US Hypocrisy.

page: 16
80
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by milominderbinder
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


...true enough. Ironic, indeed.


Thank you. I appreaciate the injection of objective reason in the thread. I'll star your post for that.


No worries. While I do emphatically agree with OP that the US has a MAJOR problem w/ hypocrisy... sorta like you pointed out a few posts ago w/ the guy who wants to end US Interventionism...except for when it's intervention that he thinks is a good idea. That's hypocrisy in action.

Likewise, I really can't understand how the US military could be labeled "terrorists"...but somehow have the IRA escape this same definition. One would say that it's almost...well...hypocritical, I suppose.


I like you. ALthough we may disagree on a few historical points, I have found you to be a reasoned intellectual. I appreciate the discourse we have had. One thing I miss from university are discussions like this. I thank you for the intellectual stimulation.


Thanks...likewise. I wish there more this on here...so often it just degenerates into unsubstantiated babbling.




posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Yes. It is the give and take of knowlege that improves the overall understanding. Although we disagree on some points, I must appreciate the gentlemanly way you express yours. You, sir, are a fine example of an intellectual.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by coolforschool


HONEST QUESTION WHAT GOOD HAS THE USA EVER DONE FOR THE WORLD??? OR WHAT GOOD HAS IT EVEN DONE FOR IT'S SELF FOR THAT MATTER?????

IM ALL EARS PEACE OUT


Something about some mean dudes known as the Nazis who were trying to take over the world. I kind of recall that the US had something to do with that...you know stopping them and stuff...and helping out our British friends when they were being bombed to # while the Irish were neutral and didn't want to upset the Nazis...but I'm not sure 'cause I gots to play X-box.
edit on 28-9-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


Agreed...we saved Europe's ass from the Germans. Twice. Three times if you count the Marshall Plan.

That being said...I'm ALSO not comfortable using our good deeds from damn near a hundred years ago now to justify/extrapolate that therefore ALL US Intervention is inherently wise and just forevermore. The US has done PLENTY of shady sh^t...everything from exterminating the Native Americans to slavery to our catastrophic foreign policy decisions in the Middle East from the close of the WWII to the present.

The whole point of not being a hypocrite is to NEITHER justify or excuse some of the truly horrific things which we, as a nation, have done in our past...as well as not also condemning EVERYTHING that the US has done. After all...I also seem to remember a certain period in time when the Irish had a problem growing potatoes that they were just tickled pink that we were no longer British colonies...remember??



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by coolforschool


HONEST QUESTION WHAT GOOD HAS THE USA EVER DONE FOR THE WORLD??? OR WHAT GOOD HAS IT EVEN DONE FOR IT'S SELF FOR THAT MATTER?????

IM ALL EARS PEACE OUT


Something about some mean dudes known as the Nazis who were trying to take over the world. I kind of recall that the US had something to do with that...you know stopping them and stuff...and helping out our British friends when they were being bombed to # while the Irish were neutral and didn't want to upset the Nazis...but I'm not sure 'cause I gots to play X-box.
edit on 28-9-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


Agreed...we saved Europe's ass from the Germans. Twice. Three times if you count the Marshall Plan.

That being said...I'm ALSO not comfortable using our good deeds from damn near a hundred years ago now to justify/extrapolate that therefore ALL US Intervention is inherently wise and just forevermore. The US has done PLENTY of shady sh^t...everything from exterminating the Native Americans to slavery to our catastrophic foreign policy decisions in the Middle East from the close of the WWII to the present.

The whole point of not being a hypocrite is to NEITHER justify or excuse some of the truly horrific things which we, as a nation, have done in our past...as well as not also condemning EVERYTHING that the US has done. After all...I also seem to remember a certain period in time when the Irish had a problem growing potatoes that they were just tickled pink that we were no longer British colonies...remember??


I can swing with that. Almost half a million Americans died ending slavery. That is, IMHO, a legitimate response to the issue. Slavery, albeit a horrible pox on mankind, did not begin nor end with the USA. As we Americans recognize our past mistakes, the rest of the world seems to forget their contributions as well, laying everything negative at the feet of the US, forgetting such salient facts as the fact that slavery was alive and well in Africa and the ME long before Europeans gained a foothold there. It is laughable to see that people think that a handful of european traders could have stalked, captured, and sold some of the worlds greatest hunters and warriors on their own turf. Tribes sold their enemies into slavery. Slavery is a horrible mark on every civilization.

