Is this the same person who called Harry Truman a war criminal?
When someone is that stupid, they own themselves. It's impossible for him to own anyone after saying something like this:
He apologized but that stain can never be removed. Anyone who believes this guy is credible or believes he owns anyone, is obviously as dumb as Stewart.
I love this attitude amongst many gringos that "it ain't wrong when we do it".
Too bad it only works when we say it works.
Funny how Hitler's massacre of millions of human beings is seen as the worst act in the history of humanity, yet, us dropping two atomic bombs on civilian targets and killiins hundreds of thousands os human beings is ok.
Folks, this is why many people around the globe hate us.
And the fact that you're unable to distinguish the difference between the two acts is why many consider us to be idiots. Thanks for helping that stereotype along.
Is this the same person who called Harry Truman a war criminal?
When someone is that stupid, they own themselves. It's impossible for him to own anyone after saying something like this:
He apologized but that stain can never be removed. Anyone who believes this guy is credible or believes he owns anyone, is obviously as dumb as Stewart.
And...
... I rest my case.
;D ;D
As do I... :D
And what case have you rested (aside from the obvious lack of historical knowledge)?
;D ;D
He uses total FACTS AND FOOTAGE to show what a JOKE They are
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-april-8-2010-david-remnick
Too easy of a target is why.
The problem is, FOX viewers never go back and check to see if the nonsense they are receiving is even credible or factual. They also have a tough time separating someone`s opinion from a fact and merge the two freely.
He uses clips from a few seconds of Sean Hannity's show. Big deal. I'm never impressed by people who have debates with video clips.Wrong
Wrong
He takes a Standpoint that Fox news is promoting at that time, and then shows evidence of them saying the opposite 2 months earlier...Its not a debate..its just pointing out the vast contradictions. Even though its for comedy..its still a contradiction
He shows competing video clips and then adds his own commentary, criticizing the entire network. It still amounts to debating with video clips. Not impressive at all. It's like hitting the heavy bag in the gym that can't hit back. I'd be much more impressed if he dismantled someone in a live exchange.
But he's also a comedian, so it's sort of hard to take him seriously.
he has done that as wellll...but back to the "debate with video"
Does it matter...if this day they are saying "this is great this is great" and then he shows that 3 months prior "this is crap this is crap" What does it matter if he adds commentary. The fact remains, there was a blatant contradiction...
What am i missing here...
he has done that as wellll...but back to the "debate with video"
Does it matter...if this day they are saying "this is great this is great" and then he shows that 3 months prior "this is crap this is crap" What does it matter if he adds commentary. The fact remains, there was a blatant contradiction...
What am i missing here...
You're missing the fact that most contradictions that Stewart points out (that I've seen) deal with opinion. If Fox has 2 different broadcasters giving their opinion and it differs, the so-what. If Fox is giving the news and contradicts, then I think it's a fair criticism.
Obviously Hannity didn't have a clue what the fuck he was talking about and looks like a complete ass. But that doesn't mean another Fox commentator can't or shouldn't say something contradictory to Hannity.
Either way, Hannity is not news. He's commentary and opinion regardless of how misinformed he was on this subject.
"Maybe they simply changed their mind. "still waiting for that 9/11 list ;)
ugh, not another Mitt Romney healthcare thread...
tony, 911 is part of history now. I don't understand why CTers like yourself keep on bringing it up over and over again.I just want to know who is part of the evil empire so I can stay away from them is all. You seem to have the inside info on this stuff that isnt privy to regular citizens such as myself so come on man dont hold out.
;D
And your inability to figure that out just gave me a win on appeal. :D
Don't worry, you might be able to catch up....someday.....
I mean, what O'Reilly is stating as the reason why we dropped two atomic bombs on civilian targets is the very same reason Joseph Goebels gave as one of the tilting points in Hitler's posture toward the Jews: "Regarding the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to clear the table. He warned the Jews that if they were to cause another world war, it would lead to their own destruction. Those were not empty words. Now the world war has come. The destruction of the Jews must be its necessary consequence. We cannot be sentimental about it. It is not for us to feel sympathy for the Jews. We should have sympathy rather with our own German people. If the German people have to sacrifice 160,000 victims in yet another campaign in the east, then those responsible for this bloody conflict will have to pay for it with their lives."
These are similarities of H-O-L-Y S-H-I-T proportions, the ones that would make anyone sit back in disgust. But not in the USA.
