we thought we would reassure our allies of our commitments by taking a bloody nose in an irrelevant place, and therefore showing them that we'd really play the game if it were to start in an important place.

Beyond that, intervention in Vietnam was believed to demonstrate to the Soviets that we would go toe-to-toe in Europe. It was a key piece of deterrence policy in the fifties and early sixties..

Unfortunately, the US went beserk during Vietnam, the tactics of the war were run horribly (carpet bombing trees, brilliance MacNamara, brilliance).

Tactics? What tactics? All they did was bomb the hell out of Vietnam. The only reason why the U.S wasent sucessful was because of the jungle, americans and jungles dont mix

Not exactly, America was just scared, she went to fight because she believed she was at risk.

So, because she felt her own national sovereignty and democracy were at risk she saw fit to act so as to interfere in those of other nations?

You are telling me what the US does, which I am all to familiar with: the real question, surely, is what should the US do?

There isnt much she can do, bar actually withdrawing and just stepping back, with all hte ramifications of loss of face and so on. But this isnt her fault, she's just the lonesome top dog in a world currently without competition.

I've not heard that point of view before, interesting.

A similar claim is sometimes made with reference to the dropping of the A-bombs on Japan: that the real intention was not to scare the Japanese into submission, but rather to send a message to the Soviets. I remain unconvinced of this.

So, because she felt her own national sovereignty and democracy were at risk she saw fit to act so as to interfere in those of other nations?

Yeah, just like the imperial powers before hand, she played the super power role perfectly, and still does.

No, no. The UN wanted to send more inspectors to Iraq and the US said no.

The UN was asking for more time, and the U.S just rushed at Iraq. But im preety sure Iraq was denying passage to a second wave of inspectors to Iraq, other than that the U.S wount have jumped. Most of them time the U.S finds reasons , or even makes them up before attacking something

A similar claim is sometimes made with reference to the dropping of the A-bombs on Japan: that the real intention was not to scare the Japanese into submission, but rather to send a message to the Soviets. I remain unconvinced of this.

Then we definetly disagree here, as it was quite obvious that America dropped two, to show she could and to show she had 'the guts' to do. Thus equalling a envious and rather reserved Stalin.

There isnt much she can do, bar actually withdrawing and just stepping back, with all hte ramifications of loss of face and so on. But this isnt her fault, she's just the lonesome top dog in a world currently without competition.


The US as MacBeth? So steeped in blood that she can't pull back from the brink?

What is needed is a re-evaluation of this whole 'top dog'/'underdog' malarky. Being a country in the world isn't like a school sports day - there is no one to hand you a gold star if you come first. Better to think 'what is good for the world?' even if it turns out to be of no immediate benefit to your own nation, or even disadvantage.

Pride is no reason to go to war: nor is ill-defined fear.

A similar claim is sometimes made with reference to the dropping of the A-bombs on Japan: that the real intention was not to scare the Japanese into submission, but rather to send a message to the Soviets. I remain unconvinced of this.
The use of the atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not single-reason events.

First we must understand that there was an institutional fear that we would have to invade, and that casualties would be tremendous. So many would die on both sides, the atomic bomb seemed to be able to prevent this (although, post H-N war plans called for the use of more weapons, which were not yet assembled.)

Bureaucratic inertia is probably also partially involved. That we made the bombs, so we felt we had to use them. It's a decent theory, but it isn't stand alone by any means.

There's also the message to the Soviets bit. Trumans hints to Stalin at Potsdam do show that Truman was already engaging in atomic diplomacy, and to say that the use of the bombs on Japan was just an extension of that is also decent, but also not stand-alone.

The racism theory is retarded, I need not rehash it here.

Then we definetly disagree here, as it was quite obvious that America dropped two, to show she could and to show she had 'the guts' to do. Thus equalling a envious and rather reserved Stalin.

I thought the U.S droped two because Japan wount give up after the first one?

The US as MacBeth? So steeped in blood that she can't pull back from the brink?

What is needed is a re-evaluation of this whole 'top dog'/'underdog' malarky. Being a country in the world isn't like a school sports day - there is no one to hand you a gold star if you come first. Better to think 'what is good for the world?' even if it turns out to be of no immediate benefit to your own nation, or even disadvantage.

Pride is no reason to go to war: nor is ill-defined fear.

