I'll respond to these claims of U.S. government attributable genocides & mass killings individually and as fairly as possible.

>"Native Americans: approx 10 million"

A war over land, plain and simple. Not justifiable, we were the aggessors and were wrong. Another solution should've been tried.

>"Philippines: approx 1 million"

This one is a little more complicated. The Phillipines had been a colony of Spain for 400 years. We bought her as part of a settlement after the Spanish-American war. The occupation is justified as a land purchase. The war was unfortunate and probably could've been avoided. The 1 million death told is grossly exaggerated. Both sides lost thousands of soldiers.

>"Vietnam: 3+ million"

Bad war for us to get into. However, if we'd of stayed out, Ho Chi Min would've killed far more innocent civilians. Everyone involved is to blame here. Us, the USSR and North Vietnam. Our biggest mistake is not befriending Ho Chi Min in the early 50's when we had the opportunity. He only became a Marxist to gain power through Soviet support.

>"Cambodia under Pol Pot": 2 million massacred

Pol Pot is directly responsible here.

>"Indonesia: 500,000+"

There are many situations where we supported governments that killed and oppressed people. Sometimes justifiable, sometimes not. This one's debatable. The radical Fretilin a communist party backed by Portugal, wanted to succeed Indonesia, they weren't willing to negotiate, they could've. Instead they became a terrorists, responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent Indonesians. The Indonesian government invaded. As an ally, we supplied arms and money. The bottomline? E Timor was full of natural resources, it also didn't hurt that we were commie phobes at the time. There ya go!

>"CIA essentially puts Saddam hussein into power"

Not exactly but we a had a hand in it. Still, Saddam did all the killing. We goofed by thinking we could balance power in the region against Iran, by support Iraq. Bad call. It's likely the war would've still happened and without us, Iran would've slaughtered millions of innocent sunni civilians.

>"US gives Iraq green light to invade Kuwait"

Not exactly, lets just say we didn't speak up when Saddam hinted his intentions.

US attacks iraq: 80,000

Totally justifiable with world support. We had to kick this looney tune out of Kuwait before he went further and jeopardized world oil flow.

>"Iraqi's dead from US sanctions: 500,000 children dead"

Saddam's fault, not ours. He could've complied, stepped down and avoided the sanctions. He also horded all the money from the sale of his oil for food and medicine.

>"Iraqi's dead from US-Iraq War / occupation: over 600,000"

Grossly exaggerated number. Though we should've invaded this time.

>"Nicaragua: 50,000"
>"El Salvador: 50,000-75,000"
>"Guatemala: 200,000"

Our attempt to stop communism on this continent. Justification is debatable.


>"US trained assaulting forces in the 2nd Congo War: 3,800,000"

justifiable

>"CIA baited USSR in Afghanistan: 1,500,000+"

Not true, Russia had its fingers in that pie for a long time.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Its obvious to everyone that the US isnt to blame for EVERY problem, but US leaders and policy are certainly to blame for the imperialistic tactics used in the many wars/conflicts of attrition that have been wage by or for "US interests"

Just because you look at the negative side of a country, does not mean there isnt a positive. looking at one consistently more often than the other only hurts you and allows negative policies to thrive.

Let me ask you this: when was the last time that you saw a discussion on imperialism, invasion, occupation, or genocide by a country other than the US? It just doesn't happen here on ATS. Even if a discussion is started on another country, for example, Chavez supressing freedom of speech in Venezuela, it almost immediately gets sidetracked by a "Yeah but look at what the US does" tirade.

No other country coes close to getting bashed as much, or blamed for more wrongs, as the US. Not even close. I can't think of a single one. It gets old after awhile.

It's a handy disguise for those who hate America but wrap their dissent in the flag of "patriotism", as well as being a handy fall guy for those countries who don't want their own misdeeds brought to light.

Europeans killed most of the native inhabitants in North America and just because the US armed different factions does not mean the US is responsible for all the people who died. And every country does these things, Britain supported the same people the US did, France enabled Rwanda, China is enabling Darfur (I guess they are responsible for all those that died according to you).

