Their is a long list of American atrocities. Dropping the A-bomb is but one.
Look at how U.S. corporations sleep with foreign governments in order to exploit natural resources of foreign countries. Then when the indigeous population complains of the expolitations and begins to protest, the U.S. hires the governments military to crush the rebellion. Most of the time the weaponry is U.S. made.
Is it any wonder why the U.S. is the most hated and feared country on Earth?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is revisionist history. Japan was not going to surrender. They would have fought an invasion of th ehome islands.[/quote]
It’s actually the history taught to kids in pretty much all the rest of the world. That your government purposedly hidden it from you, doesn’t make it revisionist.
A quote by Amy Goodman: “But for the media to name their coverage [of the 2003 invasion of Iraq] the same as what the Pentagon calls it ? everyday seeing ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ ? you have to ask: 'If this were state [controlled] media, how would it be any different?”
[quote]etaco wrote:
That right there is the hard part though. As the US is discovering, especially in Latin America, democracy does not equal pro-US. Chavez has repeatedly won overwhelming victories in elections which have been considered valid by international observers- though Venezuela may make the leap from “illiberal democracy” to something plainly authoritarian in the near future. Similarly, Morales, Correa and all sorts of other characters less friendly to American interests have had a great deal of success down there.
Why would we expect an Iraqi democracy to be an American ally? Why wouldn’t we expect it not to be? [/quote]
Excellent point, etaco.
The recent rise of populism in Latin America is a direct consequence of US interventionism in the continent. In the last half century only, Haiti, Panama, Bolivia, Grenada, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Panama and Cuba have all suffered from US interventions.
Allow me to bring to the table the fact that while no Arab country is a democracy (except Palestine and Lebanon), they are all US allies (with the exception of Syria). I can tell you with the utmost certitude that if free elections were held in any Arab country, anti-US parties would win by a large margin. That is precisely why the US backs up all the Arab dictatorships. That is, until it starts asking the question: How did our oil get under their sand? Then it starts fabricating evidence for a motive. But that’s history…
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This is revisionist history. Japan was not going to surrender. They would have fought an invasion of the home islands.
It’s actually the history taught to kids in pretty much all the rest of the world. That your government purposedly hidden it from you, doesn’t make it revisionist.
[/quote]
Just because it is taught in parts of the world does not mean it is correct.
It is no wonder anti-Americanism is so prevalant when lies are taught as facts.
Japan was not going to surrender. They were prepared to resist invasion of the home islands. More Japanese and Americans would have died if we did not drop the bomb.
[quote]
A quote by Amy Goodman: “But for the media to name their coverage [of the 2003 invasion of Iraq] the same as what the Pentagon calls it ? everyday seeing ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ ? you have to ask: 'If this were state [controlled] media, how would it be any different?”[/quote]
And this shows Japan was prepared to surrender?
Your anti-Americanism has shown through in every post you have made in the political forum. They read like a bad joke.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Look at how U.S. corporations sleep with foreign governments in order to exploit natural resources of foreign countries.[/quote]
By exploit you mean pay more than they could make on their own in their own country? India, Taiwan, Korea, China, they’ve all been more than receptive to such “vile exploitation”.
Care to cite some examples? Maybe you’ve confused a corporation like BP with an American one.
Funny, you think a feared and hated country wouldn’t have trouble keeping people from flocking in droves, risking their lives, to get in… repeatedly. Much less needing to consider its exceptional immigrants while controlling the illegal ones.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Funny, you think a feared and hated country wouldn’t have trouble keeping people from flocking in droves, risking their lives, to get in… repeatedly. Much less needing to consider its exceptional immigrants while controlling the illegal ones.[/quote]
“Si! America is sooooooooooooooo bad for us amigo! Let us risk all our lives to get there!”
How many Cubans, Mexicans etc. have died trying to get here?
Only those who we don’t want here would fear or hate America. We are still the most free, open society in the world.
Jealous bastards!
Why doesn’t the OP say what wonderful country he is from? It isn’t the good old US of A. I’ve never heard a yank use “spot on” to discribe anything. I talk to Brits every working day for 30 years and heard “spot on” a thousand times. I haven’t heard it in the US in my life. You wouldn’t have the balls to say you are from the UK. They have a great history. Maybe Aussie.
