How does the rest of the world see The U.S.A.

[Gordon Smith]

Gordon, you misunderstand my point. I regard the case regarding Calley much as you do. I see him as an evil motherfucker who should have been put before a firing squad. But some historians view his actions within the wider context of moral failure, ambiguity, and ineffective leadership and chain-of-command pervasive in the Vietnam War, and that he was merely acting out within the immoral framework where there was no real distinction, as Paul noted, between combatant and non-combatant, and therefore Calley was a by-product of the illegality of the entire situation rather than an anomaly. Again, I don't agree with that analysis, but understand the underlying theme. My wider point was that war crimes are often designated (and less often admitted) by the winning side. Victory and the steps leading up to same overshadow abuses and breaches of conventions in many cases. Not saying there's anything like moral equivalence between Allied war crimes and Nazi and Japanese atrocities, but that history tends to favor the party who writes it.

Thanks for the clarification.

[The Cool Thatguy]

No, not being petty in the least. Bombs are NOT that precise and never have been and probably never will be. Do I really need to pull article after article of instances where bomb guidance systems failed, where propulsion systems failed, and where human error continues to take a huge toll in civilian deaths? Or you can just continue to insult me. Whatever. .

Never said they were perfect, but they're damn smart and you know it. Bombs used during WW2 weren't. They didn't have much in the way of guidence systems, no GPS, nothing. That the atomic bomb exploded over a clinic was just a terrible irony, nothing more.


What did I forget now? Noone is talking about exact effects. There were numerous cases of documented radiation poisoning in the early part of the twentieth century. Herman Muller won the Nobel Prize in '27 for his research on the genetic effects of radiation. Madame Curie died due to exposure to radiation. Scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project fell sick and died due to exposure to large doses of radiation. There was zero chance that the radiation effects on the victims of the atomic bombs were completely unexpected and were more likely reasonably anticipated. But go ahead and argue for ignorance. .

Yeah, that's why they exposed soldiers to the radation, because they knew for a fact they'd get cancer. And those scientists? Well, they must have willfully exposed themselves! Otherwise, if they knew radation in large doses was dangerous, how else could they have gotten sick?



And just think, if we had dropped the atomic bomb on Germany, it might have gone on to become a free, democratic nation with a good economy, just like Japan.

Hilarious.

Because Germany and Japan were exactly alike!

[Ray R.]

Never said they were perfect, but they're damn smart and you know it. Bombs used during WW2 weren't. They didn't have much in the way of guidence systems, no GPS, nothing. That the atomic bomb exploded over a clinic was just a terrible irony, nothing more.

What was ironic about detonating an atomic bomb over a hospital? Explain.



Yeah, that's why they exposed soldiers to the radation, because they knew for a fact they'd get cancer. And those scientists? Well, they must have willfully exposed themselves! Otherwise, if they knew radation in large doses was dangerous, how else could they have gotten sick?

You're losing me. Radation? Willfully exposed? Explain.



Because Germany and Japan were exactly alike!

Formerly militaristic, expansionist, nationalistic, defeated nations with destroyed cities and devastated industries, who both, with Allied Power shepherding, created stable democracies and powerful world economies in relatively short periods of time. Other than that, nothing alike. Oh, and the atom bomb thing.

[rick]

If you really consider atom bombs as okay or justifiable in some or any cases, then I seriously doubt you'd have had any experience or knowledge on what war is.

I have not glorified or made claims of moral superiority or anything like that.

As for not having any experience or knowledge of war, what I know is admittedly pretty limited, but when I did experience it, October 23, 1983, I saw it in all its horror.

[vcassel]

You're losing me. Radation? Willfully exposed? Explain.

It would seem he's a bit lost himself on that one.

[rick]

Fixed it for you.

That's just sad Paul.

You so desperate to make the Americans the eternal villain in your story that you are willing to give the Japanese a pass for the atrocities that they committed.