Again, these are things that are public knowledge. This is why I say people ought to read, to inform themselves. If people read they would find out that the Tea Party types are acting in a manner reminiscent of that of the Nazis.
I mean O'Reilly has been corrected so many times any sane person would not see him as a credible voice. Yet, many do, more out of desperation I hope. Bill's discourse is remarkedly proto-fascist. I'm not making this up folks. Read up.
You're missing the fact that most contradictions that Stewart points out (that I've seen) deal with opinion. If Fox has 2 different broadcasters giving their opinion and it differs, the so-what. If Fox is giving the news and contradicts, then I think it's a fair criticism.
Obviously Hannity didn't have a clue what the fuck he was talking about and looks like a complete ass. But that doesn't mean another Fox commentator can't or shouldn't say something contradictory to Hannity.
Either way, Hannity is not news. He's commentary and opinion regardless of how misinformed he was on this subject.
not at all..we are talking about the same people here...not that hannity said one thing and beck said another..not at all
beck says one thing today but says the total opposite the next day...GTFO
Too easy of a target is why.
The problem is, FOX viewers never go back and check to see if the nonsense they are receiving is even credible or factual. They also have a tough time separating someone`s opinion from a fact and merge the two freely.
You're dumb as fuck...and that is meant as an insult. Posted facts? No, you posted assumptions.
Assumption #1) People around the world hate us because dropping the bombs equates to Hitler's Final solution.
No, they don't. I've lived all over the world. First, it's rarely even an issue. Second, most around the world can distinguish the difference. Third, they typically hate us for other issues.
Assumption #2) Hitler's final solution is based on the same reasoning as us dropping the bomb.
This is your inability to distinguish right from wrong.
The Nazis were of the belief that Jews had caused WWII so killing them all off was justified. Now you want to pretend as though the fact that the Jews did not cause the war is immaterial. The reality is - it is material. And what the Nazis did was nothing short of senseless murder.
When we dropped the bomb, we were not trying to eliminate every single Jap even though there is no question about their role in the war.
| The "victim" | The "aggressor" | The "solution" | The REAL outcome | Reason | ||||
| Americans | The Japanese | Drop two atomic bombs | Massacre of civilians (hundreds of thousands) | To save American lives | ||||
| Germans | The Jews | The Holocaust | Massacre of civilians (millions) | To save German lives |
Assumption #3) Had the Nazis been successful, history would now record that the killings were justified.
That's like saying history records the murder of the Native Americans as being justified. (Hint, as you're not too bright: It doesn't) In fact, history records that we unfairly butchered and treated them like shit.
It's "rarely been an issue"?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Mk7J0bBTKYk/SAs8stFDrNI/AAAAAAAAAD0/S254C4zR848/s400/American%2BImage1.jpg)
Nothing short of senseless murder. I presume dropping two atomic bombs on two civilian targets have nothing to do with "senseless murder". That's quite a dichotomy.
You mean the bombs? So we weren't out to put the Japanese in concentration camps, oh wait! we did! Any way, we were for putting Japanese-Americans in concentration camps but we weren't looking to exterminate them... Oh, ok. That makes it better. Is it? The outcome is the same: Massacre of civilians.
The "victim" The "aggressor" The "solution" The REAL outcome Reason Americans The Japanese Drop two atomic bombs Massacre of civilians (hundreds of thousands) To save American lives Germans The Jews The Holocaust Massacre of civilians (millions) To save German lives
This pattern shows up everywhere throughout history. And it's no coincidence. You can move the variables around if you like. The only fixed variable is that the winner gets to excuse their attrocities and erase them from public record.
No, I'm not saying the Native American Holocaust was justified, I am saying that had the Nazis won WWII the Holocaust would've been just another footnote, one of those major events in history that history professors in high schools in Germany would breeze through in 5 minutes (kinda like we do here with the Native Americans and the question of slavery).
History is always written by the winners, not the losers. That's why the American Revolution is an event that we mostly know about from an American perspective. Had you read up on the AR from a British perspective and you would be shocked of what the Brits thought of the AR (we were nuts).
Look, there is no justification for the killings of civilians. Now, then, in the future, here, in Viet Nam, Hungary of the Lower Rhine. It's universal justice, as known by both sides, the winners and the losers (see the UN charters for more information).
How many japanese did we gas and shoot in the concentration camps?
Read fool. I said they hate us for other reasons. Where in your poll is our actions on WWII indicated? It's not. At least try to use your brain.