You don't seem to understand that things would have happened with or without the US or other countries involvements. Vietnam started w/o the US, just for example. The US does not kill the majority of civilians in Iraq but Middle Easterns do.

Sorry you need to get a clue.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I disagree whole-heartily. Civilians should not have political power because usually the involves in the use of the military in some form or another. Someone who has never fought in a war should never have control of soldiers. That is what's todays problem.

You are absolutely correct. That is one of the main problems with the Iraq conflict; it is being run by politicians who are influenced by a minority of vocal dissenters and by which way the wind is currently blowing.

They should get out of the way and let the men on the ground run the war. Instead, they play politics by tacking pork-barrel projects and a personal vendetta onto a troop funding bill.

I'm doing my bit by influencing as many people as I possible can directly, the people in power.

At least I will be attempting. I don't look forward to creating a family any time soon.

Good luck in your efforts. Remember that there are many Americans who still support the troops 100%.

OP...

If it hasn't been said, add 10 million Africans. For every African slave brought to America, another didn't survive the Middle Passage.

Oh yeah, and people killed in the various CIA missions in Latin America, Operation Gladio, and 3000 on 9/11.

Originally posted by deltaboy
I'm shocked that you would not include America's so called genocide against Japanese, Italians and Germans, as well as the Korean War related to so called "Empire Wars" as you call it. Why exclude them?

Despite the ongoing accusations of this and other posts being "flame bait", I actually try to make my posts as least debatable as possible.

While those examples would have provided mega debatablility, due to the nature of say the Pearl harbor attacks and so on, I chose to leave them out as the other empires arguably provoked US. Those are the textbook wars anyways, where here I tried to include as many overlooked examples as possible, while keeping them within the American Imperialism framework.

I left out scores of other examples, for example the "Black Holocaust" (which argubly killed more "Blacks" than the "Indians" who I listed). I left out tons of examples to make sure there was plently of room to justify the 27M number, and it was taking forever. Most cases I went with the lower numbers when there was a range to pick from. It could have punched well beyond 40M. I'll be adding an extra list of numbers probably, because I'm not finished with the research which will all end up in a huge film I've been working on for some time now.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by jsobecky
In other words, you're doing nothing except to post an inflammatory, misleading statement here, and then pretend that by doing so, you're somehow changing the world for the better.

Feel free to quote me when you make such accusations, otherwise you're slandering me.

My OP was straight forward: examples, numbers, sources. I think there was one sentence at the end that said stop the killings. I'd say I've been a good sport here with all of the attacks yet little actual debate.

If you were truly interested in lowering the numbers of people killed world-wide, you would present our involvement only in relation to the involvement of the rest of the world.
...
By all countries, not just the US.

Like i keep saying, we've all heard the good things "we've" done, and the bad things "they've" done over and over and over again. Here it was time to talk about what "we've" done for a change. Call it counter-propaganda exposing a vast pattern that goes beyond a mere conspiracy, yet since few have any idea it's like the ultimate conspiracy.

And you wouldn't arbitrarily limit deaths to those committed in the name of imperialism; you'd include genocide and other causes.

This was about imperialism. If I were to tally up ALL the numbers related to the US war machine you'd attack me for that, and then you'd probably be using the example I intentionally left out to divert away from the issues most have little clue about.

The "doing it in your name" argument doesn't wash, either.

When people are irrationally biased they usually wont accept reasonable arguments.

But you don't, because what you are actually doing is

Ad hominem

In this case, you are getting off by bashing the US, and the attention that that brings you.

etc. The real tragedy is that few people understand this core and in-your-face truth. I'm forced to expose 'AI', because my real target issue is actually your masters Artifical Intelligence programs, which aren't theory, but when I prove it to people they're still unable to interpret what that really means because they usually have little understanding of the true nature of this 'beast'.

