America and its response to genocides

[JayATL]

Err...you don't need ICBMs to deliver nukes, cruise missiles do a fine job. Anyways, in hindsight it was mostly posturing, meant to send a "strong signal", but you can never be certain in the cold wars days. Especially when:



Nixon/Kissinger Saw India as "Soviet Stooge" in 1971 South Asia Crisis

Good lord I never claimed you need ICBM's - I said Nuke India! because of that absurd claim made... of Nuking India was on their mind.

 

[LurkerBaba]

I said Nuke India! because of that absurd claim made... of Nuking India was on their mind.

Posturing and brinkmanship was the norm at that time. More than just "nukes ! nukes !" a carrier battle group on your shores, sends a strong message.

 

[The Messiah]

And in the same time he made Chile one of the best prospering countries in South America... besides who cares about socialists, they killed more humans than Pinochet was ever capabale. Lenin, Stalin, Beria, Castro, Che Guevara, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Ill, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung etc. etc. etc. These guys are way above any level of killing made by Pinochet or even medieval or ancient kings, emperors etc. Think about that.

no doubt where the rich poor divide is most massive. I suppose killing the nazis was also "crimes against humanity"

lol hitler

 

[JayATL]

Not nuke India but threaten India to back-off from East-Pakistan and stopping India form taking action against Pakistani Army. In a way, it was directly supporting the genocide of Bangladeshis by Pakistani Army. If US was the human rights champions that you claim it to be then it wouldn't have sent 7th carrier fleet into the Bay of Bengal for no reason. It would have just kept away from all this fiasco.

Or do you have any explanation as to why 7th carrier fleet was there in Bay of Bengal at that particular time

To make sure west pakistan was not attacked thereafter and as a pure political ploy... you dont bring a couple of ships to attack a country..

 

[The Messiah]

To make sure west pakistan was not attacked thereafter and as a pure political ploy... you dont bring a couple of ships to attack a country..

To make sure bangladesh didn't get its independence.

 

[Damian]

I suppose killing the nazis was also "crimes against humanity"

Think about what happend after the war, also Soviets were killing normal citizens of countries like Poland, Chechoslovakia, Germany, only because they were against socialism, read what happend with biggest underground Army and State, the Polish Home Army after Red Army fully take control over my country.

lol hitler

Yes, he was a socialist, not international one but naionalistic, he even said that his socialism is better than Lenins and Stalins socialism.

So yeah, actually socialists were the biggest killers on this planet, Pinochet can't be compared to them.

You should also read what Stalin did to Russians, damn even at least several years after his death people were sitting in Gulags.

 

[Galaxy]

To make sure west pakistan was not attacked thereafter and as a pure political ploy... you dont bring a couple of ships to attack a country..

Aircraft carrier is not a ship, if you are aware.

It's whole Airbase with 30-50 Fighter Jets, Helicopters, Missiles, Radars, SAM, etc.

No country sends everything in starting, It was start and meaning was loud and clear. But why it didn't worked ? You need to check our more than half century comrades i.e. USSR/Russia. That's why we still maintain good relation with Russia - It's time-tested (Inspite US is more than willing to sell anything to us). USSR was super power at that time like US and we were at Soviet camp.

 

[The Messiah]

Think about what happend after the war, also Soviets were killing normal citizens of countries like Poland, Chechoslovakia, Germany, only because they were against socialism, read what happend with biggest underground Army and State, the Polish Home Army after Red Army fully take control over my country.

Yes, he was a socialist, not international one but naionalistic, he even said that his socialism is better than Lenins and Stalins socialism.

So yeah, actually socialists were the biggest killers on this planet, Pinochet can't be compared to them.

You should also read what Stalin did to Russians, damn even at least several years after his death people were sitting in Gulags.

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler's warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.

The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.

However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was.

In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms.

Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.

Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social democracy, where workers vote for their supervisors, as well as their industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another proposed form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies that would operate on a free market, without any central government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary feature of socialism. The primary feature is worker ownership of production.

The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers -- that is, a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy"¦ never a dictatorship. It doesn't matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a "socialist" or a "democrat." If the people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist.

And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." (1)

The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling Nazi elite. After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. Like all war economies, it boomed, making Germany the second nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, in 1936. (The first nation was Sweden, in 1934. Following Keynesian-like policies, the Swedish government spent its way out of the Depression, proving that state economic policies can be successful without resorting to dictatorship or war.)

Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker protests had spread all across Germany in response to the Great Depression. During his drive to power, Hitler exploited this social unrest by promising workers to strengthen their labor unions and increase their standard of living. But these were empty promises; privately, he was reassuring wealthy German businessmen that he would crack down on labor once he achieved power. Historian William Shirer describes the Nazi's dual strategy:

"The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow [Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly 'socialists' and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply of it." (2)

Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers. According to the law that created it, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able"¦ to perform the maximum of work." Workers would indeed greatly boost their productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited. Between 1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly because the Nazis had restored order to the economy, but an even bigger reason was that the Nazis would have cracked down on any protest.

