I thought we were discussing state sponsored terrorism, not the sum total of the atrocities committed by individual leaders. First, Stalin killed approximately four hundred thousand in the Great Purge, that's a far cry from twenty million. Secondly, if we are going to change the criteria upon which we compare these nations to simple body counts then I can point America's involvement in dozens of conflicts. For example, The Philippine-American War in which the American military utilized concentration camps and massacred the native population on a regular basis. The war itself and the rebellions that occurred during the protracted period of occupation afterward killed 1.4 million people. Here are a couple interesting quotes relating to the war:

Corporal Sam Gillis: “We make everyone get into his house by seven p.m., and we only tell a man once. If he refuses we shoot him. We killed over 300 natives the first night. They tried to set the town on fire. If they fire a shot from the house we burn the house down and every house near it, and shoot the natives, so they are pretty quiet in town now.”

In light of the massive casualties suffered by the civilian population, Filipino historian E. San Juan, Jr., alleges that the death of 1.4 million Filipinos constitutes an act of genocide on the part of the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War

Not actually true if you do a bit more research on the subject.  Well unless you count "Keeping conquered territories and parts of china" as an acceptable condition of "surrender".

It's worth noting that members of the Peace faction of the Japanese government called the atomic bombs  "Gifts from Heaven".

The "surrender talks" broadcast to the russians actully have been revealed as a ploy to try and keep the russians from invading japan... while Japan had no actual intention to surreder.

Also medical research generally refutes your claim about birth defects.  It's more, a  birth defect happens (which does happen without reason) someone was from Nagasaki or their parents were, so they blame nagasaki.  Defect rates for survivors and their children are within normal range.  There's nothing statistically significant saying it's happened essentially.

I would suggest reading some more in detail books about World War two.  Was a lot more complicated then that... and the cities they attacked did have military importance. 

Mostly because they had a decent level of military importane, but not a HUGE level, because the huge level areas had already been bombed into the ground.  There were no such areas in Japan that were soley of Military importance with no cities nearby.

Civilians were going to die anywhere they dropped the nuclear bombs, and the sad fact was, less civilians died thanks to the nuclear bombs then would have with any other plan of action.

Japanese surrender was only secured because they thought we had more nuclear weapons then we did before.  Actually the biggest criticism of US use of the Nuclear Weapons in Japan is the arguement that it DIDN'T end the war, the Japanese leaders didn't care about the Nuclear Weapons and only surrendered after realizing they would be invaded by Russia as well.  Which, seems like a case of hindsight, since you'd think a nuclear bomb would be scary enough.

Perhaps you are correct about the necessity of the civilian casualties caused by the atomic bombing of Japan. I guess I'll have to read up on the Pacific Theater of World War II and Japan in particular.

It's a really intersting subject.  I used to be really against the bombings too till I looked into it a lot.  I don't think the US government chose the bombings for the right reasons....

however it ended up turning out being the best result for Japan... unless the "we only surrendered because Russia was going to invade" proves true.

The fact that Japanese peace faction members called the complete destruction of their cities by weapons so devestating they probably couldn't of even been conecived by then a blessing from god I think best tells the story about how obstinate japan was.

Even though it seems like complete nonsense that this would be the case.

I mean, I just keep thinking "How hopeless would a situation have to be, that I would be HAPPY that two of my countries cities were wiped off the map?"

It's worth noting too, that actually the United States hands were somewhat tied if japan even if japan would only surrender with conditions, since Russia or England, i forget wish, pushed hard on an agreement that the axis powers would not be allowed a conditional surrender.

Whole thing was a "no win" situation all around.

Stalin's rule cost the lives of 20 million plus Russian citizens. These numbers are still growing today as more mass graves are found in the countries that used to form the Soviet Union. Now I will admit that maybe half of these casualties resulted during WWII because Stalin would send unarmed enemies of the state to the front lines as cannon fodder. Millions also died in slavery in the Siberian Gulags.

Your figure of 400,000 is completely incorrect. During one period of two years over 300,000 people were executed as enemies of the state. Understand that I am not talking just executions, I am talking lives lost directly because of despotic policies and tactics. Stalin used starvation to bring whole regions under his reign. Millions lost their lives to starvation so that they wouldn't resist when the Red Army rolled in.

And to the person who said that America is the largest violator because they cover things up. ARE you Serious? America is the WORST at covering things up. If you were in China today, you couldn't find anything online about Tianamen Square. I work in the Electrical Engineering department of a major University, and I work alongside many current and former citizens of The PRC. The people that have been here for a few years always lament how they weren't even aware of the events of Tianamen Square until they got here. We hide things.... grow up people, America is not perfect, sure we have done our fair share of bad stuff, but the worst offender in the world? Basher Al-Assad is sniping and mortaring his own people RIGHT NOW while we argue.

