The U.S. Has Killed More Than 20 Million People Since WWII

[AlaCowboy]

Jul 5, 2017 22:39:42 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Jul 5, 2017 22:06:18 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

So what. If they don't like it, they can either clean up their act or leave. Make me a co-administrator. I'll run everything by you before I act. I'll be "fair and balanced" and become "the most trusted name" in aolcfb.

Read the f*cking references, Dungkopf.  Stop being such a dysfunctional CFB d*ckhead.

Rather than trying to shut down a debate-- and violating the First Amendment--tell us where the study got it wrong.

Imitate Walter, for a change.  His argument is that their methodology was flawed-- e.g. attributing Soviet Afghan casualties to the U.S.

My counterargument is that the CIA funded the Taliban's insurrection.

Are you capable of engaging in a non-moronic discussion?

Of course I am. But not with a moron named Nie der hut.

[Buckeye Dale]

Jul 6, 2017 7:45:31 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 5, 2017 22:39:42 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Read the f*cking references, Dungkopf.  Stop being such a dysfunctional CFB d*ckhead.

Rather than trying to shut down a debate-- and violating the First Amendment--tell us where the study got it wrong.

Imitate Walter, for a change.  His argument is that their methodology was flawed-- e.g. attributing Soviet Afghan casualties to the U.S.

My counterargument is that the CIA funded the Taliban's insurrection.

Are you capable of engaging in a non-moronic discussion?

If you want to use a dumb method like that, then the counter argument is that had it not been for the USSR, the US would never engaged in all the cold war proxy conflicts, so the dead are blood on Soviet hands, not American hands. They killed 20 million, not us.

If America is responsible for a Russian killing an Afghan because the CIA funded the opposition...guess who funded Viet Nam against America? So all those deaths are on the Russian ledger, not ours.

See how @utterly stupid your conspiracy clown show website is?

See how utterly stupid ALL that blame America first BS is???

[oujour76]

Jul 6, 2017 7:45:31 GMT -5 Walter said:

See how @utterly stupid your conspiracy clown show website is?

LOL...he's way too "smart" to see that.

[Deleted]

Jul 6, 2017 7:45:31 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 5, 2017 22:39:42 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Read the f*cking references, Dungkopf.  Stop being such a dysfunctional CFB d*ckhead.

Rather than trying to shut down a debate-- and violating the First Amendment--tell us where the study got it wrong.

Imitate Walter, for a change.  His argument is that their methodology was flawed-- e.g. attributing Soviet Afghan casualties to the U.S.

My counterargument is that the CIA funded the Taliban's insurrection.

Are you capable of engaging in a non-moronic discussion?

If you want to use a dumb method like that, then the counter argument is that had it not been for the USSR, the US would never engaged in all the cold war proxy conflicts, so the dead are blood on Soviet hands, not American hands. They killed 20 million, not us.

If America is responsible for a Russian killing an Afghan because the CIA funded the opposition...guess who funded Viet Nam against America? So all those deaths are on the Russian ledger, not ours.

See how @utterly stupid your conspiracy clown show website is?

Walter,

    Don't be so entirely clueless.  U.S. opposition to Ho Chi Minh resulted in 4 million unnecessary civilian casualties in Southeast Asia.   Four million!  Do you dispute that number?  If so, show us your source.  (Of course, the hairy Chicken will agree with you regardless of your lack of accurate information.)

    Ed Lansdale's CIA-created faux state of "South Vietnam" was never a viable state.  It had very limited popular support by the Vietnamese people-- especially in contrast to the popular, deeply-rooted indigenous support for Ho Chi Minh.

     In fact, the U.S. had supported Ho Chi Minh and his people in their insurrection against Japan in WWII.

     From their perspective, the war against imperial Japan simply morphed into a war against French (and American) colonialism.  John Kenneth Galbraith, and others, convinced JFK by 1963 that we were on the wrong side of history in Vietnam.
He ordered a phased withdrawal in October of 1963-- as I have demonstrated clearly in my debate against Harry on NSAM 263 and NSAM 273.

      As for Afghanistan-- same shit, different taco shell.  How did the CIA intervention in Afghanistan, on behalf of Wall Street, play out for the people of that nation?

       It has been a genocidal mess for decades.

       I agree with Nelson Mandela on this one.  Most of the evil in post-WWII world history has been perpetrated by the United States.  The extent of the problem is not well known by most media-stupefied Americans.

