THIS is why we're intervening in Libya

[Aos Si]

George Bernard Shaw was not a racist. OMFG.

What planet are you from? He didn't like Americans much, but then these days he's not alone is he, most countries dislike you.

In 2001 the UKs approval rating was 79% for US foreign policy etc. In 2006 it was 49%, fuck knows what it is now, and we are meant to be your ally. Do you get why everyone dislikes your nations actions? Or are you going to throw another little tantrum and boast about having nukes and shiz?

[Aos Si]

Interestingly, the United States has never been convicted of a "war crime." Which makes your judgment somewhat less than compelling and your opinion somewhat less than interesting. As I said, we have the might, we make the right. You don't like it, tough shit.

ahahaha neither has Russia you both have the power of veto?

Mexico has accused you of war crimes and the Head of the UNSC has said it would act on them if it could. Hiroshima was a war crime. But because like us you have veto powers no one can do shit. Are you honestly telling me that you have never committed any atrocities in war, because I can name some sizeable ones in Vietnam and throughout your history. You might not be able to be tried for them but your still guilty of them you apologist schmo. Always hiding behind denial and lies. It's sad really.

[Seth]

George Bernard Shaw was not a racist. OMFG.

Wanna bet?

What planet are you from?

The one where George Bernard Shaw was a Fabian Socialist, a racist, a eugenicists and an all around evil motherfucker.

He didn't like Americans much, but then these days he's not alone is he, most countries dislike you.

Good thing we've got the bomb I guess...

In 2001 the UKs approval rating was 79% for US foreign policy etc. In 2006 it was 49%, fuck knows what it is now, and we are meant to be your ally. Do you get why everyone dislikes your nations actions? Or are you going to throw another little tantrum and boast about having nukes and shiz?

Don't care why a bunch of mindless socialist fucks don't like the US. They are, after all, mindless socialist fucks, so nobody of rational mind should care what they think. They are doomed to the ash heap of history anyway.

[Seth]

Interestingly, the United States has never been convicted of a "war crime." Which makes your judgment somewhat less than compelling and your opinion somewhat less than interesting. As I said, we have the might, we make the right. You don't like it, tough shit.

ahahaha neither has Russia you both have the power of veto?

Neat trick, that, eh? Comes with being one of two dominant military superpowers who, by virtue of our military strength, get to tell the rest of you to go fuck yourselves.

Mexico has accused you of war crimes and the Head of the UNSC has said it would act on them if it could.

But they can't, so fuck them.

Hiroshima was a war crime.

Nah, it was a lifesaving act of war against a bunch of evil little cocksuckers who were trying to take over the world and WERE committing war crimes, for which a goodly number of them were prosecuted and executed, along with a bunch of their cohorts in Germany and elsewhere. Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought a swift end to the conflict, saving hundreds of thousands of American and Allied lives. Who gives a fuck how may evil little cocksuckers died in the process, they deserved what they got for fucking with the United States.

But because like us you have veto powers no one can do shit.

Veto power ain't why they can't do shit, pure, undiluted military power is why. Try to "do shit" and we'll turn your homeland to glowing glass.

Are you honestly telling me that you have never committed any atrocities in war,

Er, nations don't commit atrocities, human beings do.

because I can name some sizeable ones in Vietnam and throughout your history.

Clue: Don't fuck with the United States and we won't have to fuck with you.

You might not be able to be tried for them but your still guilty of them you apologist schmo.

Er, cart before the horse there, Sparky. Fact is we're "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of our peers." Good luck with that. And good luck trying to enforce some penalty even if you succeed. Until then, you can shove your allegations right up your ass, because we get to ignore them.

Always hiding behind denial and lies. It's sad really.

[/quote]

The good news is we get to snicker at impotent, limp-dick Marxists and America-haters who like to rant and rave and foam at the mouth, but can't get it up enough to do anything about it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My Lai, amongst others. Although that wasn't "America being convicted" because a nation cannot commit war-crimes, only its soldiers can.

[egbert]

Another tip there from the idiots guide to rational conversation.

Advice from an expert, here.

You need to stop taking the interweb so seriously, maybe get a hobby.

I have one: Annoying Netwits and watching them burble and spew.

Projecting again?

[Coito ergo sum]

Interestingly, the United States has never been convicted of a "war crime." Which makes your judgment somewhat less than compelling and your opinion somewhat less than interesting. As I said, we have the might, we make the right. You don't like it, tough shit.

ahahaha neither has Russia you both have the power of veto?

War crimes issues aren't resolved at the Security Council. They would be resolved via a suit between States in the International Court of Justice. All States have the same rights in the ICJ as any other State. Russia and the US have no greater "veto" power there.

Mexico has accused you of war crimes and the Head of the UNSC has said it would act on them if it could.

We haven't been at war with Mexico for about 170 years. What the hell are you talking about?

Hiroshima was a war crime.

Wasn't. If you think it was, please cite your source for the international law violated? Under the international law of the time, it most certainly was NOT a war crime. Hint - League of Nations - pre-UN.