[rick]

And no, I personally don't see merit in regarding the (Americans dropping the) A-Bomb as anything other than an atrocity without anything just or righteous about it.


You keep using the terms "just" and "righteous" as if these words mean anything in the context of war.

Terms like "just" and "righteous" are words people use to lie to other people about war.

[rick]

The Hiroshima bomb detonated over a hospital clinic, and did the most damage over the downtown populated area of the city. 30% of the civilian population died instantly. The rest of the fatalities occurred over months of slow, tortuous radiation poisoning.

Try again.


Sorry Ray, both cities were legitimate military targets, no matter how badly you wish that they weren't.

Edit: And Yes I was at work all day so I have lots of messages to catch up on

[Ray R.]

Sorry Ray, both cities were legitimate military targets, no matter how badly you wish that they weren't.

Edit: And Yes I was at work all day so I have lots of messages to catch up on

It's really not about what I wish or don't wish.

But your certainty on the subject speaks volumes as well.

[rick]

Really? A fair scapegoat, surely.

Though, of course, the entire United States of America shares the blame.


Even the American helicopter crew that held Cally's men back, saving a few dozen lives?

My, aren't we Mister Collective Guilt.

[rick]

It's really not about what I wish or don't wish.

But your certainty on the subject speaks volumes as well.

It does doesn't it.

We can argue the ethics of dropping the bomb all day, but trying to make the case that either Hiroshima or Nagasaki were not full scale military targets, is simply a case of willful ignorance.

[RatFace]

That's just sad Paul.

You so desperate to make the Americans the eternal villain in your story that you are willing to give the Japanese a pass for the atrocities that they committed.

C'mon Rick you know Americans are the bad guys. Don't you know that we're all just a bunch of war mongering homophobic racists?

[Ray R.]

It does doesn't it.

Yes it does. Absolute opinions based upon a historical reading of someone else's rationale for atomic death sixty years after the fact makes me question the certainty. But that's me.


We can argue the ethics of dropping the bomb all day, but trying to make the case that either Hiroshima or Nagasaki were not full scale military targets, is simply a case of willful ignorance.

And arguing that urban heavily populated cities weren't also selected for the psychological terror effect, maximum civilian destruction and blast radius, and as an atomic fireworks show for the Soviets is also a case of willful ignorance. When is a military operation not just a military operation? When noone remembers what the military target was......

[rick]

C'mon Rick you know Americans are the bad guys. Don't you know that we're all just a bunch of war mongering homophobic racists?


So I gather.

From what I can see in this argument, the whole 13 years of Japanese aggression on the mainland, the rapes, the atrocities, the Comfort Women, the civilian work camps, the occupation of the Pacific rim, the attack on the American fleet, the Bataan Death March, the endless battles to the last man on island after island simply do not matter.

All that matters is that after years of total warfare with no real quarter being shown on either side, the USA used a new weapon, a weapon which the politicians and military men dropping it had very little understanding of the lasting enormity of the decision they were making, that killed less people than the conventional bombing of Tokyo, and by the way helped shorten the war without costing more Allied lives.

This is why America is the villain and Japan was an island of innocents.

These women were not forced into sexual slavery.

http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/7776/koreajapancomfortwomen.jpg


This childs home wasn't destroyed, his mother wasn't raped then murdered.

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/2691/image1f0.jpg


Japan was simply misunderstood.

[rick]

And arguing that urban heavily populated cities weren't also selected for the psychological terror effect, maximum civilian destruction and blast radius, and as an atomic fireworks show for the Soviets is also a case of willful ignorance. When is a military operation not just a military operation? When noone remembers what the military target was......


Ray, I never made any claim that sending a message to the Soviets wasn't a factor in the bombing.

Also, while your last question is pithy and sounds great, it is meaningless in the context of the people who actually made the decision.

I have no problem arguing ethics, but I think you are making a mistake trying to deny the actual facts.

[Ray R.]

Wow. Binary thinking at its best.