There was no part of Nazism, therefore, that even remotely resembled socialism. But what about the political nature of Nazism in general? Did it belong to the left, or to the right? Let's take a closer look:

The political right is popularly associated with the following principles. Of course, it goes without saying that these are generalizations, and not every person on the far right believes in every principle, or disbelieves its opposite. Most people's political beliefs are complex, and cannot be neatly pigeonholed. This is as true of Hitler as anyone. But since the far right is trying peg Hitler as a leftist, it's worth reviewing the tenets popularly associated with the right. These include:

Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.
Religion over secularism.

As Hitler himself wrote:

"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."

credit to the author.

and stalin, mao, kim were tyrants...i for one am not defending them.

 

[JayATL]

This is NOT a real debate of intellect here. This is more of anti us bashing kids making a fool of themselves. This crowd would say Germany is not a genocide prompter or would they? citing lapses in judgment from past old history on behalf of the US, in those rare cases makes them the US, in their eyes, as genocide promoters.... freaking hilarious when India in modern history could have walked in an stopped the genocide in Sri Lanka, but bragged about and still does how they helped Sri Lank with weapons to aid the " genocide".... freaking hilarious to hear them- when Myanmar junta is supported and aided by India.

So Indians who are of the old pinko commi mode --- thank god your govt isn't as naive...

AND BTW I refuse to debate with people anymore who are stupid enough, military strategy defunct to think a freaking carrier with 40 aircrafts = military plan to invade and or nuke India. You should get off defense board if you are that naïve when it comes to the simple tactical knowledge / matter as this.

 

[Tronic]

Yes, he was a socialist, not international one but naionalistic, he even said that his socialism is better than Lenins and Stalins socialism.

How does a man, who kills Jews, and other minorities, and strives on "Aryanism" become a socialist? He did dish out massive money to companies in order to get out of the depression, but it was largely so those companies could dish out a war machine to serve his purpose. Hitler's socialist programs were only for the "Aryans", not the rest of Germany. The man was a right wing nut, not a socialist in any sense.

 

[Tronic]

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.

To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler's warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.

The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.

However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was.

In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms.

Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.

Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social democracy, where workers vote for their supervisors, as well as their industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another proposed form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies that would operate on a free market, without any central government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary feature of socialism. The primary feature is worker ownership of production.

The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers -- that is, a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy"¦ never a dictatorship. It doesn't matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a "socialist" or a "democrat." If the people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist.

And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." (1)

The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling Nazi elite. After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. Like all war economies, it boomed, making Germany the second nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, in 1936. (The first nation was Sweden, in 1934. Following Keynesian-like policies, the Swedish government spent its way out of the Depression, proving that state economic policies can be successful without resorting to dictatorship or war.)

Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker protests had spread all across Germany in response to the Great Depression. During his drive to power, Hitler exploited this social unrest by promising workers to strengthen their labor unions and increase their standard of living. But these were empty promises; privately, he was reassuring wealthy German businessmen that he would crack down on labor once he achieved power. Historian William Shirer describes the Nazi's dual strategy:

"The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow [Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly 'socialists' and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply of it." (2)

Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers. According to the law that created it, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able"¦ to perform the maximum of work." Workers would indeed greatly boost their productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited. Between 1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly because the Nazis had restored order to the economy, but an even bigger reason was that the Nazis would have cracked down on any protest.

There was no part of Nazism, therefore, that even remotely resembled socialism. But what about the political nature of Nazism in general? Did it belong to the left, or to the right? Let's take a closer look:

The political right is popularly associated with the following principles. Of course, it goes without saying that these are generalizations, and not every person on the far right believes in every principle, or disbelieves its opposite. Most people's political beliefs are complex, and cannot be neatly pigeonholed. This is as true of Hitler as anyone. But since the far right is trying peg Hitler as a leftist, it's worth reviewing the tenets popularly associated with the right. These include:

Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.
Religion over secularism.

As Hitler himself wrote:

"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."

credit to the author.

and stalin, mao, kim were tyrants...i for one am not defending them.

Nice post!

 

[The Messiah]

This is NOT a real debate of intellect here. This is more of anti us bashing kids making a fool of themselves. This crowd would say Germany is not a genocide prompter or would they? citing lapses in judgment from past old history on behalf of the US, in those rare cases makes them the US, in their eyes, as genocide promoters.... freaking hilarious when India in modern history could have walked in an stopped the genocide in Sri Lanka, but bragged about and still does how they helped Sri Lank with weapons to aid the " genocide".... freaking hilarious to hear them- when Myanmar junta is supported and aided by India.

So Indians who are of the old pinko commi mode --- thank god your govt isn't as naive...

AND BTW I refuse to debate with people anymore who are stupid enough, military strategy defunct to think a freaking carrier with 40 aircrafts = military plan to invade and or nuke India. You should get off defense board if you are that naïve when it comes to the simple tactical knowledge / matter as this.

the fuck are you on ?

you think sending an aircraft carrier is all a joke ? you dont send in your most effective power projection unit for cheers and giggles. it was a message to India to lay off bangladesh or else....