       What about Suharto and Sukarno in Indonesia-- after JFK was killed by Dulles and the CIA?  It was a holocaust.

       JFK had planned to visit Sukarno.  One million PKU were murdered in the aftermath of the CIA's coup d'etat.

       The same story was repeated throughout Latin America in the post WWII era-- beginning with Guatemala in 1954.

       If you and the Chicken disagree with the numbers in the lead article on this thread-- give us some specifics.

       Ready, GO!!

[Walter]

Jul 6, 2017 11:54:31 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Jul 6, 2017 7:45:31 GMT -5 Walter said:

If you want to use a dumb method like that, then the counter argument is that had it not been for the USSR, the US would never engaged in all the cold war proxy conflicts, so the dead are blood on Soviet hands, not American hands. They killed 20 million, not us.

If America is responsible for a Russian killing an Afghan because the CIA funded the opposition...guess who funded Viet Nam against America? So all those deaths are on the Russian ledger, not ours.

See how @utterly stupid your conspiracy clown show website is?

Walter,

    Don't be so entirely clueless.  U.S. opposition to Ho Chi Minh resulted in 4 million unnecessary civilian casualties in Southeast Asia.   Four million!  Do you dispute that number?  If so, show us your source.  (Of course, the hairy Chicken will agree with you regardless of your lack of accurate information.)

    Ed Lansdale's CIA-created faux state of "South Vietnam" was never a viable state.  It had very limited popular support by the Vietnamese people-- especially in contrast to the popular, deeply-rooted indigenous support for Ho Chi Minh.

     In fact, the U.S. had supported Ho Chi Minh and his people in their insurrection against Japan in WWII.

     From their perspective, the war against imperial Japan simply morphed into a war against French (and American) colonialism.  John Kenneth Galbraith, and others, convinced JFK by 1963 that we were on the wrong side of history in Vietnam.
He ordered a phased withdrawal in October of 1963-- as I have demonstrated clearly in my debate against Harry on NSAM 263 and NSAM 273.

      As for Afghanistan-- same shit, different taco shell.  How did the CIA intervention in Afghanistan, on behalf of Wall Street, play out for the people of that nation?

       It has been a genocidal mess for decades.

       I agree with Nelson Mandela on this one.  Most of the evil in post-WWII world history has been perpetrated by the United States.  The extent of the problem is not well known by most media-stupefied Americans.

       What about Suharto and Sukarno in Indonesia-- after JFK was killed by Dulles and the CIA?  It was a holocaust.

       JFK had planned to visit Sukarno.  One million PKU were murdered in the aftermath of the CIA's coup d'etat.

       The same story was repeated throughout Latin America in the post WWII era-- beginning with Guatemala in 1954.

       If you and the Chicken disagree with the numbers in the lead article on this thread-- give us some specifics.

       Ready, GO!!

Just trying to establish the ground rules here.
Is any outside country that arms one side or the other to blame for any of the deaths in any conflict?

Yes or no?

If yes, then how much of the blame? Gimme a percentage. 10-90? 20-80? 50-50? 60-40? 70-30? 90-10? All of it? None of it?

[daleko]

Jul 6, 2017 11:54:31 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Jul 6, 2017 7:45:31 GMT -5 Walter said:

If you want to use a dumb method like that, then the counter argument is that had it not been for the USSR, the US would never engaged in all the cold war proxy conflicts, so the dead are blood on Soviet hands, not American hands. They killed 20 million, not us.

If America is responsible for a Russian killing an Afghan because the CIA funded the opposition...guess who funded Viet Nam against America? So all those deaths are on the Russian ledger, not ours.

See how @utterly stupid your conspiracy clown show website is?

Walter,

    Don't be so entirely clueless...............

       ...................Ready, GO!!

You and ET are two brothers w different fathers and mothers. And you both work backwards to support a subjective causal factor. You create your own frame, not to seek the truth but to win a "debate". Your insecurity drives you to do that. Not much different than your analysis re the history of and timeline of the EO V COR. Your conclusions and the authors conclusions are based on their subjective view of what was. THEIR and YOUR subjective view. Their and your frame. History is  linked, C follows B which follows A, as it should be but often that link is subjective because in your view something had to cause it. Or you ignore the real connection because it doesn't fit your narrative, so you create a frame. Sometimes stuff happens because of people being people. We aren't going to convince you of anything nor you many of us because we all take different subjective views of reality, which has the ultimate view as to accuracy.  

