US Infects Guatemalans With Syphilis During 1940s Experiments

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Please post proof of those two statement, they are idiotic.

Huns
Teutonic Knights
Prussians (Not the cats, they're adorable!)

Cause and effect. One only needs to ask how and why they came to power and look at history.

Nazi Germany arose in the wake of the national shame, embarrassment, anger and resentment resulting from the Treaty of Versailles (1919),[12] that dictated, to the vanquished Germans, responsibility for:

• Germany's acceptance of and admission to sole responsibility for causing World War I[13]
• The permanent loss of various territories and the demilitarization of other German territory[14]
• The payment by Germany of heavy reparations, in money and in kind, such payments being justified in the Allied view by the War Guilt clause[15]
• Unilateral German disarmament and severe military restrictions

Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Huns were not Germanic people. You got me on the Teutonic Knights and the Old Prussians. They were definitely not defensive brutes. I was honestly equating modern date German to Prussia the Kingdom which was formed in 1701 not Old Prussia which was constituted the Holy Roman Empire and encompassed many people.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

Cause and effect. One only needs to ask how and why they came to power and look at history.

That's not 'posting proof' it's hiding behind an ambiguous statement, please try again.

I'll foreshadow my counter to what I think you're going to post by stating that when the police set up a bait car the car thief is still a car thief.

Same goes for the Taliban.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

That's not 'posting proof' it's hiding behind an ambiguous statement, please try again.

I'll foreshadow my counter to what I think you're going to post by stating that when the police set up a bait car the car thief is still a car thief.

Same goes for the Taliban.

I updated my post.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

I updated my post.

In my opinion (and I'm from 'just across the road' from them, also lived there for four years) their violent intentions early on were largely held in check by a) Very violent and expansionist neighbors who had more naval power/opportunity and, b) the church.

The whole of Europe has a lot to be held responsible for, also a lot to be proud of in an odd way.

As for The Great War being a precursor to WWII, sure, that's true, but look what happens when you're nice to a vanquished enemy. They were still guilty of perpetrating the aggression against the rest of Europe because initially other European countries decided to allow them to posture. Bait Car analogy.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

I think it is equally important that we point out that the U.S. and it's allies were directly responsible for the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. Throughout their history the Germans were strong people but rarely militaristic society. They were defensive brutes at worst and philosophers at best. The west and it's imperialism was equally to blame for the rise of Japanese Militarism.

It's one thing to admit to your faults, it's another to justify your faults and only correct them after decades if ever. That is what this country does more often than not and I think that's slightly better than Chinese not admitting to its faults. Remember, the China transitioned from aristocracy to Communism fairly recently and in that process the communist pointed out the faults of the aristocracy. Communism is ultimately self-defeating the piper will be calling for the communists one of these days and the faults of the communist will similarly be pointed out. The same thing can be said about the Russians.

I was speaking of South Korea. You had people that wanted to be free and people who wanted communism. Like I said, communism is ultimately self-defeating but it's definitely nice to have altruistic help from the U.S. Hopefully that desire to help will be extend to the North Koreans one of these days.

China's human rights is just as laughable as that of the United States but you wouldn't know it talking to Americans. Human rights is somehow extended to torture and political imprisonment of dissenters in the U.S. but not to justified torture, opportunity and equality. How many people are in prison in United States again and how many innocent people are falsely imprisoned? How many egregious laws are there in the books simply because it serves a political purpose certain kinds of people?

The modern nation of Germany was founded based on the militarism of the Prussian aristocracratic society through political manipulation and realpolitick of Bismark. (BTW - In 1848(?), the Prussian King rejected a constitutional monarchy - preferring instead his autocratic principles). It took Bismark 3 separate wars for Prussia and it militaristic aristocracy to confirm its hegemony over Germany. -- The US and its allies "are responsible for the rise of Hitler"? Well, maybe b/c of the punitive nature of the Versaille Treaty, or b/c we failed to intervene when he violated that treaty. As I recall, however, Hitler was appointed Chancellor in '33 and subsequently granted dictatorial powers by a 2/3's vote of the Reichstag.

