I'm Afraid of Americans.. I'm Afraid I Can't Help It

[SeanMacGabhann]

Mockney - I'm not as edumacated as you anglo-Iberian types but I don't think it's fair to bring politics into this - tea-pots and forklifts are the order of the day here

Maybe I misread the original email.. maybe instead of a war museum he was at a restaurant and he felt that his chicken wasn't cut to the specific measurements as outlined in the Krok Brothers manual or something.

Anyway - as for me looking for my cyber-mates to join in, the last post above was from Atila - someone who I have never met and usually disagree with on here - but who has got the point completely.

[mockney piers]

"You read one e-mail and extrapolate about all Americans."

That's specious, and knowing you alan dale, almost certainly deliberately so, good to see you back to your old flaming ways.

Whether you like it or not, racist or not, America's foreign policy has been responsible for upward of 5 million deaths in the post war period, and probably higher than that by a figure I wouldn't even be comfortable hazarding a guess at, but I'd be opening bids in the 20s, putting it on a par with Stalin's Soviet Union.

We cannot paint all Americans as being as crass and insensitive as the anecdotal ones of Sean's story, but it is typically representative of the semantic gap between the US's malignant role in this world and the benign one perceived by it's citizens.

It's no coincidence that post 9/11 that the US is finally doing a bit of soul searching and rightly so.

Do a search for Why do they hate us and you get over 10 million hits. Maybe if it comes up with the right answers, it can start being more of a force for good in this world (it does do *some* nice things too, nothings ever black and white).

At university we had a well attended conference on the post-war US role in Europe. Talk after talk on motives, expediency, manipulation one of the many visiting professors from over the pond stood up, and shouted "does noone in this room believe we acted out of altruism?". This was followed by his footsteps and the sound of chirruping crickets as he stormed out the room.

And some of my best friends, indeed family are from the states. A people and it's government are very different things, as anyone of the million who marched against the Iraq war here are perfectly well aware.

[Alan Dale]

So tell me again Sean- you've got some American friends right?

More than me? Awesome.

No way you can be racist then.

Big Ron is great friends with Carlton Palmer you know.

[DaveR]

"Whether you like it or not, racist or not, America's foreign policy has been responsible for upward of 5 million deaths in the post war period, and probably higher than that by a figure I wouldn't even be comfortable hazarding a guess at, but I'd be opening bids in the 20s, putting it on a par with Stalin's Soviet Union."

Stalin directly caused the execution, starvation or death by other means traceable to government, i.e. his actions, of 20 million odd. You think you can do the same mathematical exercise for the US and come up with the same figure?

We all know lots of Americans we like - liberal ones from the East or West coast, who vote democrat and aren't evangelical christians, in fact Americans who seem a lot like europeans. There are millions of others who aren't like that but who are entitled to tell us to f#ck off and leave them to run their country, a fully functioning democracy.

The figures for the foreign born population of the US are far higher than any european country and rising all the time. The average American might be forgiven for thinking that people all round the world want to live like them when the evidence is in front of them.

As to the vietnam issue, there was a genuine civil war with backing from superpowers on both sides trying to advance their global strategy. The majority of the population were born since the war, and in my experience there is less anti-american feeling there than here. Funny that.

[david_carnell]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Whether you like it or not, racist or not,

> America's foreign policy has been responsible for

> upward of 5 million deaths in the post war period,

> and probably higher than that by a figure I

> wouldn't even be comfortable hazarding a guess at,

> but I'd be opening bids in the 20s, putting it on

> a par with Stalin's Soviet Union.

I don't know you personally, Piers, but in the past I've respected much of what you've said on these forums. In this instance, however, I think you've well and truly crossed the line. You've made the classic mistake of aimlessly quoting arbitrary figures in the hope it will back-up your argument. I'm afraid it doesn't. So, post-1945 conflicts involving the US:

Korea

North Korean deaths - 215,000

Chinese deaths - 148,000 including non-combat deaths (US own estimate outs the figure at 400,000)

Soviet deaths - 300

I'll ignore the the deaths of the allies (because this was UN sanctioned).

Vietnam

North Vietnamese dead - 1.1 million

Chinese dead - 1400

It is almost impossible to estimate numbers of civilian deaths and these figures would include pro-American, South Vietnamese; estimates by Vietnam put the figure around 2 million

Dominican Republic

1000 guerillas

3000 civilians

El Salvador

Total deaths - 70,000

Grenada

Maximum of 200 deaths amongst the Grenada and Cuban forces

Panama

1000 Panamanian deaths

Gulf War

35,000 Iraqi combat deaths

Again, civilian deaths are hard to calculate but estimates are between 2,000 and 200,000. I'll plump for 100,000. I doubt it'll make much difference to the overall total.

