View Full Version : Hiroshima\nagasaki
As japan had been trying to surrender months before the bombings, was the A-bomb used as a show of military might to keep stalin's russia underfoot?
Kaishowing
31-Mar-07, 22:24
I think it was done for a number of reasons.
Millions had been spent to develop the weapon, and to justify that cost there had to be a practical demonstation.
That demonstration was also intended to announce to Stalin that America was not a country that he would want to tangle with.
The main reason though was to end the war.
While surrender could well have been possible from Japan using conventional warfare, given the fanaticism of the troops a statement such as the two bombs would ensure that the majority of tha Japanese troops would cease to fight quickly therefore saving more allied lives.
Plus you have to factor human nature into the decision too.
Payback for Pearl Harbour.
As japan had been trying to surrender months before the bombings, was the A-bomb used as a show of military might to keep stalin's russia underfoot?
Not just Russia, the entire world.
Not just Russia, the entire world.
The communist parts anyway.
Interesting to read the projected death-count had it stayed conventional, 40,000 U.S. soldiers killed, 150,000 wounded, and 3,500 missing, how does this balance against 140,000 killed in hiroshima and those that died over the following years?
As japan had been trying to surrender months before the bombings
Have you any evidence of this?:confused
Have you any evidence of this?:confusedTruman's diary gives reference to a 'telegram from the Japanese emperor asking for peace.
Truman's diary gives reference to a 'telegram from the Japanese emperor asking for peace.
dates, times, quotes of content?
Kaishowing
01-Apr-07, 00:29
"Remember to add your calculations in your margine or marks will be taken off!"
"Remember to add your calculations in your margine or marks will be taken off!"
"Marks will not be deducted for any misplaced opinions so long as you can back up your assertions by presenting actual historical references.":Razz
Rheghead, it's one of those "pick the bits you want" suggestions.
Using the same method interpretation the claim could be made that in the early days of WW2 Britain was trying to "Surrender" to Hitler because a few top people and politicians thought we should not be at war with Fascists.
Actually I think there is good evidence to think that the Germans were trying to "Surrender" to us shortly after the start of the War and that Hitler sent Hess to negotiate their "Surrender".
We refused to accept the German surrender in order to continue testing the weapons we were using, after all, we had spent a fortune on the Navy and were developing some really advanced bombs.
It was only when Hitler realised that we were engaging in a massive Cover-up about the whole issue, in order to extend the War, that he denied all knowledge of what Hess was doing in order to save face.
Well, it's as near the truth as the fallacy that the Japanese had been trying to "Surrender" for months prior to the end of the War. Unless, of course, the Japanese were having difficulty finding somebody to translate two simple words, "We Surrender" from their language into English.
It also helps the “They were trying to Surrender for Months” myth if you ignore the fact that, even as the Emperor was recording the Surrender Tape, Officers from the War Ministry, in an attempt to seize the Emperor and the Tape with the intent of issuing forged Orders for Kamikaze Attacks, were involved in a desperate battle with Palace Troops loyal to the Emperor.
Had that battle ended differently then the Surrender would not have occurred as early as it did.
As usual, they totally ignore the bits of what really occurred that doesn't suit their version.
dates, times, quotes of content?
They are all listed here (http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=9443).
They are all listed here (http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=9443).
Sorry fred, I asked for times, dates and quotes of content to actual attempts to surrender by the japanese, and that has to be unconditional surrender btw. Still waiting....
Rheghead, I do so love it when I am fed useful information and sources. I decided to have a quick Google on Truman’s Diaries and the Japanese Surrender.
The site I came across was
http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Japan_surrender_attempts/July_1945.html
It is titled, “The attempts by the Japanese government to surrender, July 1945”
It starts on 7 July 1945 and ends on 27 July 1945.
At the beginning of July the Japanese were making urgent Diplomatic attempts in Moscow to prevent Russia from joining in the War against them at almost any cost.
The only direct attempts by the Japanese to indicate any prospects of Surrender to Truman was via Comrades Stalin and Molotov at the Potsdam Conference.
The Russians were, to say the least, unhelpful and blocked the Japanese Ambassador’s access to either of the Comrades, even claiming they had left Moscow when in fact they were still there.
I am at a complete loss to understand why the Russians should be so reluctant to help end the War against Japan.
On 8 August 1945, Russia declared War on Japan! What a surprise.
I wonder just who it was who had an interest in extending the length of that War and who might wish to transfer that blame, via their acolytes, to the Americans?
"Marks will not be deducted for any misplaced opinions so long as you can back up your assertions by presenting actual historical references."How can it be a misplaced opinion if I can back it up?;)
Rheghead, it's one of those "pick the bits you want" suggestions.
Using the same method interpretation the claim could be made that in the early days of WW2 Britain was trying to "Surrender" to Hitler because a few top people and politicians thought we should not be at war with Fascists.
Actually I think there is good evidence to think that the Germans were trying to "Surrender" to us shortly after the start of the War and that Hitler sent Hess to negotiate their "Surrender".
We refused to accept the German surrender in order to continue testing the weapons we were using, after all, we had spent a fortune on the Navy and were developing some really advanced bombs.
It was only when Hitler realised that we were engaging in a massive Cover-up about the whole issue, in order to extend the War, that he denied all knowledge of what Hess was doing in order to save face. Nice debating style but how about I pick the bits that are relevant.:lol:
Well, it's as near the truth as the fallacy that the Japanese had been trying to "Surrender" for months prior to the end of the War. Unless, of course, the Japanese were having difficulty finding somebody to translate two simple words, "We Surrender" from their language into English. leahy, nimitz, halsey and bonesteel seem to disagree with you there jaws, I think I'll stick to their views.
As usual, they totally ignore the bits of what really occurred that doesn't suit their version.Who are they?
Sorry fred, I asked for times, dates and quotes of content to actual attempts to surrender by the japanese, and that has to be unconditional surrender btw. Still waiting....Try doing some research or do you know it all already?
Try doing some research or do you know it all already?
I remember going through all this 'Japan trying to surrender thing' with fred about 2 years ago. It is just a load of 'conspiracy rubbish' with a heap of 'anti-america' thrown in for good measure.
If Japan really wanted to surrender then all they just had to do was lay down their arms like anyother numptie does when he surrenders.
I remember going through all this 'Japan trying to surrender thing' with fred about 2 years ago. It is just a load of 'conspiracy rubbish' with a heap of 'anti-america' thrown in for good measure.
If Japan really wanted to surrender then all they just had to do was lay down their arms like anyother numptie does when he surrenders.Surely you realise that with america wanting an unconditional surrender that it was more complicated than that?
Also, I am not anti-american so you have made an erroneous assumption, as for the conspiracy rubbish are you telling me the diaries and the thoughts of the others actualy involved in the decision making are fake?[lol]
are you telling me the diaries and the thoughts of the others actualy involved in the decision making are fake?[lol]
No, I am saying that documents that reveal attempts by the Japanese for an unconditional surrender do not exist before the bombs were dropped.
sorghaghtanibeki
01-Apr-07, 18:51
It is mind boggling to see the subjects that Fred Google and others of his disposition display on this forum. No doubt great minds have examined the subject of the bombs - much deeper than any googler on this could ever do. I think that it was because it was the USA who dropped the A - bomb that is more to do with it than anything with some of you. it is obvious that the "there were peace moves afoot" brigade have not visited Kanchanaburi and walked the route of the 'death railway' - I have and any action that would have bought about the cessation of this obscene torture would be justified, also a conservative estimation of an additional million dead was prevented. we have a saying 'hindsight is an exact science' now instead of pontificating about something you know nothing about (save google) read 'Old Marine's posting 'borrowed' from 'sailors held by Iran' thread and post something you KNOW about (now nothing I've written was engine searched).. I have help with my English!
Oldmarine #177 Sailors held by Iran thread "I fought through the Pacific for 36 months and observed the Japanese forces fighting harder and harder as we neared their homeland. When our troops entered Japan after the surrender they reported that old men, women and children were prepared to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in defending their homeland. The Japanese Emperor who was a god-like figure made the correct choice when he ordered his country to surrender. Otherwise, it would have been the worse blood bath the entire Pacific war would have seen."
Just read "Surviving under the sword" read it and then tell me it was wrong to drop the bombs!It was done,it was right at the time and nobody can change it now.
Sorry fred, I asked for times, dates and quotes of content to actual attempts to surrender by the japanese, and that has to be unconditional surrender btw. Still waiting....
You suddenly decide it has to be unconditional surrender.
The only condition the Japanese wanted was the safety of their Emperor.
America refused and dropped two atom bombs.
Then they guaranteed the safety of the Emperor.
The people of Hiroshema and Nagasaki died needlessly and senselessly.
The only "Condition" the Japanese were seeking was that the Emperor was left in place which is exactly what happened so there was obviously no problem there!
Other than that they accepted "Unconditional Surrender" without question.
The only "Conspiracy" which was happening over the ending of the War with Japan was that Stalin and the Russians, who had steadfastly refused to enter the War with Japan even at that late date, were spreading 'misinformation' about Japanese attempts to seek Surrender both to the Allies and to the Japanese.
It doesn’t take a lot of intelligence, especially in view of the fact that within a couple of weeks Stalin declared War on Japan, to realise why the Russians were busy blocking Japan’s attempted negotiations via them. They were stalling until they had massed their Army on the on the Borders of Japanese held China in order to Declare War and grab as many last minute ‘spoils’ as they could for the least involvement.
Nor does it take much to work out in whose interest it was, at the start of the Cold War, to spread information that the Capitalist West and the Americans in particular, were responsible for ignoring Japanese attempts to “Surrender”.
Nor does it take a great deal of intelligence to realise that the same deceit, and many like it, are still being perpetuated by those who continue to dream up fantasies for the overthrow of the “Capitalist West”.
You suddenly decide it has to be unconditional surrender.
The only condition the Japanese wanted was the safety of their Emperor.
America refused and dropped two atom bombs.
Then they guaranteed the safety of the Emperor.
The people of Hiroshema and Nagasaki died needlessly and senselessly.
I think you have to prove the causal link. Do you think the Emperor committed war crimes?
I think you have to prove the causal link. Do you think the Emperor committed war crimes?
Hmmm, Did Hitler, did Mussolini, did Saddam ? good question Rheghead?
Hmmm, Did Hitler, did Mussolini, did Saddam ? good question Rheghead?
Did Bush????
Quite frankly, it does not matter if they were going to surrender or not. Anyone that thinks that it is justifiable to use nuclear weapons or even just to use them as a deterrent on or against any persons in any situation or conflict is an ignorant psychopath. Only the darkest kind of criminals actually think this kind of violence, much less any violence and blatant disregard for the environment and human kind is alright.
And conventional wars are ok or less painful I take it??
Just read "Surviving under the sword" read it and then tell me it was wrong to drop the bombs!It was done,it was right at the time and nobody can change it now.
Haven't read the book but this is the most sensible post on the thread.
Quite simply, nothing can be changed now. I wonder what is to be gained from wringing our hands over events in History that we are powerless to do anything about?
It is easy to play the intellectual idealist sitting in a cosy armchair, armed with Google and a feeling of self-righteousness. Hindsight is also a mighty powerful tool when coupled with total non-responsibility. Very different to be there at the time with the weight of both military and civilian lives to muddy the equation of perfection. It was not a question then of "What would Jesus do?" more one of "Jesus, what the F-Company do we do?"
Of course, fred and roy will convince you that they could have found a solution where everybody went home good friends and those bad guns all went into a skip beside the bottle banks at the supermarket. Fantasy Island or what?
There are plenty of people in this World who are currently dying through lack of food, clean water or other things that we CAN address, so why the obsession with things we can do nothing about and which, quite frankly, people are unlikely to feel sympathy about. Lose a Child, Brother or Father in a war and then come back to spout your idealist tripe!!
Not a perfect world, never will be, let's focus on that which CAN help.
This article is certified Googleless
much less any violence
Gosh, the secret to world peace has been staring at us in the face and we just haven't noticed. Why don't we just go around and be nice to one another?:roll:
I think you have to prove the causal link. Do you think the Emperor committed war crimes?
Happy birthday.
sorghaghtanibeki
01-Apr-07, 21:22
Roy; "Quite frankly, it does not matter if they were going to surrender or not. Anyone that thinks that it is justifiable to use nuclear weapons or even just to use them as a deterrent on or against any persons in any situation or conflict is an ignorant psychopath. Only the darkest kind of criminals actually think this kind of violence, much less any violence and blatant disregard for the environment and human kind is alright"
roll over and play dead; simplistic naivety
No, I am saying that documents that reveal attempts by the Japanese for an unconditional surrender do not exist before the bombs were dropped.Obviously they didn't exist at the time, that's why they are called memoirs.
Arguing for the sake of arguing once again?
Being nice to each other would be a damn good start in my opinion. I feel extremely sorry for you if you think the answer to peace is war! Is that more doublespeak again Rheghead? Good one!:lol:
WAR IS PEACE.
PEACE IS WAR. :eek:
It takes two to argue.
The reality is that there are nutters like Amedinajhad in the world who would nuke Israel purely on religious grounds if he had the bomb.
If the bad boys have weapons then the good boys have to have bigger weapons.
Peace is worth fighting for.
"Peace is worth fighting for" is nothing but, pure, unequivocal doublethink. At it's finest. :confused
Try telling that to any citizen of a country who is being invaded. You wouldn't last very long I'd imagine...
The latest insult, we are all get our info from google, hehehe, haven't heard that one since irc.[lol]
Google is our god but we bow to your superior knowledge.http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b104/voltarol/77.gif
"Peace is worth fighting for" is nothing but, pure, unequivocal doublethink. At it's finest. :confused
It's like saying virginity is worth screwing for.
Try telling that to any citizen of a country who is being invaded. You wouldn't last very long I'd imagine...
Which one Afghanistan or Iraq?
Or shall we hang on a while and ask Iran?
Which one Afghanistan or Iraq?
Or shall we hang on a while and ask Iran?
You are so predictable.
Both.
It takes two to argue.
The reality is that there are nutters like Amedinajhad in the world who would nuke Israel purely on religious grounds if he had the bomb.
If the bad boys have weapons then the good boys have to have bigger weapons.
Peace is worth fighting for.
This is not about religion, but about the illegal occupation of land.
I am not aware of any comments of Amedinajhad that would suggest that he has a problem with anybody being a cristian or a jew rather than a muslim.
Your quotation " ...nutters like Amedinajhad in the world who would nuke Israel purely on religious grounds if he had the bomb" is pathetic and really little helpful.
Can you please provide some evidence that Iran would "nuke" anybody on religious grounds?
This is not about religion, but about the illegal occupation of land.
I am not aware of any comments of Amedinajhad that would suggest that he has a problem with anybody being a cristian or a jew rather than a muslim.
Your quotation " ...nutters like Amedinajhad in the world who would nuke Israel purely on religious grounds if he had the bomb" is pathetic and really little helpful.
Can you please provide some evidence that Iran would "nuke" anybody on religious grounds?
Iraq illegally occupied Kuwaiti lands yet Iran didn't call for Iraq to be wiped off the face of the Earth even considering all the bad blood between them. Yet it calls for Israel to wiped off the face of the Earth, the difference? Religion.
Kaishowing
01-Apr-07, 22:55
I seem to remember that Sadaam hid his entire air force in Iran not long after that....Is that a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend?...or two Middle Eastern countries calling a truce to face the greater enemy....us?
After their 8 year war (which had only ended about a couple of years previously) you'd think that only a powerful shared hatred or fear would force those two countries to abandon their mutual distrust.
As for Iran's attitude towards Israel....I would suggest the main issue is American sponsorship (less so nowadays...but still an issue)
The Jewish religion has always been a factor in that region, Israel hasn't.
Iraq illegally occupied Kuwaiti lands yet Iran didn't call for Iraq to be wiped off the face of the Earth even considering all the bad blood between them. Yet it calls for Israel to wiped off the face of the Earth, the difference? Religion.
So you think religion is the only difference between Iraq and Israel? That's pathetic and you know it.
So you think religion is the only difference between Iraq and Israel? That's pathetic and you know it.
Iran is an Islamic theocracy, the religious leaders are the real wielders of power. Israel is a Jewish parliamentary democracy.
I do not think religion is the only difference but it is the main one.
Iran is an Islamic theocracy, the religious leaders are the real wielders of power. Israel is a Jewish parliamentary democracy.
I do not think religion is the only difference but it is the main one.
Can you please show any evidence that Iran would consider to wipe 'another country of the map' purely on religious reasons?
May be you could try to provide a standard of evidence that is high enough to meet your own criteria?
Can you please show any evidence that Iran would consider to wipe 'another country of the map' purely on religious reasons?
May be you could try to provide a standard of evidence that is high enough to meet your own criteria?
A theocracy works on the basis of drawing its policy including its foreign policy from scripture.
Do you want a list of anti-semitic exerpts from the Koran?
Iraq illegally occupied Kuwaiti lands yet Iran didn't call for Iraq to be wiped off the face of the Earth even considering all the bad blood between them.
Can you provide proof of that statement?
Yet it calls for Israel to wiped off the face of the Earth, the difference? Religion.
No, they didn't call for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth.
You live in a fantasy world, you ignore reality, you ignore the facts, you just keep repeating the lies in the hope you repeat them enough times they will become true.