These Eurodicks must still be dreaming of the days when their countries were something. You will be raising camels before that happens again. I’ll take the Mexicans any day compared to your present and future imigrants. We will always have the last laugh when it comes to that. The Muslims or Africans will be changing your flag soon wherever you are over there. LOL
It’s jealousy. Like other posters have said, how many people leave here to go anywhere else to live? I know 10 Brits in my business that are living here and not for business reasons. They just like it better. I don’t know of one person that has left to go live anywhere else because they liked it better than the US.
And if your gvernments had any pull left, they would try to use it. Most of our states have bigger budgets.
Screw ya wanker
[quote]olderguy wrote:
Maybe Aussie.
[/quote]
I fucking hope not.
[quote]aussie486 wrote:
olderguy wrote:
Maybe Aussie.
I fucking hope not.
[/quote]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&q=numbersus
check this out. I’m sure I didn’t do it right. numbersusa.com
[quote]etaco wrote:
derek wrote:
Then I compare THAT scenario to having some form of representative democracy in Iraq who were allies of the U.S., the EU etc. having control over the oil supply (oil=$$$$$$$=POWER).
That right there is the hard part though. As the US is discovering, especially in Latin America, democracy does not equal pro-US. Chavez has repeatedly won overwhelming victories in elections which have been considered valid by international observers- though Venezuela may make the leap from “illiberal democracy” to something plainly authoritarian in the near future. Similarly, Morales, Correa and all sorts of other characters less friendly to American interests have had a great deal of success down there.
Why would we expect an Iraqi democracy to be an American ally? Why wouldn’t we expect it not to be? While we certainly can expect some friendliness while we have large numbers of troops there, provide tens of billions worth of services, and basically keep things from collapsing entirely, why would we assume that that would continue after we ceased providing that level of support?
Consider who is in charge there. The United Iraqi Alliance, representing the conservative Shia majority, won something like 41% of the vote in the most recent elections. The UIA is an alliance of smaller conservative Shia parties with the following characteristics appearing in many or most of the members:
Supports some form of theocracy
Currently has or has had a militia or military wing
Currently or has in the past received financial or military support along with safe harbor from Iran
Support for or participation in terrorism at some point
Opposition to “western imperialism”
The demographics are changing, but not for the better.[/quote]
etaco,
The difference being: American blood and treasure being spilled to help them start up their democracy.
chavez is sad. He reminds me of madonna, britney spears, and bill clinton. If you ignore them, they get increasingly more ridiculous. You and I know full well that chavez is blustering solely to distract his constitutents from their daily lives.
I say, keep him on ignore.
JeffR
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
That is the only honest answer to your “question”, which was obviously less of question than an linguistic trap.
[/quote]
Yes. “Good” philosophers know “good” philosophy relies on the questions being asked. If one starts from the premise that the knowledge or information contained in the question is inherently known or true nothing useful can come from it. This is as true for science as it is for any other discipline. This is why we must always define our terms and be as specific (i.e., unambiguous) as possible.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Hanzo:
I don’t see how you could have read that “Wikipedia” and gotten the impression that the Japanese Government and Imperial Command were ready to surrender. Far from it.
[/quote]
I didn’t get (learn) my information from that wikipedia article. I’ve actually studied it in school. The article was merely used a source of reference.
If there was no brokered resolution why would you expect the Japanese to fight a half-assed war.
Isn’t this slightly paradoxical, as the Japanese did in fact surrender. Every state is first and foremost is concerned with their own security despite cultural impetus. The Japanese were aware that they were fight a loosing battle. Cost-Benefit…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is revisionist history. Japan was not going to surrender. They would have fought an invasion of th ehome islands.[/quote]
It’s revisionism in that events, issues and various facts are put into their proper context. Napoleon something of the like that “history is written by the winners”. Revisionism as such is just a tool to draw a clearer picture of the past one not clouded by ethnocentricity.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Just because it is taught in parts of the world does not mean it is correct.[/quote]
And it’s valid both ways…
An excerpt from General Dwight D. Eisenhower autobiography “In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.”
