Hmm, really evil foreign policy. I mean, invading Europe in 1944, killing all those nice Germans. What did they think they were up to? Why couldn't they keep their noses of other people's business? Then they got and form that nasty imperialist NATO. Dreadful orgnaisation. I mean, when the Cold war ended, countries left by the droves [factchecker: no, they've been joining. ooops. forget that one then]. And then the nasty Korean War. The part backed by the US, that poverty stricken, downtrodden repressed South Korea [oops, that's North Korea. Forget that one them]. And the temerity to fight in Vietnam. They were thrown out. Hurray! The wonderful People's Republic of Vietnam, so wonderful that millions fled. Heard of the boat people? Ah, the dispossessed borgeois. Millions of them? Let's move on ... Cuba and castro. Wonderful place, Cuba. that's why millions are fleeing the Cancer of the World by any means possible so as to get to the socialist paradise. Florida is now empty [factchecker: no, it's not. It's full of Cubans. Wonder why that is? Ah, the dispossessed bourgeousie again. Millions of them. Moving on then ...]

Try lsiting the millions - literally millions of people - fleeing regimes opposed by the US, and then try listing the non existent millions fleeing from regimes supported by the US.

Sorry, I'm no fan of the US government, but Anti-Americanism really pisses me off. (and I mean real Anti-Americanism like this stupid picture, not the kind where you oppose the war and holding suspects without trial and you're called an Anti-American Islamofacist Apologist by Neo-Cons)

America has caused a lot of pain and suffering. A LOT. But name one country that hasn't. There is no such thing as a perfect country.

You are a typical racist, blame one section for the all the problems of the world, even tho there are many nations at war, fighting over land, religion and politics, and there are murderers, thieves, drug pushers and violent louts who cause misery within countries, acting independently of the George W Bush.

There is no difference between you and the BNP bastards you pick on Islam, even tho Christians, Jews, Atheists and Agnostics cause a lot of trouble, too.

As usual a totally crap cartoon, but at least there aren't any Der Stürmer-style diabolical Jews in this one, like you normally get with "Latuff". Or are those Stars of David on the US flag? So who produces more offensive cartoons, Latuff or Jylands Posten? And compare and contrast the reactions of the targets. Guess it's a civilisational thing.

The big news today is that it would take three earths to sustain globally a British standard of living.
It would take 33 earths to sustain an 'american' standard of living.

Typical canards of the apologists, the US did not invade Europe to liberate us from the nazis. US investment declined in every european country after 1933 except nazi germany where it quadrupled by the war. The US only invaded to counter the illusory 'Soviet threat', and as to countries joining Nato post Soviet Union, the same would have been true of the Warsaw pact should US imperialism have collapsed first.

>Try lsiting the millions - literally millions of people - fleeing regimes opposed by the US, and then try listing the non existent millions fleeing from regimes supported by the US.

Like the refugees in Iraq ? Like the Vietnamese boat people ? Like the displaced chechyans ? Like the imprisoned palestinians ? Like the vast numbers of economic migrants forced to move world-bank policies ? No, they are invisible aren't they ?


>America has caused a lot of pain and suffering. A LOT. But name one country that hasn't.

Lapland. What a ridiculous argument. Ian Huntly killed a couple of children but name one man who hasn't. Mindless sycophancy. If you want to be a US propagandiser then why not emigrate there for your intelligence won't be missed here.

All due respect to the ordinary american patriots who realise they are being lied to, I do love the country but you have to hate the state.

'the US did not invade Europe to liberate us from the nazis'

Right. I see. They invested all that money in the Third Reich just so their Flying Fortesses could blow it to pieces. Nice one. Tell us, just why did America participate in D Day?

Ah, don't tell me. So as to counter the 'Soviet threat'. In which case, why did America supply Russia with very large quantities of munitions? Arming your enemy - nice one. Ah, no, tell us - 'the military industrial complex'. Oh, I see.

The comments attacking Latuff would already have been hidden if they instead had been attacking a supporter of Israel glorifying the slaughter of 500,000+ humans in Iraq (like a certain Guardian 'journalist' that comes to mind). It is funny how certain 'left-wing' sites are so magically tolerant of ultra-right-wing comment, but supress most powerful left-wing comment. Of course, Blair's New Reich followers will often post a crude and 'racist' early comment pretending to be 'anti' so certain people have an excuse to censor any 'dangerous' comment that follows.

The US is a cancer, of this there is no doubt. It is a cancer of our creation, since the US is very much a British project.

Prior to the last few years, most would have considered the cancer relatively benign. However, the rise of the Neocons, as allies and suporters of Blair, has changed all that. It is now official US policy to dominate the whole of planet Earth. This means:

-the ability to strike any place on the Earth within hours of that desire.
-the ability to dominate space, including the EXCLUSIVE use of space for US weapon systems
-the creation of an annual military budget greater than that of the rest of the world combined
-the removal of US military, politicians, and citizens from ANY and ALL forms of global justice.
-the inclusion of any non-US citizen in the system of US 'justice'
-the active research and creation of new chemical, genetic, and nuclear weapons systems
-the active elimination of M.A.D (mutually assured destruction) by creating the situation where the US can safely deploy ANY weapon system without risk to itself.
-the forced control of Mass Media messages carried by EVERY nation
-the use of the ENTIRE resources of the Earth to be given firstly to the US, the rest of the world receiving ONLY that which the US permits.
-the right of the US to use ANY system of lies or propaganda to target groups of humans in order to benefit the US in any way they see fit.
-the understanding that the value of an American life is worth many thousands of times that of any other Human, unless the US says otherwise.
-the understanding that there is no limit to how many none US-civilians can be slaughtered in order to protect ONE American life.
-the understanding that ANY freedoms the US claims are valuable to its citizens are NOT to be considered valuable to any other person on the Earth, unless the US says otherwise.

At this moment in our history, the US is a malignant cancer that will soon murder tens of millions if we are lucky, and billions if we are not. All cancers have a trigger, and the name of this cancer's trigger is BLAIR. No Blair, and the cancer that is the US would have continued to remain mostly benign.

"They invested all that money in the Third Reich just so their Flying Fortesses could blow it to pieces."
Exactly, and then they got paid to rebuild them. From a business point of view, war is a win-win situation. You seem to confuse US based business interests with US foriegn policy - an understandable error given their close convergence.

"So as to counter the 'Soviet threat'. In which case, why did America supply Russia with very large quantities of munitions?"
So as to keep them fighting. All dominant empires get foriegners to do their dying for them. The US was mainly just a arms-dealer in the Soviet-German war.

I'm guessing you really believe the Hollywood WWII myths. So why did the US not declare war on Nazi Germany until they were attacked if it was a war of principle ? Why did they redirect their investment in the rest of Europe towards Nazi Germany until they were attacked ? And why did the allies not suffer similar death rates if they were all in the same fight ? The US suffered only 2% of allied casualties, the same as Britain and Poland. Yet China suffered 25% and the Soviet Union 65%.

You know that IBM supplied the business machinery for the holocaust ?  http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com

"Unlike the other countries in Europe in 1936, Nazi Germany was doing well, thanks in part to American investment capital. Many American businessmen, led by auto maker Henry Ford, supported Hitler and his Fascist form of government. Other prominent Americans who supported Hitler included Joseph P. Kennedy (the father of President John F. Kennedy), and Prescott Bush (the grandfather of President George W. Bush)."
 http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Sachsenhausen/introduction.html

"They invested all that money in the Third Reich just so their Flying Fortesses could blow it to pieces. Nice one."

Of course Ford profited four times over - by supplying Hitler, by supplying the US, by rebuilding Germany and by recieving compensation for their German assets being destroyed. Much like the same companies who paid for Saddams rule of terror were later paid for munitions to overthrow him, and then awarded contracts to rebuild Iraq. War is a nice little earner for the powerful elite who initiate hostilities.

"26 Feb 1974 A U.S. Senate report reveals Ford Motor's involvement in Nazi Germany's war efforts, for which CEO Henry Ford received the Grand Cross of the German Eagle from Adolf Hitler himself. After the war, the car company was paid nearly $1M reparation by the U.S. government to compensate for one of its plants that was bombed within the Reich."

Twilight is actually Alistair Campbell?

"sceptic" the Fascist Stooge Plant has to insult, mock, and Distract, because he cannot argue the facts?

Yes, I am pretty sure the fact that I have no house and I am unemployed in London has a lot to do with the United States

Right, so Ford invests in Germany knowing their factories will be blown up so that they can rebuild them. Why the fuck bother? Firms like Ford prosper when people have disposable income - and there was precious little of that left in Germany in 1945. And of course Ford told Roosevelt when to declare war ... no, don't tell me, they had an inside track on Pearl Harbor ...

Arms dealer? No, they gave them away to Russia.

I'll agree Ford and Kennedy were proGerman - now tell me, how did Kennedy benefit? Apart from losing his eldest son?

Of course the Russians and Chinese had the greatest casualties. the Chinese because the Japanese slaughtered them en masse. The Russians because of their tactics, and again because the Germans weren't that keen on taking prisoners.

