[Quinny]

How many deaths has the 'Gentle Giant' and it's proxies caused in other nations since WWII.

Anyone care to guess?

I think it's important for people particularly US citizens to understand why many people, particularly in the third world, feel so strongly that the US cannot be trusted.

It has been estimated that the US has caused millions of deaths across the globe since WWII. Many US citizens are unaware of many the conflicts and the role the US plays in them. It should be pointed out that most of the deaths are not in neighbouring countries but spread right across the globe.

How about starting alphabetically:

Afghanistan

The U.S. is responsible for between 1 and 1.8 million deaths during the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, by luring the Soviet Union into invading that nation. (1,2,3,4)

The Soviet Union had friendly relations its neighbor, Afghanistan, which had a secular government. The Soviets feared that if that government became fundamentalist this change could spill over into the Soviet Union.

In 1998, in an interview with the Parisian publication Le Novel Observateur, Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to President Carter, admitted that he had been responsible for instigating aid to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan which caused the Soviets to invade. In his own words:

“According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.” (5,1,6)

Brzezinski justified laying this trap, since he said it gave the Soviet Union its Vietnam and caused the breakup of the Soviet Union. “Regret what?” he said. “That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?” (7)

The CIA spent 5 to 6 billion dollars on its operation in Afghanistan in order to bleed the Soviet Union. (1,2,3) When that 10-year war ended over a million people were dead and Afghan heroin had captured 60% of the U.S. market. (4)

The U.S. has been responsible directly for about 12,000 deaths in Afghanistan many of which resulted from bombing in retaliation for the attacks on U.S. property on September 11, 2001. Subsequently U.S. troops invaded that country. (4)

http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas240407.htm

[dissident]

Expect the usual butthurt counter-argument that this was just the Gentle Giant saving the world from communism or whatever. But I will draw attention to Latin America. The Cuba model was not relevant to most of Latin America. They had an elected Marxist in Chile who was not about to impose a communist dictatorship, but Pinochet did impose a bloody dictatorship with full US backing. Argentina had some leftists who wanted more union rights, not even a change of the system and the USA helped impose a junta there too. The domino theory was a convenient pretext to meddle around the globe and secure economic interests. Like in Guatemala where a duly elected left-of-center and not even socialist leader was deposed. The United Fruit Company needed its slave-like plantations. Latin Americans wanted what Americans and Canadians had, namely labour laws allowing for unions and other rights that would take them out of 3rd world destitution. But union organizers were hunted down and killed with US blessing.

I wonder why the USA did not depose of the House of Saud when Saudi Arabian nationalized its oil industry? Clearly nationalization was a lame pretext. The democratic government in Iran was toppled and the clock was turned back giving us an oppressive Islamic republic after the US stooge the Shah was overthrown. The pretext for the meddling was to secure British oil interests. As if Iran would stop selling its oil on the world market. There was no communism involved in this case so the excuse that the world was being saved won't fly.

[Quinny]

Angola

An indigenous armed struggle against Portuguese rule in Angola began in 1961. In 1977 an Angolan government was recognized by the U.N., although the U.S. was one of the few nations that opposed this action. In 1986 Uncle Sam approved material assistance to UNITA, a group that was trying to overthrow the government. Even today this struggle, which has involved many nations at times, continues.

U.S. intervention was justified to the U.S. public as a reaction to the intervention of 50,000 Cuban troops in Angola. However, according to Piero Gleijeses, a history professor at Johns Hopkins University the reverse was true. The Cuban intervention came as a result of a CIA – financed covert invasion via neighboring Zaire and a drive on the Angolan capital by the U.S. ally, South Africa . (Three estimates of deaths range from 300,000 to 750,000 )

[Plantagenet]

The U.S. is responsible for between 1 and 1.8 million deaths during the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, by luring the Soviet Union into invading that nation.

Its the USA's fault that the USSR invaded Afghanistan?

[Quinny]

Bolivia

Hugo Banzer was the leader of a repressive regime in Bolivia in the 1970s. The U.S. had been disturbed when a previous leader nationalized the tin mines and distributed land to Indian peasants. Later that action to benefit the poor was reversed.