True enough, but unfortunatly, pride and fear are the number one reasons a war is ever fought. As for a re-evaluation of the world, that would be nice.....but it's not going to happen, there will always be one person to ruin it, to go out for themselves.

I thought the U.S droped two because Japan wount give up after the first one?

There were actually tenative attempts by Japan to surrender prior to the dropping of (at least) the second bomb if not earlier: IIRC these got lost due to Soviet bureacracy. Someone else will be able to provide the facts.

.....but it's not going to happen, there will always be one person to ruin it, to go out for themselves.


...and are you happy if your nation is that 'person'?

I thought the U.S droped two because Japan wount give up after the first one?

She would have given up before long, true, not as fast, but the threat would have been enough. However, America, looking to show the world, and inparticular the USSR, was not about to wait. Although im not a fan of most American policies, she did what needed to be done on this occassion. The bombs needed to be developed and dropped by an allied side.

There were actually tenative attempts by Japan to surrender prior to the dropping of (at least) the second bomb if not earlier: IIRC these got lost due to Soviet bureacracy. Someone else will be able to provide the facts.

I dont know... The U.S losses for every island would raise by thousands. "100,000", "150,000" and it kept on increasing. Considering the fact that Japan was being run by a mitarilist leader, I would say that if the U.S would have actually gone into Japan the loses would have been disasterous...

The UN was asking for more time, and the U.S just rushed at Iraq. But im preety sure Iraq was denying passage to a second wave of inspectors to Iraq, other than that the U.S wount have jumped. Most of them time the U.S finds reasons , or even makes them up before attacking something
Actually Iraq was bending over backwards the last 6 - 8 months before the invasion to comply with all the UN requirements. The US simply kept piling demands until the whole thing toppled.

There were actually tenative attempts by Japan to surrender prior to the dropping of (at least) the second bomb if not earlier: IIRC these got lost due to Soviet bureacracy. Someone else will be able to provide the facts.
Yeah, because there were no actual diplomatic channels between Japan and the US, Japan had to get it's diplomatic requests to the US through a "neutral" party. As such, they used the Soviet Union. Unfortunately for Nagasaki, Stalin sat on the requests until after entering the war, hoping to be able to grab a chunk of Manchuria.

Oh, and you don't need to use cars. It's called a bus. Or train. Or legs. We have legs.

It's called middle of rural Maine. Don't be so ignorant as to believe everyone has public transportation or the time/ability to walk to civilization. That "gas guzzling" car is the only way I can make it to work, school, or any other place of necessity. The problem isn't cars anyway; it's the lack of proper fuel sources, if we had a better alternative fuel source than we could use it.

I dont know... The U.S losses for every island would raise by thousands. "100,000", "150,000" and it kept on increasing. Considering the fact that Japan was being run by a mitarilist leader, I would say that if the U.S would have actually gone into Japan the loses would have been disasterous...

Yes, they would, if Japan had not made its second (and successful) attempts at a negotiated surrender. The fact remains that it did try and surrender earlier.


EDIT: by the way, apologies for my absolutely lousy typing skills on display in this thread. A combination of a keyboard which arbitrarily skips letters every now and again, sitting on a couch with the keyboard on the floor and a few drinks...

...and are you happy if your nation is that 'person'?

If you mean my nation in the game, then yeah, Themiskira would always go for the gold! However, if you mean my country of origin, which is the UK (actually i was born in Germany, but lets not go there), then a resurrgance of the British Empire, although quite nice to imagine would just never work. The one person i invisioned would be more an antagonist which would cause things to collapse rather than actually succeed in gaining any vast power.

If you mean my nation in the game, then yeah, Themiskira would always go for the gold! However, if you mean my country of origin, which is the UK (actually i was born in Germany, but lets not go there), then a resurrgance of the British Empire, although quite nice to imagine would just never work. The one person i invisioned would be more an antagonist which would cause things to collapse rather than actually succeed in gaining any vast power.

I was talking RL. I'm in the UK too, and I suppose we can both console ourselves with the thought that although Blair might very well be an utter twat, at least he isn't GWB and isn't shitting on the planks of the international stage quite so visibly.

I was talking RL. I'm in the UK too, and I suppose we can both console ourselves with the thought that although Blair might very well be an utter twat, at least he isn't GWB and isn't shitting on the planks of the international stage quite so visibly.

