NationStates Jolt Archive

If you had to choose one thing, be it a war, colonization, subsidizing a friendly tyrant, or whatever, that you were most ashamed of that your country did, what would it be? Please try to choose just one thing, though.

For me, it would be the U.S. installing Mobutu Sese Seko (and propping him up for a quarter of a century).

I'm having a bit of trouble deciding. My country doesn't have the best track record when it comes to foreign policy.

I'm having a bit of trouble deciding. My country doesn't have the best track record when it comes to foreign policy.

What country is that?

What country is that?

The U.S. Stupid CIA.

I am ashamed of nothing..Being ashamed won't make anything better or reverse history.

The U.S. Stupid CIA.

Amen.

I can't actually pick one. I may have to think really hard about this to see if I can come up with 1 that is shameful.

I'll be back.

Right now, Harper licking Bush's ass.

I am ashamed of nothing..Being ashamed won't make anything better or reverse history.
No, but it does mean that you might just think things through next time you are about to do or say something stupid. It is a great tragedy that people cannot learn from their mistakes.

I guess the whole promising the Jews Israel yet also promising the Arabs the same thing might be up there

Not too easy a question for a Brit

Right now, Harper licking Bush's ass.

Not a pleasant mental image.

*groans*

Hmm, joining the EU.

No, but it does mean that you might just think things through next time you are about to do or say something stupid. It is a great tragedy that people cannot learn from their mistakes.

Shame has nothing to do with it. You don't have to be ashamed of something to learn from it.

Im American myself, would say the means and process of the annexation of Hawaii. Not really our finest hour.

Well the "White Australia" policy wasn't that good...

The Philippines war and occupation, god that was awful.

Free Trade. We have lost 56% of our buisinesses in Canada since.

The Somme.

We should have shot our officers, and then our politicians.

Right now, Harper licking Bush's ass.
I second that.

Legalizing Gay Marriage.

That is foreign policy in what sense?

The past three years haven't been so great for us conservatives that still remain in Canada

Because other people getting married affects you so, so much. You're breaking my heart, honey.

The Somme.

We should have shot our officers, and then our politicians.

Given that we were not obliged to involve ourselves in the great war anyway, possibly the shootings should have come earlier.

That is foreign policy in what sense?



Because other people getting married affects you so, so much. You're breaking my heart, honey.

Weird, he must have edited his original post to be less blatantly stupid.

Weird, he must have edited his originaly post to be less blatantly stupid.

I caught the little bugger. :)

I caught the little bugger. :)

Well I'm glad you did :D

Weird, he must have edited his originaly post to be less blatantly stupid.
So, we can't mock him for his open-stupidity any more? Hunting season on morons is over already? Damn my worthless white person hunting licesnse!

Hmm, joining the EU.

What's so bad about the European Union? I know very little about its actual governmental structure and whatnot, so you'll have to forgive my ignorance.

Because other people getting married affects you so, so much.

But - but gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage! Won't someone please think of the children!??! :eek:


(Yes, I'm being facetious. ;))

None of them. I feel no personal shame for the historical actions of assorted groups of men which maintained a self imposed claim of sovereignity (an irrelevant claim based upon mutual acceptance of the terms therein) over the same area of land upon which I was born.

Why should I?

As a German-Australian, I'd say the policy of surrendering after WWI.

Besides that, what GPN said.

The Whole unprepared Vietnam War was bad, but The War in Iraq is pretty much the same thing, just to a higher extent

What's so bad about the European Union? I know very little about its actual governmental structure and whatnot, so you'll have to forgive my ignorance.

It is but through ignorance of the EU that one can ask the question "What's so bad about the European Union?".

It is but through ignorance of the EU that one can ask the question "What's so bad about the European Union?".

I never would have pegged you as a euroskeptic.

It is but through ignorance of the EU that one can ask the question "What's so bad about the European Union?".

Well, see, I was actually hoping you would let me in on what's bad about it, rather than just saying an empty statement. From what I can see, the European Union offers interconnected economies, a single currency, and a huge amount of stability to Europe. It certainly makes it much harder for any of the major European nations to go to war again without disrupting and potentially destroying their own economies in the process. This, to me, is a very good thing.

That being said, the actions of the previous governments of Australia that I am most critical of are:
1)Not just declaring war on the Aboriginals rather than messing around with all of this 'Terra Nulius' crap (which whilst definitely easier at the time, has caused an untangleable mess of responsibility today)
2)Every subsequent 'policy' for the aboriginal population of Australia (from integration and assimilation, to stolen generation and self-determination :) )
3)The paragon of Australian racism, the 'White Australia Policy'.

there are so many that its hard to pick just one

the chilean coup that brought pinochet to power...

the selling of arms to iran and diverting the proceeds to fund an unpopular rebellion in nicaragua...

the screwing of the pakistani people in order that their leader could broker a meeting between the US and china..

the subjection of the phillipines...

so many, so very many

I never would have pegged you as a euroskeptic.

Umm, I haven't exactly hidden my contempt for Europe.

Right now, Harper licking Bush's ass.

Hehe, so true. "We now present Mr. George Bush, and his wife Stephanie."

Actually, though, I'm more ashamed of our actions at home than I am of our foreign policy. We've done a few really horrid things, but I think resedential schools and/or basically everything we did to the First Nations people takes the cake.

Well, see, I was actually hoping you would let me in on what's bad about it, rather than just saying an empty statement.

I wasn't going to give you a civics lesson on how the EU works. Wiki it if you want to know.

From what I can see, the European Union offers interconnected economies,

Which we have without the EU, and to a much too large extent with it, especially when it comes to wretched EU protectionism against the outside world and unfair subsidies and micromanagement on the inside.

a single currency,

*spits* The euro is just a plain old stupid idea centralising even more power that needs not be centralised. Sweden can run its monetary policy a lot better than a bank in Frankfurt that can't even make France and Germany grow some fiscal responsibility.

and a huge amount of stability to Europe.

Again, something we need not the EU - a democratically deficient ultra-bureaucracy - for.

It certainly makes it much harder for any of the major European nations to go to war again without disrupting and potentially destroying their own economies in the process. This, to me, is a very good thing.

This to me is superfluous since the same is true without the EU, and certainly not an argument applicable to Sweden.

I wasn't going to give you a civics lesson on how the EU works. Wiki it if you want to know.



Which we have without the EU, and to a much too large extent with it, especially when it comes to wretched EU protectionism against the outside world and unfair subsidies and micromanagement on the inside.



*spits* The euro is just a plain old stupid idea centralising even more power that needs not be centralised. Sweden can run its monetary policy a lot better than a bank in Frankfurt that can't even make France and Germany grow some fiscal responsibility.



Again, something we need not the EU - a democratically deficient ultra-bureaucracy - for.