America has made some bad decisions and good ones. The mark of decent society is the effort to learn from and correct those bad decisions.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Yes. It is the give and take of knowlege that improves the overall understanding. Although we disagree on some points, I must appreciate the gentlemanly way you express yours. You, sir, are a fine example of an intellectual.


Ditto.

And for the record...I'm not even against the idea of using nukes against Japan in WWII...I just seriously question if it was really, truly, necessary...and if so...did we really exercise that power with the proper prudence and respect such destructive power deserves. Why not try to get our guys free w/ the threat of nuclear obliteration first...it seems pretty careless to me to think that the Japanese wouldn't just execute every single American (or even ally) POW they had immediately out of retribution. But then again...since when has Washington ever given a sh^t about the enlisted man.

Why is it always pitched with the assumption that we would have had to go door-to-door in Japan? Another 30 days and they wouldn't even have had electricity anymore...seriously...what the hell was Japan going to do besides sit on their island in the dark? Did we really have to drop a SECOND bomb on them without warning...they were still trying to figure out what the hell hit them a couple of days earlier. To me...that just seems like a whole lot of senseless killing of innocent men, women, and children. After all...if you bomb a bunch of civilians in a munitions factory you at least have a bit of gray area because a whole lot of those civilians are making the bullets and bombs that are killing your guys...but do we really need to vaporize old ladies, farmers, doctors, and school teachers too? Did we REALLY have to do it TWICE?

...these are the questions I ask.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


The motive for the second bomb is obvious. After all, Nagasaki translates to "sea of roofs". It was meant to be a loud and clear expression of superiority. Shock and awe, WW2 style.

~Heff



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
I can swing with that. Almost half a million Americans died ending slavery. That is, IMHO, a legitimate response to the issue. Slavery, albeit a horrible pox on mankind, did not begin nor end with the USA. As we Americans recognize our past mistakes, the rest of the world seems to forget their contributions as well, laying everything negative at the feet of the US, forgetting such salient facts as the fact that slavery was alive and well in Africa and the ME long before Europeans gained a foothold there. It is laughable to see that people think that a handful of european traders could have stalked, captured, and sold some of the worlds greatest hunters and warriors on their own turf. Tribes sold their enemies into slavery. Slavery is a horrible mark on every civilization.

America has made some bad decisions and good ones. The mark of decent society is the effort to learn from and correct those bad decisions.
Well said man.. really, well said.
That sums up most of the Americans mindset on the matter (that I know anyway).. our politicians are the crooks so if we could only get rid of them.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

I can swing with that. Almost half a million Americans died ending slavery. That is, IMHO, a legitimate response to the issue. Slavery, albeit a horrible pox on mankind, did not begin nor end with the USA. As we Americans recognize our past mistakes, the rest of the world seems to forget their contributions as well, laying everything negative at the feet of the US, forgetting such salient facts as the fact that slavery was alive and well in Africa and the ME long before Europeans gained a foothold there. It is laughable to see that people think that a handful of european traders could have stalked, captured, and sold some of the worlds greatest hunters and warriors on their own turf. Tribes sold their enemies into slavery. Slavery is a horrible mark on every civilization.

America has made some bad decisions and good ones. The mark of decent society is the effort to learn from and correct those bad decisions.


Yes and no.

I'm not sure where you're getting the number of a half million from. Most of the figures I'm familiar w/ usually estimate more like 800-900K military casualties and 1.5-2 million CIVILIAN casualties during the Civil War. I agree that lots of Americans died to end slavery in the States...but I think you're numbers are a bit low. Unless you are only counting the Union troops because the South was fighting to CONTINUE slavery.

As far as Africa being complicit in the slave trade...no doubt. However...it's irresponsible to not also note the remarkable differences between traditional African tribal "slavery" and European-style slavery. In West Africa "slavery" was a whole lot more like "indentured servitude" or like being held a captive of the Native Americans. After a certain amount of time and labor, the "slave" was actually freed and was considered to be an equal member of the tribe. They could even marry into it as well. There really isn't much evidence to suggest that the Africans who sold off their rivals had any comprehension of the brand of slavery which they were condemning the rival tribe members to.

Besides...I try not excuse our historical bad behavior because other countries or people also did it. Is it fair? No....but if we ever want to be the #1 country in the world again I think we ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Once upon a time...the United States simply didn't torture people. Now we torture people...but it's OK because the other guys torture even worse than we do...and that's bullsh^t.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


The motive for the second bomb is obvious. After all, Nagasaki translates to "sea of roofs". It was meant to be a loud and clear expression of superiority. Shock and awe, WW2 style.