The rightful owners of a land are its indigenous inhabitants, in the case of that part of Palestine now called Israel that would be the Palestinians regardless of religion, there were Muslim, Jewish and Christian Palestinians indigenous to Palestine just as there are Muslim, Jewish and Christian Iranians.
The people now laying claim to Palestine are not its indigenous inhabitants, they have arrived there in the last hundred years from various parts of Europe where their ancestors had lived for centuries. They began the ethnic clensing of Palestine even before the British mandate ended, half of the refugees expelled were in the 6 weeks prior to it ending.
The UN partition plan of 1947 recomended that 56% of the land be set aside for a Jewish State, 42% for an Arab state and 2% for an internationalised Jerusalem, through a series of masacres the Zionists grabbed 77%.
Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel.
General Assembly Resolution 194, Dec. 11, 1948
"Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."
Israel's occupation of Palestine is Illegal.
Security Council Resolution 242, Nov. 22, 1967
Calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the war that year and "the acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
Israel's settlements in Palestine are Illegal.
Security Council Resolution 446, March 22, 1979
"Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."
Palestinian have the right to Self-Determination.
General Assembly Resolution 3236, November 22, 1974
Affirms "the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine...to self-determination without external interference" and "to national independence and sovereignty."
The Zionist regime in Israel has complied with none of these resolutions, that is what it is about.
By your logic, that means Iran wants to wipe every country off the map that isn't an Islamic theocracy! Who's the nutter now?[lol] Ridiculous!
I never said that.
Please do not tell me that you are assuming all Muslims are anti-semitic now are you?
Never said that either, are you arguing for the sake of it?
Can you provide proof of that statement?
Where have you been for the last 17 years?
A theocracy works on the basis of drawing its policy including its foreign policy from scripture.
Do you want a list of anti-semitic exerpts from the Koran?
Would a list "of anti-semitic exerpts from the Koran" proof anything about Iran's intention to destroy Israel?
Can you please show some decent evidence to back up your claim?
Would a list "of anti-semitic exerpts from the Koran" proof anything about Iran's intention to destroy Israel?
Would Iran be an effective theocracy if it didn't take its policy directly from scripture? It is God's word, no?
You're grasping at straws here!
I think you are trivialising the effect that Islam has on the lives of Iranians and other muslims.
Well, what are you saying here then Rheghead? Really? I think you are fantasising that there is some type of general religious hate of Muslims towards other religions.
The students that were pelting stones at the British Embassy were not students of International Law, Criminal Law but Islamic Studies. Why would students of Islamic studies turn out in their droves in protest over an unreligious matter?
I think you are trivialising the effect that Islam has on the lives of Iranians and other muslims.
So could you please enlighten me what effect the bible and christianity has on the leaders of US and UK and whether these effects are better or worse and why, compared with what you have told us about Islam and Iran?
So could you please enlighten me what effect the bible and christianity has on the leaders of US and UK and whether these effects are better or worse and why, compared with what you have told us about Islam and Iran?
I think it has a tremendous effect. When Bush spoke in terms of a 'crusade', it spoke volumes to me. When Blair is a closet Roman Catholic instead of coming out truthfully then that speaks volumes to me.
You truly have lost the plot now Rheghead. :eek:
Think again, Bush openly admits to God telling him that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
Are you suggesting religion doesn't have an effect on his foreign policy?
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article317805.ece
The bible says, Thou shalt not kill, mind?[para]
The Bible is the ideal book for the cherry-pickers of logic, same goes for the Koran. There are lots of references to killing and encouragement to kill.
They have been literary inspirations for almost all of the world's atrocities. I doubt if a future nuclear strike in the middle east should be an exemption to this rule.
Nope, just the politically motivated using anything they can to indoctrinate others.
Kaishowing
02-Apr-07, 01:34
Actually, in this case Rheghead is correct.
If you look at transcripts of speeches that George W Gump has made since 9/11 you'll notice that more and more frequently he quotes from the bible and paraphrases certain passages.
He's said quite openly that the success of the American trops is due to the fact that they're on a religiously inspired 'mission'.
He's even said that his place as president is a 'divine appointment'.
From being your run-of-the-mill born again Christian 9/11 has turned him into a genuine fire and brimstone messianic Calvinist.
Rather frightening when you combine that with his true belief that America is to lead the world to eradicate evil.
One of the most frightenting comments I've heard about is "Bush seems to make this mistake over and over again—confusing nation, church, and God. The resulting theology is more American civil religion than Christian faith."
Basically that he's remaking Christianity in his own image, and his country is letting him get away with it.
Look at the history of some of his speechwriters.....Alot have evangelical roots. So they make frequent use of biblical quotes, but the fact is that they're being taken totally out of context...something that the majority of Christian America conveniantly overlooks as long as there's a member of the religious right in the oval office.
Yup.....Dubya's a dangerous man.
Actually, in this case Rheghead is correct.
If you look at transcripts of speeches that George W Gump has made since 9/11 you'll notice that more and more frequently he quotes from the bible and paraphrases certain passages.
He's said quite openly that the success of the American trops is due to the fact that they're on a religiously inspired 'mission'.
He's even said that his place as president is a 'divine appointment'.
From being your run-of-the-mill born again Christian 9/11 has turned him into a genuine fire and brimstone messianic Calvinist.
Rather frightening when you combine that with his true belief that America is to lead the world to eradicate evil.
One of the most frightenting comments I've heard about is "Bush seems to make this mistake over and over again—confusing nation, church, and God. The resulting theology is more American civil religion than Christian faith."
Basically that he's remaking Christianity in his own image, and his country is letting him get away with it.
Look at the history of some of his speechwriters.....Alot have evangelical roots. So they make frequent use of biblical quotes, but the fact is that they're being taken totally out of context...something that the majority of Christian America conveniantly overlooks as long as there's a member of the religious right in the oval office.
Yup.....Dubya's a dangerous man.Did you google that.;)
Come now jaws, do you believe that leahy, nimitz, halsey and bonesteel are liars?
Not in the least, just that such claims about them without indication of the source and the context of what they said is not very convincing.
Are you saying that they all claim to have known, before the fact, that they knew exactly at what time the Japanese were going to announce that they had Surrendered?
If so, what is the source of the information where they say this.
I ask simply because all the indications were that the Japanese were hoping that, by going via the Russians, they could avoid surrendering directly to Americans and British.
cliffhbuber
02-Apr-07, 04:00
A fine daze to all! A few comments on the latest phase of this discussion.
Re: Bush and the 2 dimensional gang..(that can't shoot straight)
Most in North America do not believe that Bush has enough background knowledge to make prudent decisions in international affairs.
Bush has said for years he doesn't read and it is quite obvious.
His clinging to religious zeal is taken by many as rhetoric to please the religious right which represents about 20 to 25% of the Republican vote in recent elections.
As for Bush being a true religious believer, that is anyone's guess.
People will do anything to create an image for politics.
A number of the right-wing religious leaders in the US preach hatred for other religious groups, and at times, come across as batty as religious zealots around the world.
The Bush White House team have politicized foreign affairs to deal with the domestic image. A root cause for going to war was to get the votes for the 2002 November election. Another lingering sore was the promise by Bush 1 that the Shiites would be aided by the US if they revolted against Saddam in 1991/2. Many Shiites tried to revolt, but the US did nothing.
Cheney and Rumsfeld convinced Bush W. that the US had to revisit the Iraq issue to gain self-respect.
The oil issue should not be left out of the equation as the White House did for almost 4 years. Late last Fall, Bush conceded that the US would have to stay in Iraq to protect the oil interests. (VP Cheney was a past CEO of Halliburton, an oil giant, which got the non-bid contract to rebuild the oil fields in Iraq)
Although Bush passed signed a bill to become law while Governor of Texas that has made that state the greatest producer of wind power, he has not considered publicly similar legislation for the country.
The move to ethanol is but a kickback for corn (the ears and stalks kind of corn) farmers as that fuel cannot be transported by pipeline, requires a present subsidy of 40 cents US a gallon, and gets far less mileage than gasoline or diesel fuel.
Ethanol made from sugar cane a in Brazil gets about 9 times more value for the dollar than ethanol made from corn.
With a diminishing educated class, relative to a huge immigrant and underclass population, and with a disappearing middle class, the US is not in a very favourable position in trying to be the world's policeman nor to take on up and coming trade powerhouses such as India and China.
With China holding 100s of billions in US treasury bonds, the States has been very reluctant to challenge China on trade practices or copyright theft.
It is always easy for outsiders to criticize the States, but criticism is necessary when a huge elephant may trample on the ants.
For those outsiders, myself included, a good tactic is to encourage the millions of decent and sensible Americans who want real change.
What other country would we want to call the some of the shots in world affairs?
As Churchill once stated, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Not in the least, just that such claims about them without indication of the source and the context of what they said is not very convincing.
Are you saying that they all claim to have known, before the fact, that they knew exactly at what time the Japanese were going to announce that they had Surrendered?
If so, what is the source of the information where they say this.
I ask simply because all the indications were that the Japanese were hoping that, by going via the Russians, they could avoid surrendering directly to Americans and British.The source, some wrote memoirs, (which I have read, not on google by the way.:D) and previously unreleased statements.
The context was the utter disgust of certain military men, (eisenhower and macArthur in particular), at the a-bomb having been used and their reasons why it was unnessessary.
I am not saying and never infered that they knew exactly when the japanese were going to announce their surrender only that they knew that the japanese had been trying to do so before the soviets entered the war.
oldmarine
02-Apr-07, 05:39
As japan had been trying to surrender months before the bombings, was the A-bomb used as a show of military might to keep stalin's russia underfoot?
Where did you get that false information? Someone has been feeding you a bunch of poppycock. I was there for 36 months and from what I observed Japan certainly was not trying to surrender months before the two A-bombs were dropped. The only two A-bombs in our arsenal were required to force the Japanese Emperor to talk his people into surrender over the objections of the Japanese warlords.
cliffhbuber
02-Apr-07, 06:00
Oldmarine is quite correct in that the Japanese military dictatorship showed no interest in unconditonal surrender (as mentioned earlier) until well after the dropping the the 2nd A-bomb.
The generally accepted figure for casualties of an American attack on the Japanese mainland was 500 000.
Also, the US was by far the largest force fighting the Japanese on their outpost islands such as Iwo JIma and Okinawa.
Where did you get that false information? Someone has been feeding you a bunch of poppycock. I was there for 36 months and from what I observed Japan certainly was not trying to surrender months before the two A-bombs were dropped. The only two A-bombs in our arsenal were required to force the Japanese Emperor to talk his people into surrender over the objections of the Japanese warlords.
The world survives for millions of years without atomic weapons and the moment one is developed, for use against Hitler should he develop one as well, it becomes imperative to use it on Japan.
Two men fighting, one is beaten, laid there gasping unable to rise unable to throw another punch and the other one takes out a gun and shoots him...twice, where is the honour in that?
Not one bomb fell on America in WWII, Japan's cities had been flattened, every target of any strategic importance at all had been flattened, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian targets.
It cannot be justified, if a country was facing certain defeat then I could see the justification for using such a devastating weapon but not when a country had already won, not when there was the alternative to discus terms of surrender with Japan, not when they prolonged the war for weeks just to give themselves chance to use it.
I ask simply because all the indications were that the Japanese were hoping that, by going via the Russians, they could avoid surrendering directly to Americans and British.
So what were they hoping when they tried to discus terms of surrender through direct contact with American diplomats and OSS employees in Sweden and Switzerland?
cliffhbuber
02-Apr-07, 12:34
Not one bomb fell on America in WWII, Japan's cities had been flattened, every target of any strategic importance at all had been flattened, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian targets.
It cannot be justified, if a country was facing certain defeat then I could see the justification for using such a devastating weapon but not when a country had already won, not when there was the alternative to discus terms of surrender with Japan, not when they prolonged the war for weeks just to give themselves chance to use it.
- The US was shelled by at least one Japanese sub off the coast of Oregon. About 1000 ballon bombs fell across the western half of the US (and a few in Canada).
- We might think it was logical for the Japanese to surrender, but they did not.
The population was brainwashed to think that dying for one's country was the ultimate honour; to surrender was the ultimate shame.
The total control of the media and educational systems, whether Nazi, Soviet, or Japanese, took away the ability of many citizens to think logically. The citizenry was trained to support the dictatorship at all costs.
Anyone who thought independently, contrary to the government's policies, would be taken care of by secret police, etc.
In our states of free thinking, hindsight can be an enjoyable, if not frustrating, mental exercise, but we have to try and live the times to appreciate decisions of the day.
Blazing Sporrans
02-Apr-07, 13:25
oldmarine and cliff - I'm afraid that when it comes to debating life, history and the mysteries of the cosmos on the Org, there is only one universal truth, which is;
"What are mere facts and personal experiences compared to the magnitude of fred's opinions?".
Here endeth the lesson [lol]
Not one bomb fell on America in WWII,
Hmmm, and here was me thinking that Pearl Harbour was part of America :confused shows how wrong I can be if I listen to Fred, oh weel, there no fool lek an owld fool [lol]
Where did you get that false information? Someone has been feeding you a bunch of poppycock. I was there for 36 months and from what I observed Japan certainly was not trying to surrender months before the two A-bombs were dropped. The only two A-bombs in our arsenal were required to force the Japanese Emperor to talk his people into surrender over the objections of the Japanese warlords.Try reading the post directly above your own.:roll:
So what were they hoping when they tried to discus terms of surrender through direct contact with American diplomats and OSS employees in Sweden and Switzerland?
“On July 8, 1945, Joseph Grew, the Acting Secretary of State, reported to the Secretary a message from the American envoy in Stockholm: Major-General Onodera, the Japanese military attaché there, had just invited to dinner Prince Carl Bernadotte. Over dinner, the attaché had told the Swede that Japan knew that the war was lost, and that the Emperor and government had authorised him to make direct contact with King Gustav when the right time comes with a view to contacting the Allies. Apart from stating that the Emperor must be maintained in his position after the Japanese capitulation, no condition was specified. Onodera did however stress that the right time had not yet come -- so the Americans were not to be informed of this approach yet. But meanwhile he asked Bernadotte to arrange a meeting with his father Carl Sr., who was brother of King Gustaf and President of the Swedish Red Cross.”
http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Japan_surrender_attempts/July_1945.html
By 6 August it was obvious that “the right time had not yet come”, neither had it by 9 August.
I find it rather strange that the Japanese should be negotiating with the OSS in Sweden at the same time that they are talking to the Swedes and telling them specifically not to inform the Americans.
If what you say is true (and I notice you do not quote a source) then the Japanese were feeding disinformation to at least the Swedes and common sense would dictate to the OSS also to ensure the Americans did not approach the Swedes directly. I can find no reference to the Japanese negotiating their surrender via the OSS.
Likewise with respect to Switzerland, I can find no reference to any Japanese negotiations prior to the aforementioned dates or after for that matter.
It would be of great help if you could show some back-up for your information which, as usual, is delightfully devoid of verifiable facts.
Kaishowing
02-Apr-07, 17:30
Don't know about Switzerland...But there is some evidence to suggest that an almost identical peace proposal to the one the Japanese signed in September, was proposed by the Japanese themselves to MacArthur in January. He forwarded it to Roosevelt prior to his visit to Yalta for the 'Big Three' meeting.
As to why it wasn't acted on?...Or if Roosevelt's declining health was an issue?
Who knows.
The offer was made and rejected. Without knowing the full facts at hand at the time we're not in any position to judge.
Eagle-eyed hindsight is easy.
The offer was made and rejected. Without knowing the full facts at hand at the time we're not in any position to judge.
Eagle-eyed hindsight is easy.
Good to see someone else get to the point instead of batting urls back and forth across the net. This seems to be Jaws and Rheghead vs fred and roy as much as anything else.
Pick any subject and the same names will be there on Centre Court at the Org Wimbledon Doubles Championship.
"Advantage Rheghead and Jaws"
Now finish them off before rain stops play and Sir Cliff starts warbling from his botoxed heid!!
sorghaghtanibeki
02-Apr-07, 18:00
exactly scorrie!
Kaishowing Rheghead and Jaws "hindsight is a exact science'
Kaishowing
02-Apr-07, 18:29
"hindsight is a exact science'
Only with the full facts. Something we dont have the luxury of unfortunately.
cliffhbuber
02-Apr-07, 18:49
Now finish them off before rain stops play and Sir Cliff starts warbling from his botoxed heid!!
:) Dat's for shore! The warblers are returning from their winter climes, and there is nothing that beats a soapbox of botox...light enough to carry off when the rotten tomatoes and cabbage head one's way.
As me great 9x grandpappy, Huisdean Dhu M'Kay said up there in Durness, "When you go out on the rocky ledge to relieve yourself, be sure there is enough room to turn around. Backing up in a tail wind can be nasty."
Aye!
Kaishowing, sorghaghtanibeki, I couldn't agree more.
People are always good at telling you that they knew exactly what was going to occur yesterday but, strangely enough, never bothered to announce the fact on the day prior to that.
I have no idea what would have happened regarding the surrender of Japan had Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been bombed, and neither has anybody else.
All even the wisest can do, under the circumstances, is use the exact science of Guesswork and to present that as “fact” is, to say the least, intentionally misleading.
