United STATES OF SHAME

Regarding the title, "United States of Shame":

History has taught us that there's always going to be at least one dominant power in the world. The U.S. isn't any better or worse than any other empire in history or those to come, it just happens to be the current one. It might be hard for some of us to admit, but "evil empires" are a direct result of inherent human qualities; namely, the greed and corruption that come with power.

Depending on how you want to look at it, we as a species share the guilt among us equally, OR we as a species are not guilty of anything since it is simply in our nature.

So please don't try to act like another country that rose to empire status would magically supress thousands of years of innate human characteristics to become the first magnanimous superpower. Hatred against the U.S. would be more appropriately directed against humankind, but I realize it's important to have a fixed target for such a strong and blind emotion.
 
EliA said:
Regarding the title, "United States of Shame":

History has taught us that there's always going to be at least one dominant power in the world. The U.S. isn't any better or worse than any other empire in history or those to come, it just happens to be the current one. It might be hard for some of us to admit, but "evil empires" are a direct result of inherent human qualities; namely, the greed and corruption that come with power.

Depending on how you want to look at it, we as a species share the guilt among us equally, OR we as a species are not guilty of anything since it is simply in our nature.

So please don't try to act like another country that rose to empire status would magically supress thousands of years of innate human characteristics to become the first magnanimous superpower. Hatred against the U.S. would be more appropriately directed against humankind, but I realize it's important to have a fixed target for such a strong and blind emotion.

I think it's time for someone to read The Five Thousand Year Leap.

In the 20th century alone, tens of millions died at the hands of dictators that (for the most part ) were defeated with the major efforts of the USA. Even President Obama acknowledged this when he accepted the Nobel Prize.

If the USA really falls (some on this forum think it already has), the death count will number in the hundreds of millions, if not more.

I have no hatred for humankind, just the individual parasites (moochers and looters) who try to control others, especially those who live and produce, not at the expense, but to the benefit of others, even when that benefit is not their prime motivation.
 
redrum said:
orwellian.....thanks for your reply.....perhaps i should have been more clear....just to clarify my viewpoint, the globalists are not communists rather they are nihilists......they don't believe in anything except for power/control over the masses....creating a technocratic serfdom if you will......

as far as the copenhagen treaty is concerned....will it come at the expense of the poorer countries? sure, maybe partly, after all, the "civilized world" has been plundering their nations since the industrial revolution......

but consider this....as i mentioned previously, the goal is to bring down the existing infrastructure in order to impose the "new" infrastructure....this means that the US will have the most to lose because it will destroy our economy.....it's already happening now.....

we're the ones, through the backing of the UN, that is pushing for this.....china and india are greatly opposed, for obvious reasons.....yet without them it can't work because they are the biggest emerging markets i.e. biggest polluters.....

anyway.....that's why it's a scam.....the goal is not to save the planet from carbon dioxide.....the goal is to demonize carbon dioxide as the pretext for a global tax administered by a global governing body that will supercede the sovereignty of nations....hence global government.....

Ok now you are making sense :)
I agree to all that.

EliA said:
Regarding the title, "United States of Shame":

History has taught us that there's always going to be at least one dominant power in the world. The U.S. isn't any better or worse than any other empire in history or those to come, it just happens to be the current one. It might be hard for some of us to admit, but "evil empires" are a direct result of inherent human qualities; namely, the greed and corruption that come with power.

Depending on how you want to look at it, we as a species share the guilt among us equally, OR we as a species are not guilty of anything since it is simply in our nature.

So please don't try to act like another country that rose to empire status would magically supress thousands of years of innate human characteristics to become the first magnanimous superpower. Hatred against the U.S. would be more appropriately directed against humankind, but I realize it's important to have a fixed target for such a strong and blind emotion.

Just because it has always been like that doesn't mean that it has to be like that forever. Solidarity is also human nature.
And it's only natural to direct hatred against an empire if you suffered the effects from it. Like a lot of people here in South America have. Personally I think the Chinese will be less ruthless now when the power is slowly shifting. But we'll see...


steveinbsas said:
In the 20th century alone, tens of millions died at the hands of dictators that (for the most part ) were defeated with the major efforts of the USA.

