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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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 :)

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.

@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.

@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?

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?

When did USA commit genocide?