Anti-Americanism and why

Originally posted by alldaylong
The Nazi's along with the Russians began the tactic of "Terror Bombing" when they obliterated 84% of the Polish City Of Warsaw 1n1939. The Nazi's where "No Angels" :-

en.wikipedia.org...

I am by no means apologising for the Nazi's or trying to vilify Britain, I'm just trying to keep the conversation relevant and honest.

For the record the Nazi's killed my Uncle July 17th 1944 outside of St. Lo.

reply to post by sonnny1


I find it ironic that Americans are always bragging about how free they are, yet these threads come up regularly.

I guess freedom of speech is only for Americans? Never criticize the authority of Rome eh?

You're acting like the inquisition. All anti-American heretics must be dealt with!

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


I hear ya.

I hate war, and yet advocate total war. Is that odd or what?

I am a believer in my greatx3times Grand-Dad saying;

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - William Tecumseh Sherman

That is not to say I want war, I abhor it. But if tasked to do so...I will become war and lord help me and those in my way to end it.

If a government has to go to war...get it over with as soon as possible....and no, it will not be nice and clean.

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by beezzer
Man oh man!

The hate rolling off these cyber pages is just astounding!

It must irritate the haters to no end when they receive medicines created by Americans.
When they use electronics, invented by Americans.
When they watch programmes created by Americans.
Enjoy movies by Americans.
Receive foreign aid given to them by American tax payers.


I hope it bothers them, but I doubt that it does. The haters would rather steal all that we've created, invented and use it to destroy us rather than look in appreciation.

I truely wonder if the hate isn't "envy-driven".

It just dawned on me that ATS has gone back to the tried and true. If you notice, there are the Gay and Racists threads that go back and forth for awhile, but they eventually peter out.

At which point, it's a slow news day...."Let's bash the USA." thread.

Well, it does always generate replies don't it?

It does generate replies. I'm guilty as heck in part for those replies.

But what gets accomplished?

I'd actually like to see one of these threads actually accomplish something. Like the debate threads.


So with that in mind, I'd like to challenge the haters and detractors out there to a debate.

Mano y mano.

I issue a challenge to ANY hater out there to a debate on anti-americanism.

Any takers?

reply to post by beezzer


I accept!

I hate America and no matter what you say I am still going to hate America doesn't matter if you provide any facts or anything else.

NO MATTER WHAT

I am going to hate America and ignore the rest of the world!

reply to post by sonnny1

The US people are some of the most generous loving people to ever walk the Earth.

The Gov is one of the most greedy , short sighted and dilusional entities to ever rule.

Each need one another to exist, so therefore American's will be flamed by their Gov action's.

It aint pretty, but it is , what it is.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by beezzer

 

I accept!

I hate America and no matter what you say I am still going to hate America doesn't matter if you provide any facts or anything else.

NO MATTER WHAT

I am going to hate America and ignore the rest of the world!

Meh and PFFT! Faker!

But I actually think I could accept Beezzers challenge on a non partisan level.

But I would feel soiled after winning. Only because I agree with much of what he says, not all, but a lot. But I do have some counter arguments.

so anti-Americanism is anybody who criticizes or points out some of the flaws of America?

in that case everybody is anti - some other country. America make it their business to go around criticizing other nations, so it is not one way.

why are some Americans so anti - the rest of the world?

Originally posted by beezzer
America is a country of mutts. It is a blend of work ethics, a blend of cultures, a blend of attitudes that has culmonated into a desire and respect for freedom.

I really don't have a dog in this fight.

People are going to believe and feel what they want to believe and feel.

I just wanted to jump in and second the country of mutts things


Damn right!

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

I hear ya.

I hate war, and yet advocate total war. Is that odd or what?

I am a believer in my greatx3times Grand-Dad saying;

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - William Tecumseh Sherman

That is not to say I want war, I abhor it. But if tasked to do so...I will become war and lord help me and those in my way to end it.

If a government has to go to war...get it over with as soon as possible....and no, it will not be nice and clean.

edit on 11-8-2012 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)

I completely agree.

War is only a solution after all diplomatic means have been exhausted. War must also have a clearly defined scope and objective which when decided upon requires a nations total commitment.