 

[Tronic]

I don't think the USS Kittyhawk alone could launch an invasion of India, but it certainly could militarily intervene. The Kittyhawk threat was no joke. Not to mention, Diego Garcia is also sitting in your backyard.

 

[Damian]

True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic.

Yeah, riiiggghht, democratic, yeah, SU was democratic, North Korea is democratic, Kuba is democratic, yes, very democratic.

He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction,

Stalin was probably very tolerant, so tolerant that he ordered to kick off whole nations from their lands and to place them... well somewhere else, also in SU there were examples of not nice experiments on humans. But yeah, this was normal... for socialist state.

To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right.

Most people are only most people, and most people don't know everything or they don't know better than minority, so majority of peassants should design aircrafts?

For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler's warring nationalism.

Right wing do not belive in nationalism or rascism but in tollerance and freedom, as I said in other topic, freedom means to be wise, someone who is nationalist or rascist is just a moron, this of course don't mean that nobody should have a critical view on people from Africa or Middle East or a neighbore country.

In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms.

You of course belive in idealistic socialism, I live in a country where real socialism was only political and economic octrine for many years, belive me, after socialism collapsed, my country did not look nice and clean, economy was in critical condition, this is how real socialism looks like, not that fantasy mumbo jumbo.

Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production.

It is simple, if I have factory, this is my factory and fuck of my factory. But I know, I know, anyone would whant to place his hands on my well prospering factory and my money, greed is something very natural.

The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded.

Nobody is excluded, this is something that 99% of humanity don't understand, capitalism gives everyone same chances to be on top or on bottom end, everything depends on unit decisions and what he will do. Simple as that and this is true justice.

The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.

Yeah, we tried this once, it was great, untill economy collapsed. But You never lived in socialist state, so please, don't talk about something You never experienced.

I was kid in 1990's but hell, untill 1998 country was in really bad shape, so I say, thank You socialists for these wonderfull years when my country was poor.

As for the rest, I said it this way, pray, really pray I say this to You as Atheist Messiah, pray that You will never live in socialist state, pray as strong as You can, because even dictatorship of one person, is sometimes better than dictatorship of a mob, like in Your real, beatifull socialism, so I will repeat, pray.

How does a man, who kills Jews, and other minorities, and strives on "Aryanism" become a socialist? He did dish out massive money to companies in order to get out of the depression, but it was largely so those companies could dish out a war machine to serve his purpose. Hitler's socialist programs were only for the "Aryans", not the rest of Germany. The man was a right wing nut, not a socialist in any sense.

Yes, this was socialism for "Aryans" because it was nationalistic socialism, Nazism. It have nothing common with true right wing Liberal/Libertarian and Minarchism ideals about how nation and state should look like. Calling Hitler right wing nut You are insulting all right wing orientated, honestly working people that are tolerant and are respecting free will and freedom of other people, their religion belifes and race (if race even egsists).

 

[JayATL]

the fuck are you on ?

you think sending an aircraft carrier is all a joke ? you dont send in your most effective power projection unit for cheers and giggles. it was a message to India to lay off bangladesh or else....

I'm fucking on a reality trip, where you dont have plan to invade based on a handful of naval ships. show me one instance in the last few decades where a Plan to invade was with 1/50th of your naval power only. the stupidity promoted here was they were going to Nuke india and or attack/ stop india , a country US knew well USSR would jump in w/ full might and support,by sending freaking 1/50th of 1/3 of your entire military might... thats my " fucking trip"... I'm done with this stupidity- have at it.

 

[trackwhack]

Jay, America's stance in 71 was absurd. Kissinger, Summers and Brzezinski can team up to try and defend it and they will fail miserably. We should stop this debate.

 

[Daredevil]

AND BTW I refuse to debate with people anymore who are stupid enough, military strategy defunct to think a freaking carrier with 40 aircrafts = military plan to invade and or nuke India. You should get off defense board if you are that naïve when it comes to the simple tactical knowledge / matter as this.

Its a sign of you losing the debate.

If the US really wanted to protect West Pakistan then it would go towards the Karachi port and not towards the East Pakistan. The aim of 7th fleet task force was to remove the naval blockade of Indian Navy on the East Pakistan side and help the Pakistani Army.

 

[Tronic]

I'm fucking on a reality trip, where you dont have plan to invade based on a handful of naval ships. show me one instance in the last few decades where a Plan to invade was with 1/50th of your naval power only. the stupidity promoted here was they were going to Nuke india and or attack/ stop india , a country US knew well USSR would jump in w/ full might and support,by sending freaking 1/50th of 1/3 of your entire military might... thats my " fucking trip"... I'm done with this stupidity- have at it.

Whether Nixon's plans were to bomb "bastard" Indians or not, the fact is, the USS Kittyhawk showed up on India's doorstep with specifically that threat.

 

[tarunraju]

It's interesting that nobody cited the Blood Telegram from Dhaka (look it up) to nail anyone who doubts that the US blatantly promoted rape as weapon of war and genocide in 1971.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Defining the terms

We should define genocide. The term is used as loosely as the term racism. There are many people who will tell you that only whites can be racist or commit genocide. It's today's white man's burden. The White Man's Burden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia