My point remains that compared to regimes of Iraq, Libya, or even Putin's Russia, the USA is pale in comparison. Other people who you are defending do far worse. I would not rank it above average.

Sicarius can you suggest some Empires which have a better scorecard than the USA?

"Jesus Christ. these forums have gone to shit."

Agreed. Here are the responses to your post, in a nutshell:

1) ad hominem - "Your an idiot. "
2) Rationalization - "the Americans have probably done rather less damage than any other cultural grouping would have"
3) More Rationalization - "you think drone attacks are a bigger black eye than slavery and the genocide of the American Indians? "
4) Even More Rationalization - "Sicarius can you suggest some Empires which have a better scorecard than the USA? "

Not one thoughtful comment yet. You will be brow beaten until you submit before anyone will engage in any sort of intelligent discussion.

This thread will be complete when Draugnar chimes in and calls you some more names. Should be any minute now...

I think that was a little unfair, D.

I question both the premise and the data points used to support it.

1 - if America will go down as one of the "most brutal", that implies both that American has engaged in actions that would be similar to other "most brutal" empires. Given that, if is reasonable to mention other brutal empires and ask if they are truly peers.

Secondly, to demonstrate why America might be considered the "most brutal", somme bullet points are given. My statement isn't that the items in question are not worthy of concern; it was that they are relatively minor compared to genocide.

Of course, once the debate shifts away from drone strikes - where you obviously can't make comparisons to other nations - to things where you *can* make a comparison, it's a lot harder to make the case we are one of the "most brutal". I suspect that may have been deliberate.

To summarize, if you're going to make statements, I'm not an evil bastarda for questions I may ask. If you don't like criticism, you kinda lose the right to bitch when other people say things *you* may find questionable

Isn't every government "one of the most brutal" to somebody?
Don't mean to water this down, but using phrases like "history will judge" is meaningless without specifying who and when. example: 'in 100 years most historians will consider the USA in the top 10 most brutal', then of course you have to define brutal... is it simply body count? Or the restriction of inherent freedoms? Or a comparison of stated freedoms vs. actions? - If you can't be specific then it comes off as BS liberal marketing.

And by the way, speaking as someone who has Cherokee heritage, the US government participating in acts of brutality isn't new.

"1. Support of Dictators: For all the happy talk of spreading Democracy and protecting human rights, the empire has repeatedly not only supported dictators, but in many cases overthrew popularly elected leaders and replaced them with puppet tyrants. Examples range from secretly funding the Nazis, to installing the Shah in Iran, Pinochet in Chile, supporting Musharraf in Pakistan, and their everlasting love affair with the brutal Saudi royal family, to name a few. Actions speak louder than words to those who can navigate the storm of propaganda with a moral compass set to recognize good from evil. Dictators and freedom cannot coexist."

Name one country that hasn't throughout history.

"2. Preemptive Wars of Aggression: It could be said that all wars are preemptive in nature because so many entities benefit from war. Yet, even before America's latest crusades, they covertly and surgically attacked countries that never threatened them. This allowed them to maintain the moral high road in the public's eye while constructing the foundation of their empire. That was until the Bush Doctrine; the use of preemptive military action to confront possible threats was unofficially adopted to be the new foreign policy for combating terror. Since then, America has become the violent aggressors, having officially invaded two countries -- Afghanistan and Iraq -- without legitimate provocation. Violent aggressors have always been judged by history as evil. But it gets worse...."

See number 1. What world power has not waged "Preemptive Wars of Aggression"

"3. Torture: Torture has never been acceptable by those promoting a high moral standing in the global community. Nazis and Japanese soldiers were convicted and executed for engaging in the exact same torture techniques that America has redefined as 'enhanced interrogation'. "I was just following orders," was not a justifiable excuse for such inhumane behavior, much like it wasn't a good enough defense for the low-ranking patsies who took the heat for the sinister Abu Ghraib torture scandal even though their actions were approved at the highest levels. Can state-sanctioned torture of prisoners held without charges ever be viewed as anything less than brutal?"

Name one world power that hasn't employed far worse forms of torture than the US throughout its history.

