America's death toll on the world: 27,000,000++

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I asked the question on here once, how many people does America have to kill before its guilty of genocide? All I got was torrent of abuse (which I expected) and claims of being anti American.

Funny how 5 million Vietnamese died but it seems somebody made a rule that said 6 million people of the same race must die before there is a holocaust.

Wonder who made that rule and why it still seems to be in place in all that time.

Wonder why the UN for some such org has not defined the qualification for status holocaust victim and Victim of Genocide in some international agreement or pact or whatever.

How many people died in Kosovo?

How many people have did in Iraq?

How many people have died in Afghanistan?

How many people have died in Syria?

Obviously not enough for them to qualify for being a victim of genocide or holocaust.

My problem with this thread is simply that attributing these deaths to what you call American Imperialism assumes that all these deaths would not have happened otherwise.

I'm absolutely certain that even your inflated death toll would have been far exceeded by any of the other expansionist regimes.

Look at it this way, for all its faults, the British Empire was actually the most benign of all the alternatives, there is no way that the Spanish, Belgians Germans or French would have been anywhere near as good for the people under their rule as The British Empire.

So if not America, who? Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR or Mao's China? You really think they would have given an easy ride to the people they conquered?

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
then you should be opening everyones eyes to the evil imperialism and not just focus on one country.

it just a veiled attempt at america bashing (im not american btw)

The old US army pro-WW2 propaganda films made it clear t was a war against imperialism. While the rest of the (non-European) world hasn't forgotten the darkness of colonialism. From there, you know what, screw this...

My motive behind this thread was in line with my many others: to awaken United Statesians from their nationalistic amnesia. There's a total disconnect about what this Nation State is: EMPIRE. As long as that stands a constant, there's no hope for any reason. For that reason alone I had then, and still have now, no choice but maintain this crusade of Truth.

One day I need to get out the camera and go do street interviews Leno style: "What does the US being a Superpower mean?" It will be priceless...

a reply to: SprocketUK

So many ways we could go with all that! Let's try:

They would have died anyways? In Vietnam, the French lost! Vietnam was on track to be free, but then "America" decided it was a gonna go in there and play at empire, and we all know the rest.

What is inflated about my presentation? The reality is, that's all I dug up in an afternoon, and that's just from what was on record at the time. Do feel free to analyze it closely: Maybe you'll somehow debunk some of it, or maybe you'll 'see the light'... from all of that darkness.

I suppose your old king cutting the pirates some slack and deputizing them as privateers for a spell could be interpreted as benevolence. But hmmmmm... the domination of the entire Indian subcontinent, for their spices, hey it beats the conquistadors policies so woo hoo go UK football team! The Opium Wars, oh my!

As we've beaten to death, empires always proved evil, so splitting hairs over which was best is obscene.

It's time for a new reign of anti-power, and the sort of work I've attempted in this thread amongst others is the only way that can ever happen because Ignorance Isnt Bliss!

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Ah, another person commiting the fallacy of considering the US Imperial Establishment as if it were America itself or the American People 'themself'.



[edit on 12-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

This is an excellent point
The government does not represent the majority of the people in this country so I am not going to take it on my shoulders what they have done around the world in our name.

It is not unlike other things they have done

The Majority were against Obamacare so when it passed, the blame goes straight to Corporate Lobbyists
The Majority were against the Iraq War - The blame goes straight to Defense Lobbyists and their puppet politicians like Cheney
The Majority were against the Bail Outs
The Majority are against the TPP

And on and on and on

We are not represented so we are also not responsible when Corporate and Banking Lobbyists infest both DNC and RNC Parties either. They want to have the power to enrich themselves and point the finger at Americans as if they had a say in the matter.

We are also not responsible for the wars and killings since we had no say in it.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

One day I need to get out the camera and go do street interviews Leno style: "What does the US being a Superpower mean?" It will be priceless...

In the days of old, an empire meant stealing other countries gold, resources and land.
In today's world, none of that is necessary with the insertion of fiat paper and market manipulations.
You just bankrupt your adversary and then after the war is over, bail them out with "conditions" favorable to yourself

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: SprocketUK

So many ways we could go with all that! Let's try:

They would have died anyways? In Vietnam, the French lost! Vietnam was on track to be free, but then "America" decided it was a gonna go in there and play at empire, and we all know the rest.

What is inflated about my presentation? The reality is, that's all I dug up in an afternoon, and that's just from what was on record at the time. Do feel free to analyze it closely: Maybe you'll somehow debunk some of it, or maybe you'll 'see the light'... from all of that darkness.

