Re: on Bush and his crashes
Todd Kuzma wrote:
>
> I guess that the US doesn't make the list as the Native
> American genocide was only in the thousands.
Exactly -- that is the point. For as horrendopus and dispicable as the
treatment of the Indians was, the US doesn't make the list. One
especially keen example of mistreatment was Andrew Jackson (founder of
the Democrat party) ignoring the Supreme Court and sending the
Cherokee's out on the The Trail of Tears. The Cherokees had adopted
some of the euro culture in accepting the concept of property rights,
only to have it violated by Jackson (hah hah, what's new with
democrats).
No, the US was/is no utopia. But *comparatively*, it is better than any
place else. People still immigrate here. Few ever leave, although I
can think of a few that should.
There was a utopia, or so it was promised to be. Here's what happened
there:
*Peacetime* body count
Location (Regime) Deaths Era
Soviet Union (Communist) 61,900,000 1917-1990
China (Communist) 35,200,000 1949-present
> We're hard to beat when it comes to slavery though!
What! You prop up straw men? The only way a USA could come into being
was to accept slavery initially. This much cannot be argued against by
anyone with at least a rudimentary study of history. You could argue
that the USA should then have *not* come into being. Okay, you can say
that. What does it mean in a comparative sense since utopia is a pipe
dream for doofuses that smoke but don't inhale (meaning they'ed think
more clearly if they were stoned -- that's how cracked they are)?
It means slavery might *still* exist in the South. It means separate
states might have warred constantly with each other instead of just once
(and that one time terminated the slavery issue forever). You would
have at least some difficulty saying the USA should never have been
*and* that non-existance would be a better comparative result than what
we in fact ended up with. Slavery was a political compromise of the
time, not the bad dream of a 21st century couch potato.
> By the way, I think that the numbers for Indonesia are a bit
> low. I've read figures over 2 million. The CIA helped a
> bit there because the Suharto regime was supposedly going
> after the communists.
"...helped a bit...?" I already posted the data. So okay, give the bad
ole US *all* the credit. We don't bust 1 million.
>> Indonesia (Suharto) 600,000 1965-present
"A regime whose hands are as bloody as those of the Suharto regime in
Indonesia-with the blood on its hands of perhaps 450,000 communists,
suspected communists, and others who simply were in the wrong place at
the wrong time at its creation in 1965, and perhaps 150,000 inhabitants
of East Timor since the Indonesian takeover in the mid-1970s--such a
regime barely makes the twentieth century's top twenty list as far as
the massacre of civilians is concerned."
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TCE...ch_power4.html
But since you have decided to go ahead and play the body count game, you
might want to count people saved to. There again we are not perfect,
just better (by a lot).
> Plus, remember that China is our biggest trading partner.
> Go WalMart!
Ah yes, evil Wal-mart. There is nothing worse than convenience, low
prices, and liberal return policies. OUTRAGEOUS!!!
> If I understand our government's position,
> trade with China and Vietnam is very good, but trade with
> Cuba is very bad.
Would that be the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton,
or Bush administrations whose Cuba policies you find inconsistant? I
guess it must be Bush 43,... right?
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TCE...vergence5.html