For the most part no. Russia sustained a lot more casualties in the war than any other allied nation. Also the Bush family, and many other Americans, supported Hitler's rise to power economically. They also continued doing business with Nazi-Germany during the war.

steveinbsas said:
If the USA really falls (some on this forum think it already has), the death count will number in the hundreds of millions, if not more.

The U.S is responsible for millions of deaths already, directly or indirectly. Just of the top of my head they killed over a million Japanese civilians even though they had practically won the war already. 1.5 million Vietnamese, mostly civilians, were killed in the Vietnamese war. And not counting all million people that have starved to death due to American imperialism.
But why do you think any people will die, in the world, as a result of the U.S going under?
And the U.S is falling right now, the power is slowly shifting. All you are doing is delaying the inevitable.
 
This new century is indeed seeing the emergence of Asia as a centerweight of human community, for demographic reasons. This ends a cycle of western domination which started with the european expansion and gave birth to America, both north and south, as it is known today.

China will be the leading power undoubtedly. Western democracies are already more and more cautious about giving human rights lessons to this country, since China is their main money lender and manufacturer.

I am unsure tho that we will get accustomed to confusianism, which indeed seeks harmony, but at the cost of individual rights. This totally upsets our understanding of the relation between the individual and the society. Dictature in this philosophy is totally acceptable, since it helps imposing peace and order to a society.

Promotion of corruption

Like some other political philosophies, Confucianism is reluctant to employ laws. In a society where relationships are considered more important than the laws themselves, if no other power forces government officers to take the common interest into consideration, corruption and nepotism may arise. It has been suggested that a mix between Buddhism and Confucianism would be a perfect religion, with laws from Buddhism and logic from Confucianism[citation needed].
However, the above argument is not the real point. Confucianism does not negate laws. Confucius' idea is indicated by his advice for Min Zijian (闵子骞) on political affairs: "By moral, by law" (以德以法). Actually, in traditional China, one of the main roles of regional officials was to practice law. In Confucian political philosophy, law is necessary, but statesmen should lay more importance on morals.
As lower-ranking government officers' salaries were often far lower than the minimum required to raise a family, while high-ranking officials (even though extremely rich and powerful) receive a salary of a value much lower than their self-perceived contribution (for example their incomes are often substantially less than a successful merchant), Chinese society was frequently affected by those problems. Even if some means to control and reduce corruption and nepotism have been successfully used in China, Confucianism is criticized for not providing such a means itself. But there's no theory in Confucianism suggesting paying higher-ranking officials excessively or paying lower-ranking officials on the level unable to raise a family. Salary of officials varies in different era, comparatively high in the Han Dynasty, and low in the Ming Dynasty even for high-ranking officials. There is a poem titled Bei Men (北門) in Shi Jing that voices the hard life of a low-ranking official, showing Confucius' sympathy.

Stagnation; Inability to Evolve

Another problem is this: perfect Filial Piety may result in perfect conformity, across multiple generations, to ideals learned from elders, ideals which perhaps do not change, even as the world changes. This could lead to stagnation, to failure to evolve. If the world of people living in Confucian ideals will not change, yet the rest of the world changes, this may lead to failure to adapt to a changing world. Ancient ways might be perfect for ancient days. In modern days, can ancient ways be competitive? This is a challenge to the modern Confucian. How to preserve ancient wisdom and harmonious ways, yet still adapt to a world that is always changing?

Loss of free-will and individuality

Another similar critique of Confucianism is that if children are always to obey, respect and listen to their parents then it would not be up to the children to decide what they wish to do with their lives in the future but their parents. This is a loss of freedom for the young individual, of course one could argue that a young mind would not know what is best; parents would be acting in the best interests of the child. But by making the decision for him/her ,once he/she has decided to do something else that his/her parents had not planned or doesn't want him/her to do then it could already be too late or there could be an argument against the Confucian thinking of harmony and order of parents to children.

