to Toad
>>Then you once again prove you don't know very much. The Native Americans were never a "nation"; they were independent tribes that engaged in warfare with each other.
And maybe you say to me that there is no such things as asian culture, only Japan, China, Korea, Mongolia cultures? Each by their own? And there is no african culture at all? So, you said, there is no Indian culture and indian nation at all, only "independent tribes", yes?
>>They were not wiped out either. There are 336 Federally recognized tribal entities in the US.
LOL. If there would 10.000 americans alive - can you say that american culture still exist?
>>The worst Indian massacre was either Sand Creek or Wounded Knee; about 200 killed at each.
Americans don`t have cassete bombs at that time, I suppose. If you had it, you wiped out all indians in two weeks, yes?
>>Poland's defense was dead when the Soviets stabbed them in the back while the Poles were fighting Nazis to their front.
Ouh. If this not happened, then brave polaks was stoped faschist invasion to USSR, yes? :-)
>>Unlike the Poles that the Soviets murdered, the Japanese had not surrendered.
They surrender the day after! *Not because of bombing*! Their army was dead. There was no reason to bobm them. It`s a like one boxer slain another with a knive after knockauting them. Butchering.
So, if you bombard Japan two days later, then this fact would be a most cruel action is WWII. But if goes in time - there is no blame for you for butchering, yes? 8-()
And you bombard CIVILIANS! Why you blame Soviet for killing German civilians then? Your nation slaughter (I mean, melted) much more of them.
>> It was also Gorbachev and Putin.
If one president say this, others must accept this. Main rule of foreign politic.
>>The economy and infrastructure of both Afghanistan and Iraq are being rebuilt far better than they ever were.
Yeah, `till they have oil to pay you for repair destruction you did...
>>This is particularly true of Afghanistan which really suffered under Russian occupation.
LOL
>>Do a web search and look at how many parties ran for election in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Yes, they exist. They even exist in election list. But they never be ellected till USA forces are in the country.
>>Further look at the UN's report on those elections.. and the UN isn't too fond of the US.
You forgot about sues of UN workers for "oil for food" program? UN discredited itself in the eyes of most europian counties.
>>Show proof that the US killed thousands of children. Let's see it.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2003/11/12/british_group_puts_iraq_casualty_toll_at_21700_to_55000/On 12 november 2003 there was 13500-45000 civil casualities. Even if 10% of them are childrens - then it more than thousand. And when USA drop cassete bombs on Iraq, I think they not aim to mans older than 30 only.
Now casualities is much more 50000, I suppose. So, there is about 5000-10000 of dead childrens (10%-20% of society). Some of them was killed directly. Others die cause of injury (USA destroy most of the hospitals in Iraq).
[EDIT]
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/names.htm>> At least 618 of the dead whose ages are known were less than 18 years old, and 64 were babies no more than two years old.
It`s only named and identified. Now found ~15.000 by this site opinion (found, not total). Identificated - 2,737. 25% of all identificated bodies - childrens. So whole number of found childrens is about 15000*25%=3750.
Also check this:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_feb0704.htmAnd take this one too:
So far, in the "war on terror" initiated since 9-11, the USA and its allies have been responsible for over 13,000 civilian deaths, not only the 10,000+ in Iraq, but also 3,000+ civilian deaths in Afghanistan, another death toll that continues to rise long after the world's attention has moved on.
Elsewhere in the world over the same period, paramilitary forces hostile to the USA have killed 408 civilians in 18 attacks worldwide (see Table 1). Adding the official 9-11 death toll (as of October 29th 2003) brings the total to just under 3500.
Liberation, you said, yeah?
>>For each civilian killed by "terrorists" on and since 9-11, the USA and its allies have brought about almost four non-combatant, civilian deaths in return.
A blind barbarian rage?
You ask me why I compare americans and nazi? Take this:
>><...>At the heart of all these tactics is an implicit double standard which values the life of a Westerner – whose death is always worth recording and investigating – far above the life of an Arab or Asian, whose death is of scant interest or concern.
>>Howard Dean, who is dubbed by some commentators as an "anti-war" candidate for the presidency, distinguished himself in a speech in Iowa on November 3rd by saying: "There are now almost 400 people dead who wouldn't be dead if that resolution hadn't been passed and we hadn't gone to war."
>>The implication of Dean's statement (that only the 400 killed coalition forces are "people", and that therefore the thousands of killed Iraqis are sub-human and not worthy of mention), should bar him from ever holding office in any civilised nation.
Killing of german civilians wasn`t right?
>>Just one Iraqi civilian death is horrible blood on our hands given that the attack on Iraq appears to have been based on a lie. Yes, Saddam Hussein killed thousands of his own people. But an American massacre does not make things right.
And your words were:
>>Then the performed the equivalent of "killing his wife and son" which was barbaric. They sank to the same level of barbarity as the Nazis.
Americans is the same level of barbarity as Saddam was. It`s by your own words.