Killing civilians is absolutely justified. Who the fuck do you think is supporting soldiers? You think they're growing their own crops? Making their own clothes? Building their weapons? These are done by civilians, and it's perfectly acceptable to target them.
We do not do that here in the US. Native American history and our brutalization of those people was covered extensively. Especially considering that we don't treat them much better today. Your claim is not a fact, it's just that - a claim.
Noooo dude, noooo, noooo, noooo, noooo, noooo, noooo, noooo.
I was referring to some American's (present or past) ambivalence when it comes to some of our actions. I mean, we have no problem whatsoever in condemning violent action when someone else is doing it. Now, when WE do it, many Americans sort of feel that there has to be some righteousness involved. And I'm saying no, there isn't any. We just cover it up a lot better.
Then again, a country like the USA, having as violent a past as we have (decimation of the Native American population, slavery, Guantánamo, Viet Nam, et cetera), these type of arguments ought not come as a surprise.
Well, the United Nations does not think so. Furthermore, the government of the United States of America does not think so. Needless to say, I do not think so.
Whaaaaaat??? Extensively??? Where???
You're still not getting it. You're trying to equate the actions and outcomes and claim it's the same while disregarding the reasoning behind the actions. The Nazis wrongly blamed the Jews. We did not wrongly blame the Japanese. Obviously the internments were not justified, but the bombs were. To those Americans who we threw into camps...it was wrong and serves as yet another scar on our nation.
Comparatively speaking, we are still a young nation. If you wanted to start point out Europian, Asian, or African atrocities, the lists would dwarf this country.
There's hypocrisy both from the US and other nations.
The UN's another irrelevant organization and I curse the day the Bush's put so much reliance on them. But, there are a lot of pussies in American gov't, so I would agree, at least currently, that's the stance.
Bottom line:
Every country in the world does some fvvcked up shit. It's that simple. They're not saints, and neither are we.
However, since we live here, we're okay with the evil shit we do. We can have a nice circle jerk party about "well, their religion is worse and they're more evil than we are!" but the truth is that the USA has been much more "effective" at reaching our goals than them, period.
End of story. There are no saints present.
And that's why you're not getting it, because the very same "reasoning" in killing hundreds of thousands and even millions of innocent civilians was, and is, used time and time again as the basis to commit the worst attrocities known to mankind. What I'm saying is that if the outcome we seek by taking violent action involves massacring millions or hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings... the we cannot conclude that reasons for us to take that action is righteous.
There is a difference between a civilian and a military target. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour they were attacking a military target. Their goal was solely militaristic: To destroy the Pacific fleet. When we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed two civilian targets. We were trying to murder as many human beings as possible.
Judging by the outcome, namely killing innocent civilians, we were no better than the Nazis.
Now, that's an ignorant statement... if there ever was one. What country dwarfs our 350-year killing spree?
And I can get deeper into the subject, but I have a feeling I'm going to lose you in the process.
And...
... I rest my case.
;D ;D
You rest your case believing that there is no difference between a display of force to end a war and a systematic torture, starvation and destruction of a select few groups of people based on their heritage and/or religion.... You're mensa material for sure.
Of course we can conclude that. These were not innocent people. They were helping the Japanese gov't in its conquest.
More clueless babble. These cities were selected for several reasons, causualties only being one.
No, they were not innocent and I think it's one of the best pages in American history. And their goal was not "soley militaristic". Again, your claims are not facts. They had to hit our military first. It's not like they could have struck LA and turned around to deal with our navy. Fortunately for us, they did not get another chance.
Try educating yourself about the Japanese and take look at the Nanking Massacre.
Are you actually that dumb? The atomic bombs didn't even hit the millions in casualties. Joseph Stalin ALONE is way over that. Again, educate yourself. Mao, Lenin, Pol-pot, Pasha, Wilhelm II...
You can't even keep up. You're claiming the "reasoning" is the same and that other countries don't dwarf us in terms of killings.
Slapper you should read "Rape of Nanking." It might give you a different perspective of Japan's wartime ambitions, conduct, etc.
No, I know the Japanese weren't the Nuns of the Holy Mary. Please, don't think that just because I do not blame them for precipitating what eventually happened to their civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki somehow translates into some sort of acquiescence on my part. The Japanese military fuckers had it coming too. I mean, they rolled the dice and they lost. Not only that, the Chinese, once they become the superpower are going to be seeking major pay back. So if I were Japanese I'd be looking to relocate their islands further into the pacific.
