American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by jayswin

An atrocity that isn't called one because the victors write the history books, and they're a superpower. The Iraq "war" is one of the most blood boiling, evil undertakings in my lifetime.

Which one? The original or the sequel? Both?

[Lanny_McDonald]

I would assume he meant the second one. The first one had an actual mission and was executed extremely well. The second one had no actual mission and was a failed attempt at nation building. Bush and Cheney should have been brought up on war crimes charges but when you're a permanent member of the UN's security council you are afforded unreasonable protection for anything you do.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Damn. 20 years ago today.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1622158089788035072

All these years later and I'm still PO'd at that. My buddy was arguing that the US may've just made it up and brought in a bunch of easily disproven evidence to the UN.

I was vociferously arguing that Powell was a decent human being and no way would they just present a bunch of random photos of nothing. To the freaking UN.

I felt like an idiot within the week.

Also, what a bunch of psychos to use 9/11 and the deaths of thousands of Americans to pursue a war in an unrelated country. Only to birth a brand new terror group in ISIS with a new homebase in... Iraq. Mostly made up of ex-Iraqi military.

Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush et al were psychos.

[GirlySports]

And Tony Blair somehow got conned and went with it. Chretien did not.

[Matata]

Every US conflict since WW2 has been based on trumped-up BS with roughly 12 million dead in total. It's an empire run by military intelligence that requires perpetual war in order to: expand, launder money, control drug and human trafficking, punish dissidence, enforce economic subjugation, etc.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Matata

Every US conflict since WW2 has been based on trumped-up BS with roughly 12 million dead in total. It's an empire run by military intelligence that requires perpetual war in order to: expand, launder money, control drug and human trafficking, punish dissidence, enforce economic subjugation, etc.

I'd hate to see what the Korean peninsula would look like today had the US not intervened there after WWII. And as stated before the first Desert Storm had sound reasoning and was executed well. The bigger problem with the US post-WWII was the CIA, they destabilized so many countries around the world leaving millions of innocent civilians to suffer, and the impacts are still being felt today

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

I'd hate to see what the Korean peninsula would look like today had the US not intervened there after WWII.

Well for starters, we wouldn't have M*A*S*H

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

How are either of these rational responses to a very straightforward and serious statement. Argue in good faith or don't bother.

Saying we can't focus on one issue because there's others isn't an argument in good faith. Be honest about your concerns, but don't play the "we don't have resources to worry about problem x"

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Well for starters, we wouldn't have M*A*S*H

And, therefore, Nurse Dish.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

I'd hate to see what the Korean peninsula would look like today had the US not intervened there after WWII. And as stated before the first Desert Storm had sound reasoning and was executed well. The bigger problem with the US post-WWII was the CIA, they destabilized so many countries around the world leaving millions of innocent civilians to suffer, and the impacts are still being felt today

Had US not intervened, we most likely would have a much more normal nation than current North Korea somewhere around there.

The amount of collective devastation and trauma caused on the North Vietnames by the UN/US military should not be underestimated. According to many notes, there was no notable building of any kind left in NK by the time it was over. Among the targets were all major dams in the area, which deliberately flooded large parts of agricultural lands, leading a famine that threatened to kill millions if not for the humanitarian aid from other socialist countries. Every city, town and village was a "valid military target" worthy of napalm and firebombings. The bombing was so brutal even the famous humanitarian Winston Churchill criticized it for excessive cruelty. As wikipedia puts it, "Pyongyang, which saw 75 percent of its area destroyed, was so devastated that bombing was halted as there were no longer any worthy targets. By the end of the campaign, US bombers had difficulty in finding targets and were reduced to bombing footbridges or jettisoning their bombs into the sea."

An estimated 12-15% of NK population died during the war.

The bombing of North Korea is right up there with the worst atrocities ever committed by "forces of democracy", and is probably a major reason why the people of that country developed such a twisted relationship to both their own leadership and the outside world.

Of course North Korea was already a totalitarian state who started the war, so there's valid reasons why the UN/US intervened, but the choices made during that intervention were probably extremely harmful to both the longterm reputation of the UN and the US, and the current state of the peninsula.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I would assume he meant the second one. The first one had an actual mission and was executed extremely well. The second one had no actual mission and was a failed attempt at nation building. Bush and Cheney should have been brought up on war crimes charges but when you're a permanent member of the UN's security council you are afforded unreasonable protection for anything you do.

Well I mean there's also the whole issue of the U.S. having an active policy to invade the Hague if any of their military or political leaders are brought up on war crimes.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well I mean there's also the whole issue of the U.S. having an active policy to invade the Hague if any of their military or political leaders are brought up on war crimes.

From the American perspective, that's a pretty sweet policy.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well I mean there's also the whole issue of the U.S. having an active policy to invade the Hague if any of their military or political leaders are brought up on war crimes.

