60 Years Ago This Week
Truman ended the war by bombing civilians. Our truly righteous anger over the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor changed us from a pacific introverted society to one willing to do anything our executive branch masters deem necessary. This anniversary, coming as it does in the midst of more executive over-reach, should have been a time of national soul-searching but we're beyond that sort of thing today.
The Japanese slaughtered 15 million Chinese citizens in their war which preceded Pearl Harbor by one generation.
Unlike today the US was not necessarily more powerful than Japan and it was not certain that a similar fate would not be in store for us.
Now then, you were saying??
60 years ago, America TOLD Japan we had the bomb and begged them for 5 days to surrender or we'd use it. Then after we dropped the bomb in Hiroshima, we contacted Tojo and Hirohito and begged them to surrender again or we'd drop another one. Once again, they refused to put the lives of their people above their own stubbornness, and thousands upon thousands died.
In the end, far less people died by dropping those 2 bombs than would have ever died with a full-scale invasion of Japan.
60 years ago, America did the right thing by ending a war with less casualties than it would with any other option, and gave these people warning (something they didn't give us), and a way out (something they also didn't give us). At the same time we ended this war, we sent a message around the world that we aren't to be fucked with.
As much as I detest America being involved in wars and know we had no reason to be in most of them (including WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq twice, etc.) the men on the Enola Gay did the right thing by dropping those bombs, and actually saved lives.
In the end, far less people died by dropping those 2 bombs than would have ever died with a full-scale invasion of Japan.
overall, fewer people died. more importantly, NONE of OUR people died in an invasion to end a war we didn't start.
It's a shame there weren't bigger targets......or bigger bombs. :grouphug:
Now then, you were saying??
You guys make my point perfectly. I was saying we no longer even consider the possibility that we could have done the wrong thing dropping atomic weapons on civilians. I'm not minimizing what the Japanese were. I'm talking about what we have become. We talk about invading the Japanese home islands like it had to be done even though we had cut off their troops from supply and had destroyed their naval and air power along with their industrial capacity to replace them. Truman was apparently afraid not to use the bombs wanting to scare our commie "allies", making ours the only government in history to nuke people. I was also thinking about how we at least attacked the enemy after Pearl Harbor but after 911 we didn't even have to make a connection. We've hardened our hearts to the suffering we cause others while wrapping it in sanctimony. I'm whining about the abuse of Executive power and our uncanny ability to look the other way because our motives are never questionable.
I'm also being a troll but its just that the anniversary passes without even a passing thought.
The notion of only weakening your enemies for a while, and not totally defeating them, is an entirely new one to history.
We don't really defeat enemies these days. But that may not be to the enemy's benefit. The transformation of Japan from a hardcore religious state to a peaceful polite culture only interested in trade only happened because their defeat was so total. The 3M killed after our departure from Vietnam was not really the best outcome either. Looks like eastern Europe was a good idea under Clinton so who's to say.
we no longer even consider the possibility that we could have done the wrong thing dropping atomic weapons on civilians.
Never did consider the possibility, ever. There were no civilians in Japan. Every damn one of them was part of the national war effort and armed. They were all trained and prepared to fight to the death to protect Japan and the emperor.
Little did they know the Emperor was a prisoner in his own house but that's another matter.
We don't really defeat enemies these days. But that may not be to the enemy's benefit.
I was thinking about that. Japan might have limped along with a petty tyranny like Iraq had for a long long time. The Japanese people did make the best of it when we gave them the opportunity. I won't minimize that. It may not be knowable whether the Japanese would have capitulated to us without the bombs to avoid a Russian invasion. There are countless ifs and buts.
I watched Tora Tora Tora a couple weeks ago btw. The most striking thing was how Western the Navy and its trappings were portrayed. I don't think the people in general were Westernized at all but many of their most powerful leaders were looking West. I think Macarthur probably took advantage of that. I'm not sure there is a group in Iraq of any consequence who would lead the people in that direction. I'm rambling so I'll just stop.
Actually, we didn't "drop the bomb on civilians" either. We dropped them on military installations near those cities, and civilians lived nearby. All of the people of Japan would have used their dying breath to save their god...Hirohito.
The real pity is that we went to war with them at all. America committed an act of war against Japan fully knowing their honor would force them to attack us. America cut off Japan's oil supply, steel supply, and others they were getting from the Netherlands and were using to murder Chinese people. While I don't think what Japan was doing was right, it was also none of our business. We had no legitimate reason to stick our noses into it. America knew that Japan was allied with Germany and wanted a legitimate reason to get into the war because, like WWI, England and France were, begging for our help. America even had enough advance notice to have avoided the Pearl Harbor attack but instead, moved out all of the expensive carriers, and new ships, and allowed the older ships to be attacked and Americans to die.
This is a fact and if you read the de-classified OPERATINO RAINBOW 5 documents, you'll know it was a ploy to force Japan into attacking us.
Never did consider the possibility, ever. There were no civilians in Japan. Every damn one of them was part of the national war effort and armed. They were all trained and prepared to fight to the death to protect Japan and the emperor.
Little did they know the Emperor was a prisoner in his own house but that's another matter.
Did they have tiny rifles for the infants and toddlers?
I hadn't read this thread, but this morning I was reflecting on the difference between 'evil' and 'enemy'.
Consider what happens when people visit countries like Vietnam. Some of the people who we meet there are directly responsible for the deaths of American soldiers. If they were evil then, nothing has changed and they should be killed. However, the reality is that they were merely enemies, the war is over, and killing them would be immoral and illegal.
We acknowledge that targeting civilians is wrong. In WWII we dropped a devastating bomb without warning on a city. We destroyed the second city only 3 days later.
A lot of discussion went into the
use of the Atomic Bomb
In the end we decided that conventional means were too difficult and the bomb would have an important pschological effect if the first public use was against a live target. Technically, the target was military, but the choice was made to specifically destroy as much of the city as possible. The decision may also have been political and intended for the Russians.
If you can picture a group of Islamic terrorists debating the detonation of a 'dirty bomb' in a US city, you can appreciate the conclusions reached. Expediency will always win over morality.
Between blast and radiation, we probably killed about 300,000 people. Estimates are that an invasion of Japan would have resulted in 1 million deaths. Of course, other factors, such as Japan accepting a conditional surrender instead of the unconditional surrender we demanded, make the equation less clear.
Don't ask me what is right and wrong in situations like this. War is never a good place to determine right and wrong. I will say that if we had been on the receiving end of either of those two bombs, we would have used the word 'terrorist' freely. Of course, that's just politics.
From
here
(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)
B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.
Never did consider the possibility, ever. There were no civilians in Japan. Every damn one of them was part of the national war effort and armed. They were all trained and prepared to fight to the death to protect Japan and the emperor.
Little did they know the Emperor was a prisoner in his own house but that's another matter.
Honest question, Bruce. Where did you get this tidbit of information? I can understand that boys above a certain age and old men were prepared to fight, but the women and small children? The traditional role of a Japanese woman was not to be a new age liberated girl with a pistol on each hip. Are you telling us that Japan managed this massive cultural transfomation in just the few years it was involved in WWII? I am astonished! I'd love to read more about this.
As much as I detest America being involved in wars and know we had no reason to be in most of them (including WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq twice, etc.) the men on the Enola Gay did the right thing by dropping those bombs, and actually saved lives.
Radar, I wouldn't try having it both ways like this: every single war you've cited, and more besides, were wars fought with nondemocracies, autarchies, dictatorships. Such things are our business, particularly if we want a good world. Is not dictatorship the most easily found and most prevalent evil on the Earth's face? I want a good world, and I'm willing to hang slavemakers to get it. Will you join me?
Marichiko, Japanese social organization has more in common with military organization than civilian-type mores even today. It's been this way since at least the Tokugawas, and seems to have sprung from the Age of Battles between rival power blocs that ended when the Tokugawas came out on top. I think that was after the battle of Sekigahara. Japanese society was very tightly organized and is so today -- every village had its headman, and there were designated persons in charge of every ten, every fifty, every hundred, and they were called according to how many people they were in charge of: han cho is the "captain of a hundred/village headman" and the English honcho is directly derived from this.
Most of the Japanese notion of social virtues are distinctly military -- the Japanese esteem the team player and protest at the eccentric in ways we don't. They are a very disciplined and orderly people in consequence.
Japanese society is so tightly conformist that they establish local festivals for the entire town to have fun together and blow off major steam, and boy do they. They holler, they carry on, they get lit on beer and sake out in the streets, which they don't do on ordinary days, and whiz into the roadside rain gutters (the best kind is very deep and roofed over with perforated concrete lids about a foot long by eight inches wide) -- as discreetly as they may. I like Sapporo and am not so keen on Ki-rin, which is considerably hoppier.
Radar, I wouldn't try having it both ways like this: every single war you've cited, and more besides, were wars fought with nondemocracies, autarchies, dictatorships. Such things are our business, particularly if we want a good world. Is not dictatorship the most easily found and most prevalent evil on the Earth's face? I want a good world, and I'm willing to hang slavemakers to get it. Will you join me?
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The form of government another country has is none of our business. How they treat their people is none of our business. It's not the job of America to create a "good world" or to "hang slavemakers". No, I will not join you. In fact I'll fight against you, and anyone else who would try to use the U.S. military to do anything other than defend U.S. soil and ships from a direct attack. That includes using it to enforce UN sanctions, perform "humanitarian aid" missions, to settle foreign disputes, to train the military of other nations, to overthrow the leadership of non-democracies, to coerce other nations into adopting policies the U.S. wants, etc.
"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." - John Quincy Adams
Look; you don't want a good world enough. I cannot make you want it, but I will say with my dying breath that you should.
