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

Originally posted by pepsi78
The battle at normandy was the most blody battle in the history of World War.

You sure about that? Because I beg to differ.

Originally posted by semperfortis
I believe that Ignorance is correct, but for all the wrong reasons..

See it is obviously Global Warming that killed those 27M, and we are the cause of Global Warming, so it is our fault.

Research has proven time and again that the hotter it gets, the more tempers flare, and well, there you have it.

I think you're referring to Climate Change, but weren't there still conflicts during the "Little Ice Age"?

How very easy to take any numbers and submit them in such a way as to fit whatever conspiracy we may have deluded ourselves into believing.

I believe I stated several times now that the list is in effect the short version, as I intentionally left out scores of wars and so on beyond merely the big number wars like WW+WW2+Korea, plus many other quiet ones most people don't know about. And those numbers only represent those literally killed, whereas you always have higher numbers of people injured and debilitated, not to mentioned tortured / imprisoned / repressed.

The difficulty is that you are asking rational posters, to rebuke an irrational post.

What's irrational about it?

Difficult if not impossible to prove a fantasy wrong. And your application of the links and the numbers they represent is pure fantasy..

You're wrong there bud. With the OP / thread I've actually proved a very important and widely held fantasy wrong...

I believe the following article to be most informative regarding the topic of this thread:
www.globalresearch.ca...

and also:

deoxy.org...

I also find the following article to be quite, well, signifigant :

www.crimesofwar.org...

Why wont it be signed by the U.S. I wonder?

Here s an eye-opener -

www.monthlyreview.org...

The U.S. is the only country that was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court and that rejected a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law. Fact.

- and by the way I am not a US hater, I think the American people have a vast potential for greatness and generosity.

It is simply silly to quantify a country's role in modern warfare based solely on how many casulties they suffered. So Russia lost 25 million? I think Richard Overy, the acknowledged expert in Russia's wartime experience, says that there were 10 million lost. But hey, whatever, we'll go with wikis numbers. Did China have a greater impact on ending WWII than Russia and the US and France combined because they(probably) lost more people (records are scattered)? Doubtful.

The simple fact of the matter is that war is not so much a questions of war as it is of economics. Thucydides said this, and it is even more true as systems of infastructure, technology, communications, etc. become more sophistocated. Simply put, without US aid in the form of Lend-Lease and later direct aid, then the Soviet Union would not have been able to survive the war. Don't take my word for it. Zhukov said that on numerous occassions during and after the war. For a historians take on it, look at the immenient Boris Sokolov who has studied the effects of Lend-Lease his entire career. Without the supplies, Russia would have been finished.

I can't speak to the actions in Asia, since I am only qualified to speak of European history, but given the gross ignorence and lack of credible sources when talking about WWII, then I would also doubt what you say there.
___________

To the person who said that the US gave Smallpox infected blankets. That is simply a false, urban legend. History has a record of sources, and rather than engaging in lying about the past, it makes more sense to be honest about what the sources say. There is plenty of terrible things that the USA has done, but lets not make things up.

There has been one documented case in which it was considered and debated (though the sources don't actually say whether it happened). It was considered by the BRITISH commander Lord Jeffrey Amherst during the 1763 Pontiac Rebellion. It is a bit disingenious to blame "America" for the actions of a British peer, acting under direction of the crown, and under functioning as a member of the British Regular Army. Especially since we don't actually know whether or not the blankets were ever distributed. Further making the story doubtful is where exactly did the blankets supposely come from? Good question, there was an epidemic at Fort Pitt, (which was in the middle of "the Indian country"). Very likely the Native population was already experiencing small pox. Eighteenth century smallpox epidemics were terrible, but relatively common. Of course the one we tend to think of is on the 1775 one, but 1763 was also a year of smallpox outbreak. The best and most recent book dealing with the spread of smallpox in the eighteenth century is Elizabeth Anne Fenn's _Pox Americana_. I would consider reading it before making claims that are false, and show that you are just likely to believe something that you "heard" once about history but haven't bothered to research whether or not it is true.

Originally posted by Souljah
So there you have it - but what else can you do, when you have 702 military bases in 135 coverign nations around the world

It actually went up to 770 bases in '05, and then dipped way down to 764 bases in '06.
Now it's up to military personall in 159 of 193 world nations.

What imperial stance?

Alongside with weapons comes Cultural and Economical Imperalism.

Cultural Imperialism: Japanese and French intellectuals / scholars, that I'm aware of, have been referring to the U.S. as a "Cultural Hyperpower for ages now.

Soon once they get A.I., "death star" satellites and mile-long sea bases it will be more than safe to refer to the military as hyperpower.

Political Imperialism also goes hand in hand with Economic. This duo is what comes first in a target region, and when they fail then the CIA "jackals" move in to do the 'ol assassination, coup detat etc. When that fails then the military moves in and you actually hear about it in the news. Since few ever hear of economic and political aspects, few gather much of the concept of American Imperialism.


EDIT: I forgot to mention wht I call "Domestic Imperialism", which is a rapidly growing issue that isn't quite news to anyone these days, although the term isn't there to name it that I'm aware of. This issue deserves it's own thread...

[edit on 13-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by wingman77
The founding fathers and the revolutionaries granted us our freedom.

Not quite. The best concept of freedom is that you can't be "given" freedom or rights, otherwise they are permissions. Now take that view and you'll see that you don't even have the "right" to get married, let alone much of anything else. License / permit / etc = permission.



This is an important issue little phase of U.S. history actually:

What the founding fathers rebelled against was and imperialist state (Brittain), and the biggest thing on the list of grievances was "taxation without representation" (taxes to pay for the kings imperialist ambitions).

Sadly, it didn't take too long for the imperialist ambitions to get the better of the evolving establishment, but it did take some time for the real "taxation without representation" to go back into full and 'permanent' effect.

I think you're referring to Climate Change, but weren't there still conflicts during the "Little Ice Age"?

AHHHH

My usual sophisticated wit falls once again on deaf ears..

Sadly, I think you really believe all this nonsense...

I should not be shocked, in todays society it is not only common place to blame some entity for some incident and then configure statistics to prove whatever point you are trying to make, it is in fact accepted..

It's just that one comes to expect more from ATS members..

Oh Well

Semper

Well we just won't blame anyone then... especially not ourselves for any during our lifetimes... it's not like as a nation we don't support most of the BS they feed US to drive US like cattle into supporting the next conflict / involvement in others repression.

Tell yourself it isn't true... that's the way to prevent things.

Ignorance Isn't Bliss. Tell yourself you don't have cancer... does it go away? Imagine if you didn't even have a clue that cancer even existed.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Cambodia under Pol Pot: 2 million massacred
en.wikipedia.org...

How are we responsible for this?


Well, how would that have happened if the US dind't pursue France's imperial colony?

The US didn't kill them directly, like many on my examples, but "we" started that mess. "We" were responsible for the political turmoil, coups, initial bombings, and so on in all of those countires.

here is my question... and I'm not taking a side on this... Killing is Killing, whether done for duty profit or fun. but sometimes killing those who wish for your countryman to die, is a duty that is justified for the common good of the masses.

If we count everything we started, all we are doing is opening the door for red herring to overpower any logical aspect of this argument. We need to step back and reiterate our statement, I.I.B. so that you can validly claim how many people American soldiers killed... I feel your argument would be MORE valid if you focused on military interaction only, as the numbers there are high; and not padded with fluff from other peoples wars.

don't count people killed by American bullets and guns... if that is the case France is one of the worst countries in the world due to the fact they ARM EVERYONE... The French have had arms deals with every country on the face of the earth, if you don't believe this... research it. (ohh and don't think I'm French bashing here.. I love the French, their culture and their country; so please don't assume I being a biased "conservative".)

Coven Out

Middle of the Road Candidate for President 2008

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

Absolutely. What a bunch of hogwash. And the anti-America imps
will come trailing along to eat it all up ....

The OP blames America for all deaths on the planet. The figures and
the 'reasonings' are absolutely insane.

How are "We" responsible? You take too much agency away from the local politicians, thinkers, soldiers, etc. Using the same logic, couldn't you say that Japan started it by forming the East Asian Coprosperity Sphere that inflamed nationalism and antiimperialism throughout SE Asia? Before that, imperialism was more or less accepted by cultural and political elites. You could make a very convincing argument that before Japan revolutionized the political and cultural environment imperialism was the accepted mode of governance and offered political stability. So is it really the US that caused it or Japan that brought question on a centuries old system of foreign governence?

Look my point isn't that Japan is to bear, but rather when you start saying things like "we indirectly caused it" the same could be said of a multitude of other factors, countries, actors, etc. At that point assessing blame is simply a reflection of your biases and preexisting political viewpoint. Did the USA indirectly bring Pol-Pot to Cambodia? Perhaps, but so did France, Germany (for being the birthplace of the Marxist movement), China (for diplomatic support and advocating Communism as a form of government for Asian Nations), the Vatican (Pol-Pot was educated in a Catholic School), and so on and so on.

One cannot simply say something as simple as: "we are to blame," history is rarely so simple.

Originally posted by XBadger
How are "We" responsible? You take too much agency away from the local politicians, thinkers, soldiers, etc.