Lol, Only cos half of him is so up GWB that we cant see all of him! I just cant believe he won again......

Cuz America guzzles down how many millions or gallons of oil a day.

(Coming from an American)


Your not a very good american. why would you bash your own country if you dont like the way things are run around here than walk your happy ass to mexico or canada cuz you aint drivin cuz you dont want to use gas do you? :eek:

http://www.kingsofchaos.com/recruit.php?uniqid=49mpifck

The U.S should be pulling out preety soon.. I think their police training program in Iraq is nearly finished

Well, it's been fun debating with you guys, but at twenty to four in th emorning here in good old blighty, i think its time for bed, else i'll never make it to my start up lecture tomorrow (stupid university making me go to a start up thing three months before i even start the course). If any of you have anything you really wanna shout me down for, feel free to telegram me, otherwise i'll check this thread somepoint later.

Well, it's been fun debating with you guys, but at twenty to four in th emorning here in good old blighty, i think its time for bed, else i'll never make it to my start up lecture tomorrow (stupid university making me go to a start up thing three months before i even start the course). If any of you have anything you really wanna shout me down for, feel free to telegram me, otherwise i'll check this thread somepoint later.

take care

http://www.kingsofchaos.com/recruit.php?uniqid=49mpifck

We don't like your referal spam around here. Nor do the moderators.

The U.S should be pulling out preety soon.. I think their police training program in Iraq is nearly finished

And what about Afghanistan?

Afghanistan is just under American lockdown now.. I doubt theyll do that about Iraq.. That was Bush's plan, create democracy and a police to enforce it, so if he stays he might piss off the antiwar protestors even more

That was Bush's plan, create democracy and a police to enforce it, so if he stays he might piss off the antiwar protestors even more

So the whole WMDs thing was just a smokescreen then?

So the whole WMDs thing was just a smokescreen then?

What does WMD stand for? Sorry im not good with abriviations

What does WMD stand for? Sorry im not good with abriviations

Weapons of Mass Destruction.

How about this:

In addition to being the only nation on earth to actually drop the bomb, not once, but twice...

In addition to carpet bombing civilian German cities 3 days AFTER the Nazis formally surrendered in WWII... :mp5:

There's the following CIA operations that are now declassified:

CIA operations and the consequences of such operations.

1) IRAQ—200,000 killed during “Operation Desert Storm” in 1991
and, as a direct result of international economic sanctions imposed
over the last decade, one million more have died (500,000 of which
were children). Former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright
thought such decisions were “worth the cost.” :mp5:
2) Guatemala—120,000 killed between 1954-1994. CIA
“Operation PB Success” overthrew the government of Jacobo
Arbenz Guzman. :sniper:
3) Dominican Republic (1965)—3,000 deaths when the CIA
toppled the government. :mp5:
4) Indonesia (1965)—2 million killed by Suharto and in East Timor
in 1975 200,000 killed. :sniper:
5) Nicaragua (1980s)—30,000 killed, and the USA refused to obey
the World Court’s decision on the illegal nature of mined harbours. :mp5:
6) El Salvador (1980s)—80,000 “soft target” deaths (Romero,
etc). :sniper:
7) Angola (1970s)—1 million deaths. John Stockwell was head of
the Angolan operations (1975-76) Vietnam (1973-75), Zaire, Congo
(1967-69). :mp5:
8) Chile (1973)—Allende overthrown and Pinochet brought to
power—30,000 killed. :sniper:
9) Panama (1989)—Noreiga overthrown, 8,000 killed.
10) Iran (1953)—Mossadegh overthrown Shah brought to power—
70,000 deaths. :gundge:
11) Israel (1948)—in the conflict with the Palestinians, the USA has
taken the Zionist position.
12) Lebanon(1980s)—Thousands killed.
13) Indochina (1954-1975)—4 million killed (The
Pentagon papers, Daniel Ellsberg).
14) Libya (1980s)—bombed relentlessly.
15) Argentenia (1976-1982)—11,000 disappeared.
16) Afghanistan(1980s)—largest CIA operation of the
1980s—US$5-6 billion.
17) The American invasion of Afghanistan (2002) and Iraq
(2003)
18) American soldiers forcefully remove democratically elected
President Aristide of Haiti from his palace and place him into exile
against his will (2004)

And then there's the withdrawal of the US from the international
courts who would hold american soldiers accountable for those
tortures documented by Amnesty International at Guantonimo Bay,
Abu Ghraib, etc.

