America committed the worst terrorist acts in world history

[christiefan915]

We didn't lose militarily. We never really fought it militarily. If we did, the United States Marine Corps would have planted a US flag on top of Hanoi Hilton.

Politicians in Washington, DC lost that war. I don't have to tell you which political party they were associated. They sent over 56,000 Americans to their deaths in a war they didn't want to win and couldn't win due to fears of WWIII.

Yes, it was part of the Cold War's Proxy Wars. Afghanistan in the 1980s was the flip-side of Vietnam. It lasted about the same length of time but the Soviets lost a fraction of US deaths in Vietnam, about 15,000. OTOH, they committed more war crimes than the US. Some things never change, eh? LOL

No one wins a nuclear war unless only one side has them. Now that the Nuclear Genie is out of the bottle, we need to learn how to live with it or die trying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War#War_crimes

I also think the whole thing came about because of fears of a Communist takeover of the world. Read about the Red Scare, McCarthy, and the Cold War. It's very enlightening.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Neutered then.

Good term.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Vietnam managed to make us lose that war without going nuclear.

I just disagree with the whole concept of nuclear weapons.

Only because we chose to. It was the US's decision to not win. N. Vietnam couldn't do it on their own, conventional war only. The US government chose not to invade and overrun N. Vietnam. We could have, a would have if that's what we chose, but we didn't.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I also think the whole thing came about because of fears of a Communist takeover of the world. Read about the Red Scare, McCarthy, and the Cold War. It's very enlightening.

Yes. The "duck'n'cover" generation lived in fear of the Soviet nuclear threat. What would have been your solution, Christie, had you been shoved into the Presidency like Truman with a decision that could save or cost millions of lives?

I think they did the math and support the solution as delivered to Japan on August 9th, 1945.

We can agree they believed it better to save American and Allied lives ahead of those responsible for the Rape of Nanking and a long list of fanatical barbarity...by Western standards, of course. By their standards, it was all part of the circle of life. LOL

Overall, I think human beings survived killing themselves off a few times during the 20th Century. There are millions of American voters who were born after the "let's party like it's 1999!" generation. Let's hope they can improve upon past errors. In this century, Putin's actions are a return to mid-20th century ethics. GW's actions in Iraq were only slightly better. Allowing torture of prisoners is archaic thinking. It was the first major step for the United States to jump off "the shining city on a hill". It cost us the good will and support of the vast majority of civilized nations given to Americans after 9/11. It was a complete RW fuckup based on Quasi-religious and pre-Vietnam ethics that took our nation on it's fall into corruption. Mainly because We, the People, let them. 40% of American voters don't even vote. Possibly related to the fact the United States of America has a literacy rate of 79%. The global literacy rate for all people aged 15 and above is 86.3%.

No one can fix the past and Americans are no better. The best we can do is work on the present. Matching our literacy and voting rate to global average would be a good start.

https://usafacts.org/data/topics/pe...elections/presidential-voting-age-population/
In 2022, the total voting-aged population in the US was 255,457,000 people, an increase of 1.26% or 3,183,000 people from the most recent election period in 2020.

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179/index.asp

Four in five U.S. adults (79 percent) have English literacy skills sufficient to complete tasks that require comparing and contrasting information, paraphrasing, or making low-level inferences—literacy skills at level 2 or above in PIAAC (OECD 2013). In contrast, one in five U.S. adults (21 percent) has difficulty completing these tasks (figure 1). This translates into 43.0 million U.S. adults who possess low literacy skills: 26.5 million at level 1 and 8.4 million below level 1, while 8.2 million could not participate in PIAAC’s background survey either because of a language barrier or a cognitive or physical inability to be interviewed. These adults who were unable to participate are categorized as having low English literacy skills, as is done in international reports (OECD 2013), although no direct assessment of their skills is available.

Adults classified as below level 1 may be considered functionally illiterate in English: i.e., unable to successfully determine the meaning of sentences, read relatively short texts to locate a single piece of information, or complete simple forms (OECD 2013)...

...White and Hispanic adults make up the largest percentage of U.S. adults with low levels of English literacy, 35 percent and 34 percent respectively

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/record-high-turnout-in-2020-general-election.html

https://www.statista.com/statistics/999919/share-people-registered-vote-age/
Share of people registered to vote in the United States in 2022, by age
In 2022, 77.9 percent of people aged between 65 and 74 years old were registered to vote in the United States - the highest share of any age group. In comparison, 49.1 percent of 18 to 24 year-olds were registered to vote in that year.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And I say this as someone who loves America.

But I don't love parts of our history.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a shameful chapter in our history. No one should ever try to justify these horrific acts by arguing how many might have died in a land war, or using other justifications.

