well its sad to say that man is evil...not the USA.

I do not like the US people in power...I think the US Constitution is amazing.

I do think that evil is in the government....
not that the government is evil.

sad post...but important none the less

Originally posted by wingman77

Ignorance is upset that the USA has killed so many people....yet he sits in his home enjoying his FREEDOM given to him by the USA!

I must say, that is the most recycled and trite refutation used by individuals who are offended by criticism of the government.

The founding fathers and the revolutionaries granted us our freedom. Over time some individuals have expanded it and many have fought and died to protect it. However, the majority of wars fought in the history of the United States have not been to defend our nation and our freedoms. The only conflicts that genuinely threatened the United States were the Civil War, World War One (arguably), and World War Two

Well first wingman I'm not offended by anyone criticising our goverment. I have my own opinion on a government that fails its people daily and abuses its power whenever it wants. My reactions come from people who take everything this country gives them for granted. Your idea that our founding fathers GRANTED us our freedom is insane. In your mind they came over here, never faced any threats and just wrote up on some paper that we can do whatever we want. THE REVOLUTION...I think that was when ALL ABLE BODY MEN WHO WANTED TO KEEP THE FREEDOMS THEY ENJOYED...stood up and fought the Brits. They didn't sit home and complain, they didn't sit back and let OTHER people fight for them, they didn't act like the freedom they had was a RIGHT!!!!!! They understood that if they wanted to keep it, they went out and fought for it. Unlike today...

Originally posted by Inannamute
(pet peeve rant)

To anyone stating that the USA saved the world in WW2, please, please, please, go do some research. The role of russia, in WW2. The role of the UK in WW2. The role of france in WW2..

Deaths in ww2
United States 292,000 soldiers
Great Britain lost 264,000 soldiers and 60,000 civilians in bombing raids.
France lost 200,000 soldiers and 400,000 civilians.
The Soviet Union lost the most with 25 million deaths, but only about a third were combat related.

What's that? The ally that 'won the war' lost only 28,000 more soldiers than the tiny little country with a third of it's population?..

Yeah. I could go on, but then I'd just be ranting...

What you've failed to mention is that the U.S. was coming to the defense of the U.K. and France in WWII. If the U.S. didn't intervene Germany would have easily defeated the U.K. Germany had already defeated the French.

So while you're right that the U.S. didn't win the war alone, the U.K. would have been defeated by Germany without the U.S. In fact, there is a good chance that almost all of Europe would have fallen to Germany if not for the U.S. intervention.

So while the U.S. didn't save the world, it certainly saved the U.K. from being defeated by Germany. The U.S. then went on to make sure that all of Europe was protected ever since.

What do you think would have happened to Europe if not for the American military presence there?

IgnoranceIsntBlisss

As usual I find your post to be oustanding.

What do you think would have happened to Europe if not for the American military presence there?

This is ridicules of how you think, what if.......
Some one could say United States wouldn't even exist if it was not for europe, your great fathers were europians, europe invented united states, now the invention turns against the creator?
So your point is irelevant.....

Why dont you compare this death toll to the death toll just caused by man, you will see a huge difference

27 million, i really should pretend to be surprised

Well it's more then 27 million.

You have to consider all the black ops operations and false flag operations...

Terrorists is the new boogie man, don't believe in it.

Originally posted by nick7261
What you've failed to mention is that the U.S. was coming to the defense of the U.K. and France in WWII. If the U.S. didn't intervene Germany would have easily defeated the U.K. Germany had already defeated the French.

So while you're right that the U.S. didn't win the war alone, the U.K. would have been defeated by Germany without the U.S. In fact, there is a good chance that almost all of Europe would have fallen to Germany if not for the U.S. intervention.

So while the U.S. didn't save the world, it certainly saved the U.K. from being defeated by Germany. The U.S. then went on to make sure that all of Europe was protected ever since.

What do you think would have happened to Europe if not for the American military presence there?