And then there's the refusal of the US to discontinue the use of
cluster bombs which have left millions of landmines (literally millions...
not just lots and lots) all over asia and the middle east where every
day, children continue to lose their limbs or lives.

Here is a list of the countries that America has been at war with - and
bombed - since World War II: China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53),
Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959-60), the Belgian
Congo (1964), Peru (1965), Laos (1964-73), Vietnam (1961-73), Cambodia
(1969-70), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), El Salvador (1980s), Nicaragua
(1980s), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998),
Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan, Iraq again.

these things bug some of us.

But as President Bush said at FBI headquarters a few after the anouncement to bomb Iraq for a second time:

"This is our calling. This is the calling of the United States of America.
The most free nation in the world. A nation built on fundamental values that
reject hate, reject violence, rejects murderers and rejects evil. We will
not tire."

indeed.

How about this:

In addition to being the only nation on earth to actually drop the bomb, not once, but twice...

In addition to carpet bombing civilian German cities 3 days AFTER the Nazis formally surrendered in WWII... :mp5:

There's the following CIA operations that are now declassified:

CIA operations and the consequences of such operations.

1) IRAQ—200,000 killed during “Operation Desert Storm” in 1991
and, as a direct result of international economic sanctions imposed
over the last decade, one million more have died (500,000 of which
were children). Former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright
thought such decisions were “worth the cost.” :mp5:
2) Guatemala—120,000 killed between 1954-1994. CIA
“Operation PB Success” overthrew the government of Jacobo
Arbenz Guzman. :sniper:
3) Dominican Republic (1965)—3,000 deaths when the CIA
toppled the government. :mp5:
4) Indonesia (1965)—2 million killed by Suharto and in East Timor
in 1975 200,000 killed. :sniper:
5) Nicaragua (1980s)—30,000 killed, and the USA refused to obey
the World Court’s decision on the illegal nature of mined harbours. :mp5:
6) El Salvador (1980s)—80,000 “soft target” deaths (Romero,
etc). :sniper:
7) Angola (1970s)—1 million deaths. John Stockwell was head of
the Angolan operations (1975-76) Vietnam (1973-75), Zaire, Congo
(1967-69). :mp5:
8) Chile (1973)—Allende overthrown and Pinochet brought to
power—30,000 killed. :sniper:
9) Panama (1989)—Noreiga overthrown, 8,000 killed.
10) Iran (1953)—Mossadegh overthrown Shah brought to power—
70,000 deaths. :gundge:
11) Israel (1948)—in the conflict with the Palestinians, the USA has
taken the Zionist position.
12) Lebanon(1980s)—Thousands killed.
13) Indochina (1954-1975)—4 million killed (The
Pentagon papers, Daniel Ellsberg).
14) Libya (1980s)—bombed relentlessly.
15) Argentenia (1976-1982)—11,000 disappeared.
16) Afghanistan(1980s)—largest CIA operation of the
1980s—US$5-6 billion.
17) The American invasion of Afghanistan (2002) and Iraq
(2003)
18) American soldiers forcefully remove democratically elected
President Aristide of Haiti from his palace and place him into exile
against his will (2004)

And then there's the withdrawal of the US from the international
courts who would hold american soldiers accountable for those
tortures documented by Amnesty International at Guantonimo Bay,
Abu Ghraib, etc.

And then there's the refusal of the US to discontinue the use of
cluster bombs which have left millions of landmines (literally millions...
not just lots and lots) all over asia and the middle east where every
day, children continue to lose their limbs or lives.

Here is a list of the countries that America has been at war with - and
bombed - since World War II: China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53),
Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (1958), Cuba (1959-60), the Belgian
Congo (1964), Peru (1965), Laos (1964-73), Vietnam (1961-73), Cambodia
(1969-70), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), El Salvador (1980s), Nicaragua
(1980s), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-99), Bosnia (1995), Sudan (1998),
Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan, Iraq again.

these things bug some of us.