Hmmm, and here was me thinking that Pearl Harbour was part of America :confused shows how wrong I can be if I listen to Fred, oh weel, there no fool lek an owld fool [lol]
Pearl harbour is part of America.
It wasn't when the bombs fell on it though, it didn't become part of America till 1959.
- The US was shelled by at least one Japanese sub off the coast of Oregon. About 1000 ballon bombs fell across the western half of the US (and a few in Canada).
- We might think it was logical for the Japanese to surrender, but they did not.
The population was brainwashed to think that dying for one's country was the ultimate honour; to surrender was the ultimate shame.
The total control of the media and educational systems, whether Nazi, Soviet, or Japanese, took away the ability of many citizens to think logically. The citizenry was trained to support the dictatorship at all costs.
Anyone who thought independently, contrary to the government's policies, would be taken care of by secret police, etc.
In our states of free thinking, hindsight can be an enjoyable, if not frustrating, mental exercise, but we have to try and live the times to appreciate decisions of the day.
Being shelled by one submarine does not justify nuking two cities.
The people of Japan were brainwashed into doing whatever their Emporor told them to do, if he told them to commit suicide they would commit suicide, if he told them to surrender they would surrender.
The bombs wern't used as tactical military weapons against an enemy force, they were used as instruments of terror against a civillian population, terrorism in it's most extreme form.
So if Germany had crushed the British Navy and Airforce, cut off our supply lines, would they have been justified in using nuclear weapons on British civillians to end the war sooner and save the lives of German soldiers?
We'll fight them on the beaches; we'll fight them in the trenches; we'll fight them in the city; we'll fight them in the valleys; but we shall never, never, never surrender.
Winston Churchill
Being shelled by one submarine does not justify nuking two cities.
The people of Japan were brainwashed into doing whatever their Emporor told them to do, if he told them to commit suicide they would commit suicide, if he told them to surrender they would surrender.
The bombs wern't used as tactical military weapons against an enemy force, they were used as instruments of terror against a civillian population, terrorism in it's most extreme form.
So if Germany had crushed the British Navy and Airforce, cut off our supply lines, would they have been justified in using nuclear weapons on British civillians to end the war sooner and save the lives of German soldiers?
So is that you admitting to being wrong about America being bombed? Whatever you think may or may not have happened if they had not been used is irrelevant - they were.
sorghaghtanibeki
02-Apr-07, 19:42
"So if Germany had crushed the British Navy and Airforce, cut off our supply lines, would they have been justified in using nuclear weapons on British civillians to end the war sooner and save the lives of German soldiers?" Would the british still be murdering thousands ofslave laborers on the railway lines, would the british still be using suicide pilots, would the british still be fighting and dieing willingly, would the british still be experimenting biologically on humans, and as the germans were still in process of murdering 6,000,000 jews, gypsies, queers and political people, then dropping a few a bombs would be quite minor
cliffhbuber
02-Apr-07, 19:56
Re: the status of Hawaii in 1941.. It was an American Territory since 1900; thus, it was part of the US...as you know the US Pacific Fleet was stationed at Pearl Harbour when the Japanese attacked.
Your arguments about whether the US (or any other country) should have used the bomb seem to be based on an anti-nuclear bias, which I am sure most of us today have.
However, the choice of weapons leading to the unconditional surrender of Japan, was on the table for discussion in front of President Harry Truman.
Should the firebombing of the large cities by B29s continue? (It was good enough from my point of view).
Or should the US invade the Japanese homeland to fight to the last drop of those defending the Rising Sun?
What would it take to prevent hundreds of thousands of US casualties?
That was the question, for better or worse, not how many Japanese would be killed.
'Bomber' Harris is accused of firebombing German cities. Sadly, in wartime, most don't have the time to philosophize about killing citizens, 'nicely'.
I'm sure the good folks of London and Southern England didn't reflect on the destruction of Berlin, Hamburg, or Dresden as V-1s and V-2s came droning in on them.
War is war, and as often is the case, the crazy leaders don't give a hoot about their own people.
One of Hitler's last memorable (recorded) diatribes was to blame the German people for letting him down. He said the Germans didn't deserve to live.
We are but particles of dust in the eons of history. We do what we have to, to survive.
Discussion is good. Maybe down the road, some leaders, dictators or otherwise, may be less inclined to go for the all-out wipeout of humanity.
Being shelled by one submarine does not justify nuking two cities.
The people of Japan were brainwashed into doing whatever their Emporor told them to do, if he told them to commit suicide they would commit suicide, if he told them to surrender they would surrender.
The bombs wern't used as tactical military weapons against an enemy force, they were used as instruments of terror against a civillian population, terrorism in it's most extreme form.
So if Germany had crushed the British Navy and Airforce, cut off our supply lines, would they have been justified in using nuclear weapons on British civillians to end the war sooner and save the lives of German soldiers?
OK fred, what would you have done had you been in charge at the time?
Bearing in mind that there was no Google back then, I think it is pretty safe to say that you would have wet your little pants and cried like a baby. Google Heavyweight, real life Paperweight!!
So is that you admitting to being wrong about America being bombed? Whatever you think may or may not have happened if they had not been used is irrelevant - they were.
I must admit to not knowing about the balloon bombs, even I don't know everything. I was thinking of conventional bombs dropped from a plane when I made the statement, the sort that rained down on Coventry, London, Dresden and Tokyo, rather than an anti personel mine tied to a hydrogen balloon.
Atomic bombs undoubtedly were used but it is far from irrelevant, it is entirely relevant to the situation we are in today. In 1945 America was the only country in the world with atomic weapons and they determined to keep it that way. They knew that as sole nuclear power there was no war they could not win, they always had the ace of trumps up thier sleeve, every other country in the world would have to back down or face anihilation. They had achieved what Hitler had only dreamt of.
What is relevant is the ease with which they sold one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century to the public. Even today people still say "we saved thousands of lives" and believe it, they don't give a thought to the tens of thousands of women, children, babies who perished and worse, the ones who survived, for a while at least.
Then Russia aquired nuclear technology and the world was safe while the people were told they were now in mortal danger and believed it. There was a balance, neither side could use their ultimate weapon or it would be used against them. In the late 20th century America did try to cancel out the Soviet balance with a Star Wars Program so they could use their ultimate weapon without fear of retaliation and the people were told this was to make them safer and the people believed it.
Now since the fall of the Soviet Union we have entered a new era, once again a faction in control of the American government have their sights set on total world domination, a unipolar Mammon worshiping world. Would they use nuclear weapons again to achieve their goal? You bet they would, just as in 1945 they would not hesitate the moment they thought they could get away with it. The only question is how would they sell it to the people this time, would it be sold as cheaply as the last.
"So if Germany had crushed the British Navy and Airforce, cut off our supply lines, would they have been justified in using nuclear weapons on British civillians to end the war sooner and save the lives of German soldiers?" Would the british still be murdering thousands ofslave laborers on the railway lines, would the british still be using suicide pilots, would the british still be fighting and dieing willingly, would the british still be experimenting biologically on humans, and as the germans were still in process of murdering 6,000,000 jews, gypsies, queers and political people, then dropping a few a bombs would be quite minor
You seem to think that Germany and Japan were not justified in their actions in WWII.
Do I take this to mean they would also be not justified in using nuclear weapons or are you suggesting they would?
It seems that Japan was working on an A-bomb of her own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unterseeboot_234
U234
The U-boat was loaded with examples of the finest of Germany's war technology: an entire dismantled Me-262 jet fighter, V-2 missile components, plans for other armaments and, most extraordinary of all, 550 kilograms (1,213lb) of uranium oxide – enough raw material for two atomic bombs. In addition, there were some unusual passengers: several high-ranking German experts and two Japanese officers.
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/i-m/lastdays1.html
The U-boat was on it’s way from Germany to Japan with it’s cargo when the War in Europe ended. As a result the Crew surrendered to the Americans on 14 May 1945. The Japanese, who were supposedly thinking of nothing but how to Surrender at that time, had sent two Officers to accompany the cargo. The two Japanese Officers committed Hara Kari rather than surrendering with the German Crew.
Seems rather strange to carry such material by U-boat all the way from Germany to Japan so that the Japanese would receive it just in time for them to surrender.
The material was eventually delivered to it’s intended destination by air.
It seems that Japan was working on an A-bomb of her own.
They were up until 1943, they didn't get very far and decided that it would be impossible for Japan, or America, to build an atomic bomb before the end of the war and abandoned the project to concentrate their efforts on developing radar.
Why do you extrapulate Germany, when it was obvious they had lost the war, sending materials they didn't want to fall into allied hands to Japan into "Japan was working on an A-bomb of their own"? Are you so desperate to defend the indefencible?
They were up until 1943, they didn't get very far and decided that it would be impossible for Japan, or America, to build an atomic bomb before the end of the war and abandoned the project to concentrate their efforts on developing radar.
Why do you extrapulate Germany, when it was obvious they had lost the war, sending materials they didn't want to fall into allied hands to Japan into "Japan was working on an A-bomb of their own"? Are you so desperate to defend the indefencible?
U234 was on the way to Japan packed with enriched uranium, was it just going to Japan just for show?:roll: It wasn't 1943, it was 1945.
U234 was on the way to Japan packed with enriched uranium, was it just going to Japan just for show?:roll: It wasn't 1943, it was 1945.
So they get Vallery Singleton to knock up an atomic bomb out of a couple of toilet rolls and an empty washing up liquid bottle then what? They hadn't even managed to land a conventional bomb on an American city and they didn't have enough petrol for the Imperial Palace lawnmower.
The uranium was going to Japan so the Americans wouldn't get their hands on it.
Rheghead and Jaws, why do you continue to give fantasy fred credibility by responding to his tosh?
There comes a time when nonsense outstays its welcome.
For your own credibility, let the Court Jester have the last word so that he can retire to channel 634 and wallow in his own sense of self-satisfaction.
The superior being has spoken, even God cowers down and lets the bairn have his bottle for the greater good of mankind and the lessening of the fiery Hades that is "bored to the diddies" via the Noble Knight "Sir Chin Gin"
sorghaghtanibeki
04-Apr-07, 21:54
fred; Imperial Palace lawnmower was push sort
Having just seen what the Japs did to the inhabitants of Singapore and the garrison here, I am glad they dropped the bombs on Japan. No doubt the other countries they invaded on the way here were treated as appallingly.
They WOULD have fought to the last man - of that there is no doubt. 'oldmarine' was there - how much more of a eyewitness does fred et al want?
If fred wishes to think as he does let him. I suspect if he had a hand in WWII in the far east we'd still be fighting. Or maybe speaking Japanese....
Having just seen what the Japs did to the inhabitants of Singapore and the garrison here, I am glad they dropped the bombs on Japan. No doubt the other countries they invaded on the way here were treated as appallingly.
They WOULD have fought to the last man - of that there is no doubt. 'oldmarine' was there - how much more of a eyewitness does fred et al want?
If fred wishes to think as he does let him. I suspect if he had a hand in WWII in the far east we'd still be fighting. Or maybe speaking Japanese....
Or maybe we'd all be typing away at computers made by Japanese companies, listening Japanese radios and watching Japanese televisions, cooking our food in Japanese microwaves and driving Japanese cars.
I've met a few Japanese people, they are a beautiful people with a beautiful culture, not a bit like the picture you paint of them.
sorghaghtanibeki
05-Apr-07, 19:39
fred; Unit 731?
North Rhins
05-Apr-07, 19:52
I’ve been off line for a couple of weeks, having discovered that laptops don’t bounce, in fact gravity wins every time.
Having now had time to catch up on all the different threads and subjects, I must confess to a sense of déjà vu. It would appear, Fred that you still have the ability to infect every topic you reply to. Your constant attempts to corrupt and manipulate issues open to debate is as predictable as it is tedious.
Your relentless compulsion to attribute the world’s problems on either a) America, b) a conspiracy or c) an American conspiracy is verging on the psychotic.
Rather than relying on this forum to live out your fantasies, I think you would be better served by seeking professional help.
Whatever the solution might be Fred, for the love of the wee man give it a rest.
fred; Unit 731?
Is that a reason to hate the entire Japanese race?
I don't put the blame for Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the American people, I put the blame on the American Government. I doubt you would find many Japanese who would defend the attrocities of Unit 731, why do you defend the attrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I’ve been off line for a couple of weeks, having discovered that laptops don’t bounce, in fact gravity wins every time.
I thought the clique were a bit short handed.
If you don't like what I write don't read it.
why do you defend the attrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
It is not something that I enjoy but it is something that is needed to be done.
1945 was before the days of nuke proliferation treaties, the IAEA and the UN. We were at war, the Japanese were at war. We were shooting at them, they were shooting at us. The Allies had a big weapon and they used it, tough cheddar if you were on the other end of it, it served a purpose.
We cannot take the Abombs in isolation and feel bad about them, we have to take in the whole picture or at least try to inorder to put it in context.
In 1945, everyone in the Pacific region hated the Japanese. The Chinese suffered at least 15 million civillian casualties due to them in their war. The Americans, still a largely apartheid country, got hit by them and wanted to hurt the yellow man. We were no better and the Indians hated them. And the Burmese, well that is another one. Revenge was high on the agenda.
Quite frankly, no one could of given a monkey's whether the bombs were dropped, so long as they ended the war and it hurt the Japanese.
You have just got to analyse it in the spirit of the times and not put an apologetic, liberalist angle on it. It saves a lot of brain cells that way as well.
Hindsight is so easy, but when you are looking down the barrel of a Japanese gun, you just don't have time to weigh up the ethics of blasting 200,000 of them to kingdom come so long as the holder of the said gun is in the blast zone.
The Japanese of today are nice people and I know several - but only because they got their asses well and truly wupped 60 years ago. Just as the Germans are nice people - apart from them claiming the sun loungers every where they go (invading places is still hard to get over)...
But 60 years ago the Japanese were slaughtering innocent people left, right and centre as they drove the Rising Sun across the Far East. I know my history and I knew of the atrocities carried out in the name of the Emperor but when you stand and read the personal stories of people subjected to the barbarity of the Japanese, it tends to sink in a little deeper.
The little notes pinned to the walls in the Chapel and Museum of Changi Prison from relatives of prisoners who died at the hands of the Japanese focuses the mind (just as my mind was focused after visiting Bergen Belsen Concentration Camp).
The Japanese had no regard for human life.
To them to surrender in battle was dishonourable. Anyone who surrendered to them was not honourable and so they treated them like dirt.
The Korean "comfort women" forced to follow the Japanese around the Far East to provide 'services' for their troops.
Forcing prisoners to build the Burma railway on a bowl of rice a day.
Ignoring the Geneva Convention (waits for fred to bring up Gitmo).
The list of their attrocities is endless.
Just as the war in the Far East would have been endless and very, very bloody if the Allies would have had to march into Tokyo...(as 'oldmarine' has confirmed)
The Japanese soldiers who, 40 years after the end of the war, were still serving their Emperor in the jungles of islands in the Pacific, show how determined they would have been if there had been an invasion of Japan.
The 'bomb' is a terrible weapon, and thankfully it has only been used twice. But both times were justified IMO. An opinion shared by many, many people.
Hindsight is so easy, but when you are looking down the barrel of a Japanese gun, you just don't have time to weigh up the ethics of blasting 200,000 of them to kingdom come so long as the holder of the said gun is in the blast zone.
Since when did the orchestrators of war care a hoot about the cannon fodder? They never have, even today the American government sends their troops into battle without body armour and hides the returning wounded away in rat infested dumps while handing billions to their corporate chums.
"It saved American lives" wasn't the reason, that was just the excuse. The war was over for Japan there was no doubt of that, America was flattening Japanese cities with conventional bombs and Japan couldn't even put fighters up to defend them, they had no Navy to defend their supply routes. Then on April 5th 1945 Russia denounced the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact and that is when Japan started trying to surrender to America.
If America really cared about the lives of their troops there was a solution which would have cost the life of not one American serviceman and saved the lives of the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just wait and let Russia finish the job.
Alternatively they could just have accepted a conditional surrender from Japan.
America had the means to end the war, instead they prolonged the war and cost the lives of American servicemen just so they could use their bombs.
Then on April 5th 1945 Russia denounced the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact and that is when Japan started trying to surrender to America.
There isn't one contemporary piece of evidence to support this.
And why would Japan talk surrender to a country she wasn't at war with?
Japan and Russia were engaged in a 'peace talk' but not on Japanese terms, it was veiled as a peace talk but only to buy time for Russia to mobilise its troops along the Russian border which she eventually did. This is historical fact. Russia couldn't be at war with Japan before because she couldn't fight on 2 fronts, but when Germany fell then Russia looked towards her eastern flank.
Alternatively they could just have accepted a conditional surrender from Japan.
No they couldn't. The terms of their surrender was decided well before the development of the A bomb, at the Casablanca Conference. The allies decided then that Germany and Japan must unconditionally surrender.
Rheghead and Jaws, why do you continue to give fantasy fred credibility by responding to his tosh?
I can see your point but I can go on for years like this.:D I love history and it gives me an opportunity to look it up for the real events that took place. The taller that fred makes his stories, the wiser that I become.
No they couldn't. The terms of their surrender was decided well before the development of the A bomb, at the Casablanca Conference. The allies decided then that Germany and Japan must unconditionally surrender.
Well I think they could have changed their minds to save the lives of a quarter of a million innocent people.
Well I think they could have changed their minds to save the lives of a quarter of a million innocent people.