You can't question the morality of wiping out entire cities by atomic weapons without tacitly validating Japanese atrocities.

Hyperbole and either/or propositions for the win. I'm done here.

[Gary_B]

C'mon Rick you know Americans are the bad guys. Don't you know that we're all just a bunch of war mongering homophobic racists?

That's harsh. I wouldn't call the American presence on the international scene homophobic or racist.

[rick]

Wow. Binary thinking at its best.

You can't question the morality of wiping out entire cities by atomic weapons without tacitly validating Japanese atrocities.

Hyperbole and either/or propositions for the win. I'm done here.


Who said you couldn't or even shouldn't question the morality of dropping bombs, Atomic or otherwise on cities?

The problem you and several others are having is that you are trying to apply morality to something that is by its nature immoral. You want to argue the right and wrong of something that is by its very nature wrong.

You ignore the reality of the situation as it was, to genuflect about how it should have been.

But the truth is, the decision to drop the bomb like all hard military or political decisions was based on practicality not morality.

America wanted to win.

They wanted to win sooner rather than later, not only to save American lives, but to stop the Soviets from running into Asia, bringing the whole continent into their sphere of power.

And you know what, if I was a decision maker in that era, with the facts that they had, and being in the same situation they were living under, and by the way, without our oh so superior hindsight, I don't know if I would have made a different choice.

[RatFace]

That's harsh. I wouldn't call the American presence on the international scene homophobic or racist.

Sorry I was including my thoughts from reading other threads on this forum.

[Ray R.]

Who said you couldn't or even shouldn't question the morality of dropping bombs, Atomic or otherwise on cities?

The problem you and several others are having is that you are trying to apply morality to something that is by its nature immoral. You want to argue the right and wrong of something that is by its very nature wrong.

You ignore the reality of the situation as it was, to genuflect about how it should have been.

But the truth is, the decision to drop the bomb like all hard military or political decisions was based on practicality not morality.

America wanted to win.

They wanted to win sooner rather than later, not only to save American lives, but to stop the Soviets from running into Asia, bringing the whole continent into their sphere of power.

And you know what, if I was a decision maker in that era, with the facts that they had, and being in the same situation they were living under, and by the way, without our oh so superior hindsight, I don't know if I would have made a different choice.

I understand completely the rationales for doing it. I understand completely the expediency in doing it. I understand completely the implied military necessity, "superior hind sight" notwithstanding. I may be willfully ignorant, as you so condescendingly refer to me, but I am not oblivious to history or the context for the decision to drop the bomb.

In fact, I might have dropped the bomb as well. And under the Geneva Convention, I probably should have been prosecuted as a war criminal. Without rules protecting civilians, prisoners, and other non-combatants, there is no honor and there is no justice. The rule of law supercedes necessity, expediency, and geopolitical posturing. It has to.

Maybe we are agreement that the bombing was immoral, but differ on just how immoral it was. That makes it a semantical, thread-splitting exercise, and more or less moot. But if that's the case, then hyperbole is unnecessary. Don't promote the rightness of your position by exaggerating the wrongness of mine. You're better than that, Rick.

[rick]

Don't promote the rightness of your position by exaggerating the wrongness of mine.

I seriously apologize for taking a patronizing tone in my writing with you.

It was not my intent, but I can see it's there.

I made the mistake of grouping you and Paul and Kees all together as if you were all saying the same things, which of course you are not.

This is probably why answering a days worth of posts in 15 minutes might not be the best idea.

[Gary_B]

Sorry I was including my thoughts from reading other threads on this forum.

Sorry, I was trying to use sarcasm to agree that the U.S.A. is a warmongering nation. But now that I've had a little time to think about the invasion of Iraq and the hundred thousand brown people who died for American access to cheap oil, I'll throw racist onto my opinion of American foreign policy too.

[Chris N]

I'll agree that we are mainly homophobic on local matters.

[Kees_L]

You keep using the terms "just" and "righteous" as if these words mean anything in the context of war.