Not much different than trying to define Dark Matter. AstroPhy can read, through data, what it does but no one can define what it is. Doesn't stop them from framing it from their perspective. In the final they fail because they can't. As you have.

[Deleted]

Jul 6, 2017 12:37:25 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 6, 2017 11:54:31 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Walter,

    Don't be so entirely clueless.  U.S. opposition to Ho Chi Minh resulted in 4 million unnecessary civilian casualties in Southeast Asia.   Four million!  Do you dispute that number?  If so, show us your source.  (Of course, the hairy Chicken will agree with you regardless of your lack of accurate information.)

    Ed Lansdale's CIA-created faux state of "South Vietnam" was never a viable state.  It had very limited popular support by the Vietnamese people-- especially in contrast to the popular, deeply-rooted indigenous support for Ho Chi Minh.

     In fact, the U.S. had supported Ho Chi Minh and his people in their insurrection against Japan in WWII.

     From their perspective, the war against imperial Japan simply morphed into a war against French (and American) colonialism.  John Kenneth Galbraith, and others, convinced JFK by 1963 that we were on the wrong side of history in Vietnam.
He ordered a phased withdrawal in October of 1963-- as I have demonstrated clearly in my debate against Harry on NSAM 263 and NSAM 273.

      As for Afghanistan-- same shit, different taco shell.  How did the CIA intervention in Afghanistan, on behalf of Wall Street, play out for the people of that nation?

       It has been a genocidal mess for decades.

       I agree with Nelson Mandela on this one.  Most of the evil in post-WWII world history has been perpetrated by the United States.  The extent of the problem is not well known by most media-stupefied Americans.

       What about Suharto and Sukarno in Indonesia-- after JFK was killed by Dulles and the CIA?  It was a holocaust.

       JFK had planned to visit Sukarno.  One million PKU were murdered in the aftermath of the CIA's coup d'etat.

       The same story was repeated throughout Latin America in the post WWII era-- beginning with Guatemala in 1954.

       If you and the Chicken disagree with the numbers in the lead article on this thread-- give us some specifics.

       Ready, GO!!

Just trying to establish the ground rules here.
Is any outside country that arms one side or the other to blame for any of the deaths in any conflict?

Yes or no?

If yes, then how much of the blame? Gimme a percentage. 10-90? 20-80? 50-50? 60-40? 70-30? 90-10? All of it? None of it?

It's called a proxy war, Walter.

Surely, those who fund, train, and sponsor the proxies bear some responsibility for the casualties, don't they?

If we look at the situation in post WWII Vietnam, the casualties prior to Dien Bien Phu in 1954 had little to do with the U.S.  But the lion's share of the massive casualties (4 million) after JFK's assassination in late 1963 were largely a result of American bombs.

The other extreme might be something like the Iran-Iraq War.  It was primarily a religious war between Saddam Hussein's Baathist Sunni police state and the Shiites in Iran.  HOWEVER, the Reagan administration played a major role in arming BOTH sides.

[Walter]

Jul 6, 2017 13:27:44 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Jul 6, 2017 12:37:25 GMT -5 Walter said:

Just trying to establish the ground rules here.
Is any outside country that arms one side or the other to blame for any of the deaths in any conflict?

Yes or no?

If yes, then how much of the blame? Gimme a percentage. 10-90? 20-80? 50-50? 60-40? 70-30? 90-10? All of it? None of it?

It's called a proxy war, Walter.

Surely, those who fund, train, and sponsor the proxies bear some responsibility for the casualties, don't they?

If we look at the situation in post WWII Vietnam, the casualties prior to Dien Bien Phu in 1954 had little to do with the U.S.  But the lion's share of the massive casualties (4 million) after JFK's assassination in late 1963 were largely a result of American bombs.

The other extreme might be something like the Iran-Iraq War.  It was primarily a religious war between Saddam Hussein's Baathist Sunni police state and the Shiites in Iran.  HOWEVER, the Reagan administration played a major role in arming BOTH sides.

Answer your own question.
How much responsibility do those that arm the shooter bear for a death? What percentage? Put a number to it.

[Buckeye Dale]

Jul 6, 2017 13:59:25 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 6, 2017 13:27:44 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

It's called a proxy war, Walter.