Impossible. An agreement is an agreement with all the allies. America could not have unilaterally changed that decision.
Impossible. An agreement is an agreement with all the allies. America could not have unilaterally changed that decision.
Why not? The American government isn't exactly famous for sticking to their agreements, ask any Native American.
sorghaghtanibeki
06-Apr-07, 19:40
fred. your threads all finish blaming the USA. so as you are so very far from reality that i too am taking the path of all the others and leaving you in you own naive wonderland, i think again Rheghead you must have patents of a saint!
Well I think they could have changed their minds to save the lives of a quarter of a million innocent people.
Indeed, quarter of a million Japanese lives, what about the millions of Chinese woman and children that the Japanese had happily been exterminating for several years?
Fred you live in a strange world, the Japanese culture was very different to the "western allies" culture at the time, they lived in a military society in which unconditional surrender was not an option. To drop the bomb was the only quick way to end the war.
Indeed, quarter of a million Japanese lives, what about the millions of Chinese woman and children that the Japanese had happily been exterminating for several years?
Fred you live in a strange world, the Japanese culture was very different to the "western allies" culture at the time, they lived in a military society in which unconditional surrender was not an option. To drop the bomb was the only quick way to end the war.
Not the bomb, the bombs.
Like I said, if unconditional surrender wasn't an option then negotiate a conditional surrender. The children and babies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't killed any Chinese and the military rulers who had wern't there.
Not the bomb, the bombs.
Like I said, if unconditional surrender wasn't an option then negotiate a conditional surrender. The children and babies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't killed any Chinese and the military rulers who had wern't there.
Indeed they had not, but what would the Imperial Japanese Army still stationed in China have done over the following months? Would they have stopped their slaughter?
You also seem to be forgetting that the Red Army had just started to invade the northern territories that were held by the Japanese. The Red Army, as you should know were not particularly bothered about casualites, civilian or military and the resultant several months would have been very costly for both sides
fred. your threads all finish blaming the USA. so as you are so very far from reality that i too am taking the path of all the others and leaving you in you own naive wonderland, i think again Rheghead you must have patents of a saint!
Sorghaghtanibeki
This is a thread about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It should not come as a surprise that the USA get some blame in this threat. In my opinion they were wrong to drop the bombs. They were wrong in Vietnam and they are wrong in Iraq. If you would pay more attention to what Fred writes. you would realize that he blames the USA government of wrongdoing and not the people of the USA. Sorghaghtanibeki let me ask you a question: Do you trust the UK and the USA governments after all the rubbish they told their people prior to the invasion of Iraq? Remember most nations of the UN did not approve of the invasion. It was only the majority of the governments of the 'coalition of the brave' that was keen to start a war.
Besides, I truly believe that in some occasions it requires more guts to say NO to war than to run with the masses and to promote the nuking of civilians.
Rambler, as you point out this is about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whilst I agree with some of your post, you have to remember that both Germany and Japan were agressive military states who had been responsible for horiffic atrocities against the citizens of the countries they had occupied.
The actions of the US in this light are understandable, remember they had been attacked by Japan and not the other way round. They were not sticking their nose in where it was not wanted.
j4bberw0ck
06-Apr-07, 23:53
In my opinion they were wrong to drop the bombs. They were wrong in Vietnam and they are wrong in Iraq.
I think it might be better to say that it's your view that the US was wrong, and that it's your view that they were wrong in Vietnam and wrong in Iraq.
To dignify your view as an opinion suggests that you were there and have special or specialist knowledge leading you to a reasoned conclusion.
I'd be very surprised if reason formed any part of anything that might be considered a thinking process, or that you were there or have that knowledge. Unless you can confirm otherwise ? (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=209835&postcount=14)
Indeed they had not, but what would the Imperial Japanese Army still stationed in China have done over the following months? Would they have stopped their slaughter?
You also seem to be forgetting that the Red Army had just started to invade the northern territories that were held by the Japanese. The Red Army, as you should know were not particularly bothered about casualites, civilian or military and the resultant several months would have been very costly for both sides
Yes the Red Army was massing it's troops on the Manchurian border which is why the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nothing to do with saving the lives of American troops, nothing to do with saving lives in China, it was a purely strategic decission to stop Russia from grabbing as much territory as they could before the Japanese surrender, if America allowed them to surrender or more likely the invasions if they didn't and to keep China out of Communist hands. That is why the second bomb was dropped only three days after the first, the Japanese had got the message, the bomb dropped on Nagasaki was unneccessary, they were going to surrender but America wanted them to surrender quickly so they killed another 75,000 innocent civillians to keep as much of Eastern Asia out of Communist hands as possible.
There followed two more wars in Korea and Vietnam and a lot more people were killed for the same reason because that is why people always get killed, over political ideals, power, wealth and territory. People are never killed for humanitarian reasons, not there, not in Hiroshima, not in Nagasaki, not ever, that is just the excuse.
They're doing it again with Iraq, saying how we invaded to give the poor oppressed Iraqi people freedom from an evil dictator and people are believing it even though all the contempory evidence talks of weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda links. They believe it because they want to believe it, to ease their consciences but the fact is it was all about political ideals, power, wealth and territory, it always is.
Yes the Red Army was massing it's troops on the Manchurian border which is why the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nothing to do with saving the lives of American troops, nothing to do with saving lives in China, it was a purely strategic decission to stop Russia from grabbing as much territory as they could before the Japanese surrender, if America allowed them to surrender or more likely the invasions if they didn't and to keep China out of Communist hands. That is why the second bomb was dropped only three days after the first, the Japanese had got the message, the bomb dropped on Nagasaki was unneccessary, they were going to surrender but America wanted them to surrender quickly so they killed another 75,000 innocent civillians to keep as much of Eastern Asia out of Communist hands as possible.
There followed two more wars in Korea and Vietnam and a lot more people were killed for the same reason because that is why people always get killed, over political ideals, power, wealth and territory. People are never killed for humanitarian reasons, not there, not in Hiroshima, not in Nagasaki, not ever, that is just the excuse.
They're doing it again with Iraq, saying how we invaded to give the poor oppressed Iraqi people freedom from an evil dictator and people are believing it even though all the contempory evidence talks of weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda links. They believe it because they want to believe it, to ease their consciences but the fact is it was all about political ideals, power, wealth and territory, it always is.
You are again trying to draw similarities of Japan with Iraq. I dislike it when you hijack the thread in that way. It was a different conflict in a different age. There was no indication that Japan was trying to surrender before the Nagasaki bomb. They only had to tell their troops to stop firing and that would be it. Game over.
The logic that dropping the bombs was done to stop a land grab by Russia is beyond my logic when it was after the bomb was dropped that Russia declared war.
But you are right, no bomb is dropped for humanitarian reasons at the time it is dropped but history will see the Abombs that way because hindsight is an exact science. That is why it is justifiable.
Can you see a course for the Japanese conflict if the Bombs weren't dropped? If you could roll back the tape and delete then history could have been very different. In fact there could be an alternative fred on here bleating on about why the US didn't drop the bomb and bring a swift end to the war. Was it justified to murder 30 million Japanese in the alternative history when the Abomb could have stopped it dead?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't! [lol]
sorghaghtanibeki
07-Apr-07, 08:19
Rambler: "If you would pay more attention to what Fred writes" this is a joke, yes?
The actions of the US in this light are understandable, remember they had been attacked by Japan and not the other way round. They were not sticking their nose in where it was not wanted.
So you think it all started with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour? Have you never wondered why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour? A Japanese invasion of America was an impossibility what do you think they hoped to gain?
It started 200 years earlier with China, China was a very rich country full of things we wanted but we had nothing they wanted so we had to pay for the goods we got from them with gold and silver. Before long the rich merchants of the West realised that if gold and silver kept on dissapearing into China while consumables like tea came out eventually all our gold and silver would end up in China. So we and our ally Japan, got the population of China adicted to opium just so we would have something to sell them to get our gold and silver back. By the time the 20th century arrived and the invention of more adictive forms of opium like morphine and heroin China was a crippled, much of their population were drug adicts and the Chinese government had had a couple of wars with the West to try and stop the trade, which was illegal in China.
So when Japan started to emerge as an industrial nation with a great thirst for raw materials China was the obvious choice, we had been keeping them weak. The only problem was the Western companies who wern't too happy when Japan decided to cut them out of the action. When Japan invaded China in 1931 the West and in particular America responded with a series of trade embargos and sanctions cutting off Japan's supplies of raw materials like scrap metal and eventually their supply of oil from the west. Japan had to choose between abandoning their ambitions to be a wealthy industrial nation or go out and take the resources they needed for themselves and the only thing stopping them doing that was the American Navy. Japan had to take the Philipines where America had three naval bases but they knew if they did that America would retaliate if they could.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbour on the 7th of December 1941, on the 8th of December they invaded the Philipines, that was their goal, an Eastern Asian country close to Japan which America considered theirs, which the Pacific Fleet would have defended if they hadn't been sunk at Pearl Harbour. Many in America wern't sorry, they had been pushing for America to attack Japan and remove the threat to their source of wealth in the East, take Japan's share as well. The American people wern't having it, it took a Pearl Harbour to persuade them. There is some strong evidence that some in the American Government wern't surprised by the attack, that it was expected and that they decided to do nothing to prevent it.
Japan saw the fantastic wealth the West was making from the Far East and wanted some, the only thing stopping them was the West's military might in the area. People in the Middle East are seeing the fantastic wealth the West is making from Middle Eastern countries and they want some, the only thing stopping them is American military might in the area, for some time many in America have wanted the government to go in and secure that wealth, cut out the ambitious Middle Eastern countries who wanted that wealth for themselves. The American people wern't having it, it took another Pearl Harbour to persuade them, there is some strong evidence that some in the American Government were expecting it and did nothing to prevent it.
j4bberw0ck
07-Apr-07, 13:10
there is some strong evidence that some in the American Government were expecting it and did nothing to prevent it.
But, fred, you'd bleat like merry hell about those nasty Yankee imperialist neo-con friends of rich industrialists if "some in the American government were expecting" Iran to build a nuclear weapon "and did something to prevent it".
Or are you now so busy copying and pasting Google articles that you don't have time to read them any more?
Do you now advocate pre-emptive strikes against countries who might attack, and is it now your view that if you fail to prevent an attack, then any attack that does occur is your own fault?
But, fred, you'd bleat like merry hell about those nasty Yankee imperialist neo-con friends of rich industrialists if "some in the American government were expecting" Iran to build a nuclear weapon "and did something to prevent it".
Or are you now so busy copying and pasting Google articles that you don't have time to read them any more?
Do you now advocate pre-emptive strikes against countries who might attack, and is it now your view that if you fail to prevent an attack, then any attack that does occur is your own fault?
Yeah, it is just another example of Fred's twisted 'conspiracy theory' influenced twisted hypocrisy. I knew this thread would get on to the run up to Pearl. Gosh, now the Japanese are justified to attack Pearl eh? That takes the biscuit. The US is now the seasnake lying at the bottom of the ocean just waiting for its enemies to bite it so that it can retaliate with a killer blow. [lol] As if the Japanese weren't stacking the tables against the west in the post-war era when our British goods were tariffed up to the hilt in Japan while we just enjoyed all those cheap japanese imported motorcycles, electrical goods and let our Shipbuilding industry go to the wall. That sounds like a good reason for another H bomb on Tokyo then? :roll:
So are you suggesting that the US actively solicited the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbour?
As to your suggestion that people are never killed for humaniterian reasons what do you think WWII was all about?
Whatever you might think of the US, surely they and the British Empire can justifiably claim that they were fighting a humaniterian war. If you look at what the Japanese and Germans were doing in the countries they occupied how can you claim that putting a stop to that was not humaniterian, or are you suggesting that Chinese, jews, homosexuals, gypsies, slavs and various other eastern european races were happy with their treatment under their occupiers?
Yes, there were innocents killed by the atomic bombs but not nearly as many as were killed by the axis.
Yes, we will all agree that it would have been better if they had not been dropped but they were and history shows that a couple of days later the war ended.
As to your claims about the political issues in dropping the bomb, then yes you are right, the US did want to show Stalin the power that they possessed, but then can you imagine what had happened if Stalin had of taken Japan? Are you suggesting that the following fifty years would have been better for the Japanese? Look at Germany after the war, who fared better, East or West?
Unfortunately Fred you are letting your obvious hatred of the US cloud your judgement on this.
oldmarine
08-Apr-07, 00:36
There have been some interesting postings on the events of WWII and various theories of what caused the start of that war and the participants, i.e., Germany, Italy, and Japan plus the counter actions of China, England, USA, and many others drawn into the conflict. It appears that "Fred" has sorted it all out and wants to blame me and my country (the USA) for all the deaths that followed. I don't know where he gets his information; however, that's not the way I saw of the war I fought in the Pacific nor my compatriots who fought in Europe.
I thank the many of you who see the truth in the "untruth" in what Fred is trying to portray. Fortunately, most of the posters disagree with Fred. I don't know what country Fred wants to serve, but it cannot be England, Scotland, or any in Great Britain. It appears that he is trying to reinvent history and wants all of you to believe his theories.
Just accept it, oldmarine, the Americans are behind everything. When the Roman Empire became too strong the CIA were involved in clandestine activities to fund and arm Attila the Hun so he could attack Rome and weaken it in order to take control of the World’s oil supply, olive oil that is.
Well, they seem to be responsible for everything else, so why not? There are those in the world who wish to believe that there is no end to America’s evil scheming!
There again, there are those in the World who believe in UFOs and Alien Abductions. :lol:
So are you suggesting that the US actively solicited the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbour?
I'm saying that once America had cut off Japan's supply of oil they had little option but to attack somewhere, they were backed into a corner. If Iran were to seal off the Straits of Hamas what do you think we would do?
On the one hand we have Japan who were being crippled by American sanctions and intimidated by American bases in the Far East doing what they had to do to secure the future of their country condemned. On the other hand we have the invasion of Iraq, who was no threat to anyone, condoned. Can you explain the logic behind that to me?
I thank the many of you who see the truth in the "untruth" in what Fred is trying to portray. Fortunately, most of the posters disagree with Fred. I don't know what country Fred wants to serve, but it cannot be England, Scotland, or any in Great Britain. It appears that he is trying to reinvent history and wants all of you to believe his theories.
I serve all countries and recognise there is good and bad in all of them.
I serve the people who are killed and maimed in wars not the rich and powerful who start them so they can become even richer and more powerful.
Take a look at our history, it's one long war and in every one both sides believed they were good and the other side were evil because in every one both sides believed the proganda of their ruthless, greedy, megalomaniac leaders.
If people continue to stick their heads in the sand and blindly believe we can do no wrong while they can do no right despite the evidence then the war will last forever. Innocent people are dying horrible deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, hundreds a day, because ordinary people have eyes but refuse to see, ears but refuse to listen.
I'm one person I can't do much but I'll do what I can to alter as many false perceptions of reality as I can. This is Easter Sunday, we pay respect to a man who died on a cross 2000 years ago while ignoring every word he ever said, who would Jesus have bombed next, Iran or Syria?
...I'll do what I can to alter as many false perceptions of reality as I can...
Won't happen while you're reading the utter drivel you are...
I thank the many of you who see the truth in the "untruth" in what Fred is trying to portray. Fortunately, most of the posters disagree with Fred. I don't know what country Fred wants to serve, but it cannot be England, Scotland, or any in Great Britain. It appears that he is trying to reinvent history and wants all of you to believe his theories.
I have been asking myself that question for a few years now Oldmarine, I would rather believe an old Grunt such as you than Fred and all his ilk with their conspiracy theories
I'm saying that once America had cut off Japan's supply of oil they had little option but to attack somewhere, they were backed into a corner. If Iran were to seal off the Straits of Hamas what do you think we would do?
On the one hand we have Japan who were being crippled by American sanctions and intimidated by American bases in the Far East doing what they had to do to secure the future of their country condemned. On the other hand we have the invasion of Iraq, who was no threat to anyone, condoned. Can you explain the logic behind that to me?
Iraq no threat to nobody, slighty off topic but what do the Kuwaitis think about that statement?
As to Japans only option was to attack the US, are you suggesting that it is ok to attack another country because they do not want to trade with you?
Iraq no threat to nobody, slighty off topic but what do the Kuwaitis think about that statement?
At the time we invaded Iraq was no threat to Kuwait.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could easily have been avoided, Iraq did have some genuine grievances and they did try to solve them by diplomatic means first.
As to Japans only option was to attack the US, are you suggesting that it is ok to attack another country because they do not want to trade with you?
I'm saying it's wrong for everyone to believe that Pearl Harbour was a totaly unprovoked act of aggression on the part of the Japanese.
Just as with Iraq it is the assumption that one side is always guilty unless proven innocent and the other side is always innocent unless proven guilty which is wrong.
j4bberw0ck
08-Apr-07, 12:53
is it now your view that if you fail to prevent an attack, then any attack that does occur is your own fault?
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could easily have been avoided, Iraq did have some genuine grievances and they did try to solve them by diplomatic means first.
Ah, yes, it was Kuwait's fault after all.
I'm saying it's wrong for everyone to believe that Pearl Harbour was a totaly unprovoked act of aggression on the part of the Japanese.
Just as with Iraq it is the assumption that one side is always guilty unless proven innocent and the other side is always innocent unless proven guilty which is wrong.
