Terrorist state, as much as any other in history. But being brought up on american propoganda, american exceptionalism, and ideas that america is somehow great, will prevent you from seeing this.

You know more about the atrocities committed by every other nation in the world than you do about your own. Because it is really hard to look at your own country objectively.

Don't you guys fret. War with Russia is looming and the whole world will be miles. Go smoke some weed and get laid.

Miles -nuked

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

I've smoked enough dope and had enough sex in my life. Can I just get a Cubs World Series championship before we blow the world up?

"Terrorist state, as much as any other in history."

Worse than Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot? Sure that isn't an exaggeration?

1. Neither is ever enough
2. Go Cubbies 8-3

now since Clinton is coming in to office, EVERYTHING that was suppressed from the media is pouring out on him.

@ssorenn. Hahaha true, but go Cubs all the same!

@KC, sure thats just MAD.

@Supersteve, yes. No exaggeration. Millions have been killed for opposing US exonomic interests. Those who didn't die were exploted. Capitalism is the ideology, while Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot all had different ideologies, the US imperial machine has Capitalism. And it is responsible for ever needless death of a child who would he given medicine under socialism, every drug patent which keeps a monopoly from sharing the benefits with billions of sick children across the world. Every war the US has starte to make sure other countries get the message that you don't stand up to America, you don't oppose their policies, you don't try to sell oil in euros. The two nukes dropped on Japan after the war was already as good as over.

The south and central americans whose 'left wing' governments had to be dismantled to prove American control over the western hemisphere. Those who died as a result, and all the poverty of the region - under US control since you kicked the Spainnish out. Look at Haiti and Cuba. Despite a common history one of them is doing much better, an it is a direct result of being under the thumb of US economic policy. A policy of exploiting and oppressing.

Capitalism creates poverty. So all the millions of poverty related deaths i lay at your door. And you try to tell me that Stalin, Pol Pot or Hitler even come close? The US has been doing this for so much longer - and i'm only counting the 20th Century (which seems fair as you only mentioned three 20th Century dictators)

that's funny, i just saw an article about the rising middle class in africa. and what about those micro-loans that started in bangladesh? capitalism has been the most efficient means of enriching and rasing the standard of living as it is more and more adopted. and it what you say is true, why do people escape from other countries and head to the united states and european capitalistic countries?

Because the lives they lead in their countries are horrible as a result of the economic policies of the West (going back years and years), and the lives they could lead in the West could be better.

and why is it better in the west? in the early 20th century the us was a backwater compared to europe? what happened in the intervening years to change this?

"The two nukes dropped on Japan after the war was already as good as over. "

And I can't take you seriously after this. If you actually study the history around this you would know the war wasn't even close to being over and it's pretty widely agreed that without the use of the nukes a surrender wouldn't have been likely. Was it right, no idea, but claiming the war was over when they happened is absolute bullshit.

Not to mention the rest of your arguments being dependent on the idea that other forms of economics like communism or socialism would work better then what we have. Interesting assumptions, but stating them as fact, and declaring it worst then Hitler is absurd and 100% troll bait. Also, reducing what Hitler wanted to do, committing genocide, into being a weird "ideology" is stunningly naive and disturbing.

Imperialism.

nah it was a democrat that did it. that's why they need to elect republicans. Reagan actually worked to reduce and eventually eliminate them

@Tolstoy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki seems to imply the father did slightly more then just say things against American foreign policy. If you're interested in adding shock value to a story you need to keep it factual otherwise it's easily dismissed. The actual killing of his son is terrible and doesn't need hiding of what his father did to make it shocking.

So were saying Obama killed kids intentionally or inadvertantly?

You should be ashamed of yourself blaming Obama for displacing children. And opt to not mention the Iraq war.

In 2012 102 children were killed and 310 injured in the violence. More than 4 million Iraqis have been displaced since 2003, including almost 2 million children.

You think thats all Obama. You hate Obama. Fuck you. Thats bad wars. Bad policies. He did nothing to stop it and never started it.

On behalf of America let me explain to you what happened: we suck. Our only solution is wars. Yrp we suck.

Brain is so triggered by typical US practices. Read news sources in the Middle East. This is all too common. Obama has joked around about killing people with drones. Pakistan backed out of the US led war on terror temporarily because of civilians killed by drones and tried to conduct their own.

For a country built on genoide ad slavery, i'm surprised you can honestly deny any of this.

In the 19th century Imperial powers of Europe made investments of capital into many nations, Germany was far behind because it was building up its internal market, and the US was likewise investing internally. But the others had no more easy gains to make from building railways at home, so the invested externally.

