Jump to content

The United States of America


Recommended Posts

Do you think the country is, evil (limit your bashing)?

Not your average citizen of course, but the overall country itself.

Many countries (especially in the middle-east) have been severely destabilised by strings of invasions, I recently read where Afghanistan refugees were "abused" in Iran (no specific information), which is targeted by a lot of human rights group, the refugees, is the product of the string of military invasions by the US, the real evil here, embedded in the masses of lies to justify the invasion and massacre of another country.

The business of the US, I find interesting how their tricks have backfired on them (now deep in the debt cycle to China etc.), however, originally, their exploitations is immensely ridiculous.

 

The country is founded, do you no think, from selfishness, and their own huge egos?

The constitution itself, if only you can analyse, is very narcissistic, continuously subliminally referring to the "way they were treated by their own government (aka British)", yet being extremely hypocritical (much more) towards other races.

 

Their public relations and propaganda campaigns were the greatest, including their "smear" campaigns, I even saw a music video before promoting their own country, for immigrants to join, which feels very much like a bait, because when they get there, the natives (technically, not natives, the natives were forced south) immediately complain.

 

I don't know, it feels very much like the country is founded from selfishness and narcissism.

It also begs the question, what group of people will go as far as to rebel over matters as simple as tax rates?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What the US is doing now is no different to what most nations are doing today, most empires and countries have done throughout all history. Every nation is competing fiercely to be on top. If you're looking for a 'good' country, one doesn't exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many countries that don't intervene in foreign affairs.

You can start with the many countries in Europe (Poland, Denmark, Sweden, the typical nice countries etc.), you have more major countries that mind their own businesses as much as possible such as Canada, India etc.

I don't think any other country have caused as much damage as the US in the entire span of recorded human history [from its very birth to WWII to Coldwar (Vietnam etc.) to the "war on terror"].

This is just physical aggression, their politics, their economical structure, their public relations campaigns etc. are still very damaging to others, benefiting to themselves.


I obviously have not made my position clear.

My and many people's problem stem from:

1. The US claims that they are the "greatest" in many aspects continuously, especially in "freedom".

2. They advertise themselves as heroes (for example, taking credit for the defeat of Nazi Germany by the hands of the USSR).

3. They are acting as great hypocrites (hushing their own war crimes continuously, but painting others out).

This, many other countries do not do.


What do you think about the calling of other countries for aggression by the US?
Especially communist countries, it's interesting how they contrast capitalism to communism, and people still think the contrast is correct...

Capitalism is an economical system.

Communism is a social political system.

A dictator ruling a communist country, such an oxymoron.

Edited by AlphaZNV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think the country is, evil (limit your bashing)?

 

 

I don't think any other country have caused as much damage as the US in the entire span of recorded human history

 

 

8491c398f13707437cbb08acc49aa4c08e602826

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the approach.

But, I'm not bashing, just stating aspects and, factual examples supporting different aspects to stimulate a discussion.


Anyone interested in the story of Pocatello of the Shoshone?

He tried so hard to survive and for his people to live, after successfully establishing peace with the United States of America (not Great Britain or the Thirteen Colonies), there are many examples like him. They didn't live, they were just massacred.

 

From America (North and South) to Asia.

Anyone who study US history, at some point, you'd have to think that the US culture is insane, and, the country itself is born from violence.

America (especially 20th century America) have been one of my previous studies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are twisting facts and creating straw men.

 

It was the lack of representation, not the tax itself. Generally speaking taxes increased post Revolution.

 

 

I'm fairly sure I can speak for my fellow Americans on the fact that WW2 was a joint victory as far as the fall of Germany went.

 

Needed Britain to have a safe harbor to offload troops and supplies. Needed the resistance groups to harass German forces and pass on intelligence. Needed Russia opening up a second front. I'm sure I missed groups and sacrifices with the vastness of the conflict, but suffice to say we don't think we were solely responsible.

 

 

If you'll notice a good chunk of our foreign debt is to countries who might otherwise wish to attack us in some fashion. We've been using federal debt as ploy since the country was founded. We've only gotten better at it over the years. When you hold government debt, what you really hold is one end of a two-way leash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The country is founded, do you no think, from selfishness, and their own huge egos?

The constitution itself, if only you can analyse, is very narcissistic, continuously subliminally referring to the "way they were treated by their own government (aka British)", yet being extremely hypocritical (much more) towards other races.

 

 

I don't know, it feels very much like the country is founded from selfishness and narcissism.

It also begs the question, what group of people will go as far as to rebel over matters as simple as tax rates?