Why didn't America attack? Ever heard of isolationism?

Nazi Germany's economic success in the late 30s was classic Keynesism reflation - build autobahns, build up the navy and airforce. It had bugger all to do with Ford.

Nice theory indeed. I am quoting facts and you are responding with obfuscation - not an indicator of true belief in your argument. You are a cheerleader for Hollywood revisionism.


>Right, so Ford invests in Germany knowing their factories will be blown up so that they can rebuild them. Why the fuck bother?

Money. They get paid to build and operate them, then they get compensated when they are destroyed by other war-machinery they have been paid to build.

>Firms like Ford prosper when people have disposable income - and there was precious little of that left in Germany in 1945.

Firms like Ford prosper regardless of whether anyone has disposable income, as the depression surely proved even before the war-profiteering.

>And of course Ford told Roosevelt when to declare war ... no, don't tell me, they had an inside track on Pearl Harbor ...

No, Ford backed Hitler to the hilt and wouldn't personally have chosen declaring war on the Nazis, but was smart enough to profit either way.

>Arms dealer? No, they gave them away to Russia.

No, they sold the arms to the USSR under the Loan/lease scheme similar - though less favourable to the 'aid' that bankrupt the British empire. So they helped arm Germany for money, then helped arm their victims, for money. (You should read 'Feeding the Bear: American Aid to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945' for more details of this great US 'altruism' )

>I'll agree Ford and Kennedy were proGerman - now tell me, how did Kennedy benefit? Apart from losing his eldest son?

Financially and politically. Mafia crook Kennedy became a national political figure through his war-profiteering.

>Of course the Russians and Chinese had the greatest casualties. the Chinese because the Japanese slaughtered them en masse. The Russians because of their tactics, and again because the Germans weren't that keen on taking prisoners.

Sorry, if that is the level of your understanding then there is little point in trying to educate you from scratch.

>Why didn't America attack? Ever heard of isolationism?

Ever heard of the unicorn ? When was the US ever isolationist ? Before the war - when they were expanding their empire to the far side of the pacific ?

>Nazi Germany's economic success in the late 30s was classic Keynesism reflation - build autobahns, build up the navy and airforce. It had bugger all to do with Ford.

That is an obvious lie since Ford, amongst many US industrialists, supported the Nazis politically and invested heavily in their economy. And most economies prosper breifly when they employ slave-labour.

JFKs older war hero brother is as much a myth as JFK is now. His father made his money racketeering during world war one, enriched further by gangsterism during prohibition, and a red, white and blue investor in nazi germany during world war two. His son, the heir-apparent, died fighting that war, but he was hardly an innocent sacrificed by his fathers immoral dynastic ambitions.

Like his father, Joe Jr. admired Adolf Hitler. Young Joe had come away impressed by Nazi rhetoric after traveling in Germany as a student in 1934. Writing at the time, Joe applauded Hitler's insight in realizing the German people's "need of a common enemy, someone of whom to make the goat. Someone, by whose riddance the Germans would feel they had cast out the cause of their predicament. It was excellent psychology, and it was too bad that it had to be done to the Jews. The dislike of the Jews, however, was well-founded. They were at the heads of all big business, in law etc. It is all to their credit for them to get so far, but their methods had been quite unscrupulous ... the lawyers and prominent judges were Jews, and if you had a case against a Jew, you were nearly always sure to lose it. ... As far as the brutality is concerned, it must have been necessary to use some ... ."

 http://hnn.us/articles/697.html

Ford built tanks for the Nazis
And the Nazis used those tanks
To kill off lots of soldiers
In the U.S. Army ranks
Yes, Henry Ford was a fascist
And a nasty one was he
He'd build tanks for anyone
For the proper fee

Henry Ford spoke to his lackeys
And he said, "isn't this great?
"We'll attack our enemies
"And we'll retaliate!"
Henry Ford was a fascist
And a cunning liar, too
A brownshirt with a swastika
Draped in red, white and blue

Henry Ford spoke to his workers
And he said, "you dare not strike!
"You must be patriotic
"And take on my Third Reich!"
Yes, Henry Ford was a fascist
And he had not a care
About the dying soldiers
That made him a billionaire

Ford built tanks for the Nazis
And he built many more
To kill off lots of peasants
In Peru and Salvador
Yes, Henry Ford was a fascist
I heard that when he died
The last words to leave his lips
Was "arbeit macht frei"

The dollar was his icon
On whichever shore
And Henry's only motto
Was "make money and make war"
Yes, Henry Ford was a fascist
That's all I have to say
I will spit on Henry's rotting grave
Until my dying day

 http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-rroot540.html
From France to Russia, anti-Semitic and nationalist groups eagerly bought up the publications of the famous American. A prominent Jewish attorney, after completing a world tour in the mid-1920s, stated that he had seen the brochures in the "most remote corners of the earth." He maintained that, "but for the authority of the Ford name, they would have never seen the light of day and would have been quite harmless if they had. With that magic name they spread like wildfire and became the Bible of every anti-Semite."
If The International Jew was the Bible, then to the Nazis Henry Ford must have seemed like a god. His anti-Semitic publications led many Germans to become Nazis. Baldur von Schirach, leader of the Hitler Youth movement, stated at the postwar Nuremberg War Crimes Trials that he had become an anti-Semite at the age of seventeen after reading The Eternal Jew (title of The International Jew translated for the German editions). "You have no idea what a great influence this book had on the thinking of German youth," von Schirach said. "The younger generation looked with envy to the symbols of success and prosperity like Henry Ford, and if he said the Jews were to blame, why naturally we believed him." One of Hitler's lieutenants, Christian Weber, boasted that Ford would be "received like a King" if he ever came to Munich.
Hitler's admiration for the auto magnate, the New York Times reported, was made obvious by the large picture of Henry Ford on the wall beside Hitler's desk in the Brown House. In an adjoining room there was a large table covered with books, most of which were copies of the German translation of The International Jew.
When news of the Jewish boycotts reached the Nazis, Hitler declared that "the struggle of international Jewish finance against Ford has only strengthened the sympathies of the National Socialist Party for Ford and has given the broadest circulation to his book, The International Jew." And in 1923, when Hitler learned that Ford might run for President, he said, according to the Chicago Tribune, "I wish that I could send some of my shock troops to Chicago and other big American cities to help in the elections.... We look to Heinrich Ford as the leader of the growing Fascist movement in America.... We have just had his anti-Jewish articles translated and published. The book is being circulated to millions throughout Germany."
...Not only did Hitler specifically praise Henry Ford in Mein Kampf, but many of Hitler's ideas were also a direct reflection of Ford's racist philosophy. There is a great similarity between The International Jew and Hitler's Mein Kampf, and some passages are so identical that it has been said that Hitler copied directly from Ford's publication.* Hitler also read Ford's autobiography, My Life and Work, which was published in 1922 and was a best seller in Germany, as well as Ford's book entitled Today and Tomorrow. There can be no doubt as to the influence of Henry Ford's ideas on Hitler. Not only do Hitler's writings and practices reflect The International Jew, but one of his closest associates, Dietrich Eckart, specifically mentioned the Protocols [of the Learned Elders of Zion] and The International Jew as sources of inspiration for the Nazi leader.

Cooperation if not outright collaboration with the Nazis was the rule for many transnational corporations with a stake in Germany and has been the subject of extensive research...The case of Coca-Cola thus goes beyond mere collaboration: before Hitler decreed the Principle of Leadership (Fuehreprinzip) in industry, which replaced collective bargaining by handing dictatorial powers to company directors, the Coca-Cola GmbH was already dominated by its own authoritarian leader. Company and government interests subsequently overlapped: the Nazis regarded mass-production and mass-consumption as crucial building blocks of their new society. Coca-Cola's modern means of producing a uniform product could have only impressed them. Similar things can be said about Coke's advertising strategy, which again reflected values central to the National-Socialist society...Given this overtly enthusiastic embrace of the Nazis, the fact that the Coca-Cola GmbH survived the oncoming war seems more a logical conclusion to this paper than a surprise in need of an explanation. Despite all the difficulties inherent in Coke's rise, by the time war broke out, Coke's situation was so secure that Max Keith could get himself "appointed to the Office of Enemy Property to supervise all soft drink plants, both in Germany and the captured teritory. As German troops overran Europe, Keith and Oppenhof followed, assisting and taking over the Coca-Cola businesses in Italy, France, Holland, Luxembourg, Belgium and Norway." Even that the war had cut off the supply of 7X and Merchandise #5 proved unimportant. Keith and his men countered by inventing Fanta to see them through the war, and thus created a success that still reverberates throughout the corners of the world where local bottling companies fill Fanta bottles. Although it must be noted in all fairness that the Coca- Cola GmbH only in rare instances directly endorsed the Nazis, it is still a fact that the Coca-Cola GmbH went beyond mere opportunism to stay alive. Coca-Cola was part of the Nazi state. Should this paper have proven inadequate in pointing this out, plenty of other sources can. The survivors of the forced labourers kidnapped from the conquered territories will testify to that. Some of them were sent to work for Max Keith's Coca-Cola GmbH.  http://xroads.virginia.edu/~class/coke/coke2.html



Coke ads deliberately sought the close contact to the men in power. This meant that when the cover of a magazine sported a picture of the Fuehrer, chances were good that a Coke advertisement would grace the back of that cover. Even when visitors streamed into the Sportpalast to listen to one of Dr. Goebbels' infamous speeches, they had to pass by a large billboard urging them to drink "Coca-Cola eiskalt."

