Nukes best thing that happend to Japan.

27jd:

In all seriousness Jakomo, youre like the opposite of Fox news, I havent seen one of your posts with anything even remotely positive about America.

I say positive thing about Americans, just not about your government.

So, sorry I guess we cannot win your approval, oh well

Why do you care?

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing ... I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon," Eisenhower said in 1963.

Shortly after "V-J Day," the end of the Pacific war, Brig. General Bonnie Fellers summed up in a memo for General MacArthur: "Neither the atomic bombing nor the entry of the Soviet Union into the war forced Japan's unconditional surrender. She was defeated before either these events took place."

Similarly, Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, later commented:

It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan ... The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

See, I'll take the word of an ADMIRAL who was the Chief of Staff to two Presidents over Eastern Diamondback's and anyone else on this site.

"Barbarians of the Dark Ages"

Youre right it is a WORLD site, so I have just as much right to defend my contry from rampant anti-Americanism, as others have to attack it. THINK about that.

I dislike my current government too, Jakomo. And I dont care if we can win your approval, note the "oh well". But what upsets me is that all of this bashing on my country is going to inspire proud rednecks to vote Bush back in office out of spite for the world that is attacking my country. And if youre going to point out war attrocities, fine, but point out everybodies, because we are not the only ones who have done wrong in this world. Crimes against humanity go back as far as civilization itself.

Originally posted by 27jd
Youre right it is a WORLD site, so I have just as much right to defend my contry from rampant anti-Americanism, as others have to attack it.

Hmmm...well I saw no "defending" in the following statement.

I havent seen one of your posts with anything even remotely positive about America.

Then my original questions stands since you really didn't answer it. Does everyone have to love America?

No, everybody does not have to love America. And I was not referring to this particular thread when I stated I have the right to defend my country, did I say that I was "defending" my country with my observation that Jakomo has not stated anthing positive about America? No. I just said I have that right. And my question to you is does everybody who does love America (not the government) have to take it on the chin everytime somebody who doesn't posts biased arguments? I am not biased, I have stated on several posts I disagree with alot of things we have done, but when somebody gives criticism in any situation, it is important to point out good points as well, and America does have good points.

Fortunately, we have acquired more information on the circumstances surrounding Japan and surrender. Have you ever heard of the "Magic" intercepts? We were privy to a good deal of top secret Japanese communications because we breached the codes of their enciphered messages. These "Magic" Diplomatic Summary intercepts had not been made available to academics until 1995. I will quote from a text on military history from Battle: A History of Combat and Culture by John A. Lynn.

On July 18, the Wise [ambassador] Sato advised Togo, "Except for the matter of maintainance of our national structure [keeping the emperor], I think that we must absolutely not propose conditions. The situation has already reached the point where we have no alternative but uncondtional surrender." To Sato's advocacy of "unconditional surrender provided that the Imperial House was preserved," Togo replied that preservation of the imperial office was not enough:

With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. Even if the war drags in and it becomes clear that it woll take much more bloodshed, the whole country as one man will pit itself against the enemy in accordance with the Imperial Will so long as the enemy demands unconditional surrender.

This reply indicates that Japanese conditions went beyond the emperor. Sato was not the only Japanese diplomat who talked of realistic peace terms before Hiroshima, and Washington knew of such proposals thanks to Magic. However, the U.S. government also knew that Tokyo was holding firm against them. The Suzuki government was not in search of someone to whom it could capitualte; it was pursuing its own unrealistic agenda.

When it came to the 13 points of the Potsdam Declaration

(1) We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.

(2) The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the west, are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist.

(3) The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.

(4) The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason.

(5) Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.

(6) There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.

(7) Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.

(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

(9) The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.

(10) We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.

(11) Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese, participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.

(12) The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.

(13) We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

Sato thought the terms of surrender were acceptable, Admiral Suzuki and his government refused such an idea. Suzuki stated "it would not be necessary to take the [Potsdam] declaration seriously.

Any overtures that would allow the Japanese "Divine" Emperor to retain his then powers were to be rejected outright. The political structure of Japan allowed the rise of the military state which was a leading factor in the Pacific War. To allow such structure to continue was asking for further problems. The State Dept. stance authored by E.R. Dickover in April of 1944 established that, "it is believed that peace and security in the Pacific can be best assured by creating a truly democratic Japan."