Civilians are never to be targeted in war. Never. Never. Never.

There is nothing you have ever posted that would lead anyone to think you "love" America.

You demonstrate nothing but bitter hatred for America.


North Korea I'm sure you love, and we KNOW you love Communist China.

But AMERICA?

Come on, no one is buying that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I said what I said.

If you think those bombings were justified - you support terrorism. There is no spinning that.

You are very disappointed that the USA emerged victorious from that war.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Vietnam managed to make us lose that war without going nuclear.

I just disagree with the whole concept of nuclear weapons.

What weapons would you allow to Americans? Whiffle bats?

It looks like you just disagree with the whole concept of America as a sovereign nation.

 

[BartenderElite]

What weapons would you allow to Americans? Whiffle bats?

It looks like you just disagree with the whole concept of America as a sovereign nation.

So, the only choices are whiffle bats, or nukes?

 

[BartenderElite]

I've read through some or your arguments, and they are understandable, yet come across as virtue signaling. Almost everybody talks a good game about war, morals, ethics, etc. when it comes to violent acts. The people using this propaganda to sway support for unavoidable atrocities in war, are also the same people willing to attempt to shame their enemies for using those very tactics. As bidenpresident stated in post #2....'war is war, morals do not apply'.

That attitude is a double edged sword. It can become a very bright and solid line to not cross in some circumstances, while at others it isn't. The rape of Nanking, for example, showed that the Japanese government/military threw away morals and ethics in war in order to destroy their enemy completely. That act, and the support of the government, left the entire japanese population subject to the legitimate use of nuclear weapons. The german military support of the holocaust left it's civilian population open to retaliation in kind. There are countless examples scattered throughout history of this kind of conduct and consequences, even though very few episodes actually ended with any accountability.

When you tell the world that 'we are the government', you must also be willing to accept consequences for your governments actions.

Thoughtful response. I do believe that there are "rules" in war - not many, but "don't target civilians" is at the top of the list for me.

The Japanese government & military might have abandoned rules - but that doesn't apply to all of the innocents killed by the atomic bombs. I'll always be troubled by the bombing of those cities. I'm sure people who support that we dropped them are also, but I feel strongly that we should not be a nation that uses WMD's or targets civilians.

 

[Mason Michaels]

And I say this as someone who loves America.

But I don't love parts of our history.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a shameful chapter in our history. No one should ever try to justify these horrific acts by arguing how many might have died in a land war, or using other justifications.

Civilians are never to be targeted in war. Never. Never. Never.

Easy to say now! But then we were in a world war with a country that attacked us!

 

[Mason Michaels]

Only because we chose to. It was the US's decision to not win. N. Vietnam couldn't do it on their own, conventional war only. The US government chose not to invade and overrun N. Vietnam. We could have, a would have if that's what we chose, but we didn't.

Vietnam was a police action not a war!
I assume they were giving out parking tickets and J walking!

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Vietnam was a police action not a war!
I assume they were giving out parking tickets and J walking!

A war by any other name still reeks of war...

 

[PostmodernProphet]

not sure how you measure one atrocity against another........Mongel horde?......Crusades?......the Rape of Nanjing.....Holocaust.......so many candidates......

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, the only choices are whiffle bats, or nukes?

Weak, even for you.

The most insidious weapons are biological.

Such as the one democrats and their Chinese masters unleashed on the world with the Wuhan Designer Virus®.

Biological weapons are deliberately indiscriminate. Even a nuke is targeted, but weapons like Covid-19 are designed to kill without mercy or reason.

Since 1945, the world has found ways to avoid nuclear war. But in 2019 a biological attack - deliberate or inadvertent - was launched against the world.

 

[christiefan915]

Yes. The "duck'n'cover" generation lived in fear of the Soviet nuclear threat. What would have been your solution, Christie, had you been shoved into the Presidency like Truman with a decision that could save or cost millions of lives?
I think they did the math and support the solution as delivered to Japan on August 9th, 1945.

All my life I've been antiwar but admit to supporting WW2 in Europe, after I was old enough to understand about Hitler and the Holocaust. In Japan, I would have considered the pros and cons of the bomb by listening to experts on each side but would have ultimately gone against it. I take DDE's viewpoint, below, along with those of Nimitz, MacArthur, LeMay etc.

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[SUP][106] [/SUP]

We can agree they believed it better to save American and Allied lives ahead of those responsible for the Rape of Nanking and a long list of fanatical barbarity...by Western standards, of course. By their standards, it was all part of the circle of life. LOL

What I don't believe in is sacrificing civilians for the evil decisions of their leaders. We did the same in Iraq and I believe it was 100% wrong. Approximately 4500 American troops lost their lives and 200,000 Iraqi civilians did. How can that ever be justified? I can recall discussions here about assassinations of leaders and the consensus was that Americans don't do that. So a moral question is whether it's better to kill a leader to end things, or prolong the death and destruction by taking civilian lives. Why did the US not target Hirohito instead of killing off tens of thousands of citizens to make a point?