Max Keith left out no opportunity to ingratiate himself with Germany's leaders. Coca-Cola was one of the three official beverage sponsors with a Getraenkedienst (beverage service) at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, and thus participated in an event the Nazis deliberately exploited to celebrate Germany's return to power and status...

The strategy of direct association with Nazi-leaders or of lending support to events propagandized by nazi-ideology sent a powerful subliminal message to both consumers and government by signaling that Coca-Cola was on Germany's side... in the October 1938 issue of the army-magazine Die Wehrmacht printed up to celebrate the annexation of the Sudetenland. In this (unfortunately unavailable) ad, Hans- Dieter Schaefer reports that a hand holds out a Coke bottle in front of a world map underlined by the caption Ja, Coca-Cola hat Weltruf (Yes, Coca-Cola enjoys international reputation) that goes on stating that `of the forty million automobilists from all over the world increasing attention is demanded,' which is the reason why they 'like to take advantage of the "pause that refreshes."'

Given this overtly enthusiastic embrace of the Nazis, the fact that the Coca-Cola GmbH survived the oncoming war seems more a logical conclusion to this paper than a surprise in need of an explanation. Despite all the difficulties inherent in Coke's rise, by the time war broke out, Coke's situation was so secure that Max Keith could get himself "appointed to the Office of Enemy Property to supervise all soft drink plants, both in Germany and the captured teritory. As German troops overran Europe, Keith and Oppenhof followed, assisting and taking over the Coca-Cola businesses in Italy, France, Holland, Luxembourg, Belgium and Norway." Even that the war had cut off the supply of 7X and Merchandise #5 proved unimportant. Keith and his men countered by inventing Fanta to see them through the war, and thus created a success that still reverberates throughout the corners of the world where local bottling companies fill Fanta bottles.  http://ubersite.com/m/26514

">Of course the Russians and Chinese had the greatest casualties. the Chinese because the Japanese slaughtered them en masse. The Russians because of their tactics, and again because the Germans weren't that keen on taking prisoners.

Sorry, if that is the level of your understanding then there is little point in trying to educate you from scratch. "

You don't believe that the Russians threw in hopelessly armed troops? You think the Germans were too squeamish to dispose of most of their prisoners? You don't think the Japanese massacred anyone? Your ignorance of recent history is astonishing.

Then given the intellectual level of most of your arguments, it's not surprising. The Americans declared war on Germany so that Mr Ford could make some more trucks and cars. Right. Well, as they say, if you believe that, you can believe anything. And you obviously do.

Sceptic, you hide behind false scepticism and false expertise so it is hard to take you seriously, forgive me. 'What a sorry excuse for a pretence of intelligent free-thought' is the natural.reaction to reading your reactionary nonsense, but luckily I have facts where you only have insults.

So, lot's of Chinese died because the Japanese slaughtered them, and lots of Russians died because the Germans slaughtered them ? Amazing. You surpass yourself in your insights and I applaud your intellect. Who else could have drawn such lessons from World War Two and yet make them seem so simple in retrospect, please give this man the Nobel Prize for the Bleeding Obvious.

Yet you fail to understand that US business interests profitted both from building up the Nazi war machine and from knocking it down afterwards, that equally simple fact just doesn't fit in your carefully conditioned world view. Americans as baddies ? Does not compute, danger Will Robinson, danger. And failing to learn that particular lesson from history, you fail to see who profitted from building Saddam up only to knock him down. Which family profitted both from the German dictator and the Iraqi dictator [cough-Bush] ? You are a proper George Herbert.

Duh Americans are always good because they wear white hats. Duh, foriegners are always bad because they wear black hats. Bad Japanese, bad Germans, heroic Americahaha. You might be big but you are not clever and trying to pretend to be clever just leads to further embarrassment whenever you reveal your limited opinions.

US business interests profit from wars that they manipulate by buying their government foriegn policy as surely now as was in 1933.

Coca Cola endorsed the Nazis. Dreadful.

Well, it wasn't Coca Cola or Henry Ford or Kennedy or the Cancer of the World who shook hands with Herr Ribbentrop and signed a non aggression pact. It was Molotov, acting on Stalin's orders. This gave clearance for Hitler to invade Poland. This then gave Stalin the opportunity to go into Poland as well, so they could carve it up between them. But what's 4000 Polish officers shot in the back of the head, compared with making trucks?

The Russians eventually fought their back into Eastern Europe. When the Polish resistance rose up in Warsaw, the Russians sat on the opposite bank of the river watching it all. For, after all, if the Germans subdued the Polish resistance, it saved the Russians having to do it. But what's that, compared with advertising soft drinks? A mere nothing.

Can you tell me the modern names for Gotenhafen, Koningsberg, Danzig or Stettin? These are German names, you see. During the Russian advance some eight or nine million Germans were forcibly displaced westwards. We call it ethnic cleansing these days. But then, compared with making trucks - a mere trifle.

Now, was it the Cancer of the World that raped a million German women in Berlin? Still, what's raping women compared with making Fanta? Must get our priorities right.

How about building a wall - not to keep people out, but to keep your own people in? And shooting them if they tried to cross it? Was this the actions of the Cancer of the World? Or of a maker of trucks? Or a soft drink company? No? You surprise me - surely they're capable of any iniquity.

How about tanks on the streets of Warsaw, East Berlin, Budapest, or Prague. Remember Dubcek? Was this the actions of the Cancer of the World? Or the Coca Cola company? Or the Ford Motor Company? Or someone else, perhaps.

American aid to Russia:

This may not pander to your prejudices:

 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0313266883/002-4885969-1617629?v=glance&n=283155

Nagasaki. Hiroshima.

Does it get anymore carcinogenic?

That not enough?

A country founded on mass murder. An appalling human rights record. Denying the Third World cheap generic drugs. Installing dictators. Hiring Nazis who would have been shot at Nurenberg. Echelon. Carnivore. WTO. Getting into bed with China. Bullying Central America. DMCA. The KKK. Spraying children with agent orange, napalm and magnesium. Cluster bombs. Trident. Refusing to play a positive role in the UN. Apalling per capita foreign aid. Biggest polluters. Biggest wasters. Supporting Israeli human rights abuses. Gitmo. Abu Ghraib. Non ratification of a horde of international treaties including the ICC.

I'm not saying these are sole achievements of the USA, but perhaps it will make the cartoon easier to understand. I could easily dwarf this list with good things- but they won't have any bearing on the topic and they will never mitigate the negative.

Correct me if I'm wrong the only war the US has won on its own was the Mexican land grab? The War of Independence was fought with help of the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" that gave you "freedom fries" and the big green statue.

And I owe my very existence to a GI stationed in Hertfordshire in WW2, before you start the anti-american shit.

I'm anti-arshole. I don't care what colour of flag arseholes hide behind. And yeah arseholes have hid behind the flags of the UK, France, Germany, Palestine, Israel, Switzerland etc etc etc but that doesn't make it okay.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki - Pearl Harbor, the rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, the treatment of Allied prioners of war ... more people were killed in the conventional bombing of Tokyo than at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The result shortened the war by sevral months.

A country founded on mass murder. Name one which isn't.
Ah, Britain. Tell that to the Celts. Or the Saxons in 1066.
Perhaps Russia? The kulaks.
China? How died in the famines from the Great Leap Forward? In Tibet?
Germany? No mass murderers there.
Africa? Ask the people in Darfur.
India? How many millions at Partition?

Denying the Third World cheap generic drugs. So, a private firm discovers a drug, and is supposed to give it away free. Which, of course, is what Russia and China and Japan and Germany do, don't they?

Hiring Nazis who should have been shot at Nuremburg. The Americans set up Nuremburg - this makes them the bad guys?

Getting into bed with China. Ah, so America's the bad guy, but China isn't, and so because America buys from China .... huh? If America's bad, then what does this make China?

Refusing to play a positive role in the UN - hysterical. WHO CREATED THE UN, AND WHY IS IT IN NEW YORK?

Present chairman of UN Human Rights Commmission - Libya. Ah, Libya. The land of the free. The US oppposed this. Well, what a surprise.

Foreign aid. America is not top of the list. Therefore it is the Cancer of the World.

Gitmo, Abu Ghraib. Ever heard of Auschwitz? The gulags of Russia? The gulags of China?

>Hiroshima, Nagasaki - Pearl Harbor, the rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, the treatment of Allied prioners of war ... more people were killed in the conventional bombing of Tokyo than at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The result shortened the war by sevral months.