Whoops, forgot the Gulags. That's four hundred thousand for the Great Purge (show me solid proof that more died in the Purge) and 1.6 million for the Gulags, that's two million. The cause of the Holodomor famine has never been conclusively proven to be intentional, in fact, many scholars argue that the economic problems associated with the Soviet industrialization coupled with a series of natural disasters gave rise to the Holodomor, not an intentional government campaign (I would like to see some conclusive evidence if this assertion is going to be made). People always harp on about how a leader killing his own people is so much worse than killing the people of another nation. There is no difference, death is death. Here's another example, during the Afghan Civil War the CIA funded the Mujahideen, the most prolific terrorist organization on the face of the Earth. Between this and the three civil wars that followed we witnessed the complete destabilization of the region, the death of over three million people and the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Good work America, mission accomplished.

The Mujahideen was a loosely united coalition of different groups with different ideologies. The United States mostly funded the Northern Alliance, led by Massoud, a non-radical, down to Earth leader who Osama bin Laden had killed several days before 9/11 to fragment any opposition to his Al Qaeda. If you would check your facts you would see that the Mujahideen was funded by not only the US, but China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and most all of the Western European powers. It was done to try and stop the Soviets from steam rolling Afghanistan, and to embroil them in a can't-win war. It worked, marvelously. What wasn't marvelous was after the Soviets left, there was no transitional aid provided for schools, rebuilding, etc. That was wrong, and one of Ronald Reagan's biggest mistakes. Getting involved in that conflict was the right thing to do, If you truly believe that America started that war, you are completely ignorant.

Also, had Massoud not been assassinated, the Afghan War would have ended long ago, Massoud was a leader everyone in Afghanistan could have rallied behind. bin Laden knew this, and had him killed to prevent a quick victory by the United States and the Northern Alliance.

If you truly do not believe that Stalin purposely starved his own people, again, very naive. Here is a man who had his closest Ally (Sergei Kirov) and more than likely, his own wife, killed, to further his agenda. Kirov's assassination set the stage for the purge of the old Soviets, including Trotsky, and the total unification of Soviet power under Stalin's iron fist. Saying America is worse than the Soviet Union truly shows your lack of understanding of world events, and your willing blindness to the attrocities committed by that brutal, hegemonic regime. I understand you have your issues with our country, but blaming it for the world's problems shows that you are not only blind to reality, but a blind zealot, which is incredibly dangerous. 

I never asserted that America started the Afghan Civil War, don't make a straw man. I asserted that getting involved was clearly the wrong thing to do, especially in light of the complete lack of post war security and reconstruction aid. It seems that America has a thing for opposing secular governments in the Middle East and their involvement always seems to give rise to militant Islam. So what if America's allies were also guilty of the same crimes? It makes them no less dispicable. Do you think that the Mujahideen would have been funded by countries such as Canada if there were no American involvement? I am not blind to the attrocities committed by the Soviet Union, but you seem to be blind to the atrocities committed by America. What about the Dirty War, 1973 Chilean coup d'état, Internal conflict in Peru, Salvadoran Civil War and Guatemalan Civil War? What about the Battalion 3–16 death squad in Honduras? You assert that these nations needed to be kept out of the hands of the Soviet Union but they appear to be worse off thanks to America's intervention. Between the lack of reconstruction and extremely brutal tactics utilized by the CIA and American military millions of people have died on the continent and regional stability and economic development are pipe dreams for the majority in South America. Do I need to get into Vietnam and Laos? How about America's involvement in the Iraq-Iran War? What about the current wars in Iraq and Libya? You call me naive but you seem to be the naive one. America is no better than the Soviet Union, it's just another empire that will do whatever it takes to kill its enemies. The U.S. will continue to interfere in foreign conflicts, taking sides in civil wars, funding terrorist organizations and despots, starting wars in every remote corner of the Earth in order to occupy and control as much of the planet it can. Millions of lives are lost furthering America's agenda and it's not an agenda of peace and prosperity, merely power.

You flat out said that America was far and wide the worst Human Rights violator on the face of the Earth.  This is CATAGORICALLY false.  I am not blind to atrocities that the US has been involved in, I acknowledge them and try to learn from them.  Getting involved in the Afghan-Soviet War was not a mistake, not helping with the reconstruction was the mistake.  

The countries that you speak of would have fallen to the Soviet Union, and perhaps, that evil empire would still be around, which would be awful.  One of the best things to happen in the 90's was the fall of the Soviet Union, and the extinguishment of Communism.  The world is better off leaving that failed social experiment behind.  Our mistakes in these conflicts was siding with whoever was against the Communists, not picking our allies better, but at the time we were under the threat of Nuclear Annihilation, both us, and the Soviets were in constant fear that the other would launch a surprise attack and the world would be reduced to rubble.  It is easy to sit back and wax rhetorical now, but put yourself in the context of the times, the threat of Soviet expansion was real, and their intentions were to set up shop in the Western hemisphere for easier access to the US.  A large base in South America would have meant Soviet troops had land to travel to the US, not two Oceans.  America did what it had to at the time, looking back, do I regret that extremes were taken?  Absolutely, but America is not always wrong, your blind hatred of our country informs all of your opinions.