If the blessings of liberty are to extend to all men, those who would not permit this must be converted or neutralized. Why would you willingly see peoples left unfree, having freedom yourself? Better to exert yourself, to strike the shackles away. Dead slavemakers make no more slaves, and that is what is wanted, is it not? Isolationism stopped being an option many decades ago. Aggressive, expansionist slavemaking has been the threat that has strained and imperiled democracy and liberty worldwide. While it is in retreat now, will it remain so? I think the way that I espouse and advocate makes a way to blunt this kind of expansionism.
Non-interventionism is not isolationism. I wish freedom for all people, but freedom is to be earned by those who desire it, not won for them by someone else. America has absolutely no authority beyond our own borders unless it is to attack those who have directly attacked American soil or ships and nobody else.
The powers of the U.S. government are EXTREMELY limited and don't include spreading "democracy". In fact the United States is not a democracy. It never was, and hopefully it never will be.
Sticking our nose into the affairs of other nations is why we have so many enemies. Switzerland has been surrounded by war for more than 100 years and has not been in one. Why? Because they don't take sides in every dispute, they have a very strong DEFENSE but not an OFFENSE, and because they take care of their own.
I will never be "converted" or "neutralized" by you or your ilk. But I'm in Los Angeles and since you're in SoCal, we can meet up if you want to give it a shot.
Anyone who supports the war in Iraq is not worthy to call themselves American. They defile the U.S. Constitution and support violating each and every principle that made America great. America is supposed to always remain neutral, and never take part in the disputes of other nations. The U.S. Constitution (the highest law in the land) defines the role of the military as being a DEFENSIVE one.
It's too bad there are a lot of idiots out there who would misuse the U.S. military to violate that directive. These are the ones who truly need to be neutralized and when the day comes for violent revolution, I'll be among those doing the neutralizing.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
– John F. Kennedy
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
– James Madison
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
– Thomas Jefferson
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
– Benjamin Franklin
"We have guided missiles and misguided men."
– Martin Luther King Jr.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."
– Edward Abbey
An Anniversary to Forget (NY Times, reg. reqd)
Since reg is reqd, here is most of the article. By Joichi Ito from Chiba, Japan.
At bottom, the bombings don't really matter to me or, for that matter, to most Japanese of my generation. My peers and I have little hatred or blame in our hearts for the Americans; the horrors of that war and its nuclear evils feel distant, even foreign. Instead, the bombs are simply the flashpoint marking the discontinuity that characterized the cultural world we grew up in.
...
My grandmother often spoke about the defeated voice of the emperor over the radio and how this shook the foundations of their beliefs, but signaled the end of a traumatic era. With the fall of the emperor, the Shinto religion also collapsed, since it had been co-opted from the decentralized animism of its roots into a state-sponsored war religion.
My mother used to talk about the American occupation of our hometown in northern Japan when she was a child. Our house, the largest in the area, was designated to be the Americans' local headquarters. When the soldiers arrived, my great-grandmother, nearly blind at the time, was head of the household, my grandfather having died during the war.
My great-grandmother and my grandmother faced the occupiers alone, having ordered the children to hide. The Japanese had been warned that the invading barbarians would rape and pillage. My great-grandmother, a battle-scarred early feminist, hissed, "Get your filthy barbarian shoes off of my floor!" The interpreter refused to interpret. The officer in command insisted. Upon hearing the translation from the red-faced interpreter, the officer sat on the floor and removed his boots, instructing his men to do the same. He apologized to my great-grandmother and grandmother.
It was a startling tipping-point experience for them, as the last bit of brainwashing that began with "we won't lose the war" and ended with "the barbarians will rape and kill you" collapsed.
Just one year later my uncle sailed to the United States to live in a Japanese ghetto in Chicago and work in a Y.M.C.A. Eventually his strivings led him to become the dean of the University of Detroit Business School. My mother followed my uncle, making the United States her base.
Postwar Japan followed a similar trajectory of renewal. The economy experienced an explosion of growth from the rubble of flattened cities, led by motivated entrepreneurs and a government focused on rebuilding Japan. The United States, in its struggle to keep communism in check, became a strong supporter of Japan and opened its markets to Japanese products. The Liberal Democratic Party thrived under the protection of the United States and pushed its simple party line of "growth, growth, growth," stomping out opposition, including efforts to educate Japanese about the war. No one had the opportunity to look back at the past, and by the time I can remember anything, Japan was about the bullet train, the 1970 Expo in Osaka, world-class electronics and automobiles, and even a vibrant Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
My grandparents' generation remembers the suffering, but tries to forget it. My parents' generation still does not trust the military. The pacifist stance of that generation comes in great part from the mistrust of the Japanese military.
Non-interventionism is not isolationism. I wish freedom for all people, but freedom is to be earned by those who desire it, not won for them by someone else.
So a people who are in no position to help themselves and gain freedom, don't deserve it? If you saw someone pull up to your neighbor's house, don a ski mask and head in with a shotgun, would you call the police or let your neighbor suffer?
I don't see how helping people who need it when you have the power to do something is a bad thing.
Radar, I wouldn't try having it both ways like this: every single war you've cited, and more besides, were wars fought with nondemocracies, autarchies, dictatorships. Such things are our business, particularly if we want a good world. Is not dictatorship the most easily found and most prevalent evil on the Earth's face? I want a good world, and I'm willing to hang slavemakers to get it. Will you join me?
Well, if we go back further, the Spanish-American war was with a constitutional monarchy. Japan was our ally in WWI, so we didn't complain about it's method of government then.
BTW, you do know that the Unites States isn't really a democracy, do you? Hint: "..and to the republic, for which it stands."
England is also a constitutional monarchy, a 'non-democracy'. Of course, we did go to war with them, twice, so I guess they bolster your theory.
We have propped up thugs and dictators in our self-interest and held down or subverted legitimate democracies. While I applaud the concept of our 'getting religion' and going after every single 'bad guy', we really aren't. The Saudi government is far from a 'democracy' even in the looser definition you seem to prefer. We have pretty much ignored Africa in favor of invading a country in a region with our strategic energy supply.
Of course, in the Spanish-American War, which was stared on the 'faulty intelligence' that the Spanish had sunk the Battleship Maine. In that War, the US annexed Hawaii and the Philippines, and took control of Guam. We also directly affected Cuba until 1934.
That was one 'faulty intelligence' war which really paid for itself.
Clinton was roundly criticized from both left and right for his involvement in Yugoslavia and the Balkans. Compared to Iraq, that conflict was a shining success. A lot of the criticism centered around the idea that there was nothing in it for us.
I actually like your honest desire to take on all thugs. I presume this means even if they happen to be our allies at the moment. However, if we were to measure the suffering of the population, Iraq under Hussein wouldn't top the list.
Unfortunately, if you believe that the US is only engaged in wars to support human rights, I will have to disagree. We are still at the point where we will support non-democratic caplitalist governments over democratic socialist ones. Economic theory plays a role in picking our enemies and friends.
Thanks for the article, UT. Very interesting. Was that in response to my question about the capacity of Japanese women to kill at the time?
My great-grandmother and my grandmother faced the occupiers alone, having ordered the children to hide. The Japanese had been warned that the invading barbarians would rape and pillage. My great-grandmother, a battle-scarred early feminist, hissed, "Get your filthy barbarian shoes off of my floor!" The interpreter refused to interpret. The officer in command insisted. Upon hearing the translation from the red-faced interpreter, the officer sat on the floor and removed his boots, instructing his men to do the same. He apologized to my great-grandmother and grandmother.
The old lady certainly sounds spunky, but she didn't run out with pistols blazing, either. That's kind of cool that the American officer would take off his boots and order his men to do the same, though.
she wasn't charging out with pistols because they had already been defeated. up until the emperor's public statements they were not defeated.
So a people who are in no position to help themselves and gain freedom, don't deserve it? If you saw someone pull up to your neighbor's house, don a ski mask and head in with a shotgun, would you call the police or let your neighbor suffer?
I don't see how helping people who need it when you have the power to do something is a bad thing.
Well here in Philadelphia some people called the police to complain about their neighbors and they ended up burning down the neighborhood.
As many 'neighbors' have suffered under regimes we supported as have been freed from regimes we dissolved.
While we have a volunteer military, maybe an extreme interventionist philosophy will work for some. Eventually, however, we will have to draft 18-year-old kids to police the new world order this philsophy wishes to establish. And we will bankrupt ourselves in the same way the Soviet Union did trying to keep up with US spending during the cold war.
she wasn't charging out with pistols because they had already been defeated. up until the emperor's public statements they were not defeated.
Well, the article says she expected to be raped and pillaged. I'd have come out with pistols if I had them! :eyebrow:
Did they have tiny rifles for the infants and toddlers?
No, their mothers were prepared to kill them if all was lost. The "civilians", anyone that could walk, had knives, spears, homemade grenades, some guns(ammo was a problem) but many of them were muzzle loaders. They were organized to reinforce a militia of several hundred thousand old men and boys. If you don't believe they were serious just look at the films from the islands of women throwing their children off the cliffs, before they themselves jumped, rather than surrender.......and that wasn't even the homeland. :(
Some images of a new role for Japanese women. Pressed into service for Home Island defence with obsolete rifles, or whatever could be found. Don't know how long they would have lasted against Allied tanks but it would have made for some ugly newsreel footage.
(Kikuchi Shunkichi) Women training with bamboo spears, 1945
(Kageyama Kôyô) Neighbourhood Association women training with rifles, 1943
And that was the kind of thing the Bomb trumped: the Japanese were going to try and defeat Operation Olympic with war emergency production fixed-sight Arisaka boltaction rifles, bamboo spears in phalanx, and smoothbore matchlocks. This up against the most experienced large amphibious forces in the world.