A couple of things on that. First, it’s not a policy, it is a law and does not say anything you are suggesting. The law (22 USC Ch. 81) prohibits US governments from assisting in the prosecution actions by the ICC, unless a treaty exists to allow for such action (article II, section 2, clause 2 of the US constitution). There are also prohibitions in there for extradition and providing military aid to countries that participate in the ICC, which is most of NATO, so the law is really a paper tiger because military aid flows to NATO in the face of the law. It will be applied only if the President elects to apply the law. Second, it was Bush that signed that law into being. Maybe he had an idea of what was ahead in the future and made sure he had protections.

[GirlySports]

US were racists the way they used two atomic bombs against civilians in Japan and then wiped out civilians in Pyongyang. They probably would have wiped out Hanoi too if not for the threat of nuclear WWIII from Russia and China. All simply because they were ####s. All under Truman.

The US would never bomb Germany or any other European nation like that. Even the Nazis didn't bomb recklessly like this.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

US were racists the way they used two atomic bombs against civilians in Japan and then wiped out civilians in Pyongyang. They probably would have wiped out Hanoi too if not for the threat of nuclear WWIII from Russia and China. All simply because they were ####s. All under Truman.

The US would never bomb Germany or any other European nation like that. Even the Nazis didn't bomb recklessly like this.

What? Wow...I think you need a reality check. Go speak to some Brits that lived during the Blitz.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

US were racists the way they used two atomic bombs against civilians in Japan and then wiped out civilians in Pyongyang. They probably would have wiped out Hanoi too if not for the threat of nuclear WWIII from Russia and China. All simply because they were ####s. All under Truman.

The US would never bomb Germany or any other European nation like that. Even the Nazis didn't bomb recklessly like this.

Have you never heard of Dresden? The US and UK jointly ####ed that city up as bad as any in NK

[KelVarnsen]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

US were racists the way they used two atomic bombs against civilians in Japan and then wiped out civilians in Pyongyang. They probably would have wiped out Hanoi too if not for the threat of nuclear WWIII from Russia and China. All simply because they were ####s. All under Truman.

The US would never bomb Germany or any other European nation like that. Even the Nazis didn't bomb recklessly like this.

They were pretty busy killing millions of Jews.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

What? Wow...I think you need a reality check. Go speak to some Brits that lived during the Blitz.

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Have you never heard of Dresden? The US and UK jointly ####ed that city up as bad as any in NK

As bad as those are I don't think those are comparable to two atomic bombs or full North Korean cities.

Musan – 5%
Najin (Rashin) – 5%
Unggi (Sonbong County) – 5%
Anju – 15%
Sinuiju – 50%
Songjin (Kimchaek) – 50%
Chongju (Chŏngju) – 60%
Kanggye – 60% (reduced from previous estimate of 75%)
Haeju – 75%
Pyongyang – 75%
Kyomipo (Songnim) – 80%
Hamhung (Hamhŭng) – 80%
Chinnampo (Namp'o) – 80%
Wonsan (Wŏnsan) – 80%
Hungnam (Hŭngnam) – 85%
Sunan (Sunan-guyok) – 90%
Sariwon (Sariwŏn) – 95%
Hwangju (Hwangju County) – 97%
Kunu-ri (Kunu-dong) – 100%
Sinanju – 100%

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Itse

Had US not intervened, we most likely would have a much more normal nation than current North Korea somewhere around there.

The amount of collective devastation and trauma caused on the North Vietnames by the UN/US military should not be underestimated. According to many notes, there was no notable building of any kind left in NK by the time it was over. Among the targets were all major dams in the area, which deliberately flooded large parts of agricultural lands, leading a famine that threatened to kill millions if not for the humanitarian aid from other socialist countries. Every city, town and village was a "valid military target" worthy of napalm and firebombings. The bombing was so brutal even the famous humanitarian Winston Churchill criticized it for excessive cruelty. As wikipedia puts it, "Pyongyang, which saw 75 percent of its area destroyed, was so devastated that bombing was halted as there were no longer any worthy targets. By the end of the campaign, US bombers had difficulty in finding targets and were reduced to bombing footbridges or jettisoning their bombs into the sea."

An estimated 12-15% of NK population died during the war.

The bombing of North Korea is right up there with the worst atrocities ever committed by "forces of democracy", and is probably a major reason why the people of that country developed such a twisted relationship to both their own leadership and the outside world.

Of course North Korea was already a totalitarian state who started the war, so there's valid reasons why the UN/US intervened, but the choices made during that intervention were probably extremely harmful to both the longterm reputation of the UN and the US, and the current state of the peninsula.

I can't speak for the rest of the information but Winston Churchill died in 1963, long before the US started bombing N Vietnam

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

US were racists the way they used two atomic bombs against civilians in Japan and then wiped out civilians in Pyongyang. They probably would have wiped out Hanoi too if not for the threat of nuclear WWIII from Russia and China. All simply because they were ####s. All under Truman.

The US would never bomb Germany or any other European nation like that. Even the Nazis didn't bomb recklessly like this.

There's not even a good place to start a rebuttal against this drivel.