Russia, China back India for greater role at UN

[Desertfalcon]

I agree to a point Jako. Where we disagree is who is to blame. After President Truman ordered it, he reportedly went to bed and slept soundly. Years later he was asked how he could have. He said, "because the blood of everyone of those killed by those bombs lay entirely on the hands of the Emperor and the "militarist" in Japan who foolishly attacked us and had engaged every country in Asia in war for a decade." It is not we who bear responsibility, but their own leaders. Let me ask you. In taking the small islands from Guadalcanal to Okinawa, America lost tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of men killed. Okinawa alone, one tiny island, cost us 12,000 dead Americans. At Iwo Jima we lost 8,000 dead. At Guadalcanal, another 8,000 Americans were killed. How would we have explained to the mothers of the 100,000-200,000 + American soldiers that would have been killed in an invasion of the Japanese home islands that we had the means to have ended it without their sons deaths, but chose not to use it? How many Japanese would have died had we invaded? Likely more than at just Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

 

[Communist]

I agree to a point Jako. Where we disagree is who is to blame...

I do not know whether you still try to justify the act by raising that question or not. If you are doing so, please let me remind you that we are after everything human beings. We do have rationality. We are different from ferocious leopards. Yes it was Japanese striking, but that was not unprovoked. I am talking about the rationing America had cut off. You lost soldiers. Thats true. But how can you take revenge by killing innocent women and children just because you cannot kill their soldiers. Why America did not do the same to Germany? Actually there was a racist approach in the nuke bombing.

The sociologist Kai Erikson, reviewing the report by the Japanese team of scientists, wrote:

"The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing. Whether the intended audience was Russian or Japanese or a combination of both, then the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. The question is: What kind of mood does a fundamentally decent people have to be in, what kind of moral arrangements must it make, before it is willing to annihilate as many as a quarter of a million human beings for the sake of making a point."

 

[Desertfalcon]

I do not know whether you still try to justify the act by raising that question or not. If you are doing so, please let me remind you that we are after everything human beings. We do have rationality. We are different from ferocious leopards. Yes it was Japanese striking, but that was not unprovoked. I am talking about the rationing America had cut off. You lost soldiers. That's true. But how can you take revenge by killing innocent women and children just because you cannot kill their soldiers.

Cannot kill their soldiers? We had been killing their soldiers. The act is completely justified because it is they who made war on us!!! How come you have made no comment on the numbers of our soldiers we would have lost had we had to invade the home islands of Japan itself? How come you have made no comment on the number of Japanese we would have had to kill if we would have had to fight them for every Japanese village and city? The death toll would have been far worse for both sides. How would it have been more rational to have sacrificed 100-200,000 of our soldiers in invading the Japanese home islands, 3,000 of them! do you have any idea how many Japanese would have died then? The war would have dragged on for many more years.

Why America did not do the same to Germany? Actually there was a racist approach in the nuke bombing.

We did! Are you unaware of our bombing campaign against Germany? We did not use nuclear bombs on Germany because they had already surrendered by the time we had built the Nuclear bombs. We did bomb German cities throughout the war with conventional bombs. In our attacks on Dresden alone, in February 1945, we killed over 80,000 Germans. You can hardly claim we were racist. If we were racist, then why did we fight side by side with our Chinese and Filipino allies? The "Flying Tigers", Stilwell and Channault, the American volunteers to the Philippines and the Bataan Death March, both we and our 'Pinoy' brothers endured. It is Japan who bears the blame for what happened in that war in the Pacific, not us or our allies.

The sociologist Kai Erikson, reviewing the report by the Japanese team of scientists, wrote:

"The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing. Whether the intended audience was Russian or Japanese or a combination of both, then the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. The question is: What kind of mood does a fundamentally decent people have to be in, what kind of moral arrangements must it make, before it is willing to annihilate as many as a quarter of a million human beings for the sake of making a point."

What kind? The kind that comes after having been attacked at Pearl Harbor. The kind that comes after their having murdered our people at the Bataan march. The kind that comes after witnessing their brutal treatment of our Chinese and Filipino allies. The kind that comes from watching them disembowel American prisoners of war. The kind that comes from watching their troops rape women. That is the kind of mood we were in. The kind that tells us as I quoted from Lincoln. War and death was Japan's solution. We let them choke on it.

"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%." Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended that!

Japanese War Crimes.

 

[dabong1]

It was not until the 1920's. Even then, Native-Americans can exercise a "state within a state" type of citizenship if they wish.
He may have said that, but that hardly makes it true. First, what happened to native -Americans, while tragic, was not genocide. Genocide is the systematic murder of entire peoples. The continual conflict with native Americans lasted over 250 years and was military in nature. Even some of the most liberal of estimates, and they are almost impossible to prove, state that about 30-40,000 native Americans were killed in all the wars from 1620-1890. There were probably not much more than 1 million natives on the entire American land area, before we expanded across it, when the first settlers arrived at Jamestown. The most bloody massacre in our history was the last engagement between the United States and the natives. It happened at a place called Wounded Knee in 1890 and resulted in the killing of approximately 300 natives. Virtually every conflict between the United States and the natives were very small conflicts involving company or battalion size groups.

The discovery of gold in California, early in 1848, prompted American migration and expansion into the west. The greed of Americans for money and land was rejuvenated with the Homestead Act of 1862. In California and Texas there was blatant genocide of Indians by non-Indians during certain historic periods. In California, the decrease from about a quarter of a million to less than 20,000 is primarily due to the cruelties and wholesale massacres perpetrated by the miners and early settlers.
Native American Genocide Still Haunts U.S.

It is a firmly established fact that a mere 250,000 native Americans were still alive in the territory of the United States at the end of the 19th century. Still in scholarly contention, however, is the number of Indians alive at the time of first contact with Europeans.
The disparity in estimates is enormous. In 1928, the ethnologist James Mooney proposed a total count of 1,152,950 Indians in all tribal areas north of Mexico at the time of the European arrival. By 1987, in American Indian Holocaust and Survival, Russell Thornton was giving a figure of well over 5 million, nearly five times as high as Mooney’s, while Lenore Stiffarm and Phil Lane, Jr. suggested a total of 12 million. That figure rested in turn on the work of the anthropologist Henry Dobyns, who in 1983 had estimated the aboriginal population of North America as a whole at 18 million and of the present territory of the United States at about 10 million.
The most lethal of the pathogens introduced by the Europeans was smallpox, which sometimes incapacitated so many adults at once that deaths from hunger and starvation ran as high as deaths from disease.
The most hideous enemy of native Americans was not the white man and his weaponry, concludes Alfred Crosby, "but the invisible killers which those men brought in their blood and breath." It is thought that between 75 to 90 percent of all Indian deaths resulted from these killers.
Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?

If they were comparable you could, but the what the Nazis did was something else entirely.

To some, however, this is enough in itself to warrant the term genocide. David Stannard, for instance, states that just as Jews who died of disease and starvation in the ghettos are counted among the victims of the Holocaust, Indians who died of introduced diseases "were as much the victims of the Euro-American genocidal war as were those burned or stabbed or hacked or shot to death, or devoured by hungry dogs."

LoL, so your saying that in 1620-1890 we secretly knew about viruses and had developed vaccines for ourselves, long before history has recorded it, and it's all just a big secret? Are you kidding? LoL. No, that native Americans had no immunity to small pox and yellow fever is a well known fact, and was neither known, nor was the fault of, any European settler. No such science was understood at the time by the vast majority of doctors. The first effective vaccines were not developed until Louis Pasteur's research in the 1880's. BTW, the natives introduced strains of syphilis that devastated European populations.

So you never gave the indians blankets infected with smallpox?

Colonel Henry Bouquet to General Amherst, dated 13 July 1763:
P.S. I will try to inocculate the the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with english dogs, supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.

Amherst responded to Bouquet, in a letter dated 16 July 1763:
P.S. You will do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.

A third letter on 26 July 1763 from Colonel Bouquet acknowledges receipt of the approval:
Sir, I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed.

This disease is presumed to be smallpox, because one earlier letter contains the line:

"Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them."

Oh, I see! So when other countries go to war it's justified, but when the USA does it's as evil as if the Nazis have done it. Is that it? So when your country kills people in a war, it's just the fact of war, but when my country does, it's genocide? Rubbish!

What i am saying is count the amount of people killed due to US involvment in wars all over the world to any other nation in history and you will find that your nation has killed more then any other.

Now let's actually talk about GENOCIDE, and not just wars my country has fought in....

The same way you have excuses for americas action so do the nations below.

Soviet Union (Communists) 61,900,000
1917-1990

And off course there no bias in these cold war propaganda figures.
Does that list include the 25-30million killed during WW1-2..?