Somalia

1000 combat deaths

Bosnia

I can't find figures for the NATO led air strikes that don't get warped by deaths from Croat forces. If someone else can, muchos gracias.

Afghanistan

12,000 Taleban deaths

Iraq 2

Iraqi combatant dead (invasion period): 7,600-10,800

Insurgents dead (post-Saddam): 15,976-21,805

All Iraqi violent deaths, Iraqi Health Ministry casualty survey for the World Health Organization, as of June 2006: 151,000

Drumroll please.....total dead due to direct US action - just under 4 million

So, that's under your initial estimate and way lower than your estimate of Stalin. Estimates put deaths of USSR civilians under Stalin's regime between 3 million and 60 million. See here for explanations of the disparity and sources of research related to the topic.

None of this includes the deaths suffered by US forces and their allies. I'm presuming from the sentiment expressed on here so far, they got what they deserved.

I'm not supporting the US regime in all their exploits nor defending their record but before we start bandying figures around in support of arguments its worth bearing the above in mind. The US has been a force for good in the past. They helped defeat Nazi forces in WW2 and their spending on defence hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Cold War atrocities took place on both sides and if you make me choose, I'd rather live under capitalism than communism. Also, a muber of these operation took place with the support of various other international players. To imply that the US wanders around the globe alone, and without allies, is a spurious mis-truth.

Apologies for the exceedingly long post.

[KalamityKel]

I always question the reliability of using online sources especially that of Wiki. Interesting read tho :)

[david_carnell]

I'd question it too if it was a biog or somesuch but all the figures I've used have reference points from academic research. If you want to challenge one, please feel free. I'll be happy to amend.

Still think you'll struggle to add 15 million, mind you.

[*Bob*]

I'm confused.

Either America is A Force For Good - in which case it doesn't matter how many millions.

Or America is only A Force For Good as long as there's only so many millions - but no more?

[mockney piers]

As your Iraq 2 is avoiding the Lancet report and studiously avoiding the estimated half a million children dead thanks to the 'UN' sanctions that denied Iraq basic medicines and sanitation*, what about the 300,000 shias encouraged to rise against Saddam then left to their fate (no fly zones ignored for saddam's gunships for the duration of the suppression) when they realised they didn't want shias running iraq, we're already seeing a gulf in the figure of about 1.3 million on just one example.

How many people were tortured to death in the Shah's prisons, how many people did Suharto kill with tacit US support, how many did Sukarno kill with direct US logistical support, how many people did Pol Pot kill, he wouldn't have had a chance at power if it wasn't for the massive bombing campaigns in Cambodia and the direct intervention in campbodia in an attempt to close the ho chi min trail in the nearby utterly pointless war.

Ok, that's another 2-4 million there.

How about the Retroviral drugs denied so many to ensure the profit margins of the big pharmas. If the States was truly altruistic it could create a sea-change in the way the west treats the developing world, but no (we're no better on this one).

I could go on. It was tragic in a bi-polar world where conflict was viewed through a warped lens of a struggle against communism. But in a post '92 world where America is the world policeman and can be a force for good, then continued conflict is unforgivable.

One of the problems is its economy is so utterly dependent on the military, and noone dares do anything about it lest they be held responsible for provoking another great depression.

Sadly, even if this is the case, subsequent administrations seem to continue to have a use it or lose it approach, and keep stirring up conflict in order to justify the vast military budget. That's 50% of all military spending in the world, and just look at how it dominates the world. http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=884

Imagine these resources poured into alleviating poverty and establishing equality and real freedom in the world, and you begin to see how not only the post war (war to end all wars 2?), but the post Soviet collapse opportunities have been wholly squandered.

*Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: 2I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

[KalamityKel]

No no I was just pointing the possible inaccuracy of such figures - Suppose there's no real way to get an "accurate" representation anyway

[david_carnell]

I don't know whether I could begin to answer the "force for good" question but I just wanted to make the point that in no way, can US foreign policy over the past 60 years be compared to an 11 year reign of terror by a communist dictator.

Although, now I think about it, yes, I believe they are a force for good.

But, all deaths, civilian or combat, friend or foe, matter. Whether, under a basic utilitarian argument, they are for a greater good....I hope so.