Southern Honshu and all of Shikoku would have been depopulated. Not merely decimated: empty. Then defeat still would have come to the Japanese. They knew full well that the only off switch to the world war was their unconditional surrender. Who lives, who dies? It's only a matter of timing. Hirohito, whatever his sins may have been, certainly had timing.
Rich, rest assured that here I am using democracy in its general sense, rather than pedantically lumbering my sentences with carefully parsed distinctions between the shades of representative governments, from tribal organization through bicameral legislatures and constitutional monarchies.
Representative governments with checks and balances incorporated beat all alternatives hands down. They are usually richer than all the alternatives, owing mainly to that one thing.
An aside to your aside: hardly anyone who isn't African is paying attention to Africa -- though I bet the Darfur's problems will end the day the Khartoum régime is hanged from lampposts or run into exile with all the bank accounts it can close.
I'm also being a troll but its just that the anniversary passes without even a passing thought.
I always think of it, but then I have a particular interest in the Manhattan Project.
Well here in Philadelphia some people called the police to complain about their neighbors and they ended up burning down the neighborhood.
Most neighbors don't store incendiaries on their rooves and empty human waste into the backyard.
We always feel like we're supposed to apologize for winning conflicts. Bollocks. We saved millions of lives and years of hell by ending the war with two strikes. The weapon was horrific, and as with all war, the innocent suffered as well. But we ended it as cleanly as we could, and what's more, we rebuilt them. To steal from an unknown quotable, the U.S. is the only nation on earth that, by conquering in war, rebuilds and revitalizes the losing side to a better standard of living. They should've dropped them on December 7, 1942, and saved that many more lives and years.
I'd be for dropping one each in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, except that it wouldn't really alter the landscape that much, and the targets would be strapping on firecrackers and hitching planes to New York before the mushroom cloud had cleared.
Most neighbors don't store incendiaries on their rooves and empty human waste into the backyard.
I think a 'scorched earth' policy was a little extreme, though. Followed by a corruption-plagued rebuilding.....
Hey! I'm seeing some parallels here.
1. They weren't trying to go for the rapid version of urban renewal.
2. It's Philadelphia. of course it was corruption plagued. There would have been something wrong had that not been the case.
Or by Philly standards, something very very weird.
After treating the Allied POW's the way they did, (or any others that were caught, i.e. most of China), Japan deserved everything they got and more. People can argue that "that was their way of thinking" all they want, but it was still barbaric. another 2 or 3 bombs would have REALLY taught them a lesson. I don't think any apology is necessary, nor shame. Allied soldiers were already on the home islands performing slave labour, so a prolonged military assault would have reduced their chance of recovery to nil.
Today Belmont Club points out the
forgotten event of 100,000 Filipino civilians killed by retreating Japanese troops in Manila.
"The 100,000 civilians who died in the largest urban battle of the Pacific War -- more than at Hiroshima -- are not remembered in beautiful candles floating down darkened rivers or in flights of doves soaring into the blue sky; there is no anti-American significance to their deaths."
I can't really stomach all of this second-guessing. As our vetereans of the conflict die off, so do our memories, apparently.
Japan was no Iraq. We were *attacked* without provocation. There was no ambiguity, no oil to be had. Whatever they got was whatever they got. An apology would be completely out of line, unless it was something like "We're sorry your leaders were stupid enough to attack us, so we had to kick your asses."
Right on Elspode. :thumb: I talked and listened to literally hundreds of those vets coming back from WWII and they weren't the least bit sorry.
We were *attacked* without provocation.
That we were attacked again without provocation (despite the fact that the attacking parties can in either case point to something they will call a provocation) puts us in the identical moral position in the War On Terror as in WW2. Iraq is but one campaign in the WOT, and inseparable from it if we want Islamoterrorism to go extinct. I certainly do, but I do wonder about some of those who take exception to my views. Now why is it that I should be obliged to wonder, eh?? Terror's breeding ground is extremist social orders, and what are nondemocracies but extremist societies? Democracies never feel like they need terrorists to push out the bad and bring in the good; they aren't that rigidly structured. This is why democracies tend to view terrorist cells as criminal gangs and treat them so -- and there is much justice in that view.
It's when the cells metastasize into mass movements that one has to shift to the war paradigm. Even more so when they get used as a means of proxy war.
That we were attacked again without provocation (despite the fact that the attacking parties can in either case point to something they will call a provocation) puts us in the identical moral position in the War On Terror as in WW2.
Which is why we felt the need to attack Iraq without provocation, or, more correctly, with fictitious provocation.
BS, Rich. It's quite like the North African Campaign, right down to being sandy and the locals speaking Arabic and some of them being less than sympathetic.
You should remember just how harsh I am on anti-American viewpoints, and how much I believe America should win her wars. The we-shouldn't-win-this view is incomprehensible and reprehensible.
You should remember just how harsh I am on anti-American viewpoints ...
You really should not beat yourself up so much.
TW, as usual you are perfection in wrongness. I am pro-American, far more than you can manage to be if your posts accurately reflect your beliefs. I mean, dear boy, you're a leftist! Half-bright, at best. Me, I don't adhere to ideologies that make me stupid. Consequently, my kind of thinking is better than yours any day of the week, and twice over on Sundays and holidays.
"Beat yourself up," quotha!
I mean, dear boy, you're a leftist! Half-bright, at best. Me, I don't adhere to ideologies that make me stupid.
60 years ago, America TOLD Japan we had the bomb and begged them for 5 days to surrender or we'd use it.
What you didn't mention is that Japan offered the U.S. peace terms in July 1945 on almost exactly the same terms that eventually were accepted. The hold-up? They wanted an assurance that we weren't going to hang their Emperor.
We didn't end up hanging him anyway, of course, but in order to prove the point that we could if we wanted (i.e., "
unconditional surrender"), we killed an extra 120,000 people.
Don't take my word for any of this...look it up yourself.
The japs offered peace terms a few hours before the attack on Pearl, too. A cute little trick, the people that were living then, had not forgotten.
Even after the two A-bombs they would have fought to the death if the Emperor hadn't finally over ruled the military that were running the show. Don't forget the soldiers that were left on remote islands and still fighting the war 20, 30, 40 years later.
Unconditional surrender was the only way. :mad:
Even after the two A-bombs they would have fought to the death if the Emperor hadn't finally over ruled the military that were running the show. Don't forget the soldiers that were left on remote islands and still fighting the war 20, 30, 40 years later.
Yes, but the Emperor could've made them swallow it on July 15 as easily as on August 15. He was a god, remember?
Yes, but he didn't, did he? It took two bombs to convince him.....or convince the people that advised him. :cool:
Yes, but the Emperor could've made them swallow it on July 15 as easily as on August 15. He was a god, remember?
Notice two fundamental facts. First, purpose of war is to take a conflict back to the negotiation table. Getting there was a problem because, second, 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.
To end WWII, destruction had to be so great as to force top management to concede to reality. Reality was unconditional surrender. Japan leaders refused to concede to that bottom line long after the war was lost. Therefore people had to keep dying. Keep dying until Japan conceded to conditions for negotiations. The purpose of war - and death - that negotiation table.
Reality was unconditional surrender.
What in the hell does that mean?
"Unconditional surrender" was a demand made by the U.S. because it sounded bad-ass and we like to be bad-ass. In the context of the moment, the difference between it and conditional surrender was rather superficial; as I've pointed out, we saw no need to kill the Emperor.
But since you're getting metaphysical on me here, "unconditional surrender" was not a fact of reality, it was a political demand that was framed in a specific way by specific people and could've been framed in a different way if attaining peace were the goal of the creeps in power, which it wasn't.
(I suppose the Holocaust was a way of bringing the Jews into line with the "reality" that they weren't wanted in Europe?)
Yes, but he didn't, did he? It took two bombs to convince him.....or convince the people that advised him. :cool:
I was answering a particular argument, by you, which implied that the Japanese would've gone on fighting despite the Emperor. The Emperor, as I stated,
offered peace terms in July. Why they weren't accepted in preference to capping off the orgy of destruction with even more destruction, is the question.
What in the hell does that mean?
"Unconditional surrender" was a demand made by the U.S. because it sounded bad-ass and we like to be bad-ass.
Then you need to learn the concept called "strategic objective". Unconditional surrender defined the conditions upon which a military operation would lead to a political solution. It was the strategic objective that even defined the exit strategy. It was defined by Churchill and Roosevelt when both meet in the White House to define how WWII would be won.
Your idea that it was a 'bad-ass' expression suggests you don't even understand why the "Mission Accomplished" war cannot be won. We have no strategic objective and therefore have no exit strategy. It also defines why a Vietnam war could only be lost. Why body counts rather than fundamental military and political objectives were how we fought Vietnam to a loss.
Unconditional surrender was THE objective in WWII because those politicians (unlike Cheney, Rumsfled, Wolfovitz, etc in the George Sr administration) did their job, up front, when the US entered that war. Unconditional surrender is extemely important in understanding why WWII was won AND changed the entire worldwide political landscape. A military objective that also demonstrates why WWI was so inconclusive.
I was answering a particular argument, by you, which implied that the Japanese would've gone on fighting despite the Emperor. The Emperor, as I stated, offered peace terms in July. Why they weren't accepted in preference to capping off the orgy of destruction with even more destruction, is the question.
Because they proved they were not to be trusted when they offered peace a few hours before Pearl Harbor. Previous to that they had done the same thing to the Russians, talk peace and sneak attack. No, unconditional surrender was the only acceptable conclusion. :cool:
btw, it didn't matter what the emperor was offering through diplomatic channels in July because the military was still running the show. Some of them even had the Emporer in "protective custody", for a while, so he couldn't speak to the Japanese people.
Then you need to learn the concept called "strategic objective". Unconditional surrender defined the conditions upon which a military operation would lead to a political solution. It was the strategic objective that even defined the exit strategy. It was defined by Churchill and Roosevelt when both meet in the White House to define how WWII would be won.
It was defined by specific persons, and could be redefined by specific persons to accommodate new circumstances. You seem not to understand the difference between metaphysical facts and man-made demands.
This also begs the question, though, of why I should give a damn about Roosevelt, Churchill, or their "strategic objectives." Had I been alive at the time, and experienced enough to see through FDR's bullshit the way I see through Bush's today, I would've opposed entry into the war in the first place. In that case I wouldn't have cared all that much if their "strategic objectives" were achieved or fell to pieces.
Your idea that it was a 'bad-ass' expression suggests you don't even understand why the "Mission Accomplished" war cannot be won. We have no strategic objective and therefore have no exit strategy. It also defines why a Vietnam war could only be lost. Why body counts rather than fundamental military and political objectives were how we fought Vietnam to a loss.
The political objective in the Vietnam war was fairly clear--to preserve the dominance of non-Communists in South Vietnam. It wasn't a practical objective because the entire country was ridden with Communists, which we should've figured out.
Unconditional surrender was THE objective in WWII because those politicians (unlike Cheney, Rumsfled, Wolfovitz, etc in the George Sr administration) did their job, up front, when the US entered that war. Unconditional surrender is extemely important in understanding why WWII was won AND changed the entire worldwide political landscape. A military objective that also demonstrates why WWI was so inconclusive.
They "did their job"? Yes, they did...if you agree with Groucho Marx's view that "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and misapplying the wrong remedy." That describes WWII to a tee, and most other wars, for that matter.
WWI was inconclusive precisely because the Versailles treaty tried to impose the "political objectives" about which you have been waxing enthusiastic. (And because it left a government in power in Russia that was worse than any the West had faced before--at least since Genghis Khan--or would face later.)
btw, it didn't matter what the emperor was offering through diplomatic channels in July because the military was still running the show. Some of them even had the Emporer in "protective custody", for a while, so he couldn't speak to the Japanese people.
For awhile? He was seized for a few hours on August 14. Didn't take him long to get back in the saddle, so to speak. He was detained for less time than Gorbachev in 1991.
The peace terms offered in June and July 1945, at any rate, were proffered by Foreign Minister Togo by way of Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.S.R. Sato. Even if you buy the idea of an impotent Emperor, Togo, presumably, had full credentials to speak for his government.
It's not a matter of credentials. Your problem is you're looking from 2006 with hindsight. In 1945, they were justifiably not trusted. :headshake
However, in July 1945 they had already had their clocks cleaned. Their idea of an offensive was a kamikaze attack. Apples and oranges.
However, in July 1945 they had already had their clocks cleaned. Their idea of an offensive was a kamikaze attack. Apples and oranges.
Kamikaze was about defense - not an offensive strategy. Kamikaze was a last ditch attempt to lose a war WITHOUT unconditional surrender. The allies' strategic objective was a last remaining purpose to keep fighting. Unconditional surrender meant occupation of the Japanese homeland - that had never happened. It meant the emperor could be removed and imprisoned - which the Japanese just were not yet prepared to accept. The Japanese expected to fight for every inch all across mainland Japan. Not to win the war. Everyone knew that would never happen. Japan feared the allied strategic objective - the requirement to end hostilities - the exit strategy - the only reason the Pacific War continued. Unconditional surrender was that requirement. A requirement that good leaders established up front and maintained to the end.
BTW, why could Americans demand nothing less after so many years of war? The smoking gun - Pearl Harbor. Just another example of why a smoking gun is so essential to win a war.
Sure, their capability of launching an offensive against our superior forces, that had pushed them back to the homeland, was fizzling. Now what? Surround the country forever? A costly, to both sides, invasion? Trust them to behave?
American’s wanted it over, finished, WON........bring the troops home. The most expedient unconditional surrender possible. That’s what Truman gave us.
I was thinking about this last night, while watching a show on PBS, about the bridge on the river Kwai. The story behind the railroad being built, interviews with some of the POWs that survived and the documentation that remains today.
We'll have to agree to disagree because you'll never convince me it wasn't the absolute right thing for Truman to do. :us:
We'll have to agree to disagree because you'll never convince me it wasn't the absolute right thing for Truman to do.
Remember that your perspective is completely different from his perspective. It is but another reason why we learn history. Same exact facts can appear completely different from different perspectives. It is why Kennedy so saved all our lives when he kept asking the important question during a Cuban Missile Crisis. What is he being told? What does he see? What does he know? Without those questions, it is a sure probability that the 1st Marine Division would have been nuked on the beaches of Cuba.
Same must be asked before judging Truman from our perspective.
Is the focus of this discussion the morality of using the atom bomb to kill "civilians" or the morality of killing civilians to begin with? Don't forget we were already bombing the hell out of their cities by the time the a-bombs fell. Take for example the fire bombing of Tokyo on March 9-10th 1945, which resulted in 16 square miles of Tokyo being destroyed and over 100,000 dead. Just about the same effect of an atomic bomb but it took a lot more planes and a lot more bombs.
It is hard to ever justify the killing of civilian populations but it was a standard all the major powers of WWII commonly practiced. If the a-bombs had not been dropped more Japanese would probably have died from the bombing of the cities BEFORE any invasion anyway. Doesn't make it right but, being an American through and through, better them then a million of our troops to invade.
Kamikaze was about defense - not an offensive strategy.
Yes, I realize that. "Their idea of an offensive was a kamikaze attack" was meant as a pointed, sarcastic statement.
Is the focus of this discussion the morality of using the atom bomb to kill "civilians" or the morality of killing civilians to begin with? Don't forget we were already bombing the hell out of their cities by the time the a-bombs fell. Take for example the fire bombing of Tokyo on March 9-10th 1945, which resulted in 16 square miles of Tokyo being destroyed and over 100,000 dead. Just about the same effect of an atomic bomb but it took a lot more planes and a lot more bombs.
It is hard to ever justify the killing of civilian populations but it was a standard all the major powers of WWII commonly practiced. If the a-bombs had not been dropped more Japanese would probably have died from the bombing of the cities BEFORE any invasion anyway. Doesn't make it right but, being an American through and through, better them then a million of our troops to invade.
To take this in order:
1. The annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are worse than that of Tokyo not because they were atomic, but because they were undertaken when peace was at hand, meaning those who lost their lives there lost them even more senselessly than those lost up to that point. But I will readily grant that the whole war was a senseless bloodbath the U.S. should've abstained from entering.
2. Yes, it was the policy of all sides in WW2 to roast civilians alive by the thousands. One conclusion that might be drawn from this fact is that describing WW2 as a "good war" in which we, on a white horse, faced down fascist evil, on a black horse, is essentially bullshit. Oddly that conclusion, intuitive though it is, is not a popular one.
3. "Our" troops? They were Roosevelt's troops. The idea that the
government protects any of
us via war is kneejerk imbecility. The truth is exactly the other way around; we save their bacon from their enemies--at least those of us gullible enough to follow their cynical call to arms.
WTF, I thought my reading comprehension was pretty good but I must have been wrong.
I thought I just read you believe the United States should not have entered WW II. Again I must be mistaken. :mg:
To take this in order:
1. The annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are worse than that of Tokyo not because they were atomic, but because they were undertaken when peace was at hand, meaning those who lost their lives there lost them even more senselessly than those lost up to that point.
Again I return to the important questions. What did Truman know? What did he think Japan knew? Remember, America was about to embark on an invasion of Japan that was estimated at up to ½ million American casualties. It demonstrates what their (American) perspectives were. To judge, one must first define 'their' perspective. Even having been asked those same questions that Kennedy asked, then would Truman have dropped those bombs? Yes. Again, you may think peace was at hand. But Japan gave America no reason to believe that to be true.
Talk is cheap. Without some action to demonstrate talk as something more than fiction, then talk has no merit - no integrity especially in a war so violent. Especially when we again take a most dominant American perspective. Japan was talking peace while ‘Pearl Harboring’ America. Don’t ever forget how powerful that American perspective was back then. Always appreciate why that was a most powerful 'smoking gun'. It is why America was so empowered as to even consider ½ million American casualties to achieve 'unconditional surrender'. Peace was not at hand IF one considers the American perspective.
So tell me who is good and who is evil. Just another jab at the naive (children) who view and decide in terms of good and evil.
Talk is cheap. Without some action to demonstrate talk as something more than fiction, then talk has no merit - no integrity especially in a war so violent.
Is it just me or is tw channeling George Bush? From his perspective Iraq makes sense. America's WW2 Presidents had already proven their willingness to spend lives at this point. It was now time to stare down our commie allies by showing them what a bunch of bastards we really were.
WTF, I thought my reading comprehension was pretty good but I must have been wrong.
I thought I just read you believe the United States should not have entered WW II. Again I must be mistaken. :mg:
OK, let me simplify it for your dyslexic mind.
Fuck World War 2.
Better?
Peace was not at hand IF one considers the American perspective.
So tell me who is good and who is evil. Just another jab at the naive (children) who view and decide in terms of good and evil.
The German "perspective" was that the Jews were in the way of stopping Bolshevism. If we are simply going to trade crazed ideological or nationalist perspectives, there's not much point debating because there is no common frame of reference.
Reality is not a competition between subjective "perspectives." The sort of arguments pro-warriors make these days are like Kantianism gone haywire.
As for good and evil, there is a fundamental error almost everyone on earth who believe that there is a difference between good and evil make. There is a sort of irrational, subterranean belief that if your enemy is "evil", that is sufficient to make you "good" regardless of what you are actually doing. This belief is the source of nearly every war in modern times. All one has to do to be given a blank check to practice limitless evil with the approval of one's own conscience is to prove that one's enemy is evil.
Now that is a fairly good moral-philosophical-political racket, and the masses usually do fall for it. Anyone capable of genuine reflection does not.
The German "perspective" was that the Jews were in the way of stopping Bolshevism.
And yet that is not the point of Hilter's Mein Kopf. Hitler's underlying points were to subver the intelligent Germans (intellectuals and merchant class), play up to the ignorant (as Rush Limbaugh does today), and then create an enemy that the simple minded would understand - the Jew. Hitler's agenda was about recruiting the simple minded into extremism for the greater glory of his Nazi party. This Hitler did better than those early Nazi's before him.
Hilter had a purpose for the Jew - to use the Jew in a game of "them verses us" so that Hitler could recruit the simple minded to his growing party of 'Brown Shirts', etc.
The only part I am not answering here is why Hitler so craved this power. From his book, he is more concerned as to why Germany lost the first WW rather than a hate of Bolshevism.
Reality is not a competition between subjective "perspectives." ....
As for good and evil, there is a fundamental error almost everyone on earth who believe that there is a difference between good and evil make. There is a sort of irrational, subterranean belief that if your enemy is "evil", that is sufficient to make you "good" regardless of what you are actually doing.
You have failed to comprehend how the more informed people actually view the world. 'Good verses Evil' is how we channel - redirect - the little people. Great leaders tend to confess in their memoirs about a conflict more in terms of differing interests. Indeed the Civil War was not about slavery. However to simplify a war down to something that the 'less intellectual' could comprehend, then slavery became a Civil War rallying cry. Those evil southerners who enslaved black men - they must be evil.
Meanwhile almost all southerners had no slaves - therefore were not evil. So we forget to tell that to the little people.
Civil War was more about a complex set of disagreements between Northern and Southern states. A conflict that almost broke out ten years earlier in Congress had not some great men found a compromise (I believe this is one chapter of Kennedy's Profiles in Courage).
Those reasons of 'good verses evil' are for the naive. There is no good and evil. There are power brokers with strongly differing opinions and perspectives. Indeed, Japanese in WWII assumed they had a right to build an empire just like Europeans and Americans. Japanese would have avoided war had the US, et al cut off their oil. So, in the Japanese perspective, an evil US was denying the Emperor of "Japan's rights to oil". Ergo - Pearl Harbor.
Ever been to the Arizona? Many tourists are Japanese. What is rarely admitted: USS Arizona represents a Japanese glory. Understand perspectives. Pearl Harbor, to many Japanese today, was not an evil surprise attack. It was a great Japanese victory. This perspective is quite difficult for Americans to comprehend. Again, differing perspectives that, this time, do not result in war.
But war is due to differing perspectives – a total breakdown at the negotiation table. The purpose of war: to take that dispute back to a negotiation table. Hopefully with two parties who now have different perspectives. "Good verses Evil" is a myth about war; promoted so that 'cannon fodder' will make that frontal assault "for the greater glory of god and country". But a myth about 'good verses evil' lives on.
Don't tell an 18 year old. Otherwise he will not be a good soldier. And yet notice how 'good verses evil' becomes nonsense once we define the real purpose of war - to return the conflict to a negotiation table. "Good verses Evil' are only myths for those who don't understand the purpose of war.
OK, let me simplify it for your dyslexic mind.
Fuck World War 2.
Better?
War is bad, peace is good. OK, most Americans would agree with that, except UG and the administration in Washington. However, not everyone in the world feels that way.
The reality is there are people that would harm us in unspeakable ways, given half a chance, that's why the Constitution provides for the military to defend our borders. I believe the last time this happened was WWII, all subsequent wars do not qualify.
So if you want to rail against the misuse of the military, pick any other war. :)
The reality is there are people that would harm us in unspeakable ways, given half a chance, that's why the Constitution provides for the military to defend our borders. I believe the last time this happened was WWII, all subsequent wars do not qualify.
So if you want to rail against the misuse of the military, pick any other war. :)
The Axis Powers--even assuming they had the intent--didn't have "half a chance." The United States was not conquerable. The Germans couldn't manage to cross the English Channel, for Christ's sake!
As far as Japan goes, they did not attack the American homeland--they attacked a military base in a stolen colony after a good deal of intentional provocation. They were not about to land in San Francisco and rape everyone's sister.
WW2 is not the most justifiable American war--when looking at the global picture, and setting aside grade-school nonsense about how Hitler was uniquely evil--it is the least justified. A war in which Hitler, Tojo, Chiang, Mao and Stalin all met ruin at one another's hands was a fantasy almost too good to be true. But it would've been true had we not screwed it up, just as we always manage to do when interventionists are in power.
With the US in the war, the Germans couldn't cross the English channel. They probably would have otherwise.
They intended to invade Britain in 1940. The U.S. entered the war in December 1941, by which time the British had whipped the German Air Force.
Yeah, right.......no way Hitler ever could have beat Britian. :rolleyes:
Yeah, right.......no way Hitler ever could have beat Britian.
Aired originally in Sept 2004, this PBS documentary called Battlefield Britian discusses this desperate attempt to keep Britian from being invaded. It is also airing on some PBS stations tonight 1 Mar 2006. Details by going here and then clicking on the entry for:
Battlefield Britian
This hyperlink for those nearby The Cellar. Others should select their own PBS stations at
http://www.pbs.org .
Even if Hitler could've beaten Britain--which was just barely possible in 1940, and not possible at all in 1941--that's a far cry from being able to cross the Atlantic ocean and invade the United States. Invading a country, occupying it, and governing it are rather different animals.
Even if Hitler could've beaten Britain--which was just barely possible in 1940, and not possible at all in 1941--that's a far cry from being able to cross the Atlantic ocean and invade the United States. Invading a country, occupying it, and governing it are rather different animals.
Ever hear of Rommel? If Hitler had won the war in Europe, he'd have brought the US to its knees. It might have taken time, but he would have done so. The America's would have stood alone against the rest of the world. And there's this little thing called oil. Had Hitler invaded Britain, this board would be written in German. Hello? :eyebrow:
Even if Hitler could've beaten Britain--which was just barely possible in 1940, and not possible at all in 1941--that's a far cry from being able to cross the Atlantic ocean and invade the United States.
1940 Britain was a country with almost no tanks, nearly no artillery, and few guns. It still had an air force and a navy.
But a navy without air cover could never defend against Stuka dive bombers - as was proven time and time again. This is why Hitler only needed to conquer the RAF. Churchill understood this quite well. The only reason the channel was an obstacle to Germany was that Germany could not and did not conquer the RAF.
Eventually, Britain would rearm. Their armies lost most everything in Dunkirk except men. Once those men could be rearmed, then Britain would again become a military power. America was so essential to Britain. Both the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic were examples of Britain on the ropes and about to go down. It is an extraordinary story of history. One that every educated person should appreciate not just in the story, but the whys behind why Britain came so close to being conquered.
Germany had already massed sufficient forces to successfully invade Britain in summer or fall 1940. The Royal Navy could only stop that invasion IF the RAF could protect the navy. Britain came that close to being conquered.
Churchill understated it when he said something to the effect of, "At no time in history did so many owe so much to so few.” Only one class of military weapon kept Britain from being conquered in 1940. The RAF saved Britain's ass - completely. It was a desperate battle.
Forget Rommel. That's like saying Patton alone conquered Germany. Rommel was only one piece of a very crowded gameboard. To cite Rommel as significant is to be manipulated by both historical myths and propaganda of that time.
Ever hear of Rommel? If Hitler had won the war in Europe, he'd have brought the US to its knees. It might have taken time, but he would have done so. The America's would have stood alone against the rest of the world. And there's this little thing called oil. Had Hitler invaded Britain, this board would be written in German. Hello? :eyebrow:
Yes, I've heard of Rommel...he's the fellow who was soundly whipped by the supposedly impotent British in North Africa, prior to being "suicided" by his own superiors. From the sound of it, you imagine him as some sort of demigod.
There was no reason for America to "stand against" anyone in the world; our geography enables us not to be concerned with whether the 'right people' are ruling other countries or not, and all we have to do is recognize it. Indeed, we are just about the only country on earth that is in, or has ever been in, that position. Instead we fritter this gift away with all our stupid hand-wringing over whether one gang of tyrants is going to beat another gang of tyrants. Well, we deserve what we get...
Churchill understated it when he said something to the effect of, "At no time in history did so many owe so much to so few.” Only one class of military weapon kept Britain from being conquered in 1940. The RAF saved Britain's ass - completely. It was a desperate battle.
The superiority of the U.S to Vietnam in 1965 and Iraq in 2003 is incalculably greater than the superiority of Germany to Britain in 1940. Yet we subdued neither.
If you define occupation of the capital city as victory, there is a slim chance Hitler could've achieved it--and even this vanished after Barbarossa. However, in the long run occupied territories tend to be a thorn in one's side.
And the idea that German troops were ever going to land in Boston and rape everyone's sister is too neurotic to bother refuting.
Ever hear of Rommel? If Hitler had won the war in Europe, he'd have brought the US to its knees. It might have taken time, but he would have done so. The America's would have stood alone against the rest of the world. And there's this little thing called oil. Had Hitler invaded Britain, this board would be written in German. Hello? :eyebrow:
Complete nonsense. America was not a nation dependent on foreign trade even if Germany had the resources for a blockade. The American red-neck is fully capable of running an effective guerilla campaign. Like djacq75 said the Russian and German tyrannies should have been allowed to bleed each other out until their people rose up. If we had allowed that to happen our present course of democratic fascism could have been averted.
Forget Rommel. That's like saying Patton alone conquered Germany. Rommel was only one piece of a very crowded gameboard. To cite Rommel as significant is to be manipulated by both historical myths and propaganda of that time.
I cite Rommel because he managed to take quite a bit of territory in northern Africa - places where there is this little thing called oil. Had Germany gained control over the oil producing countries of the region, the US would eventually have been brought to its knees. Not right away, of course, but ultimately. I was not saying that Rommel could have invaded the US or anything like that. Actually, Rommel WAS a very good general and tactician, however. He tried to kill Hitler at the end, if you'll recall. I was always sort of fond of him - for a Nazi General, that is.
I think Germany would have beaten Russia if it hadn't had to worry about the British and American forces. Germany's problem was that it was fighting a war on two fronts. If the US had stayed out of the conflict, Britain would have gone under. The Germans were quite efficient at disposing of those who disagreed with them. A significant portion of those killed in the death camps were Russian prisoners of war. The US would have been isolated in a world where two enemies - Germany and Japan - controlled all the rest.
Neither country may have had any interest in invading this one - it would have been a formidable task, I agree. But the resulting geopolitick would have meant that the US would have become a seriously weakened nation and not the world power it is today. IMO.
1. To a person of humane and decent instincts, it's better to be a weak power at peace than a great nation at war.
2. That Germany and Japan were our enemies was largely our decision. They would've preferred to live and let live, as far as the United States was concerned. (Pearl Harbor was not the bolt out of the clear blue we like to imagine it was.)
3. The U.S., Mexico, and Venezuela produced all the oil we needed. We would not have been able to live like hogs, perhaps, but that is not to be confused with a threat to our national existence.
4. Partly because of the Axis defeat, within 35 years the U.S. was "isolated" by hostile Communist or radical governments in the USSR, China, and most of the Third World. Yet we somehow made it, against an enemy even more ruthless than the Axis Powers. To say we could not have survived an Axis victory ignores the fact that we survived something worse.
I cite Rommel because he managed to take quite a bit of territory in northern Africa - places where there is this little thing called oil. Had Germany gained control over the oil producing countries of the region, the US would eventually have been brought to its knees. Not right away, of course, but ultimately.
If I'm not mistaken the US was still a net
exporter of oil when WWII came along and we have vast reserves to this day.(I couldn't find the import numbers to balance that chart since apparently the gov has only tracked that since 1949.) The Japanese were p.o.ed, in part, because we cut off our exports of aviation fuel to them. What I believe we're witnessing in this thread is the remnants of the old propaganda campaigns about the dire threat our enemies posed. These campaigns are pernicious, just ask G W Bush now that his paranoia campaign just bit him on the ass over the port sale.
OK, I'll admit that the US would not have been brought to its knees. And, yes, I am aware that back then the US was a net exporter of oil. I am such an old dinosaur that I'll be contributing to the oil fields one day soon myself. Why, I remember when gasoline was 22 cents a gallon, you young whippersnappers! I also remember the price shock of the oil embargo back in the early 70's. We are certainly not a net exporter of oil now, and he who controls the world's petroleum supply, controls the world. If Hitler had been able to secure the Mid East petroleum supply for Germany, that nation would definately have quite a bit of leverage at this point. I guess I am mostly pissed about the stupid war we are currently fighting which seems to have no real basis other than to give us a foothold in the Middle East oil fields. I imagine that had Hitler managed to take all of Europe and Russia, the same uneasy stance as we had during the cold war with the USSR would have been the most likely result.
I imagine that had Hitler managed to take all of Europe and Russia, the same uneasy stance as we had during the cold war with the USSR would have been the most likely result.
In other words, after 400,000 dead and who knows how many more maimed, we ended up with just about what we would've ended up with anyway. Thank you for getting it! :lol:
I cite Rommel because he managed to take quite a bit of territory in northern Africa - places where there is this little thing called oil. Had Germany gained control over the oil producing countries of the region, the US would eventually have been brought to its knees.
Your praise of Rommel are both accurate and worthy of the man. Furthermore, his objective was Suez. This would have caused major fuel and supply problems for Britain as well as another Dunkirk type defeat. Rommel did amazing things with virtually little material. He was not defeated (actually he was removed before the defeat) until the US and British put him into a squeeze from both east and west.
Don't forget for a minute why the US was so soundly defeated in their first major African battle.
How did Montgomery defeat Rommel? Montgomery had more materials, men, and supplies. Therefore Montgomergy simply kept shifting his attack so that Rommel had to run here and there. Rommel had too few resources. And yet still Rommel did amazing things in his defense - by doing things offensive. British forces would suddenly discover that Rommel was completely behind them.
The superiority of the U.S to Vietnam in 1965 and Iraq in 2003 is incalculably greater than the superiority of Germany to Britain in 1940. Yet we subdued neither.
You have drawn conclusions without first learning underlying facts. In Vietnam, without a strategic objection and with Generals (Westmoreland) who literally violated well proven principles of war, wll of course a major military (US) would be defeated. That has nothing to due with German operations in 1940 Britain.
Meanwhile, look who is not winning the "Mission Accomplished" war. Again the example does not prove your point once we apply necessary details.
Meanwhile, I don't have a clue as to why you mention Germans invading Boston. I intentionally avoided the whole topic because the number of variable make any reasoning nothing more than personal biases speculation.
The one thing we do know is that without an RAF, Germany had sufficient resources, weapon superiority, and intent (the strategic objectives) to successfully invade Britain. Without the RAF, Britain just could not have stopped a 1940 cross channel invasion.
In other words, after 400,000 dead and who knows how many more maimed, we ended up with just about what we would've ended up with anyway. Thank you for getting it! :lol:
Errrr... You're leaving out one minor detail - the 6 million killed in the death camps. Hell alone knows what that number might have been had Hitler conquered Britain and Russia both. :eyebrow:
What I believe we're witnessing in this thread is the remnants of the old propaganda campaigns about the dire threat our enemies posed. These campaigns are pernicious, just ask G W Bush now that his paranoia campaign just bit him on the ass over the port sale.
Never lose sight of a strategic objective. Kudos to Griff for the reminder.
Errrr... You're leaving out one minor detail - the 6 million killed in the death camps. Hell alone knows what that number might have been had Hitler conquered Britain and Russia both. :eyebrow:
Not to mitigate Hitler in any way, but Stalin did a fair bit of that himself, more than Hitler even. So it might have been a bit of a wash on that front as well.
Ummmmm... Stalin was most certainly a nasty character and I suspect the extent of his atrocities will never be fully known. Given the information available, though, Hitler out did Stalin nicely and I'm sure he would have out paced him when it came to exterminating the Russian people. At least the Gulags did not prominently feature creamatoriums. And don't forget the Jewish population of Britain who would have been wisps of smoke floating across the Atlantic. :headshake
Hitler outdid Stalin? Hitler was an amateur.
20,000,000.
Stalin was able to spread it out and hide it better because he was an equal opportunity killer.
Stalin was able to spread it out and hide it better because he was an equal opportunity killer.
Also because he never lost the war and had enemy troops uncovering his secrets.
Don't forget Germany had a lot of friends in South America.
Had they won in Europe they were in position to establish a foothold there, also :cool:
Truth, I'm back to reading the Rise and Fall blah blah and references keep coming about so and so, just back from Bolivia. However, I stand by the point no way we get rolled by an OUTSIDE power. We also need to remember that, like Castro, Hitler had a limited shelf life and it's really hard to smoothly replace an absolute dictator.
Well, going back to the OP and national soul searching, yeah right. We had someone jump on the thread and claim the ridiculous number of 400,000 or so war dead in the name of pacifism. Whatever. We've had a disagreement over who was worse- Stalin or Hitler? I've read stat's on Hitler that put him reponsible for 20 million deaths directly and 44 million indirectly. ABCXYletter pudding head would have us forget about everything, including the current war in Iraq and bury our heads in the sand and say, Hitler did it. We have Busterb posting live from one of the worst disasters in recent American history and detailing the lack of response from ANYONE except people here on the Cellar. We have Keryx posting back and going "nyah, nyah, stupid Katrina victims get what they deserve!" We have tw's ever growing thread on Bush's shrinking safety zone. Hell! W. didn't have a safety zone 5 years ago before 9/11 ever happened! What's he got is a wealth and power zone and that has NOT changed.
So when is the last time a single one of you - left, right, center, communist or libertarian has written a single letter to your state representative, attended a single session of your local town council, written a letter to the editor of your local paper, or donated an hour of your own time to whatever cause is most close to your own heart? Its easy to debate Stalin versus Hitler. How about doing something real? 60 years ago today, Americans were dancing in the streets and Japanese children were watching their faces peel off. So fucking what?
Truth, I'm back to reading the Rise and Fall blah blah and references keep coming about so and so, just back from Bolivia. However, I stand by the point no way we get rolled by an OUTSIDE power. We also need to remember that, like Castro, Hitler had a limited shelf life and it's really hard to smoothly replace an absolute dictator.
I agree, as long a we had the foresight to maintain enough military strength to stop an initial attack. It's one of those, if you can stand the first punch, then you'll be ok.
So when is the last time a single one of you - left, right, center, communist or libertarian has written a single letter to your state representative, attended a single session of your local town council, written a letter to the editor of your local paper, or donated an hour of your own time to whatever cause is most close to your own heart?
Last time? Two days ago. And more times than I can count but the only thing I probably accomplished was stress relief for myself.
Oh, and I try not to tell other people what to do with their money. :headshake
To return more consistent with Griff's recent post:
This also begs the question, though, of why I should give a damn about Roosevelt, Churchill, or their "strategic objectives." Had I been alive at the time, and experienced enough to see through FDR's bullshit the way I see through Bush's today, I would've opposed entry into the war in the first place. In that case I wouldn't have cared all that much if their "strategic objectives" were achieved or fell to pieces.
Fundamentals behind this discussion were previously posted at
Morality
Meanwhile below is a typical response posted previously. A response created by propaganda from a mental midget president and his mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh. They do this because so many citizens did not understand the purpose of war and did not appreciate why a 'smoking gun' is so critical. Did not learn from history and even ignored numbers about those aluminim tubes.
There is clearly and obviously no war in Afghanistan right now. When the facts don't suit you, do you just invent them?
We know UT was deceived by propaganda from facts in another series of posts -
Growing Threat Seen In Afghan Insurgency The director of the Defense Intelligence Agency told Congress yesterday that the insurgency in Afghanistan is growing and will increase this spring, presenting a greater threat to the central government's expansion of authority "than at any point since late 2001."
and from
Poll finds that most U.S. troops are in favor of withdrawalNearly 3 out of 4 U.S. troops serving in Iraq think U.S. forces should withdraw...
Each are only symptoms of mistakes made at the highest levels of the American government because a president is a mental midget. Its not nice, but the conclusion is based in facts which explains why we are in a "Mission Accomplished" war that cannot be won. No strategic objective and therefore no exit strategy. This also defines the word "Morality".
Notice how clean and more complex war - its purpose and its propaganda - can become. To keep it simpler, we tell the common man that "they (others) are evil". It is why we are in a "Mission Accomplished" war. A mental midget president is a genius at convoluting the truth. He has lesser intelligent among us thinking we are fighting a war against bin Laden - who runs free because our president is so immoral as to let bin Laden run free.
Years ago, MaggieL and I had a long discussion where I defined the invasion of Iraq as wrong for so many reasons. I was roundly in the minority then and have been proven today to be more accurate than even I had hoped. Those reasons, from historical lessons, were based in above concepts including the strategic objective, the smoking gun, and other lessons from history. That is why we
give a damn about Roosevelt, Churchill, or their "strategic objectives."
When a president so routinely lies as this one does to the destruction of America, well, that is why citizens are suppose to be learned in history. A country with more intelligent people and less Christian religious extremists would not be fighting a war against those who were not a threat. It would again be safe overseas to let others know you are American. These extremist anti-Americans who don't advocate the president's impeachment make it dangerous to be an American citizen where Americans were once so welcome.
If there is an 'evil' in Iraq, it is the American 'crusader' invader. If there is 'evil' in Afghanistan, it is bin Laden who the American president protects by letting him run free. Lessons we all should have learned from 60 years ago.
Errrr... You're leaving out one minor detail - the 6 million killed in the death camps. Hell alone knows what that number might have been had Hitler conquered Britain and Russia both. :eyebrow:
For starters, the death camps weren't death camps until after the Wannsee Conference in 1942. What is generally thought of as the Holocaust--the Final Solution--was not proposed or implemented, much less known about, until after the U.S. entered the war, and therefore cannot be used to justify its entry.
Prior to 1941, if you had stacked up Hitler's murders against Stalin's, Hitler would've come out looking like a kitten by comparison. Only with Barbarossa did he begin to catch up to Stalin's record.
But all of this begs the question: is it America's job to police the world? And if so, should we have invaded the USSR in 1932 or 1933 to stop the deliberate starvation of 7 million Ukrainians--rather than extending the red killers diplomatic recognition, as FDR enthusiastically did? If your answer is no, then don't come with any sob stories about the Holocaust. The principle is the same.
They do this because so many citizens did not understand the purpose of war
The purpose of war is nearly always to convince semi-literate clods to die for a cause that has nothing to do with them, but which you are too much of a pussy to die for yourself.
60 years ago today, Americans were dancing in the streets and Japanese children were watching their faces peel off. So fucking what?
Because cattle like you are still nuzzling the cold, dead bum of an epic criminal like Roosevelt who caused that to happen. If you won't admit your fuck-ups, you're doomed to repeat them...or something like that.
When a president so routinely lies as this one does to the destruction of America, well, that is why citizens are suppose to be learned in history.
Um, I was not asking why we should know what Roosevelt and Churchill's strategic objectives
were. I asked why we should give a damn whether they were
accomplished if doing so was to cost an additional 120,000 lives.
Um, I was not asking why we should know what Roosevelt and Churchill's strategic objectives were. I asked why we should give a damn whether they were accomplished if doing so was to cost an additional 120,000 lives.
Which goes right back to the purpose of war. If at a negotiation table were honest men negotiating, then human life has value. Once one party makes human life irrelevant, then either the other party must surrender (Chamberlin) or all parties must now regard human life as only secondary (war).
In war, human lives are wasted - spent like capital funds. War derates the value to human life to be only another military resource. Don't for one minute forget that. Never worry about human life as paramount once war breaks out. That only makes one a loser. Once in war, human life must lose value for more important purposes.
Suggested is that war could have ended without those additional 120,000 lost lives. But that is irrelevant. We were no longer at a negotiation table where human life has such value. Until we get back to a negotiation table, then human life is only another expendable military asset or target. Cold, hard, and it is called reality. Anything less means war may be lost or that another war must be fought. This from someone that Urbane Guerilla considers too liberal or Democratic and that MaggieL did not understand? You tell me how someone so ruthless could be so.
I don't like it. But that reasoning is also why we must have a smoking gun to justify war. BTW it is also why Patton was so good (old blood and guts) and yet probably saved so many American lives.
Bottom line point is that if one goes to war, then human life must be regarded as something completely expendable until negotiations will start. If one is not willing to make that commitment, then one does not belong in war or may just create another war - ie WWI may have only created WWII. Welcome to justification for the liberation of Kuwait AND why Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, et al only destroyed (squandered) an oppurtunity created by Swartzkopf and Powell. If you don't understand what 'squander' means here, then you are not ruthless enough to call for war.
Whether those 120,000 lives could have been saved is secondary. Until a conflict gets to a negotiation table, the leader spends people like a corporate president spends his capital. Most coporate advertising dollars are wasted. But he must spend anyway. Currency is what human life becomes once negotiations break down into war.
To worry about 120,000 lives when war has not yet terminated is to be too liberal or simply too naive. Or it is to be too right wing conservative as to get into a war due to penis based intelligence. Either extreme: both are examples of why extremists tend to be of lesser intelligence.
It is war. Life is something to be spent. Be very careful before another president in 30 years lies like Johnson & Nixon in 1960s and George Jr in 2002. Such men forget they work for us - forget what is an American patriot. Such men think we are only capital for them to spend - defines a dictator mentality. If one needs a definition of evil, two examples are Nixon and George Jr. Both would kill rather than solve problems at a negotiation table - all for their own personal glory and in the name of god. Country and intelligence had nothing to due with Nixon's and George Jr's wars.
Defined is also why containment is so effective at solving world problems. And why preemption is strongly based in extremist propaganda. Demonstrated is that one, declared a liberal by some, is more ruthless than the weak kneed Urbane Guerilla who thinks nothing about going to war at the drop of a feather. We need cannon fodder which is why we need Urbane Guerrilla types. But worry when these types get us into a war. Demonstrated by the number of above words, war is not something to enter without both good and deep seated reasoning since 120,000 people suddenly have no significant value.
Last time? Two days ago. And more times than I can count but the only thing I probably accomplished was stress relief for myself.
Oh, and I try not to tell other people what to do with their money. :headshake
No, I actually don't think it accomplishes much either, but I do feel a certain sense of satisfaction after sending one of my mass e-mails to the Colorado State Legislature. Sometimes, I even get replies. :D
Bottom line point is that if one goes to war, then human life must be regarded as something completely expendable until negotiations will start.
That they will be regarded as expendable by the criminals who launched the war goes without saying. And while it is true that the decent members of the human race should demand an end to the war, if it were hypothetically within one's power to hold the casualties caused by a given war to 100,000 instead of 1,000,000, it is absurd to pretend that the two scenarios make no difference to anyone. That our leaders treat lives as cannon fodder merely establishes that we should be as
unlike our leaders as we can manage.
It is also too much, even for a joke, for a belligerent leader to refuse to conduct negotiations (as Truman did in July 1945)--and then use the lack of negotiations as an excuse to unleash whatever destruction tickles his fancy.
Well, tw, in post #104, p.7, you said something smart. Good going.
djacq, you got some holes yet: what the decent members of the human race should demand is an end to the indecencies of oppression. You've been sucked in by the specious arguments of the moral-equivalency set, and you should not have been so deceived.
Democracies avoid oppression(s), though without complete success, owing to human nature: the root of prejudice is that man is a categorizing animal, and the two largest categories are Me and Not-Me. It is all too easy to be disdainful of the Not-Me, which can lead to attacking and abusing such Other. The faculty of self-restraint is a happy one here, and we both know it's not always present.
Non-democracies, on the other hand, mostly exist
to oppress somebody, somewhere, somehow. Being unaccountable to their subjects, nondemocracies make war on, well, whim.
It is also too much, even for a joke, for a belligerent leader to refuse to conduct negotiations (as Truman did in July 1945)--and then use the lack of negotiations as an excuse to unleash whatever destruction tickles his fancy.
Your last paragraph needs taking apart, as it misrepresents Truman's motivations and policy: Japan's government sent out peace feelers in mid-1945, asking about terms for peace. Since we Allies had decided at Yalta in 1942 that the only peace would come with the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers, and Truman did not waver from this when he inherited the Presidency, the kindest thing to say about Japan's representations in 1945 was that they were the product of wishful thinking. Truman could see the whole thing was bootless. Since there was still the war to win, it was time to shock and awe the Japanese into unconditional surrender. This was done. In large measure, come to think of it, this was done by Hirohito telling the generals it was time to quit, and it seems looking back that we were duly grateful.
Your last paragraph needs taking apart, as it misrepresents Truman's motivations and policy: Japan's government sent out peace feelers in mid-1945, asking about terms for peace. Since we Allies had decided at Yalta in 1942 that the only peace would come with the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers, and Truman did not waver from this when he inherited the Presidency, the kindest thing to say about Japan's representations in 1945 was that they were the product of wishful thinking. Truman could see the whole thing was bootless. Since there was still the war to win, it was time to shock and awe the Japanese into unconditional surrender. This was done. In large measure, come to think of it, this was done by Hirohito telling the generals it was time to quit, and it seems looking back that we were duly grateful.
If Roosevelt made a deal with the devil, it was not Truman's job to carry it out without question. He chose to sacrifice 120,000 civilian lives for the dubious privilege of being allowed to hang the Emperor if we chose (which, of course, we didn't.)
Unconditional surrender by each of the Axis powers doesn't sound like a deal with the devil.
And to the Japanese, I would ever point this out: Hiroshima died that Japan might live. And live it did; it's a better Japan now.
And to the Japanese, I would ever point this out: Hiroshima died that Japan might live. And live it did; it's a better Japan now.
..and Nagasaki?
That's like hearing the 9/11 hijackers telling us they did it for the good of the USA.
Were you by any chance name 'Mr. Sensitivity' in your high school yearbook?
'Mr. Sensitivity' in your high school yearbook?
I would think that those "really sensitive people" are elderly Filipinos that still remember the Japanese occupation.
Paraphrasing from a conversation with one;
Do we feel bad for those Japanese people? No. We were hoping that the US had
more such bombs to drop there.
I would think that those "really sensitive people" are elderly Filipinos that still remember the Japanese occupation.
Paraphrasing from a conversation with one;
Do we feel bad for those Japanese people? No. We were hoping that the US had more such bombs to drop there.
Which is why I find it so funny when Michelle Malkin soothes the conservatives by stating that the US interment of Japanese Americans was necessary. The racists among them simply see an Asian-American granting absolution without considering the fact that she is Filipino-American. This is like consulting an Armenian-American about the treatment of Turkish-Americans. Only a racist who lumps all Asians into a single group or someone who is ignorant of world history would be dumb enough to make that kind of generalization.
The Japanese abuse of the Filipinos served the important purpose of making our abuse of the Filipinos seem enlightened by comparison. We were literally the lesser of two evils. In the end, we did give the Phillipines their independence after WWII. Up until that time, freedom for the Phillipines meant picking their colonial masters (Spain, the US, or Japan).
Point of technical fact, Michele Malkin is an American. No hyphen.
Further point of technical fact, Michele Malkin being female would be: Filipina American.
Point of technical fact, Michele Malkin is an American. No hyphen.
Are you saying that noone pays any special attention to her comments based on her race? Are we really such a democratic society that we have become truly colorblind and there are no racial or cultural perspectives? Or are you just saying that I shouldn't have placed a hypen there?
IMO, the reality is that there are still Polish Americans, Italian Americans, Jewish Americans, etc. How much these distinctions affect attitudes depend on how insular was the community in which an individual was raised.
My point is that some people give Ms. Malkins words additional weight in issues such as the internment of
Americans in the US during WWII because of her race, ignoring the cultural and political bias she may have inherited.
ignoring the cultural and political bias she may have inherited.
By hyphenating you intimating she is bias. :eyebrow:
Rich, I know this is just a typo, but it's too good to gloss over:
I find it so funny when Michelle Malkin soothes the conservatives by stating that the US interment of Japanese Americans was necessary.
About two days postmortem, it
is necessary. [Emph mine]
..and Nagasaki?
I wasn't ignoring Nagasaki, merely constructing a better-flowing and more concise sentence; it starts to clunk if I go for a pedantic completeness. I could have written precisely the same sentence of Nagasaki. Hiroshima carries the greater weight of meaning because it was the first.
That's like hearing the 9/11 hijackers telling us they did it for the good of the USA.
No; the purveyors of antidemocracy do not have the moral authority to make such an argument believable. We, being a free people, in contention with anti-freedom people, do. That you choose not to accept that view has very little effect on its rightness.
Are you saying that noone pays any special attention to her comments based on her race? Are we really such a democratic society that we have become truly colorblind and there are no racial or cultural perspectives? Or are you just saying that I shouldn't have placed a hypen there?
What I'm saying is that Michelle Malkin describes
herself as an unhyphenated American.
No; the purveyors of antidemocracy do not have the moral authority to make such an argument believable. We, being a free people, in contention with anti-freedom people, do. That you choose not to accept that view has very little effect on its rightness.
The idea that democracy possesses any inherent moral authority is one of the more contemptible forms of modern self-induced moral vacuity.
The idea that democracy possesses any inherent moral authority is one of the more contemptible forms of modern self-induced moral vacuity.
HEH! Urbane could be the poster child for Orwellian thought.
Let's take a closer look at his statement:
No; the purveyors of antidemocracy do not have the moral authority to make such an argument believable. We, being a free people, in contention with anti-freedom people, do. That you choose not to accept that view has very little effect on its rightness.
"purveyors of antidemocracy" - Would have the reader beleive that there is a group out there who fully understand the principles of democracy and have rejected them. In fact, there are many such groups "out there," but I would submit that the group to which UG refers - Muslims - are more xenophobic and religous fundamentalist than they are "antidemocracy." The deaths of 100,000 Iraqi civilians have only served to fuel UG's "antidemocracy" movement.
Democracy - from the Greek - demos - government by the
people. Only someone who has no idea of what democracy actually is could beleive that a foreign nation can invade another country's borders, kill 100,000 people, and then call the result "democracy." The correct term is "military invasion" NOT "democracy."
"Moral authority" - an interesting term. Please define "morality." Please define "authority." Please state under which conditions a given group has "moral authority" over another. Please use premises that all parties agree to be correct, and please use logic in your reply. Points will be taken off for empty rhetoric and propagandist replies will receive a failing grade.
"We, being a free people" - "We" who, white man? Please define what it is to be a "free" person. Please state in which ways the average American is more a "free" person than the average Iraqi. "My son is in the US Army and my money goes to Halliburten." When I walk into the polling booth, I may choose one outrageous liar versus a second outrageous liar. My letters to my elected representative are met with form replies, if I'm lucky enough to get a reply at all. My country's leader is worse than an inept, bungling fool. My country's leader has done more to take away the constitutional rights and freedoms of my people than any other leader in my country's history. My country's leader has been responsible for the deaths of 100's of thousand of innocent people, including my own countrymen. Please explain how I have greater freedom than an Iraqi citizen.
"That you choose not to accept that view has very little effect on its rightness." i.e. "I'm right because I say so," or, my personal favorite, "I'm right and you're stupid." That you choose to assume YOUR view is the only correct one has NO effect on the actual truth of your position, especially when you do not back your position up with accurate facts and logical conclusions.
By the way, djacq, there ARE other threads on the Cellar. You don't have to keep bringing this one back up to the top. Its wandered so off topic that I don't even remember what it was originally about, anymore. :eyebrow:
"purveyors of antidemocracy" - Would have the reader beleive that there is a group out there who fully understand the principles of democracy and have rejected them. In fact, there are many such groups "out there," but I would submit that the group to which UG refers - Muslims - are more xenophobic and religous fundamentalist than they are "antidemocracy." The deaths of 100,000 Iraqi civilians have only served to fuel UG's "antidemocracy" movement.
Actually I read somewhere that there is, at least among some Sunnis, the belief that democracy is a false religion.
Actually I read somewhere that there is, at least among some Sunnis, the belief that democracy is a false religion.
Which really only goes to prove my point that its more about being a religious fanatic, etc. I very much doubt that Sunni clerics have sat down and read Jefferson, Locke and Hume, or studied Thomas Paine's "The Rights of Man." They think "democracy" means a bunch of Christian infidels who drop bombs out of the sky.
Which really only goes to prove my point that its more about being a religious fanatic, etc. I very much doubt that Sunni clerics have sat down and read Jefferson, Locke and Hume, or studied Thomas Paine's "The Rights of Man." They think "democracy" means a bunch of Christian infidels who drop bombs out of the sky.
Democracy is when your government only meets when ordered to do so by American. And democracy is when Americans attack a mosque and deny it was a mosque - while all Iraqi TV and satellite news services show that mosque with pools of blood and bullet holes everywhere.
Hell - why read when Americans are physically teaching Iraqis the definition of democracy - including a president who can lie repeatedly and almost everyone in the Cellar even stays silent.
Democracy is about a president who declares "Mission Accomplished" as the country is looted. Why read Locke when the definition is better found in legalized kidnapping and death squads lead even by police commanders.
Come to think of it, tw, what do you want to bet that Jr. hasn't read the "Rights of Man," either? In fact, I bet if we were to call him up right now - pop quiz time - and ask him who Thomas Paine was, he wouldn't know, much less recognize the names Locke and Hume.
People, even "purveyors of antidemocracy" learn by example. You don't torture a man while reading him the Declaration of Independence and expect him to beleive you were serious about those words, or think for a moment that he will feel anything but contempt for that document if he ever sees it afterwards.
I don't know where the hell UG got his "moral authority" to make pronouncements for the rest of us. In the future, if he is going to make statements about the so-called "rightness" of his blind endorcement of torture, the killing of innocents, and the imposition of a foreign military regime by the US on another nation, he needs to have the integrity to stop hiding behind "we, the people" and, instead use the word "I."
Example:
I, being a blood thirsty fool who blindly cheers any atrocity, so long as it is wrapped in the flag, in contention with the group of human beings I have selected as a target for my hatred, do. That you choose not to accept my view has very little effect on my stubborn stupidity and general malevolence.