Asking a nations young men to kill and die in support of their respective countries political ideology deserves a maximum commitment by that nation to secure victory as quickly as possible.

Anything short is immoral as in the grand scheme it only prolongs the suffering.

I would absolutely cite General William Tecumseh Sherman's (your grandfather?) understanding and execution as the textbook example of applying total warfare as an inhumane means to a much greater humane end.

Sherman understood clearly that war is abhorrent by its very nature and that to pretend otherwise is unethical. As such it must be conducted with all means possible which translates to the civilian population as brutality and horror.

In contrast, I would cite General William Westmoreland's short sighted doctrine of attrition through severely constrained rules of engagement in Vietnam as an example of what results from overemphasising notions of civilised conduct and morality in the strategic doctrine of a shooting war.

Sending the B-52's over Hanoi in 1965 would have spared the lives of 58,000 U.S. and arguably 1,000,000 Vietnamese, unfortunately it took the U.S. government 8 years to figure that detail out for themselves.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by sonnny1

 

I find it ironic that Americans are always bragging about how free they are, yet these threads come up regularly.

I guess freedom of speech is only for Americans? Never criticize the authority of Rome eh?

You're acting like the inquisition. All anti-American heretics must be dealt with!

I don't mind criticizing my Government, or its people. What doesn't sit right, is the constant bashing, the outright hatred, and the outright lies. Would you say there are MORE threads doing this, or less ? We both know this answer.......... And yes, We are free to say what we want, but I find it hypocritical, that MANY , who stand up for country's, like say Iran, or China, will NEVER include their loss of freedoms, or their country's policy's of outright denial on their citizens. Being critical, and finding middle ground, is something many posters on ATS, fail to show, be it outright ignorance, or agenda.

How can anyone say they are impartial, when they wont see it, or admit it for what it is? That's not the inquisition. Thats showing how narrow minded, those in the Anti-American camp, really are.

reply to post by neo96


if you add up all the deaths an american has caused thru out its existence, regardless of who started it, where it happened and for what, it would rival stalin and hitlers body count, so i agree with that statement.

Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by neo96

 

if you add up all the deaths an american has caused thru out its existence, regardless of who started it, where it happened and for what, it would rival stalin and hitlers body count, so i agree with that statement.

On the other hand, the US and it's ALLIES won the various declared wars.

What we have going on here today is not a declared war, but rather what is called a brushfire war. A declared war has a means to a end, a brushfire war does not.

And that puts us into the state we are in today.

reply to post by randomname


Try again over 100 million people have died under the bloody banner of communism

en.wikipedia.org...

So no.keep peddling lies.

All I am going to say on this tread is one post. The hell with rest of the world...let's pull back all of our troops from every where and we protect our own boarders and people , we can strike anywhere if we have too.
That will keep our taxes down and we feed ourselves to keep prices down.
People of the world don't like us fine stand up for your selves if ever get attacked. A lot of people in this world would be speaking German today...Hello EU and other countries speaking Japanese or Russian. So rant and rave all ya like but the bottom line is when the crap hits the fan who does the world ask for help. Nope America is not perfect.
But you people talk a about our government, that's fine.
But do not talk about the average American citizen PERIOD. I have lost family members in WW1,WW2, ,Korea and Nam. Again Just bring everybody and everything home and let the rest of the world fend for themselves!

reply to post by babybunnies


I don't want in on any of these wars, though at the same time I don't want a weak military. I want my military to be just as strong just home in our borders.

Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by neo96

 

if you add up all the deaths an american has caused thru out its existence, regardless of who started it, where it happened and for what, it would rival stalin and hitlers body count, so i agree with that statement.

Are you sure about that...?

