Ars Regendi Simulation Forum

The Germans are ashamed of Nazi crimes, not the fact that people were put on trial for them. This shame has allowed Germany to quickly transform from one of the most brutal states in history to a shining example of social democracy. Lest us hope America does the same.

More than there are for the Nazis (admittedly over a longer time period). How long do you have? We could start with the massacres (well over a million civilians executed without trial) in indonesia 1965. Imediately following the CIA orchestrated coup, with full US knowledge, victims selected with the help of lists of names provided by the US.

Online discussion:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/08021...ing_up.php
Declassified US government documentary evidence:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB242/index.htm

Gotta go to work now, more this evening.

I said before bringing in proxy wars... Directly caused by the U.S. I don't feel like battling that out and I could feel we were going there early on.

There was no war, only massacres of peaceful civilians. The US embassy supplied lists of names - a far more direct involvement than most of those hung at Nuremberg.

Now I would love to know How The Hell the C.I.A got a list of names of peaceful civilians in a country where bureaucratic records to obtain the names of such "innocent" civilians was damn near un-heard of.

Maybe you mean opposition?

You provide me the list, yes the actual damn list not testimonies or finger pointing from men dubbed with this or that clearance when in fact they never worked beyond a Washington mail room office in their life.

You do realize treason is one of the few crimes the U.S government has no quarel about when it comes to putting it's own citizens to death over? Treason can include the betrayal of information which threatens U.S national security operations. Of course there are also laws like the freedom of information act which would in fact provide the list you name to the general public as part of operational records. Just saying....

The C.I.A also distributed crack to ghettos in the 80's. Capitalism isn't perfect, but guess what? Even in the world as fucked as it is today we're still on top. Is it GOOD? RIGHT? OR like I said PERFECT? No. But we're there. No argument about that right? Oh and in case you're thinking of it just remember the power unleashed in the middle east were just wars to show to the barking dogs Russia and China "No we're not getting rusty" and our propaganda machines are still running like yours.

Bakto, honestly more often than not the C.I.A has very general goals and uses very precise actions calculated by many intelligence analyst's stuck in a room. The term "think tank" came from U.S intelligence agencies. These very precise actions achieve the very general goals of having sovereign nations co-operate with U.S national interests. Not to mention you really don't think the U.S had better things to do by carpet bombing and killing civilians in Vietnam at the time? If you want to use genocidal acts during wartime as an example then use that instead, not something so precise where you'll need precise evidence. Just to help you out.

Your chauvinism is telling. There were records aplenty. Of course the CIA had even better records, because it was doing far more to keep tabs on indonesian dissidents than the indonesian government.

Potential opposition perhaps. The lists were provided immediately following a military coup. They were lists of members of political parties in the democratically elected coalition which had just been overthrown. Innocent civilians who had committed no crimes.

Of course people talked long after the fact.

Truly, your naivite and loalty to your masters is touching. You honestly suppose they keep complete records of sensitive operations to distribute on freedom of information act requests? Seriously, look up the difference between de jure and de facto.

My source is Ralph McGehee, a senior CIA operations officer in the 1960s, not some low-level squealer. John Pilger (twice winner of the British Press Awards journalist of the year) and the editors of the Guardian (one of Britains most respected broadsheets) considered his claims credible enough to print as fact:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...esia.world
So do I, and I imagine everyone else on this forum. I'm sure I could find stronger sources, but for an internet debate I cant be fucked.

They, the american ruling class are there, sure. You are not. You have spent countless posts telling us how smart you think you are, only to undo it all with your use of the word 'we' here. Your government sees you and and the rest of the american people as an enemy much like peasants of indonesia. You are a bit more dangerous, so they must tread more carefully, but thats the only difference in terms of how you are regarded.

If you define national interest as that of the tiny ruling class hell bet on keeping the rest of the US in line, sure I agree completely. They want regimes who they can trust to take orders. Democracy makes a regime inherrently unpredictable, so must be fought against by the most ferocious means (if the people have a say, it may contradict washingtons orders). A military with close ties to the US (through arms and training) should be ready to overthrow the regime in a CIA orchestrated coup should it show any signs of independence. The people must be actively marginalsied and excluded from the political process. To do this, all forms of popular organisation must be systematically targeted, the peoples spirit broken through poverty and fear. These are the basic goals of US foreign policy, and objectives of the CIA.

That is still not the empirical evidence he asked for, and which I, too, would like to see.

Alas, you are calling Vincent a chauvinist and a sheep, yet I only see an anti-US socialist doing what he does best: Lambdasting the US, without productive results.

I'll dissipate and obliterate all this with one point.

You call out chauvinism and unwavering loyalty to the plutocracy, yet I have denounced the U.S government countless times and even HELPED you denounce the U.S government in the same post you were going against. Maybe if you weren't so insecure about the fact your entire argument can't be backed up by evidence I or anyone else debating with you except yourself would call credible, you wouldn't have had to insult my intelligence?