Originally posted by ferretman2
The rest of this thread is a joke and reflects just how much the education system has failed in the US and abroad.

Correction... It takes a "GOOD" education for people to have to bend over backwards to not notice the most core and in your face truth about this system that we're all subject to: American Imperialism.

We're not supposed to be rational and intelligent. Their imeprialism / nationalism indoctrination "education" platform is a total success, and this thread itself is a form of evidence of that.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
In fine, I really do understand what you're trying to show to us and that is admirable what your point is. I know that you mean to point out the evils that exist in the American government and that you love your country and want to see all evil end in it as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Good to see some rationality from the 'opposition'

I don't know what your actions are to fight this, but I can tell you what my actions are,

I just do whatever i can think of to contribute to raising public awareness and inspire people to actually care about tings in general. I'm open to Ideas. I'm not omnipotent

I plan on enlisting the military and engaging a life-long military career. Becoming an officer, I hope to eventually gain enough influence to change small-time military politic and maybe in the future others will follow in suit.

Whatever it takes. in my view we have very little time, but knowing there are people on 'the inside' who have a clue and aren't completely indoctrinated (that is before the brainwashing) helps give hope.

It was like that when I got here.

There is always somebody that wants some one out of the way.

Jesus couldn't stop the Romans from putting Him to death.
Well He had to protect the Apostles and His Faith.

So its been Indians, British, Nazis and now Serge against the IRAQ
Fighters for a World according to their Islamic teachings.

Its like that from Year One and before Year One.

What has changed is we are not pagan fighters any more.

What gets me is possible Nazi influence in America that might have to
do with the deaths of Tesla Forestall JFK JFk Jr 911 and now IRAQ.

Thats only WWII, Antarctica, Cuba, finding the fathers killers, blaming
terrorists and fighting terrorists.

All connected with unauthorized (?) actions, except the U2 over Russia
sunk the Summit and made Eisenhower angry at his Farewell Address,
as a U2 over Cuba and Bay of Pigs that led JFK to fire a few bad guys
and then he got fired back the bad way.


Yeah, you got big numbers the but I got some names and reasons.
Basically just a story same as yours.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Let me ask you this: when was the last time that you saw a discussion on imperialism, invasion, occupation, or genocide by a country other than the US? It just doesn't happen here on ATS. Even if a discussion is started on another country, for example, Chavez supressing freedom of speech in Venezuela, it almost immediately gets sidetracked by a "Yeah but look at what the US does" tirade.

No other country coes close to getting bashed as much, or blamed for more wrongs, as the US. Not even close. I can't think of a single one. It gets old after awhile.

It's a handy disguise for those who hate America but wrap their dissent in the flag of "patriotism", as well as being a handy fall guy for those countries who don't want their own misdeeds brought to light.

Good point, but how many other nations are superpowers pursueing a consistent agenda to oppress egalitarian reformist governments? The US is the biggest Empire with a large number of interventions and counterinsurgencies under its belt. Granted, every nation on this planet persues its own interests with whatever pretenses it may choose, but US foreign policy has decidedly come down on the side of capital and against the citizenry of any given nation.

I can understand why constant critque of US policy would become tiresome, but considering mainstream media pays not attention to this fact wahtsoever, where is can we discuss such issues that impact our lives and the lives of future generations?

Originally posted by jsobecky
What he is doing is trying to paint the US as the cause of all that is wrong with the world. By not including everyone else that does it, it makes it look like we're the only ones who do it.

I just answered ths charge once again, just above.

It's a very similar mindset to those who refuse to accept a message because of who the messenger is.

Right. So in my next post will you be right there to rationally and open mindedly read what I have to say?

Feel free to quote me when you make such accusations, otherwise you're slandering me.

Correction,

Blacks Law defines Slander as "The Spoken Word"

You are referring to Liable...

And an opinion, on a board that solicits opinions is neither..

oopppps

Semper

Originally posted by jsobecky

I'm doing my bit by influencing as many people as I possible can directly, the people in power.