As to China, I cited two independent sources - Amnesty International and the Global Source both of which could hardly be labled "pro-American" and both blasted China's civil rights. Find me something, anything, that indicates America is considered to be a worse human rights violator than China in any objective sense or that, as a whole, America and China are comprable when it comes to human rights violations.

You asserted that the Chinese have changed since Mao, the cites I indicated contradict that. Again, provide something that shows, since Mao, the Chinese have made the same or better strides in expanding basic human rights to its citizens that the US has since WWII. I would suggest that a Uighur or Tibetan in China now is in a similar or worse position than he was 50 years ago. The same simply cannot be said about minorities and women in America.

Originally Posted by saden1

Historically speaking we are comparing countries/societies who have existed for millenniums, lack diversity and were not found based on the ideals of equality, freedom and democracy with a country that has been round centuries, diverse, and found based on the aforementioned qualities. Obviously these countries can't adapt to change as rapidly as the U.S. but if we compare which countries have gone through a significant change for the better over their life span I don't believe the U.S. wins which is the point I was making.

These countries can't adapt? So our adaptability is a point against us somehow?? To be clear - We didn't start out diverse. We started out as a country of white Englishmen with power resting firmly in the hands of the landed and/or monied aristocracy. The fact that we can and have adapted to expand and include a multitude of different cultures and shared power with them is kind of my point. Following our founding documents is what allowed us to expand and adapt the sharing of power. That was my original point in comparing the actions to the US took against the Guatamalans as opposed to the atrocities committed by the Nazis - One government's action was counter to its founding principles, the other government's actions were consistent with its governing principles.

In the 250 years of the US's existence, we have expanded the vote from landed white men only to every citizen over the age of 18. We have changed from a slave holding country to one which rejects slavery, in any form, as acceptable. The freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights have been expanded such that actions which would have been considered treasonable even 50 years ago (burning the flag, being a member of the Communist party as two examples) are now permitted and even protected. The rights of accused have been aggressively expanded so that the procedures police and prosecutors need follow would boggle the mind of Americans even 100 years ago.

Do we "win" the title of "World's Historically Most Transformed For The Better Society"? I don't know maybe, maybe not. What is clear to me is that, though we often fail, it is the US's goal, as demonstrated by our founding documents, to constantly strive to be the winner of that title. Again, that was my original point.

You think other countries "have gone through a significant change for the better over their life span" than the US? Okay. I don't see any proof of it but, if that's what you choose to believe, okay. Good for you. I stand by my original statement that no country in history has done more than the US (warts and all) - from its inception to its current status - to promote, provide and protect human rights within and without its borders.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Cause and effect. One only needs to ask how and why they came to power and look at history. [Citing the Versaille Treaty]

If all you got on the US and the Nazis rise to power is the Versailles Treaty, you should look for something else. The US Senate rejected the Treaty (mainly due to a block of isolationists opposing the US's inclusion in the League of Nations) and a separate peace was entered into with Germany in 1921.

Further, Wilson, on behalf of the US, vehemently opposed the "War Guilt" clause and the reparations. Instead, Wilson advocated for a treaty based on his 14 Points.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

The west and it's imperialism was equally to blame for the rise of Japanese Militarism.

Sorry, I almost forgot - I call serious BS on this one. Japanese militarism was, in fact, organic to its society and culture. Under Japanese feudalism, the Shogunite and its enforced isolationism, Japan bred a culture of militarism through the bushido ethic. While the US may have exposed the Japanese to western technology, the Japanese's choice of how they used that technology was entirely their own and absolutely consistent with their prior cultural history. Further, dehumanizing other cultures was well founded in Japanese history. The Japanese treatment of the Ainu was certainly equal to or worse our treatment of Native Americans (BTW - It was only in 2008 that the Japanese repealed the laws requiring Ainu to learn Japanese and recognized them as an indigenous people).

Japanese culture, well before any exposure to the West, created a society both capable and willing to perform atrocities on a huge scale.

EDIT: On behalf of the US, I would like to apologize to the victims of Japanese militarism - including the Korean People, the victicms of the Rape of Nanking, and Comfort Women - for showing the Japanese how guns work.