Question of Individuality; Timing of Assumption of Role As Independent Elder

If perfect Filial Piety will require children to always respect and obey wishes of parents, when will children (who may survive their parents) become an elder generation presumed capable of instructing their own children? Must they forever transmit the wishes of their forebears? Again, this raises a question of ability to adapt. Confucians may argue that the commands and instruction of the grandparents will be obeyed by the parents who will convey this instruction to their children who will similarly instruct the grandchildren. Yet the grandchildren may live in a world which is very different from the world which nurtured the intentions of the grandparents. Confucianism may allow the oldest living members of a family to have absolute authority on some matters, but perhaps less so on other matters which may be more relevant to, and best decided by, less elderly members of the family. This is reasonable: but this transfer of moral authority, and the transfer or delegation of nodes of ultimate Filial respect and Piety, is perhaps not well elucidated in traditional Confucian teachings. Hence the recurrent nature of this critique.
To summarize, when may the younger generations assume the role of choosing their own destinies? And if they may make such a choice, why should not their own children, at comparable junctures in the courses of their lives, also make such choices?

Female Equality then and now

In China, women were treated as second class citizens (for around 1500 years until the end of Qing), this was because Confucius thought that all wives should listen to their husbands and in doing so keep social harmony. This for a while was so extreme that some women weren't even given names nor did they go to school, they were expected to be in homes and take care of the family.
Nowadays, since the nationalists took the country in 1912, women have had the rights to attend school, get a job and overall have as much rights as a man in China. However social attitudes are still mostly the same as before and females are still treated as second class citizens in the family; parents still prefer to have a boy rather than a girl, perhaps worsened by the one child policy, as they are seen as the heir to the family and are able to continue the family's surname, plus they are viewed as better financial providers once the parents have retired. It also because that when the daughter of the family gets married they "in a sense" become a part of the groom's family. Examples of this is that their child will be born in the province/city where the groom's family comes from (if possible), plus the son/daughter will have the father's surname.
 
orwellian said:
The U.S is responsible for millions of deaths already, directly or indirectly. Just of the top of my head they killed over a million Japanese civilians even though they had practically won the war already.

I'm not saying the US is perfect, but many times the number of Japanese killed by "the bombs" are alive today as a direct result of their use...possibly me, too, as my dad was on his way to the Pacific Theater when they were used. Do you know that the US warned Japan in advance of using the first a-bomb to destroy Hiroshima and that the Japanese refused to surrender until after the second a-bomb was used?



orwellian said:
1.5 million Vietnamese, mostly civilians, were killed in the Vietnamese war.

And over a million "South Vietnamese where murdered after the US withdrew (after the Congress cut off funding).

orwellian said:
And not counting all million people that have starved to death due to American imperialism.

Could you please be more specific.


orwellian said:
But why do you think any people will die, in the world, as a result of the U.S going under?

The entire world will be up for grabs at that point...without the hope of anyone coming "to the rescue" anywhere.


orwellian said:
And the U.S is falling right now, the power is slowly shifting. All you are doing is delaying the inevitable.

Not me, keemosabe.

Why not just say that we're all going to die anyway, so what's difference if we live free or not?
 
steveinbsas said:
I'm not saying the US is perfect, but many times the number of Japanese killed by "the bombs" are alive today as a direct result of their use...possibly me, too, as my dad was on his way to the Pacific Theater when they were used. Do you know that the US warned Japan in advance of using the first a-bomb to destroy Hiroshima and that the Japanese refused to surrender until after the second a-bomb was used?

Yes I know they were warned. But letting civilians pay the price for the leaders unwillingness to surrender is not fair IMO.


steveinbsas said:
And over a million "South Vietnamese where murdered after the US withdrew (after the Congress cut off funding).

Why would the North Vietnamese murder over a million people? Source please.

steveinbsas said:
Could you please be more specific.
Take Africa as an example, how the U.S keeps them in poverty by overthrowing democratic elected leaders that they don't like. Most dictatorships in the world receive support from the U.S and some were even helped to power by the C.I.A.

steveinbsas said:
The entire world will be up for grabs at that point...without the hope of anyone coming "to the rescue" anywhere.

Since when have America come for the rescue anywhere where it didn't suit their interests?


steveinbsas said:
Why not just say that we're all going to die anyway, so what's difference if we live free or not?