But as President Bush said at FBI headquarters a few after the anouncement to bomb Iraq for a second time:

"This is our calling. This is the calling of the United States of America.
The most free nation in the world. A nation built on fundamental values that
reject hate, reject violence, rejects murderers and rejects evil. We will
not tire."

indeed.


and your telling me that all of that we did completly alone with no allies whatsoever? or not even try to solve it politically? Plus im sure other countries have done just as bad.. So ill stick to view. The U.S is hated for being in the spotlight

No.. that was the other guy. I wont justify the death of those in Japan thanks to the Nuke, other than the fact that it had to be done. And I forgot that the Atomic bomb was droped after Hitler killed himself.... So yeah that was my mistake

But really I just want you to answer me one thing.. Why the U.S and not Europe? Its simple, the U.S is in the blasted spotlight, everybody needs to blame something for their problems, so just go and blame the U.S its just that simple

Because none of the other empires really exist anymore and the US, the world's remaining superpower, sometimes acts very heavy-handedly in matters of international consequence. Like I said, when America sneezes, the world catches a cold (ie. everyone's affected by what you do). Like Uncle Ben says, "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility"

Europe's had its fair share of horrific things to apologize for (Crusades, Inquisition, the Belgian Congo, etc.) but it's just not the one most responsible for the present woes of the world (or so a lot of people perceive).

Cathenia

Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I dont really believe in that bullshit.. considering that no proof was found of that even though Americans have been overruning the country for nearly a year now. I hate war, I really do. I just hate it that America is blamed for everything :(

I dont really believe in that bullshit.

That was Bush's plan, create democracy and a police to enforce it, so if he stays he might piss off the antiwar protestors even more

So, it seems that by your own admission and beliefs, GWB lied to his own people in order to secure 'democracy' in another country. Any wonder why the US gets a lot of flak?

Although it is true that America has thrust itself in to World politics, she has done so out of neccessity. After WW2, when she dropped the Nuclear bombs, that was a threat, a statement that America was top dog. She needed to be. It was that or watch as most of the world would crumble to communism. Today, she continues that role because it is the only role she can play.

The US is the world's policeman - unfortunately it behaves more like Denzel Washington in TRAINING DAY than Eliot Ness in UNTOUCHABLES.

Cathenia

So, it seems that by your own admission and beliefs, GWB lied to his own people in order to secure 'democracy' in another country. Any wonder why the US gets a lot of flak?

Your telling me that other leaders have never lied to their people? Oh and I really dont like Bush

You have to think what the World Trace Center was to the U.S... Its like out of nowhere the Big Ben bombed and completly destroyed, you think the British will just stay put? Just remember how much damage the World Trade Center attack did to the U.S, not to forget that the American public was backing the war against Afghanistan all the way. Just think, if the U.S dosent attack, the public will be pissed and Bin Laden would have probably attacked again
like if, for example, a terrorist organisation bombed the hotel the governing party in the UK were staying in, the day before their party conference, killing several MPs, injuring others, and coming very, very close to killing the Prime Minister?

oh no...that could never happen. and the imaginery terrorist group would never have got most of its funding from the US (private mostly).

oh, hang on....

Your telling me that other leaders have never lied to their people? Oh and I really dont like Bush

No, but when the fact that there were a lot of smoke and mirros involved in motivating the US people to accpet another invasion of Iraq, and such parlour tricks are played out in the full glare of the international media spotlight that the US has created for itself, then the answer to your original questions becomes fairly obvious...


I mean really, what the hell makes the U.S so freaking evil?

No, but when the fact that there were a lot of smoke and mirros involved in motivating the US people to accpet another invasion of Iraq, and such parlour tricks are played out in the full glare of the international media spotlight that the US has created for itself, then the answer to your original questions becomes fairly obvious...

If your gonna blame the U.S for being evil for using mirrors to lie to the people.. Then you might as well consider half the world for being evil

and coming very, very close to killing the Prime Minister?



Not that her death would, in itself, have been a bad thing. Even the hardcore loyalists at my school were laughing about the gall of the IRA the day after this one and mourning the fact that she had survived.

Not that her death would, in itself, have been a bad thing. Even the hardcore loyalists at my school were laughing about the gall of the IRA the day after this one and mourning the fact that she had survived.
yea, i was considering adding that in, but felt that saying "not that killing her would have been that bad" would have undermined the comparison to a national tragedy somewhat.