Banzer, who was trained at the U.S.-operated School of the Americas in Panama and later at Fort Hood, Texas, came back from exile frequently to confer with U.S. Air Force Major Robert Lundin. In 1971 he staged a successful coup with the help of the U.S. Air Force radio system. In the first years of his dictatorship he received twice as military assistance from the U.S. as in the previous dozen years together.

A few years later the Catholic Church denounced an army massacre of striking tin workers in 1975, Banzer, assisted by information provided by the CIA, was able to target and locate leftist priests and nuns. His anti-clergy strategy, known as the Banzer Plan, was adopted by nine other Latin American dictatorships in 1977. (2) He has been accused of being responsible for 400 deaths during his tenure. (1)

[Loki]

The counter-argument that the empire builders make is that the “Pax Americana” created more stability than chaos, prevented fewer wars than it created. There's a grain of truth there, but we have no way of knowing what might have been otherwise. And the so-called Pax sure did require a lot of wars.

After the unmitigated clusterfucks of Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has swung towards the non-interventionist side of the spectrum, relatively speaking. Of course we still have our nose in everyone's bidness, but there's a lot less willingness to use force (aside from drones blasting the odd wedding party and such).

Read right-wing boards and you might be surprised how many posters there recognize the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan and don't want to repeat them in Syria, Ukraine, etc. Plenty of “interventionists” left, of course, but there's a growing sentiment for non-intervention, at least militarily. Much of the current popularity of the Tea Party is driven by libertarians, who are often anti-imperialists (Ron Paul, for example).

The American left has always had anti-imperialists, but they're currently more marginal than the Tea Party is to the GOP. The Democratic Party is staunchly pro-empire, but mostly prefer a kinder, gentler empire. White man's burden and such.

Luckily we can't afford empire anymore, so it's all moot. Only questions are how fast the Pax Americana will disintegrate and what will come after.

[dolanbaker]

For us in Europe, the USA has always been a bit of a conundrum, I suppose it has been the rapid changes between isolationism before WWII and active participation-ism after.

Some of that has to come down to the Communist thread in the late 1940s through to the early 1980s, since then though, the US has intervened more than ever and this has to do with access to resources, namely oil!

[Keith_McClary]

Some of that has to come down to the Communist thread in the late 1940s through to the early 1980s, since then though, the US has intervened more than ever and this has to do with access to resources, namely oil!

The so-called "Communist threat" was mostly countries trying to kick out US/Euro colonial occupations (and the neo-colonial puppet regimes that replaced them).

[Quinny]

Loki it may seem that the 'Gentle Giant' has become a lot less willing to use aggression in recent years, certainly Obama seems more reasonable on the surface. The beast may be taking things easy but it's certainly not gone to sleep and it seems to me that the rule is not non-aggression but 'keep' it under wraps.

Some points though -

1. The military - industrial complex and the bureaucracy supporting it are highly entrenched in the state and it's like turning an aircraft carrier round.

http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=2965 Intervention in Africa.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/feb/07/eu-us-diplomat-victoria-nuland-phonecall-leaked-video Ukraine diplomacy!

2. The populace are as has been pointed out on this board in general ignorant of international affairs. It's clear that many see non-intervention as weak and criticise Obama for the above approach. It seems informed debate is virtually non-existent with critics severely marginalised. Links not needed all the evidence is here

3. The 'outsourcing' of violence has long been the preferred method (not many US troops on the ground in Chile), and is becoming more evident in recent conflicts. I have no doubt that US (and EU) have been heavily involved in most recent troubles (Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Thailand et al).

4. Even in cases where rioting is spontaneous, the US immediately go into overdrive looking for 'best' outcomes. They are indiscriminate in their choice of 'allies' from Pinochet to Taliban, Neo-Nazi's to Israel it's just about extending US influence and power.

[GregT]

Quinny,

Don't stop now, you're only at 'B'.

[Quinny]

Cambodia

U.S. bombing of Cambodia had already been underway for several years in secret under the Johnson and Nixon administrations, but when President Nixon openly began bombing in preparation for a land assault on Cambodia it caused major protests in the U.S. against the Vietnam War.

There is little awareness today of the scope of these bombings and the human suffering involved.