It's the civilian victims I am worried about. Nowadays, regardless of war, everything and everyone is fair game. No one respects any one. I mean, my understanding of how to carry out a war is that described in the Geneva Conventions: Choose the unpopulated area, put army A and army B in that area and let them fuck each other up until there's no one left. Whoever wins gets to collect the taxes and run the government and that's that. Somehow, nowadays, it doesn't work that way. And it's not because of the civilians, I can tell you that.
Now, I still do not understand why we dropped two atomic bombs on two civilian targets. I know we wanted to impress the Russians, but that's no reason... I mean, Truman knew Emperor Hirohito wanted a surrender without having to go through the compulsory blow-job gangbang of the winners. The more I read about it, the more it sounds as though Truman was (mis)led to believe (by the OSS) that, unless the US took decisive action against the Japanese, the Soviets were next in line to fight the Americans. Which would explain many things.
Sure yeah. And I stand behind my argument. Tally up all the innocent civilian deaths due to direct and indirect military action (by country) and you tell me who is better at this mass killings game than us (aside from China and Russia).
But were they not-innocent people because YOU say they were not innocent people or because you have undeniable proof that they were all, or the majority was, part of the Japanese war machine? I mean... on all the websites I clicked on, out of the total 1,240,000 hits on "Hiroshima and Nagasaki" I have yet to find one which does not refer to those killed by the bombs as "victims" (civilians) and not as "casualties" (military).
Now, I do not know who to believe... you or the 1.2 million websites...
Right, and that helps your cause. ::) ::)
Well, mine is not a claim, it is conventional wisdom. Pearl Harbour was a military base. The Japanese who attacked PH had ships and planes and guns and soldiers in mind, and that's what they attacked. Thus their goals were solely militaristic. Whether they could've attacked LA or Phoenix or downtown Detroit is just hypothetics. Hence it is not reality. I ask you to stick to reality, not to what could've/maybe/sort of happen.
Yeah sure, but I'm talking about our killas. I expect the Japanese civilians to take care of theirs.
If you read again you'll notice I do not say the atomic bombs killed millions. YOU just said it. I was referring to the Holocaust. You do know there's a difference between what I say and what you think I said right? The proper way to go about it is to ask for clarification, not to take a failed observation and build on it. 8)
Sure yeah. And I stand behind my argument. Tally up all the innocent civilian deaths due to direct and indirect military action (by country) and you tell me who is better at this mass killings game than us (aside from China and Russia).
That's why I recommend you read Rape of Nanking. The Japanese raped, tortured, and murdered over 300,000 Chinese civilians, because they didn't want to keep any POWs. This was done in a matter of months. One of the worst (but least discussed) massacres in recorded history.
Yes, but I'm not Japanese, I'm an American. If the Japanese choose to do that, it's their problem. I certainly do not want any Americans taking part in civilian massacres. My problem is that our military actions are not talked about at all from a critical perspective. I mean, we just invaded a country (Iraq) for the second time, we've humiliated their peoples beyond belief, the US-sponsored sanctions killed millions of Iraqis, and yet... people show no shame whatsoever. You go to Germany and you'll find out that people are pissed mad with the older generations not standing up to Hitler and putting such a dark stain in such a glorious past. Over here? 15 million dead motherfuckers and we boast about it like we just invented water.
You go to Germany and you'll find out that people are pissed mad with the older generations not standing up to Hitler and putting such a dark stain in such a glorious past.
Hahaha...first it's show me any country...now it's, well don't count China and Russia. Way to show that lack of intelligence.
As for the rest of your dribble, you and I are just going in circles...
I'm not sure who you've talked with, but I hear and engage in discussions all the time about war "from a critical perspective." Our military has very strict rules of engagement. We prosecute soldiers who violate those rules. Collateral damage is one of the unfortunate and unavoidable aspects of war. Also, collateral damage will always be greater when the enemy uses civilians as human shields.
What's the source for your claim that "US-sponsored sanctions killed millions of Iraqis"?
Lack of intelligence because I said the US, Russia and China are the #1 killers on this earth.
Now, that's an ignorant statement... if there ever was one. What country dwarfs our 350-year killing spree?
Are you actually that dumb? The atomic bombs didn't even hit the millions in casualties. Joseph Stalin ALONE is way over that. Again, educate yourself. Mao, Lenin, Pol-pot, Pasha, Wilhelm II...