 

 

It's hard to reconcile statements about the founding attitudes when the examples being presented are modern-day ones. The revolution was ~240 years ago. Further, I think you are wrong about the constitution — perhaps you could quote specific sections that refer to how they were treated under the British? I think you actually mean the Declaration of Independence, where one would reasonably expect to have many statements about how the colonists were being treated. The constitution contains details of how the government is to be run and what its powers would be. That was certainly influenced by how British rule was carried out, especially in terms of things laid out in the Bill of Rights, but also by state governments that had been running successfully for some time.

 

I can't think of a form of government that existed at the time that was less selfish and narcissistic than a representative democracy. Especially when compared to a monarchy based on divine right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Their public relations and propaganda campaigns were the greatest, including their "smear" campaigns, I even saw a music video before promoting their own country, for immigrants to join, which feels very much like a bait, because when they get there, the natives (technically, not natives, the natives were forced south) immediately complain.

 

Again, every country does this to a certain extent. Tourism is usually the thrust, but I can see where it could promote immigration also. We're not really promoting immigration at the moment, so I wonder how old the video you saw is.

 

I think we've allowed our corporations to run wild. They have too much power in fashioning the legislation that should keep them in check. A big part of this power is because we've allowed the corporations to own the media that should keep us informed. Our media is only telling us what the corporations want us to hear. We get told social medicine is bad because the corporation that owns the radio station also owns some hospitals. We get told AGW is a myth from the company the owns the television station and also owns several companies that would lose profit if they had to comply with tougher emissions regulations. And of course we get told that there are many people like AlphaZNV who think we're evil and hate us.

 

Right now, we're in a nasty situation where wages from the middle class have slowly been funneled to the top 1%, which leaves us with little consumer power. The corporations are always looking to profit, but they've starved us so we're no longer as attractive a market. Our jobs move overseas, costs and prices keep going up higher than wages. The American people want prosperity. The American corporation wants profit. The two are not always compatible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WWII was a USSR victory.

Operation D-Day was a failure, with the annihilation of allied troops on the Normandy beaches, several days of mass allied radio blackouts, weeks - months of the absence of chain of command etc.

 

The Nazis did not anticipate that the USSR would fight a war of attrition, after several months, entering winter, the Nazis suffered severe attrition and logistical failures, their supply lines was actively targeted by USSR generals, which the allied side were unable to formulate and carry out successful strategies. The key of USSR victories, as many military generals and historians would agree, is logistical failures and attrition on part of the Nazis, the causation, by the USSR.

 

You should research the context and history of Fort Knox, to understand the multiple trickeries in economics and international theft of gold reserve.

 

Everything about the US constitution, such as presidency succession, several amendments and "rights", the "law of justice", military action, political management (states separation) etc.

They all seem very righteous and just, which they are, however, as extensively hypocritical, these were not applied to other races or ethnic groups, and to many historians, it would seem very much like a scream of defiance, narcissism and selfishness to their previous government and system. You obviously studied a lot about the treatment of African-Americans in school, so you should understand further the hypocrisy.

 

The analysis:

Declaration of Independence - > Recognition of Independence - > Organisation - > Contradiction - > x

Therefor many historians question the purpose of the constitution (let it be x), and it would seem that it is only drafted for their own selfish purpose.

 

Certain other forms of bureaucracy are quite narcissistic as well, however, they do not attempt to hide it, in fact, some would flaunt it as political show.

If in future, you contrast other examples, usually, the US have one difference, is that they are very keen on deception (you would like examples, the extensive propaganda campaign targeting the USSR during the cold war etc.).


To clarify, I don't hate US citizens.

I am currently discussing US as the country and the actions in history, therefor the grander political analysis, not your average citizen or even the president himself, as it is too insignificant.

Edited by AlphaZNV
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this would be an interesting discussion, one that would lend some foreign perspective on my country, which is something I value highly. However, I'm not interested in correcting misinformation, conspiracy theories or defending myself against historical special pleading, especially when the attack comes from a badly constructed soapbox.

 

Please continue without me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you outline my attacks?


This is not a foreign perspective, this is an analysis and deconstruction of the history of the actions of the US and the consequences, to result in the conclusion of whether or not the country is of negative influence (perhaps the word "evil" was a bit too strong, but I hope you'd understand, with my extensive studies, it's difficult to obtain unbiased sources, whether for or against, concerning the history of the political actions of the US, which says something in itself).

 

Look, the closest I can think of is the British Empire, yet, during the era, the scale was not as large (lesser industrial output, less significant population, longer communication time etc.).