Terms like "just" and "righteous" are words people use to lie to other people about war.

I keep using those words because in this thread people used them as if people should or could not be criticising the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombings negatively.

To which I do and would not agree.

I can agree that America is not some kind of monster but I feel that atrocities will still be atrocities.

Reading back through the thread however it seems that only one or two posters really meant to be saying that *the Japanese deserved it* or something like that both as that the bombings would have to be considered *justified/justifiable*.
These two opinions I would not agree to and I would judge them to be hypocritical as opinions is all I'm saying.

For me to be considering atom bombs justifiable would feel the same as agreeing to saying that Stalin merely fought for what he believed in.

[mikekerrIII]

Anyone who thinks the likse of Batista represents a lesser of evils isn't looking at things very rationally or with an eye to facts. The idea that being a communist is automatically worse than them being a corrupt, murdering psychopath is the most infantile sort of dichotomous thinking.
With Batista was the world brought to with minutes of nuclear war?
How many troops did Batista send to murder people in other countries?

[mikekerrIII]

Also, I think the legitimacy of Hiroshima or Kokura or Nagasaki as bombing targets is a whole other thing when weighed against the weapon being used.
How were the weapons used any worse than the alternative of a thousand B-29s dropping incendiaries?

[mikekerrIII]

For example, there are historians who consider Calley an unfair scapegoat in the My Lai case. There's too much interpretation, and no clear answers either way. Read the trial transcripts of that trial, Calley should have simply been hung. The transcripts are on-line. If they call him a scapegoat they either don't have the facts or are listening to their biases instead of the facts.

[mikekerrIII]

You mean beyond the thousands killed in two atomic bomb strikes, the widespread cancer and leukemia due to radiation poisoning, a collapsed infrastructure, oh, and the resulting famine? OK.
The surrender was the frst part in ending the famine, it was not caused by the Bombs.
The other things you mention are far less evil than a continuation of the War and its blockades ,bombing and Invasion would have been.

[mikekerrIII]

Even the American helicopter crew that held Cally's men back, saving a few dozen lives?

My, aren't we Mister Collective Guilt.

That Pilot is one of my heroes. But by Pauls logic he's just another criminal.

[Lord Bravery]

Calley is obviously a terrible human being for what happened in My Lai. But the fact is, that wasn't the only war crime committed by US troops in Nam. There is loads of cases of that sorta shit. And it all starts at the top, with Generals and Commanders demanding kill counts and telling US units to just kill anything that moves etc. Vietnam was a clusterfuck because of poor leadership. There psyche evaluations were only concerned with whether the troops were willing to kill. The troops who had no problems with killing were stuck in LRRPs and Recondo units that spent too much time in the bush without respite, inevitably sending them over the edge.

Go read Tiger Force, pretty harrowing stuff.

[mikekerrIII]

Wow. Binary thinking at its best.

You can't question the morality of wiping out entire cities by atomic weapons without tacitly validating Japanese atrocities.

Hyperbole and either/or propositions for the win. I'm done here.

What difference does it make if cities are wiped out by atomic weapons or by soldiers with bayonets, or by massive air raids?

[Adam C]

What difference does it make if cities are wiped out by atomic weapons or by soldiers with bayonets, or by massive air raids?

Because usually with a conventional air raid or infantry there's an attempt to apply some discrimination in attacking military targets whereas an atom bomb just wipes out everything. Plus there's that whole radioactivity thing poisoning the land and water and causing additional health problems in the survivors like cancer.

[thehod]

Because usually with a conventional air raid or infantry there's an attempt to apply some discrimination in attacking military targets whereas an atom bomb just wipes out everything. Plus there's that whole radioactivity thing poisoning the land and water and causing additional health problems in the survivors like cancer.

Not always. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North)

[Adam C]

Not always. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North)

Right, I actually twigged onto that when typing my post but somehow for forgot. Allow me to rephrase that.