So it is OK to invade or launch acts of war so long as you think you're justified? Wow. For someone who's long argued that the USA goes to war for no reason other than they think they're justified, and that they're wrong to go to war on that basis, that's pretty good.
I serve all countries and recognise there is good and bad in all of them.
I serve the people who are killed and maimed in wars not the rich and powerful who start them so they can become even richer and more powerful.
Take a look at our history, it's one long war and in every one both sides believed they were good and the other side were evil because in every one both sides believed the proganda of their ruthless, greedy, megalomaniac leaders.
If people continue to stick their heads in the sand and blindly believe we can do no wrong while they can do no right despite the evidence then the war will last forever. Innocent people are dying horrible deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, hundreds a day, because ordinary people have eyes but refuse to see, ears but refuse to listen.
I'm one person I can't do much but I'll do what I can to alter as many false perceptions of reality as I can. This is Easter Sunday, we pay respect to a man who died on a cross 2000 years ago while ignoring every word he ever said, who would Jesus have bombed next, Iran or Syria?
Dear god, now he thinks he's Jesus's stand-in..........
If Iran were to seal off the Straits of Hamas what do you think we would do?
:lol::lol: Fred, Hamas is one of a group of terrorist organisations (recognised as such by your friends at the UN) which is funded by Iran and Syria. You possibly mean the Strait of Hormuz, which is the body of water forming the gateway to the Persian Gulf from the Indian Ocean. I would have thought someone with your heavenly connexions might have seen that. Sealing off Hamas would be great. Preferably in a very, very deep hole in company with their friends Hizbollah, Al Qaeda, and most of the Saudi extremist political structure (the Wahhabis in particular).
Ah, yes, it was Kuwait's fault after all.
Where did I say that?
So it is OK to invade or launch acts of war so long as you think you're justified? Wow. For someone who's long argued that the USA goes to war for no reason other than they think they're justified, and that they're wrong to go to war on that basis, that's pretty good.
Where did I say that?
Dear god, now he thinks he's Jesus's stand-in..........
Where did I say that?
:lol::lol: Fred, Hamas is one of a group of terrorist organisations (recognised as such by your friends at the UN) which is funded by Iran and Syria. You possibly mean the Strait of Hormuz, which is the body of water forming the gateway to the Persian Gulf from the Indian Ocean. I would have thought someone with your heavenly connexions might have seen that. Sealing off Hamas would be great. Preferably in a very, very deep hole in company with their friends Hizbollah, Al Qaeda, and most of the Saudi extremist political structure (the Wahhabis in particular).
One minute you're accusing me of cut and pasting everything from google then the next you're trying to ridicule me for a simple typing mistake.
Is your idea of inteligent debate to try and twist everything I say and make personal attacks?
j4bberw0ck
08-Apr-07, 15:11
inteligent debate
Where did you say that?
twist everything I say
Fred, with regard to such things I sit at the feet of the Master.
make personal attacks?
Did you see these things? -------> :lol::lol:
I think you're big enough (and probably ugly enough) to weather a minor outburst of humour, don't you? Of course it was a typo - unless you've decided, with your new heavenly powers, to summarily rename it.
I'm still impressed by your effortless switch to it being all right for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor because America deserved it and it was all right for Iraq to invade Kuwait because, apparently, diplomacy had failed.
At the time we invaded Iraq was no threat to Kuwait.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could easily have been avoided, Iraq did have some genuine grievances and they did try to solve them by diplomatic means first.
Yes I can see the reasoning in that, is that not the reasoning Adolf hitler used to invade most of Europe. I believe that he had some genuine grievances with the Treaty of Versailles.
I'm saying it's wrong for everyone to believe that Pearl Harbour was a totaly unprovoked act of aggression on the part of the Japanese.
Right, so the US was responsible for the agressive expansionist policy carried out by Japan during the preceding years
Just as with Iraq it is the assumption that one side is always guilty unless proven innocent and the other side is always innocent unless proven guilty which is wrong.
Basically Fred, I think you are showing your true colours pretty well. You express anti war sympathies, but the above show that as long as the US is not involved in the attacking then the war can be justified.
Can you tell me, was the US justified in attacking Japan back, or were they just to lie down and take what was given to them?
We seem to have come to the 'conclusion' that its ok for any country other than the US to wage wars if they are not happy with diplomatic means.
Your undoubted hatred of the US causes you to loose continuity, in one post you claim to be anti war and the next you are trying to justify it.
Yes I can see the reasoning in that, is that not the reasoning Adolf hitler used to invade most of Europe. I believe that he had some genuine grievances with the Treaty of Versailles.
The people of Germany had some genuine grievances with the Treaty of Versailles which is how Hitler managed to take control of Germany in the first place. If they hadn't then WWII might have been avoided as well.
Right, so the US was responsible for the agressive expansionist policy carried out by Japan during the preceding years
No, the US was responsible for the agressive expansionist policy of the US in previous years and subsequent years, the US is responsible for their agressive expansionist policies in Afghanistan and Iraq today. Just how did you think Perl Harbour got to be an American territory in the first place? How do you think America got to be American territory?
Japan was responsible for the expansionist policies of Japan.
Basically Fred, I think you are showing your true colours pretty well. You express anti war sympathies, but the above show that as long as the US is not involved in the attacking then the war can be justified.
How do you translate "Just as with Iraq it is the assumption that one side is always guilty unless proven innocent and the other side is always innocent unless proven guilty which is wrong." to mean that?
Can you tell me, was the US justified in attacking Japan back, or were they just to lie down and take what was given to them?
Yes America was justified in retaliating against the Japanes attack, I have never argued that they wern't. I've just said that the Japanese attack on Pearl harbour wasn't the totally unprovoked act of aggression people believe it was.
We seem to have come to the 'conclusion' that its ok for any country other than the US to wage wars if they are not happy with diplomatic means.
Have you? How did you reach that conclusion? I merely said the Iraq Kuwait war could have been avoided.
Your undoubted hatred of the US causes you to loose continuity, in one post you claim to be anti war and the next you are trying to justify it.
No I'm not justifying it, I'm merely pointing out the hypocricy of it, if we can eliminate our manifest destiny complex maybe we can one day eliminate war.
The people of Germany had some genuine grievances with the Treaty of Versailles which is how Hitler managed to take control of Germany in the first place. If they hadn't then WWII might have been avoided as well.
Admittedly, but is that justification for what Nazis did over the following ten years? Could those grievences not have been settled by diplomacy?
No, the US was responsible for the agressive expansionist policy of the US in previous years and subsequent years, the US is responsible for their agressive expansionist policies in Afghanistan and Iraq today. Just how did you think Perl Harbour got to be an American territory in the first place? How do you think America got to be American territory?
Afghanistan and Iraq were carried out under with the authority (you will probably argue this point) of the UN. So surely the UN has an expansionist policy?
Japan was responsible for the expansionist policies of Japan.
Hallelujah, you've seen the light!
How do you translate "Just as with Iraq it is the assumption that one side is always guilty unless proven innocent and the other side is always innocent unless proven guilty which is wrong." to mean that?
Who said that? Do I believe that?
Yes America was justified in retaliating against the Japanes attack, I have never argued that they wern't. I've just said that the Japanese attack on Pearl harbour wasn't the totally unprovoked act of aggression people believe it was.
So you do think that some violence can be justified? If someone does not agree with you are you saying that it is ok to physically attack you?
Have you? How did you reach that conclusion? I merely said the Iraq Kuwait war could have been avoided.
Well yes I guess you are right, WWII could have been avoided if Germany had been allowed to invade Poland and any other country it liked. You can avoid any war but at what price?
From the below it seems that you agree, your post states that they had some diplomatic issues they could not solve, so violence was the next understandable step.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could easily have been avoided, Iraq did have some genuine grievances and they did try to solve them by diplomatic means first.
No I'm not justifying it, I'm merely pointing out the hypocricy of it, if we can eliminate our manifest destiny complex maybe we can one day eliminate war.
Are you suggesting that you are the only one who has concerns about US foriegn policy?
Admittedly, but is that justification for what Nazis did over the following ten years? Could those grievences not have been settled by diplomacy?
No it isn't justification for what the Nazis did over the following years it is the reason they could do it. America cutting off Japan's oil wasn't the justification for the bombing of Pearl Harbour it is the reason it happened. It's simple cause and effect but you seem to have got it into your head that cause means justification.
Afghanistan and Iraq were carried out under with the authority (you will probably argue this point) of the UN. So surely the UN has an expansionist policy?
Well I don't want to argue with you so I'll just let you tell me which UN Security Council resolutions authorised the use of force against Afghanistan and Iraq.
So you do think that some violence can be justified? If someone does not agree with you are you saying that it is ok to physically attack you?
The right of self defence is universally accepted, once you have been attacked you have the right to fight back, that is what I said and all that I said.
Well yes I guess you are right, WWII could have been avoided if Germany had been allowed to invade Poland and any other country it liked. You can avoid any war but at what price?
I said that WWII could have been avoided if we hadn't created the right conditions for Hitler to take power in the first place.
From the below it seems that you agree, your post states that they had some diplomatic issues they could not solve, so violence was the next understandable step.
No, I said that the Iraq Kuwait war could have been avoided if the legitimate grievances of Iraq had been addressed.
Are you suggesting that you are the only one who has concerns about US foriegn policy?
What on earth gave you that idea? I have certainly not said that or anything like that. I think every right thinking person in the world has some very grave concerns about American foreign policy and if they haven't they certainly should have.
It seems to me that you don't have an argument against what I say so you spend your time arguing against things I don't say.
No it isn't justification for what the Nazis did over the following years it is the reason they could do it. America cutting off Japan's oil wasn't the justification for the bombing of Pearl Harbour it is the reason it happened. It's simple cause and effect but you seem to have got it into your head that cause means justification.
Well Fred, Russia cut off Ukraines gas supply recently, did we see Ukraine attacking Russia? You can argue that US policy was the reason for the attack, but why did Ukraine not attack Russia for basically the same policy?
Okay, so the amount of time the supply was cut off was a lot less, but is that because of the attitudes of both parties?
Japan was looking to control the whole of the Asia-Pacific area and they needed to get rid of the US to achieve this. That was their main reason for the attack, to stike a massive blow against the US. Japan never expected to win a long war with the US.
Well I don't want to argue with you so I'll just let you tell me which UN Security Council resolutions authorised the use of force against Afghanistan and Iraq.
Off topic and cannot be bothered to look it up, obviously this depends on your point of view as to whether they are under the UN banner or not (shall I expect a come back on this?).
The right of self defence is universally accepted, once you have been attacked you have the right to fight back, that is what I said and all that I said.
I would love to say correct however some of the PC brigade might question if this was against the attackers human rights!
I said that WWII could have been avoided if we hadn't created the right conditions for Hitler to take power in the first place.
Admittedly, but then the Wall Street Crash did not only affect Germany but the whole world. There were many reasons for the Nazis coming to power and the Treaty of Versailles was just one.
No, I said that the Iraq Kuwait war could have been avoided if the legitimate grievances of Iraq had been addressed.
I think one thing we can agree on is that one persons legitimate grievance is another persons unreasonable one. What Saddam calls legitimate is not necessarily so, and strangely enough the same goes for the US!
What on earth gave you that idea? I have certainly not said that or anything like that.
Possibly I was being a bit unfair.
I think every right thinking person in the world has some very grave concerns about American foreign policy and if they haven't they certainly should have.
I would agree on that point, but why just look at all the bad points. Kk so the US policies are really only aimed at doing what is best for the US, but then so are the EUs, Russias, Chinas, etc.
It seems to me that you don't have an argument against what I say so you spend your time arguing against things I don't say.
I have just proved to the contary, your arguments on many things are clouded by your obviously blinkered beliefs.
I have just proved to the contary, your arguments on many things are clouded by your obviously blinkered beliefs.
Then the question I ask you is the question I have been asking all along. Between the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and the American invasion of Iraq which do you consider the worst crime?
Funky_Foal
09-Apr-07, 10:31
I have to say that I am in quirbals corner on this one. Fred your ideas are unjust and unreasonable, and judging by previous posts a lot of my fellow orgers seem to have adopted Quirbals point of view. I dont know what your sources are, but to my understanding the information you give is only partly correct, the rest is just utter dribble.[disgust]
Then the question I ask you is the question I have been asking all along. Between the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and the American invasion of Iraq which do you consider the worst crime?
I do not consider either to be worse, each, as you so readily point out could have been avoided.
However, from your posts you appear to believe that the US is the root of all evil and that they are responsible for the mess that is now Iraq. On that basis are you suggesting that the US, which occupied Japan at the end of WWII should be thanked for the current state of the country. An ecomomic powerhouses of the world. The same could be siad of Germany.
If the point you are trying to make is that the US is completely responsible for the mess in Iraq they you are far from correct, whilst they might be partly responsibly there are plenty of others who have a hand in it.
I do not consider either to be worse, each, as you so readily point out could have been avoided.
However, from your posts you appear to believe that the US is the root of all evil and that they are responsible for the mess that is now Iraq. On that basis are you suggesting that the US, which occupied Japan at the end of WWII should be thanked for the current state of the country. An ecomomic powerhouses of the world. The same could be siad of Germany.
If the point you are trying to make is that the US is completely responsible for the mess in Iraq they you are far from correct, whilst they might be partly responsibly there are plenty of others who have a hand in it.
No, what I'm saying is this.
In 1941 Japan was an emerging nation, they needed raw materials and oil to achieve the standards of living the west already enjoyed. America had cut off their supply of oil so they had the choice between becoming a primative country or going and getting oil for themselves from Java, to do that they had to put the US Navy out of action for several months so they bombed them at Pearl Harbour.
In 2003 America was already the richest country in the world by far, they already had more military might than the rest of the world put together. They had the choice of enjoying their privileged postion as the most powerful country or going for absolute power, total world domination and to do that they had to control the world's oil supply. They invaded a country which was no threat to them, which after an 8 year war and 12 years of sanctions was no threat to anyone, as part of their plans to achieve this goal.
It's a simple question, which of those two acts, the bombing of ships and planes at Pearl Harbour or the destruction of the infrastructure and invasion of an entire defenceless country, was the greatest crime?
No, what I'm saying is this.
In 1941 Japan was an emerging nation, they needed raw materials and oil to achieve the standards of living the west already enjoyed. America had cut off their supply of oil so they had the choice between becoming a primative country or going and getting oil for themselves from Java, to do that they had to put the US Navy out of action for several months so they bombed them at Pearl Harbour.
In 2003 America was already the richest country in the world by far, they already had more military might than the rest of the world put together. They had the choice of enjoying their privileged postion as the most powerful country or going for absolute power, total world domination and to do that they had to control the world's oil supply. They invaded a country which was no threat to them, which after an 8 year war and 12 years of sanctions was no threat to anyone, as part of their plans to achieve this goal.
It's a simple question, which of those two acts, the bombing of ships and planes at Pearl Harbour or the destruction of the infrastructure and invasion of an entire defenceless country, was the greatest crime?
So Fred, what would YOU like me to say, that the US/UN invasion of Iraq was unjustifed and illegal and the Japanese attack on the US was, if not leagal easier to justify or understand?
NO COUNTRY HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST ANOTHER COUNTRY EXCEPT IN SELF DEFENSE.
The fact that you believe that the UN action against Iraq is illegal is your opinion, one held by many, but refuted by many others.
You are saying that because the UN were responsible for the destruction of the Iraq that they are responsible for the mess the country is in now? Are they completely to blame? Are the UN sanctioning the car bombings and other terrorist attrocities that take place? You can give people a reason to attack the UN and others but they are not physically making them do it.
Are you going to address the point made earlier regarding the aftermath of WWII, America has got a good record of rehabilitating defeated countries, are you going to congratulate the US on the success that both Germany and Japan have had since 1945?
Blazing Sporrans
09-Apr-07, 20:33
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could easily have been avoided, Iraq did have some genuine grievances and they did try to solve them by diplomatic means first.
So in the interests of fairness and open and even debate, I'd expect to see the strongest possible condemnation of Iraq for choosing the route of aggression and flexing it's superior military muscle.......
I'll get my magnifying glass to scrutinise fred's posts and search for it :roll:
North Rhins
09-Apr-07, 20:44
You’d be better off with a microscope in fact make that an electron microscope.
So Fred, what would YOU like me to say, that the US/UN invasion of Iraq was unjustifed and illegal and the Japanese attack on the US was, if not leagal easier to justify or understand?
NO COUNTRY HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST ANOTHER COUNTRY EXCEPT IN SELF DEFENSE.
Yes, we've established that, both were crimes.
My question was which was the greater crime.
It's a simple enough question.
Blazing Sporrans
09-Apr-07, 20:55
Yes, we've established that, both were crimes.
My question was which was the greater crime.
It's a simple enough question.
No it's not. Personal opinion is subjective and open to beliefs, interpretations and a multitude of external influences.
You may as well ask whether Pele or Maradona was the greater footballer - although I have a feeling that you'd somehow twist that debate into a critique of the US [lol] [lol]
Yes, we've established that, both were crimes.
My question was which was the greater crime.
It's a simple enough question.
Fred, can you get it into your head that both were as big a crimes - end of story!
Why blame the UN for the attack on Iraq, you have blamed the Pearl Harbour attack on US policy, why not blame Iraq for the UN attack?
Surely if they had allowed the UN resolutions to be carried out to the letter instead of twisting them the war would have been averted?
Goes both ways Fred, Iraq could become a big a success as Germany, Japan or South Korea if they want - there does not need to be constant attacks on the workers and civilians trying to rebuild the country. That is as big a crime as the UN invasion, or would you disagree with that?
Fred, can you get it into your head that both were as big a crimes - end of story!
Why blame the UN for the attack on Iraq, you have blamed the Pearl Harbour attack on US policy, why not blame Iraq for the UN attack?
Surely if they had allowed the UN resolutions to be carried out to the letter instead of twisting them the war would have been averted?
Goes both ways Fred, Iraq could become a big a success as Germany, Japan or South Korea if they want - there does not need to be constant attacks on the workers and civilians trying to rebuild the country. That is as big a crime as the UN invasion, or would you disagree with that?
The UN didn't invade Iraq, Iraq was invaded against the wishes of the UN, none of the troops flew UN colours. America invaded Iraq, with a little help from their friends.
You agreed earlier that Japan attacking Pearl Harbour gave America and their allies the right to use force against Japan. Will you agree with me that America attacking Iraq gives Iraq and their allies the right to use force against America?
The UN didn't invade Iraq, Iraq was invaded against the wishes of the UN, none of the troops flew UN colours. America invaded Iraq, with a little help from their friends.
You agreed earlier that Japan attacking Pearl Harbour gave America and their allies the right to use force against Japan. Will you agree with me that America attacking Iraq gives Iraq and their allies the right to use force against America?
Why not, Iraq has a right to defend itself.
However that said Fred, the Saddam regime has now been replaced with a democratically elected government. At the moment this government does want UN help in stabalising the country - or do you know otherwise?
What I am objecting to is your assertion that Japan attacking the US is a lesser crime than the US/UN attacking Iraq.
I am also at a loss as to how you can assert that the US is to blame for the mess that Iraq is now in. The US has a very good track record of rebuilding countries that it has occupied after a peace has been signed, I have listed three and am still wondering why you have not commented on this. After WWII the US was reponsible for rebuilding Japan and Germany, and they also helped South Korea rebuild - these countries are now among the most productive and economically successful countries in the world, or do you disagree with that.
I am telling you Fred that if the US/UN are allowed to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure then they too can be a success. They have the natural resources to do very well.
Even by your blinkered standards Fred, can you not see that the US are not responsible for the terrorist attacks being carried out in Iraq. Yes they might be a contributing factor in making people decide to act, but they are not physically forcing people to make, plant and explode bombs. The terrorists are completely responsible for their physical actions, not the US, just as I am completely responsible for this post and you are for yours.
Anyway getting back to the original post, the dropping of the bombs, history show that it was justified. On the 6th August 1945 Hiroshima was bombed, on the 9th August 1945 Nagasaki was bombed, on 15th August the Imperial Japanese Governmnent announced that it was going to unconditionally surrender, thereby bringing over a decade of destruction and extermination to an end. A war that had cost over 30 million deaths in that theatre alone. How can you suggest that the bombs were not justified? Yes there has horrific civilian losses, but that was the course of that war and therefore to judge what happened by todays standards is absurd.
Unless you have conclusive proof that the dropping of the atom bombs did not figure in Japans decision to surrender on the 15th of August then I do not see how you can argue otherwise.
Why not, Iraq has a right to defend itself.
I think we can agree that an islamic invasion of America would be very costly in human lives, them Americans would never surrender, they'd fight to the last man and they all have guns.
How many American cities do you think they would be justified in nuking to avoid an invasion?
I think we can agree that an islamic invasion of America would be very costly in human lives, them Americans would never surrender, they'd fight to the last man and they all have guns.
How many American cities do you think they would be justified in nuking to avoid an invasion?
M.A.D.........
I'm saying that once America had cut off Japan's supply of oil they had little option but to attack somewhere, they were backed into a corner.
Do you not realise that your friends, the Americans cut off Japan's oil supply purely on humanitarian grounds? Someone had to slow down Japan's romp of mass murder across China.[evil]
A check on what happened in Nanking in 1937/8 after the Japanese Army entered the city unopposed.
Far more than a quarter of a million men, women and children were slaughtered many simply for "sport". Some Officers held competitions to see who could behead the most people (civilians who had been rounded up) in an hour. Babies and children were not spared from similar activities either.
The details of the behaviour are not really suitable for a family site but if I say that sort of activity was at the "nicer" end of the activities carried out it might give you some idea of the horrors.
That was what happened in just one city and cannot even be excused as having happened immediately after the heat of battle when the adrenalin is still running high. It was cool, cold and calculated.
Even now the Japanese are still, despite eye-witness accounts from non-Chinese and even some from Japanese Soldiers who took part, refusing to accept it ever happened.
They claim the Chinese wildly exaggerate the numbers slaughtered and any way, "These things happen in War!" That is despite Japanese Papers gleefully reporting what was happening at the time.
It was because of that sort of activity and the fact that Japan was in the process of invading other Countries where the same was likely to happen that an embargo was placed on the oil supplies.
To try to give the impression that it was done for no other reason that it was done for no reason at all is no different to indicating that the Nazis were doing absolutely nothing wrong when we suddenly decided to Declare War on Germany because the Prime Minister woke up that morning feeling like a bit of excitement.
M.A.D.........
It's simple logic.
By saying that Japan's strong defensive position justified the use of the ultimate terrorist weapon of mass destruction you are justifying anything and everything the Muslim world does to America. If you use Japan's strong defensive position to justify the mass murder of Japanese civillians then you justify the mass murder of American citizens by the Muslim world by whatever means they can. You are saying that the 7/7 attacks in London were justified, any future 9/11 would be justified no matter how devastating, you are justifying a biological attack on America such as the release of a deadly virus.
If you say that America was attacked first therefore they had the right to use force then you say that the Muslim world has the right to use force against America. If you say that America had the right to use weapons of mass destruction against Japanes citizens to save American lives then you say the Muslim world has the right to use weapons of mass destruction against American citizens to save Muslim lives.
If you cut out your manifest destiny delusions and look at it objectively that is what you are left with. If we can say "we were right therefore anything was justified" anyone can say "we are right therefore anything is justified" and they will till someone takes the first step to bring a bit of justice into this world, till someone swallows their pride and says "maybe we wern't all that right after all".
Fred you seem to have missed some basic aspects of the lead up to WW2. The USA had a policy of being isolated from the rest of the world. Even in 1917 they were not keen to get involved in a European War, which did not directly involve themselves.
In 1931 and 1937 they protested to the Japanese for their treatment of the Chinese and also the sinking of the US Gunboat “Panay”. The US kept on protesting about the Japanese’s treatment towards the Chinese and invoked sanctions against the Japanese, which then lead to Pearl Harbour and the USA entering WW2.
So in short the USA entered the war because of their humanitarian issues and not because they wanted to flex their muscles. The USA had a reputation during the inter-war years of just words and no action. Because of this the Japanese took a gamble that the USA would just hunker down after Pearl Harbour and leave the Japanese alone. The last thing they expected was for the USA to retaliate as they did and with the determination that they did.
You use the fact that they were at Pearl Harbour and in China and Philippines as proof that they were flexing their muscles. In that case so were the UK, Russia, Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, Italy Portugal, Spain and a lot more countries. It was normal when importing goods from countries to ask for bases from which to protect your stations. The USA were not interested in “fortifying” any bases west of Pearl Harbour. Again not a sign of a dominating country.
As you stated the Japanese realised they were being defeated by the summer of 1945. But what you are not telling everyone is that they would surrender under favourable conditions or go down fighting, which would have involved the deaths and injuries of millions of civilians and soldiers, all in the name of honour. All they had to do was to say, “We surrender – unconditionally”! End of War!
But you state that they were not given the option for a conditional surrender which would have stopped the war and saved lives. So the US was guilty of prolonging the war.
If you had done a wee bit of research you would have found why it was unconditional surrender or nothing. As you said the conditions of a “conditional surrender” of Germany in 1919 lead to conditions in the 1920’s, to the rise of Hitler and his henchmen in the 1930, which started the European part of WW2. Hitler would not have come about if Germany had surrendered unconditionally and the Allies occupied their country as they did after WW2.
So in effect the Allies had learnt their lesson from WW1, for which you blame the Allies of leaving Germany with no option but to fight back. So with Germany and Japan they were ensuring the peace for the future and to do this they would only accept their “Unconditional Surrender” and nothing less. This does no include the millions of innocent lives murdered by Germany and Japan during 1937-45.
I hope this clears up any part about why the USA was dragged into WW2 and the reasons for the Allies only accepting an unconditional surrender.
Fred
I am having difficulty in following you thoughts. Lets go back to basics.
What you are saying is that under no conditions was the use of two a-bombs (never mind one) justified.
When the Japanese went to war in 1937 and then with the Allies in 1941, their policy was one of “Total War”. This is basically where you can go to any lengths to destroy your enemy – armed or not. As the “Rape of Nanking” has been mentioned. I will give you an incident, which was reported as a contest back in Japan and in their News Papers (Osaka Mainichi Shimbun and Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun). Two Japanese officers started a competition to see which one could behead 100 people with a sword. At first you would think this was like the Warrior and the way of the sword and it was done in the heat of battle, but no. This was the beheading of people. Their first contest came back with no winners as both had achieved the 100 but it was not clear which won. So they had a second and 2/Lt Toshiaki Makai achieved 106, whilst 2/Lt Tsuyoshi Noda achieved 105. The both of them saw this and the civilians back home in Japan as a “sport” and at best like the Fighter “Aces”. After the war the two of them were captured and sent to China to face war crimes and both were executed in China 28th Jan 1948.
I am sure that when those 200+ people were about to be beheaded they would have loved to have an A-bomb blow Tokyo to bits. Or perhaps they saw the need for sport rules in their deaths and the need to “play cricket”.
War is about killing, but are we saying it is the amount of people killed which makes it legal or not. Or like saying prostitution is only when you charge more than £20!
It's simple logic.
By saying that Japan's strong defensive position justified the use of the ultimate terrorist weapon of mass destruction you are justifying anything and everything the Muslim world does to America. If you use Japan's strong defensive position to justify the mass murder of Japanese civillians then you justify the mass murder of American citizens by the Muslim world by whatever means they can. You are saying that the 7/7 attacks in London were justified, any future 9/11 would be justified no matter how devastating, you are justifying a biological attack on America such as the release of a deadly virus.
If you say that America was attacked first therefore they had the right to use force then you say that the Muslim world has the right to use force against America. If you say that America had the right to use weapons of mass destruction against Japanes citizens to save American lives then you say the Muslim world has the right to use weapons of mass destruction against American citizens to save Muslim lives.
If you cut out your manifest destiny delusions and look at it objectively that is what you are left with. If we can say "we were right therefore anything was justified" anyone can say "we are right therefore anything is justified" and they will till someone takes the first step to bring a bit of justice into this world, till someone swallows their pride and says "maybe we wern't all that right after all".
Fred, I take it you know what M.A.D. means?
From your post it is not evident that you do, Google it and find out. That is basically what happens if a country nukes the US.
I am not stating anything about the defensive position or otherwise of Japan. As I asked you unless you have conclusive proof that the Japanese surrender had nothing to do with the dropping of the bombs then how can they not be justifed?
Are you telling me it is ok for Japanese civilians to be killed by carpet bombing and massed artillery and not by nuclear weapons? If the US had of invaded Japan the war would have gone on into 1946, which would have meant horrendous casualites on ALL sides.
As has been pointed out by 'Abewsed' your knowledge of that era is somewhat lacking.
What is happening in Iraq just now is not related to what happened in Japan, and I cannot understand why you try to make it so.
:roll::roll:
Fred
I am having difficulty in following you thoughts. Lets go back to basics.
That is why you are having difficulty, what I said was the basics, there is nothing basic at all about what you said.
That is why you are having difficulty, what I said was the basics, there is nothing basic at all about what you said.
The basic flaw in all you say is that when you say it is ok to fight to defend your country is always the time that it is too late to defend it. Neville Chamberlain found that out to his political and nearly to his country's cost. That is why folks like you aren't in charge of the country, if you were then the UK would go the same way as Tibet.
You still haven't addressed the fact that the US oil embargo with Japan will have resulted in lives by the millions being saved. You conveniently ignore all that.
Quite frankly, we need the US to be the international policeman. If the USA went isolationist then World War 3 would break out. Arabs would invade arabs and Jews. Russia would expand into China/Mongolia. Africa would basically erupt into a blood bath. South American countries would start to rattle sabres again. Pakistan and India would end up in open war.
You need the US to be on that wall so that you can sleep soundly in your bed. The actions of the US against Iraq, Afghanistan and Hiroshima saved lives. Normal people in democracies use words like 'liberty' and 'freedom', you use them as a punchline. So don't come on here, spout your 'peace' and 'pseudo-history' and think we can be taken in. We won't be, we just see a troll who is trying to raise tempers.
Rheghead, I must agree with your post.
I will qualify that by saying that I have grave reservations about much of US foreign policy, but then I do about just about every other country as well.
Fred, you seem to have no problem accepting that US foreign policy has flaws, but seem unable to look beyond those flaws and see the good points.
Have you ever asked yourself what would be the consequences of differing US policy?
I expect that you will not answer this question, I have in this thread asked you various questions regarding the US and you have blatently ignored them.
Your arguments just ddo not stand up to scrutiny and it is obvious that your sources are at best questionable.
Rheghead, I must agree with your post.
I will qualify that by saying that I have grave reservations about much of US foreign policy, but then I do about just about every other country as well.
Fred, you seem to have no problem accepting that US foreign policy has flaws, but seem unable to look beyond those flaws and see the good points.
Have you ever asked yourself what would be the consequences of differing US policy?
I expect that you will not answer this question, I have in this thread asked you various questions regarding the US and you have blatently ignored them.
Your arguments just ddo not stand up to scrutiny and it is obvious that your sources are at best questionable.
Which part don't you agree with or think that the sources are questionable?
That Japan attacked Pearl Harbour without just cause.
That America retaliated with just cause.
That America used weapons of mass destruction against Japanese citizens giving the saving of American lives as justification.
That America invaded Iraq without just cause.
Those all seem like clear cut undisputed facts to me.
As for the consequences of differing US policy yes I can imagine what the world would be like, it would be a more just and a lot safer place to live in.
Which part don't you agree with or think that the sources are questionable?
That Japan attacked Pearl Harbour without just cause.
What was the just cause? Because the US imposed an oil embargo on Japan? I am asking you directly why and when that embargo was imposed by the US - give me dates, reasons and sources Fred, you expect me, and I do answer your questions so you can at least have the civility to do the same to mine.
I am telling you that the oil embargo came into force in July 1941 as a response to the Japanese invasion of French Indo China. The US had been making repeated representations to the Japanese over the Chinese campaign without success.
Are you suggesting that they should have attacked Japan to resolve their obvious problems which they had with japanese policy? Are you suggesting that that the Rape of Nanking and other atrocities carried out by the Japanese should at least not meet with some form of sanction?
If you would like to read more about the Japanese actions in China during WWII just look at the BBC history website.
That America retaliated with just cause.
They did indeed
That America used weapons of mass destruction against Japanese citizens giving the saving of American lives as justification.
Thats just one aspect of it Fred, are you suggesting that if the war had been pursued into 1946 that there would have been less civilian casualties?
Unfortunately the bombs were the lesser of two evils. How many Japanese woman and children would have died in a land invasion, one, two, five million?
To suggest that the bomb was dropped just to save US lives is very simplistic indeed.
That America invaded Iraq without just cause.
As I have said, that depends on your point of view. George Bush, Tony Blair and many others do not hold that point of view, they believe it was a just war. Just because you believe, and many others do that the war was unjust does not mean that it is.
Those all seem like clear cut undisputed facts to me.
As show above they are not.
As for the consequences of differing US policy yes I can imagine what the world would be like, it would be a more just and a lot safer place to live in.[/quote]
Are you so sure, as they say, the grass is always greener on the other side. You might not like or agree with US policy but considering the death and destruction that occurred during the first part of the 20th century it has played a major part in ensuring that it has not happened again.
I will be interested to see what your reply is to this post, you have again not addresed questions that you have been asked in the last post. Is this because you simply cannot find a justifiable argument against the questions?
[QUOTE=fred;211445]That America used weapons of mass destruction against Japanese citizens giving the saving of American lives as justification.
[QUOTE]
Once again a massive misrepresentation of the whole truth by selecting only half of reason and presenting it as the whole thing.
A check of the full reasons for not wanting to fight a ground war on Mainland Japan tells a very different story from the biased propaganda version specially chosen and presented by fred.
What was the just cause?
Try reading what I write it would save you a lot of time arguing with yourself.
Thats just one aspect of it Fred, are you suggesting that if the war had been pursued into 1946 that there would have been less civilian casualties?
Unfortunately the bombs were the lesser of two evils. How many Japanese woman and children would have died in a land invasion, one, two, five million?
To suggest that the bomb was dropped just to save US lives is very simplistic indeed.
But I didn't say that, I know the real reason for dropping the bombs was to stop the Russians gaining territory in the East, I said America gave saving American lives as justification, which they did.
As I have said, that depends on your point of view. George Bush, Tony Blair and many others do not hold that point of view, they believe it was a just war. Just because you believe, and many others do that the war was unjust does not mean that it is.
I think all criminals find justification for the things they do but it doesn't make them legal and it doesn't make the invasion of Iraq legal under international law either, that is what "without just cause" means, a crime committed without a legal excuse.
Once again you are arguing against things I didn't say not what I did say, I make it as basic and simple as possible just stating obvious facts and you just go arguing about something else completely.
Fred
What the main issue here is whether the US & UK were justified in the use of A-Bombs to secure the unconditional surrender of Japan in August 1945.
It is estimated that over 120,000 people were killed as a result of the two A-Bombs.
It is estimated that over 100,000 people were killed as a result of the “Fire Bombing” raids on Tokyo.
Another 200,000 were killed as a result of other “Fire Bombing” raids on Japan. (300,000 killed by Fire Bombing raids).
Now, any civilised person would regret the way civilians and military died in these raids. So the question is, was it justified? As Japan did not conduct raids against the US and UK directly. We would need to ask the Chinese. We can look at the city of Chongquing in China. It has the prestige of being the most bombed city, with 268 raids directed at it between 18 Feb 1938 and 23 Aug 1943. Most of the bombs dropped were incendiary (Fire Bombs), as the Japanese realised that the small wooden dwellings would burn better, than by blasting with High Explosives. The trouble is that no one knows how many people died as a result of these bombing; but we must assume that the figure would be large.
The next question would be which was the most humane, A-Bomb or Fire Bomb? I would suspect that the 2,500 civilians asphyxiated in one tunnel on 5 June 1941 at Chongquing, would probably have preferred a quick death rather then a slow lingering death in a tunnel. But that is my own opinion.
As we can see from the above, more Japanese civilians died from Fire Bombing, than the A-Bombs. Now we could say that Fire Bombing was inhumane, but as the Japanese were fire bombing Chinese cities from 1937 – 1945, they cannot complain.
The next question is this. Would the Japanese have used an A-Bomb if they had the chance? I am 100% convinced they would not have batted an eyelid at the opportunity to use 1 or 100. The reason is that they had no regard for other peoples lives, never mind their own.
But the biggest question is why would the US and UK decide to use the bomb? Note: Churchill was informed and agreed to the use of the weapons, as the UK had a large part in the building of the bomb.
It was estimated that invasion of Japan was going to result in about 1 million Allied casualties. The figures were lowered by the military as the public would have tried to prevent the invasion and might have sued for peace. The main problem was that the invasion would have needed about 3,000,000 “combat” soldiers (about 40% of all Allied combat soldiers). To achieve this numbers they would have to take troops from the European theatre to Japan.
The Battle for Europe was over; these divisions had done their bit and now wanted to go home. If they were to be sent to the Japanese front it was feared that their moral would drop and they might not fight as well as they had done, thus causing more casualties and a prolonging war. So no politician or leader was keen to tell their troops they were heading to a new front.
But in a war that cost about 60,000,000 lives, then 120,000 – even 250,000 claimed by some – caused by two bombs is nothing 0.4% at best. Or looking at it another way, the earliest the invasion could take place was in November 1945 and the second invasion in March 1945. One before winter and one after. By August 1945 nearly 10,000,000 Japanese were homeless and starving. With the onset of winter the chances were that at least 10% would have died from malnutrition and exposure = 1,000,000, of which the majority would have been the elderly and the young.
It does not matter which way any un-bias person looks at it – and it is sad to say – that the least casualties were by the two A-Bombs. The only other option was a conditional surrender of Japan or an armistice, which they had tried at the end of WW1 and which leads to the deaths of over 60,000,000 people and WW2.
Proof that it worked! Who has Germany and Japan attacked since 1945? So the policy must have been right.
It is easy to get caught up in today’s ideology where our biggest fear is getting killed on roads, by illness or old age. But between 1937-45 there were millions of people worldwide fighting for their lives and to understand this, we must try and look through their eyes. So my advice is to listen to people like Oldmarine. They were there and lived, breathed and saw the “truth”. We sit here and try to visualise it through books, documentaries and Internet. Somehow I suspect it is not the same, but maybe I am wrong, as some games seem to some to be reality.
You say the real reason for dropping the A-bombs was to stop the Russians gaining territory in the east. It obviously worked as they occupied Japanese territory after the surrender of Japan. So the two A-bombs must have had an impact on the Russians!
We would need to ask the Chinese.
While you're talking to the Chinese ask them how they feel about the Opium Wars or our support for the Nationalists in the revolution, ask them about Korea or how America stitched them up over Vietnam.
Talking of Vietnam did you know that in 1954 America offered the French nuclear weapons to use against North Vietnam? The weapons were on a ship on route to Vietnam when word got out and after an article in the New York Times on June 3rd of that year public opinion forced them to abandon their plans. That fact alone knocks most of your arguments into a cocked hat.
In 1949 there was a huge outcry in Britain when HMS Amethyst was fired on by China in the Yangtze river but not one person stopped to ask the question what was a British gunboat doing on a Chinese river in the first place, it was taken for granted we had the right to trample anyone we wanted under our jackboots. Recent events with Iran have shown that not much has changed.
Yes the Chinese could tell you a lot of things about the West but I doubt you'd listen.
Nothing you said alterd anything I said. If we claim the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour justified the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then we claim that our invasion of Iraq justifies the use of weapons of mass destruction against us by the Muslim world. The only difference I can see is that our invasion of Iraq was the greater crime.
Fred
I was trying to keep the thread along the lines of the thread, i.e. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, WW2 and Japan. But where do we stop? Do we include all the dynasties of China and Japan? All the Kings and Queens of Europe since the Romans?
Or is it a case we do everything in our power to down the USA? Lets see now, can we slag them for defeating the British in the War of Independence? For the American Civil War? For their treatment of the Native Indians? For their part in Slavery?
If the answer is yes, then every country in this world – with the UK leading the way – is guilty at some time or other of crimes against humanity.
Lets look at the facts again. The USA –like after WW1 – wanted to be out of Europe within two years. But as most European countries were on the verge of bankruptcy, they want the “Good Old USA” to stay and protect them from the bad Russians. So they did. They also decided to implement the Marshall Plan, this was to aid European countries and hopefully they could stand on their own two feet and the USA could return home. It sounds like the USA were wanting to take over the world!
Korea was to be administrated by Russia in the north and USA in the south. However this did not work out to well as the Cold War started in 1947-49 and Korea seemed to have been picked as the testing ground for the new war. Who started it? We could blame the USA, USSR or China as they blame each other. However it was the UN who wanted the country split, as this would keep both sides happy. But as we know it did not turn out that way, so should we blame the UN, as you blame the US and UK for WW2.
Opium War is politics and it was the East India Company who were supplying the opium. What you seem to forget is that opium was seen in those days, as coke is seen today, a harmless recreational pastime. Even the great Sherlock Homes took it. But you might have a point; the Columbians are secretly trying to destroy the Great British info structure by selling drugs in the UK. Now that is a good conspiracy, and here I was under the impression it was down to money or good old trade, i.e. drugs for cash. Or in China tea for drugs.
There were a number of times where the use of the A-Bomb was considered. Another was in N Korea by Gen Macarthur, who was shortly removed from power. The main point is this, other than in tests, how many nuclear weapons have been used in anger since August 1945? Obviously something is working.
Iraq and the 2nd Gulf War is illegal. So the vast majority of the public seem to be saying. Yet the proof is the other way around. The media had it that the majority of this nation was against the invasion of Iraq. However when the general elections came around who was still in power? Was it Tony Blair and Labour? Yes it was! And was this the same people who sanctioned the war? Yes it was! Did the public – who were totally against the war – remove them as promised? No they did not! It might be that the media was wrong about the vast majority being against the war!
Why did the 2nd Gulf War not work? Is it because it was illegal? No. Was it because the people did not want rid of Saddam? No, they were jubilant at first? Is it because they are worse off now than before? Yes.
Have you ever considered how peace came about in the Former Yugoslavia and it has not in Iraq? Yet both have mixed races and different cultures. Could it be that one was by NATO and the other was under UN resolutions? Like in one they are allowed to show and take weapons on the street and in the other to do so meant being shot on sight? It might be that the immediate action in Iraq was not wrong it is the actions after which does not work. So the criminal act might not have been the invasion, but what could be criminal are the actions of politics and business after the invasion. Have a wee think about that one.
Blazing Sporrans
11-Apr-07, 13:07
While you're talking to the Chinese ask them how they feel about the Opium Wars or our support for the Nationalists in the revolution, ask them about Korea or how America stitched them up over Vietnam.
Talking of Vietnam did you know that in 1954 America offered the French nuclear weapons to use against North Vietnam?
Here we go -
Stage 1: fred adopts his tried and trusted technique when debating(?) - a repeated refusal to answer questions put to him and instead introduces the above quoted post as an attempt at deflecting the points that quirbal asks to have answered.
Stage 2: fred inducts Abewsed and quirbal into his infamous anti-fred 'clique' owing to the fact that they dare gang up on him with more lucid and more well researched points of information.
Stage 3: Abewsed and quirbal are completely ignored in further debate.
Not that I consider myself to be a modern-day Nostradamus - in actual fact I'd be chuffed to see Stages 2 and 3 obviated by Stage 1 being properly addressed....:D
The only difference I can see is that our invasion of Iraq was the greater crime.
We aren't discussing the Iraq invasion here.
While you're talking to the Chinese ask them how they feel about the Opium Wars or our support for the Nationalists in the revolution, ask them about Korea or how America stitched them up over Vietnam.
Talking of Vietnam did you know that in 1954 America offered the French nuclear weapons to use against North Vietnam? The weapons were on a ship on route to Vietnam when word got out and after an article in the New York Times on June 3rd of that year public opinion forced them to abandon their plans. That fact alone knocks most of your arguments into a cocked hat.
In 1949 there was a huge outcry in Britain when HMS Amethyst was fired on by China in the Yangtze river but not one person stopped to ask the question what was a British gunboat doing on a Chinese river in the first place, it was taken for granted we had the right to trample anyone we wanted under our jackboots. Recent events with Iran have shown that not much has changed.
Yes the Chinese could tell you a lot of things about the West but I doubt you'd listen.
Nothing you said alterd anything I said. If we claim the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour justified the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then we claim that our invasion of Iraq justifies the use of weapons of mass destruction against us by the Muslim world. The only difference I can see is that our invasion of Iraq was the greater crime.
You really are making a complicated explanation when the simple truth is that the A bombs saved lives by bringing a swift end to WW2. They were justified.
Nothing you said alterd anything I said. If we claim the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour justified the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then we claim that our invasion of Iraq justifies the use of weapons of mass destruction against us by the Muslim world. The only difference I can see is that our invasion of Iraq was the greater crime.
Evening Freddy,
Hows tricks tonight?
Where have I stated that because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour that the US was justified in nuking Japan? Come on Fred, tell me?
What I have said is that by dropping the bombs that war was bought to a swift conclusion.
Are you going to deny the following - on 6th August Hiroshima was bombed, on 9th August Nagasaki and on the 15th August Japan announced that it was unconditionally surrendering.
Can I suggest that you read the following article on the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/nuclear_01.shtml.
The authors credentials are shown at the end and it gives an interesting insight into the new research conducted by US, British and Japanese researchers during the 1990's.
Read it and then see what you thing about the bombs. Don't just look at the US casualties, look at the Japanese. A quarter of a million during the invasion of Okinawa and the 20:1 ratio.
Now tell me Fred, you do the maths, which path would lead to the least Japanese civilian casualties?
I look forward to hearing your reply in the near future.;)
I look forward to hearing your reply in the near future.;)
You seem to be completely missing the point even if your BBC report had been accurate.
Let me put it this way, between May and June last year a survey conducted in Iraq found that our invasion had caused the deaths of 650,000 people, the violence has escalated since and there is still no end in sight, a recent MOD report stated that British troops will be in Iraq for at least another five years.
If Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and a means of using them on American cities would he have been justified in using them to prevent the invasion? If he had agents in American cities with canisters of deadly gas would he have been justified in releasing that gas on a civillian population to try and influence American foreign policy? Would Muslim agents today have the right to murder large numbers of American citizens to try and force an American withdrawal from the Middle East?
The power of the bomb could have been demonstrated without a huge loss of civillian life, the Japanese could have been given time to asses the situation and prepare a response before the dropping of the second bomb. A guarrantee for the safety of the Emperor could have been given before the dropping of the bombs instead of after. The motive for dropping the bombs was never to save lives.
You see the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not an act of war it was an act of terrorism, to justify that is to justify all terrorism.
You seem to be completely missing the point even if your BBC report had been accurate.
Are you sure that you have not missed the point? What makes you think that the BBC report is inaccurate? Can you show me a more accurate report? Explain to me how I have missed the point.
Let me put it this way, between May and June last year a survey conducted in Iraq found that our invasion had caused the deaths of 650,000 people, the violence has escalated since and there is still no end in sight, a recent MOD report stated that British troops will be in Iraq for at least another five years.
If Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and a means of using them on American cities would he have been justified in using them to prevent the invasion? If he had agents in American cities with canisters of deadly gas would he have been justified in releasing that gas on a civillian population to try and influence American foreign policy? Would Muslim agents today have the right to murder large numbers of American citizens to try and force an American withdrawal from the Middle East?
Tell me Fred, what has this got to do with the dropping of the bombs?
Are you suggesting that the democratically elected government in Iraq do not want the US in Iraq? Have they asked the US to leave? Come on Fred, tell me I would like to know? Lets have the facts please.
The power of the bomb could have been demonstrated without a huge loss of civillian life, the Japanese could have been given time to asses the situation and prepare a response before the dropping of the second bomb. A guarrantee for the safety of the Emperor could have been given before the dropping of the bombs instead of after. The motive for dropping the bombs was never to save lives.
Does this not conflict with your expressed view that the bomb was dropped to save US lives? Even if it was not the reason it DID save lives, and that is what you are overlooking.
How much time would you have suggested? A week, A month?
You see the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not an act of war it was an act of terrorism, to justify that is to justify all terrorism.
And what was the Second World War if not an act of terrorism? That was the way that World War II was pursued by all nations involved. If you are not aware of that then your knowledge of WWII is seriously lacking.
What do you call Hamburg, East Prussia, Treblinka, Nanking, Coventry? These are but a few acts that were carried out by both sides in the war. So what you call an act of terrorism was, in the context of the war an act of war.
You are falling into the trap of judging acts that were carried out over fifty years ago by todays standards
You really are making a complicated explanation when the simple truth is that the A bombs saved lives by bringing a swift end to WW2. They were justified.But only if the bombs hadn't been dropped by the Americans! Oh, and us too if it had been done by the RAF!
Rheghead, you really must get your Sense of Morality aimed in the right direction, or perhaps more correctly, the left direction.
Write out 100 times, "The world is a wonderful place which is ruined by America and Britain who are responsible for all the evil activities that have ever been or ever will be!"
And make sure you use indelible ink.
Are you suggesting that the democratically elected government in Iraq do not want the US in Iraq? Have they asked the US to leave? Come on Fred, tell me I would like to know? Lets have the facts please.
Iraq doesn't have a democratically elected government, it is an occupied country controlled by the occupiers.
The people of Iraq want the Americans out, or hadn't you noticed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6537861.stm
Does this not conflict with your expressed view that the bomb was dropped to save US lives? Even if it was not the reason it DID save lives, and that is what you are overlooking.
I have never expressed that view, I have stated the bombs were dropped to stop Russia gaining territory in the East, as they did in Eastern Europe.
How much time would you have suggested? A week, A month?
As I said, long enough to assess the situation and prepare a response.
And what was the Second World War if not an act of terrorism? That was the way that World War II was pursued by all nations involved. If you are not aware of that then your knowledge of WWII is seriously lacking.
It was a war, that is why it was called World War Two.
What do you call Hamburg, East Prussia, Treblinka, Nanking, Coventry? These are but a few acts that were carried out by both sides in the war. So what you call an act of terrorism was, in the context of the war an act of war.
Hamburg was a large port in Germany vital to the German war effort, East Prussia a province of Germany, Coventry was an industrial town which produced arms and equipment for the British war effort. Nanking was one of China's principal cities and a place of great strategic importance, all except Treblinka places of strategic importance. Treblinka was a German concentration camp in Poland which no one knew much about till after the war, terrorist acts are done to be seen, done to terrify countries into doing what you want them to do, a concentration camp is not a terrorist act.
You are falling into the trap of judging acts that were carried out over fifty years ago by todays standards
No it is you who are justifying a terrorist act, the ultimate terrorist act, the murder of a quarter of a million innocent civillians with weapons of mass destruction for one reason and one reason only, because it was America who perpetrated it. If it had been Russia who dropped the bombs there wouldn't be any half baked excuses about how many lives it saved.
Germany came to terms with the attrocities they committed in the war, they have admitted their guilt and are determined to see they can never happen again. We are still in denial about ours, it could happen again at any time, any day now it could happen again.
Blazing Sporrans
12-Apr-07, 03:14
Iraq doesn't have a democratically elected government, it is an occupied country controlled by the occupiers.
Silly me and I was reading this. (http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1100185192552) I suppose it was published by the Bush lackeys though....
The people of Iraq want the Americans out, or hadn't you noticed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6537861.stm
A wee quote from the article link you posted...
