Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
Is North America the next Middle East?
  • 51 Replies sorted by
  • Native "indians" ? African slavery ? Hiroshima ? Nagasaki ? Enough ?

  • Seems to be a little confusion on the meaning of genocide. So...From the Holocaust Encyclopedia:

    The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group.

    Enough?

  • @brianluce

    Brian, let's not go this way, especially Holocoust.

  • @brianluce

    The casualty figures vary, but the accepted estimates of Vietnamese casualties, most of them civilian, during the U.S. assault on Vietnam ranges from 2-5 million. That doesn't include very numerous casualties in other parts of South-East Asia, thanks to U.S. bombing campaigns, which were illegal even under U.S. law, but for which no American official faced any consequences. To this day, Vietnamese are routinely blown up by U.S. landmines, and exploded and unexploded munitions litter the country -- "we" dropped more bombs on Vietnam, than all of WWII combined.

    Whether this level of death and destruction counts technically as "genocide" might be open to debate, but how would you characterize it?

  • @jrd yes, that's called "War". Genocide is not a synonym for war, neither is slavery.

    The US didn't invent war, maybe it's good to stop demonizing one country when there are many that have done way worse if we're willing, as some in the is thread are, to start looking back through the centuries for transgressions of various types. To single out a single country gives the impression that all other countries are inhabited by saints and angels. And that is a total load.

  • @brianluce

    I much like another interpretation of this word.

    How about to interpret it as intrentional prevention of gene propagation for certain group of people. Also this usually is accompanied with destroying sovereignty, dismantling manufacturing, dumbling down education and turning area into just another colony that supply necessary things to metropolies.

    It'll be much more accurate than just stupid "killing jews".

    Under such assumption, for example, all small baltic counties (of course, many other countries also) expirience severe genocide last 20 years.

  • I like that definition. It's what America is doing to itself for the last few generations -- or attempting to do at least ...

  • It's what America is doing to itself for the last few generations -- or attempting to do at least ...

    You starting to understand my position.
    America just have finance and capitalist elites that are destroying it.

  • Here is one of definitions

    Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    • (a) Killing members of the group;
    • (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    • (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    • (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    • (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    If you look at many countries you'll find most of the points present.

  • You starting to understand my position.

    I have always understand and agreed with many of your positions. You just never give me credit because I'm an American and much more handsome than you :)

  • If you look at many countries you'll find most of the points present.

    You starting to understand my position :)

  • To single out a single country gives the impression that all other countries are inhabited by saints and angels. And that is a total load.

    There's nothing unusual or inappropriate about singling out one's own country's crimes, as opposed to the crimes of other countries. I can't answer for what they do in other countries, or for what Hitler, Stalin or Mao did. I do, however, bear responsibility for what my own country does. At least, that's the theory, in a democracy.

    And taking responsibility begins with knowledge. So are we willing to admit, first off, that the U.S. has killed millions of people who didn't offer the slightest threat to people in the U.S.?

    Or should we just deny that these things actually happened?

    I would also note that unprovoked "aggressive war" -- the kind the U.S. perpetrated in Vietnam and Iraq, to name two examples -- is the gravest war crime of all, under the Nuremberg conventions. If you prefer "war crimes" to genocide, you won't get an argument from me.

  • I would also note that unprovoked "aggressive war" -- the kind the U.S. perpetrated in Vietnam and Iraq

    This comment sums up why I take issue: Gross simplification of complicated events and reframing them in the crudest of moral terms; in addition to playing fast and loose with loaded terms like "Genocide" and now "War crimes".

    Also, no way do I make moral equivalency between invading Iraq and the Holocaust. I urge you to reconsider that proposition.

  • One cannot fully understand a country without at once contemplating its triumphs and failings.

  • @Sage indeed. One book (not the only one) can help to see both bright/dark side : Howard Zinn "A People's History of the United States". One can be very (and i mean VERY) critic about US recent history AND still recognize the existence of some good aspects and (o surprise!) valuable and good people... I do.

  • Also, no way do I make moral equivalency between invading Iraq and the Holocaust.

    Here we go again. I made no such comparison. I didn't say a word about the Holocaust -- you did. But your accusation is to be expected. Because when Americans are confronted with U.S. crimes, the first thing they always say is "Holocaust"! Do I really need to point out that the fact some societies have done worse things than we've done doesn't excuse our own behavior?