I have no clue what you mean by that.
 
steveinbsas said:
In the 20th century alone, tens of millions died at the hands of dictators that (for the most part ) were defeated with the major efforts of the USA. Even President Obama acknowledged this when he accepted the Nobel Prize.

Let's see......and five periods for Mini to analyze.

US-sponsored Murderous Dictatorships: A (partial and incomplete) List

The greatest crime ever perpetrated in the name of America is the US government's long-established practice of installing and supporting so many murderous dictatorships, primarily after the end of colonialism and during the Cold War with the all-justifying excuse of anti-communism.

How many murderous dictatorships has the US installed or supported?

Let's count some, shall we?.

Country - Dictator - Dates - Statistics

Chile Gen. Augusto Pinochet 1973-1990 3000 murdered. 400,000 tortured.

Argentina Gen. Jorge Rafael Videla 1976-1981 30,000 murdered. more to follow

Indonesia Suharto 1965 coup against left-leaning Sukarno, 1975 support of East Timor genocide 500,000 dead after 1965 coup; 100,000-230,000 dead in East Timor; more, more, more.

Guatemala Armas, Fuentes, Montt 1954-

Iran The Shah of Iran. Ayatollah Khomeini was on the CIA payroll in the 1970s in Paris

Egypt Sadat, Mubarak 1978-today

Iraq Saddam Hussein

Nicaragua Anastasio Somoza & sons 1937-1979

Paraguay Stroessner. US supported throughout (state.gov says US has supported Paraguayan development since 1942) ($142M between 1962 and 1975) 1954-1989

Bolivia Col. Hugo Banzer overthrew elected leftist president Juan Jose Torres 1970-

Angola Jonas Savimbi/UNITA (didn't actually win his revolution, but killed or displaced millions) 1975-1989

Zaire Mobutu

Saudi Arabia Saud family

Kuwait a monarchy

Morocco

Tunisia

Algeria

Jordan

Panama Noriega was US-supported for years

Haiti Papa Doc, Baby Doc

Dominican Republic Trujillo, a military dictator for 32 years with US support for most of that time; Belaguer, Trujillo's protege, installed after US Marines intervened to put down an attempt to restore the democratically elected government of Juan Bosch 1930-61, 1965-78

Honduras In the early 1980s, the United States and the National Guard of the ousted Nicaraguan dictator Samosa paid Honduras large amounts of money to use it as a base to attack Nicaragua, and currently (2009) a puppet governament supported against the fair elected Manuel Zelaya

El Salvador In the 1970’s El Salvador was governed by a military dictatorship. On March 24th, 1980 Archbishop Oscar Romero was assasinnated by the US installed government for being a popular figure and critic of the military dictatorship.

Grenada (we all know)

Nepal monarchy since 1948

Cuba Fulgencio Batista pre-Castro

Brazil Gen. Branco overthrew elected president Goulart with US support 1965-67

Uzbekistan Kamirov "The Boiler", $150M from the Bush administration for an air base. 1965-67

There are some gaps of information there. If you know any details that could help fill the gaps, let me know, it would be much appreciated.

So I count 25. Rough numbers, let's not be picky.

I barely have 25 people in my pingpong club, we're talking 25 countries.
Now that's a bleeping crime.

So who's responsible? I am an American: I am responsible.

So what am I going to do about it? I'm going to be an American, and express myself, with attitude, about what I do and don't like in this world, and tell everyone what I think has got to be done. So keep on reading.

And you? Be an American too: make up your own mind, persuade yourself, and try to persuade the rest of them. Talk leads to action, so talk!

Link: US-sponsored Murderous Dictatorships: A List

Another link in fine detail: Here is a list of just some of the dictators who were/are supported by America.

I'm not, so I won't .....plus five periods just to p.... mini. :D
 
Lucas said:
Let's see......and five periods for Mini to analyze.

I wasn't analyzing anything. I was asking. Using one (or two) sets of ..... is one thing but Redrum had practically every sentence ending in them. Seriously? What does it mean?

Anyway, perhaps it's not classified as a murderous dictatorship. But China should probably be on that list. It's at least a totalitarian dictatorship.
 
Democracy might not be the best applicable system for countries over 1 billion people. Go and travel in both India and China for an extended period of time and report...
 
Back
Top