If your gonna blame the U.S for being evil for using mirrors to lie to the people.. Then you might as well consider half the world for being evil

They've been known to use sock puppets and they pull coins out of their ears!

Those deceitful yank bastards! :mad:

Im preety tired so im gonna go to sleep.. Freaking high school finals suck balls

If your gonna blame the U.S for being evil for using mirrors to lie to the people.. Then you might as well consider half the world for being evil

Half the world is not fucking instigating the invasion of sovereign states at the drop of a hat, or on the basis of personal vendettas, or in order to channel foreign resources into their own businesses, and destabilising entire regions in doing so, while at the same time making spurious claims about spreading justice and democracy as it does so.

Right... their not doing it themselves their just helping us out. but yeah i really need to sleep

Right... their not doing it themselves their just helping us out. but yeah i really need to sleep

It's called begging for scraps from the rich man’s table.

If your gonna blame the U.S for being evil for using mirrors to lie to the people.. Then you might as well consider half the world for being evil

You are missing the point. The United States lied in order to convince its naive and desperate international allies to accept war. When was the last time a major engagement was fought by any country on the basis of a lie? Somebody can correct me if they can find a more recent example, but I believe the last time was when Milosevic used his bogus concept of Serb nationalism to justify the Balkan conflict. There certainly has been no recent war fought by a top international player that was based on a lie. Not even the Soviet Union, or "Evil Empire" as Reagan put it, lied to justify a war. This puts the U.S. in a category of its own!

I don't subscribe to the concept that America is evil; nothing the U.S. has done comes close to warranting that label. I do, however, believe that the U.S. has surrendered the moral high ground that it fought a World War to attain. The Bush administration criticizes human rights violations and a lack of democracy when its own conduct betrays democratic principles, most notably transparency, and has caused the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians who can now be free only in death. The U.S. should instead be establishing a standard of norms for the behavior of twenty-first century democracies, but as long as it uses lies and mirrors--the tactics of lesser states and lesser leaders--how can the U.S. truly maintain its image (if it has not already lost it) as a noble and benevolent member of the international community?

As a citizen of the U.S., I have grave concerns about the future welfare of my country in large part because our attitude, perceived or real, does not endear us to our international neighbors. In a globalized world, we cannot afford to sacrifice common sense for political ideology and expedience.

We got the world Trade Center bombed, thousands were lost. Surely you cant expect us to sit back. The only part they messed up was that they thought Saddam Hussein was protecting Bin Ladin and his buddies...

That 'mess up' is costing the lives of good American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis.

Let me explain a bit where I'm coming from. I believe in America, I always have. When America stood against communism, having read about Stalin and his reign of terror I was proud to be on the right side. When the Berlin Wall came down I was proud that we'd helped out. When 9/11 happened and my sister was in New York I was as outraged as everyone. When US troops went into Afghanistan I thought, it's only right.

Where in the world did Iraq come from? Did Georgie-boy dream that one up because it was his dad's unfinished conquest? It's like NO MATTER WHAT there HAD to be a connection to Al Qaida (which isn't finished, not by a long shot). Why weren't resources and troops being poured into Afghanistan to settle with the drug lords and Al Qaida once and for all? Why did we go against UN resolutions and then proceed to vilify and possibly destroy the very organization we helped set up to keep peace and maintain justice in this mixed up world? So I read more about world history and American history and it really hurt to see how the country I believed in so much could be such a bitter opponent of freedom and democracy. How can we maintain our freedom and democracy while depriving others of it? How can we spend so much on a stupid Television show that has kids splashing through chocolate syrup or tossing pies at each other in obscene amounts when people are starving in Ethiopia, Sudan and North Korea? How can I justify to my conscience that I have done right when my life deprives others of life? Why can't we just ask ourselves that? After all isn't America supposed to be all that is good and right in the world, the bastion of freedom and democracy, where everyone gets a fair shot and free speech? I mean if we're after helping other countries out, why do we have to do it with bombs and torture rather than food and friendship?

okay I'm done with my rant,
Cathenia

A similar claim is sometimes made with reference to the dropping of the A-bombs on Japan: that the real intention was not to scare the Japanese into submission, but rather to send a message to the Soviets. I remain unconvinced of this.

I think it was both... the USSR was set to take over Manchuria and probably Japan if they could swing it. The Western Allies knew they had to end it quick or lose Asia. However which way, America will have to live with that infamy forever - the only nation that dropped the bomb.