As for Japanese peace overtures in January of 1945, their words may have said one thing, but their continued hostilities toward American forces in the Philipines showed their actions were much louder. Oragnized Japanese resistance did not end until June of 1945. All the Japanese military actions from October of 1944 to the Spring of 1945 showed no evidence of a willingness to end fighting. That cannot be overlooked. The Japanese continued to fight to the last man.

Your post will likely fall on blind eyes, diamondback. In their haste to blame the US for all of the attrocities commited in WWII, they will ignore all other factors. They completely danced around Japans use of anthrax and plague on the Phillipines, I havent seen one post conceding that is as bad as nukes. Like I said, no balance. Theyre not interested in any.

Is it my fault if the facts themselves end up showing the US to be a bunch of murderous turdknockers? Nope.

Always good to see our "Brothers" to the North keeping an even keel, absent of bias, and agenda free... I thought that there would be an atmosphere of ill contention, rife with name calling and worse. My fears now alleviated I will attempt to "D" the bunk.

Japanese were just begging to surrender before August 1945? Probably not, judging by the increase in kamikaze attacks for that month after a two month lull.

Kamikaze statistics.

Admiral Takijiro Onishi, created a Special Attack Groups of suicide dive-bombing pilots known as "kamikazes". These pilots wished to die for their country... Admiral Takijiro Onishi, committed suicide on news of Japans surrender.

Sounds like he took things rather seriously, guess he didn't get the memo that they had been trying to surrender for the better part of the year.

Things were obviously over, no need for the Japanese to contest a rock like Okinawa, much less the home island... what's that? 100,000 Japanese soldiers killed or captured, many preferring suicide to defeat and capture... seems they weren't let in on your "little secret" either, by the way this operation against the "defeated" Japanese defenders cost 72,000 U.S. casualties, with 12,000 killed or missing. This three month battle cemented the need for an alternate method of capitulating the Japanese military hierarchy, for it is they (not the Emperor) who continued to perpetuate the war.

Battle for Okinawa.

Unlike the Americans, the Japanese were an affable conqueror, combat was an honorable endeavor, no "dirty bag of tricks" here. In victory the benevolent occupiers made sure that the populace was "properly" attended too.

Nanjing, not your everyday occupation.

Unit 731, "we only fight fair".

Why did it take six days after Nagasaki to announce surrender?

I hope our "Brethren" to the North can keep in mind the luxury of proximity to a country that has been willing to step forward and defend the interests of freedom and democracy throughout the world. The economic relief alone of not having to aggressively defend a landmass of great size is worth the price of admission.


[edit on 28/7/2004 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by Attero Auctorita
We are the United States of America!We have been appointed by God's divine message to scour the earth and clense it of those who are impure!

This is pure ignorance. I am amazed by your comment and I hope that you represent a minority in your community.

Perhaps my friend you should look at doing some cleansing at home before looking at the rest of the world!

That is an ignorant thing to say, hopefully that person was joking. Its not our job to cleanse the world, and their bringing of "god" into it makes them as ignorant as the terrorists. See, I am a fair and balanced "turdknocker", by the way Jakomo, youre real name wouldnt happen to be Terrance or Phillip would it?



[edit on 28-7-2004 by 27jd]

Mirthful Me:

Japanese were just begging to surrender before August 1945? Probably not, judging by the increase in kamikaze attacks for that month after a two month lull.

Your "probably not" is not ironclad enough for me to justify the slaughter of 700,000 civilians, sorry.

From YOUR link:

In fact, Japan was already beaten. It was defenseless on the seas; its air force was gone; and its cities were being burned out by incendiary bombs. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August and the Soviet declaration of war on 8 August forced the leaders of Japan to recognize the inevitable.

So, again, Japan was already BEATEN and eventually would have surrendered without the need to use Atomic weapons on innocent non-combatants.

You're saying that Japan still would have fought if their land was invaded.

Civilians traditionally flee the areas, causing huge refugee problems. Whether or not the Japanese people would have fought an invasion is moot. Dropping atomic weapons took away that choice for more than half a million civilians who were vaporized in an instant or had a slow lingering death.

That anyone can even attempt to justify that kind of wholesale slaughter is, to me, beyond comprehension.

Take it from the pilot of the Enola Gay.

