Is dating someone who's a different race okay?

You are a sick racist of the worst kind and we all can be very thankful that such voices in the public square are now treated with the contempt they had earn.

All the harm done to mankind over the generations by the likes of you is amazing and sad.

In Haiti for example thirty thousands of average black slaves was work to death every year on sugar plantations and needed to be replaced decade after decade.

You're making the US look bad and its not like that. We don't just attack people.

Back to trying to find any excuse for attacking the US even listing the poor Japan Empire as a victim.

Admiral William Halsey, who became commander of the South Pacific Forces early on during the World War II made famous the slogan “Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs.” So vengeful was his rage following Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor that his motto under which he would rally his men was “Remember Pearl Harbor—keep ‘em dying.” (Dower 36).
Strong rhetoric such as Admiral Halsey’s was not uncommon during the war years. The rhetoric was so harsh, in fact, the words bordered on genocidal.

...

The spiteful sentiment felt throughout the war among many Americans seemed to stem from much more than simply vengeance for the December 7th attack. It reflected an already existing racism prompted by Pearl Harbor. The “yellow” color race code was the branding of choice when referring to the Japanese. They were the “yellow peril,” and “yellow monkeys.” Even Time magazine in a report on Pearl Harbor used the phrase, “the yellow bastards!” The New York Times contributed with their own anti-Japanese rhetoric explaining how the Japanese “have kept their savage tradition ‘unbroken through ages eternal,’ from the fabulous age of their savage gods to the present day.
A commonly held view was that the Japanese were subhuman or evolutionarily inferior. It was an all too common idea among not only the Americans but among the other Allies as well. British Under-Secretary of the Foreign Office Sir Alexander Cadogan referred to the Japanese as “little yellow dwarf slaves” referring to the average height difference between Anglos and Japanese (Aldrich 64). Chiefs of Staff felt “no reason to believe that Japanese standards are even comparable with those of the Italians.”

In one of the most famous, and perhaps most fantastic and blatant misconceptions of the Japanese, historian Arthur Marder thought the Japanese to be inherently inferior, especially in the art of war, for several reasons, one being “because of their eye slits… the Japanese fighter pilots could not shoot straight, and Japanese naval officers could not see in the dark” (65). Captain Vivian from Tokyo said that Japanese were incapable of springing surprise in battle because they have “peculiarly slow brains” (64). One needs only to obviously site the bombing of Pearl Harbor to disclaim that notion. Despite this, the West was still convinced during the early part of the war that Japan was of Japan’s inherently inferior.

https://www.msu.edu/~navarro6/srop.html

A Brief History of U.S. Interventions:
1945 to the Present

by William Blum

Z magazine , June 1999

The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:

* making the world safe for American corporations;

* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;

* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;

* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."

This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.

The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.

Read on at,


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

Why would we do that. President Obama wouldnt do that.

* making the world safe for American corporations;

* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;

* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;

That man was old and he was talking about stuff from a long time ago. I watched some of the video. It was boring and I dont think it was true. What makes you so sure JTT?

THE SECRET WARS OF THE CIA:

part II

CIA COVERT OPERATIONS IN CENTRAL AMERICA, CIA MANIPULATION OF THE PRESS, CIA EXPERIMENTATION ON THE U.S. PUBLIC

by John Stockwell

...


The United States CIA is running 50 covert actions, destabilizing further almost one third of the countries in the world today....

By the way, everything I'm sharing with you tonight is in the public record. The 50 covert actions - these are secret, but that has been leaked to us by members of the oversight committee of the Congress. I urge you not to take my word for anything. I'm going to stand here and tell you and give you examples of how our leaders lie. Obviously I could be lying. The only way you can figure it out for yourself is to educate yourselves. The French have a saying, `them that don't do politics will be done'. If you don't fill your mind eagerly with the truth, dig it out from the records, go and see for yourself, then your mind remains blank and your adrenaline pumps, and you can be mobilized and excited to do things that are not in your interest to do....

Nicaragua is not the biggest covert action, it is the most famous one. Afghanistan is, we spent several hundred million dollars in Afghanistan. We've spent somewhat less than that, but close, in Nicaragua....

[When the U.S. doesn't like a government], they send the CIA in, with its resources and activists, hiring people, hiring agents, to tear apart the social and economic fabric of the country, as a technique for putting pressure on the government, hoping that they can make the government come to the U.S.'s terms, or the government will collapse altogether and they can engineer a coup d'etat, and have the thing wind up with their own choice of people in power.