Surely, those who fund, train, and sponsor the proxies bear some responsibility for the casualties, don't they?

If we look at the situation in post WWII Vietnam, the casualties prior to Dien Bien Phu in 1954 had little to do with the U.S.  But the lion's share of the massive casualties (4 million) after JFK's assassination in late 1963 were largely a result of American bombs.

The other extreme might be something like the Iran-Iraq War.  It was primarily a religious war between Saddam Hussein's Baathist Sunni police state and the Shiites in Iran.  HOWEVER, the Reagan administration played a major role in arming BOTH sides.

Answer your own question.
How much responsibility do those that arm the shooter bear for a death? What percentage? Put a number to it.

Are you saying Samuel Colt is still responsible for people dying today?

[Deleted]

Jul 6, 2017 13:59:25 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 6, 2017 13:27:44 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

It's called a proxy war, Walter.

Surely, those who fund, train, and sponsor the proxies bear some responsibility for the casualties, don't they?

If we look at the situation in post WWII Vietnam, the casualties prior to Dien Bien Phu in 1954 had little to do with the U.S.  But the lion's share of the massive casualties (4 million) after JFK's assassination in late 1963 were largely a result of American bombs.

The other extreme might be something like the Iran-Iraq War.  It was primarily a religious war between Saddam Hussein's Baathist Sunni police state and the Shiites in Iran.  HOWEVER, the Reagan administration played a major role in arming BOTH sides.

Answer your own question.
How much responsibility do those that arm the shooter bear for a death? What percentage? Put a number to it.

I already answered the question.

Of the 4 million Southeast Asian casualties (mainly after 1963) U.S. bombs were probably responsible for most of them.

In the Iran-Iraq War, the percentage would be at the other end of the spectrum.

Do you still dispute the 37 nation-by-nation estimates in the lead article?

If so, specify where they got it wrong.

[oujour76]

Jul 6, 2017 15:12:19 GMT -5 Buckeye Dale said:

Jul 6, 2017 13:59:25 GMT -5 Walter said:

Answer your own question.
How much responsibility do those that arm the shooter bear for a death? What percentage? Put a number to it.

Are you saying Samuel Colt is still responsible for people dying today?

Or the AK-47, the gun that has killed more people than any other weapon.

"Every year, small arms kill between 20,000 and 100,000 people in the world’s conflicts. AK-47s account for a high proportion – and quite possibly the majority – of this human toll. In the 68 years since the first prototype was made, the AK-47 has probably dealt death to millions."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11714558/AK-47-Kalashnikov-The-firearm-which-has-killed-more-people-than-any-other.html

[Walter]

Jul 6, 2017 15:29:22 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Jul 6, 2017 13:59:25 GMT -5 Walter said:

Answer your own question.
How much responsibility do those that arm the shooter bear for a death? What percentage? Put a number to it.

I already answered the question.

Of the 4 million Southeast Asian casualties (mainly after 1963) U.S. bombs were probably responsible for most of them.

In the Iran-Iraq War, the percentage would be at the other end of the spectrum.

Do you still dispute the 37 nation-by-nation estimates in the lead article?

If so, specify where they got it wrong.

No need. It's too stupid.
It's like arguing which kind of cheese the Moon is made of.

[Deleted]

Jul 6, 2017 16:01:18 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 6, 2017 15:29:22 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

I already answered the question.

Of the 4 million Southeast Asian casualties (mainly after 1963) U.S. bombs were probably responsible for most of them.

In the Iran-Iraq War, the percentage would be at the other end of the spectrum.

Do you still dispute the 37 nation-by-nation estimates in the lead article?

If so, specify where they got it wrong.

No need. It's too stupid.
It's like arguing which kind of cheese the Moon is made of.

Cop out.

Study some CIA history.

CIA/MIC history was systematically suppressed in our mainstream U.S. media by Frank Wisner, Dulles, Cord Meyer, et.al. for years.

Media owners who cooperated closely in the Cold War CIA/MIC ops censorship-- William S. Paley, (CBS) Henry Luce, (Time-Life) Phillip & Katherine Graham, (WaPo) the Sulzbergers, (NYT) etc., etc.






Guatemala (1954)

[Deleted]

Walter, will you ever tire of the moron? You finally had a golden opportunity and didn't get the deed accomplished. Oh, I know you'll frame in some sort of liberal way where we're all equal and give peace a chance, yada yada.

[Deleted]