[atila the gooner]

I recall some years back watching a televised Oxford union debate. I can't remember exactly what the topic of debate was but it had something to do with the danger of the nuclear arms race and whether we should be more afraid of the Russians or the US having their finger on the nuclear trigger. I remember vividly that the spokesman for the US was a fairly high ranking politician and he argued that we could feel safer in the hands of the US because at least the people from the US with their finger on the trigger were democratically elected. Well that made me feel a whole lot better as you can imagine.............................NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[david_carnell]

MP, what you now doing is making a case for US intervention in Cambodia, Indonesia etc etc whilst criticising US involvement in other areas where they deposed tin-pot dictatorships.

Are you in favour of intervention by western powers wherever they see a perceived injustice in the world?

Your use of figures do the same, you cannot blame the US for deaths where they did nothing and blame them when they intervened.

[mockney piers]

Eh? I'm a bit lost.

How am I making a case for intervention?

I'm saying that in some cases the US installed nasty regimes such as in Iran, in many cases they supported coups for nasty regimes as in Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, South Vietnam.

Sometimes they propped up terrible regimes, South Vietnam, most of the bad ones in Latin America, they poured a billion dollars of military aid into tiny little el salvador, 70,000 deaths, half a million homeless, a whole million exiled.

Sometimes they stuck their oar in with terrible consequences (Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iraq) and sometimes they simply got rid of good regimes such as Guatemala.

Sometimes they were complicit in the terrible actions of nasty regimes, twice in Indonesia, twice in iraq.

Sometimes they simply shot iranian airliners out of the sky.

A few snippets but the list is very long.

In all cases they were wrong wrong wrong.

A force for good? Well, that's just it, so often it IS a force for good, but so often it IS a force for what they would call terror and what Bush would no doubt call 'evil'

[gerry]

Throughout history,every powerful country is guilty of gettng it wrong, unfortunately, and does that mean powerful countries should stop trying to make things right? Britain is no exception.

Should we judge all Americans by their leaders? Should we judge all British by Gordon Brown or Tony Blair or Ken Livingstone? I don't think we can be so prejudiced and still call ourselves an intelligent, enlightened society.

[snorky]

Can anyone suggest an event where intervention occured for "good" rather for some side issue that would benefit the

" force for good " power ?

Im racking my brains and am struggling to find one that is straight........

[gerry]

Snorky, we can debate this all day, and still find that every good intention turned out to be wrong, but does that mean we want powerful countries to always turn a blind eye to what's happening around the world?

[mockney piers]

Whatever the motives may have been, the Marshal Plan and the reconstruction of post war europe is right up there in the good things they did side.

[*Bob*]

Why does any government, in any country, embroil themselves in any conflict?

Power, Alliance, Political Gain, Economics.. or defence. I think that just about covers it.

[mockney piers]

"does that mean we want powerful countries to always turn a blind eye to what's happening around the world?"

absolutely not, but we'd like them to behave multilaterally through an organisation, say....oooh, the UN perhaps? Not marginalise it or cast a veto every time they want to do something bad or prop up bad people.

Korea was pretty clear cut, Kuwait, however avoidable it may have been in the first place, was pretty clear cut.

How does overthrowing a democratic government and installing brutal dictators end up being the obverse of turning a blind eye?

God damn, they were going to nationalise their own resources, not a chance!!!

[snorky]

Its an interesting one - even with the situation in Kosovo, the face of it was intervention to avoid slaughter, the reality harks back to WW2 spheres of influence and sticking two fingers up at the other (wasting away ) superpower

[mockney piers]

gerry Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Throughout history,every powerful country is

> guilty of gettng it wrong, unfortunately, and does

> that mean powerful countries should stop trying to

> make things right? Britain is no exception.

>

>

> Should we judge all Americans by their leaders?

> Should we judge all British by Gordon Brown or

> Tony Blair or Ken Livingstone? I don't think we

> can be so prejudiced and still call ourselves an

> intelligent, enlightened society.

I've already made the point that people shouldn't be judged by their leaders, Gerry. And yes Britain got many things wrong (again point made) and continues to do so.

Should we stop trying to make things right? Depends on what right means? Defend the weak? Lovely thought but not alot of it goes on.

Most of those past mistakes I've highlighted, and those we continue to make are pretty much attributable to the reasons *Bob* gave.

[mockney piers]

I suspect you're right there Snorky.

That and giving NATO some excuse to continue in the face of noises about an EU replacement or even a European Army.

[Keef]

Oh Sean, I can't believe you let that one get to you, I thought it was hilarious.

[gerry]

Can we agree on what constitutes a good reason for intervention?