Now ripping apart the economic and social fabric of course is fairly textbook-ish. What we're talking about is going in and deliberately creating conditions where the farmer can't get his produce to market, where children can't go to school, where women are terrified inside their homes as well as outside their homes, where government administration and programs grind to a complete halt, where the hospitals are treating wounded people instead of sick people, where international capital is scared away and the country goes bankrupt. If you ask the state department today what is their official explanation of the purpose of the Contras, they say it's to attack economic targets, meaning, break up the economy of the country. Of course, they're attacking a lot more.

To destabilize Nicaragua beginning in 1981, we began funding this force of Somoza's ex-national guardsmen, calling them the contras (the counter-revolutionaries). We created this force, it did not exist until we allocated money. We've armed them, put uniforms on their backs, boots on their feet, given them camps in Honduras to live in, medical supplies, doctors, training, leadership, direction, as we've sent them in to de-stabilize Nicaragua. Under our direction they have systematically been blowing up graineries, saw mills, bridges, government offices, schools, health centers. They ambush trucks so the produce can't get to market. They raid farms and villages. The farmer has to carry a gun while he tries to plow, if he can plow at all.

If you want one example of hard proof of the CIA's involvement in this, and their approach to it, dig up `The Sabotage Manual', that they were circulating throughout Nicaragua, a comic-book type of a paper, with visual explanations of what you can do to bring a society to a halt, how you can gum up typewriters, what you can pour in a gas tank to burn up engines, what you can stuff in a sewage to stop up the sewage so it won't work, things you can do to make a society simply cease to function.

Systematically, the contras have been assassinating religious workers, teachers, health workers, elected officials, government administrators. You remember the assassination manual? that surfaced in 1984. It caused such a stir that President Reagan had to address it himself in the presidential debates with Walter Mondale. They use terror. This is a technique that they're using to traumatize the society so that it can't function.

I don't mean to abuse you with verbal violence, but you have to understand what your government and its agents are doing. They go into villages, they haul out families. With the children forced to watch they castrate the father, they peel the skin off his face, they put a grenade in his mouth and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these things to the children.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_2.html

I'm still waiting for her to explain how D-Day was staged solely to enrich the US arms and materiel manufacturers and that the entire war in Europe was a scam so that we could exploit Japanese-Americans by organizing them into the 442d RCT and sending them gleefully into the jaws of death. I'm sure she's quite capable of coming up with something like that.

BTW, I wonder if she realizes that of all the people sold into slavery from African ports (the sellers generally other dark-skinned people, both sub-Saharan Africans and Arabs) only about 20 percent (some sources say less) ever ended up on the shores of the British colonies and the subsequent USA. The large majority of enslaved people went to Brazil and other So. American colonies.

Still listing the poor Empire of the Raising Sun as a victim is a little must given their charming habit of treating other Asian peoples as sub-human.

Resistance to US Military Occupation: The Case of the Philippines
by Heather Gray

It is baffling that any American might not understand the Iraqi disdain of a US military occupation. How would Americans like being accosted by another country's military...being arrested by them, controlled by them, dictated to by them, tortured by them, killed by them.... exploited by its corporate entities and losing sovereignty? Americans should look at the Philippines' century long struggle for some answers to that question.

Bush referred to the Philippines as a model for the US relationship with Iraq and I would like to briefly describe that model. It was and remains a fiasco and tragedy. After being occupied directly or indirectly by the United States since the Philippine-American War (1899-1902), the Philippines has been victimized in this relationship. While the Filipino elite have always benefited from US interference in their country, the masses have suffered indignities, violence, extreme poverty, racism and no substantive reforms.

It is particularly important to highlight the initiation of "low intensity conflict" policies by the United States against Filipinos in 1901 - a practice the US continued to implement throughout the 20th century in Vietnam, Angola, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Columbia and elsewhere.

During the Spanish-American War in the late 1890's, US Commodore George Dewey descended upon the shores of the Philippines and destroyed the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay. Americans had a number of goals for occupying the Philippines. One was to create a military presence to then access the markets of China. The second was to utilize the Philippine raw materials for US industry. US President William McKinley described the third. After praying to "Almighty God", McKinley said that a message came to him that Americans were in the Philippines to "uplift and civilize and christianize" Filipinos. He was obviously not aware of the fact that the Filipinos had been "christianized" for 400 years by Spanish colonizers, against whom they had consistently rebelled.