What you'ved failed to mention is that US business firms were active collaborators with the NAZI government. Suppling hardware and technical information with the NAZI war machine in exchange for vast sums of money and a promiss not to bomb or attack US business interests in Europe.

Oh yes, if the US had completely stayed out of world war two, the outcome would have been much different. Who knows the NAZI's may not have been able to arm and mobilize themselves so ruthlessly if it were not for US business investment.


Its great that the US gives out "humanitarian aid" but where does that aid actually go? much of US money (taken form tax payers) is directed to creating infastructure (roads and highways that lead from forrest to port (for easy shipping of the lumber)) Still more of it is directed into beefing up the state apparatus. Little of it reaches the dregs of a country, the people who need it.

Many conflicts listed in the OP were proxy/mercinary wars that had no direct US involvement (the use of US soldiers or war machines.) That does not mean the US was not invloved, in equiping and aiding those mercinaries with the express purpose of destablizing a region. Not to mention the thousands of assassins and torturers that have come out the School for the America's.

Im surprised you didnt mention Angola or Mozambique in your orginal list. Both backed and supported by the CIA to distablize the regoin and stop a left leaning revolution.

[edit on 13-5-2007 by InSpiteOf]

Typical "Blame America 1st" type post. It is also the most ignorant post I have seen in a while.

Let's start with the Indians. It's not like the Indians all lived together harmoniously. The battled each other long before we arrived.

The Phillipines gained self-rule in 1916 and became an independent government in 1946. Thanks to America more prospered, than perished.

Viet-Nam and Cambodia. Dead Communists is a bad thing? Cambodian deaths were a direct result of the U.S. pulling out of Viet-Nam, due to Anti-American activists.

You also blame America for the USSRs incursion into Afgahnistan? That's funny! The USSR completely failed in Afgahnistan. The U.S. saved lives by secretly helping Afgahnistan. Then saved more lives by invading Afgahnistan, and getting rid of the Taliban ruled government.

About Iraq and Saddam Hussein. It's genius! The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Iran was more of a problem for the U.S. at that time. War between the two was inevitable. Helping Iraq was in the U.S.'s best interest. That is as far as that goes. The U.S. made Iraq withdraw from Kuwait, which ultimately saved lives. The U.S. ended Iraq's WMD program, which also saved lives. The U.S. overthrew Saddam and installed a new government, which also will end up saving lives.

I'm sure if we just sat down and talked to Hitler, he would have justed stayed in Germany.

I'm sure if we asked the Communist USSR to kindly leave Viet-Nam they would have capitulated.

I'm sure if we asked Al-Queda to stopped committing terrorist acts, they would stop in an instant.

War is the ONLY way, to make things BETTER! The U.S. has proved this. If anything, stopping wars prematurely has led to more deaths.







[edit on 13-5-2007 by RRconservative]

Originally posted by truttseeker
No one cares that we killed 27 million.

That is an idiotic thing to say. I think you will find that some people DO care. And regarding that little bitching session you did in chat yesterday Seek, these kinds of attitudes are EXACTLY one of the reasons why the issue you raised exists.

Originally posted by RRconservative
The Phillipines gained self-rule in 1916 and became an independent government in 1946. Thanks to America more prospered, than perished.

They gained independance in the form of no longer having direct colonial rule. But that is not because US leaders wanted to grant them freedom of rule. Its because the costs of colonial rule no longer justified having colonies, they were loosing to much money. Now US imperial interests have a better way of rule. It can be reffered to as Economic Imperialism. Where a countries markets and labour sectors have been heavily penetrated by foreign capital for the benefit of foreign investors at the cost of the local population. Oh yes, thank goodness the US gave them independance of rule, now the philipines "business zones" are a thriving sector of shanty towns, prostitues, and criminals.

Viet-Nam and Cambodia. Dead Communists is a bad thing? Cambodian deaths were a direct result of the U.S. pulling out of Viet-Nam, due to Anti-American activists.