This to me is superfluous since the same is true without the EU, and certainly not an argument applicable to Sweden.
No intentions of asking for a civics lesson. Merely some actual meat to your statement, which you've now provided, thank you. (Not sarcastic.)

This is interesting, I must say. I was not aware that the EU was practicing protectionism and anti-free trade policies. Nor was I aware that monetary policy was being poorly run. I'll have to do some signficant research, but clearly my original opinion of the EU was not formed with the greatest of knowledge at hand.

It is but through ignorance of the EU that one can ask the question "What's so bad about the European Union?".

i can see why anyone might think that joining the EU was a mistake. i can see being embarrassed by one's country being so stupid. but ashamed? whats to be ashamed of?

I wonder when Laerod's going to see this thread. He always has funny responses to this question.

Let's not hijack this thread into a debate on the EU, thanks.

Ireland doesn't have much foreign policy, let alone any to be ashamed of. :)

Well the "White Australia" policy wasn't that good...

That wasn't foreign policy, though. And neither was the subjugation of our indigenous population.


I'd say the complicity of successive Australian governments in the genocide of the Timorese.

i can see why anyone might think that joining the EU was a mistake. i can see being embarrassed by one's country being so stupid. but ashamed? whats to be ashamed of?

Well, agricultural subsidies that lead to price dumping with which developing countries can never compete, for one.

Hoo-boy. We have alot. One particular one comes to mind, and that would be the Contras in Central America. Openly funding terrorist activities doesn't exactly sit well with me.

Well, agricultural subsidies that lead to price dumping with which developing countries can never compete, for one.

Agreed. The U.S. does the same thing, and it nauseates me to no end. :mad:

If you had to choose one thing, be it a war, colonization, subsidizing a friendly tyrant, or whatever, that you were most ashamed of that your country did, what would it be? Please try to choose just one thing, though.

For me, it would be the U.S. installing Mobutu Sese Seko (and propping him up for a quarter of a century).

Selling out South Vietnam in 1975. The Jackass Party that controlled the Congress back then will answer for that on Judgment Day.

As far as Joe Mobutu goes, the more fundamental error was the US not recognizing the independence of Katanga.

As far as Joe Mobutu goes, the more fundamental error was the US not recognizing the independence of Katanga.

I somewhat agree. But we should never have overthrown Lumumba.

I somewhat agree. But we should never have overthrown Lumumba.


Lumumba was a Soviet client at the time. The fact that there is (or was) a "Patrice Lumumba University" in Moscow reflects that relationship. No reason to think he'd have been any better than Mobutu, and he would have secured a highly strategic area for the Reds as well.

Sometimes there aren't any good choices, and you have to go with the lesser evil.

Lumumba was a Soviet client at the time. The fact that there is (or was) a "Patrice Lumumba University" in Moscow reflects that relationship. No reason to think he'd have been any better than Mobutu, and he would have secured a highly strategic area for the Reds as well.

Sometimes there aren't any good choices, and you have to go with the lesser evil.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Lumumba personally wanted a non-aligned, independent foreign policy. He found Communism and colonialism equally detestable. In fact, the first country he turned to for help during the Congo Crisis was the United States. Only when all available options had been exhausted did he turn to the Soviet Union, which, for admittedly cynical, self-serving purposes, aided him. Yes, Lumumba was left-wing, but he was not a Soviet client. And even if he was - which he wasn't - it was only because he left him with no other option.

As for the university bearing his name, that was simply a publicity stunt by Moscow to capitalize on his death and (probably) gain sympathy from African nations.

Lemme think...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ab/WWII_Poland_Invasion_1939-09-01.jpg/300px-WWII_Poland_Invasion_1939-09-01.jpg

That'll do.

The Dutch East India Company. It did not hesitate to commit genocide to secure trademonopolies.

I can't choose, so I'll have to go with a general policy rather than a particular instance: supporting the privileged elite of Latin America against every challenge to its power, a policy that is continued to this day.

Any U.S. citizen who doesn't say the genocide of Native Americans didn't think about this one hard enough.

Of course, we didn't start it, but we damn near finished it.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Vietnam, Installing dictators from Mobutu to Pinochet, Abu Ghraib, etc...

Any U.S. citizen who doesn't say the genocide of Native Americans didn't think about this one hard enough.

Of course, we didn't start it, but we damn near finished it.

Yes, shameful and dispicable. But aren't we supposed to limit it to foreign policy?

Yes, shameful and dispicable. But aren't we supposed to limit it to foreign policy?

How was that not foreign policy?

How was that not foreign policy?

Bingo

I'm Irish, so we don't have much shameful foreign policy. Not taking in enough Jews before WWII, I suppose.

Or possibly how our government shakes hands with China as if nothing's wrong there.

I am ashamed of nothing..Being ashamed won't make anything better or reverse history.
Pride comes before a fall.

Yes, shameful and dispicable. But aren't we supposed to limit it to foreign policy?
That was foreign policy. The US killed the natives and absorbed their land. All the states east of the original thirteen are the American Empire.

Legalizing Gay Marriage.
*snort* *snigger*

What's so bad about the European Union?
It's provided good things but right now it's undemocratic, corporatised and thus ruthlessly pursuing a neo-liberal programme.

I guess the whole promising the Jews Israel yet also promising the Arabs the same thing might be up there

Not too easy a question for a Brit

Especially when you have Rhodesia on your collective conscience...

Especially when you have Rhodesia on your collective conscience...
Oh please, we've done loads worse than that, to be honest.

Probably setting up concentration camps in the Boer War, or maybe propping up the White Armies in Russia in the Civil War (which cost the lives of an enormous number of people, sadly).

I am ashamed of nothing..Being ashamed won't make anything better or reverse history.
If you aren’t ashamed of the things you’re country has done wrong, then you have no right to feel pride in the thing you feel it did right.
Nothing wrong with that, though.

Anyway, I’d have to say the whole being the only country to ever use nuclear power offensively ranks up there.

Our fuck-ups in Ireland. I would apologise on behalf of my country, but I guess you've probably heard that enough to not care about it.

Ireland doesn't have much foreign policy, let alone any to be ashamed of. :)
I'm Irish, so we don't have much shameful foreign policy. Not taking in enough Jews before WWII, I suppose.

Or possibly how our government shakes hands with China as if nothing's wrong there.
.


hmmmm

while not technically foreign we abandoned the North to a sectarian bunch of fascistic bigots.

Allowing British spies collude with loyalist terrorists to plant bombs in Dublin and Monahgan and 'lose' the evidence despite it being the most fatal individual attack of the entire Irish war of independence.

Allowing CIA rendition flights through Irish airports is poor form as well.

Allowing the CIA access to the trans atlantic telephone exchange in West Cork.