And as the scale becomes larger (especially with the invention of the telegraph), influence becomes much more vast.

Edited by AlphaZNV
Link to post
Share on other sites

You ask if the country is evil while enjoying the freedom to read and post on a US based and American owned forum. Must not be all bad.

 

 

WWII was a USSR victory.

Operation D-Day was a failure, with the annihilation of allied troops on the Normandy beaches, several days of mass allied radio blackouts, weeks - months of the absence of chain of command etc.

 

So, you don't think it may have had some impact on the Soviet's invasion?

 

 

Meh, if you take a look most countries have some sort of sordid history and have utilized deception and propaganda.

 

Soviet propaganda against the US being an obvious example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You ask if the country is evil while enjoying the freedom to read and post on a US based and American owned forum. Must not be all bad.

 

 

 

So, you don't think it may have had some impact on the Soviet's invasion?

 

 

Meh, if you take a look most countries have some sort of sordid history and have utilized deception and propaganda.

 

Soviet propaganda against the US being an obvious example.

if you take a look most countries have some sort of sordid history and have utilized continually use deception and propaganda.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The allies made no impact on the USSR invasion, their achievements are isolated.

For example, the British managed to eliminate a large percentage of Nazi bombers in the Battle of Britain, however, these bombers would be difficult to deploy further east due to logistical managements.

The USSR however, made a huge impact on operation D-Day, as Hitler's stubbornness and his need for the defeat of USSR resulted in the extensive deployment of Nazi troops in the eastern front, which severely lightened the defence on the western front, and of course, many of his men were gone (a wide variety of reason).

 

The US however, did played a major part in the defeat of the Japanese, as after the deployment of 3 and successful deployment of 2 atomic bombs, the emperor reconsidered and, surrendered (which, several military generals advise him not to surrender still, so, the Manhattan project, of the US mainly, was the decisive factor in this case). Perhaps you are confused on the roles of the US in WWII, because against the Nazis, due to the vast ocean and igneous Nazi stratagems / technology etc. (basically, methods), it limited their success.

 

Well... as I mentioned at the beginning of the post, you have the average peaceful countries that have a very limited effort on propaganda, because, they do not need them (Holland, those type of quiet countries).

Propaganda was made extensive by the US and UK during WWI, and to the transition to the cold war era, they have really spend a lot, even on fields such as human behaviourism.

You also have the black budget (please don't try to suggest it's a conspiracy) and so such.

 

In history studies, we need to spend a lot of time distinguishing sources, such as primary and secondary, origin and timeline, author and indicated purposes etc.

The US, after years, I have dug through the most propaganda materials out of any other country in contrast to all others in recorded history.

 

Their influence is the greatest, negatively and positively. If you'd like to discuss their positive influence, go ahead, because, obviously a forum with many US citizens, you do not like to discuss their negative influence.

Again, I am not targeting anybody, but the country itself, of its history and its action, and its consequences.

I can't think of a word to describe, however, the closest I can, is that I am just starting a discussion on the negative influence of US culture, and there is also much positive.

Edited by AlphaZNV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to stop and take stock of your argument; also to consider where you are posting. This is a science site - and even (especially?) in the politics and other non-scientific fora we like to maintain a strict requirement for evidence and references. Your historical claims are controversial, need citations, and require proper academic sourcing. There are many great and scholarly works written carefully and containing meticulous research - please link, reference or quote some of these to support your outlandish claims.

 

You re-iterate that you are not intending to insult - perhaps you should moderate your language and make only claims that can be well sourced and defended. For your guidance, and based on my own perspective, the diminution or complete denial of a country's sacrifice in the second world war is something that requires great delicacy; your posts so far do not show the the required sensitivity and disinterested nature. If you wish to have a discussion about the deaths in war and the millions of men and women who died in the second world war then open another thread - the relative effect of the eastern and western fronts is not an uncontested fact that can be used to bolster another argument; it is a new discussion all by itself.

 

Your posts are reading as an anti-American polemic - and a naive one at that. I don't think many posters here would disagree with the assertion that the United States of America has its faults - but then add that no sane person would claim that any country is without faults. You obviously haven't even take the time to look at the other posts in the politics forum: "obviously a forum with many US citizens, you do not like to discuss their negative influence" you write this, but look at the other posts here, the vast majority are discussing negative issues in the USA.