"A bright light filled the plane," wrote Lt. Col. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb. "We turned back to look at Hiroshima. The city was hidden by that awful cloud...boiling up, mushrooming." For a moment, no one spoke. Then everyone was talking. "Look at that! Look at that! Look at that!" exclaimed the co-pilot, Robert Lewis, pounding on Tibbets's shoulder. Lewis said he could taste atomic fission; it tasted like lead. Then he turned away to write in his journal. "My God," he asked himself, "what have we done?" (special report, "Hiroshima: August 6, 1945")

Nobody here is celebrating the use of nukes on anybody. If it is your belief that we feel proud that we used these weapons in our past, you are very wrong. And we dont seek to justify the deaths of innocent people. But I would like to hear you also condemn the many dispicable practices of the Empire of Japan during that time as well, they killed many innocent civilians in their rampage of the pacific, including the use of anthrax and plague on the Phillipines, wich is also a WMD and I would like to see you affirm that. It is upsetting to see such lack of balance and bias against us from such a close ally as Canada (my father, and half my family is from Canada), so it strikes a personal nerve that you have such dislike for us when we are so much alike, aside from our government.

27jd:

And we dont seek to justify the deaths of innocent people.

That's exactly what's being done.

"If we hadn't have killed those 700,000 innocent civilians, our Allied soldiers would have suffered massive losses.

Boo frickin hoo.

But I would like to hear you also condemn the many dispicable practices of the Empire of Japan during that time as well, they killed many innocent civilians in their rampage of the pacific, including the use of anthrax and plague on the Phillipines, wich is also a WMD and I would like to see you affirm that.

That was the Japanese military, not the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, you can't punish them for what their military machine did.

It is upsetting to see such lack of balance and bias against us from such a close ally as Canada (my father, and half my family is from Canada), so it strikes a personal nerve that you have such dislike for us when we are so much alike, aside from our government.

I have dislike for your government, not your people.

First off I didnt post that argument about the avoidance of allied soldier deaths, soldiers sign up to possibly be killed, Im well aware of that. My posts point out the lack of balance, you still havent conceded that the Japanese willfully killed many civilians, and also used WMD, which were just as bad as nukes, I will post AGAIN:

January 30th 1948

It has now become evident that the Japanese attack on Manila included a biological aspect. Thousands of sick people have begun to flood Manila hospitals, many showing clear signs of bubonic plague and some other highly lethal infection. A few, the worst cases, have already begun to die.

February 2nd 1948

With thousands now dead on Luzon from the plague and what has now been identified as anthrax, the U.S. publicly confirms what has been rumored for several days and promises to "hold Japan accountable for its actions". The mass movement of people fleeing Manila has forced the U.S. to quarantine the city, resulting in several instances of rioting and looting as well as clashes between civilians and U.S./Philippine troops enforcing the quarantine. In the countryside around Manila, the plague has taken hold and is flourishing in the squalid camps established by refugees from the city. The U.S. begins shipping massive amounts of medical aid to the area, but there is simply not enough antibiotics to treat everyone.

In the end, some 15,000 Philippine civilians on Luzon will die from inhalation anthrax within the first few days after the Japanese raid and another 50,000 or so will die of the plague in the weeks and months after the raid, putting the total casualties at some 75,000 killed in the immediate weeks following the attack and three times that number wounded or otherwise weakened. Persisting anthrax spores and plague-infected rodents will continue to account for thousands of deaths for years to come. The attack has a psychological 'terror' effect that goes beyond the actual physical deaths.

Info from:www.geocities.com...

I am interested to know your opinion on this. And you say you dislike the government, not the people, we are in agreement there, I hate the current administration too. Niether one of us was alive during WWII, so we only rely on info in our books to make our decisions, and all history books I believe are distorted, so we can only speculate on events back then. Those events should have no bearing on our relationships today.

Originally posted by Jakomo

Your "probably not" is not ironclad enough for me to justify the slaughter of 700,000 civilians, sorry.

You continue to bandy about 700,000 deaths, there were between 200,000 and 250,000 deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (using the most liberal estimates, and a far cry from some of the total death numbers the Japanese perpetrated on conquered lands and not to mention the premeditated torture and rape, and which you have curiously ignored).