We didnt investigate the suspicious death of the Palestinian Delagate to Ireland a few years ago!

While I dont agree, many believe that neutrality in WW2 was a bad decision. Dev signing a book of condolance in the German embassy for Hitler?

Does the govt grabbing the lube for shell in mayo count as foreign policy?

There is lots and lots.

*snort* *snigger*


It's provided good things but right now it's undemocratic, corporatised and thus ruthlessly pursuing a neo-liberal programme.
Isn’t the EU all about neo-liberalism? I mean, its primary purpose is free trade, no?

Our fuck-ups in Ireland. I would apologise on behalf of my country, but I guess you've probably heard that enough to not care about it.

but you are still there running proxy forces and spying on politicians. less talk, more withdrawing please.

Oh please, we've done loads worse than that, to be honest.

Probably setting up concentration camps in the Boer War, or maybe propping up the White Armies in Russia in the Civil War (which cost the lives of an enormous number of people, sadly).

Yes, you're probably right. But selling Rhodesia out was the one that affected me the most..

The Philippines war and occupation, god that was awful.
I second that because not that many Americans know about it and almost never is it taught in school.

That was foreign policy. The US killed the natives and absorbed their land. All the states east of the original thirteen are the American Empire.
What about the original 13? That was Native American land too.

If you aren’t ashamed of the things you’re country has done wrong, then you have no right to feel pride in the thing you feel it did right.
Nothing wrong with that, though.

Anyway, I’d have to say the whole being the only country to ever use nuclear power offensively ranks up there.

May I ask who is "the only country to ever use nuclear power offensively" is?

May I ask who is "the only country to ever use nuclear power offensively" is?

Why don't you just look it up (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=the+only+country+to+ever+use+nuclear+power+offensively&btnG=Search&meta=), brainiac?

-snip-

That was foreign policy. The US killed the natives and absorbed their land. All the states east of the original thirteen are the American Empire.

hmmm...Which states are east of the original thirteen colonies?

hmmm...Which states are east of the original thirteen colonies?

Google is your friend. Evidently you're not firing on all thrusters this morning. Been getting ahead of yourself this New Year's Eve?

May I ask who is "the only country to ever use nuclear power offensively" is?

The United States, what with the whole Hiroshima and Nagasaki thing.

I second that because not that many Americans know about it and almost never is it taught in school.



yes I've had a more than a few Americans call me a liar on the Phillipine War atrocities denying it ever happened....it's somewhat like the Japanese refusing to teach what their troops did in China....

for myself I have two countries (dual nationality).....for one I regret our Imperialistic colonial past(slavery,exploitation)......and for my other home(Canada) participation in the Boer War and WW1

I've had a think, and what I've come up with is:

The myth of Irish neutrality and the false perception people have of it. I blame it on a poor education of what we actually stand for internationally.

Any U.S. citizen who doesn't say the genocide of Native Americans didn't think about this one hard enough.

Of course, we didn't start it, but we damn near finished it.

Not a foreign policy action. That was domestic.

The Triple alliance war and staying out of WWII until it was absolutely obvious the Allies would win.

You could also add the pound-me-in-the-ass diplomatic ties with the US in the 90's and rejecting Jewish inmigrants escaping the Holocaust, while taking in Nazi fugitives.

Not a foreign policy action. That was domestic.

How is it not foreign policy to conquer a series of nations, steal their land, and kill and displace their people?

What about the original 13? That was Native American land too.

Yes, but they predated the existence of the United States.

Yes, but they predated the existence of the United States.
That was British foreign policy.;)

How is it not foreign policy to conquer a series of nations, steal their land, and kill and displace their people?

You have a point, but I still consider it domestic policy.

That was British foreign policy.;)

However, when the US did come into existance, we considered the various tribes foreign nations, and treated them as such. Ergo-Foreign policy.

You have a point, but I still consider it domestic policy.

At the time, it was Foreign policy. But meh.

hmmm...Which states are east of the original thirteen colonies?
There are about 37 of them. For example, Iowa, California and Ohio.

It was one of the most successful acts of imperialism ever.

What about the original 13? That was Native American land too.
In which case it was British foreign policy.

-snip-

There is lots and lots.
Damn, how could I forget!?

Isn’t the EU all about neo-liberalism? I mean, its primary purpose is free trade, no?
Yes, but they also have a tendency to bury a lot of things in treaties and make rules like "deregulate this and that", lower corporate tax, etc. that all members have to obey.

You have a point, but I still consider it domestic policy.
He completely refuted your argument, yet you still consider it domestic policy? Why, because USians moved there? That's what happens in every empire.

He completely refuted your argument, yet you still consider it domestic policy? Why, because USians moved there? That's what happens in every empire.

Eh, fair enough.

But whatever you call it, foreign, domestic, whatever, it was completely abominable.

Eh, fair enough.

But whatever you call it, foreign, domestic, whatever, it was completely abominable.

what's commendable about this thread and all the posters is admitting that their country has done horrific stuff(and are still doing so), if only our leaders could do the same what a much better planet we could have....

what's commendable about this thread and all the posters is admitting that their country has done horrific stuff(and are still doing so), if only our leaders could do the same what a much better planet we could have....

Indeed. I would have a great deal more respect for Bush, for example, if all he did was say "Alright, I screwed up. Now then, how are we going to fix the problem?"

The mark of a great leader is not succeeding all the time, but instead recognizing where you have failed.

How is it not foreign policy to conquer a series of nations, steal their land, and kill and displace their people?

At the time, it was carried out by the american legislative body, not from foreign authorities. So therefore it was a domestic policy.

Yes, but they also have a tendency to bury a lot of things in treaties and make rules like "deregulate this and that", lower corporate tax, etc. that all members have to obey.
Neither of those things is necessarily bad if done for the right reasons. If it makes economic sense to deregulate then one should and if the welfare state can support itself on fewer taxes or if the lowered taxes would stimulate the economy to the point that lost revinue would be made up, then corporate taxes should be lowered. Are you sure that they’re doing these things out of principle and ideology or do you think it’s a possibility they might know what they’re doing?

At the time, it was carried out by the american legislative body, not from foreign authorities.

So? World War II was declared by the US legislative body, too.

So? World War II was declared by the US legislative body, too.

Yes, but WW2 didn't happen inside the USA did it.

Most ashamed of huh? Well Iraq II is pretty bad but I'd have to say that, in the past, I think our joining the UN is pretty high up there. "Go USA" and "Go CIA"

Yes, but WW2 didn't happen inside the USA did it.

Pearl Harbour?

Yes, but WW2 didn't happen inside the USA did it.