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians deliberately killed in WWII plus 3 million Russian POWs left to die)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 6,000,000 (the gulags plus the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987) 570,000
Sukarno (Communists 1965-66) 500,000
Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) 500,000? (Chinese civilians)
Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71) 300,000 (Bangladesh)
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ?
Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000
Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000) 200,000
Suharto (Aceh, East Timor, New Guinea, 1975-98) 200,000
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam, 1953-56) 200,000
Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972) 150,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-99) 100,000
Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999) 100,000
Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Centrafrica, 1966-79) ?
Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974) 70,000 (Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians)
Efrain Rios Montt (Guatemala, 1982-83) 70,000
Papa Doc Duvalier (Haiti, 1957-71) 60,000
Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic, 1930-61) 50,000
Hissene Habre (Chad, 1982-1990) 40,000
Chiang Kai-shek (Taiwan, 1947) 30,000 (popular uprising)
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 (dissidents executed)
Francisco Franco (Spain) 30,000 (dissidents executed after the civil war)
Fidel Castro (Cuba, 1959-1999) 30,000
Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam, 1963-1968) 30,000
Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez (El Salvador, 1932) 30,000
Hafez Al-Assad (Syria, 1980-2000) 25,000
Khomeini (Iran, 1979-89) 20,000
Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe, 1982-87, Ndebele minority) 20,000
Bashir Assad (Syria, 2012) 14,000
Rafael Videla (Argentina, 1976-83) 13,000
Guy Mollet (France, 1956-1957) 10,000 (war in Algeria)
Harold McMillans (Britain, 1952-56, Kenya's Mau-Mau rebellion) 10,000
Paul Koroma (Sierra Leone, 1997) 6,000
Osama Bin Laden (worldwide, 1993-2001) 3,500
Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973) 3,000
Al Zarqawi (Iraq, 2004-06) 2,000

The worst genocides of the 20th Century

Estimates from WWII, by far the most destructive war the U.S. has fought to date...

Anglo-American Allies :
Bombing of Germany:
1945 US Strategic Bombing Survey: >305,000
Hammond: 400,000
Rummel: 410,000, 100% democidal
Clodfelter: 499,750
Keegan: 593,000
Grenville: 593,000 (citing "official Germany")
P. Johnson: 600,000
Bombing of Japan:
Conventional bombing:
Clodfelter: 260,000 (citing an Official US est.) or 299,484 (citing Japanese source)
Keegan: 260,000
Paul Johnson: 260,000
Large, Showa Japan: [183,637]
Tokyo: 97,301
all other cities: 86,336
Nuclear bombing:
Keegan: 103,000 died outright
Messenger: 130,000 outright
Large, Showa Japan: [210,000]
Hiroshima: 140,000
Nagasaki: 70,000
Our Times: 120,000 outright, 140,000 later
P. Johnson: 175,000 outright, 100,000 later
Total:
1945 US Strategic Bombing Survey: 330,000
Keegan: 363,000, not including post-war radiation sickness
Rummel: 374,000, incl. 337,000 democidal
P. Johnson: 435,000
Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War: 500,000
Large, Showa Japan: [393,637]

Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Primary Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by randomname

 

Try again over 100 million people have died under the bloody banner of communism

en.wikipedia.org...

So no.keep peddling lies.

Actually you are peddling lies, as I have pointed out to you many times. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? I guess it's your limited arguing points?

That banner they called "communism" was not communism, but a nationalist state dictatorship. To keep simply bashing communism just shows ignorance and naivety.

Communism is an economic system, those nations did not have communist economies. They had mostly nationalism, state ownership. The UK was also mostly nationalists post-WWII, but no one called the UK communist.

Category:Former nationalised industries of the United Kingdom

Communism is not totalitarian government. That would be totalitarianism.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


You have simplify the second list as it does not make much sense. I think I get get the gist of it but...

Who the hell is P. Johnson?

I've heard of LBJ though.

Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by neo96

 

if you add up all the deaths an american has caused thru out its existence, regardless of who started it, where it happened and for what, it would rival stalin and hitlers body count, so i agree with that statement.

So what? Neither Hitler nor Stalin were left-wing communists/socialists.

Hitler was a right wing fascist, and Stalin was a corrupt bureaucrat who twisted and warped Marxist theory to suit his agenda of power and control.

Using the original meaning of left and right, Stalin would be right next to Hitler.

The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

www.la-articles.org.uk...

I wish you'd go learn what socialism and communism actually is, not from the actions of despot authoritarians.
Get some perspective and learn the truth. People seeking power will use anything that will get them what they desire.