Read the post directly above yours. People who refuse to look at the truths, and attack those who do as being "anti-American" are responsible because they justify and allow mass murder and genocide, then attack those who dare questions it. Nuff said.




EDIT: plans to leave town, that I mentioned in this post earlier, changed.

[edit on 13-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Englands Death toll on the world: 54,000,000++

51,000,000 in India due to famine, direct result of the British East India Company.

1,200,000 Seven Years War

907 Faulklands War

75,000 from King Henry VIII

2,000,000 British Rule Irish potatoe Famine.

285 Gordon Riots

11 Peterloo Massacre

150,000 Harrying of the North by William the Conquer


See, I can take a bunch of numbers on countries and make it look like they were evil blood thirsty godless killing machines too. But thats justa fact of life. Death by human hands is a fact of life, and a staple of the human condition. Wherever we go, no matter what civilization we found, our staples follow.

live with it.

This post is not shocking by itself. How about you make one comparing the USA to other 'top-killing' countries, as WolfOfWar has done above?

You can't compare something to nothing.

Also, as WolfofWar has stated, people killing people will never end. It is part of how we as a species have survived to this point. It's an evolutionary tactic. There simply isn't any getting around it, so pointing out that men have killed men does nothing but show the never-ending obvious.


[edit on 5/13/2007 by Ack]

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Englands Death toll on the world: 54,000,000++

See, I can take a bunch of numbers on countries and make it look like they were evil blood thirsty godless killing machines too. But thats justa fact of life. Death by human hands is a fact of life, and a staple of the human condition. Wherever we go, no matter what civilization we found, our staples follow.

The British Empire was around for a long time.

So would those people have died had the British people not allowed and justified the imperial killings?


'ot, people die and fight with one another, so therefore it's ok for greedy warmongers to impose their selfish will on others and kill them if they don't go along with their rights being taken so that others can extend theirs.'

That's what you're saying right?

[edit on 13-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Sooo... ignoring the obvious flame-baiting of the original post made, how can the US be blamed for everything when other nations (who have existed far longer) have caused worse atrocities?

I don't have the time, nor the want or need to begin to list the casualties caused by other nations. It's there if anyone ever wants to research it. I can't believe the US is being picked on directly. This is the most pointless thread on ATS.

So what? People die. Humans are fragile. Lots of people do horrible things to others. Would you like to be given god powers and simply destroy the world now because there wouldn't be a better resolution? I'll tell you what, anyway you look at it this will never stop and no one will ever be right in any resolution. So get used to it and live you life and stop hating the US for things that have happened as far back as 400 years ago I understand and respect your want to have a different opinion, I just think it's totally pointless to list one nation's negative effect on the world.

And WoW is right and you're blowing this way out of proportion. He simply combated your original assertion that the US is evil for what it has done in the past, yet what you stated right there is what you want people to be led on to believe. So yeah, it is ok to have blood-thirsty warmongering people out there because they will always be out there and short of annihilating the entire human race, there is nothing you can do about it.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 13-5-2007 by ShatteredSkies]

Originally posted by Ack
Also, as WolfofWar has stated, people killing people will never end. It is part of how we as a species have survived to this point. It's an evolutionary tactic. There simply isn't any getting around it, so pointing out that men have killed men does nothing but show the never-ending obvious.

See here:
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Sooo... ignoring the obvious flame-baiting of he original post made, how can the US be blamed for everything when other nations (who have existed far longer) have caused worse atrocities?

"Others warmonger tyrants give themselves the "right" to do it, therefore so shall we."

That's what your saying right?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
ot [sic], people die and fight with one another, so therefore it's ok for greedy warmongers to impose their selfish will on others and kill them if they don't go along with their rights being taken so that others can extend theirs.'

That's what you're saying right?

[edit on 13-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Nah, not at all. What I'm saying is that whining and complaining about how America has killed so many people (which isn't alot) and defacto lumping the entire country and all its leaders past,present, and future as "warmongering and selfish" does nothing but instigate hatred towards the american people while solving nothing and proving nothing more then that despite your obvious tunnel vision of world history, that you have the ability to search wikipedia for about 15 minutes and compile numbers.

Its nothing but instigating a flamefest, hatred, and bigotry, and, no offense, showing your obvious lack of historical context.

Yes ignorance, it is EXACTLY what I'm saying because that is the ultimate truth with human nature.

So with rationalization: "It's ok to stick your arms up in the air and be shot down dead by the evil-doers because you know in your heart you're doing the right thing by giving up without a fight". So is that what YOU'RE saying?

Because that's what it sounds like.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 13-5-2007 by ShatteredSkies]