[firstdown]

All of this over prostitutes and prisoners.

[CRedskinsRule]

Geez Joe, Why bring facts and credible sources to this discussion.

[RedskinRat]

All joking aside, is this something now taught in schools? WTF is up with 'Victim mentality' and 'Blame the victim', FFS!

Next you'll be telling me that we have jihadists because we didn't just allow islam to be the one true religion as allah advised mohammed.

[saden1]

JoeRedskins, you write a lot but I don't think you grasped anything that I wrote so let me break it down for you:

1. Inaction in the face of punitive action is equally as bad as carrying out the punitive action itself. Negligence is not a form of defense.
2. I suppose the Prussians were brutes in their consolidation of power within their own region. I was talking about external desire for conquest but if we are going to talk about the internal rift and struggle to consolidate power and land, let's talk about it. How does the United States compare? Favorably I assume?
3. If you want a report on the sate of the Unite State's Human Rights I would suggest your read the country's Amnesty International Human Rights Report.
4. I never said our ability to adapt is a knock, what I stated was "comparatively you can't tell me we have had a more significant change over time for the better." They might move slow but they do change for the better.
5. China is still Mao's China? Wow, Mao is attributed with causing the deaths of 40 to 70 million people during his reign. I'm pretty sure that's not currently the case.
6. I don't support the the invasion of Tibet by the Chinese under the guise of human rights abuses as much as I don't support the invasion of American forces of Iraq under the guise of liberation/freedom.
7. China has universal suffrage which is a significant development for a country not founded on democratic ideals. You can short change them all you want but they have it and they have come quite a long way. Hopefully they will upgrade from a one party system to a two party system in the near future.
8. While they had internal power struggles the Japanese never ventured outside their borders before the West came into the picture. My point is and was they saw all these invading armies around them and thought to themselves they should probably united raise an army and with an army comes tyranny. I am not familiar with the Ainu people, I will have to read about them up.
9. I do believe we provoked the Japanese into entering WWII. If you keep throwing spit balls at me I would certainly hurl a rock at your face.

p.s. No one asked or wants you to apologize, only that you understand circumstances and that there can be unintended consequences of bot action and inaction.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

...let me break it down for you.

Saden, what year did you graduate from Cal Berkeley?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Saden, what year did you graduate from Cal Berkeley?

Berkley? I am a Stanford man.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

JoeRedskins, you write a lot but I don't think you grasped anything that I wrote so let me break it down for you:

You write a lot too my friend and you digress even more. Before addressing your wonderful little list, here is what I have understood your points to be and the points I have been contesting:

(1) Americans always qualify their apologies – Gosh, we did wrong but others have been worse;

(2) Other countries have done a better job of self-improvement;

(3) China’s civil rights situation is comparable to the US;

(4) And, of course:

Originally Posted by saden1

America was born out of sin, into sin and and will die in sin. I am quite tired of people making indirect apologies for it and using deflection. America doesn't need defending nor does it deserve defending.

As to these:

(1) Maybe - I would disagree but you’re entitled to your opinion. Further, I see no proof of it in any of your arguments. I will say that, when people cite to our errors or use specific instances of wrong to assert that US government is comparable to the Nazis, I take offense and will always highlight the fundamental differences between the US and the seductive dehumanizing that fascism (and communism) promotes. If you consider this as qualifying an apology, I guess - I don’t see it that way.

(2) Again, as a matter of opinion, I disagree and see no persuasive proof in any of your supporting arguments. In the last 250 years, the US has transformed itself significantly. Further, unlike Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the US’s transformation occurred from within rather than being imposed by a foreign power.

(3) See my response to your list. Your defense of China’s human rights situation as comparable to that of the US is either obtuse or ignorant.

(4) It was, it exists so, and will – but hopefully not for many hundreds of years. To prevent its death, it both needs and deserves defending. When people choose to highlight its wrongs and assert it is not worth defending, it is appropriate to highlight the US’s good works and ask that the “entire body of work” be fairly assessed - both good and ill. In the US’s case, in our short flawed existence, and in my opinion, that body of work shows a country that has done more to promote, provide and protect individual liberties and the rule of law than any other through history.