"Because usually with a conventional air raid or infantry there's at least a possibility to apply some discrimination in attacking military targets whereas an atom bomb just wipes out everything. Plus there's that whole radioactivity thing poisoning the land and water and causing additional health problems in the survivors like cancer."

And on that latter note, an estimated (http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm) 70,000 were killed by the blast of the bomb from Hiroshima, the eventual death toll probably exceeding 200,000 by 1950 as the additional effects of fall out took hold. In comparison, the death total from the carpet bombing of Dresden was only 25,000 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/03/secondworldwar.germany).

[Tages]

Mike, I've seen you post thoughtful things before. You cannot seriously be suggesting that the only alternative to communist dominance of the world was to back psychos like Batista, Suharto and Rhee (and Papadopoulos, and the Contras, and Diem, and the Shah, and...).

The existence of countries like Costa Rica alone pretty much proves that to be a paranoid fantasy.

[mikekerrIII]

Because usually with a conventional air raid or infantry there's an attempt to apply some discrimination in attacking military targets whereas an atom bomb just wipes out everything. Plus there's that whole radioactivity thing poisoning the land and water and causing additional health problems in the survivors like cancer.

It depends on who is doing the ground attack whether it is any more discriminant in its targets, That would not apply to the Japanese army, nor the armies of Germany, or Russia.

A conventional air raid in 1945 was probably less discriminate than an atomic bomb since the destruction was even more widespread. A thousand bombers each dropping 10 tons of napalm is not any more precise than the small nukes used and can kill just as many , or even more.
Even with the radiation deaths added Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the worst air raids of the war in casualties, and neither matches the results of a ground attack on Nanging in casualties or horror.

[mikekerrIII]

Right, I actually twigged onto that when typing my post but somehow for forgot. Allow me to rephrase that.

"Because usually with a conventional air raid or infantry there's at least a possibility to apply some discrimination in attacking military targets whereas an atom bomb just wipes out everything. Plus there's that whole radioactivity thing poisoning the land and water and causing additional health problems in the survivors like cancer."

And on that latter note, an estimated (http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm) 70,000 were killed by the blast of the bomb from Hiroshima, the eventual death toll probably exceeding 200,000 by 1950 as the additional effects of fall out took hold. In comparison, the death total from the carpet bombing of Dresden was only 25,000 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/03/secondworldwar.germany). Tokyo was 125K+, Osaka was somewhere in that range, Nanging was somewhere between 150 and 200K, Or about 10K if you ask the Japanese) Singapoere had around a 100K simply murdered and the Japanese murdered around 100K (not including battle casualties) in the Manila massacre. The Atomic bombs were not particularly horrible by WWII standards

[mikekerrIII]

Mike, I've seen you post thoughtful things before. You cannot seriously be suggesting that the only alternative to communist dominance of the world was to back psychos like Batista, Suharto and Rhee (and Papadopoulos, and the Contras, and Diem, and the Shah, and...).

The existence of countries like Costa Rica alone pretty much proves that to be a paranoid fantasy.

We didn't put Suharto into power and the only folks that had a chance to oppose him were worse.

Rhee was actually the most moderate choice of whom we had to chose from? Among Koreans he is not considered a to be the monster that he is considered by the western left.

Again we backed Batista, but who were the viable alternatives?

It's often a meter of the lesser of two evils and can of those western backed dictators even approach folks like Tito or Pol Pot?

[Tages]

You mean the Josip Broz Tito who was enthusiastically hosted at the White House by three American presidents?

I agree. Let's not support monsters like that.

[Jeff Brady]

Mike:

Multi-quote is your friend.

[Tages]

We didn't put Suharto into power and the only folks that had a chance to oppose him were worse.

You mean like Sukarno? Tell me, did Sukarno murder a million people?


Rhee was actually the most moderate choice of whom we had to chose from?
Kim Gu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Gu).