The territory is only "inside the USA" because the USA won the war.

what's commendable about this thread and all the posters is admitting that their country has done horrific stuff(and are still doing so), if only our leaders could do the same what a much better planet we could have....
Not so commendable. This forum is mostly made up of malcontents, those not cut from the usual political cloth of their respective countries. They’re more than happy to name the things done wrong by their homelands. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing that they do, but it isn’t any great shakes either.

What would be more impressive for some of them would be to name some terrible misdeed done by those that they would readily claim as adherents of their ideologies, in the name of that ideology.

Most ashamed of huh? Well Iraq II is pretty bad but I'd have to say that, in the past, I think our joining the UN is pretty high up there. "Go USA" and "Go CIA"

how is joining the UN shameful? wrongheaded, naive, stupid maybe but shameful? no. especially not when compared to keeping the phillipines.

Germ warfare against the natives. Probably 90% of Native Americans killed by disease.

Slavery.

Purposely starting Mexican War, Spanish American War, Vietnam Involvement, Grenada War (along with many minor wars), Iraq War......

Propping up every two bit dictator until they are no longer valuable to us, then making them a demon so they can be taken out. Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq, Chile, Iran just to name a few.

Well I haven't got enough posting space for all the terrible US foreign policy...

But for my own country, the White Australia policy has to be the worst, and how it reflects so badly on Australia's immigration system these days, and how asylum seekers are thrown into concentration camps. Truly shameful.

'So your Chinese and you want to be an Australian? Just fill out this test in Egyptian please':eek:

Removing Mossadeq from power in Iran.

We've gotten nothing but problems because of that stupid decision.

the indian wars. I bouce back and forth on this, while i love my country and manifest destiny, i cant get past all of those first hand accounts on the trail of tears.

Well I haven't got enough posting space for all the terrible US foreign policy...


YOU'RE NOT AMERICAN!!!!!! How do you have the right to talk about our foreign policy problems...when you've probably never even set foot in the country a day to understand us? The US is not the worst country in the world folks, wanna remember the literally billions of dollars the government gives to help out 3rd world countries, what about the 150 billion given to tsunami relief. How about paying off the debt of the worlds poorest 20 countries in '05.

oh and god forbid we forget to mention the various attrocities made by england france germany italy russia spain and portugal during their little colonial periods. Some of which were less that 50 years ago.

YOU'RE NOT AMERICAN!!!!!! How do you have the right to talk about our foreign policy problems...when you've probably never even set foot in the country a day to understand us? The US is not the worst country in the world folks, wanna remember the literally billions of dollars the government gives to help out 3rd world countries, what about the 150 billion given to tsunami relief. How about paying off the debt of the worlds poorest 20 countries in '05.

oh and god forbid we forget to mention the various attrocities made by england france germany italy russia spain and portugal during their little colonial periods. Some of which were less that 50 years ago.
No your right, I have never been to the US. But I studied alot of US foreign policy related stuff in college.

Not a foreign policy action. That was domestic.
You have a point, but I still consider it domestic policy.

It was a foreign policy action, no matter how you choose to try and redefine the terms "foreign" and "domestic".

At the time, it was carried out by the american legislative body, not from foreign authorities. So therefore it was a domestic policy.

If it were a "domestic" policy, then by your logic there were Indian representatives from their various territories who had standing in our government to argue and vote against our policies towards the Native American nations.

Hmm???

Yes, but WW2 didn't happen inside the USA did it.
The territory is only "inside the USA" because the USA won the war.

Bingo...again.

How did this even come up? :headbang:

wanna remember the literally billions of dollars the government gives to help out 3rd world countries, what about the 150 billion given to tsunami relief.



The vast majority of US foreign aid goes to one country---and not a poor country at that---Israel.


The vast majority of US aid to the tsunami victims came from private citizens not the government.

As comparison to the GDP the US is a tightwad government with generous population.

YOU'RE NOT AMERICAN!!!!!! How do you have the right to talk about our foreign policy problems...when you've probably never even set foot in the country a day to understand us?

It isn't appropriate to become involved in another country's domestic politics.

Foreign Policy however refers to the interactions of a country with the rest of the world. Being a part of the rest of the world, I have every right to criticise American actions in the Philippines, just as Americans can criticise the Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, or European colonialism in Asia and Africa.

what about the 150 billion given to tsunami relief
Just looking at a page on Wikipedia, the United states gave 2.8 Billion in aid following the tsunami, considerably short of the 150 Billion you quoted.
Reading a little further, the US' donation as a percentage of GDP is only 0.026%, 18th on the list I'm looking at, and less then US$10/capita. Compared to 0.255% or US$66/capita given by Australians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_response_to_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake#Pledged_amounts_as_percentages_of_GDP

for a general bad piece of Forgein policy is the The Ems Dispatch , for Britian iam Not sure theres been a many a few

At the time, it was carried out by the american legislative body, not from foreign authorities. So therefore it was a domestic policy.
But at the time American borders did not extend all the way to the Pacific.

Are you sure that they’re doing these things out of principle and ideology or do you think it’s a possibility they might know what they’re doing?
Ideology? I doubt it. It's mainly corporate lobbying.

Well I haven't got enough posting space for all the terrible US foreign policy.
If you're not from the USA, why would you post about that?

bump

Giving arms and money to israel while it still occupies palestinian territory.

What would be more impressive for some of them would be to name some terrible misdeed done by those that they would readily claim as adherents of their ideologies, in the name of that ideology.
I'd answer that, but I don't really have any ideologies. I suppose I could try to think of someone who killed in the name of atheism or feminism. There's got to be at least one person who's done that.

Just looking at a page on Wikipedia, the United states gave 2.8 Billion in aid following the tsunami, considerably short of the 150 Billion you quoted.
Reading a little further, the US' donation as a percentage of GDP is only 0.026%, 18th on the list I'm looking at, and less then US$10/capita. Compared to 0.255% or US$66/capita given by Australians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_response_to_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake#Pledged_amounts_as_percentages_of_GDP

Per capita is really the worst way to look at charity. I would think that total donations matter more to the country recieving the aid than who gave more per individual citizen.

I'd answer that, but I don't really have any ideologies. I suppose I could try to think of someone who killed in the name of atheism or feminism. There's got to be at least one person who's done that.
I was referring more to radicals.
Ideology? I doubt it. It's mainly corporate lobbying.
Then it probably isn't for the best. Though, I think lobby might be the wrong term. How do you lobby an unelected group? They require neither campaign contributions nor political favors of the kind corporations can give.

Lessee, in its long history France has done many things that weren't exactly admirable in terms of foreign policy. Just looking at very recent history, the whole "pissing the rest of the world off (especially the Pacific countries) by detonating a few more nuclear bombs in our remote overseas territories" thing, and the related sinking of the Rainbow Warrior (technically an act of war against New Zealand), complete with the murder of Fernando Pereira and an overall operation that was not only disgusting but horrifically bungled and incompetent.