Overall, I think human beings survived killing themselves off a few times during the 20th Century. There are millions of American voters who were born after the "let's party like it's 1999!" generation. Let's hope they can improve upon past errors. In this century, Putin's actions are a return to mid-20th century ethics.

True. Would a targeted assassination of Putin be better than continuing the war and the deaths of thousands... which is the more moral stance?

GW's actions in Iraq were only slightly better. Allowing torture of prisoners is archaic thinking. It was the first major step for the United States to jump off "the shining city on a hill". It cost us the good will and support of the vast majority of civilized nations given to Americans after 9/11. It was a complete RW fuckup based on Quasi-religious and pre-Vietnam ethics that took our nation on it's fall into corruption. Mainly because We, the People, let them. 40% of American voters don't even vote. Possibly related to the fact the United States of America has a literacy rate of 79%. The global literacy rate for all people aged 15 and above is 86.3%.

No one can fix the past and Americans are no better. The best we can do is work on the present. Matching our literacy and voting rate to global average would be a good start.

https://usafacts.org/data/topics/pe...elections/presidential-voting-age-population/
In 2022, the total voting-aged population in the US was 255,457,000 people, an increase of 1.26% or 3,183,000 people from the most recent election period in 2020.

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179/index.asp


https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/record-high-turnout-in-2020-general-election.html

https://www.statista.com/statistics/999919/share-people-registered-vote-age/

Share of people registered to vote in the United States in 2022, by age
In 2022, 77.9 percent of people aged between 65 and 74 years old were registered to vote in the United States - the highest share of any age group. In comparison, 49.1 percent of 18 to 24 year-olds were registered to vote in that year.

I fully agree with everything you posted about voting and literacy. It's a shame and disgrace the way voting is treated so casually here. I know you remember how proud the Iraqis were to lift a purple finger to show they voted. We really have no idea how good we have it.

 

[christiefan915]

So, the only choices are whiffle bats, or nukes?

Righty reasoning.

 

[christiefan915]

Weak, even for you.

The most insidious weapons are biological.

Such as the one democrats and their Chinese masters unleashed on the world with the Wuhan Designer Virus®.

Biological weapons are deliberately indiscriminate. Even a nuke is targeted, but weapons like Covid-19 are designed to kill without mercy or reason.

Since 1945, the world has found ways to avoid nuclear war. But in 2019 a biological attack - deliberate or inadvertent - was launched against the world.

Conspiracy theory on steroids. The Chinese lost population due to Covid also.

 

[christiefan915]

What weapons would you allow to Americans? Whiffle bats?

It looks like you just disagree with the whole concept of America as a sovereign nation.

It looks like you think might makes right.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

All my life I've been antiwar but admit to supporting WW2 in Europe, after I was old enough to understand about Hitler and the Holocaust. In Japan, I would have considered the pros and cons of the bomb by listening to experts on each side but would have ultimately gone against it. I take DDE's viewpoint, below, along with those of Nimitz, MacArthur, LeMay etc.

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[SUP][106] [/SUP]



What I don't believe in is sacrificing civilians for the evil decisions of their leaders. We did the same in Iraq and I believe it was 100% wrong. Approximately 4500 American troops lost their lives and 200,000 Iraqi civilians did. How can that ever be justified?

I can recall discussions here about assassinations of leaders and the consensus was that Americans don't do that. So a moral question is whether it's better to kill a leader to end things, or prolong the death and destruction by taking civilian lives. Why did the US not target Hirohito instead of killing off tens of thousands of citizens to make a point?

True. Would a targeted assassination of Putin be better than continuing the war and the deaths of thousands... which is the more moral stance?

I fully agree with everything you posted about voting and literacy. It's a shame and disgrace the way voting is treated so casually here. I know you remember how proud the Iraqis were to lift a purple finger to show they voted. We really have no idea how good we have it.

Iraq was wrong and costly in American blood, treasure and prestige as a beacon of democracy and freedom. The United States did to Iraq what Japan did the the United States on December 7th, 1941. It was wrong. Afghanistan was fair game. The Taliban shouldn't have supported terrorists.

I have no problem with taking out the leaders of aggressor nations and wouldn't blame the Ukrainians for putting a cap in Putin's head. The United States took down al-Qaeda by taking out the leadership. Results count.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It looks like you think might makes right.

Most wife-beaters do.