You appear to disagree. In my humble opinion, however, your arguments have been off point, unpersuasive and fail to refute this simple assertion.

[JoeRedskin]

As to your list:

Originally Posted by saden1

(1) Inaction in the face of punitive action is equally as bad as carrying out the punitive action itself. Negligence is not a form of defense.

Please point to me where you have argued and I have contested this general principle. As a broad principle, I simply do not contest this statement except to say that inaction may be equally as bad but is not necessarily so. [If your wife is attacked, I will not assert you have committed a wrong if you protect her rather than choose to defend your neighbor being mugged across the street at the same time].

(2) I suppose the Prussians were brutes in their consolidation of power within their own region. I was talking about external desire for conquest but if we are going to talk about the internal rift and struggle to consolidate power and land, let's talk about it. How does the United States compare? Favorably I assume?

You “suppose the Prussians were brutes in their consolidation”?? What happened to “born in sin, die in sin”?

You’re the one who first cited cause & effect as a basis for laying blame on a country [i.e. I refer you back to your digression from the point that Germany has redeemed itself since WWII and your factually inaccurate assertion that the US, as a participant in the Versailles Treaty, was an equal contributor to the rise of Nazi Germany and that western imperialism was a cause of Imperial Japan’s expansion]. Given your reliance on that principal, let’s look at the subsequent “cause and effect” of Prussian militarism on the world and the subsequent cause and effect of the US’s consolidation of power on the North American continent. One was the direct cause of two world wars and the genocide of millions while the other resulted in the expropriation of land from and slaughter of aboriginal peoples. Neither was right but one created significantly more wrong than the other.

If your point in this digression is that “wrong is wrong – degree does not matter”, again, we will just have agree to disagree. Further, as I have consistently stated, I am not attempting to either defend or diminish the wrong done by the US either in the situation subject to this thread or its historical wrongs. Rather, when others assert our wrongs are as bad as the Nazis or the Stalinists or the Maoists or the Pol Pot’s, I have simply asserted that there are fundamental differences between those governments and our own.

(3) If you want a report on the sate of the Unite State's Human Rights I would suggest your read the country's Amnesty International Human Rights Report.

Again, I have never asserted that no human rights violations have occurred by the US. Rather, I vehemently disagree with your assertion that, when it comes to human rights violations, the US and China are comparable:

Originally Posted by saden1

China's human rights is just as laughable as that of the United States but you wouldn't know it talking to Americans.

From that same site, here is the report on the Chinese violations of civil rights (which I previously cited): China Human Rights | Amnesty International USA. I am not going to do a point by point comparison of the two here. If you compare the two lists, however, and attempt to tell me they are comparable in scope and nature, I would politely suggest you are just being obtuse.

(4) I never said our ability to adapt is a knock, what I stated was "comparatively you can't tell me we have had a more significant change over time for the better." They might move slow but they do change for the better.

No. You originally said:

Originally Posted by saden1

Clearly the German people have redeemed themselves as much as anyone can. Russia is a far cry from Stalin's USSR. Ditto for Mao's China.

Since then you have moved timelines around to monarchical China and Prussia and the historical German peoples in order to validate your digression. I concede that the Russian, German and Chinese people have made significant strides since the proto-medieval kingdoms of Rus’/Kiev, the Holy Roman Empire and the Five Kingdoms. However, as to the last 250 years, can I assert that, comparatively, the US has “had a more significant change over time for the better”? I believe we have for all the reasons I have previously pointed out. Further, and as I have also previously pointed out, the transformation of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were a direct result of US intervention/opposition. As to China, see below.

(5) China is still Mao's China? Wow, Mao is attributed with causing the deaths of 40 to 70 million people during his reign. I'm pretty sure that's not currently the case.

(6) I don't support the the invasion of Tibet by the Chinese under the guise of human rights abuses as much as I don't support the invasion of American forces of Iraq under the guise of liberation/freedom.