I suppose your old king cutting the pirates some slack and deputizing them as privateers for a spell could be interpreted as benevolence. But hmmmmm... the domination of the entire Indian subcontinent, for their spices, hey it beats the conquistadors policies so woo hoo go UK football team! The Opium Wars, oh my!

As we've beaten to death, empires always proved evil, so splitting hairs over which was best is obscene.

It's time for a new reign of anti-power, and the sort of work I've attempted in this thread amongst others is the only way that can ever happen because Ignorance Isnt Bliss!

The fighting in Vietnam between North and South would have continued with or without the US it is not like the US was their after all it was 10 years of fighting and chaos before the US started to send in advisers. Without the US the South would have fallen faster so the massacres by the north would have happened earlier. Vietnam would still have invaded Cambodia and then fought China. And instead of just border clashes with Thailand a more power Vietnamese army would have invaded. Vietnam did not become some peaceful nation after unification it remained in conflict with its neighbors until the 1990s. Without the US intervention that would have happened earlier and gone further likely leading to full final scale war between China and Vietnam with maybe Russia jumping in and the West jumping in to aid China. This is what happens when you try and play what if games with history without knowing history.

a reply to: MrSpad

In the 1940's Ho Chi Mihn begged the US to take its side in ending French occupation. The US declined; apparently it too being an empire the US was unsympathetic. So then they turned to the Commies. Then the stuff you pointed out, more or less, became the inevitable.

The "American" ruling establishment had its big chance to prove it wasn't an evil empire, that it was this good benevolent guy so many in these threads want to insist it is. Instead, it got in line to fully embrace the darkside.

All those tombs in Arlington et al as a result of this example and others like it, how it makes so many so warm and fuzzy inside makes me sick.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: SprocketUK

So many ways we could go with all that! Let's try:

They would have died anyways? In Vietnam, the French lost! Vietnam was on track to be free, but then "America" decided it was a gonna go in there and play at empire, and we all know the rest.

What is inflated about my presentation? The reality is, that's all I dug up in an afternoon, and that's just from what was on record at the time. Do feel free to analyze it closely: Maybe you'll somehow debunk some of it, or maybe you'll 'see the light'... from all of that darkness.

I suppose your old king cutting the pirates some slack and deputizing them as privateers for a spell could be interpreted as benevolence. But hmmmmm... the domination of the entire Indian subcontinent, for their spices, hey it beats the conquistadors policies so woo hoo go UK football team! The Opium Wars, oh my!

As we've beaten to death, empires always proved evil, so splitting hairs over which was best is obscene.

It's time for a new reign of anti-power, and the sort of work I've attempted in this thread amongst others is the only way that can ever happen because Ignorance Isnt Bliss!

If it wasn't the us or the uk it would have been the ussr or someone else and if for instance the ussr's influence continued to grow then perhaps they would have taken the pot. But hey, don't you worry about that, cos only western democracies are bad in your book it seems.

a reply to: SprocketUK

There always have been Empires they come and go and they always get into wars in far flung places for resources,there is no good in such matters just various forms of evil fighting for the food on the table,which doesn't make things right but people fight and die to prevent a worse alternative.

Fools have run our civilization into the ground the West is probably finished in 5,10,50 years who knows the fight is now on the domestic front Democracy is being trampled everywhere.

As the rich elite go into hyperdrive for one world government and serfdom good men are doing nothing to stop it there are elections in Britain,Australia and the US this year critically important to the future of any freedoms left,it might be time to stop supporting those in charge and to do our best to replace them that I think would be what the dead soldiers would want.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Please explain how because of mans follies for thousands of years, what sort of reason does it make to still push on forward from this point on because of it? Everything you've said across these threads, all you've done is perform the duties of an apologist (yet doing so unapologetic ally, ironically enough).

a reply to: khnum

Well put, that and I can't say that I find your proposition completely implausible.