China (Communists) 35,200,000
1949-present

So the chinese had a famine on purpose...?the ethiopeans had a famine a while ago when millions died of hunger so they must also have commited genocide

Germany (Nazi Third Reich) 20,900,000
1933-1945

Well 8-10 millions german died and and the rest "10 million jews getting gassed" is open for debate with some figures as low as 500'000 dead.....still not a good thing but nowhere near 10 million.

Hmmm...what country is missing form that list? Why it's America!!!

my entire point......you need to be on the top of that list.

When we killed to free ourselves from the British..it was justified.

When you wiped the north americans out you where also "justified."....manifest destination,what a silly excuse for murder and greed.

When we fought to end slavery...it was justified.

When you enslaved millions of africans you where also justified.......do tell us why the black people in american make the largest precentages of the prison population and have the worst jobs ect.

When we fought to end European control of the Americas...it was justified.

So when people say they fight the US so they can end US control of there lands you support them?

When we fought to defeat the German militarist in WW I who had murdered our civilians...it was justified.

Human Losses of World War Two by Country
China-20 million
Germany-7 million
India-Pak-1.5 million
Russia-23 million

USA-418,500......you guys really had it hard.

When we fought to destroy Hitler and his murderous regime...it was justified.

Sorry that was russians and the brits.......you came at the end just like the first world war..

When we fought to free the world of the communist gulag of the Soviet Empire...it was justified.

Those gulags that are holiday camps compated to Gitmo.

When we fought to end the ruthless rape of Kuwait and again to rid the region of the mass murderer Saddam Hussein...it was justified.

Theres babies being pulled out of incubators by iraqi soldiers...
Theres weapons of mass destruction...

When we fight now to avenge the murder of over 3,000 of my countryman and eradicate the terrorist murderers who hide behind woman and children, while they are beating and raping, and beheading them,...it is justified.

And what did that have to do with iraq..?

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

Coming from a loyal Chinese, I also support India but on condition that she forms better relations with her neighbors. I know India is not the only 'guilty' party, and China + Pak + BD + SL + Nepal also need to give and take. Right now the main issue of contention is land disputes.

Next main issue which I say is more important is prosperity (or eradication of poverty). Massive populations poses numerous challenges, of which feeding hungry is only a small part. After traveling to China I learn that people dying of starvation is virtually eliminated. Which is contrasted by my visit to India, which I witnessed millions of homeless and poor in state of starvation. This is not start a thread war, only stating facts as many have not been to both countries. Actually my travel to India and China was to see with my own eyes, and it is true, the Western-zio media is full of lies.

Over a short time China was able to feed its people, but there was a period of mass starvation. What did I see in China??? I saw to my amazement great progress in utilizing the land. I also traveled to many other countries so I can say that China is not a '3rd world' nation (which is a derogatory term stemming from European Imperialism/Racism), but an 'Emerging Giant'.

Do you know there are more homeless people in USA than China??? The USA is supposedly the richest nation, why so? But China does have a massive challenge that is not unique to China but EVERY NATION IS BATTLING. And this is the issue of employment. Without meaningful employment people become uneasy, restless, discontent --- which leads to riots, upheavel and ultimately 'revolutions'. This has started in Europe already, though small in scale. Same can be said of elsewhere.



The point is we need to learn from each other and work together (not against one another) to tackle this global problem. The Global Recession may have started in the US, but now EVERYONE is affection. Now is not the time to become confrontational with each other. This global recession may be a blessing in disguise (IF) we use it to work together.

Indians known how to live humbly when poor. Most chinese do as well, but the current generation is become complacent like we counterparts in the west. They do not value as much what they have, and this is dangerous. Why? Because when we lose our humbleness we tend to react violent to new hardships. People start fighting over a loaf of bread. Riots start over small disagreements. Image killing/dying over a loaf of bread.....

My point is this:

Some people look down on poor people. NO, THAT IS WRONG! Look down on poverty, but admire the impoverished for they have the COURAGE & STAMINA to PERSEVERE where most of us would have given up! That is why I dislike when people make fun of others for being poor, or fat, or gay or whatever. Rather than condeming the symptoms we work on a way to solve the source of the disease.

THAT IS WHY IS SUPPORT INDIA. Not just India but any nation/organization/people who are willing to work constructively together!