Tally up all the innocent civilian deaths due to direct and indirect military action (by country) and you tell me who is better at this mass killings game than us (aside from China and Russia).
Have a nice week end.
No they don't. I lived in Germany for 6 years and I can only think of a few times where the issue came up and never once did I see or hear any angst towards the older generations.
Have you ever even been to Germany?
Sure, here (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084).
And this is back in 2001. Later estimates talk about a number closer to 2 million.
But you guys knew about this already! Come on, it was all over the place!
I read most of the link. It actually cites estimates from 106,000 to 500,000.
Like I said, that's because it's from 2001.
Do a search in google for "Iraq sanctions & deaths" and let me know.
Uh..no, that's not what you said.
Here's what you said -
To which I replied -
Which is when you "suddenly" excluded Russia and China -
And that is what's called a schooling...
Thanks, you too. Have to go cut the grass now. All this global warming and cooling is making my yard grow like its on gear.
No, I'm not doing a search to support numbers you used. You claim US-led sanctions killed a million Iraqis. You then gave me link that provided an unconfirmed range of 106,000 to 500,000.
We've discussed exaggerated death tolls many times on the board. That's why I asked for your source. Does not sound accurate.
No problem: Here (http://soc.hfac.uh.edu/artman/publish/article_99.shtml).
Notice the line "the United Nations estimated that more than 1.2 million people, including 750,000 children under 5, died because of lack of food and medicine between 1991 and 1997".
Will that suffice?
[...]Perhaps you libs should spend more time reading the constitution[...]
Much better. :)
I do think there is a huge leap between "US-led sanctions" and the estimated death of 1.2 people. I think the person responsible for the death of Iraqis was Saddam. I've talked to a number of soldiers who have been stationed in Iraq and they said many parts of the country is Third World, while Saddam lived in several palaces with literally about a billion dollars under this mattress.
That's what I thought too, initially. But then I started looking into one of the biggest components of that 1.2 million souls and... let's just say it doesn't make us look very good:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d6/Iraq-infant-mortality.svg/745px-Iraq-infant-mortality.svg.png)
Looks like Sadam was actually doing a better job than we thought: The infant mortality rate between 1990, the year of the Gulf War, and 2009 increased 125%. Here (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/infant-mortality-in-iraq-soars-as-young-pay-the-price-for-war-447931.html).
This one is mostly us too.
Unfortunately.
Sad but true.
Read up (http://soaringeaglesgallery.com/articles_english/0004angst.html).
And I stand behind my response, since you seem to know a country that DWARFS the US in mass murder. You're the one who made the claim, not me. Don't backtrack now! Tell us, which country are you talking about?
Are you sure you're gonna cut the grass? I bet you're gonna smoke it!
Bottom line:(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/angel2.gif)
Every country in the world does some fvvcked up shit. It's that simple. They're not saints, and neither are we. .
End of story. There are no saints present.
Read it. Absolutely nothing to support your claim. The only thing this article mentions is they don't like being compared to Hitler. Guess what...Bush and Obama probably don't like the comparison either.
So again, do you have anything to back up your bullshit claim of, "You go to Germany and you'll find out that people are pissed mad with the older generations not standing up to Hitler and putting such a dark stain in such a glorious past."
Hahaha, way to continue making an ass of yourself. You don't know the countries represented by the people I named? hahahaha...idiot.
I'll slow down for you.
Stalin = Soviet Union
That's all you've got? You said "If you wanted to start point out Europian, Asian, or African atrocities, the lists would dwarf this country" and all you can come up with is Russia + the stans (A.K.A. the Soviet Union, which I asked you not to name, along with China, since you knew of so many other countries that had a worst record than ours)?
Also notice I said "during the last 350 years". If you involve Viet Nam, slavery, the Native American Holocaust, WWI, WWII, Korean War and other conflicts... I bet you're now peeing in your pants.
First of all, it is not a claim, it is an observation. There is a difference. And to be honest with you it comes not from the crack of my ass, but from reading an interesting article (I can't find it now-which in your language pretty much translates into an "Aha! There's a lie" on your part) on German Holocaust guilt and it being a phenomenom that affects the post-WWII generations.
In all honesty I posted the link because I though you were going to actually read it and get something out of it, but since you're in full willfully blind mode I suspect that unless you read or hear a German youth say "I hate my grandpa" I'll be wasting my time.