As an American:

1. The genocide of the Native American cultures
2. Slavery
3. The fact that the US is still the only country ever to use nuclear weapons
4. US Embargo against Cuba
5. ANY policy enacted by current president Bush
6. The Patriot Act (domestic issue, I know, but still pretty shameful)

If you're not from the USA, why would you post about that?

What does this mean? If you are not an American, you have no right to criticize American foreign policy? Wrong. If you are a VICTIM of American foreign policy, and that pretty much covers most of the world, you have EVERY RIGHT to speak out against it. :mad:

Calixtina, you are the best.

My own NS regret, I gave the police a bit too much power. I had a Scandanavian Liberal Paradise and I realized the alternative was a skyrocket in crime (which was, at the time, unknown) so I upped the ante on police force when I should have been focusing on education and social welfare.

What does this mean? If you are not an American, you have no right to criticize American foreign policy? Wrong. If you are a VICTIM of American foreign policy, and that pretty much covers most of the world, you have EVERY RIGHT to speak out against it. :mad:

Read the title of the thread and tell me why your post was stupid.

Selling steel, ball bearings and oil to the third reich and allowing troop movements throghout the country. And the small fact that we didn't choose sides in WWII.

The fact that Canada turned away Jews during the World Wars, and the subjugation of the native peoples during colonialism.

However, I think that now that First Nations are part of Canada, that they should integrate - either they're Canadian citizens, they pay full taxes just like every other citizen, and are subject to our same laws and punishments... or they're not Canadian citizens.

Selling steel, ball bearings and oil to the third reich and allowing troop movements throghout the country. And the small fact that we didn't choose sides in WWII.
I wouldn't blame them for that. It was either that or a quick-fire integration into Weserübung.

:rolleyes: Read the title of the thread and tell me why your post was stupid.


Read MY POST again and ask yourself the same question:headbang: :rolleyes:

Planet Tom said it best:
It isn't appropriate to become involved in another country's domestic politics.

Foreign Policy however refers to the interactions of a country with the rest of the world. Being a part of the rest of the world, I have every right to criticise American actions in the Philippines, just as Americans can criticise the Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, or European colonialism in Asia and Africa.]

I am ashamed of nothing..Being ashamed won't make anything better or reverse history.

Those who don't know/acknowledge History are doomed to repeat it.

Myself personally... Probably the Iraq war, Vietnam, the fact that we can't find Osama, Our negligence in North Korea, and Israel. There isn't a whole lot the U.S has done right recently.

I guess the whole promising the Jews Israel yet also promising the Arabs the same thing might be up there

Not too easy a question for a Brit

We're not exactly short of choices.

Amritsar massacre anyone? If not that then generally screwing over a fair proportion of the world at one time or another. The USA still has a long way to go to catch up with us.

If you had to choose one thing, be it a war, colonization, subsidizing a friendly tyrant, or whatever, that you were most ashamed of that your country did, what would it be? Please try to choose just one thing, though.

For me, it would be the U.S. installing Mobutu Sese Seko (and propping him up for a quarter of a century).

Choose just one! You are a cruel thread founder, Congo. I literally can't decide which of America's FP decisions I hate the most.

Oh well, might as well go with the biggest f*** up of all: the unleashing of nuclear weapons on Japan in WWII.

Oh well, might as well go with the biggest f*** up of all: the unleashing of nuclear weapons on Japan in WWII.

That was a pretty big one, all right. :(

Oh well, might as well go with the biggest f*** up of all: the unleashing of nuclear weapons on Japan in WWII.

Using atomic weapons on japan was as far from a fuck-up as anything could possibly be, it was ingenious.

Nuking japan ended the war and saved an enormous amount of Japanese lives in addition to an enormous amount of American lives.

Additionally, the spectacle of nuclear annihilation ushered in genuine peace among the great nations of the world through deterrence.

Additionally, the spectacle of nuclear annihilation ushered in genuine peace among the great nations of the world through deterrence.

That's why the USA, USSR, France and the UK never experienced armed conflicts after 1945, yes?

OK, someone asked a while ago, but everybody missed it, so I'll re-ask it:

What states are east of the original 13 colonies? :p

OK, someone asked a while ago, but everybody missed it, so I'll re-ask it:

What states are east of the original 13 colonies? :p

All of them.

That's why the USA, USSR, France and the UK never experienced armed conflicts after 1945, yes?

Not a nuclear one, no

Not a nuclear one, no

So would you define 'genuine peace' as anything not involving thermonuclear devices?

All of them.

Nope, sorry, try again (hint, read the question a little closer /hint)

Nope, sorry, try again (hint, read the question a little closer /hint)

Try rotating a globe sufficient distance and I think you will find my answer is correct, no?

OK, someone asked a while ago, but everybody missed it, so I'll re-ask it:

What states are east of the original 13 colonies? :p

The states in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

So would you define 'genuine peace' as anything not involving thermonuclear devices?

I wasn't talking about genuine peace, and neither was New Granada. He was stating that the total devastation created in the wake of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts made certain that the nations that had them would think not twice, but many many times before they dared to use one themselves.

Killing off all the real Americans wasn't very nice of us.

While the US has an embarassment of riches in this area, the one that absolutely makes me cringe is its treatment of the aboriginal Americans.

We're not exactly short of choices.

Amritsar massacre anyone? If not that then generally screwing over a fair proportion of the world at one time or another. The USA still has a long way to go to catch up with us.

*blinks*

I don't think I've ever seen that statement before.

Don't worry, we're catching up! :p :(

To put in my two cents, My Lai

That's why the USA, USSR, France and the UK never experienced armed conflicts after 1945, yes?

When did the USSR invade france?

Or was it germany that invaded england?

England invading spain?

The USSR invading Spain?

France fighting another war with germany?

England fighting germany?

The USSR fighting england?

????????

Sage of the ages, tell me when it was, after ww2, thatthe great powers engaged in another war with eachother.

So would you define 'genuine peace' as anything not involving thermonuclear devices?

I would define a "genuine peace" as any situation where there is not invasion and conflict between the countries.

The USA and the USSR fought ill-advised wars against third world countries, but nothing remotely like the carnage of the world wars could happen, on account of the a-bomb.

Sage of the ages, tell me when it was, after ww2, thatthe great powers engaged in another war with eachother.

If you had said "the spectacle of nuclear annihilation ushered in genuine peace between the great nations of the world through deterrence" I would have been happy (aside from the question of whether the cold war could have been described as peace or not), but I read "peace among" in a different way.