Immense damage was done to the villages and cities of Cambodia, causing refugees and internal displacement of the population. This unstable situation enabled the Khmer Rouge, a small political party led by Pol Pot, to assume power. Over the years we have repeatedly heard about the Khmer Rouge’s role in the deaths of millions in Cambodia without any acknowledgement being made this mass killing was made possible by the the U.S. bombing of that nation which destabilized it by death , injuries, hunger and dislocation of its people.

So the U.S. bears responsibility not only for the deaths from the bombings but also for those resulting from the activities of the Khmer Rouge - a total of about 2.5 million people. Even when Vietnam later invaded Cambodia in 1979 the CIA was still supporting the Khmer Rouge.

[dorlomin]

The Democratic Party is staunchly pro-empire, but mostly prefer a kinder, gentler empire. White man's burden and such.

Korea, Vietnam, the Carter Doctrine were all Democrat administrations. If anything Democrats were more willing to commit US troops while Republicans tended to favour proxy wars, until the neoconservatives gained influence. These were often former left wingers or democrats and advocated a more interventionist policy.

[sunweb]

Blinding ourselves, some of us gain employment, some gain access to materials and goodies from the low paying labor and natural resources purloined as a results of our bullying, aggressions and our arms sales. Dulled by inertia, seduced by promises of “trickle down”, conned by propaganda, we are numbed by the narcotic of things. Grabbing the coat tails and gladly distracted by the "red carpet glitter", we aspire to emulate the merchants and bankers of war. And we keep silent.

Violence has been our way of life since at least the beginning of the nation. “. . . since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence. In other words, there were only 21 calendar years in which the U.S. did not wage any wars.
To put this in perspective:
* Pick any year since 1776 and there is about a 91% chance that America was involved in some war during that calendar year.
* No U.S. president truly qualifies as a peacetime president. Instead, all U.S. presidents can technically be considered “war presidents.”
* The U.S. has never gone a decade without war.
* The only time the U.S. went five years without war (1935-40) was during the isolationist period of the Great Depression.
From: http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2013/01/violence.html

[Quinny]

I think the US powers that be see wars as profitable,

I believe they prefer using puppets though, but unfortunately sometimes the puppets get out of control.

Chad

An estimated 40,000 people in Chad were killed and as many as 200,000 tortured by a government, headed by Hissen Habre who was brought to power in June, 1982 with the help of CIA money and arms. He remained in power for eight years. (1,2)

Human Rights Watch claimed that Habre was responsible for thousands of killings. In 2001, while living in Senegal, he was almost tried for crimes committed by him in Chad. However, a court there blocked these proceedings. Then human rights people decided to pursue the case in Belgium, because some of Habre’s torture victims lived there. The U.S., in June 2003, told Belgium that it risked losing its status as host to NATO’s headquarters if it allowed such a legal proceeding to happen. So the result was that the law that allowed victims to file complaints in Belgium for atrocities committed abroad was repealed. However, two months later a new law was passed which made special provision for the continuation of the case against Habre.

[Sixstrings]

For us in Europe, the USA has always been a bit of a conundrum, I suppose it has been the rapid changes between isolationism before WWII and active participation-ism after.

Isolationism is really our natural state. Our ancestors came here to get the heck away from Europe and its interminable wars.

The common thread in our American history is that try as we might to just be left alone and have our city on a hill, Europe ALWAYS drags us in. And we wind up finally coming along when it's a real mess and v2 rockets are crashing around London and the whole continent is already taken over.

Even in the Napoleonic wars, Britain could not just leave us alone -- talk about "with us or against us," UK invaded us in 1812 because we wouldn't join them vs. Napoleon. The White House still has the burn marks. The British burned the city down then put their feet up in the WH and ate all the food and then burned that down too.

Peace deal was already signed as the Battle of New Orleans was underway.. a brilliant American victory against technically superior forces, hardscrabble Kentuckians joined with New Orleans French and pirates and creoles. Superior generalship under Jackson won that fight.

And then WWI, and WWII.. Americans just wanted left the heck alone, but no, Europe wouldn't let us. We got dragged in. We didn't want any part of it. It took Pearl Harbor to bring us in on the second one.

I can tell you my great uncle sure had rather not gone to Europe to defend Britain and liberate France. He came back with really bad PTSD and probably brain injury from shrapnel wounds. He was never the same again. He couldn't talk to anyone anymore or fit back in, and he never left his house. Really sad story there. He was a nice guy and good looking but the war really messed him up and he never married.