Depends, how many lives were sacrificed to stop the revolution and why? What was so threatening about communism to the US? was it the lack of democracy that many communist states shared? Thats what US policy makers and their media mouthpieces woul dhave you believe. but the truth is US leaders have supported countless autocratic, fascist, and otherwise undemocratic regimes. So we can rule the lack of democracy out of the equation. So what is it about communism that US leaders hated so much. Capital. It has to do with how capital is gathered, used, and distributed. Under many communist regimes, the capital accumulation process was cut out like the cancer it is. The US investor class could not persue they're actions of capital accumulation in communist countries because the government would not allow it, cutting the profits of those investors. So really the war in Viet Nam had nothing to do with stopping the commies and installing a democracy, and everything to do with stopping the commies and ensuring a client-state setup for the future. "We want YOU to protect our vital corporate interests!"

You also blame America for the USSRs incursion into Afgahnistan? That's funny! The USSR completely failed in Afgahnistan. The U.S. saved lives by secretly helping Afgahnistan. Then saved more lives by invading Afgahnistan, and getting rid of the Taliban ruled government.

Who benefitted from the mujahadeen's rise in afganistan? the people? doubtful, they got to live with dictatorial rule with the newly instilled US backed government.

About Iraq and Saddam Hussein. It's genius! The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Iran was more of a problem for the U.S. at that time. War between the two was inevitable. Helping Iraq was in the U.S.'s best interest. That is as far as that goes. The U.S. made Iraq withdraw from Kuwait, which ultimately saved lives. The U.S. ended Iraq's WMD program, which also saved lives. The U.S. overthrew Saddam and installed a new government, which also will end up saving lives.

The US backed Saddam because he was going to crush the Iraqi rebellion (social reforms) and because they thought he would be a good comprador and just give up everything to US oil cartels on their terms. It turns out they were wrong, he wanted to cut a better deal on oil prices and he wanted some of the funds to go to iraq rather than into the pockets of other compradors. Was he a tyrant? Yes. Did he need to be removed? Yes. But what is replacing him will be just as democratic as he was. The people of iraq will be facing even more economic hardships, especially when the IMF demands "economic restructuring" (harsh austerity programs.)

War is the ONLY way, to make things BETTER! The U.S. has proved this. If anything, stopping wars prematurely has led to more deaths.

So hows Iraq doing right now? Is it better or worse?
Hows Angola doing right now? Is it better or worse?
How about Mozabique? better or worse?

How do you measure whats better or worse? Are your stipulations based on Capital investment opportunities, or the wellfare of the people?


[edit on 13-5-2007 by InSpiteOf]

3 million in Vietnam alone?

i hope you are basing this on genuine (if not accurate, sadly) 3rd party material, which is neither adulterated by a) Vietnamese and ComBlock propaganda nor inflated by US claims of millions of kills by shelling remote, forested valleys and calling it mission accomplished. (100 kills minimum based on most accurate, tactical statistics... or something)

that said, i think the entire way to look at 'body count' does not reflect reality at all. this is not a game for kills and while war deaths indicate violence, the reverse is not true.

ie. the entire planet's political- economic system is rigged to hell and back, greatly affecting everybody's lives, sometimes war takes place and most of the time it's ignored, or called ethnic cleansing or some other euphemism. the most important casualties of war are not its victims (they no longer make a difference) it's the survivors, whose lives are invariably altered for the worse. (emotionally, mostly). no statistic will accurately portray its long term effects. just my 2c, of course.

First off... think aobut how many people are in the world... 27,000,000 isnt that much :|

think about how many of thosse people shot back.. which makes it An Americans life OR theirs... u cant just say.. hey man... lets put down our guns and be friends

and most of all... if AMERICA is SUCH A BAD COUNTRY... WHY are there soooooooooooooooooooooooo MANY people trying to ILLEGALY and legally ENTER the U.S..........

Originally posted by nick7261

What do you think would have happened to Europe if not for the American military presence there?

The battle of Britain stopped The Third Riech from crossing the channel. The Luftwaffe could not penetrate Great Britain and soften the defense forces properly. It would have taken longer to make Germany fall, but fall they would have, with or without our help.