If you had said "the spectacle of nuclear annihilation ushered in genuine peace between the great nations of the world through deterrence" I would have been happy (aside from the question of whether the cold war could have been described as peace or not), but I read "peace among" in a different way.

'Among' implies the same thing that 'between' says.

'Among' implies the same thing that 'between' says.

I read the two differently - for example if we were talking about the mutineers of the Bounty in Tahiti and I read a sentence saying 'there were a great many cases of falling in love among the sailors' I would construe it in a very different way to the sentence 'there were a great many cases of falling in love between the sailors'. YMMV.

Why do Americans keep on saying Mobutu? While the CIA was one of the participants in the coup that unseated Lumumba, the main actors were the Belgians. In fact any Belgian who does not feel sorrow (not personal guilt, but just general sorrow) for what Belgium put the people of Kongo through from the late 1800s to the 1960s has no conscious at all.

Foreign policy actions I'm most ashamed of: Doing in China what Europeans did everywhere else. The savagery of Japan's occupation of China has almost no parallel. Although I am not sympathetic to ChiComs who wave that in Japan's face at every opportunity, while they cheer for the greatest butcher in Chinese history - Mao.

Why do Americans keep on saying Mobutu? While the CIA was one of the participants in the coup that unseated Lumumba, the main actors were the Belgians.

True, but we played nearly as large a role as they did.

Giving the U.S. independence in 1776. Biggest mistake for Great Britain.

Dunno...the Balkan War maybe?

The centuries of occupation of Indonesia, with the absolute bottom point the "police actions" of '47 and '49 almost 5000 Dutch soldiers died and about 150,000 Indonesians.

Giving the U.S. independence in 1776. Biggest mistake for Great Britain.

And they say that Americans are ignorant of their history! :p

Giving the U.S. independence in 1776. Biggest mistake for Great Britain.

Well, it wasn't like you had a choice. We defeated your military presence in our colonies and forced even King George III to go along with us.

Well, it wasn't like you had a choice. We defeated your military presence in our colonies and forced even King George III to go along with us.
Yeah, you and the Frenchies liked each other then.:p

For the US, it would have to be Reagan's amnesty for illegal aliens, followed by Bill Clinton in general.

If you had to choose one thing, be it a war, colonization, subsidizing a friendly tyrant, or whatever, that you were most ashamed of that your country did, what would it be? Please try to choose just one thing, though.

For me, it would be the U.S. installing Mobutu Sese Seko (and propping him up for a quarter of a century).

For me,its the support of the United Nations America continues to provide.

Anyway, I’d have to say the whole being the only country to ever use nuclear power offensively ranks up there.

Yeah, the alternative of thousands, maybe millions more deaths from invading the home islands is far preferable, right? Especially since it would include US soldiers being killed. Always a good idea to kill US soldiers, right?

Let me remind you of a little bit of history that you seem to have forgotten - perhaps intentionally so - Japan attacked the US.

Had Japan NOT attacked the US, they wouldn't've had nuclear weapons dropped on them.

Google is your friend. Evidently you're not firing on all thrusters this morning. Been getting ahead of yourself this New Year's Eve?

There are very few US states EAST of the original thirteen, unless one is assuming continuing around the world...

YOU'RE NOT AMERICAN!!!!!! How do you have the right to talk about our foreign policy problems...when you've probably never even set foot in the country a day to understand us?

Don't let the grumbly wannabes get to you. They speak out of jealousy.

The US is not the worst country in the world folks,

Of course it is.

Up until they need us to fight a war for them. Then, we're bestest buds.

Again, jealousy.

As comparison to the GDP the US is a tightwad government with generous population.

Good!

I would wish the US government to be even more tightwad, especially on domestic social programs.

To the tune of abolishing all of them.

As comparison to the GDP the US is a tightwad government with generous population.

Good!

Would that the US were more tightwad, particularly towards domestic social programs.

To the tune of abolishing them entirely.

If you are a VICTIM of American foreign policy, and that pretty much covers most of the world, you have EVERY RIGHT to speak out against it. :mad:

Yup.

Should of left that ol' Hitler in power.

Should never have stationed forces in Fulda Gap.

If Russia gets expansionist, how 'bout we sit your next war out, hmm?

Oh well, might as well go with the biggest f*** up of all: the unleashing of nuclear weapons on Japan in WWII.

Another waste who prefers to see thousands of dead Americans.

OK, someone asked a while ago, but everybody missed it, so I'll re-ask it:

What states are east of the original 13 colonies? :p

Well, all of'em after about a 23,000 mile, round the world trip...

Had Japan NOT attacked the US, they wouldn't've had nuclear weapons dropped on them.

Yes, all those vaporised children were just asking for it, weren't they...

[/sarcasm]


Don't let the grumbly wannabes get to you. They speak out of jealousy.

You just keep on thinking that, kiddo. If reality is too painful for you, I suppose your nice little fantasy can't do you much harm.


If Russia gets expansionist, how 'bout we sit your next war out, hmm?

My, you're turning out to be a constant source of amusement!

But then, I do like to laugh at the profoundly ignorant.

That's why the USA, USSR, France and the UK never experienced armed conflicts after 1945, yes?

Name a single one that would compare to World War II.

Killing off all the real Americans wasn't very nice of us.

I'm a real American and I'm not killed off.

So much for "all," ya think?

well, deciding democracy was good was a start

To put in my two cents, My Lai

Ah, that wasn't foreign policy. It wasn't policy at all. It was a crime for which those responsible were punished.

Yeah, you and the Frenchies liked each other then.:p

Different Frenchies. The ones who aided us - to a limited extent and not without their own goals - were Royalist, not Republican France. The French government that aided us has been gone for a couple of centuries.

Myseneum seems to be putting quite a lot of effort into boosting his post count today...

Yes, all those vaporised children were just asking for it, weren't they...

Enemy nationals.

[/fact]

You just keep on thinking that, kiddo. If reality is too painful for you, I suppose your nice little fantasy can't do you much harm.

More jealousy.

But then, I do like to laugh at the profoundly ignorant.

Then, you must get a major kick out of mirrors...

Myseneum seems to be putting quite a lot of effort into boosting his post count today...

No.

Myseneum is answering posts as he comes to them. Not my fault everyone split already...

Different Frenchies. The ones who aided us - to a limited extent and not without their own goals - were Royalist, not Republican France. The French government that aided us has been gone for a couple of centuries.
Exactly my point. You and France got on a bit better then.

No.

Myseneum is answering posts as he comes to them. Not my fault everyone split already...
That was supposed to be what we call humour in the UK...

Exactly my point. You and France got on a bit better then.

Perhaps.

But, Royalist France was not helping us out of the goodness of their hearts.

They had their own goals in mind, the major being to get England out of the New World and take their place. France wanted to take the English boot from our necks and replace it with a French one.