When my grandfather passed and I cleaned his house, that's the family history I saw -- really old pictures, a lot of young guys in uniforms. Navy, army. All of them would rather have stayed home and never gone to Europe.

But because they did, Dolan, you are now free today and England is not a Nazi dictatorship satellite state.

Straight away after WWII, we had the Soviets to worry about. We didn't go looking for that one either. But there was no choice, no time for isolationism. The world needed us again, and the recent war and WWI proved that we could never be isolationist again -- the world will never leave us alone, tyranny and empire will always rise and grow abroad and then threaten us here. We learned the lesson that we must prevent this sh*t from getting out of hand abroad so it's not so hard a fight just coming in once there's already a big totalitarian empire out there gobbling the world up and armed to the teeth.

So then we had the Cold War, and the little wars we fought in the course of that. We won. You're welcome Dolan, you're free yet again because of us.

Now as the US appears to recede into the sunset as the British Empire did, you won't have Uncle Sam the gentle giant to kick around anymore. You'll have to talk to Putin. And the Chinese. And get little pieces of paper promising "peace in our time" and when that doesn't work out -- if you've trashed and kicked around the US too much and we're weak -- then you'll be on your own next time around.

All the anti-Americanism is really amazing to me. We've frickin' SAVED the free world over, and over, and over again. Even Russia.. in the '20s, we sentimental Americans raised money in every church in the country, big cities to small towns, to feed Russia and save it from starvation. It's an historical quirk but actually true that we saved *so many Russians* that it's very likely Radon and Dissident wouldn't be here today without us. Or Putin. The USSR was literally going to starve to death, no joke, and America the sentimental big hearted gentle giant was the only one around giving a rat's ass enough to do something about it and feel good about saving people.

These are facts. We ain't perfect. But we do care and like to do "the right thing." Americans give more to charity than any other people in the whole world. We're the kind of people who care about starving kids in Africa, because we're big hearted and sentimental and want to "do something about it," and we do. The US taxpayer gave something like $20 billion to end the global aids pandemic, in Africa.

These are really big deals, Americans have done so much for the world and continue to, and all we get is a bunch of crap for it.

EDIT: Oh you're Irish, my apologies.. well we helped y'all out too and a big massive chunk of us over here are really Irish you know (not to mention all our Ukrainian Americans too, and Iranian Americans, this is the global melting pot). Even Obama is half Irish. I've got Irish in me. US brokered peace between UK and Northern Ireland. When British overlords took all your crops and you starved to death in the potato famine, America welcomed you in with open arms. But whatever, let's get back to how bad America is.

[dorlomin]

And then WWI, and WWII.. Americans just wanted left the heck alone, but no, Europe wouldn't let us. We got dragged in. We didn't want any part of it. It took Pearl Harbor to bring us in on the second one.

The US colony of the Philippines lay in the path of Japanese desire to control the Dutch colony of Indonesia. US involvement in China had ramped up after the Boxer rebellion and they were actively competing with the UK for influence before the Japanese invasion, the US took the Japanese invasion as being a move against US influence in the region. They even had permanent military bases in China.

That is not even looking at the constant interventionism in the Americas during that time.

But because they did, Dolan, you are now free today and England is not a Nazi dictatorship satellite state.

Dolan is a paddy not English. And the Nazis had zero chance of defeating the UK post August 1940. By the time of Normandy, two of the three main army groups (Center and South) of the Germans had been smashed and Army Group North was being driven into the Kalingrad peninsula. The Western invasion meant that continental Europe was not communist, not Nazi.

IIRC there were more troops occupying Norway than fighting in North Africa.

WWII is a story of the Chinese defeat of Japan, the Soviet annihilation of Germany and some skirmishes by the West until June 1944.

[Sixstrings]

Dolan is a paddy not English. And the Nazis had zero chance of defeating the UK post August 1940. By the time of Normandy, two of the three main army groups (Center and South) of the Germans had been smashed and Army Group North was being driven into the Kalingrad peninsula. The Western invasion meant that continental Europe was not communist, not Nazi.

There were an awful lot of American GI's in Britain in the buildup to Normandy. And American bombers flying out from Britain to level Germany.