"
4. Suppression of Dissent: All tyrannical regimes throughout history have suppressed homeland dissent. As government oppression grows bolder at home and abroad, more citizens will naturally express outrage, resulting in even more oppressive controls. This is happening in the United States through the all-seeing eye of the Department of Homeland Security with warrantless spying, arbitrary watch lists, citizen spy campaigns, and TSA molestation to travel anywhere. Additionally, in an attempt to squash free speech, they arbitrarily seize websites and violently confront peaceful protesters. Unfortunately, as awareness of the topics in this very article expands, the U.S. will likely become even bolder in their pursuit of stifling dissent. In other words, the worst is yet to come, and history will judge the U.S. as not quite the beacon of freedom they have pretended to be."

Name one world power that hasn't done this at some time or another

"
6. Assassinating Citizens: That's right. No judge, no jury, no conviction; just straight to execution. America has set another precedent in their tyrannical march toward empire when they openly assassinated an American citizen and government patsy, Anwar al-Awlaki, and his teenage son on the suspicion of terrorism. Paul Craig Roberts laments "Now the US government not only can seize a US citizen and confine him in prison for the rest of his life without ever presenting evidence and obtaining a conviction, but also can have him shot down in the street or blown up by a drone." Isn't this the reason America claims to be knocking off dictators around the world -- the deliberate killing of their own citizens?

But Awlaki was a bad apple because the intelligence community said so. What's most telling that America will continue this wickedness is that almost every US lawmaker turned a blind eye to the grotesque violation of Constitutional rights. Only Ron Paul said that assassinating an American citizen without charges is nothing less than an "impeachable offense". Too bad most of the country cheered the Awlaki killing as a "victory" in the war on terror, indicating that it is now an acceptable tactic. Americans beware: you may be moved from a secret watch list to a secret kill list in this brutal empire."

This happened once against one man with serious mitigating circumstances

"7. Unauthorized Drone Wars: Unprovoked wars without authorization, accountability, or independent oversight only seem to be escalating; and with little resistance. The US Congress no longer votes to "declare war". They simply give the Commander in Chief broad "authorization" to use force against specific nations. However, even that is not broad enough in the rapid pursuit of empire. Now, joystick warriors directed by the CIA and Pentagon have targeted at least three countries with "unauthorized" military strikes; Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Even worse, they waged a full-scale war for regime change and resource plundering in Libya without any authority inside the United States. Under the NATO flag, which is 75% funded by the U.S., they flew over 9200 strike sorties in Libya to illegally topple Gaddafi. Drunk with success, the bloodthirsty empire marches on to their next preemptive targets, Syria and Iran. Quick morality check: unprovoked killing and stealing as a first resort is still wrong, right?"

To do this you need to believe in authorizing wars in the first place, which many countries do not, nor would any future people in the world care about congressional authorization

"9. World's Largest Drug Dealer: The American empire is the largest drug dealer in the world? Say it isn't so. Well, in addition to forcing legal drugs and genetically modified organisms on nations, usually under the cover of foreign aid, America also leads in the illegal drug trade. In fact, many researchers reveal that the war on drugs is only utilized to control and monopolize the illicit drug trade. The US government has been caught multiple times shipping in cocaine, colluding with certain cartels to control the industry, and now openly protects and transports opium from Afghanistan. In fact, Global Research points out that in 2001, "according to UN figures, opium production had fallen to 185 tons. Immediately following the October 2001 US led invasion, production increased dramatically, regaining its historical levels." This month, the U.N. announced that Afghanistan now provides 93% of the world's opium production; up 61% compared to 2010 to a whopping 5800 tonnes. Although the empire tries to keep it secret, they can't hide the hypocrisy forever."