~Heff


I think you need to read some of those history books on shelf. The Japanese were plenty "shocked and awed" after the first one.

Besides...you continue to simply pretend that the Japanese hadn't been trying to surrender to us for 7 consecutive months BEFORE we dropped the bomb.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

America has made some bad decisions and good ones. The mark of decent society is the effort to learn from and correct those bad decisions.


Oh...and I'm 100% w/ you on your closing line, of course. The "yes and no" was more to some of the details in the first paragraph.

What scares me is that I see a whole lot of people using the good decisions from the early 20th century to justify and excuse some incredibly bad decisions today.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


I have addressed that issue directly. Factions of the Japanese government were prepared to surrender, other factions were not. Even after the atomic bombs, Hirohito, who was literally considered to be a living God, was nearly executed by factions of the military simply for recording a surrender.

WW2 is not one of my primary areas of interest. But this particular aspect of it falls into a subject I have paid much more attention to. The Samurai / Bushido culture. Those who followed this code are very devout in their embrace of death before dishonor. And the idea of any American soldier setting foot on Japanese soil, or surrender, was not just morally repugnant to many Japanese - it was unthinkable.

And, for the record, I did not directly defend the bombing of Nagasaki as necessary, as your reply to me seems to infer, I merely stated the obvious reason for the bombing.


~Heff

ETA: For clarity - more appropriate to say "Reason why Nagasaki was chosen as a target" than to say "reason for the bombing".
edit on 9/28/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You mean whilst the Bushes and banking cartel families were financing them... ?


Were they? The Bushes were involved in WWII? Wow, I'd like to see some sort of evidence about that. The Kennedy's did so , that is true. As well did many other Irish. Of course the Irish were neutral because they did not want to bother their Nazi buddies.


Actually...Sinny is dead-on correct on that count. The Bush Family was absolutely, positively, categorically financing Hitler before, during, and after WWII. Here are your links. One from Canada, one from the US and one from the BBC in order to alleviate concerns about partisan mud-slinging and/or SuperPAC-funded think tanks here in the US alone. The write up in the NH Gazette also gives the citations for the original newspapers reporting the Bush families relationship w/ the Nazi's from the '40's if you feel inclined to dig it up on microfilm.

www.globalresearch.ca...

www.nhgazette.com...

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


I have addressed that issue directly. Factions of the Japanese government were prepared to surrender, other factions were not. Even after the atomic bombs, Hirohito, who was literally considered to be a living God, was nearly executed by factions of the military simply for recording a surrender.

WW2 is not one of my primary areas of interest. But this particular aspect of it falls into a subject I have paid much more attention to. The Samurai / Bushido culture. Those who followed this code are very devout in their embrace of death before dishonor. And the idea of any American soldier setting foot on Japanese soil, or surrender, was not just morally repugnant to many Japanese - it was unthinkable.


Sure...but it's not like all the military wanted to continue to fight and only Hirohito wanted to bail out. Prime Minister Kantarō Suzuki, Naval Minister Mitsumasa Yonai and Minister of Foreign Affairs Shigenori Tōgō ALL wanted to surrender....that's why they were practically begging us for 7 months before we nuked them.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


I have addressed that issue directly. Factions of the Japanese government were prepared to surrender, other factions were not. Even after the atomic bombs, Hirohito, who was literally considered to be a living God, was nearly executed by factions of the military simply for recording a surrender.

WW2 is not one of my primary areas of interest. But this particular aspect of it falls into a subject I have paid much more attention to. The Samurai / Bushido culture. Those who followed this code are very devout in their embrace of death before dishonor. And the idea of any American soldier setting foot on Japanese soil, or surrender, was not just morally repugnant to many Japanese - it was unthinkable.


Sure...but it's not like all the military wanted to continue to fight and only Hirohito wanted to bail out. Prime Minister Kantarō Suzuki, Naval Minister Mitsumasa Yonai and Minister of Foreign Affairs Shigenori Tōgō ALL wanted to surrender....that's why they were practically begging us for 7 months before we nuked them.


To reply to everything at once:

The half a million was just a SWAG. Taken from the almost 1 million combatant casualties and dividing in half. Of course what I have read indicates that this was a low number as the South, an agrarian society, had better marksmanship and tactics compared to the North an industrial society and the casualties were skewed to the north.