As Howard Zinn notes in his People's History of the United States, the "Filipinos did not get the same message from God" and the resistance to US military intervention began in 1899 in what has remained, up to the present time, organized efforts by Filipinos in opposition to US interference.

Initially, Filipinos thought that the Americans were there to help them kick out the Spanish and end 400 years of repression. After fruitless attempts to negotiate, however, the reality of the US intention became clear. The Filipinos were forced to acknowledge that the Americans intended to replace the Spanish as the colonial rulers. In The Philippines Reader, Daniel Schirmer and Stephen Shalom provide first hand accounts of this period. On February 5, 1899 Philippine President Emilio Aguinaldo urged his people to fight in response to the "outbreak of hostilities between the Philippine forces and the American forces of occupation, (which were) unjustly and unexpectedly provoked by the latter.... The constant outrages and taunts, which have caused the misery of the people...and finally the useless conferences and contempt shown the Philippine government prove the premeditated transgression of justice and liberty."

The American reaction was swift and the slaughter by US forces is legendary. Philippine scholar Luziminda Francisco refers to that brutal imperial American war that launched the 20th century as the "first Vietnam War" in which estimates of from 600,000 to a million Filipinos died. She states that the estimate of up to a million deaths might "err on the side of understatement" as one US congressman, who visited the Philippines at the time, was quoted as saying "They never rebel in Luzon (Philippines) anymore because there isn't anybody left to rebel...our soldiers took no prisoners, they kept no records, they simply swept the country and wherever and whenever they could get hold of a Filipino they killed him."

In response to a massacre of 54 Americans by the Filipino resistance in Samar, Francisco describes how US General "Howling Jake" Smith launched a "reign of terror" on the island. "Kill and burn..." Smith said "the more you kill and burn the more you'll please me." When asked the age limit for killing, he said, "Everything over ten." The order from Smith was that Samar becomes a "howling wilderness" so that "even the birds could not live there." The Americans had begun to utilize the deadly "water torture" against Filipinos - forcing huge amounts of water into their stomachs to then gather information - and Smith insisted on its use in Samar.

There were four US regiments of Black soldiers in the Philippines during the Philippine-American War. Many were outraged at the abuses and attitude of the white soldiers toward the Filipinos. Zinn refers to a letter from a volunteer from the state of Washington who wrote: "Our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill 'niggers'.... this shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces." David Fagan, one of the Black soldiers, left the US ranks to fight along side Filipinos and "for two years wreaked havoc upon the American forces."

The Philippine resistance fought valiantly against the well-armed Americans. Francisco states that the "Filipinos had to adapt to their limitations as best they could...with darts, the ubiquitous bolo, and even stones, prompting (US) General Lawton to remark, 'they are the bravest men I have ever seen'...."

It is also noteworthy that once the Americans captured Aguinaldo in April 1901 they expected hostilities to cease and were "dismayed" that this was not the case. As the movement against the American presence had massive support, the fighting continued "unabated." This revelation led the leader of the US campaign, General Arthur MacArthur, to resign.

The American policy was so brutal that even American personnel were skeptical. Francisco quotes a US civil servant in the Philippines at the time who said that because of the "burning, torture and other harsh treatments" the Americans were "sowing the seeds for a perpetual revolution. If these things need to be done, they had best be done by native troops so that the people of the U.S. will not be credited therewith." Obviously this warning was heeded, as in 1901 the Americans created the Philippine Constabulary, comprised of Filipinos, who would work at the behest of and ruthlessly serve US interests during the U.S. colonization of the Philippines.

With its creation of the Philippine Constabulary (PC), the United States launched its "low intensity conflict" (LIC) strategy in the Philippines - in other words "don't get the US hands dirty, let someone else do the brutal work." So while it might be "low" intensity for the United States, it is exceptionally "high" intensity for its victims. The PC is still in existence today, and its reactionary and mercenary origins have remained in tact. Throughout the 20th century it has played a key role in suppressing peasant revolts and anti-US intervention movements.

http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1117-11.htm

I don't refute you.

I do wish you could pick more appropriate spots for your rhetoric...

that someone is never me.

that doesn't stop you from targeting me.