5 ms·

I have to roll my eyes Just this statement > and yes brutal Empire the world has ever seen shows how little knowledge you have of history. How anyone can say

I have to roll my eyes Just this statement > and yes brutal Empire the world has ever seen shows how little knowledge you have of history. How anyone can say the US is the most brutal empire the world has ever seen when not even 100 years ago the Belgian Congo existed is beyond me. These "tyranny of the US dollar" articles always bring out the worst conspiracy theorists. The US dollar is the most popular currency simply because the US is an extremely stable country. Few countries exist that have had the same government for more than 200 years. No countries exist that have similar clout to the US and have had a stable government for 200 years. When you trade something for US dollars you know exactly what you are getting. An asset that will depreciate at a fairly consistent 2% every year. Few currencies can claim that.

ilaksh 8y ago
Nagasaki is the most obvious example. But see the effects of bombing in general. EDIT: oh how silly of me to think that atomic weapons would be considered brutal. It is true that such action had to be rationalized in order to support a fictional world in which America rules by virtue rather than deadly force.
- friedman23 8y ago
  > Nagasaki is the most obvious example The most obvious example of what exactly? Are you going to give comparisons to other atrocities that show that the US is the worst and most brutal empire in history? Also how does "Nagasaki" even qualify as imperial activity? >EDIT: oh how silly of me to think that atomic weapons would be considered brutal. You claimed the US was the most brutal empire in history not that the bombing of Nagasaki was brutal...
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago
  > Nagasaki is the most obvious example. But see the effects of bombing in general. It's hard to take that as a serious argument for US imperialism since that particular war wasn't even started by the US.
- outside1234 8y ago
  A ground invasion would have killed more people. This is pretty well accepted by historians because it would have have to have proceeded by a firebombing of the invasion target to make it even possible to land the marines on the shore. And then there would have been the very long, very deadly fight all the way to Tokyo, with many many many civilians dying along the way in addition to the soldiers. Also, Nagasaki is a cautionary tale about starting wars, and probably applies more to Japanese imperialism than American.
- Recurecur 8y ago
  >It is true that such action had to be rationalized in order to support a fictional world in which America rules by virtue rather than deadly force. "Such an action" is easily rationalized by realizing that in the context of total war, against a fanatical and brutal enemy, dropping atomic weapons on Japan was more humane than the results of letting the war drag on for many more months. The only ones who don't understand that are bleeding-heart revisionists.
- masonic 8y ago
  More were killed by conventional bombing of Tokyo alone than by both atomic bombs combined.

ilaksh 8y ago

Nagasaki is the most obvious example. But see the effects of bombing in general. EDIT: oh how silly of me to think that atomic weapons would be considered brutal. It is true that such action had to be rationalized in order to support a fictional world in which America rules by virtue rather than deadly force.

friedman23 8y ago
> Nagasaki is the most obvious example The most obvious example of what exactly? Are you going to give comparisons to other atrocities that show that the US is the worst and most brutal empire in history? Also how does "Nagasaki" even qualify as imperial activity? >EDIT: oh how silly of me to think that atomic weapons would be considered brutal. You claimed the US was the most brutal empire in history not that the bombing of Nagasaki was brutal...
ThrowawayR2 8y ago
> Nagasaki is the most obvious example. But see the effects of bombing in general. It's hard to take that as a serious argument for US imperialism since that particular war wasn't even started by the US.
outside1234 8y ago
A ground invasion would have killed more people. This is pretty well accepted by historians because it would have have to have proceeded by a firebombing of the invasion target to make it even possible to land the marines on the shore. And then there would have been the very long, very deadly fight all the way to Tokyo, with many many many civilians dying along the way in addition to the soldiers. Also, Nagasaki is a cautionary tale about starting wars, and probably applies more to Japanese imperialism than American.
Recurecur 8y ago
>It is true that such action had to be rationalized in order to support a fictional world in which America rules by virtue rather than deadly force. "Such an action" is easily rationalized by realizing that in the context of total war, against a fanatical and brutal enemy, dropping atomic weapons on Japan was more humane than the results of letting the war drag on for many more months. The only ones who don't understand that are bleeding-heart revisionists.
masonic 8y ago
More were killed by conventional bombing of Tokyo alone than by both atomic bombs combined.