The Russian winter stopped Adolph just as it did Napoleon. The beginning of the offence on Russia was a 10 to 1 ratio in favor of the Wehrmacht. After they started the retreat the Wehrmacht could not push back. We were there so the Russians would not take Europe, Hitler failed when he tried his push to Moscow.

WE expedited the war we did not win it. Please read up on your history and not the Hollywood version of it.

Originally posted by Inannamute

Deaths in ww2
United States 292,000 soldiers
Great Britain lost 264,000 soldiers and 60,000 civilians in bombing raids.
France lost 200,000 soldiers and 400,000 civilians.
The Soviet Union lost the most with 25 million deaths, but only about a third were combat related.

What's that? The ally that 'won the war' lost only 28,000 more soldiers than the tiny little country with a third of it's population?..

Yeah. I could go on, but then I'd just be ranting...

Dude if you think that those numbers are even remotly accurate to how many real casualties there were in WWII you need to wake up. This shows why WIKI sucks! To put it in perspecitve for you, the U.S suffered 80,000 casualties in the Battle of The Bulge alone - One freakin battle. Now think about all the other fighting done in Europe. Now add that to the fighting done in the Pacific and you have a much larger number than 292,000 U.S casualties. Same goes for Britain, Germany and all of them. The Soviet Union's 25 million is probably the relatively most accurate number you have up there

the fact that the U.S started two years after everyone else is irrelevant. If the U.S had not joined upi n WWII Germany would have surely won. I am not trying to say that the nonU.S commitment or sacrifice was not as great.If the United States had not joined two years later, if the allies had not a fresh ally then without a doubt Germany would have been able to concentrate its attacks and take all of Europe and Africa and Japan would have secured the Pacific and most of Asia.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Originally posted by nick7261

What do you think would have happened to Europe if not for the American military presence there?

The battle of Britain stopped The Third Riech from crossing the channel. The Luftwaffe could not penetrate Great Britain and soften the defense forces properly. It would have taken longer to make Germany fall, but fall they would have, with or without our help.

The Russian winter stopped Adolph just as it did Napoleon. The beginning of the offence on Russia was a 10 to 1 ratio in favor of the Wehrmacht. After they started the retreat the Wehrmacht could not push back. We were there so the Russians would not take Europe, Hitler failed when he tried his push to Moscow.

WE expedited the war we did not win it. Please read up on your history and not the Hollywood version of it.

No my friend. If you study military history you will see that it was only a matter of time before Britain and Soviet Union fell. If the U.S had not come in there would have been no counter offensive. Briain was holding out and ill give them credit they were doing a good job. Yet it was only a matter of time before Hitler would have been able to bomb the place out of all recognition especially with his V2 rockets. The German Eastern offensive was cut stopped because of the Winter - but that does not mean that the SOviet Counter offensive would have been effective if Hitler was not tied up with Dday and the allied Western Invasion. If America had not been fighting in the Western European Theater and the Pacific you can forget about the world today as we know it.

The battle at normandy was the most blody battle in the history of World War.

The US, from its inception, could have been the most peaceful and enlightened nation in the history of the world, and so long as its leaders were realists, that number would still have been in the 8 figure range.

I abhor death as much as the next guy, I'm truly and sincerely sorry that anyone has to die of anything but natural causes, but the plain and simple fact is that the world is not a nice and peaceful place. It will take thousands more years of evolution for us to get to a point of true enlightenment. Until then, yes, the sad fact is that situations will arise that necessitate violence.

It is unfortunate that these situations can't be solved by negotiation or some simple non-violent form, truly, but that it not the way of the world. Some nation somewhere, that has something that another nation wants, will try to gain leverage somehow and provoke the other nation into conflict. That is just how it works. Nations operate in their own self-interest first in relation to its own economic security and the security and comfort of its citizens.

It is certainly not pretty, and we may not like or agree with all of the death, but if you really think that there is 1st world nation out there without millions of people's blood on their hands, you're naive.