But because like us you have veto powers no one can do shit.

You are of the impression that after August, 1945, countries were interested in prosecuting the US for "war crimes?" And, they just didn't bother because the US has a Security Council veto? Do you think about things before you type them?

Moreover, you can look up the rules regarding the laws of war, and "reciprocity" is a concept that ought to be of interest to you. And, you might note that Japan did not respect any rules of war in its prosecution of the wars against the US and Britain, and other countries, in the Pacific. Like, murdering POWs, whoring out women to its soldiers in Korea, genocide in China, suicide bombings, the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, attempts to kill civilians on the US mainland, etc.

Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama, in August 1995, stated that Japan "through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations", and he expressed his "feelings of deep remorse" and stated his "heartfelt apology."

The Japanese military during the 1930s and 1940s is often compared to the military of Nazi Germany during 1933–45 because of the sheer scale of suffering. Much of the controversy regarding Japan's role in World War II revolves around the death rates of prisoners of war and civilians under Japanese occupation. The historian Chalmers Johnson has written that:

It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians [i.e. Soviet citizens]; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers—and, in the case of the Japanese, as [forced] prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%.

According to the findings of the Tokyo Tribunal, the death rate among POWs from Asian countries, held by Japan was 27.1%.[26] The death rate of Chinese POWs was much higher because—under a directive ratified on August 5, 1937 by Emperor Hirohito—the constraints of international law on treatment of those prisoners was removed.[27] Only 56 Chinese POWs were released after the surrender of Japan.[28] After March 20, 1943, the Japanese Navy was under orders to execute all prisoners taken at sea.

....between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military murdered from nearly 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most likely 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. "This democide was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture."[30] According to Rummel, in China alone, during 1937-45, approximately 3.9 million Chinese were killed, mostly civilians, as a direct result of the Japanese operations and 10.2 millions in the course of the war.[31] The most infamous incident during this period was the Nanking Massacre of 1937-38, when, according to the findings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the Japanese Army massacred as many as 300,000 civilians and prisoners of war, although the accepted figure[by whom?] is somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.[32] In Southeast Asia, the Manila massacre, resulted in the death of 100,000 civilians in the Philippines. It is estimated that at least one out of every 20 Filipinos died at the hand of the Japanese during the occupation.[33][34] In the Sook Ching massacre, Lee Kuan Yew, the ex-Prime Minister of Singapore, said during an interview on with National Geographic that there were between 50,000 and 90,000 casualties[35] while according to Major General Kawamura Saburo, there were 5000 casualties in total.[36] There were other massacres of civilians e.g. the Kalagong massacre.

Historian Mitsuyoshi Himeta reports that a "Three Alls Policy" (Sankō Sakusen) was implemented in China from 1942 to 1945 and was in itself responsible for the deaths of "more than 2.7 million" Chinese civilians. This scorched earth strategy, sanctioned by Hirohito himself, directed Japanese forces to "Kill All, Burn All, and Loot All."

Additionally, captured allied service personnel were massacred in various incidents....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_w ... _apologies

So, that's the country that the US and Britain were fighting in the Pacific, and it was a country that was dug in to risk national suicide to repel an invasion of American, British, Australian, Canadian, and other forces. They did not respect any international law of war and did not wage the war in conformity with any international norms. Therefore, under the principle of reciprocity, the allies were not required to do so either. Moreover, the allies were not required to lose a million or more soldiers invading Honshu in order to avoid civilian deaths. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war and likely saved millions of Japanese lives that would have been lost had the country been taken by ground forces, air forces, and naval bombardment.

Are you honestly telling me that you have never committed any atrocities in war,

All nations who have engaged in war have committed atrocities.

because I can name some sizeable ones in Vietnam and throughout your history.

I can name many that Britain committed too, and the French ,and many other countries.

You might not be able to be tried for them but your still guilty of them you apologist schmo. Always hiding behind denial and lies. It's sad really.

Do you know your own country's history? How dare a citizen of any major European country point a smug finger at anyone else. Feel guilty for your own crimes, which are Legion, and stop moralizing about others.

[Coito ergo sum]

George Bernard Shaw was not a racist. OMFG.

You're right, he was just a strong proponent of eugenics. He thought that the working person was too stupid and ignorant to vote wisely and therefore modern democracy was a form of oppression. He thought that eugenics would save the world by creating a race of long-lived supermen who would have the brains and experience to govern wisely and in the best interest of the thrall class. After visiting the USSR in the 1930s where he met Stalin, Shaw became a supporter of Stalinism. He broadcast a lecture on American national radio telling his audience that any 'skilled workman...of suitable age and good character' would be welcomed and given work in the Soviet Union." But, you're right - he wasn't a racist.

[Coito ergo sum]

Saudi Arabia is a treaty partner and ally.

Uh, weren't most of the 9/11 hijackers Saudis?

Great partners and allies, huh!

Wasn't the ussr an ally at one time?

Yes, absolutely. That excellently illustrates that alliances are born out of national interests, and not whether anyone is nice or "likes" anyone else.

[Coito ergo sum]

Saudi Arabia is a treaty partner and ally.

Uh, weren't most of the 9/11 hijackers Saudis?

Great partners and allies, huh!

Are you suggesting that it was the Saudi Arabian government that was behind 9/11?

[Coito ergo sum]

I give up COE do you want to talk to me or not? If you do then address my points if not don't. I wont waste my time addressing blatant straw men. I just don't have the time, will or need to do it.

Look dude no ones argument is going down in flames, it's all good, you need to stop this silly game and just start answering peoples points.

I addressed your points.

Please, though - if there is a point that you think I missed, please cut-and-paste it so that we are both on the same page, and anyone else following the conversation can be on the same page too. I'll then state or re-state my response to your point. Fair?

[Aos Si]

George Bernard Shaw was not a racist. OMFG.

Wanna bet?

What planet are you from?

The one where George Bernard Shaw was a Fabian Socialist, a racist, a eugenicists and an all around evil motherfucker.

He didn't like Americans much, but then these days he's not alone is he, most countries dislike you.

Good thing we've got the bomb I guess...

In 2001 the UKs approval rating was 79% for US foreign policy etc. In 2006 it was 49%, fuck knows what it is now, and we are meant to be your ally. Do you get why everyone dislikes your nations actions? Or are you going to throw another little tantrum and boast about having nukes and shiz?

Don't care why a bunch of mindless socialist fucks don't like the US. They are, after all, mindless socialist fucks, so nobody of rational mind should care what they think. They are doomed to the ash heap of history anyway.

You're paranoid. Seriously. I am not defending Bernard Shaws politics anyway so I don't give a toss.

If there are so many socialists in the UK why did they lose the last election to the right and the liberals? Seriously dude socialists in this country are as fringe as nationalists, and probably make up about 5% of the electorate. You're not making any sense. Even new Labour can't be called socialists any more being further right than the liberals. As far as European nations go we are about as far to the right as it gets.

[Aos Si]

I give up COE do you want to talk to me or not? If you do then address my points if not don't. I wont waste my time addressing blatant straw men. I just don't have the time, will or need to do it.

Look dude no ones argument is going down in flames, it's all good, you need to stop this silly game and just start answering peoples points.

I addressed your points.

Please, though - if there is a point that you think I missed, please cut-and-paste it so that we are both on the same page, and anyone else following the conversation can be on the same page too. I'll then state or re-state my response to your point. Fair?

No you just accused me of trying to act as an apologist for my nation even though I had said the exact opposite. I gave up on you ages ago, you are talking to yourself worse than Seth is, at least you're not ranting about socialism though. I mean I am not a socialist so what that has to do with anything is beyond me.

[Coito ergo sum]

I give up COE do you want to talk to me or not? If you do then address my points if not don't. I wont waste my time addressing blatant straw men. I just don't have the time, will or need to do it.

Look dude no ones argument is going down in flames, it's all good, you need to stop this silly game and just start answering peoples points.

I addressed your points.

Please, though - if there is a point that you think I missed, please cut-and-paste it so that we are both on the same page, and anyone else following the conversation can be on the same page too. I'll then state or re-state my response to your point. Fair?

No you just accused me of trying to act as an apologist for my nation even though I had said the exact opposite. I gave up on you ages ago, you are talking to yourself worse than Seth is, at least you're not ranting about socialism though.

I didn't accuse of that.

I figured your response would be exactly as you just chose to respond, because you know I did respond to your points.

I'll leave it to you- state the point you feel I did not address, or don't. It's up to you. The fact that you don't, however, says everything anyone needs to know.

[Aos Si]

I give up COE do you want to talk to me or not? If you do then address my points if not don't. I wont waste my time addressing blatant straw men. I just don't have the time, will or need to do it.

Look dude no ones argument is going down in flames, it's all good, you need to stop this silly game and just start answering peoples points.

I addressed your points.

Please, though - if there is a point that you think I missed, please cut-and-paste it so that we are both on the same page, and anyone else following the conversation can be on the same page too. I'll then state or re-state my response to your point. Fair?

No you just accused me of trying to act as an apologist for my nation even though I had said the exact opposite. I gave up on you ages ago, you are talking to yourself worse than Seth is, at least you're not ranting about socialism though.

I didn't accuse of that.

I figured your response would be exactly as you just chose to respond, because you know I did respond to your points.

I'll leave it to you- state the point you feel I did not address, or don't. It's up to you. The fact that you don't, however, says everything anyone needs to know.

No you didn't you just compeletely reinvented everything I said to make one massive non sequitur.

It doesn't matter anyway unless you make an effort to answer any point I've made conversation is over. Live with that or don't I don't care.

Look you can say what you like but the idea that the US has never committed any war crimes is as laughable as saying we haven't or any nation pretty much, it's hilarious and goes beyond apologetics into Narnia.

Google US war crimes you will be amzaed no doubt at the number of hits. Apologists are funny.