At least I will be attempting. I don't look forward to creating a family any time soon.

Good luck in your efforts. Remember that there are many Americans who still support the troops 100%.

What's this have to do with the Troops?

Ironically however, this post was about supporting the troops, despite what your irrational fallacious conditioned reflexes tell you.

The Troops are used as pawns of American Imperialism, and it makes me sick.

The American Imperialism Challenge
Name a conflict in the last 50 years that had much of anything to do with protecting the US "homeland" or our (you and I, our moms, etc) way of life, and where US troops died.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by iandavis
>"Philippines: approx 1 million"

This one is a little more complicated. The Phillipines had been a colony of Spain for 400 years. We bought her as part of a settlement after the Spanish-American war. The occupation is justified as a land purchase. The war was unfortunate and probably could've been avoided. The 1 million death told is grossly exaggerated. Both sides lost thousands of soldiers.

Whatever the qualifying reasoning (ie land purchase) the purpose of the spanish american war was to make the US a pacific power, and the best way to do this was to TAKE spains colonies, and take they did.

>"Vietnam: 3+ million"

Bad war for us to get into. However, if we'd of stayed out, Ho Chi Min would've killed far more innocent civilians. Everyone involved is to blame here. Us, the USSR and North Vietnam. Our biggest mistake is not befriending Ho Chi Min in the early 50's when we had the opportunity. He only became a Marxist to gain power through Soviet support.

really? so he would have carpet bombed the area, levelled the argicultural base, dropped tonns of shells and defoliants onto the forrest? I doubt it.

>"Indonesia: 500,000+"

There are many situations where we supported governments that killed and oppressed people. Sometimes justifiable, sometimes not. This one's debatable. The radical Fretilin a communist party backed by Portugal, wanted to succeed Indonesia, they weren't willing to negotiate, they could've. Instead they became a terrorists, responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent Indonesians. The Indonesian government invaded. As an ally, we supplied arms and money. The bottomline? E Timor was full of natural resources, it also didn't hurt that we were commie phobes at the time. There ya go!

Which times in US intervention history was the backing of a government that oppressed its people justified?

>"CIA essentially puts Saddam hussein into power"

Not exactly but we a had a hand in it. Still, Saddam did all the killing. We goofed by thinking we could balance power in the region against Iran, by support Iraq. Bad call. It's likely the war would've still happened and without us, Iran would've slaughtered millions of innocent sunni civilians.

Your right, the CIA and other governmental agencies didnt literally walk into iraq and say, "Saddam is your new leader." BUt they did back him with aid with the idea that he would crush the iraqi revolution. and crush it he did.

>"US gives Iraq green light to invade Kuwait"

Not exactly, lets just say we didn't speak up when Saddam hinted his intentions.

No, US policy makers basically said they stay out of iraqi affairs if they invaded Kuwait. Afterwards, when Saddam wanted to negotiate a withdrawl, they agreed apon a 3 week timetable, but good ole Bush SR. would only give them 1 week. After the timer hit zero, he commensed airiel raids on retreating troops (and civilians) bombing that country into a state which it was never able to arise from again, especially with the sanctions laid apon them by the UN.

US attacks iraq: 80,000

Totally justifiable with world support. We had to kick this looney tune out of Kuwait before he went further and jeopardized world oil flow.

Interesting class dynamic there. "jeopardized world oil flow." How exactly can one nation-state jeopardize the WORLD oil flow when OPEC cant? The war in iraq was a pretext. US foriegn policy was directed to stop his (minor) reforms and install a comprador class, one which was loyal to the oil cartels.

>"Iraqi's dead from US sanctions: 500,000 children dead"

Saddam's fault, not ours. He could've complied, stepped down and avoided the sanctions. He also horded all the money from the sale of his oil for food and medicine.

how is cutting off aid and credit to a wartorn nation the fault of the leader? The direct purpose of sanctions is to inflict as much damage on a POPULATION as possible.

