2 ms·

If you call that "not looking very far back in time" (and I agree with that), no approach was ever as brutal as nuking entire cities. But that's besides the poi

by rickmb 15y ago

If you call that "not looking very far back in time" (and I agree with that), no approach was ever as brutal as nuking entire cities. But that's besides the point. In my opinion, the US is historically one of the most destructive "empires", in that it unlike a true empire, it takes very little responsibility for the nations it interferes in. It just takes what it needs and moves on. It doesn't even bother to properly conquer a place, just a long as resistance is sufficiently broken for the US to do it's business. It's more like a swarm of heavily armed locusts than an empire. With true colonial style empire building comes responsibility. Many former colonial nations are still dealing with that responsibility. Post WW2 US just aggressively raids and meddles, but takes very little responsibility for the people and societies outside its own borders. To call it an empire is an insult to empires.

Zimahl 15y ago
> If you call that "not looking very far back in time" (and I agree with that), no approach was ever as brutal as nuking entire cities. But that's besides the point. This is a ridiculous point. You do realize that the allies (not just the US) were fighting the 'Empire of Japan' that was running rampant throughout China and SE Asia, raping and pillaging along the way? To use no other term, Japan was lucky to be nuked because they weren't going to stop. They were going to fight to the last, and let me tell you (as the husband of someone who's grandfather fought on Leyte and Okinawa), the Japanese were brutal and vicious. Millions of Japanese civilians would've been killed trying to land and take the Japanese mainland. The Japanese were so adamant about fighting that it took a second bomb to change their minds. If you said the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden, then I wouldn't have responded. Those were retaliatory in nature - a punishment that affected civilians more than soldiers (specifically Dresden).

by rickmb 15y ago

Zimahl 15y ago

> If you call that "not looking very far back in time" (and I agree with that), no approach was ever as brutal as nuking entire cities. But that's besides the point. This is a ridiculous point. You do realize that the allies (not just the US) were fighting the 'Empire of Japan' that was running rampant throughout China and SE Asia, raping and pillaging along the way? To use no other term, Japan was lucky to be nuked because they weren't going to stop. They were going to fight to the last, and let me tell you (as the husband of someone who's grandfather fought on Leyte and Okinawa), the Japanese were brutal and vicious. Millions of Japanese civilians would've been killed trying to land and take the Japanese mainland. The Japanese were so adamant about fighting that it took a second bomb to change their minds. If you said the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden, then I wouldn't have responded. Those were retaliatory in nature - a punishment that affected civilians more than soldiers (specifically Dresden).