Following the same principle, perhaps we must to nuke Washington and put an end to Iraq war, correct? Should we forgive U.S. for killing thousands in nuclear attacks to Japan exactly because Japanese troops killed people in Asia? Is it a kind of "retributive justice"? Sounds like barbarism to me.

>A country founded on mass murder. Name one which isn't.
Ah, Britain. Tell that to the Celts. Or the Saxons in 1066.
Perhaps Russia? The kulaks.
China? How died in the famines from the Great Leap Forward? In Tibet?
Germany? No mass murderers there.
Africa? Ask the people in Darfur.
India? How many millions at Partition?

Interesting. You could name other massacres like Tutsis in Rwanda, Palestinians in Deir Yassin, Mayans massacred by the Spaniards...however, your choice for China (Communist), Russia (former Communist), Germany (Nazis) and Darfur (Muslims)...hmmmmm...I think I see your pattern here.

>Denying the Third World cheap generic drugs. So, a private firm discovers a drug, and is supposed to give it away free. Which, of course, is what Russia and China and Japan and Germany do, don't they?

You are trying to deflect criticism on U.S. just pointing to the other nations' tails. The U.S. accounts for 46% of the world's pharmaceutical market.

>Hiring Nazis who should have been shot at Nuremburg. The Americans set up Nuremburg - this makes them the bad guys?

U.S. backed many creeps like Noriega in Panama, the Taliban and even Saddam Hussein. While "friendly dictators" serving U.S. interests, there is no complain. If they aren't no longer useful, U.S. will simply wipe them out.

>Getting into bed with China. Ah, so America's the bad guy, but China isn't, and so because America buys from China .... huh? If America's bad, then what does this make China?

Again China (Communist). Your pattern is unmistakeable.
:)

>Refusing to play a positive role in the UN - hysterical. WHO CREATED THE UN, AND WHY IS IT IN NEW YORK?

It's in New York exactly to be under control of U.S. In fact, United Nations is just a rubber stamp for Washington's decisions, as happened with decision to invade Iraq. A good example of this control of United Nations is that any resolution critical to Israel is simply rejected and blocked by U.S.

>Present chairman of UN Human Rights Commmission - Libya. Ah, Libya. The land of the free. The US oppposed this. Well, what a surprise.

Hmmmmmm, Libya. Arab/Muslim nation not alligned with U.S. Your pattern is visible again.

>Foreign aid. America is not top of the list. Therefore it is the Cancer of the World.
Gitmo, Abu Ghraib. Ever heard of Auschwitz? The gulags of Russia? The gulags of China?

Ok, so we must to forget about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib abuses for two reasons. First because the torturers are from U.S. and, second, because the tortured are Muslims and Arabs. If millions were killed in concentration camps, why bothering about some guys in U.S. military prisons eh? Of course, everytime we refer to crimes commited by U.S. you can always remind us about the Communists.

He! Definitely I see a pattern here. I see you have an agenda, which seems pretty rightist. Reminds me someone from Anti-Defamation League or something. Anyway, it's clear which side you are.
:)

"Gitmo, Abu Ghraib. Ever heard of Auschwitz? The gulags of Russia? The gulags of China?"

I have. That's what makes US abuses unacceptable.

You want to side with the arseholes that hide behind your flag. That's your choice.

You don't have to 'forgive' the US for Hiroshima - it saved lives because the war was shortened. You prefer they didn't use the bomb and millions more were killed in the invasion of Japan?

There's a pattern in Communists, Nazis and Muslims - if you say so.

Yes, the US backed very nasty regimes. Like Stalin's for example, so as to defeat Hitler. Name me one country in the world that has not done something similar [OK, Switzerland].

Why not relocate the UN if you feel that way? Easily done. I'm sure someone will pay for it.

Who says the US is perfect? No one. But Abu Ghraib is not quite morally equivalent to Auschwitz (a non communist, non Muslim example).

And why so many Communist examples? Perhaps because they produce such excellent examples of human rights abuses.

"Interesting. You could name other massacres like Tutsis in Rwanda, Palestinians in Deir Yassin, Mayans massacred by the Spaniards...however, your choice for China (Communist), Russia (former Communist), Germany (Nazis) and Darfur (Muslims)...hmmmmm...I think I see your pattern here."

So do I. They are the mantras of mainstream US media.

LInguistics has never gotten round the problem of how to accurately criticise the politicial culture of a nation without running the risk of sounding bigotted. Language by its human nature has a tendency to reduce concepts to the lowest common denominator (to again simplifify a concept). Thus we say things like "I hate America" when we really mean "I hate the objectionable actions of various American administrations".

Just as using the word America is a recognisable shorthand for "The United States of America" and not some reference to a pair of continents, most of us recognise when someone is referring to political culture rather than referring to evrey single American.

That being said without wider info it can be easy to jump to wrong conclusions. But, I would assume that most people of an anarchist disposition would recognise the difference between politically critical and a bigotted statements. Especially given that most anarchists should be the last people to think that any government reallly is the embodiment & will of its subjects.

I would have actually sided (cautiously)with sceptic if this were the gripe. As I do feel the cartoon is a little too vague in its execution. Not wrong or innacurrate, but rather a little short-sighted of its ambiguities and potential for misreading.

Sceptic however decided he/she/it would defend the actual criticisms implied.

"Sceptic", I think we all know your anti-Communist agenda, thanks.
So move along, you won't convince anyone here.

"You don't have to 'forgive' the US for Hiroshima - it saved lives because the war was shortened. You prefer they didn't use the bomb and millions more were killed in the invasion of Japan?"

Wow, a new low for any poster here, you don't deserve the name Sceptic if you still believe that. You try and justify the incineration of cities and still expect to be taken seriously ? Here is a list of other anti-american peaceniks who disagree with your second-hand interpretation:

 http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

"In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions." President Dwight Eisenhower

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Admiral William Leahy

""I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria." - President Herbert Hoover

>You try and justify the incineration of cities and still expect to be taken seriously ?

No Danny, he/she didn't expect to be taken seriously. It's just right-wing provocation in a Left-related community.

"You don't have to 'forgive' the US for Hiroshima - it saved lives because the war was shortened. You prefer they didn't use the bomb and millions more were killed in the invasion of Japan?"

Well sceptic, with this comment you lose the right to call yourself what you do. There is a wealth of evidence that Japan was ready to surrender as long as they could keep their emperor.

the Allies were insisting on unconditional surrender. The Japanese might have been putting out feelers, but unless they were prepared to surrender unconditionally, they would have got nowhere. Indeed, after the decision to surrender was taken, there was an attempted coup against the regime, which failed. The war would not have ended abruptly in August 1945 without the use of the bombs.

And if Eisenhower was against the bomb, he certainly changed his mind upon becoming President.

And a reminder: it was not the United States that started that particular war.

August 1945.

The Russians had declared war on Japan, and troops were marching into Mongolia and Mancuria.

The Chinese were fighting the Japanese in China.

The British were on the point of invading Malaya [Operation Zipper], a distinctly dodgy undertaking.

The Americans were busy retaking Pacific islands.

The Allied battlefleets were close enough to Japan to bombard it with battleships [the largest British fleet of the war went under the anonymous title of Task force 51].

Conventional bombing of the Japanese mainland was at its peak.

Casualties per day from all of this? Let's hazard a guess. 10,000? Any takers? Which means that if the war had gone on three weeks later more people would have died than were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Incidently, the decision had to have the approval of Churchill: British scientists made a significant contribution to the Manhattan project.

>And if Eisenhower was against the bomb, he certainly changed his mind upon becoming President.

He wasn't a left wing hero which is why I quoted him and MacArthur rather than Einstein or smarter folk. You are adopting a position further right than Macarthur, surely that gives you some need to reflect. They were against the use of the bomb for the reasons quoted, which contradicts your opinion with more authority than I can muster. The bomb was developed to counter the threat of a nazi bomb. Berlin was conquered, by the Soviets. Eisenhower and MacArthur and most of the US top brass were against the use of the bomb as unnecessary and barbaric. If a demonstration of force majeure was required - and let's be honest, it was dropped to impress the USSR rather than the beaten Japanese - the bomb could have been dropped near Japan. It seems likely the Japanese would not have surrendered unconditionally without the mass-incinerations, but since their one condition was the retention of the Emperor and since the US did retain the Emperor anyway then that justification is false.

>And a reminder: it was not the United States that started that particular war.

You could pick a fight with me in the street, and I would defend myself with all necessary force and feel justified in doing so. However, once I've beaten you up I would not feel justified in going to your home, murdering your wife and children and burning down your entire street just to scare off future attackers. That would be psychotic, barbaric and for anyone to defend it afterwards the way you defend Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be further barbarity.