And just in case you forgot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngman_Rhee#Authoritarian):


Rhee assumed dictatorial powers even before the Korean War broke out in 1950. He allowed the internal security force (headed by his right-hand man, Kim Chang-ryong) to detain and torture suspected Communists and North Korean agents. His government also oversaw several massacres, the most notable one being on Jeju island in which over 30,000 were killed in response to an uprising by leftist factions.

South Korea's Truth and Reconciliation Commission has estimated that the number of deaths attributed to these killings is at least 100,000 and perhaps upwards of 200,000.


Among Koreans he is not considered a to be the monster that he is considered by the western left.
Stalin and Mao aren't considered the same monsters in Russia or China, either. What the hell is your point?

EDIT: For that matter, since you keep bitching that Japan hasn't taken responsibility for its government's atrocities, what's the difference between them and Koreans who deny their own government's crimes? Besides scale, obviously.

Since the Socratic method doesn't seem to be getting the point across, I'll just state this: to say that the U.S. could not have possibly found a better option than backing the regimes responsible for the murder of 1.2 million people from just those two examples alone is cretinous, dishonest, and crazy.

And all the whining "B-b-but the Commies were wwwwwooooorrrrsssseeeee!" doesn't change that.

[Adam C]

Your backing of Marxist regimes shows that you have little care about murdering civilians since that is a primary trademark of those regimes

And where exactly has Tages' "backed" Marxist regimes?


With Batista was the world brought to with minutes of nuclear war?

No, but the stationing of Soviet Missiles in Cuba was a response to U.S. missiles in Turkey being pointed at the USSR, and it was their subsequent removal that secured the removal of said missles from Cuba. So it's hardly the case where Castro's recklessness was solely responsibile for the Cuban Missile Crisis.


How many troops did Batista send to murder people in other countries?

Right, and how many military coups did the U.S. provide support to? How many right-wing dictatorships did it arm and subsequently provide training for its torturers?

[Adam C]

It was the lesser of two evils we don't exactly have unlimited choice in those matters. Batista was a scumbag but Castro was far worse.

Actually, to it's credit, the Eisenhower Administration was looking at replacing Batista with a civilian government by getting the U.S. ambassador to pressure him to step down before Castro's guerrillas took power. The only problem was that the US ambassador at the time didn't so because he was a frivolous millionaire who was chummy with Batista (basically a product of U.S. policy towards Cuba up until that point) and Washington relied on him. Carter made the opposite mistake with Somoza in the late 1970s by not making any such move, even though there were identifiable non-Sandinista political leaders in Nicaragua at the time.* (The Sandinistas even intially thought they would have to wind up negotiating with a civilian government that would replace Somoza and were genuinely surprised when Somoza's government collapsed wholesale and they were pretty much left in charge.)

In Chile, while Allende was hardly a competent economic manager, he didn't turn to authoritarian means like Castro or the Sandinistas did, and his disposal by the military was supported by Chile's civilian parties including the Christian Democratic Party and the National Party who together held a majority of setas in the Chilean Parliament. However, for Christian Democrats that was contingent on the belief that the military would soon hand power back to a civilian government. When that didn't happen they went into opposition. (And guess who ended up forming Chile's first civilian government after military rule ended?)

There's also the fact that civil wars in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala didn't end with the undisputed victory of one side, but the signing of peace accords. In Guatemala's case this give political space for the moderate political left after years of repression and in El Salvador's case it led to the eventual moderation of the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front.

* I suppose in all fairness you could say that Carter was reacting against the excesses of U.S. Still it wasn't the reaction that was needed.

[Tages]

And where exactly has Tages' "backed" Marxist regimes?

I am a fan of Freedonia.


Right, and how many military coups did the U.S. provide support to? How many right-wing dictatorships did it arm and subsequently provide training for its torturers?
Does it matter, Adam? The important thing is that we won, nothing the U.S. did during the Cold War had any long-term negative consequences, and things were wonderful forever. The End.

I can't help but think it's not often someone's impression of the U.S. improves when one logs online to see Americans vociferously defend their nation's right to pick other peoples' governments for them and sit back and watch as they kill and plunder.