In the very same text you claim you did not see "anything": "You never get rid of that. Everything that happens in this country we compare to the German past, to the Nazi dictatorship. Germans are much more aware of their past than most other countries in the world. And that is at least one thing that is good, coming out of such a terrible past."
Or "We are very sceptical about things, so we are sceptical when people admire politicians, we're sceptical about mass movements, we are very critical about what the police do, what the judicial system does. I think you have to think about your past to get rid of it."
If you can't notice any of the German Holocaust guilt in those words then you might as well call it a day rosy cheeks.
He uses total FACTS AND FOOTAGE to show what a JOKE They arebecause it's so easy to do. :D
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-april-8-2010-david-remnick
Hahahaha...as pathetic as it gets. First it's name one. Now, it's well can't you do better than that. Your groveling is causing a tear in my eye.
Once again, we're just going in circles...
Yes there is a difference. You made a bullshit claim, can't back it up, and now you're running like bitch.
I don't need to get something out of your article, I lived in Germany for six years. They're a great people, with great food, and a rich heritage (WW's aside).
Being cognizant and aware of their past is a far cry from your nonsense claim that "people are pissed mad with older generations".
The reality is you're reading way too much into the article and then just making up shit to suit your beliefs.
And, now that you can't back it up, you're pathetically crying.
From now on I will consider this a lecture, my lecture of you, not an argument.
Do you understand English?
What country dwarfs our 350-year killing spree?
Name the countries (plural)
I keep telling you it's not a claim, it's an observation. Why are you so stubborn?
Well, that's precisely what I was trying to get at, but then you decided to take the dialogue it in a different direction, I suspect you do that because you can see your argument basis shrink rapidly into a dead-end.
In the hopes of putting a lid on this bullshit escapade of yours let me get back to saying what I wanted to say originally, namely that I wish we Americans had the very same guilt the Germans have for the Holocaust for the things we've done to other peoples, like the Vietnamese, the Iraqis or the Koreans. What I was arguing before is that we carry no guilt whatsoever. And I stand behind it.
Whaaaat? "[R]eading way too much". Now THAT explains it. Forget about reading what the writer intended to say, that Germans had a "terrible past" or that today's Germans are sceptical of any power source, be it judicial, political or military. I guess by "terrible past" he means they didn't win the World Cup enough times. Getdafuckattahere!
Here, educate yourself: One (http://iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1997/holocaust-ed-germany.html) and two (http://erlenda.blogspot.com/2007/03/we-germans-and-our-collective-vicarious.html).
From now on I will consider this a lecture, my lecture of you, not an argument.
I don't know buddy... it looks like you're being taken to school over and over again from where I'm standing.
Slapper, you can feel free to consider this a mere lecture to skip,
...but I gotta tell ya, from my perspective, it looks more like a KNOCK OUT.
Why he's even still talking... I don't know. ???
Apparently you don't.
First it's (in your own words) -
Singular moron, not plural.
Then when I bitch slapped you, now it's -
It's always comical when semi-literate ass-wipes like you accuse others of being dumb.
How many times do we really have to go over this moron?
I guess Russia doesn't count?
I guess China doesn't count?
I guess Germany doesn't count?
I guess Japan doesn't count?
I guess Cambodia doesn't count?
I guess Mongolia doesn't count?
I guess Spain doesn't count?
I guess France doesn't count?
I guess Timurid doesn't count?
Do countries that have existed over millennia count?
At least you've finally gotten to the meat of your argument. Of course I don't have any shame wherever we rank. I reject your notion that putting a stop to Germany and Japan means that we have murderous tendencies.
Did you even read your own links moron?
Yeah...lot of "pissed off for not standing up to Hitler there... Germans are taught that What the Nazi's did to the Jews was bad. Haha...what we did to the American Indians was bad. Still doesn't support your idiotic claim.
You have what, maybe 70-90 years on this earth (just ballparking an average), and you want to spend your time crying and feeling guilty about the past? Then knock yourself out douchebag. But I have no intention of going through this short life with a guilt trip for something I've never done or been part of. Empathy is one thing, living in guilt is another. I don't think modern Germans who were neither born or ever participated in Hitler's regime should feel guilt. I don't think modern Spaniards should feel guilt over Incan and Aztec atrocities. While you're at, feel free to cry about Greek, Persian, and Egyptian slavery and atrocities.
Stop the fight . . . stop the fight . . . TKO. Slapper you need to head back to the gym and train. :)