The history clearly shows that Churchill desperately wanted America in, and FDR wanted to help, with the American people sympathetic but not wanting dragged in. And FDR gave a lot of support with convoys and goods up until direct involvement.

The British king and queen visited FDR, to convince him to join the war. If you're saying that Churchill did not in fact desperately need the US in the war, then that's just not an objective view of history. It's interesting how we have different spins on history depending on which country's history book you're looking at. For example, over here Montgommery is viewed as a big showboat and primadonna.

Churchill's a big hero over here, by the way, which you probably know. That's the kind of leader you need in dark times. Thatcher too. (though I'm sure we both agree about Thatcher and Reagan's domestic policies, but when an Argentina grabs the Falklands, you want a Thatcher in charge)

WWII is a story of the Chinese defeat of Japan, the Soviet annihilation of Germany and some skirmishes by the West until June 1944.

Holy cow, you completely discount American contribution. The atom bomb ended the war in the Pacific. If we hadn't done that, it would have been us going through the meatgrinder taking Japan island by island.

Anyhow.. back on topic to the thread..

My answer to this is that there never was any US "aggression." All these things you guys trot out was in the context of the Cold War. Yes it was wrong to prop up hated dictators like the shah, but, *this was an epic slugfest against the Soviets* and so we had to compete in kind.

And that is what Putin is doing now. "No strings attached" arms deals. Just adding pieces to his chessboard with no underlying moral ideology about it. Just raw power and growing the new Russian Empire, with nobody caring whether a Russian-backed Egyptian dictator mows its people down in the future, or a Russian-backed Syrian dictator nerve gassing a suburb.

[dorlomin]

There were an awful lot of American GI's in Britain in the buildup to Normandy. And American bombers flying out from Britain to level Germany.

Army Groups Center and South were not defeated in Surrey or Kent. They were crushed at Stalingrad and Kursk.

For example, over here Montgommery is viewed as a big showboat and primadonna.

Yet he broke the DAK before substantial US ground forces had arrived.

Holy cow, you completely discount American contribution. The atom bomb ended the war in the Pacific. If we hadn't done that, it would have been us going through the meatgrinder taking Japan island by island.

The Japanese had over 4 million troops committed to China and sustained about 500 000 KIA and just shy 2 million casualties.

They had about 300 000 troops in Burma and something like 36 000 troops at Guadal Canal.

Americans fought bravely and well. But by the in neither theatre were they fighting anything more than a fraction of the Axis forces until late 44.

[Plantagenet]

Since Stalin and Hitler signed a secret deal and started the second world war off as allies with their joint invasion of Poland, there was a kind of rough justice that these two dictatorships fell out and then wound up battling each other back and forth across eastern Europe.

[Quinny]

I deliberately avoided pointing out the fact that the US were the only country to nuke an opponent, but don't deny it.
Of course Dorlomin, Dolan, Sunweb, Keith and others are as usual correct from a factual POV (sorry if I've missed anyone). 6 & Plantedagent are as usual basing their arguments on BS.

Where were we up to Chad?

Now this next one is one of IMHO the worst. Chile was at the time considered a jewel of democracy in South America. The people elected Salvador Allende so the US install military dictator Pinochet absolutely fucking disgraceful. As bad if not worse than the british at Dresden IMHO. My local town has a Place Salvador Allende so glad to leave the UK

Chile

The CIA intervened in Chile’s 1958 and 1964 elections. In 1970 a socialist candidate, Salvador Allende, was elected president. The CIA wanted to incite a military coup to prevent his inauguration, but the Chilean army’s chief of staff, General Rene Schneider, opposed this action. The CIA then planned, along with some people in the Chilean military, to assassinate Schneider. This plot failed and Allende took office. President Nixon was not to be dissuaded and he ordered the CIA to create a coup climate: “Make the economy scream,” he said.
What followed were guerilla warfare, arson, bombing, sabotage and terror. ITT and other U.S. corporations with Chilean holdings sponsored demonstrations and strikes. Finally, on September 11, 1973 Allende died either by suicide or by assassination. At that time Henry Kissinger, U.S. Secretary of State, said the following regarding Chile: “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.” (1)

During 17 years of terror under Allende’s successor, General Augusto Pinochet, an estimated 3,000 Chileans were killed and many others were tortured or “disappeared.”