Our true friend in our Revolution was Denmark. They provided aid and assistance out of a true desire to help, not to exploit.

That was supposed to be what we call humour in the UK...

Humor.

Ar! Ar!

Shazzbot!

Perhaps.

But, Royalist France was not helping us out of the goodness of their hearts.

They had their own goals in mind, the major being to get England out of the New World and take their place. France wanted to take the English boot from our necks and replace it with a French one.

Our true friend in our Revolution was Denmark. They provided aid and assistance out of a true desire to help, not to exploit.
I doubt the French would have been much interested in the thirteen colonies, it seems unlikely to me that they would have tried to succeed where the UK had failed. I think they would have been more interested in Canada, which was still overwhelmingly French speaking and what now constitutes as the Maritimes in present-day Canada, being once part of Acadia. They, along with the UK and eventually America might have had an interest in Spanish possessions in the New World too.

Of course, this is pure speculation, but to me is makes sense.

Ah, that wasn't foreign policy. It wasn't policy at all. It was a crime for which those responsible were punished.

Well, technically speaking, someone made that decision, so therefore it was someone's policy, and since it dealt with Vietnamese, it is foreign. So, technically speaking, it was foreign policy.

I doubt the French would have been much interested in the thirteen colonies, it seems unlikely to me that they would have tried to succeed where the UK had failed. I think they would have been more interested in Canada, which was still overwhelmingly French speaking and what now constitutes as the Maritimes in present-day Canada, being once part of Acadia. They, along with the UK and eventually America might have had an interest in Spanish possessions in the New World too.

Of course, this is pure speculation, but to me is makes sense.

Not so much the colonies, but America as a whole.

A while back, in another forum, we were having a good ol' time discussing France's contribution to the founding of the United States and there were a lot of comments extolling the French for their selfless service to secure our independence.

I told of how the French were truly helping us in order to expand their influence in the Americas and to beat up on England. But, I had no supporting data, having gleaned this from books that I have read.

Recently, I started rereading The Fathers of the Constitution, a book printed in 1921 by the Yale University Press. In the very first chapter I came across the information that was lacking from oh so long ago. I'll post it here;

========================
With France the relationship of the United States was clear and friendly enough at the time. The American War of Independence had been brought to a successful issue with the aid of France. In the treaty of alliance which had been signed in 1778 it had been agreed that neither France nor the United States should, without the consent of the other, make peace with Great Britain. More than that, in 1781, partly out of gratitude but largely as a result of clever manipulation of factions in Congress by the French Minister in Philidelphia, the Chevalier de la Luzerne, the American peace commissioners had been instructed "to make the most candid and confidential communications upon all subjects to the ministers of our generous ally, the King of France; to undertake nothing in the negotiations for peace or truce their knowledge or concurrence; and ultimately to govern yourselves by their advice and opinion." [Secret Journals of Congress, June 15, 1781] If France had been actuated only by unselfish motives in supporting the colonies in their revolt against Great Britain, these instructions might have been acceptable and even advisable. But, such was not the case. France was working not so much with philanthropic purposes or for sentimental reasons as for the restoration to her former position of supremacy in Europe. Revenge upon England was only a part of a larger plan of national aggrandizement.
========================

Source,
The Fathers of the Constitution, Max Farrand, pp. 6-7

So, as can be seen France was not aiding us in the spirit of liberty, but as a stepping stone to regain her own glory. And, give England a black eye.

Nope, sorry, try again (hint, read the question a little closer /hint)

Sorry, but the Earth isn't flat. It's a spheroid.

Read MY POST again and ask yourself the same question


I did. Still doesn't matter, since this thread is about YOUR country's foreign policy, not someone else's.

Sorry, but the Earth isn't flat. It's a spheroid.

Yes, but someone traveling from, say, Pennsylvania to Ohio won't go east until they get there, now would they? So, why should we say that Ohio is east of Pennsylvania?

Yes, but someone traveling from, say, Pennsylvania to Ohio won't go east until they get there, now would they? So, why should we say that Ohio is east of Pennsylvania?

It's still east.

So, as can be seen France was not aiding us in the spirit of liberty, but as a stepping stone to regain her own glory. And, give England a black eye.

Well, duh.

Are you saying you didn't know this before? It's politics. Of course people are in it for what they can get - that's how every single state plays out international politics, even to this day. 'The enemy of my enemy' and all.

Yeah, the alternative of thousands, maybe millions more deaths from invading the home islands is far preferable, right? Especially since it would include US soldiers being killed. Always a good idea to kill US soldiers, right?

Let me remind you of a little bit of history that you seem to have forgotten - perhaps intentionally so - Japan attacked the US.

Had Japan NOT attacked the US, they wouldn't've had nuclear weapons dropped on them.
There is no excuse for the deaths of civilians in war, and no action in war should be taken if civilian casualties will be too high. We needn’t have neither invaded nor dropped the bomb. They were ready to surrender with the condition that the Emperor retain the throne, which we allowed anyway.

According to almost every top militarily official, including Eisenhower, MacArthur and Leahy, the bombings were unnecessary. It was a political decision by civilians designed to frighten the Soviets.

According to almost every top militarily official, including Eisenhower, MacArthur and Leahy, the bombings were unnecessary. It was a political decision by civilians designed to frighten the Soviets.

Sorry, I just want to add to that with this link (http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm)

There is no excuse for the deaths of civilians in war, and no action in war should be taken if civilian casualties will be too high. We needn’t have neither invaded nor dropped the bomb. They were ready to surrender with the condition that the Emperor retain the throne, which we allowed anyway.

According to almost every top militarily official, including Eisenhower, MacArthur and Leahy, the bombings were unnecessary. It was a political decision by civilians designed to frighten the Soviets.

You need to get your history facts straight. Japan was willing to surrender with the sole condition that their emporer retain the throne... after we dropped the bombs. Scaring the Soviets was an added bonus.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major industrial cities, providing the Japanese with many of their war machines, and many of the people living there were working in those war factories. Just so ya know, if you work in a war factory, you are no longer considered a civilian (or weren't back then, I'm not so sure about today)

Quite the contrary. Once the plans were drawn up and the casualties estimated, many officers (who knew about it) preferred the bomb over an all-out invasion of Japan which would cost millions of lives on both sides.

Quite the contrary. Once the plans were drawn up and the casualties estimated, many officers (who knew about it) preferred the bomb over an all-out invasion of Japan which would cost millions of lives on both sides.
Those officers also said that they believed Japan was ready to surrender and that neither an invasion nor a nuclear assault would be necessary.
The Emperor and been seeking a way to honorably surrender for some time.

Those officers also said that they believed Japan was ready to surrender and that neither an invasion nor a nuclear assault would be necessary.
The Emperor and been seeking a way to honorably surrender for some time.

Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Either way, his military advisors wouldn't let him because they still believed that Japan could win.

Attacking Japan directly was inevitable. They weren't going to surrender until it was clear that the Japanese could no longer defend their own shores, which, again, would cost countless (read: millions of) Allied and Japanese lives.

Using atomic weapons on japan was as far from a fuck-up as anything could possibly be, it was ingenious.

Nuking japan ended the war and saved an enormous amount of Japanese lives in addition to an enormous amount of American lives.

Additionally, the spectacle of nuclear annihilation ushered in genuine peace among the great nations of the world through deterrence.

Oh boy, here we go.

1. The bomb was used simply as a means of scaring Soviet Russia into accepting an Anglo-American dominated world.

2. Even if using the bomb was the only way to end the war, it wouldn't have been nescesary to incinerate a city. We could of dropped it on an uninhabited hill for the same effect.

3. The threat of complete nuclear annihilation by accident or design outweighs any potential detterence that MAD policies have.

Another waste who prefers to see thousands of dead Americans.

No american nor japanese person needed to die at this point. A surrender with one condition (allowing the Emperor to keep his throne) was possible at this time.

If you had to choose one thing, be it a war, colonization, subsidizing a friendly tyrant, or whatever, that you were most ashamed of that your country did, what would it be? Please try to choose just one thing, though.

For me, it would be the U.S. installing Mobutu Sese Seko (and propping him up for a quarter of a century).

for me it's the colonization of Congo, and the crimes that were committed there. but that's one of the only things i'm ashamed of.

Which of your country's past foreign policy actions are you most ashamed of?

That's easy: reneging on the Kyoto Accord. (http://www.decima.com/en/pdf/news_releases/060605DE.pdf)

Why do Americans keep on saying Mobutu? While the CIA was one of the participants in the coup that unseated Lumumba, the main actors were the Belgians. In fact any Belgian who does not feel sorrow (not personal guilt, but just general sorrow) for what Belgium put the people of Kongo through from the late 1800s to the 1960s has no conscious at all.

Meh, "Belgium" as a nation was only responsible for Congo after Leopold II had to stop his bloody policy and sell his private property to the Belgian government.

So what was Belgian Congo like?

When the Belgian Government took over the Congolese Administration from King Leopold II, the situation in the Congo improved dramatically. Economic and social changes transformed the Congo into a "model colony". Hospitals and primary and high schools were built, and many Congolese had access to them. Even the ethnic languages were taught at school, a rare occurrence in colonial education. Doctors and medics achieved great victories against the sleeping disease (they managed to eradicate the disease). There was a medic post in every village, and in bigger cities, people had access to well equipped hospitals. The Administration continued with the economic reforms with the construction of railways, ports, roads, mines, plantations, industrial areas, etc. In the 1950s, life expectancy was around 55 years (today it is 51). At the time, the Congo's gross national product was the highest in Africa.

But the Belgian administration has been characterized as paternalistic colonialism. The educational system was dominated by the Roman Catholic Church and, in some rare cases, Protestant churches, and the curricula reflected Christian and Western values. For example, in 1948, fully 99.6% of educational facilities were controlled by Christian missions. Native schooling was mainly religious and vocational. Children learned how to write and read, and some mathematics, but that was all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Congo

Not really something I need my conscience for.

What I am ashamed of is the fact we used a "divide and conquer" strategy in Rwanda, giving the minority of Hutu's all the power over the majority of Tutsi's, resulting in a genocide. That was a pretty big fuck-up for such a small country as Belgium (altough the strategy is commen in the big manual for colonization).

I am from the USA. I am very proud of my country's foreign policy history up until the end of World War II. After that there are a lot of things that make me wince. Sorry if this post is not specific enough. Essentially I am most ashamed that the USA did not immediately attack the USSR upon the surrender of Germany. The USA did a lot of unAmerican things during the Cold War that I wish was accomplished by direct violent conflict. I think the first nasty thing that we did was to give immunity to sick psychopathic Jap biological weapons doctors that did horrible "mad scientist" type experiments on Korean civilians during World War II in exchange for having access to that information. The list of horrors goes on and on from there. I wish that the USA led the world in a open fight against the USSR and perhaps even Red China. If we had overthrown these evil regimes we would have probably made universal human rights much more of a reality than it was during the past 60 years.

The most recent one would have to be, banning Fijian sports teams from visiting New Zealand.*

*Except the Fijian National Rugby 7's team, because New Zealander's like them.:rolleyes:

There is no excuse for the deaths of civilians in war,

Sure there is.

Civilians create the machinery of war. Civilians keep the war economy going.

and no action in war should be taken if civilian casualties will be too high.

In war, civilians are enemy nationals and valid targets. It's all well and good to minimize civilian casualties, if one has the luxury to do so, but if it comes down to choosing between 100 enemy civilians and one friendly, the friendly wins.

We needn’t have neither invaded nor dropped the bomb.

Yes, we did.

They were ready to surrender with the condition that the Emperor retain the throne, which we allowed anyway.

Got a link to back this up?

According to almost every top militarily official, including Eisenhower, MacArthur and Leahy, the bombings were unnecessary. It was a political decision by civilians designed to frighten the Soviets.

They were wrong.

The bombings were to end the war without a bloody invasion that would have still resulted in Japan losing, but with far higher casualties as well as US casualties. I'll go for wasting any number of enemy nationals to save a US soldier's life.

I will grant that the Soviets were also a problem. We needed to get the war over before the USSR got in so that a divided Japan like the divided Europe didn't happen.

That's fine with me, too. But, the saving of US lives was paramount.

The Emperor and been seeking a way to honorably surrender for some time.

The emperor was not in control of Japan. Tojo was.

Even if using the bomb was the only way to end the war, it wouldn't have been nescesary to incinerate a city. We could of dropped it on an uninhabited hill for the same effect.

No, not the same effect.

Proof of that is that seeing it blast Hiroshima didn't do it, so why would a hill?

That aside, this was a discussed option. But, it was decided that the bomb might fail to detonate and thus embolden the Japanese to resist.

The threat of complete nuclear annihilation by accident or design outweighs any potential detterence that MAD policies have.

Really.

Well, since MAD seems to have worked without a single accident of annihilation (far as I can tell, we're still alive) I postulate that your assertion lacks merit.

No american nor japanese person needed to die at this point. A surrender with one condition (allowing the Emperor to keep his throne) was possible at this time.

Until Japan signed the surrender, no Japanese life had any value. Further, until they signed the surrender, they DID need to die.

There was no surrender option available because Tojo was not about to surrender.

They were wrong.

What? Are you claiming to know more about military strategy than two Five Star American generals and an Admiral. That’s quite a bold statement.