Sceptic, I would suggest you investigate further for yourself, and reappraise your opinion against why you choose to post here. Take a bit of time, the topic does resurface regularly. For if you continue to defend the mass incineration of innocent civilians then no one around here will even listen to your more sensible posts, you will smear yourself into a corner. You don't have to criticise M.A.D. to post here, but if you defend nuclear strikes against non-nuclear nations then noone will ever listen to you on any subject, posting that here really is trolling, especially since you don't put in any effort to prove your extraordinary claim. It is the moral equivalent of defending concentration camps. It is also suicidal behaviour as the radioactive remnants of those bombs still irradiate us today, albeit among the remnants of thousands of nuclear tests, hundreds of nuclear accidents and millions of DU shells. You seem pro-nuclear simply because you understand some of the physics. Einstein understood more than you and condemned their use. Nuking non-nuclear states is a war crime according to the ICJ. Even threatening to nuke them is a war-crime. That's why the US hasn't directly threatened to nuke Iran, they are leaking the plan to newspapers and then refusing to deny it.

The cities were being incinerated anyway. The casualties in Tokyo from conventional bombing were greater than those in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Now, if you want to argue that the destruction of cities per se is immoral, that's another matter. Cities were destroyed: Hamburg by the RAF, Berlin by the Russian artillery, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki by American bombing.

Your quotes: Eisenhower had been in the European theatre half a world away and would not have been familiar with either the complete military picture in Japan nor would he have been aware of the attitude of the Government in Tokyo.
Your second quote is of Macarthur, secondhand, in May 1945. In May 1945 neither Hoover nor Macarthur would have been aware of the atom bomb, so they could not have been arguing against it. Hoover would certainly been unaware of it, Macarthur may have been, but security was extremely tight, and I doubt knowledge went beyond the Chiefs of Staff. Certainly Macarthur would have been unaware of the effects of the bomb, since by them it hadn't even been tested. Hoover and Macarthur were wrong on another point: the Russians were already in Manchuria in August 1945. Your quotes don't contribute to the debate.

Burning down the street is not an exact analogy - far from it. The war was going to be pursued until the Japanese surrended unconditionally. That was the position taken by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin at Yalta. The same position was taken in regard to Germany, and it took the razing of Berlin to win the war against Germany.

As I have tried to demonstrate above, if the war had continued to the point of invading Japan, it wouldn't have involved burning down the home of the assailant, but the street and the town as well.

Attitudes to nuclear weapons have changed since then for a variety of reasons. They have become more destructive. They have been seen as a quantum leap in destruction. The concept of and the phrase 'weapons of mass destruction' didn't exist then. Certainly Truman and Churchill wre not fully aware of their effects at the time. They may have been briefed in terms of facts and figures, but reality is something else.

You're right to say that using nuclear weapons today is unacceptable, which is why people are so concerned about Iran. Iran is regarded, not unjustifiably, as being political unstable. Its president has made some not very veiled threats against Israel. There is another cartoon posted by Latuff, in which he is effectively saying that it isn't fair for Israel, Pakistan and India to have the bomb, and not Iran. You certainly can't have it both ways - if the bomb cannot be used for reasons you have described then Iran should not have one. That is one of the reasons for have a non proliferation treaty.

I do not defend the mass incineration of civilians, as you put it. But if you were to take that to its logical conclusion, almost the whole of World War Two was immoral and illegal. Given that the war was going to be fought to its conclusion, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortened the war. In so shortening the war, many other lives in many other countries - Malaya, Burma, China, Manchuria were saved. Is it immoral to kill thousands in one place with one bomb to save many more thousands in many other places? By your argument, it would be. The use of atomic weapons would have been illegal (though not at the time: the concept did not exist and neither did the ICJ) and so their preventing their use would have caused the war to drag on by weeks or months. And there is no evidence at all that the Japanese were prepared to surrender unconditionally in 1945. They may have ben prepared to talk peace on terms which suited them, but not surrender unconditionally. Indeed, as I have pointed out, there was a faction the Japanese army which opposed this even after the bombings.

Do I support nuclear weapons? No. That's why I do not want to any more countires to have them. Would I like to see them being abolished? Yes. But they cannot be 'uninvented'. Much as though we would like to see them disappear, it's not going to happen. Was tjheir use in Japan justified? I would say the use was justified if it shortened the war by more than a month. Mass incineration of civilians was happening anyway. The casualty rates in Asia in September 1945 would probably have exceeded the death toll in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

All of which has taken us a long way from The Cancer of the World. My point in all of this was not to hold up America as the paragon of the world. It has vices and virtues as every country does. I would say that, on the whole, compared with the other major powers we have seen in the last fifty years, its virtues outweigh its vices.

Let's look at some of these.

Russia. Held Eastern Europe in an iron grip for forty years. Killed millions in Gulags.
China: Occupies Tibet, and involved in ethnic cleansing there. Similarly, millions have been killed in Gulags, Great Leaps Forward, and the Cultural revolution.

America has been involved in wars and coups all over the world. Some of those wars can be justified without a gret deal of effort. The Cold War broke the Soviet system, and try asking anyone of the millions in Eastern Europe if they regret that. The Soviet occupations of a dozen countries was harsh and brutal. Korea can be defended without a great deal of effort [although technically it was a United Nations effort]. The Americans in the early 1950s saw Vietnam as an extension of Korea and the Cold War generally. It was as much a nationalist war as anything, and the Americans lost because they did not understadn the way to counter a guerilla war. Events in Iraq tend to suggest they still haven't learnt that lesson.

Yes, the Americans did support a lot of unsavoury regimes in the Cold war period. They did so in pursuit of the bigger picture. Britain and America allied themselves with Stalin in 1941, and Stalin must rank in the pantheon of mass murderers alongside Hitler and Mao. Do we criticise Churchill and Roosevelt for so doing? For if we do not, then we cannot criticise America for allying itself with regimes that might have unsavoury, but did not come close to touching the atrocities that were committed in the twentieth century under the name of communism.

And if anyone here thinks that I am beyond the pale by criticising communism, then let him consider Berlin, Warsaw, Budapest, Prague, Vilnius, Riga and Tibet.

That answer your questions?

(unfurl the Stars & stripes and cue crackly gramaphone record of the Star Spangled Banner)

Again, a land borne of a genocide and religous nutcases. The only country to have used the most sick invention created by man (the atomic bomb- with the help of Nazi scientists). A country that bullies the rest of the world through the UN & the WTO. Booyah! A country that's idea of global harmony is perpetual war (strange since it's so bad at winning any of them...), a country that just gives the finger to anyone who suggests it calms down and becomes a team player (Kyoto, ICC etal). A country shose idea of diplomacy is telling other to "Do as we say or we'll fuck you!" Booyah!

Those virtues still outwaying the bad. It sounds to me like an abusive parent pleasing to the court "Okay I fucked my boy up the ass, but I bought hime a new bike last Christmas!" or a rapist arguing "At least I didn't kill her... it wasn't THAT bad!"

We all know already about the shady deeds past & present of our respective countries. The Biritish Empire, the Scots involvement in the slave trade, the Swiss collaboration with the SS, blah blah blah. The difference is that we as anarchists don't try and say "but give them a break!". These acts were criminal and have NO excuse. They were commited by individuals hiding behind institutions.

I find your line of reasoning curious. You seem to chip back the argument that other countries have done similar or worse as a defence. It may comes as a surprise that any anarchist I have known has never seen their government as an extension of themselves. In fact, most will view government as we understand it as much the same kind of tyranny as Europeans suffered under the feudal system. You can insult the UK as much as you like for all I care. In fact, the more the merrier. The more we examine the misdeed of our respective countries the better the chance we stand of not repeating history.

You are missing the point. France, Russia, and Britain are no longer superpowers. While they still get up to pretty bad shit but they can't even compete with current delduded greedy bastards holding the title of "world police- fuck yeah!" And as a former British Colony the US should know better.

People hate America because it shits all over the rest of the world. We are not jealous. We are not irrational. We are just sick of being shat on.

You want to go on riding daddy's new bike with a sore arse, that's your choice. But please go find a more appropriate venue. We really aren't interested in hearing about how cool your bike is. We just want to see your dad brought to book for fucking us up the arse!

I get the distinct feeling you see statistics and we see souls. You pardon the atomic bomb and we object to using WMD on civillians. Civillians= people like YOUR freinds and family. Like MY friends and family. And sorry, they are not expendable. THey are not collateral. I don't buy the argument that cluster bombs and napalm are okay because Jonny Slope isn't worth as much as an losing a trained infantryman. You want to fight a war? Get on the fucking ground and fight some combatants for a change. You don't like a fair fight? Then stay at home and stop the sabre rattling.

You see statistics and revenues regarding drug patents. I see souls dropping like flies because of the unbridled greed of American-lead globalisation. Souls like your friends and your family.

You see people attacking America(-fuck yeah!) we criminals hiding under your skirts and we want them brought to book.

You are wasting your time if you think anyone's going to buy your Mom's Applie Pie GOP sophistry here.

Team America? Fuck you!

>Now, if you want to argue that the destruction of cities per se is immoral, that's another matter.