[Adam C]

I am a fan of Freedonia.


Commie!

And while we're on the topic:

-- Guatemala didn't even have a militant Communist guerrilla army until the 1960s. That was years after a military coup ovethrew a moderate, reformist government in 1954 with the backing of the United States. Years after it undid all of the progress made in the Ten Years Spring and terrorized the opposition into submission or taking up arms in the jungle. To which, Washington backed what was basically a mafia state in fighting both guerrillas and democratic opponents alike with torture, assasination, and the eradication of entire Mayan villages...only for it to culminate in a peace accord.

-- El Salvador was in a similar situation where the guerrilla army that was the FMLN arose out of avenues for peaceful, democratic change being cut-off by the opppression and election rigging of the Salvdoran oligarchy.

-- Ditto Nicaragua and Peru. Of course while many farmers did join the Sandinistas in opposition to their regime, the Contras were basically run by former Somozan Civil Guards who didn't offer much more than empty rhetoric and a return to the politics of privilege.

-- By way of contrast in Peru, the tide only turned against the Shining Path because Fujimori, the corrupt and authoritarian scumbag that he was, ended up switching from indiscriminate to targetted repression and began enlisting indigenous communities in the highlands in defense so as to effectively play off their grievances with the Shining Path's behaviour.

-- One of the major reasons for the handover from military to civilian power is that civil unrest convinced the Chilean military establishment and elite supporting Pinochet that a return to civilian rule was necessary to avoid a resurgence of "Communism". If not for being grudgingly talked down Pinochet was ready to hang onto power after the 1998 plebiscite. And he only allowed it to proceed honestly becuase he was so arrogant that he thought the public would handily give him another mandate.

So what I'm getting out this is a repeat pattern of Washington supporting military dictatorships and oligarchs, and doing nothing to support reformist alternatives. This is in spite of the fact that usually such regimes serve to foster radicalism and violent action to begin with. What has defused these situations in most cases is ending the violence and allowing democratic change to move forward, or even dialing down the repression to something more selective and less psychotic.

Yet, we're somehow supposed to seriously believe our only choice is the Red and White flavours of state terror?

[SOGG]

the US also backed Marcos. Who was quite good in his first term, but holy shit did it go downhill.

[Aziz Abbasi]

If another depressing President got elected after the Reign of Obama, U.S.A will become the next Cuba

[vcassel]

Face Palm Picard is too worn out to fight it anymore.

[Aziz Abbasi]

Welcome to the party F.P.P

[Darrell D.]

Reign of Obama, USA would make a kick ass movie.

[Aziz Abbasi]

Reign of Obama, USA would make a kick ass movie.
How many Presidents had movies based on them so far?
I know of Reagan, and Bush jr had a movie on him

[Darrell D.]

It needs to have Obama jumping out of a window, guns blazing.
"Here's my NEW health care plan!"

[Michael P]

It needs to have Obama jumping out of a window, guns blazing.
"Here's my NEW health care plan!"

There's a one-liner about death panels here, but I can't quite find it.

[Darrell D.]

I probably shouldn't be giving any Tea Partiers ideas for new misspelled posters, though.

[Joe Franklin]

As a citizen of the USA, I don't care what the rest of the world thinks about me, my family, or the country I live in.

I'm not out to win a popularity contest with some country I will never visit in my life, much less live there. Lol, It's hard enough to get along each day with my neighbors and co-workers, I don't have time to worry about what some guy in Kordestan thinks of me.

[GozertheGozarian]

There's a one-liner about death panels here, but I can't quite find it.
End the movie with the bad guys in front of a firing squad.

"I got your death panel right here."

[Libaax]

How i see America from the outside is that the more i have read,seen documentaries about the country i feel bad for the people who has to live with the 1% of rich,powerful who control the people so much. They have sold American dream,propaganda so well to keep people in check.