I'd still hold that the Western democracies were pretty much forced into things from the 50s onwards, but yeah, society is fractured right now and perhaps a popular uprising is what will be needed.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Nope I do what I'm told to win a conflict as a scout.
As to WHY, thats the American People's tasking to elect our leader,it ain't MY job, I fought on orders from men I trusted ,my NCOs.
If ordered to commit a direct attrocity, then I am allowed to refuse an illegal order.
As to the fairness of a conflict, They never asked MY opinion.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
As to WHY, thats the American People's tasking to elect our leader,it ain't MY job,

Sounds reasonable. Its just too bad all the elections are rigged many methods over, the general rule is on the surface all the 'options' they hand US are all the puppets hand picked by the same imperialistic ruling establishment. That bit of truth, in the face of all this, is whats pushes me and many others 'over the edge' about all this mess. I was majorly active in the first Ron Paul campaign, and watched blow by blow the way they deal with outsiders (that's "both" the GOP & DNC (together as ONE), all of the CONTROLLED media that does the "electioneering" (together, thats right Fox & CNN etc), and so on). And that's just scratching the surface of the stuff that goes on before the actual ballot process, which can and does get proven to get rigged outright. The people behind these steps, those are the greatest enemies of this nation. And afterwards, that is after rigging is blatently proven, and the people whom dont care let alone protest/riot, they deserve everything thats coming from this nightmare machine of oppression:

Does this mean we won?

Whats our K/D ?

a reply to: cavtrooper7

It's funny you should mention elections... You see what my OP list doesn't even hardly account for are the countless secret wars by the CIA, and their casualties. There are some in there, but not the ones such as:
The CIA overthrowing the democratically elected president (shah) of Iran. Election rigging was central in this affair (like many many others across the globe). It's so ironic that the day they took those embassy hostages, that day we're all expected to be so pissed about, for the people of Iran, that was their equivalent of our Independence Day from the empire of Great Britain. My OP list does mention how the US establishment went on to support Iraq attacking them afterwards, which resulted in what was it 875,000 deaths. Reflecting on the most recent Operation Iraqi Liberation conflict, imagine how many maimed survivors there must of been from that number.

Just this one example alone obliterates all of this endlessly repeated sentiments that 'hey the American Empire is soo sweet and gushy and gooey and yummy". And that's only one of many gross anti-democracy examples of the blight that American Imperialism has proven to be in practice (like all empires). Nazi Germany never even did that, that I can think of. Of course, they never bothered masquerading as the savior of all mankind.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Tapes came out the other day,transcripts of which were posted in Brazilian media,you staged a nice silent coup there to stop the BRICS trading block,and theres special forces galore now in Syria the spooks still seem to have a handle on things even if the Whitehouse is currently pre-occupied with bathrooms without borders.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I can't KILL that many people to fix it,sorry.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

GOOEY?
No ,no I will tell you I met a Ranger who was in Nicaragua,I know all about the evils done.
Hitting up vets and NOT joining won't stop any of that.
If you don't like us,it totally sounds subjective and still no world view capability,just parroting the vernacular.
That won't fix a thing any better than MY shooting them with a sniper rifle.
Something NEW must be done to stop the new cold war.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


So were they not the result of US expansion (imperialism)?

Do we need to get into how there are known cases of "US" giving them small pox infected blankets?

Nothing definitive...

Abstract:

In this analysis of the genocide rhetoric employed over the years by Ward Churchill, an ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado, a "distressing" conclusion is reached: Churchill has habitually committed multiple counts of research misconduct—specifically, fabrication and falsification. While acknowledging the "politicization" of the topic and evidence of other outrages committed against Native American tribes in times past, this study examines the different versions of the "smallpox blankets" episode published by Churchill between 1994 and 2003. The "preponderance of evidence" standard of proof strongly indicates that Churchill fabricated events that never occurred—namely the U.S. Army's alleged distribution of smallpox infested blankets to the Mandan Indians in 1837. The analysis additionally reveals that Churchill falsified sources to support his fabricated version of events, and also concealed evidence in his cited sources that actually disconfirms, rather than substantiates, his allegations of genocide.

University of Michigan

Now, as far as other instances -- nothing conclusive there either:

Fact is, on at least one occasion a high-ranking European considered infecting the Indians with smallpox as a tactic of war. I'm talking about Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63). Amherst and a subordinate discussed, apparently seriously, sending infected blankets to hostile tribes.

...

We don't know if Bouquet actually put the plan into effect, or if so with what result. We do know that a supply of smallpox-infected blankets was available, since the disease had broken out at Fort Pitt some weeks previously. We also know that the following spring smallpox was reported to be raging among the Indians in the vicinity.

straightdope.com

So, we don't really have any conclusive proof either way. It's kind of a "given" among armchair historians, but if you dig into the actual eyewitness testimonies from those time periods, as well as the letters and documentation ... there isn't much to go on.

Perhaps though it isn't surprising...I mean, who would keep records of genocide?

Sorry, I'm not trying to directly counter your entire argument -- I'm just a student of history (it was my major).