Weak

"10. World Reserve Currency Prison: Although using Weapons of Mass Debt is a non-violent form of expanding the empire, it's perhaps the most brutal and effective form of control. Requiring foreign nations to purchase oil and other imported commodities with US dollars wields immense power. Because all nations must acquire dollars to purchase critical resources, they quickly become indebted to the US Federal Reserve, their affiliate central banks, and the IMF. Before long, the entire world is colonized by debt. It seems that only the nations that don't need or refuse credit from Western banking institutions are the ones in danger of facing the wrath of the imperial war machine. Incidentally, most oil-rich nations in the Middle East have outlawed usury (lending money with interest), making them impossible to conquer diplomatically through debt. Controlling the world reserve currency means controlling the tap of life itself, which is a dangerous weapon in the hands of an aggressive empire. Debt is the ultimate WMD the empire uses to enslave the world, which leaves dissidents with two clear choices: slavery or death. "

Yes we enslave the world, someone tell the chinese

The problem you have Sic is very little knowledge of history, very little knowledge of context, and an extreme hatred of the United States. I'll be glad to have a serious intellectual conversation (well maybe not considering Darwyn's idea of a intellectual conversation is "If so many countries have killed jews don't they deserve it?") but Sic and you have shown that is impossible.

Bottom line, you state the world will judge the United States as one of the most brutal empires in history, yet every point you make doesn't even seperate it from one of the worlds former empires. We suspend Habeaus Corpus in an emergency!!! Oh NO! We all of course every other empire never suspendded habeaus corpus!

The title of this thread should be "The United States is an Empire" this we know, and your evidence would show this very well

If there is anything i think the US will be judged for is resource usage

And finally our friend darwyn

"1) ad hominem - "Your an idiot. "
2) Rationalization - "the Americans have probably done rather less damage than any other cultural grouping would have"
3) More Rationalization - "you think drone attacks are a bigger black eye than slavery and the genocide of the American Indians? "
4) Even More Rationalization - "Sicarius can you suggest some Empires which have a better scorecard than the USA? ""

About 2,3, and 4. The post specifically states that the US will be remembered as one of the MOST BRUTAL empires in history. This thread is all about relativism, it has been from the get go. People are setting out to show that the US is not the most brutal which requires relativism. So with that I return to #1...

Darwyn, you are an idiot.

Well done Sic +1. Believe it or not I was one of the ones who supported Obama in 2008 (over Mccain, I liked Hillary to most) cause I was hoping he would put an end to America's tyranny, or at least curtail it. I was mistaken.

Everything the United States has done, as has Canada, if we are the world most brutal empire you are our most willing crony.

"The post specifically states that the US will be remembered as one of the... "

I was actually looking for a disscussion on it, this was an article I found. I thought maybe we could have some sort of constructive critique, define terms etc. it seems there are a few, at least one attempt to do that... but darwyn said it, I am beaten. I dont care anymore. you win. I wont make any more threads.

such a victim, how exactly did you want us to respond, it seems like there are plenty of good points above, and only one person that truely resorts to ad hominems despite what you and Darwyn say

With, respect, Sic, you're not looking for a discussion. Or to be specific, you are, but you're trying to set the terms of the discussion by stating what you will and will not debate.

You did not state that this came from an external source; therefore people assume it either came from you and/or you have zero reservations about the content of it.

To put it another way:

I am concerned about the amount of debt the Federal and State governments continue to rack up. Many people are. There are a variety of opinions about what should be done, ranging from "ignore it and run the printing presses" to "deliberately default and live within our means, hang the consequences"

If I state "I am concerned about the debt load and wonder what you think", I'm opening a broader discussion about government spending, taxes, what have you.

If I state something along the lines of "government spending will shortly cripple our country and must be stopped *now*, here are the top ten programs that need to be eliminated", I'm no longer discussing government debt, I'm framing the discussion in such a way that my unstated thesis is that government debt must be cut drastically and immediately.

You posted something with the thesis that America will be judged as one of the most brutal empires. You wish to debate whether this is true.

Your unstated thesis is that America is a brutal empire. You appear to treat this as a givern. It is not.

It is subject to debate, and I very much am less than thrilled with many of the points you pasted, but you're getting butthurt because people aren't accepting your central thesis.

For someone who claims to be against people enforcing their wills upon others, you certainly are being a bit of a hypocrite if you're not willing to take a step back and prove your point, instead of just stomping your feet and insisting they simply *are* true, without question, and anyone who can't see that is an idiot.