The difference between selling someone a shirt and selling someone a railway (that they can't afford) is suddenly you have an interest in making sure they pay you back. So Imperial powers got involved in local economies all over the world - with the goal of making sure they were paid back first. (And then maybe more and bigger loans) this kind of imperialism for economic reasons was what drove the expansion into africa.

Now the US was not guilt of these crimes, and the harm and poverty it caused in Africa, but the did continue the practice in the 20th century when European powers began to wane. And likewise the genocide and displacement from the land of million of native americans. The railways really helped with this process.

As for 'capitalism raises everyine out of poverty' - have you heard of the great depression? That was capitalism, or the 2008 financial crash. Capitalism tends to screw over the majority, even in so-called wealthy nations. Twice now in living memory. The financial expansion may have allowed us to push back a recession until 2008 by expanding the money supply (in terms of more credit than ever before) but it proved unsustainable. And thousnads were thrown back into poverty. Yet most Americans still beleive in the american dream. Which is just that a dream, not reality.

Native Americans weren't pushed to genocide because of an economic policy. They were pushed to genocide because of a desire for land and because of greed. Which was a common atrocity shared in by nearly every early European explorer. Greed is a common human flaw and can be found in every economic system.

If you look back in history you can find a genocide to back up any claims of any institution being evil. Christianity with the knowledge purges, etc etc. You can waste endless time debating over who was the worst institution or country in that regard, but if you look back far enough in history every country has some horrible acts on their hands. What should be looked at is what a country is doing now. In your comparison orathaic you seemed to imply what is happening now with economic policies is worse then Hitler. Atrocities like genocide and slavery are two areas where people thankfully seem to have learned from history.

Where I'm confused in your arguments is your argument purpose isn't clear. You are arguing that capitalism is terrible. Okay...so what? What are you trying to convince people to do instead? Do you have ideas on what would be an improvement, if so I really am honestly curious to hear it.

I agree that America's foreign policy has been somewhere between regretful and war crimes since the end of WWII, but let's not go overboard. The sins of America don't compare to the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, etc.

jmo, can you clarify what you mean when you say "it's pretty widely agreed that without the use of the nukes a surrender wouldn't have been likely."? To my knowledge a majority of historians who study the topic would agree that the dropping of the atomic bombs in WWII was at a minimum military unnecessary.

@"Native Americans weren't pushed to genocide because of an economic policy. They were pushed to genocide because of a desire for land and because of greed."

This is kind of an aside. As my main drive was at 20th century economic policy. And not 19th century. And ignoring the native american deaths in the 19th century the US comes off much better than various European nation's. But to talk about the 20th century US policy ou do need to understand the damage done by 19th century european colonialism - that is the context.

But yes, the point was, US expansion and colonialism was, if anything, into Indian nations and they have not been colonised. Rather eliminated. (NB i haven't mentioned the Russian / Soviet expansion/exploitation into Siberia and basically all of North Asia which happened over the 19th and 20th centuries, but i suppose it is worth recognising that they are also invaders who took over huge amounts of land, and attempted to russify those territories, including the Ukraine)

Wasn't colonialism driven by the English, French and Spanish?

I’m going to disagree jmo that the bombs on Japan were necessary, and I don’t think it’s commonly agreed they were.
For one, Nagasaki was destroyed on August 9th, 1945 only 75 hours after Hiroshima was hit. Considering communications between Hiroshima and Tokyo were destroyed and they’re 450 miles separate that was extremely quick for the second bomb to come. Assuming the first bomb was still necessary, the second one coming so quick was not. To expect Japanese rulers to piece together the information of what happened (never before had something like this been seen) so fast is absurd.
Actually, on August 8th, foreign minister Togo and the emperor asked the Japanese war council to surrender. (https://www.amazon.ca/Day-One-Peter-H-Wyden/dp/1476791732)

Japan had still lost before that. March 9, an air armada dropped a carpet of incendinary bombs on Tokyo which killed around 185000 Japanese, more than both bombs combined. Japan was systematically being demolished a long time before the nukes came with many cities being in flame. The bombing of Japan previous to the atom bombs is a very interesting topic. The entire world at that time was available to surround Japan. And more importantly, Japan was an island nation short on resources. Japan needed trade to get the resources. At that point in the war, they literally only needed to blockade it until they either surrendered, or reverted to the stone age.

I don’t know why you say most people agree the bombs were necessary when even General Eisenhower, later the president told the secretary of war, “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, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. … it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

Winston Churchill said, “It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the bomb fell, and was brought about by overwhelming maritime power. … Her shipping had been destroyed.”

America’s Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, said, “The use of this barbaric weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.”

It’s quite clear the atom bombing was a show of muscle against Russia.