 

[rubyjackass]

Perhaps per the pages i have read the same, even wanted to believe that the huge US carrier presented at the time of conflict was there infact to help Pakistan but you see keep on repeating things does not make them right, now does it. All americans ever did was when the time came, military embargos were placed on us while our enemy enjoyed an uninterrupted supplies for both arms and ammunations.
Yes we did got the F-86s but at the same time when spares were badly needed guess what, sanctions were placed on us. Also do tell us was the purpose as mentioned by you the same" Americans stood by Pakistan", i'll certainly differ from you. Allow me to tell you the real reason you supplied Pakistan with those shinny F-86 and latter on with F-16s. It was not out of your love for Pakistan nor because US wanted to stand by Pakistan as per you but because Pakistan was seen as a tool, a proxy to be used against the communism (Russia) and i for one have no shame in admitting the fact that we did your dirty work and to this day we still are and for that we share the blame for allowing ourselves to be used and abused and then disposed off like a soil tissue.
There is a saying:
With a friend like this who needs an enemy. One cannot find a better example then this.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/23930-south-asia-crisis-1971-a.html#post334626
You will see that Pakistan's orders for weapons were processed with no delay in 1971. Spares that would be used against India were also supplied without interruption. Only those weapons that could be used against civilians were stopped in the pipeline.

YOu will also see how patiently US waited for Pakistan to realize the real situation in Bangladesh with the least coercion and utmost care.

 

[IceCold]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/23930-south-asia-crisis-1971-a.html#post334626
You will see that Pakistan's orders for weapons were processed with no delay in 1971. Spares that would be used against India were also supplied without interruption. Only those weapons that could be used against civilians were stopped in the pipeline.

YOu will also see how patiently US waited for Pakistan to realize the real situation in Bangladesh with the least coercion and utmost care.

What am i suppose to do with the link that you just gave which opens up to another defence.pk page. And by the way i did not see things that you want me to see.

 

[Desertfalcon]

The discovery of gold in California, early in 1848, prompted American migration and expansion into the west. The greed of Americans for money and land was rejuvenated with the Homestead Act of 1862. In California and Texas there was blatant genocide of Indians by non-Indians during certain historic periods. In California, the decrease from about a quarter of a million to less than 20,000 is primarily due to the cruelties and wholesale massacres perpetrated by the miners and early settlers.
Native American Genocide Still Haunts U.S.

Most Native Americans died through disease and displacement, not genocide. I don't think you understand what the word "genocide" means. It is not people dying because their genetic makeup has no immunity to certain diseases. It is not deaths through legitimate warfare. It is the systematic murder of entire races of people. That did not occur in the United States.

It is a firmly established fact that a mere 250,000 native Americans were still alive in the territory of the United States at the end of the 19th century. Still in scholarly contention, however, is the number of Indians alive at the time of first contact with Europeans.
The disparity in estimates is enormous. In 1928, the ethnologist James Mooney proposed a total count of 1,152,950 Indians in all tribal areas north of Mexico at the time of the European arrival. By 1987, in American Indian Holocaust and Survival, Russell Thornton was giving a figure of well over 5 million, nearly five times as high as Mooney’s, while Lenore Stiffarm and Phil Lane, Jr. suggested a total of 12 million. That figure rested in turn on the work of the anthropologist Henry Dobyns, who in 1983 had estimated the aboriginal population of North America as a whole at 18 million and of the present territory of the United States at about 10 million.
The most lethal of the pathogens introduced by the Europeans was smallpox, which sometimes incapacitated so many adults at once that deaths from hunger and starvation ran as high as deaths from disease.
The most hideous enemy of native Americans was not the white man and his weaponry, concludes Alfred Crosby, "but the invisible killers which those men brought in their blood and breath." It is thought that between 75 to 90 percent of all Indian deaths resulted from these killers.

Yes!!!! Yes!!!! Do you not get that this means that there was NO genocide! Disease, that we had no knowledge of curing, let alone in many cases how they were caused, were tragic, but they were NOT murder. Are you just incapable of understanding this? The Native-Americans infected Europeans with diseases that we had no immunity to. Those diseases killed millions of Europeans, so did the native Americans commit genocide against Europeans? Of course not! It was just a tragic event that no one had any knowledge on how to control.

To some, however, this is enough in itself to warrant the term genocide. David Stannard, for instance, states that just as Jews who died of disease and starvation in the ghettos are counted among the victims of the Holocaust, Indians who died of introduced diseases "were as much the victims of the Euro-American genocidal war as were those burned or stabbed or hacked or shot to death, or devoured by hungry dogs."

The spreading of disease among the Jewish population who were under German care was part of a systematic destruction of the Jewish people. Most of the diseases that native Americans died from were not even known by Europeans. The Native people died not from policy, but due to the fact that they had no natural immunity.

So you never gave the indians blankets infected with smallpox?