See your problem wasn't that I'm blinded by patriotism, countless times have I said nationalism is a thought that should never be taken to extremes and government should always be questioned.

I questioned my government, that's why I asked you the questions to back up your points. You were incapable and conclusively went after me instead of reinforcing yourself when given the opportunity.

I don't get it? I helped you out in denouncing the government and even provided examples.

Truth is dude, lol..... I could care less about any CONSPIRACY theories than I do about scientology's creation myth on the universe being over 7 trillion years old and the alien Zenu using exploding volcanoes to initiate evolution and disseminate the excess souls in his galactic empire.... The way you're talking so boldly about a government without providing reference and proof leads me to read it in the same way I would read the former, with skepticism and need for proof. Do I insult you and call you mad? Stupid? A quixotic delusional wanna-be know it all?

No, that would be wrong.

Post WW2 USA has committed so many coups against various countries, that what Bakto says is no surprize. People should remember that the west took a belligerent stance against the USSR, after the death of FDR, because he (FDR) planned to end colonialism, which of course the British empire didn't take kindly to. Churchill did know that Roosevelt's health was deteriorating, through reports of his own personal physician. It is certainly the case that Churchill deliberately caused strain and helped to wear down Roosevelt by personally insisting on two summits in Canada during the height of the 1944 Presidential campaign, and though his delay of the proposed summit with Stalin until it required a difficult, 12,000 mile mid-winter trip to Yalta. In any case, as soon as Roosevelt was buried, the British oligarchs and the Wall Street establishment did everything to throw out his plans and programs. The United Nations was soon taken over by a pack of British agents; Stalin's paranoia was worked upon and the conditions for the Cold War established; Truman was induced to drop two atomic bombs on Japan, to scare any opponents of the new world order; the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction was imposed on fearful populations; and the British, French, Dutch, and Portuguese colonies were not freed. The British imperial flag rose again. The Marshall Plan was reduced to a scheme to reconstruct Western Europe as a buffer against Soviet Russia, and not extended to the nations of the South. Worst of all, the legend of a weak Roosevelt, who at Yalta had "sold Poland, Hungary, Romania, and China down the river, with no respect for the nation-states," was spread by the British themselves, helped by the Harrimans and the Dulles brothers, when, in fact, it was Churchill who had cynically started a two-empires game with Stalin, to protect his own.

In the end I cannot understand why someone would be skeptical of numerous treasonous governments using tax payer money to maintain wartime production for manufactured conflicts all over the world for empty slogans such as ideologic freedom. Wartime production makes sense only in times of war, in times of peace it requires to be shifted to civilian production, if it isn't, then the banking-business elite demands the creation of wars/perpetual tensions and terror in order to maintain their status quo. I love that country called USA, but I hate with a passion what its relative recent governments had done throughout the world and to it.

Sorry if I offended you Vince, you struck me as the 'robust debate' type. I did not intend my post as a personal attack, merely the truth as I see it. Remember the original topic. You are arguing that american politicians should never face trial for crimes aginst humanity. You dont expect such a debate to become heated?

I called out chauvinism as a specific response to your claim that bureaucratic records were 'unheard of' in Indonesia 1965. This claim expresses far more contempt for Indonesia than I ever did for you.

I mean, just reread some of your posts. You casually throw around phrases like 'the great american tradition' and call russia and china 'barking dogs', come on, what are we supposed to think. This aint kansas dorothy. In the states, you may pass as open minded and as you keep telling us 'rebellious'. To progressive thinkers from pretty much anywhere else in the world, you look like one of the Nazis who opposed the final solution, wanting forced sterilisation instead.

I never said your loyalty was unwavering, just extreme.

I gave witness testimony, from a high ranking official, judged as credible by the most respectable sections of the establishment british press. Seriously, you think the mainstream british press prints conspiracy theories about the American government as fact? Who thinks that apart from far right nationalists?

Plenty of convictions were secured at Nuremberg on the basis of witness testimony alone. Bottome line is you are demanding a far higher standard of evidence than a War Crimes Tribunal would. This positioning of the burden of proof demonstrates extreme loyalty, and the expectation that such evidence would normaly exist extreme naivite.


In any case, I'll humour you, and play along with your extreme standards. Lets skip ahead 10 years, to the genocide committed by the indonesian military in east timor. Not a proxy war, no involvement by the USSR or any foreign power on the side of east timor. Here are documents from the national security archive proving that the US secretary of state Henry Kissinger knew the weapons they were supplying were being used illegaly:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/
A signed confession. People swung for this and less at Nuremberg. You believe that Kissinger and his accomplices should not face trial. Why?

not to say that what the post WWII US did was OK, but we must remember BOTH sides, right and left, conservative and liberal, are guilty of a host of crimes.

Russia MURDERED millions of Ukranians, China killed around a HUNDRED MILLION of its own people who refused to support the communist government.

the Allies in WWII used unrestricted bombing of German and Japanese cities. the US engaged in the Cold War through Vietnam, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iran, and others.

the fact of the matter is, whether you're right or left, you are still a human and we humans make mistakes.