Its easy to dislike those in power,the warmongers who must get in every war they can and see the difference the normal people is like everywhere. Bad,good people. Its just a continent sized melting pot.

I just think its sad all the rights,healhtcare we in europe take for granted doesnt exist in USA as easily. You dont have to watch Capitalism: A Love Story to have known demoracy is not so strong as before in US,capitalism is a cult worshipped too much. It works with less injustice elsewhere.

I feel for the muslims in USA extra much cant be easy to live there post 9/11. Another reason to hate each other is never good.

[Charles RB]

It's often a meter of the lesser of two evils and can of those western backed dictators even approach folks like Tito or Pol Pot?

Tito was noted for neutrality, going against the dictats of the USSR to the extent Stalin tried to kill him, and let his country be more open that most Communist states. While he was known for tyranny, as far as I know his regime wasn't as monstrous as many other dictators - including ones we backed like Pinochet.

As for Pol Pot, he was able to come to power thanks to the destablisation of Cambodia by other factors - like, say, factions overthrowing the monarch because he seemed too Communist-friendly.

[mikekerrIII]

Tito was noted for neutrality, going against the dictats of the USSR to the extent Stalin tried to kill him, and let his country be more open that most Communist states. While he was known for tyranny, as far as I know his regime wasn't as monstrous as many other dictators - including ones we backed like Pinochet.

As for Pol Pot, he was able to come to power thanks to the destablisation of Cambodia by other factors - like, say, factions overthrowing the monarch because he seemed too Communist-friendly.

Tito was pretty moderate after the early fifties, but he definitely qualified as a monster as he cleaned up The Chetniks. Any you don't think that aid and support from China, Vietnam and the USSR had anything to do with Pol Pot taking power?

[rick]

Any you don't think that aid and support from China, Vietnam and the USSR had anything to do with Pol Pot taking power?

I think that these three powers did help the Khmer Rouge come to power, but I also think that they all came very quickly to regret this mistake.

And to be fair, it was the Vietnamese who eventually brought Pol Pot down.

[Adam C]

Tito was pretty moderate after the early fifties, but he definitely qualified as a monster as he cleaned up The Chetniks. Any you don't think that aid and support from China, Vietnam and the USSR had anything to do with Pol Pot taking power?

To fair so did the sheer corruption (e.g. commonly selling ammunition to the Khmer Rouge they were fighting) and incompetence among the forces of the Khmer Republic; the lack of morale among the rank-and-file troops, and the fact that it was run by control freak (Lon Nol) who took to directing matters down the battalion level and blocking real coordination between the branches of his armed forces...which takes us right back to the points made on the previous page about some of the anti-communist regimes that the U.S. has backed.

[mikekerrIII]

I think that these three powers did help the Khmer Rouge come to power, but I also think that they all came very quickly to regret this mistake.

And to be fair, it was the Vietnamese who eventually brought Pol Pot down.

I agree on all points

[Charles RB]

you don't think that aid and support from China, Vietnam and the USSR had anything to do with Pol Pot taking power?

I think he wouldn't have got very far if not for things like the coup, and the resulting civil war, and the previous government being pretty shit on its own, and the Vietnam War washing over.

And while Vietnam helped Pol Pot get into power, they also drove him out again after.

[dupersuper]

How many Presidents had movies based on them so far?
I know of Reagan, and Bush jr had a movie on him

JFK has been in a few...like JFK.

[howyadoin]

JFK has been in a few...like JFK.Nixon was great in Nixon.

[StoneGold]

JFK has been in a few...like JFK.

He wasn't really in that too much. Other than him going back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left.

[vcassel]

Bill Pullman was inspiring in Independence Day.

[thehod]

Nixon was great in Nixon.

Meh. Thought he put in a better performance in Frost/Nixon.

[Brian Cronin]

Obviously, I didn't have a problem with the thread in theory, as it had been around for three years.

But to resurrect it to have the same arguments from three years ago?

Laaaame.

-Brian