Now, I'm not gonna debate you on whether US news is balanced, as that question is really decided based off of one's perspective i.e. a Communist will view a Union newsletter as vile capitalist propaganda, while a Union member will look at it as fair and balanced. I'm more than willing to debate the facts of whatever issue is up, but debating the opinions is useless.
You could very well argue about how broad the spectrum of different views and thus media is in the US.
Whether individual acts in a war are "crimes" is arguable.
Individual acts? The fire-bombing of Japanese and German cities was an individual act? Developing nuclear weapons and using them? It was obviously state policy.
If bombing Hiroshima would have saved 10 million lives, would it have been justifiable? 1 million? 500,000?
Well well, I have heard many claim different numbers when we talk about how many lives the atom bomb saved. But 10 million? Thats alot. Do you know how many people the US lost in the whole war? not more than 500,000.
Firstly, I find it irrevelant how many lives it might or would have safed. You do not bomb cities, ever. And with nuclear bombs, thats beyond anything reasonable.
It's easy to look back and condemn acts that happened 50 years ago. Especially since you know how everything turned out in the end.
I am just a man. Roosevelt and Churchill were heroes, great men. Surely they could do better than me!
Also, doesn't this mean whe shouldn't be able to learn from this. Its very easy to do the wrong things as a leader of a country in war. But does that make the suffering of people less significant?
However, I have no problems condemning immorality; such as the 8 millions murdered by Hitler, or the 20 million Stalin had killed... If you can show me where the US did comparable things recently
Obviously the US didn't murder 8 million or more people the last few years. But that doesn't mean killing 10,000 isn't bad and that that act of immorality shouldn't be condemned just as hard.
You'll notice that I said "the people who did it." One shouldn't blame a whole nation for the crimes of some of it's citizens, especially if those citizens, as is the case for US slavery or mistreatment of the Indians, are dead.
You know, madmen like Stalin and Hitler will show up eventually. But a whole country supporting them through the killing of 15 and 50 million(Hitler and Stalins totals)? No way! I blame the people supporting them more than I blame the leaders themselves. In my country an insane number of jews were killed. Alot more than in other countries. Turns out that one of the values in my country is, or was, to accept authority. A police controlled by the germans was to be obeyed just as well as before the occupation. This turned out very badly.
My government supported the recent US war in Iraq. I went to the capital and took position against it.
I'm not going to argue with the World Court. In my eyes, it has no legitimacy.
If you think that way then that is sad. Fact is, almost all civilized countries do accept its legitimacy. So do all other opponents of war crimes and international injustice. Too bad.
If you want to show me that the US commits terrorist actions, show me instances where it has, not someone who says it has. Please show me the clear documentation of US crimes, then we can debate those.
Uuh, if you don't believe the world court then who will you believe. Surely not me.
https://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=nicaraguahttps://www.sandinovive.org/17b/JugmntJune27-86.htmAlmost the whole world thinks the US is guilty here. This was also the moment where the US started to oppose the ICJ. Don't forget the US almost founded the ICJ singlehandedly. Then one infavorable ruling and they pull out, claiming it has no legitimation and they start to boycotting it. Surely this is political power play.
Wikipedia says this:
"For example, in Nicaragua v. United States the United States of America had previously accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946 but withdrew its acceptance following the Court's judgment in 1984 that called on the United States to "cease and to refrain" from the "unlawful use of force" against the government of Nicaragua. In a split decision, the majority of the Court ruled the United States was "in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another state" and ordered the US pay reparations (see note 2), although it never did."
I'd like to close on a general note, which I think applies to many critics of the US. Remember that the US is a nation. Treat it as such. When you compare America to an ideal or a utopia, you're going to find that it comes up lacking. We consist of 300 million human beings. Each one of us is imperfect, so it's obvious that our actions aren't perfect. Stop expecting them to be.
We are talking about the US actively and willingly committing crimes. Those weren't mistakes or bad judgement.
Yes, the US is a state and a very big and powerful one. If you believe this results in war crimes, injustice and suffering isn' t the solution obvious? Split ip the US? Get rid of the federal government? disbamd the whole country?
Imagine a murderer put on trial. His excuse, he is no the only one that kills people. Or, the world is a hard place, it isn't perfect, thus the murderer isn't perfect. The judge just has to accept that. Or maybe that person did nice things too. Maybe he did very nice things. Maybe he invented a cure for cancer/aids/malaria and gave it to everyone for free. Would that person, who saved millions of lives by being nice, be allowed to murder someone? Surely not.
When you say that no governing body, party or nation will ever 'be perfect' then why not get rid of them? Really, if they result in people getting hurt and killed, surely the advantages do not weight up to the disadvantages. If power stucures make people abuse power then get rid of all ways of structuring power.
Someone once said: "Politicians are just like pigs, you need to hit them with a stick on the nose."
If you stop 'spitting venom' at a government that represents you and has your vote as a justification for its existence then things like those in germany 1936-1945 happen. If everyone on the country would have been aware of the things happening in Nicaragua or Vietnam, or Colombia, or Indonesia, or Afghanistan, or Laos, or Chili, or Guatemala, or Cambodja, or Panama, or Haiti, or Grenada, or El Salvador, or Iraq, or Libanon, or Angola, or Bolivia, or Iran or Argentine they would have voiced out against this. And the US government would have been forced to stop their violence.
We aren't talking about subtle dillemas and hard descisions. We are talking about power abuse by the biggest baddest thug on the block.
The US invaded Grenada out of self defence. That was ludicrous. You know how small and insignificant that country is? Somehow it was a threat to the existance of the US. Can you imagne being the leader of that country and deciding to attack the US, out of all countries?!
If you would count all the victims of these conflicts, often started by the US, or started by US organised terrorists it would really get into the millions.