    As for "gross simplication", I think you mistake my position. I don't care what subtle arguments American policy makers offered for bombing Vietnam and much of South East Asia into the stone-age in the 60s and 70s, with (incidentally) chemical weapons. Or for the changing explanations for invading Iraq during GWB's presidency.

    Fortunately, we don't need to investigate these matters, because the law is clear, on what constitutes a war crime and what doesn't. The law doesn't care what American policy makers were thinking. Nor should it. That's why we have law -- everyone thinks he's a special case, so we can't accept that as an excuse. The fact that U.S. is free to ignore international law, and treaties to which its a signatory, is a privilege of power. But that doesn't change the nature of the conduct.

    All I can suggest is, if you really insist on making special allowances for U.S. conduct -- we're so complex! -- try turning the tables: imagine other countries doing to us, what we've done to them, and on equally baseless pretenses or subtle arguments. Then see how many allowances you're prepared to make for them.

  • I made no such comparison. I didn't say a word about the Holocaust

    You said that Iraq and Vietnam represent the worst kind of war crimes of all and that they're equivalent to genocide. Here:

    I would also note that unprovoked "aggressive war" -- the kind the U.S. perpetrated in Vietnam and Iraq, to name two examples -- is the gravest war crime of all, under the Nuremberg conventions. If you prefer "war crimes" to genocide, you won't get an argument from me.

    You were replying to my post that explicitly mentioned the Holocaust so that right there established a context and point of reference.

    I don't care what subtle arguments American policy makers offered for bombing Vietnam and much of South East Asia

    Some of us do appreciate and consider the nuances and complexities of such things. For example, you cannot ignore the thousands of Soviet Warheads pointed at the US during the cold war. Human extinction is a serious subject and can be the nasty stepmother of misadventures like the Vietnam War.

    And I don't concede your references to violations of international law. You say motive is irrelevant. Motive is rarely irrelevant when it comes to the law.

  • Aggressors always make these arguments -- my motivations are better than yours. When you do it, it's a crime. When I do it, there are extenuating circumstances.

    The American invasions of Iraq and Vietnam do indeed represent the worst sort of crimes, under international law. To say that they're not as bad as the Holocaust is absurd. Would you expect a murderer to get off, by arguing that he's not as bad as Hitler?

    If you go beyond the U.S. and ask people, even in the countries of our allies, who's the greatest threat to world peace today, you won't hear Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Russia, etc. What you'll hear is, "the U.S." Maybe they're all wrong, because we're not the Holocaust. Or maybe they just envy us. Or they just don't appreciate our complexity. Then again, maybe it's also time for Americans to consider what's done in their name by both Republican and Democratic administrations, and the human carnage of it.

    At this rate, you don't appear ready to do so, which is a pity, because we'll never change, as long as Americans deny reality.

  • Aggressors always make these arguments -- my motivations are better than yours

    Maybe. But I'm not making that argument.

    Would you expect a murderer to get off, by arguing that he's not as bad as Hitler?

    Nope. Merely responding to your point of moral equivalency -- something you still won't let go of. And actually there are degrees of sin -- although apparently not in your world.

    If you go beyond the U.S. and ask people, even in the countries of our allies, who's the greatest threat to world peace today, you won't hear Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Russia, etc. What you'll hear is, "the U.S."

    Really? Who told you that? Fidel Castro? The Tooth Fairy perhaps? That statement is unsupported garbage and you know it.

    At this rate, you don't appear ready to do so, which is a pity, because we'll never change, as long as Americans deny reality.

    Nope, I don't live in a Yankee Doodle Fantasy of Ronald Reagan. I'm well aware of good and bad. The US legacy is a mixed bag -- just as it is with ALL nations. However I'm not filled with self loathing either.

  • For the last time, you're the only one here talking about moral equivalency, the only one drawing comparisons to the Holocaust, and the only one attempting to excuse American behavior by comparing it to the behavior of others (should we call that "moral relativism"?). The fact that country X's crimes aren't as bad as those of Nazi Germany or North Korea means what, exactly? That these crimes didn't happen? That they're unimportant? That you don't have to be filled with self-loathing, because we're not as bad as Hitler? How high does the body count have to go, before you'll put aside your moral relativism, and condemn acts for what they are?

    As for degrees of sin, I believe that assessment is usually left with the victims of the crime, not the perpetrators. It requires a moral authority which the perpetrator, as a self-interested party, doesn't possess.

    And, finally, I would invite you to research international polling on attitudes about the U.S. The results fluctuate, depending on what we're doing at the time. But take Britain, our strongest ally. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein got 45% of the vote, as the greatest threat to world peace. George W. Bush got the other 45%. We did a good worse in the rest of Europe. Not to mention areas less friendly to us. You don't need to get this information from Fidel Castro, btw. Google will provide it. And no, I'm not a Commie. I don't know why you're also accusing me of living a Ronald Reagan fantasy, as I rather doubt he'd embrace my arguments, but I gather you're throwing as much mud as you can find, whether it makes any sense or not. Fidel Castro, Yankee Doodle, Ronald Reagan, who cares. Any thing that Brian doesn't accept has got to be lunacy.

    As for the U.S. legacy -- until you actually understand what it is, which you clearly don't, how can you judge it?

  • You making a lot of silly straw man arguments. You're also making some goofy assertions about morality, such as Only victims get to assess degree of sin. That's a complete reinvention of the criminal justice system of every developed country. Good luck with that one .

    And I was referencing myself about Yankee Doodle, I even used the pronoun "I". If you want to discuss an issue and be taken seriously, you're obligated to at least represent opposing positions fairly and accurately.

    Regarding how other nations perceive relative threat from the US. Why reference 7 year old data? I know why, because recent polling doesn't support your position. Which reminds me of an old lesson from law school: if you don't know the answer to a question, don't ask it.

  • You're also making some goofy assertions about morality, such as Only victims get to assess degree of sin. That's a complete reinvention of the criminal justice system of every developed country. Good luck with that one.

    Really? I wasn't aware that under the U.S. criminal justice system, the criminal judges himself and his own degree of sin. While it's true that the victims of crimes don't sit on juries, the discussion, in case you didn't notice, concerned the geopolitical, not actual law courts. So, for example, if you actually care to learn the truth, it would be more appropriate to consult a Vietnamese about the costs (to Vietnam) of the U.S. invasion, and the degree of sin involved, than to ask Henry Kissinger, who suffered no adverse affects from his conduct.

    Why reference 7 year old data? I know why, because recent polling doesn't support your position.

    As I previously explained, international polling on the U.S. depends to a large extent on what we're doing at the time. The 7 year old example, to which you take such exception, was pertinent on two counts: 1) it occurred at the time of one of the crimes we're discussing, which you view as a lesser sin (and perhaps no sin at all?), and 2) it reflected public opinion in our most stalwart ally. If that's not a good test case of the popular appeal of actual American foreign policy, exactly the conduct we're discussing, I don't know what is.

  • Really? I wasn't aware that under the U.S. criminal justice system, the criminal judges himself and his own degree of sin

    Neither do the victims. And who was talking about the US Criminal Justice system? Not me. You brought up the whole Nuremburg/tribunal thing.

    And regarding polls, stop being evasive. You stated your case in the present tense, now you want to say it was 2003. Here:

    If you go beyond the U.S. and ask people, even in the countries of our allies, who's the greatest threat to world peace today, you won't hear Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Russia, etc. What you'll hear is, "the U.S."

    Sorry but America isn't the country most people fear. That's pretty clear at this point. I'll help you out on this one. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29581.htm

    For fun, let's go back to 2003, Whoops! same champ! http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/02/israel.eu

    As they say, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

  • You're absolutely right, Brian: Israel, not the U.S., is now the most feared country in the world, as indicated in these surveys you provided. Things have changed since the poll I cited (though the question was also different). My mistake! I shouldn't have said "today", when referring to these attitudes. Under Obama, the U.S. is hated and feared less than under GWB and at the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, although there's little actual change in U.S. foreign policy.

    It's curious, however, that you would take comfort in the fact that the prime ally of the U.S., the one both Obama and Romney profess to love deeply, with "no daylight" between the two countries -- something which isn't said about any place else -- was/is regarded as the most dangerous country in the world. And that's supposed to be a vindication of U.S. foreign policy? And how much the world loves us?

    In any event, I'm glad you concede that the criminal doesn't, after all, judge himself in the U.S., and you would presumably agree that the U.S. is not the best judge of its own crimes, or the extent of its own "sins", to use your language. For that, we would have too look at the consequences of our acts -- what they did to other people. Which is the idea behind asking the victims, or at least hearing their views, rather than proclaiming moral superiority to other countries, which renders our crimes different from other crimes.