 

I visited both America and the Soviet Union during and after the cold war - and I cannot believe that anyone who visited and engaged with both those cultures prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall could honestly say that the USA was the more repressed by ideology and propaganda. I am not going to blindly defend the United State as I agree they are many problems - Snowden's revalations have recently highlighted another - but if we are going to have this discussion please can we make it based on facts, well referenced history, and provable statements and not mere vilification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Hitler needed to reinforce the eastern front against the USSR from pulling troops in all other locations (such as from North Africa etc.) is not a discussion, but a recognised fact.

 

G.I. Krivosheev - Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses.

Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke - spravochnik

William J. Duiker 2009 - Contemporary World History

Bonfate, Jordan 2008 - Remembering a Red Flag Day

Geoffrey A. Hosking 2006 - Rules and victims: the Russians in the Soviet Union.

 

There are much more sources, magnitudes more, however, you and I both do not have access to them, these are the much more mainstream, which all agrees that the eastern front of the Nazis, approximation of 80% lost of the Nazi army in the eastern front. Approximation of 10% > x > 20% / x > 10% of Nazis in the western front, which, the allies suffered approximation 12,000 casualties, and the Nazis suffered approximation 4000 > x > 9000. Forces, 150,000 allied forces, Nazi, 10,000, outnumbered 15 times and yet, recurring sources shows that they were able to annihilate allied forces.

 

Location - D-Day Museum.


Thomas Howell, The Writers' War Board: U.S. Domestic Propaganda in World War II.

 

Operation Mockingbird

Katherine the Great: Katherine Graham and her Washington Post Empire

David Wise and Thomas Ross 1964 - Invisible Government.

 

Allan Winkler, The Politics of Propaganda: Office of War Information, 1942-1945

Organisation - Writer's War Board

Robert Heide and John Gilman, Home Front America: Popular Culture of the World War II Era

 

 

Priority: WikiLeaks (Founder Julian Assange) - Hundreds - Thousands of classified information containing psychological operations, propaganda campaign, social behaviour modification, Black Budget etc. of the US.

 

The scale is beyond any country have ever achieved. One of the sources provided, estimate a total of 200,000 propaganda posters (excluding other mediums) in a span over 2 - 3 years, of the US.


Look, I've done the studies.

In history studies, on occasions, we are told to do our own research, and to obtain several sources concerning the same topic, but determining their accuracy, their bias, the scale and cost (if project) etc., therefor to determine the true situation.

As repeated, no other countries I or others have looked at, can amount to the level of propaganda by the US.

 

Many sources (tens of thousands) are located at various locations in prestige universities, I can only provide you a limitation.


You keep indicating assertions, which you should stop.

 

I never claimed that other countries do not have its faults.

 

If you want to discuss on the politics and history of the USSR or France, I'm glad to do so, but in another thread.

 

I did not say that the allied (not just the US) occupation of western Germany is more repressed than the eastern front, as this is not true history.

 

Snowden's "revelations" were no revelations, as Putin puts it, "There's nothing you leaked that we didn't know before."

 

I'm a HK citizen, he have been to HK before to prevent being detained and, subjected to court, and I've seen him giving speeches, surrounded by protestors.


Thomas Jefferson - "All men are created equal."

 

"But in the mean time are you right in abandoning this property, and your country with it? I think not. My opinion has ever been that, until more can be done for tem, we should endeavour, with those whom fortune has thrown on ours hands, to feed and clothe them well, protect them from all ill usage, require such reasonable labor only as is performed voluntarily by freemen, and be led by no repugnancies to abdicate them, and our duties to them."

 

Bateman, Newton; Paul Selby, Henry L Fowkes 1908.

Historical Encyclopaedia of IIIInois. Chicago, IL; Munsell Publishing Company.

 

So, what does that mean? There are many interpretations of course. This is a heavier indicator of Jefferson's own selfishness for his own satisfaction, and the hypocrisy of the foundation of the country.

Edited by AlphaZNV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right about the predominant Soviet role in defeating Hitler, wrong about the D-Day invasion being a "disaster" (the Americans beat the Soviets to Berlin, after all).

 

Right about the severe maltreatment of the conquered Red tribes, wrong about it being unique or even especially severe in the US (The Spanish put them to slave labor, the British and Dutch and Portugese and French put their lot to forced labor, the Tasmanians hunted theirs for sport).

 

And so forth. Why are your errors and misconceptions concentrated in your account of the US?

 

 

 

This is a heavier indicator of Jefferson's own selfishness for his own satisfaction, and the hypocrisy of the foundation of the country.
Hypocrisy was a step up from the standard of the time - a radical and ultimately dominating step up. Professing ideals better than one's practice is one way to accomplish improvement - especially if, as was the case, they are enshrined in law, given the full backing of publicly declared allegiance and the option of invoking the power of the State.