No, it is an extension of the same argument. It was already illegal under international treaty to target civilian areas. That's why no Luftwaffe were tried at Nuremberg, to cover up the RAF and USAF crimes in Germany. That is also why the Nuremberg tribunal was commisioned hastily between the atomic attacks, but that's another story.

>Your quotes: Eisenhower had been in the European theatre half a world away and would not have been familiar with either the complete military picture in Japan nor would he have been aware of the attitude of the Government in Tokyo.

That is doubtful but nevertheless the same argument cannot be used against the other quotes on that page - Admiral William Leahy -Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, Joseph Grew -Under Sec. of State, John McCloy -Assistant Sec. of War, Ralph Bard - Under Sec. of the Navy, Lewis Strauss -Special Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy, Paul Nitze -Vice Chairman U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Ellis Zacharias -Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence, General Carl Spaatz - In charge of Air Force operations in the Pacific, and Brigadier General Carter Clarke -the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables.

Hardly people unaware of the military picture and the attitude of Tokyo.

>Your second quote is of Macarthur, secondhand, in May 1945. In May 1945 neither Hoover nor Macarthur would have been aware of the atom bomb, so they could not have been arguing against it. Hoover would certainly been unaware of it, Macarthur may have been, but security was extremely tight, and I doubt knowledge went beyond the Chiefs of Staff. Certainly Macarthur would have been unaware of the effects of the bomb, since by them it hadn't even been tested.

Actually the Macarthur quote is from May 1946, a small but important difference no ? Chances are MacArthur had heard of the atomic bomb by then. Your inattention doesn't contribute to the debate but the quotes of the main players certainly do.

>The war was going to be pursued until the Japanese surrended unconditionally.

Not necessarily, the quotes make it clear the US were aware that the only Japanese condition was the retention of the Emperor, a condition that was met anyway and that there were strong arguments in the administration for accepting the surrender under that one condition

>The concept of and the phrase 'weapons of mass destruction' didn't exist then.

Sorry, it did. It was coined by the Times the previous decade referring to weapons whose purpose was solely to destroy civilian areas, especially heavy bombers.

>Certainly Truman and Churchill wre not fully aware of their effects at the time. They may have been briefed in terms of facts and figures, but reality is something else.

They would have been unaware of the effects of radiation perhaps, but they knew they were city-incinerators. After the war, and knowing about all the effects of nukes, Churchill lobbied for a swift nuclear war against the USSR.

>You're right to say that using nuclear weapons today is unacceptable, which is why people are so concerned about Iran. ...That is one of the reasons for have a non proliferation treaty.

And that treaty states the existing nuclear powers should be disarrming, and that new nukes shouldn't be developed and that noone should threaten the use of nukes at anytime but especially against a non-nuclear state. On all these counts, Bush has broken the treaty and Iran has not.

>Given that the war was going to be fought to its conclusion, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortened the war.

That's not a given, the quotes listed above which you dismiss so casually prove otherwise.

>Is it immoral to kill thousands in one place with one bomb to save many more thousands in many other places? By your argument, it would be.

Not only immoral, it is deeply illogical.

>The use of atomic weapons would have been illegal (though not at the time: the concept did not exist and neither did the ICJ) and so their preventing their use would have caused the war to drag on by weeks or months.

Wrong again I'm afraid. International law did exist as a series of treaties and the indiscriminate targetting of civilian areas was already a war-crime.
 http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html

>And there is no evidence at all that the Japanese were prepared to surrender unconditionally in 1945. They may have ben prepared to talk peace on terms which suited them, but not surrender unconditionally.

Since their only condition, the retention of the Emperor, was going to be met anyway, your argument is false.

>Do I support nuclear weapons? No. That's why I do not want to any more countires to have them. Would I like to see them being abolished? Yes. But they cannot be 'uninvented'. Much as though we would like to see them disappear, it's not going to happen. Was tjheir use in Japan justified? I would say the use was justified if it shortened the war by more than a month. Mass incineration of civilians was happening anyway. The casualty rates in Asia in September 1945 would probably have exceeded the death toll in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

>My point in all of this was not to hold up America as the paragon of the world. It has vices and virtues as every country does. I would say that, on the whole, compared with the other major powers we have seen in the last fifty years, its virtues outweigh its vices.

I'm sure if the Nazis had won the war and written the history you read then you would today be saying the same thing about Germany.

>Russia. Held Eastern Europe in an iron grip for forty years. Killed millions in Gulags.

And yet the avergae Russian was better off before the fall of the Soviet Union and many there yearn for Stalin.

>China: Occupies Tibet, and involved in ethnic cleansing there. Similarly, millions have been killed in Gulags, Great Leaps Forward, and the Cultural revolution.

China was suffering greatly before the war, in fact ever since the Opium wars where the British made junkies of a great percentage of their population at gunpoint. And yet today, without embracing political freedoms, China is eliminating more poverty and social injustice than anywhere else.

>America has been involved in wars and coups all over the world. Some of those wars can be justified without a gret deal of effort.

You are fooling noone.


>The Cold War broke the Soviet system, and try asking anyone of the millions in Eastern Europe if they regret that.

You do seem to see this as the first world attacking the second world, without any regard for the suffering caused in the third world. You judge the US by different standards than you judge other countries.

>The Soviet occupations of a dozen countries was harsh and brutal. Korea can be defended without a great deal of effort [although technically it was a United Nations effort].


>The Americans in the early 1950s saw Vietnam as an extension of Korea and the Cold War generally. It was as much a nationalist war as anything, and the Americans lost because they did not understadn the way to counter a guerilla war. Events in Iraq tend to suggest they still haven't learnt that lesson.

The Americans invaded Vietnam exactly the same way as the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, but with far greater attacks on the civilian populations there. They devasted South East Asia through carpet-bombing, chemical weapons and napalm and still refuse to pay any compensation. After the Vietnamese won, the US supported the genocidal Khmer Rouge.

>Yes, the Americans did support a lot of unsavoury regimes in the Cold war period. They did so in pursuit of the bigger picture.

You could say the same about any of the regimes you are able to criticise, the ends justify the means. Battle not with monsters lest you become a monster.

>Britain and America allied themselves with Stalin in 1941, and Stalin must rank in the pantheon of mass murderers alongside Hitler and Mao.
Yes, also alongside Truman, Kennedy Johnson, Nixon, Kissenger, Reagan, and the family Bush.

>Do we criticise Churchill and Roosevelt for so doing? For if we do not, then we cannot criticise America for allying itself with regimes that might have unsavoury, but did not come close to touching the atrocities that were committed in the twentieth century under the name of communism.

Ah, it's just a good country who fell in with a bad crowd. Calling yourself sceptic merely emphasises your gullibilty. I'm afraid I can't spare anymore tiome doing your homework for you, you could save me some time by checking your facts before basing such a false world-view on a litany of obvious errors, instead of just embarrassing yourself with simple mistakes, basic errors and contradictory conclusions.

Well, Danny, you and I have reading very different history books.

I must say, though, that I am amused by your placing Truman and Reagan alongside Hitler, Stalin and Mao. I can't remember offhand how many millions were killed by Truman, but I'm sure you'll enlighten me. Ditto Reagan. Kennedy presumably for Vietnam. I can't say I've noticed many death camps in America either, but, no doubt, you'll enlighten me. [Internment of the Japanese? Ah, the gas ovens were working overtime, weren't they?]

But I'm sure the people of Germany, Poland, Latvia etc etc do regret being liberated by the Cancer of the World, and have been duly enlightened by reading your contribution.

"Hmm, really evil foreign policy. I mean, invading Europe in 1944, killing all those nice Germans"

How does this even remotely relate to US foreign policy in 2006?

>Well, Danny, you and I have reading very different history books.
It doesn't matter which books you read if you don't have the intelligence to understand them. You must admit you made a huge fool of yourself spending a paragraph arguing how Macarthur couldn't have known about the atomic bomb in 1945, based on a 1946 quote - a forgivable error perhaps but the sheer pomposity of titling your post 'Read what I have written more carefully'. Physician, heal thy self. You are an incompetent propagandist and a pompous oaf, and your own words condemn you, you fail to acknowledge your previous arguments are without merit and that your whole world view is as biased as anything the nazis ever used. I do see you have some awaremness of world war too history for you employ 'the Goebbels technique', also known as argumentum ad nauseam, repeating a point until it is taken to be the truth. I'm going to stop now, because teaching you history is like trying to teach a pig to sing. You claim to support the NPT but show no criticism of those who breach it, me, I physically act to uphold it and you are simply delaying me.


>I must say, though, that I am amused by your placing Truman and Reagan alongside Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
Much as I'd compare Peter Sutcliffe to Harold Shipman. Your arguments lead to the worship of Sutcliffe simply for killing fewer.

>I can't remember offhand how many millions were killed by Truman, but I'm sure you'll enlighten me.
Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Funny how those names slip your memory so quickly. Of course, you regard them as basically humanitarian acts- despite all your arguments to that effect being shown to be mere propaganda.