Darwyn I think my question to sic was fair. And it wasn't intended to justify America's actions, but the title did use a comparative term. I was actually hoping that Sic would suggest an empire with more admirable qualities. Then we could compare the two. He might have said "the Soviet Union" (if his name was Putin33 :-P) or the Mayans, or the British etc. I was trying to move the conversation forward.
And certainly no disrespect to Sic was meant. I like his threads.
I suspect though that the thread title might be misleading - what Sic really means is that empires are in their nature brutal (he is an anarchist after all) and that America is an empire (both propositions have plenty of room for debate). But only he can confirm that.

You have become a parody of yourself, Sicarius.

yes spyman you are essentially right, and it was exactly that kind of debate I was looking for. It's just all the pointless crap from trolls/douchebags/whatever just really rob me of the energy to argue, to care. sorry.

If you're limiting yourself to empires in the modern period, Europeans are worse. Especially the French.

Aside from Algeria, how were the French worse in terms of brutality? Do people realize how many Koreans the Americans killed? Vietnamese? And aside from that, there are the innumerable cases of deliberately creating situations and training forces to commit large-scale atrocities, like in Latin America via the School of the Americas, or the CIA trained generals who murdered about a million communists in Indonesia.

Not going to say the US is worse than the Mongols or Umayyad Empires, but still. If the claim is "one of" the most brutal, depending on where you cut things off (such as the modern period), I can see the answer as yes.

Would you include the USSR in that?

Are you joking? The Советский Союз Sovetsky Soyuz was the be all and end all of civilization! Ask putty if you don't believe me

No, I think once the ideological blinders are taken off historians, the USSR will be known as one of the most restrained and non-aggressive "empires" in world history, especially in light of its perilous security situation.

"was the be all and end all of civilization!"

Pretty rich in light of posters rose-colored view of American imperialism. Anyway Strat muted me, brave soul that he is.

got it

On the USSR, I should like to repeat a post I made in January, it seems like the dsbate goes round in circles.

Let's take the case of Stalin, we have the persecuation of the Kulaks (men, women and children), the Ukranian famine, Katyn, the ethnic cleansing of groups suspected of being sympathetic to the Germans during WW2 (men, women and children), the appalling behaviour of much of the Soviet army in the taking of Germany, the appaling treatment of ethnic Germans in the late 40s and the Doctor's plot. Just a few examples here, but you get the point. The death toll was certainly in the millions and, most likely, well into the tens of millions. In any event it was of the same order of magnitude as that resultant from the actions of Hitler and the Third Reich.

And yet Putin has to see good and bad guys, by imposing a false comparison. His desire to apply labels is rather touching really. It reminds me of my visits to the Saturday morning pictures where you good always tell the good from the bad guys by the colour of the hats they wore, all rather sweet and endearing!

Fulhmaish, however, says that both Hitler and Stalin were totallatarian monsters and, to say otherwise, is to besmirch the memory of their victims. This desecretion of memory, of course, applies on the level of a particular single victim and on that of tens of millions. On this point he does ''fucking care''.

It is no surprise that Fulham, chief apologist for British crimes against humanity which includes the forced famine of Bengal and Ireland and the crimes against India and Kenya, equates the Soviet heroes who crushed Hitler with the genocidal Hitlerites, regurgitating every anti-communist lie concocted by Nazi propagandists. I don't think of Fulham as anything but a Nazi anyway, defender of slavery and opponent of national liberation.

I'm not going to pay anymore attention to Nazi trash. This is my last post in response to anything Fulham says.

Fulham, besmirching the memory of the millions of Soviets who died fighting Hitler's hordes. GFY.

I muted you because you're incapable of distinguishing the difference between "implacable foe" and "disagrees with me on some points", putty. However, I am sitting for someone, so I occasionally see your idiocy anyway.

I'd also point out that there is a difference between someone who, in general, has positive feelings towards his nation (while becoming less happy by the day with certain actions) and a my-country-can-do-no-wrong attitude (like you have for Russia), but why bother? You're either unwilling or unable to comprehend the difference, and you have given me zero reason to believe mere logic will sway you
. My time is far too valuable to attempt to debate with a fanatic be they a socialist, a Truther, or a Westboro Baptist.

If the fact I refuse to treat you as seriously as you treat yourself makes you butthurt, tough shit.