Cathenia

Yeah, just like the imperial powers before hand, she played the super power role perfectly, and still does.

I'm not saying that Britain or France are guiltless. France in the 1930's and 1940's kept on antagonizing Thailand (Siam), taking more and more Thai territory until they fought a war over it in 1941. Oh and the Thai Prime Minister was supposedly 'pro-Japanese' - funny how much we vilify and label people we want to destroy (ie. lousy commie!) - though Japan still had to invade their 'ally' in December 1941.

In 1879, without any provocation other than they had a large disciplined army, the British crown decided to 'pacify' Zulu land (which was favorably disposed to them and was even trading with the British settlers in Natal). Peace feelers sent out by King Cetshwayo were ignored and a British army was sent to destroy the 'black savages'.

The British army got the crap cut out of them (literally - the Zulu ritually disembowel corpses to 'release the spirit') at Isandhlwana. The Zulu lost eventually and the British integrated Zululand into their empire.

The other nations are guilty as sin - but it's the actions of America that are affecting us now.

Cathenia

No, but when the fact that there were a lot of smoke and mirros involved in motivating the US people to accpet another invasion of Iraq, and such parlour tricks are played out in the full glare of the international media spotlight that the US has created for itself, then the answer to your original questions becomes fairly obvious...

Wasn't the last president, William Jefferson Clinton, nearly impeached for something similar - lying to the American people?

Cathenia

Half the world is not fucking instigating the invasion of sovereign states at the drop of a hat, or on the basis of personal vendettas, or in order to channel foreign resources into their own businesses, and destabilising entire regions in doing so, while at the same time making spurious claims about spreading justice and democracy as it does so.

I guess it's the 'claims' America makes for itself (though by definition France runs a close second thanks to Libertie, Egalite, Fraternite). America, defender of freedom and democracy. Those are very loaded words. Those are words that strike deep into the human psyche, that affect people who have to struggle with tyrannical regimes or limited freedoms. For three hundred years America, thanks to her unique history, throwing off the British yoke and establishing a nation 'for the people, by the people and of the people', accepting the 'tired', the 'poor', the 'huddled masses yearning to breathe free', it has always been looked upon as a beacon of freedom. Now, when it betrays those ideals it betrays the world and itself.

Case in point, the Philippines which GWB used as an 'example of the success of American style democracy'. The Philippines is a pathetic mess today thanks to a people who have been psychologically disfigured by colonial conquest and the 'progressive policies' of a series of virtual puppets and lapdog presidents, the worst of which, Ferdinand Marcos, robbed the country blind and was whisked away by an American chopper when his people stormed his palace in 1986 (add that to the list of dirty dictators who were Americas fair haired boys). How did it get this way?

In 1898, Assistant Secretary of the Navy sends Commodore George Dewey to Hong Kong to watch over the Spanish fleet in Manila. While he's there he meets exiled Philippine revolutionary leader, Emilio Aguinaldo and promises him verbally (taking care to put nothing down in writing) to help him win freedom - after all America inspired the revolution that he led and it's a known fact that colonial conquest is against American policy. Aguinaldo agrees and returns with Dewey to Manila. The battle of Manila Bay is fought and it's as one sided a Turkey shoot as Desert Storm. Meanwhile Aguinaldo proclaims liberty to his people and a general rising ensues so that only the capital of Manila and the outpost of Baler is in Spanish hands. Meanwhile American troops under Elwell Otis, Wesley Merritt and Arthur MacArthur are being shipped over and Dewey convinces his compliant ally to wait - meanwhile he's conniving with the Spanish to take the city without a fight behind the backs of his allies who are oh, just natives - the term used at the time was NIGGERS - and when the city surrenders in a mock battle the Filipino troops are refused entry by their allies. The American commanders begin to fortify the city and build defense lines - strange actions for an ally. Finally there's an incident - an American patrol shoots a bunch of Filipino soldiers and the commanders lie to the American government and people saying that the Filipinos fired first which later swings the votes of the undecided Congressmen to accept the Treaty of Paris which sells the Philippines for $20,000 to America - a deal which America had no moral right to accept. From then on it's a slaughter - when Filipinos fight back they're called 'insurgents', when they ambush American troops it's called a 'massacre', meanwhile Americans take no prisoners, torture civilians by forcing swamp water into their throats, build concentration camps and shoot males ten years old and up on the orders of Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Teddy Roosevelt: "Kill and burn, the more you kill and burn, the more it will please me." When the president, the betrayed Generalissmo Aguinaldo is captured by Col.Frederick Funston, it's called a brilliant exploit. Then peace is declared - but the Filipino 'insurgents' keep on fighting till in 1912, the Americans have to invent the 45 caliber pistol to stop fanatical charging Muslim warriors from chopping their heads off.