>Ditto Reagan.
The first US president to be found to have commited a war-crime by the IJC, namely the mining of Nicaraguan ports. The fine imposed has yet to be paid. A pretty paltry charge given the real extent of US 'interventions' in Central America.

El Salvador - 75,000 dead peasants at a cost of $6 billion.
Nicaragua, Guatamala, Grenada also posed major threats to the US superpower and so democracy had to be thwarted, death squads sent in and mercenary armies funded, armed and trained. Tens of thousands died in each country that had the audacity to elect liberal socialists.

>Kennedy presumably for Vietnam.
1 million dead in that country alone. An entire region decimated by the most heinous of invasions. Better dead than red though eh ?

>But I'm sure the people of Germany, Poland, Latvia etc etc do regret being liberated by the Cancer of the World, and have been duly enlightened by reading your contribution.

With the exception of East Germany Eastern Europe has indeed passed from one foreign empire to another. Hardly a cause for celebration.

"Has there ever been an empire that didn't tell itself and the world that it was unlike all other empires, that its mission was not to plunder and control but to enlighten and liberate?

Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States has laid claim to Moscow's former republics and satellites. Apart from its 1999 bombings and other military operations in the former Yugoslavia, Washington has used the weapons of political and economic subversion for its interventions into Eastern Europe.
The standard operating procedure in a particular country has been to send in teams of specialists from US government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), American labor unions, or private organizations funded by American corporations and foundations; leading examples are the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Agency for International Development (AID), and the Open Society organizations of George Soros, American citizen and billionaire. These teams go in with as much financial resources as needed and numerous carrots and sticks to wield; they hold conferences and seminars, hand out tons of papers, manuals and CDs, and fund new NGOs, newspapers and other media, all to educate government employees and other selected portions of the population on the advantages and joys of privatizing and deregulating the economy, teaching them how to run a capitalist society, how to remake the country so that it's appealing to foreign investors.
The American teams have been creating a new class of managers to manage a new market economy, as welt as providing the capital and good ol' American know-how for winning elections against the non-believers. In the process, they pass information and experience from one country to another; thus the Soros organization-which has offices throughout the former Soviet Union-had people from Serbia, who had been involved in the successful campaign to oust Slobodan Milosevic in 2000, share their experiences with people in Georgia who were seeking to oust Eduard Shevardnadze in 2003, and were likewise successful. This transfer of techniques, including an acclaimed video shown on Georgian independent television, was cited by participants in Georgia as playing a vital role in their toppling of Shevardnadze.
In Russia and in the other countries, the "success" of such globalization programs has typically resulted in the mass of the population being left in great want, much worse off than they were under communism, while a wealthy elite class is created and the country is gradually thrown open to foreign investment and control.
The reduction in the standard of living of the people in the region since 1990 can scarcely be exaggerated. The European Children's Trust reported in October 2000 that based on key indicators-such as infant mortality, life expectancy, tuberculosis, and Gross Domestic Product per capita-conditions in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union were worse or no better than those in many so-called developing countries.' From Bulgaria to Poland, from Slovenia to Lithuania, the citizens have left their homes to become the guest workers, the illegal workers, the migrants, the refugees, and the prostitutes of Western Europe.
However, these countries are now honored members of NATO, proud possessors of a couple of billion dollars worth of useless military hardware they were obliged to buy from multinationals, they have the right to send their youth to the killing fields of Iraq and Afghanistan to support US wars, the American flag flies over American military bases in their lands, globalized free enterprise is king, and the wealthy elite have a lot more in common with the likes of Dick Cheney than with the great majority of their countrymen. Some prominent excommunist apparatchiks across the region repeat oaths of fealty to America as once they parroted the Brezhnev line. Poland's president, Aleksander Kwasniewski, who was a Communist minister in the 1980s, now declares: "If it is President Bush's vision, it is mine."
The Eastern European mentality implied by the above was burgeoning even before the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. The intellectual equation that was arrived at, consciously or unconsciously, was that if the Soviet Union was "bad", it must be "all bad". And therefore, the Soviet's principal foe must be "all good". Thus, if the Soviet command economy had multiple shortcomings, the market economy is guaranteed to bring prosperity and justice. How many Eastern Europeans, to this day, know that most of what they may see as Western benefits flowing automatically from the market's "invisible hand", in actuality had to be wrested from capitalism by social movements and labor unions with much attendant suffering?
All in all, NATO-occupied Eastern Europe, until recently the home of "socialist republics," has become a much more congenial place for royalty. Bulgaria's King Simeon (now prime minister), came back to reclaim his domain, as did Romania's King Michael, Yugoslavia's King Presumptive Alexander, and Albania's King Leka (son of Hitler's and Mussolini's ally, King Zog)." - William Blum

Try Richard Rhodes: The Making of the Atom Bomb ISBN 0-684-81378-5 pages 648 to 747 for a more nuanced view of your quotes.

Surrender of Japan: Prime Minister Suzuki July 27th 1945. "I believe the Joint Proclamation by the three countries [i.e., the Potsdam agreement] is nothing but a rehash of the Cairo Declaration. As, for the Government, it does not find any importance in it, and there is no other recourse but to ignore it entirely and fight resolutely for the succesful conclusion of the war."
August 6th, 10 days later, first atom bomb. 9 days after that, 15th August, Japan surrenders unconditionally.

See also:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/15/newsid_3581000/3581971.stm

"The Allies had delivered Japan an ultimatum to surrender on 28 July 1945.
When this was ignored, the US dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima on 6 August and Nagasaki on 9 August"

Eastern Europe: Polish infant mortality:

 http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=25&Country=PL

1980: 21 per 1000 berths; 2000: 8

 http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=19&Country=PL

Polish GDP per capita 1990 5.98; 2005 10.2

Life expectancy:

1970 69.9, 1980 70.9, 2000 72.8, 2005 73.9

Yes, life has got worse.

If Poland is doing so well why are there 130,000 of them working in Britain, mostly for mimimum wage ? It doesn't exactly prove a triumph of capitalism does it ?

For infant moratlity you quote 1980 and 2000 as if proof that the reduction is caused by the switch to a 'market economy'. A glance at the figures you failed to mention from the page you quote shows the reduction is simply part of a trend line from 1960, a trend line almost identical to the UK and to Cuba. So nothing to do with the fall of communism then, unless you want to credit the communist governent for starting the trend and achieving the greatest reductions, whereas likely causes are increases in medical technolgies and healthcare. As this would be counterproductive to your argument you simply drop the pesky statistics and fail to compare the data to relevant countries. In other words, you tried to get away with a deliberate lie. You use statistics selectively to prove a false thesis. You are dishonest, but luckily you are a bad liar and always caught out.

Iraqi infant mortality also seemed to be following the same downward trend until 1990. We don't have to guess at the cause for the dramatic and unusual rise. At that point the USuk started the UN sanctions against Iraq, leading to the deaths of 500,000 children according to their own figures. And apologists like you who cheerlead the US with false history and selective statistics are partly to blame for those deaths.





"The UN Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, childbirth, and other factors for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. The report for 2005 shows that, in general, the HDI for countries around the world is improving, with two major exceptions: Post-Soviet states, and Sub-Saharan Africa, both of which show steady decline. Worsening education, economies, and mortality rates have contributed to HDI declines amongst countries in the first group, while HIV/AIDS and concomitant mortality is the principal cause of decline in the second group." -wikipedia



Channel 4 Facts about Russia:

- In the first six months of 2005, the Russian population fell by half a million;

- By the middle of this century Russia could lose up to half of its people, according to Russian government stats;

- Life expectancy for men is 56 years, the same as Bangladesh;

- Ten years ago, the life expectancy for men in Russia was 63;

- The World Health Organisation says that at a conservative estimate more than a million people will have died because of AIDS in Russia by 2020;

- Every other newborn baby is diagnosed with a disease at birth;

- There are more abortions every year in Russia than babies are born;

- Thanks to ill-health, 10 million Russians are infertile;

- A quarter of the population lives below the poverty line;

- Paradoxically, Moscow has more billionaires than any other city in the world;


Perhaps not so paradoxically at all.

I hope this source isn't too anti-american for you. If it's too long an extract for you, just read the last line.


United States Strategic Bombing Survey
Summary Report
(Pacific War)
Washington, D.C.
1 July 1946

Japan's Struggle to End the War

The conviction and strength of the peace party was increased by the continuing Japanese military defeats, and by Japan's helplessness in defending itself against the ever-growing weight of air attack on the home islands. On 7 April 1945, less than a week after United States landings on Okinawa, Koiso was removed and Marquis Kido installed Admiral Suzuki as premier. Kido testified to the Survey that, in his opinion, Suzuki alone had the deep conviction and personal courage to stand up to the military and bring the war to an end.

Early in May 1945, the Supreme War Direction Council began active discussion of ways and means to end the war, and talks were initiated with Soviet Russia seeking her intercession as mediator.