From YOUR link:

In fact, Japan was already beaten. It was defenseless on the seas; its air force was gone; and its cities were being burned out by incendiary bombs. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August and the Soviet declaration of war on 8 August forced the leaders of Japan to recognize the inevitable.

Of course you chose to ignore the paragraph preceding that passage or the sentence immediately after. I'll help out the casual observer out and provide those, to keep things "in context".

From: "MY" Link
When the Luzon and Okinawa battles ended in July, the invasion of the southernmost Japanese island of Kyushu had already been ordered by the Joint Chiefs. The date was set for 1 November 1945. Kyushu would furnish air and naval bases to intensify the air bombardment and strengthen the naval blockade around Honshu, the main island of Japan. A massive invasion in the Tokyo area was scheduled for 1 March 1946 if Japanese resistance continued. With the Okinawa experience fresh in their minds, many planners feared that the invasion of Japan would produce a bloodbath.........

Originally posted by Jakomo

If we hadn't have killed those 700,000 innocent civilians, our Allied soldiers would have suffered massive losses. Boo frickin hoo.

Where the hell are you getting 700,000 innocent civilian deaths in the two atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I count somewhere in the vicinity of 200,000-220,000 which includes those who were killed instantly and those who died from radiation sickness afterwards. Hiroshima was specifically chosen because it housed about 60,000 military personnel, and was a major military transporting hub. Attempts at using conventional bombings to destroy the military infrastructure would have had results similar to the end results of the atomic bomb: massive death and destruction of the civilian population of the city. There was no way around it. Lots of Japanese civilians would die no matter what course of action was taken. Do you propose we should have continued a blockade of Japan and starved out the population? Should we have invaded and contributed to the likely slaughter of millions of Japanese civilians, while losing hundred of thousands of our own men in the process? The Battle of Okinawa alone was the scene of the deaths of over 100,000 civilians, through conventional warfare. It's easy to be an armchair general when the decision you would make are of no real world consequence.

[edit on 7/30/2004 by Eastern_Diamondback]

Originally posted by Langolier
Ofcourse I wouldnt be happy if some one nuked Washington and NewYork. However if they did durring war, and we had started the war. There was no chance of us surrendering. Then I think history would support them. They would be doing it to save THIER peoples lives.

Then I guess with that logic Iraq would have the right to nuke the US. Dropping the bombs on Japan was a pissing contest. It was to prove that the US were the big boys on the block and to not "F#%K with us". Germany was done, Japan was shattered and you can't tell me they weren't. The bombs weren't needed, it was a political ploy.

27jd:

I am interested to know your opinion on this. And you say you dislike the government, not the people, we are in agreement there, I hate the current administration too. Niether one of us was alive during WWII, so we only rely on info in our books to make our decisions, and all history books I believe are distorted, so we can only speculate on events back then. Those events should have no bearing on our relationships today.

Well, yeah, I would say that the Japanese military did some horrendous things. This was all after '45. In 1948. I'm speaking specifically about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The ATOMIC bombing of two civilian population centers is a form of collective punishment on innocents. Whether or not the Japanese Army in WWII committed atrocities (and they most certainly did), it cannot be used as a justification for the purposeful eradication of hundreds of thousands of people at a non-military target.

And unfortunately, I think this does has a bearing on relations today, especially between the US and Japan.

Mirthful Me:

You continue to bandy about 700,000 deaths, there were between 200,000 and 250,000 deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (using the most liberal estimates, and a far cry from some of the total death numbers the Japanese perpetrated on conquered lands and not to mention the premeditated torture and rape, and which you have curiously ignored).

I was wondering when someone would notice my "liberal" estimate. It's closer to 400,000-500,000.

-80,000 people were killed instantly (Hiroshima)
-Out of the city�s 55 hospitals, only 3 were usable after the blast.
-90% of all doctors and nurses in Hiroshima were killed or injured
-Radiation claimed many more lives after the bomb was dropped
-48,000 out of 76,000 buildings were destroyed.
-The initial heat blast was 900 times hotter than the sun.
-Bodies were vapourised underneath the bomb blast.
-By 1950, 200,000 people had died as a result of the bomb.
-Between 1950 and 1980, a further 97,000 people died from cancers associated with the radiation caused by "Little Boy".
-On August 9th 1945, the bomber "Bockspur" dropped "Fat Man" on Nagasaki. Once again, the final number of deaths was over 200,000.