 

 

 

It also begs the question, what group of people will go as far as to rebel over matters as simple as tax rates?
Better people than those who won't.

 

 

 

The US, after years, I have dug through the most propaganda materials out of any other country in contrast to all others in recorded history.
That's because, as you pointed out, it's necessary - you have to get support from ordinary people (or at least deflect their opposition) to do the empire stuff, in the US. You have to do it case by case, year by year, each phase in conflict with a stubborn and resurgent reality that has access to most US citizens. That's a lot of counterfactual propaganda, where a government like China's or Russia's or the UK's at the time of the American colonization doesn't need nearly so much, either in countering stubbornly persistent countervailing information or in persuading/deceiving people who actually have a choice in whether or not to support them in their various oppressions and corruptions.

 

btw:

 

It was the lack of representation, not the tax itself. Generally speaking taxes increased post Revolution.
The immediate problem was a recent tax break given to a large multinational corporation.

 

Back then, when big corporations and wealthy people got tax breaks regular people did not get, the wrongness of the situation was recgonized - the rioters in Boston did not limit themselves to dumping some tea in the harbor: they burned the houses of certain of the rich, vandalilzed corporate and financial headquarters, assaulted wealthy people caught out on the street, and so forth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In February, the Soviets invaded Silesia and Pomerania, while Western Allies entered Western Germany and closed to the Rhine river. By March, the Western Allies crossed the Rhine north and south of the Ruhr, encircling the German Army Group B, while the Soviets advanced to Vienna. In early April, the Western Allies finally pushed forward in Italy and swept across Western Germany, while Soviet and Polish forces stormed Berlin in late April. The American and Soviet forces linked up on Elbe river on 25 April. On 30 April 1945, the Reichstag was captured, signalling the military defeat of the Third Reich.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

 

It is remarkably ignorant to claim that the victory was solely dependent upon any one country.

 

 

 

If Jefferson didn't consider non-white males "men", then Jefferson's quotes are entirely self consistent. He did end up freeing slaves and allowing some to "escape" but he also kept a number. He may or may not have had offspring by one of his slaves. He was conflicted on the issue like many others in his day were.

 

 

The country and world have changed since then. We still have a ways to go before we all live in liberty and treat the next man as our brother, but we are making progress.

 

edit:

 

 

The immediate problem was a recent tax break given to a large multinational corporation.

 

Back then, when big corporations and wealthy people got tax breaks regular people did not get, the wrongness of the situation was recgonized - the rioters in Boston did not limit themselves to dumping some tea in the harbor: they burned the houses of certain of the rich, vandalilzed corporate and financial headquarters, assaulted wealthy people caught out on the street, and so forth.

 

I was mainly thinking the Townshend taxes and the Stamp Act.

 

 

The reasoning behind the taxes was justified. The lack of say in how much was taken or how the taxes were utilized was the issue.

 

 

 

Edited by Endy0816
Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently provided a limitation of sources which shows the analysis and breakdown of the annihilation of allied troops by the Nazis, and yes, it is entirely an USSR victory, as 80% (by approximation) of Nazi casualties is in the eastern front (largely by the hands of USSR strategic movements). It is very likely that less than 10% is deployed in the western front, as the sources, however, their numbers lessened and were to counter-manoeuver USSR movements as several USSR regiments advanced (up to hundreds) at a very rapid speed.

 

The USSR have beaten the allies to Berlin, not the other way round. Would you find it insulting if I suggest that this is the product of US cultural influence on your part?

Ziemke, Earl F. Battle for Berlin: End of the Third Reich

NY: Ballantine Books

London: Macdonald And Co. [1969]

LeTissier, Tony, Race for the Reichstage: The 1945 Battle for Berlin [1999]


I never said that the maltreatment of the native Americans is unique only to the US.

The statement is to add more information on the grand negative influence of the US.


Now, if you'd look at Google Maps (currently with the most accurate calculations for accurate proportions available to the public, which I know of), the displacement between Moscow and Berlin is at approximately 300% of the displacement between Normandy and Berlin. So, please refer from nationalism when discussing history and politics.


Operation Barbarossa, the largest invasion force in the entire span of recorded history, was effectively worn out by attrition and, eliminated an extensive percentage (over 80%, high estimates to 95%) of the Nazis. The operation was the invasion of the USSR.

Peter Anthill, Peter Dennis. Stalingrad 1942 [2007]

 

I don't want to write essays on military strategies employed by the USSR which, were successfully executed against the Nazis, as I have done this numerous times before in my studies.

Edited by AlphaZNV
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.