The talks by the Japanese ambassador in Moscow and with the Soviet ambassador in Tokyo did not make progress. On 20 June the Emperor, on his own initiative, called the six members of the Supreme War Direction Council to a conference and said it was necessary to have a plan to close the war at once, as well as a plan to defend the home islands. The timing of the Potsdam Conference interfered with a plan to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special emissary with instructions from the cabinet to negotiate for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender, but with private instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price. Although the Supreme War Direction Council, in its deliberations on the Potsdam Declaration, was agreed on the advisability of ending the war, three of its members, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Navy Minister, were prepared to accept unconditional surrender, while the other three, the Army Minister, and the Chiefs of Staff of both services, favored continued resistance unless certain mitigating conditions were obtained.

On 6 August the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and on 9 August Russia entered the war. In the succeeding meetings of the Supreme War Direction Council, the differences of opinion previously existing as to the Potsdam terms persisted exactly as before. By using the urgency brought about through fear of further atomic bombing attacks, the Prime Minister found it possible to bring the Emperor directly into the discussions of the Potsdam terms. Hirohito, acting as arbiter, resolved the conflict in favor of unconditional surrender.

The public admission of defeat by the responsible Japanese leaders, which constituted the political objective of the United States offensive begun in 1943, was thus secured prior to invasion and while Japan was still possessed of some 2,000,000 troops and over 9,000 planes in the home islands. Military defeats in the air, at sea and on the land, destruction of shipping by submarines and by air, and direct air attack with conventional as well as atomic bombs, all contributed to this accomplishment.

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

"it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

Let's see - suppose Japan had surrendered on 1 November. That is 3months after the actual surrender. Let's call it 90 days. Casualty rate? I initially guessed 10,000 per day in all theatres. Let's modestly revise it down to 5000. 90 days - 5000 a day - 450,000 casualties - close on half a million. My point exactly. Perhaps quarter of a million lives were saved by the early surrender.

Thank you for what - taking the time to respond to a pro-nuclear, pro-US, war-mongering lying troll ? Sure. Since you are being polite why not apologise form the myriad of lies you've been shown to be telling on this thread ?

Hey, making up more figures really is clutching at straws, especially when you have just been exposed as using statistics to lie.
You obviously have no sense of morality if you can equate soldiers dying in combat to the incineration of women and children. You obviously have no sense of scepticism since you are unable to criticise even the major war crimes of your master race.
Still, I don't even need to challenge your imagined statistics, nor your obvious inhumanity, as it was clear that the Japanese were already prepared to surrender even without any further casualities.

Just one last thing, to maybe help you cope with your state of denial, can you deny the following statement ?

"If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them." -Leo Szilard

Really, if the Germans had nuked Birmingham and Glasgow 'to end the war sooner' that wouldn't have been prosecuted at Nuremberg as a warcrime ? So how come your american overlords are above the law ?

"Try lsiting the millions - literally millions of people - fleeing regimes opposed by the US, and then try listing the non existent millions fleeing from regimes supported by the US." - Sceptic

Yes sceptic, there was no Shah of Iran, no Pinochet, to Ismail Karimov, no Niaraguan or Salvadorean death squads, Indonesia and Brazil were not run by US backed genocidal military juntas. Sure.

Oh, and the moon is made of cheese.

that the women and children were being incinerated already. Look at the casuality figures for the attacks on Tokyo, for example. And plenty of women and children were being killed elsewhere. The Japanese in particular didn't much care who got in the way of their troops.

Szilard might have been of that opinion - which is ironic enough, since he was responsible for a lot of the early work on the bomb - but others were not.

And virtually all the soliders who would have died were not volunteers but conscripts.

If Truman had not dropped the bomb, and the war had lasted another six months - for obvius reasons no one knows exactly how long it would last - with, say, another million casualities, how many people now would be lambasting him on the basis that he had had the means by which to finish it early, but held back?

PS - pick a lie in anything I have written. Not being omniscient, I won't guarantee not ever having made an error, but plese, pick an obvious blatant lie.

Sceptic,

If you are autistic I apologise for calling you a troll. I have the greatest sympathy for autistic / aspergers people trying to understand the rest of humanities lies and trying to make themselves understood, and to be honest you do read like you suffer from that confusing lack of empathy. If you are 'well-educated' and have read 'factual' books and histories, you have suffered more brainwashing than I have and so can't distinguish between lies and truth, I apologise for labelling your misunderstandings as malicious. If so, you should read more fiction to balance that, to help you understand when you are really thinking for yourself rather than just parroting the official line. However the implications of your reasoning and choices are malicious, even if you don't intend it, and the end result of your philosophy is genocide followed by mass-extinction. Your name gives me hope, perhaps you are genuinely trying to be sceptical, but you can never be partially sceptic, you can never claim that when you apply different standards of judgement to your own regime as you do to others. That is the same as being a government agent, it is no kind of free thought. You seem to identify communism as a great evil, but let's face it, with you level of analysis if you had been a soviet citizen, you wouldn't have been a dissident or anarchist, you would have been an apparatchik. You are effectively an apparatchik whatever your intent.

good luck with overcoming that,

Oh, I do empathise with those who are no longer living under communist regimes. Like us in Britain, or America, they no longer have to fear the gulag, the knock on the door, or the KGB. Or whether your neighbours are spying on you - remember the Stazi? Or the microphones in Intourist hotels - although whether that's a myth, I'm not sure.

That's one reason why - believe it or not - I strongly oppose ID cards.

The EU is moving towards a system where passports won't be necessary any more - a move to be welcomed. In the days of the Soviet regime, you had to have an internal passport. Remember the banishment of Sakharov?

As someone who spends part of their working life standing up and talking to large groups of people, and getting reasonably well paid for it, I'm amused by being called. autistic. But then, if you want to belittle those who don't agree with you, go ahead.

>Oh, I do empathise with those who are no longer living under communist regimes. Like us in Britain, or America, they no longer have to fear the gulag, the knock on the door, or the KGB.

>Or whether your neighbours are spying on you - remember the Stazi?

Yes, I met a few of them once when I got on the wrong train from Munich back in '88. They weren't nice to me but I knew not to take it personally, they just weren't nice.

>Or the microphones in Intourist hotels - although whether that's a myth, I'm not sure.

Of course it wasn't a myth. If they can do it, they do do it. Listen, you can come here and abuse the communists and Soviets as much as you want, noone will have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with your scepticism, I just wish you could apply it equally to our state, our society and our history the same way you do to theirs.

>That's one reason why - believe it or not - I strongly oppose ID cards.

That's a libertarian position. As is opposing the possession and use of nuclear weapons, whether they can be univented or not they are a tool for a tiny elite to maintain violent control over a majority.

>The EU is moving towards a system where passports won't be necessary any more - a move to be welcomed. In the days of the Soviet regime, you had to have an internal passport.

Let's hope one day soon it extends beyond the EU. No borders anywhere.

>Remember the banishment of Sakharov?

Yes, and I remember why he became seen as an enemy of his state. He opposed nuclear proliferation, atmospheric testing, anti-ballistic missile defense and nuclear weapons in general. If Sakharov is a heroic figure to you then please try to emulate him in word and deed. Sakharov and other dissidents first impression of the West was surprise that all the newspapers and TV news had the same opinion on any issue 'In the Soviet Union this is only achieved through violence...'

>As someone who spends part of their working life standing up and talking to large groups of people, and getting reasonably well paid for it, I'm amused by being called. autistic. But then, if you want to belittle those who don't agree with you, go ahead.

That was a genuine query, demeaning you doesn'tg give my life meaning. I once slanged off someone as terse and - in my arrogant opinion - limited as your previous posts read, and they turned out to be genuine but autistic. If that isn't the case with you, then you have probably just suffered more education/brainwashing than the rest of us. Try and look at your own state from a foriegners point of view, try reading their histories too and try to be at least as critical of your own regime as you are of anyone elses. Failing that, try to defend the NPT and the principles behind it as best as you can. You don't have to be left wing to be anarchist.

she says my ass hurts
when i sit down
she says my feet hurt
from just standing around
i think my body
is as restless as my mind
and i don't know if i can roll with it
this time

packed his uniforms
and drove him to the base
she was crying all the way
the world looked her in the face
and said
roll with it, baby
make it your career
keep the home fires burning
till america is in the clear

the mainstream is so polluted with lies
once you get wet, it's so hard to get dry
we're all taught how to justify
history
as it passes by
and it's your world
that comes crashing down
when the big boys decide
to throw their weight around
but just roll with it baby
make it your career
keep the home fires burning
till america is in the clear

what if the enemy
isn't in a distant land
what if the enemy lies behind
the voice of command
the sound of war
is a child's cry
behind tinted windows,
they just drive by
all i know is that those
who are going to be killed
aren't those who preside
on capitol hill
i told him,
don't fill the front lines
of their war
those assholes aren't worth dying for
but he said
roll with it, baby
make it your career
keep the home fires burning
till america is in the clear

she says my ass hurts
when i sit down
she says my feet hurt
from just standing around
i think my body is as restless as my mind
and i'm not gonna roll with it this time
no, i'm not gonna roll with it this time

If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them.

True / false ?