And it was incredibly difficult to do a bodycount since alot of bodies were vapourized or burned.

And again, you cannot punish a CIVILIAN population for the crimes of its military.

Would you expect that if Russia was pissed about your conduct in Abu Ghraib they could drop a nuclear bomb on Chicago and say it's tit-for-tat? One's military, one's civilian.

There would have been no "fleeing", no "refugees", only slaughter; far more than Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the fire bombing of Tokyo. The Japanese WERE ready to "fight to the last man, woman, and child". They had already done this at Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.

How about a source, because that's total BS.

In the minds of many, if not most US citizens, the atomic bombs saved the lives of perhaps a million US soldiers, and the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is seen as a small price to pay to save so many lives and bring a terrible war to an end. This view leaves the impression that bombing these cities with atomic weapons was useful, fruitful and an occasion to be celebrated.

The problem with this rendition of history is that the need for dropping the bombs to end the war has been widely challenged by historians. Many scholars, including Lifton and Mitchell, have questioned the official US account of the bombings. These critics have variously pointed out that Japan was attempting to surrender at the time the bombs were dropped, that the US Army Strategic Survey calculated far fewer US casualties from an invasion of Japan, and that there were other ways to end the war without using the atomic bombs on the two Japanese cities.

Among the critics of the use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were leading US military figures. General Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander Europe during World War II and later US president, described his reaction upon having been told by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson that atomic bombs would be used on Japanese cities:

�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. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, attempting to surrender with a minimum loss of �face�. . . .�

In a post-war interview, Eisenhower told a journalist, ��the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn�t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.�

The US might not, but the rest of the world will remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki for what it was. Wholesale slaughter of innocents.

And PLEASE don't bother with links to the CIA.gov site, they might just be a tiny little bit slanted. Haha.

As for the six days it took to "formally surrender":

Not known to the general public until after the war, Japan had begun to put out feelers about surrender by May of 1945. On May 12, 1945, William Donovan, Director of the Office of Strategic Services (which later became the CIA) reported to President Truman that Shinichi Kase, Japan�s minister to Switzerland, wished "to help arrange for a cessation of hostilities." He believed one of the few provisions the Japanese would "insist upon would be the retention of the Emperor." A similar report reached Truman from Masutaro Inoue, a Japanese official in Portugal. In mid-June Admiral William D. Leahy concluded that "a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provision for America�s defense against future trans-Pacific aggression."

Meanwhile, the U.S. learned through intercepted diplomatic cables (the U.S. had broken Japanese codes early in the war) that the emperor of Japan wished to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as his personal representative to "ask the Soviet Government to take part in mediation to end the present war and to transmit the complete Japanese case in this respect." In President Truman�s handwritten journal, only released in 1979, he noted in July of 1945 that Stalin had reported "a telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."...

The United States, acting on the advice of conservative political advisers--not on the advice of its military leaders--dropped the first atomic bomb without responding to any of the Japanese peace feelers. Then, three days later, and after the Soviet entry in the war had made immediate Japanese surrender inevitable, the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. The first bomb was dropped after Japan had already begun the process of seeking the terms of surrender. The second bomb was dropped when it was clear no U.S. invasion of the Japanese home islands was needed. Are crimes of war only those actions committed by the nation which committed aggression? Was it not a crime to use the nuclear bomb without exploring the Japanese peace feelers? Fifty years will have passed this August 6, 1995, and the question remains why anyone still believes the use of the nuclear bomb was necessary. Opposing evidence is overwhelming. It is as if, to shield ourselves from knowledge of what we did, we refuse to examine the history of that period.

chnm.gmu.edu...

Yeah, DEEZNUTS, we can tell you that Japan was not defeated, take the time to read the above posts before you make assumptions.

[edit on 30-7-2004 by 27jd]

To Attero Auctorita.
You think that Americans are gods in this world.
guess what, you are Native Indian, English and French Hybrids.
see it takes 2 european nations and the country's native people to become what you think you are today.
America has no god given right to anything, wait till you run out of oil and then Russia and the Arabs become the dominant world leaders then wo be tide the American nation, For your indiscriminate view of other people around the world.

Oh and no I do not sympathise with Arabs or Russians, if you know what I mean.