Of course America was there to civilize, Christianize and educate the Philippines. How pray tell do you civilize a nation with a history, culture and trade links to china that existed when white America was still a dream, their ancestors a part of Plantagenet's England or Valois France? How do you Christianize a nation that has been Catholic long before Jamestown or the Plymouth Rock? And how do you educate a people whose University of Santo Tomas is the oldest existing university in Asia, predating Yale, Princeton and Harvard? Oh yeah, God told him to at prayers. The American God and Manifest Destiny. America needed to open up a secure route to China somewhere in Southeast Asia at the time.

Why bring this up? Because this is exactly what's happened here in Iraq and Afghanistan. America was Saddam's ally when it needed him to fight the Ayatollah. So was the Taliban, when the Russians invaded Afghanistan. Then when they're no longer needed or when America wants something from them, they're demonized and vilified, they are suddenly the 'axis of evil'. It is a Christian crusade to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, to overthrow the sovereign government of a sovereign people, demonize its ambassadors so that the poor shmucks can't appear at functions and look like Satan. A war started for fictious reasons like WMD's or the Spanish conspiracy to blow up the Maine or the shooting of an American soldier - which by the way, if he had been shot, it would have been only right seeing as they were not welcome to stay in a country whose people they had betrayed - a war that was supposedly over long ago when George W Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and said its over, yet now young American soldiers are dying there.

Like I said before, what happened at 9/11 was evil - but America is committing as great an evil in prosecuting this unjustified war.

Two wrongs don't make a right. He who does not learn the lessons of history is doomed to repeat them.

Cathenia

You mean the US has never started a war without a rationalization, right?
I could mention the Mexican-American war, in case you need an example.

But the US had a very good rationalization for the Mexican-American war. Mexico was a rival for power on the N. American continent and the US wanted Texas. Those were two very good reasons to fight that war.
The US was outmanned and out gunned in every battle it fought in that war. But the Mexicans had the misfortune of having terrible leadership at the same time the US had a crop of very good leaders. Result, US victory. A victory that was completely unexpected by the European powers of the time. They expected the US to get its ass handed to it.

But the US had a very good rationalization for the Mexican-American war. Mexico was a rival for power on the N. American continent and the US wanted Texas. Those were two very good reasons to fight that war.

I wouldn't called them reasons. Objectives, excuses, maybe, but not reasons. Truth is Mexico represented no threat at all to the US, and it was only US expansionist ambition that was behind the war.


The US was outmanned and out gunned in every battle it fought in that war. But the Mexicans had the misfortune of having terrible leadership at the same time the US had a crop of very good leaders. Result, US victory. A victory that was completely unexpected by the European powers of the time. They expected the US to get its ass handed to it.
Not really, perhaps outmanned, but not outgunned. Much less out-trained and out-strategized. The US had much more modern weapons and a heavy industry to manufacture artillery, guns and powder, plus a powerful navy. Mexico lacked all of that. The US was united, Mexico was divided and had been in constant civil war almost since its birth. And it was just recovering from French occupation.

No one really expected Mexico to win, and for the US it was little more than a walk in the park. It was simply the right moment to strike and get themselved a good chunk of territory.

It would be nice if all the nations of the world got together and had talks about what would be best for all countries. I mean, instead of the US having to be the sole power in the world, the power could be distributed between all. That way maybe the US could finally concentrate on it's domestic issues. We could call it Band of Nations or Connected Nations or something like that. You know. Just a thought.

Wasn't the last president, William Jefferson Clinton, nearly impeached for something similar - lying to the American people?

Cathenia


No. Some would argue all politicians lie to the American people. Certainly corporate america liets to the American people. Clinton was nearly impeached for lying under oath (i.e. perjury) - very very different thing.