(7)China has universal suffrage which is a significant development for a country not founded on democratic ideals. You can short change them all you want but they have it and they have come quite a long way. Hopefully they will upgrade from a one party system to a two party system in the near future.

First, I have never, and do not now, assert that current the Chinese government is equivalent to the government as it existed in Maoist China. I simply disputed that (1) the transformation from Maoist China to today’s China is not so radical as you seem to believe it is [as supported by my citation to: China and Human Rights — Global Issues ]; and (2) that the status of individual human rights in China is not comparable to that in the US.

Again, my point has never been to defend specific actions by the US but, rather, to dispute or deny that, from a human rights perspective, the current government of the US is in any way comparable to that of China. As to Tibet v. Iraq you equate them as comparable – for arguments sake, I will not dispute this. In doing so, however, I assert it is tangential to the broader point I have asserted relating to the the status of human rights in the two countries as a whole. Both were wrong, but that does not make the US the moral equivalent of China.

Yay!!! China have universal suffrage as long as you vote for the person selected by the Communist Party! Horrayyy for China !

(8) While they had internal power struggles the Japanese never ventured outside their borders before the West came into the picture. My point is and was they saw all these invading armies around them and thought to themselves they should probably united raise an army and with an army comes tyranny. I am not familiar with the Ainu people, I will have to read about them up.

You’re right. After 700 years of internal warring, the establishment of the Samuri culture, an inculcated believe that they are a divine people to the exclusion of other cultures, the Bushido religion – their entry into the world forum would have been nothing but peaceful trade but for the evil west. Excuse and rationalize it all you want, Japanese militarism and their cult of racial superiority was organic to their culture, regardless of western imperialism, and was the basis for justifying expansion into the Near East. I do not dispute that exposure to western technology and science was the catalyst to Japanese expansion, but to assert it would not have eventually occurred or that “the West” was somehow shares responsibility for purely Japan’s atrocities is to excuse those actually responsible. The devil may have told you to do it – but you actually did it.

I dispute that Army = Tyranny or that, even if true, it is any way relevant to the atrocities committed by Japan. Initially, I believe the US has an army that has not, in fact, resulted in a military tyranny. Further, as I recall, it was the Egyptian army that stood to defend protestors against the elites tyranny. It’s a nice rhetorical short cut that gets you where you want to go, but it’s is not a logical truism applicable to the rise of Japanese militarism in response to western imperialism. [i.e. all cultures who raise an army will eventually fall into tyranny. Assuming arguendo the truth of this statement it is completely devoid of any time component or any element of moral comparative – there are good tyrants and bad tyrants].

(9) I do believe we provoked the Japanese into entering WWII. If you keep throwing spit balls at me I would certainly hurl a rock at your face.

Wow. Just wow. The economic sanctions pursued by the US government prior to Pearl Harbor (the “rock” Japan hurled at our face!) were in direct response to the popular outrage at Japan's war in China and the atrocities committed by the Japanese therein, particularly the Rape of Nanking. The sanctions were an attempt to limit or stop Japan's continued military expansion short of declaring of war. They were indeed effective. So much so, that Japan was faced with either (1) ending its war in China or (2) expanding its military conquests to include the resource rich area of Indonesia and attempting to destroy America's ability to oppose them militarily. Guess which they picked? HINT: It involved the rock you earlier alluded to.

You’re right, however, we should have sat back and let the Japanese military follow their western inspired expansion into China and colonization of Korea. Oh, wait, that would have been “Inaction in the face of punitive action”... Double

Originally Posted by saden1

p.s. No one asked or wants you to apologize, only that you understand circumstances and that there can be unintended consequences of both action and inaction.

Of course there are. I have never disputed it and, until now, it was not among the points you have been arguing. America has done wrong both through its actions and inactions. I have never, ever disputed this nor has it been any part of the argument to this point.

What we did to the Guatamalans was wrong. Assertions that, because we took those actions, the US is just as bad as the Nazis are also wrong. As I originally argued in response to such assertions, such accusations tend to minimize the dangers posed by actual nazism and the dehumanization integral to the fascist system.