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet: “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman: “The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.”
The same way you pop out your chest and flex your muscles to scare away competitors (for Leela’s heart maybe?), the US dropped the bomb to let everyone know who’s boss.
Retrospectively, even John Bolton admitted in 2001 that “A fair reading of the treaty [the Rome Statute concerning the ICC], for example, leaves the objective observer unable to answer with confidence whether the United States was guilty of war crimes for its aerial bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan in World War II. Indeed, if anything, a straightforward reading of the language probably indicates that the court would find the United States guilty. A fortiori, these provisions seem to imply that the United States would have been guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
No. It was supposed to show how the American media relays whatever your government farts.
Since you apparently made up your mind about me not arguing in good faith, there’s not much point in quibbling any further. But I’ll bite…
I’m appalled by the anti-Americanism/anti-Semitism wildcard thrown out everytime one criticizes US/Israel’s policies. Couldn’t it be you that’s blindened by your excessive pro-Americanism that clutters your judgement and make you rationalize everything Washington does?
To put it another way, it’s not by chance that the majority of people on Earth think the US government is usually up to no good; It’s because of its actions.
That said, I have nothing but respect for the ideals your forefathers fought for (ignoring the slavery and natives genocide bit). I think your political system is in theory the best ever created. Your culture is, for the most part pervasively delightful. The problem I have with America, is that it repeatedly put the mighty buck above everything else. I’m a humanist at heart, and things like your support for South African Apartheid, “unlawful use of force” (International Court of Justice, 1986) against Nicaragua and carnage in Iraq trigger don’t necessarily make me wanna applaud your actions.
The pentagon operates around 700 bases overseas spread across 130 countries. Add to that 6000 in the US its territories. That’s more reminiscent of empires that a country that’s committed to peace and democracy.
[quote]lixy wrote:
…
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet: “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman: “The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.”
…[/quote]
Do you realize statements like these were made by many because they were fighting for the Navy’s relevance in an era people thought a large military would be unnecessary?
We had the bomb! We didn’t need an Army or a Navy. Just an Air Corp/Air Force to deliver it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
No. It was supposed to show how the American media relays whatever your government farts.
[/quote]
Idiotic. Our media delights in blasting the government any chance they get.
[quote]
Since you apparently made up your mind about me not arguing in good faith, there’s not much point in quibbling any further. But I’ll bite…
The pentagon operates around 700 bases overseas spread across 130 countries. Add to that 6000 in the US its territories. That’s more reminiscent of empires that a country that’s committed to peace and democracy.[/quote]
Unlike empires of old that exacted tribute from the vassal states the US actual pays people around the world for their friendship.
From your posts I can see we are wasting our money.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
No. It was supposed to show how the American media relays whatever your government farts.
Idiotic. Our media delights in blasting the government any chance they get.
…
[/quote]
Really? I remember them all proudly marching behind Ol’ Glory when Bush decided he’d take his chance in Iraq.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
No. It was supposed to show how the American media relays whatever your government farts.
Idiotic. Our media delights in blasting the government any chance they get.
…
Really? I remember them all proudly marching behind Ol’ Glory when Bush decided he’d take his chance in Iraq.[/quote]
Are you for real?
The U.S. media had been anti-Bush since before his first election. Pay attention in class would ya?
Remember “Rathergate”?
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
No. It was supposed to show how the American media relays whatever your government farts.
Idiotic. Our media delights in blasting the government any chance they get.
…
Really? I remember them all proudly marching behind Ol’ Glory when Bush decided he’d take his chance in Iraq.[/quote]
Then you have a selective memory. This was vigorously debated in the US media. Plenty of attention was paid to the war protesters and those that said Saddam didn’t have WMD’s.
From day one the US media only discussed WMD’s as it was the only point of the 20 Bush cited that was questionable and could be used to undermine the war.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Really? I remember them all proudly marching behind Ol’ Glory when Bush decided he’d take his chance in Iraq.[/quote]
You’re thinking of Fox News. Its one of the dog-shit media sources in the States. Its also the most popular. Go figure.