The point about slavery was not intended to dismiss that abomnination, but rather to point out that the US at the time did not have the full beginnings and ends of that issue. African AMericans in the south, having bought their freedom, did own slaves and the last major society to ban slavery was Brasil in 1885. Slavery still exists in Africa and the ME. Most people do not realise this.

You are quite correct about the Bushido culture. THis is one reason why the invasion of Japan would have been problematic. I remember having a tour of the Japanese Naval Academy on Etajima and being struck by the wall sized photo of the Wasp sinking and a room full of Kamakaze letters to home. That was a fanatical time and, IMHO, surrender was not coming lightly.

Sure, the US has had problems over the years, but as a guy who has been boots on the ground in IRQ and AFG and various areas through the ME, I disagree with the notion that the US military is a bunch of war criminals. Our ROE are incredibly strict and US lives have been lost when this loss could have been avoided except we wanted to protect civilians and historical structures. Those who say we rampaged an pilliaged willy nilly are speaking from a position of ignorance because they were not there. I have been and they are liars.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
What you supposed to do when you have half an armed army shooting upon your women and children, with all the men taken out the picture so they cant defend their nation?

Don't. Even. Go. There.


Yeah, good ol' fashioned car bomb. Kill some women and children, maybe a few old people. That's striking a blow for Ireland.

Psssttt....wanna know a secret? My great-grandfather was running guns for the IRA. When he was going to get caught, he left for America.

He wasn't too impressed on how the IRA was operating in recent memory.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Yay! Another 'hate the Americans' thread! Seriously, comparing today's US with 1933 Germany? So much for credibility, OP. There's plenty to dislike about us but that's a major failure. The US isn't what it once was, and that's a shame, all too true. Fortunately slowly but surely, we will be getting back to isolationism. It might take another revolution but the regular Joes here in the US are leaning farther and farther away from being involved in so many alliances, with so many troops deployed around the globe, and funding so many nations that hate us.

As a long-time lurker, first time poster what I am most curious about is why the US-haters always bash on the same old tired supposedly horrible things the US has done when I never read about what is really our most despicable act and that is the bombing of Serbia back in the 90's? Love us or hate us, Iraq, Afghanistan were looking for trouble and they got it. So was Imperial Japan. I wish we'd stay out of it but it happened, and they provided the warmongers with easy excuses, so shame on them. Serbia however was doing nothing at all (there was NO ethnic cleansing, they were fighting domestic terrorists who were using the usual islamic religious excuses). They were enforcing their own laws on their own territory. They were US allies in both World Wars, and Clinton bombed them to getthe headlines changed for crying out loud. There's loads of justification for the use of the atom bombs, none at all for bombing and then partitioning Serbia. Sure, it was officially a NATO thing and as usual our Euro 'Allies' were begging us to be the heavies but we were the ones bombing for media spin control. Disgusting.

Our Constituion has meant little since Lincoln led the Great War of Northern Aggression. That's not justifying slavery, it's just the truth. And it has meant nothing at all since FDR took office in 1932. Just a slip of parchment now. One day though and hopefully soon, we will do what the US-bashers want and pack up shop. Just give us a little time.
edit on 29-9-2012 by HabiruThorstein because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-9-2012 by HabiruThorstein because: (no reason given)


PS- Assange is no hero by the way. He's a sensationalist self-promoter no more looking for harmony and peace between peoples than the average bankster. He went kicking at hornet's nests and by gosh by golly, them hornets came after him. So be it, he knew the risks, and he wasn't doing it for altruism.
edit on 29-9-2012 by HabiruThorstein because: Post Script (previous edits were grammar



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I'm an Irish Loyalist, so your barking up the wrong tree


LMAO... that's one of the most outstanding and elegantly delivered retorts I've read for a long time.

Too funny.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by HabiruThorstein
PS- Assange is no hero by the way. He's a sensationalist self-promoter no more looking for harmony and peace between peoples than the average bankster. He went kicking at hornet's nests and by gosh by golly, them hornets came after him. So be it, he knew the risks, and he wasn't doing it for altruism.
edit on 29-9-2012 by HabiruThorstein because: Post Script (previous edits were grammar


Ass-bags is doing all this because he wants to be the little darling of the Liberal Left. And as you said, it bit him on the ass and he's scratching his head and wondering why?



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





While I don't see the need for the cheap shot, I do appreciate the links and stand corrected on that aspect of the debate.


Fairplay to you. My apologies.





new topics
top topics
 
80
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join