>"Iraqi's dead from US-Iraq War / occupation: over 600,000"

Grossly exaggerated number. Though we should've invaded this time.

based on who's study?

>"Nicaragua: 50,000"
>"El Salvador: 50,000-75,000"
>"Guatemala: 200,000"

Our attempt to stop communism on this continent. Justification is debatable.

Ive said it once and ill say it again. why iwas communism such a threat to the US? it wasnt the lack of democracy because US leaders have a history of supporting the most ruthless autocrats, dictators, and fascists the world has seen. It has to do with class power and capital accumulation. US leaders and their corporate counterparts refuse to accept any government that is attempting egalitarian reforms (be it land redistribution, social subsudies, etc.) Communisms inherent dedication to more socialist programs threatens the capital accumulation process, not just in the communist nation, but in neighbouring states aswell. US leaders support whatever group is willing to bow down to foreign investement and capital penetration.

>"CIA baited USSR in Afghanistan: 1,500,000+"

Not true, Russia had its fingers in that pie for a long time.

Not true either, i suggest you read up on the Kabul governemtn and its struggle against the mujahideen. THe soveits intervened on the request of the kabul government after being repeatedly attacked by the mujahudeen (the fudel landlords and tribesmen.) Which fought tooth and nail to retain their lifestyles of luxury. Also "Moscow wanted to withdraw its troops and called for a nonsocialist, multiparty, coalition government that inculded a major role for the rebels." While the "US backed the feudal lords, ractionary tribal chieftains, and opum traffickers."


The history of US intervent abroad comes down constantly on the side of rich plutocracy versus the poor masses scrapping for a fare shake at the lions share of the wealth.

(quotes from Michael Parenti's "Against Empire" pg 121)

I simply don't understand what you're getting at here. What is the point of attributing all deaths and misery in the world to the US? All those dictators who have suppressed their people are responsible themselves for what they did. No matter who supported them, or who set up conditions to allow those dicatators to come into power, those tyrants themselves are responsible for killing their own citizens. They had the choice to behave better, they chose not to. Why remove responsibility and allocate it to another country (US?) Are you saying no one else can act independently (for good or evil)? Racist and preposterous!

[edit on 18-5-2007 by Crispy_Chicken]

If they would have been ``good`` they would have been wiped out by the US. It's a simple as that. Because if they are good, they protect their country and the interests of their citizens... and the US establishment does't want that.

It's not an attack against US, it's an attack on US establishment, political parties, imperialism, PNAC, CFR... the traitors at the top, not the common citizen. Stop lying to yourself and taking it personnal, if you really like your country, you should work to get those people out and inform the people about what they did, exactly what this thread is doing. Dissent is needed in a democracy.

[edit on 18-5-2007 by Vitchilo]

Originally posted by Crispy_Chicken
I simply don't understand what you're getting at here. What is the point of attributing all deaths and misery in the world to the US? All those dictators who have suppressed their people are responsible themselves for what they did. No matter who supported them, or who set up conditions to allow those dicatators to come into power, those tyrants themselves are responsible for killing their own citizens. They had the choice to behave better, they chose not to. Why remove responsibility and allocate it to another country (US?) Are you saying no one else can act independently (for good or evil)? Racist and preposterous!

[edit on 18-5-2007 by Crispy_Chicken]

So only 27M have unjustily died in the past 200 years? Everyone was killed by the US?

"We" put people in power, and it's not "our" fault, I get it it?

As I tried to explain, everyone has the choice of how they are to act and behave. If a ruler chooses to be a blood thirsty oppressive dictator that is his (or her) decision and responsibility. To try to say America is completely at fault for how individual leaders behave is foolish. And rather condescending too I might say. What, those little brown people (or yellow people or black people) are incapable of independent thought and action? That's what you're really saying, that no-one apart from Americans has the ability to think for themselves or act independently. Let me see, if these regimes were relatively benign would you let America take the credit for that as well? Or do you only say it's America's fault if these governments turn out to be bad?