No. We didn't. The example you gave is from 1763. My country did not exist then. Your example is of two British Army officers. I suggest you find a member of this forum who is British and take it up with them. BTW, even Wiki says that there is no proof that such a plan was either carried out or responsible for the small pox that ravished both sides.

What i am saying is count the amount of people killed due to US involvment in wars all over the world to any other nation in history and you will find that your nation has killed more then any other.

1. That statement is simply insane. Had we killed every single native American woman and child who ever existed on this planet, it would not have amounted to 1% of what the communist killed in just 75 years. 2. So what? Your argument seems to be that when America fought and killed the Nazis, it was genocide against the Nazis. Are you serious? I wish we could have killed everyone of the bastards! Now when your country goes to war...is that genocide?

And off course there no bias in these cold war propaganda figures. Does that list include the 25-30million killed during WW1-2..?

No, that list is strictly the systematic murders committed by governments outside of legitimate warfare.

So the chinese had a famine on purpose...?the ethiopeans had a famine a while ago when millions died of hunger so they must also have commited genocide

Actually they did. It is a well established fact. Both China, the Soviet Union and Ethiopia's communist governments all engaged in forced famines.

"The famine in the southeast of the country was brought about by the Derg's counterinsurgency against the Oromo Liberation Front.".

Famine in Ethiopia

"By comparing the number of deaths that could be expected under normal conditions with the number that occurred during the period of the Great Leap famine, scholars have estimated that somewhere between 16.5 million and 40 million people died before the experiment came to an end in 1961, making the Great Leap famine the largest in world history."

Mao Zedong and the Great Leap Famine.

"Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union, set in motion events designed to cause a famine in the Ukraine to destroy the people there seeking independence from his rule. As a result, an estimated 7,000,000 persons perished,"

Soviet Red Famine.

Well 8-10 millions german died and and the rest "10 million jews getting gassed" is open for debate with some figures as low as 500'000 dead.....still not a good thing but nowhere near 10 million.

Sir, it is not "open to debate" by any scholar or historian. Holocaust deniers are usually neo-Nazi's or their creepy apologist.

When you wiped the north americans out you where also "justified."....manifest destination,what a silly excuse for murder and greed.

We were not "justified", but it was a tragic circumstance of history. Let me ask you. Europeans had discovered a vast continent in North America that was only thinly inhabited by a stone-age, nomadic people. What were we supposed to do? Do you really think that in 1620 Europeans fleeing persecution at home were going to just stay clear of the entire North American continent? Of course not! I wish we could have treated natives differently, but it didn't happen. My country is responsible for what it did, but it is a far cry from what Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, or other mass murderers did.

When you enslaved millions of africans you where also justified.......do tell us why the black people in american make the largest precentages of the prison population and have the worst jobs ect.

No, we were not. That is why we fought the bloodiest war in our entire history in freeing them. More Americans were killed in our own Civil War over slavery then in any other war in our history. As far as African-Americans now, by any of the worlds standards, they would be considered middle class. Yes, they still have far to go to catch up to whites completely, but they are getting there. Most blacks in America are not poor or in prison. They are middle class and have good jobs. In fact, the top job in the country is held by this man...

So when people say they fight the US so they can end US control of there lands you support them?

So you do not think that Afghanistan and Iraq have their own governments? Unless it is the savage murderer Saddam or the murderer Taliban, then it is not legitimate?

Human Losses of World War Two by Country
China-20 million
Germany-7 million
India-Pak-1.5 million
Russia-23 million

USA-418,500......you guys really had it hard.

We were much better at fighting than they were. People should take note of that.

Sorry that was russians and the brits.......you came at the end just like the first world war.

The Russians were Hitlers allies in raping Poland, remember? They only fought Hilter once he betrayed them. Britain went to war against Germany in 1939. We did in 1941. The war ended in 1945. How is that "coming in on the end of it"?..LoL

Those gulags that are holiday camps compated to Gitmo.

That statement is literally, insane! NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY DETAINEE HAS BEEN KILLED AT GITMO! Not one! I think two or three detainees have died from health problems that they had before arriving there. High blood pressure. Now let's see,how many died in the Gulags? The estimated total number of those who died in imprisonment in 1930-1953 is 1.76 million.

Gulag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theres babies being pulled out of incubators by iraqi soldiers.
Theres weapons of mass destruction.

Sure, Saddam brought them all flowers when he invaded and raped and stole from them. You just love defending mass murderers, don't you?

And what did that have to do with iraq..?

Nothing. I never said it did. Saddam was another issue.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Back to topic please.