The US military praised the peaceful nature of the protest.
Spokesman Col Steven Boylan said: "This is the right to assemble, the right to free speech - they didn't have that under the former regime."
Treblinka was a German concentration camp in Poland which no one knew much about till after the war, terrorist acts are done to be seen, done to terrify countries into doing what you want them to do, a concentration camp is not a terrorist act.Treblinka was a death camp, not a concentration camp - there is a manifest difference between the two. And according to this site (http://www.holocaust-history.org/denial/revisionism-qa.shtml) there is evidence that the Allies knew of the existence of death camps during the war. This picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Majdanek-1944.jpg) was shown in the London press in October 1944, albeit from another death camp at Majdanek.
No it is you who are justifying a terrorist act, the ultimate terrorist act, the murder of a quarter of a million innocent civillians with weapons of mass destruction for one reason and one reason only, because it was America who perpetrated it. If it had been Russia who dropped the bombs there wouldn't be any half baked excuses about how many lives it saved.And yet again you conveniently sidestep quirbal's request for a response on the possible mammoth numbers of casulaties and fatalities, should the 'conventional' invasion of Japan have continued as planned, without the deployment of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which is what we're discussing after all).
Germany came to terms with the attrocities they committed in the war, they have admitted their guilt and are determined to see they can never happen again. We are still in denial about ours, it could happen again at any time, any day now it could happen again.Well you heard it here first!!! Watch out you guys who are of an age to be conscripted because we're apparently set on reclaiming those pink bits on the old maps that used to signify the limits of the Empire (and not the one in Star Wars [lol] ). On second thoughts, it's more like one of these old sci-fi movies, where after the apparently happy ending, the voiceover at the end pleads with us earnestly and repeatedly in a terror-filled voice to "watch the skies".....
Jeemag_USA
12-Apr-07, 03:38
If a conventional invasion of Japan took place instead of A-Bomb attacks, certainly people would have died, but those that would die would be almost mostly those who choose to fight against an invasion. An A-Bomb does not discriminate between innocent and guilty, an invading army force concentrating on military targets does to the best of their ability. There is no argument in my mind to say the A-Bomb was a necessary minds to end a war, to try and justify that is futile and ignorant, but thats just my opinion!
If a conventional invasion of Japan took place instead of A-Bomb attacks, certainly people would have died, but those that would die would be almost mostly those who choose to fight against an invasion. An A-Bomb does not discriminate between innocent and guilty, an invading army force concentrating on military targets does to the best of their ability. There is no argument in my mind to say the A-Bomb was a necessary minds to end a war, to try and justify that is futile and ignorant, but thats just my opinion!
Hi Jeemag.
I was very sad to read this morning of the death of Kurt Vonnegut, a native of Indianapolis. He was one of the worlds true free thinkers and I owe a lot of what I am today to the effect his books had on me when I was young.
Kurt was a prisoner of war in Dresden when we firebombed it.
"two pieces of yeast were discussing the possible purposes of life as they ate sugar and suffocated in their own excrement. Because of their limited intelligence, they never came close to guessing that they were making champagne."
Kurt Vonnegut
Fred
You baffle me in your statement that the “invasion of Iraq was the greater crime.” In the case of Iraq, Saddam and his henchmen were told that the US & UK were coming. He was even given the opportunity to put himself in exile and live a long a prosperous life, rather than at the end of the hangman’s noose.
However the Japanese did not give the USA or UK the same opportunity in Dec 1941. They conducted an unprovoked attack against other countries. I am baffled as to how you come to this assessment. Under international law i.e. UN, an unprovoked attack is worse than one that took opportunities to prevent a war.
You state that 650,000 people have been killed since the invasion of Iraq and violence has escalated. Escalated by whom? UN troops, US, UK or terrorists? I revert back to my previous statement. It was not the invasion which was or is wrong, it is the way the UN, US/UK and other bodies have dealt with the country since the invasion.
Yes Saddam could have used WOMD against US/UK troops, but that in turn would have lead to a retaliation of a greater scale and ensured that all Iraqi troops and equipment became vaporised. By your way of thinking, it is a wonder that the US did not encourage Saddam to use WOMD so they could test their own WOMD and show the Russian and the Middle East what they could achieve! Or am I giving food for more conspiracy theories?
What agents from what Middle East country? As the Iraqi Government is now recognised by the World and UN - even the other Middle East countries - why would they send agents to attack the US with WOMD? Or are you meaning an unsanctioned attack by terrorists.
You state that the dropping of the two A-bombs was a terrorist attack. True, as war is terror on a grand scale with death being the ultimate end. Then shooting at someone is terrifying, as is shelling, as is bombing, as is fire bombing and we must include nuclear weapons. This is why it is called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), as the terror of attacking someone which could lead to an all out nuclear war is madness and a terrifying thought.
You state that the US decided to use the A-Bombs which had nothing to do with the Allied casualties and that it was to stop the Russian from taking more territory. As I stated before the division of Europe and Far East was agreed at Yalta and also it was agreed (By the US & UK) that any A-Bombs were to be used as soon as possible against Germany or Japan. This was in April, before Churchill lost his election and the death of Roosevelt. The plans were put in place before August 1945, as were the Allied agreement for unconditional surrender of Japan, agreed by USA, UK, USSR, China and the Commonwealth. Japan paid for letting the war escalate so far. Germany might have been the first country to be attacked by a nuclear weapon if the Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge) had worked. So the Germans should be glad that it did not work, it saved one of their cities from being destroyed by a A-bomb. Or was that another US conspiracy that they ensured that the Ardennes failed so that they could use the A-bombs only on Japan?
What you are saying is that a family from across the street decides to attack you and your neighbour, then when you retaliate and corner them in their house, you are not allowed to attack them, as they are beaten. But they do not surrender but state that if you attack the house they will kill anyone who enters. So are you justified to use grenades to attack, as they have innocent people in the house? That is a moral judgment. All I can say is that if you have children, then you instincts would be to use the grenades before sending your own children into the house. And what you must remember is that most of the people who would be fighting on the Allied sides would be in their late teens and early twenties, other peoples children. Why should they pay the price for another Governments policies. Like your argument about Iraq, but Iraq is paying for their own leaders policy.
That is why most people want the troops out of Iraq. It is not about what they did and are doing is unjust, it is that they are getting killed for other policies. British, Americans and Iraqi’s are dying for other peoples policies. These policies have changed since the euphoria shown by the Iraqi’s when Saddam was defeated. It is now a war of terror, between different races and beliefs. Do you think that peace will come if the US and UK pull out of Iraq?
Anyway, this shows how much you know about WW2. You state “Treblinka was a German concentration camp in Poland which no one knew much about till after the war, terrorist acts are done to be seen, done to terrify countries into doing what you want them to do, a concentration camp is not a terrorist act.”
So this was not an act of terror? It is estimated that between 800,000 to 1,400,000 people were executed there.
A am 100% sure that they would argue with the above statement, IF THEY WERE ALIVE!
It is OK to have these camps, as long as no one knows about them.
Also the deaths of about 6,000,000 people in death/concentration camps are not an act of terror. Is sure was to those who were there! Have you not seen the new reels, where they were shipped off in trains. I don’t seem to remember many people smiling other than the Guards! They seem to have been terrified!
There is a chance here to debate the acts of war committed world wide and hear all sides of the argument. But I have to admit, you seem to have your head buried in the sand, as you seem blind and deaf to the arguments of others. Then again the Japanese were blind and deaf to their fate by August 1945 and it cost them.
[SIZE=2]Fred
You baffle me in your statement that the “invasion of Iraq was the greater crime.” In the case of Iraq, Saddam and his henchmen were told that the US & UK were coming. He was even given the opportunity to put himself in exile and live a long a prosperous life, rather than at the end of the hangman’s noose.
The reason you are baffled is because you assume we have the right to tell the heads of other countries to get out so we can move in and help ourselves to their oil.
Japan didn't invade America, Japan didn't even bomb America, they attacked American military ships and planes at an American base in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Anyway, this shows how much you know about WW2. You state “Treblinka was a German concentration camp in Poland which no one knew much about till after the war, terrorist acts are done to be seen, done to terrify countries into doing what you want them to do, a concentration camp is not a terrorist act.”
So this was not an act of terror? It is estimated that between 800,000 to 1,400,000 people were executed there.
I've no doubt it was terrifying for those involved but it was not a terrorist act. If Germany had been holding those people and said to another country "either do as we say or we execute them" then it would have been a terrorist act.
Are you claiming that the American abuses at Abu Ghraib were a terrorist act?
No, I expect you believe it's only terrorism if someone else does it, we only ever do anything for humanitarian reasons, we did Japan a favour dropping atom bombs on them, the people of Iraq should be thanking us for invading them as far as you're concerned.
I wonder if someone dropped atom bombs on Britain, if Britain was invaded and occupied if you would see things the same.
Japan didn't invade America, Japan didn't even bomb America, they attacked American military ships and planes at an American base in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Fred a mute point IMO, Pearl Harbour had been an American base for nearly a hundred years before the Japanese attack.
No mention on the unprovoked attacks by Japan on Hong Kong and Singapore and the number of Scots Troops who suffered at the hands of the so called Knights of Bushido.
Another small question, what has Saddam and Iran got to do with this thread.
Fred a mute point IMO,
You are usually very particular about things.
Pearl Harbour had been an American base for nearly a hundred years
Are you saying if the US stays somewhere long enough it is theirs? If so God help Scotland.
Mind you that could explain why they are increasing their military presence in Iraq now that the war is over.
You are usually very particular about things.Are you saying if the US stays somewhere long enough it is theirs? If so God help Scotland.
Mind you that could explain why they are increasing their military presence in Iraq now that the war is over.
What I am saying is that Hawaii became annexed to the U.S. in 1898 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1898), but became a territory in 1900 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900) and has been a state since 1959 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959).
Is that particular enough Tristan? and Why should God help Scotland, he has already, we are Gods own wee garden of Eden in my eyes
What I am saying is that Hawaii became annexed to the U.S. in 1898 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1898), but became a territory in 1900 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900) and has been a state since 1959 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959).
Is that particular enough Tristan? and Why should God help Scotland, he has already, we are Gods own wee garden of Eden in my eyes
So Hawaii was a territory.
I love Scotland, just not so keen on a US presence anywhere in the UK.
Iraq doesn't have a democratically elected government, it is an occupied country controlled by the occupiers.
The people of Iraq want the Americans out, or hadn't you noticed.
I think you have already been given a link that proves to the contary. The elections were fair and democratic. Just because some of the electorate do not agree with the result does not mean that they were not fair.
I cannot deny that some of the Iraqi population want the US out however where in that article does it state that ALL Iraqis want the US out?
Has the elected government of Iraq requested that UN forces leave?
I have never expressed that view, I have stated the bombs were dropped to stop Russia gaining territory in the East, as they did in Eastern Europe.
If that was one of the reasons considering how the Soviets treated those countries you have an issue with that? These countries are still coming to terms with the legacy of over forty years of communist misrule.
Using your logic the Japanese population should be thanking the US for bombing them.
It was a war, that is why it was called World War Two.
True, it was a war, but a war that was pursued in a different way to most others. Almost twice as many civilians were killed as military personnel.
Many commanders pursued the war on the basic that the war could be won by destroying civilian morale. Therefore destroying civilian life and lives was an integral part of the war.
Hamburg was a large port in Germany vital to the German war effort
Indeed, but did it deserve the following: 50000 deaths, 1 million civilains homeless, 9000 tons of bombs dropped on it and 250000 homes destroyed? Come on Fred, I would not expect you to miss a chance like that, the RAF and USAAF were responsible - it was refered to later by British military leaders as Germanys Hiroshima.
East Prussia a province of Germany
WAS a province of Germany - I suggest as an introduction you read chapter 10 of Max Hastings Armageddon and then tell me that that was not an act of terrorism (or can the Red Army not commit such a thing?).
Coventry was an industrial town which produced arms and equipment for the British war effort.
What over 60 thousand buildings destroyed?
Nanking was one of China's principal cities and a place of great strategic importance
I think enough has been said about the Rap of Nanking - is that not a terrorist act?
all except Treblinka places of strategic importance. Treblinka was a German concentration camp in Poland which no one knew much about till after the war, terrorist acts are done to be seen, done to terrify countries into doing what you want them to do, a concentration camp is not a terrorist act.
Read the following Fred http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/17/newsid_3547000/3547151.stm
Whan did the war end, 1945 in my reckoning, not 1942.
If this was not an act of terror what was, the death camps were located in eastern europe, are you telling me that people did not know? The jews did, the locals did, people escaped from these places. Sobibor for example.
No it is you who are justifying a terrorist act, the ultimate terrorist act, the murder of a quarter of a million innocent civillians with weapons of mass destruction for one reason and one reason only, because it was America who perpetrated it. If it had been Russia who dropped the bombs there wouldn't be any half baked excuses about how many lives it saved.
Fred, are you denying that it saved lives? Does it matter who dropped it? I have above pointed you to several acts of terror, commited by various countries during the war. I am not denying that dropping the bombs was an act of terror, what I am saying is that it was justified because it ended the war. as I have said, one dropped on the 6th, one on the 9th and surrender on the 15th.
That is the justification, not that the US cannot do any wrong - just that it saved millions of lives.
If success is measured by the number of lives saved then surely you can see that?
Germany came to terms with the attrocities they committed in the war, they have admitted their guilt and are determined to see they can never happen again. We are still in denial about ours, it could happen again at any time, any day now it could happen again.
Gibberings of a mad fool, you do not read my posts do you, or if you do yo dont understand them. Are you saying that nothing was learnt from WWII? Come on Fred, we have had 60 years of realative peace.
Jeemag_USA
12-Apr-07, 21:58
Hi Jeemag.
I was very sad to read this morning of the death of Kurt Vonnegut, a native of Indianapolis. He was one of the worlds true free thinkers and I owe a lot of what I am today to the effect his books had on me when I was young.
Kurt was a prisoner of war in Dresden when we firebombed it.
Yeah thanks Fred, been the talk of the town today, great writer, was due to make a public appearance here soon too and it was sold out. I will admit to not knowing much about him up until now, but I am going to see if I can pick up some of his books now.
The reason you are baffled is because you assume we have the right to tell the heads of other countries to get out so we can move in and help ourselves to their oil.
In 1941 Japan was an emerging nation, they needed raw materials and oil to achieve the standards of living the west already enjoyed. America had cut off their supply of oil so they had the choice between becoming a primative country or going and getting oil for themselves from Java, to do that they had to put the US Navy out of action for several months so they bombed them at Pearl Harbour.
Its all clear now.
Japan didn't invade America, Japan didn't even bomb America, they attacked American military ships and planes at an American base in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
No? Have you heard of Operation AL? Now run along Fred, look this up and then tell me that Japan never invaded a US state.
I've no doubt it was terrifying for those involved but it was not a terrorist act. If Germany had been holding those people and said to another country "either do as we say or we execute them" then it would have been a terrorist act.
I am having trouble following the thinking behind this.
Are you claiming that the American abuses at Abu Ghraib were a terrorist act?
Debatable, but just a bit off topic eh Fred. If you want to debate Iraq tehn start a new thread.
No, I expect you believe it's only terrorism if someone else does it, we only ever do anything for humanitarian reasons, we did Japan a favour dropping atom bombs on them, the people of Iraq should be thanking us for invading them as far as you're concerned.
Well, if you look at the alternatives for Japan then you could argue yes, we did them a favour. Look at the projected casualties of a conventional attack. If the Red Army had invaded would Japan be in the position it is now, or would they have suffered like most of eastern europe under communust rule?
As for Iraq, I am sure the Kurds and Marsh Arabs do thank us. To blame the US for all the current terrorist attacks and therefore the state of the country is very simplistic indeed.
I wonder if someone dropped atom bombs on Britain, if Britain was invaded and occupied if you would see things the same.
Well Fred, who would do that? Over the last fifty years or so only one country would have been able to do that, and if that was the case I am sure we would think what we were told to think.
Japan didn't invade America, Japan didn't even bomb America, they attacked American military ships and planes at an American base in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.Good point Fred. I think we should send the Royal Navy around the World destroying other Country's military ships and aircraft.
Of course, provided we don't actually bomb their Countries they will have absolutely no right to do anything about it they should just sit back and accept it.
Let's see, who can we start with? Russia? I can't see them being over worried by us destroying most of their Navy. China? I doubt they would worry about a little Loss of Face. Now about North Korea? Surely they will just sit back and take it.
I've heard of "Drawing a very thin line" but that one is so thin it's invisible!
In 1949 there was a huge outcry in Britain when HMS Amethyst was fired on by China in the Yangtze river but not one person stopped to ask the question what was a British gunboat doing on a Chinese river in the first place, it was taken for granted we had the right to trample anyone we wanted under our jackboots. Recent events with Iran have shown that not much has changed.
Fred, Caithness Org, 11 April 2007
In 1949 the British gunboat HMS Amethyst was fired on in the Yangtze river in China. There was much outrage in Britain at Mao’s People’s Liberation Army, which was on the verge of taking power, for shooting at the ship. There was little questioning of what a British ship was doing on a Chinese river.
George Galloway, Socialist Worker, 31 March 2007 http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=11060
HMS Amethyst was sailing up the River Yangtse-Kyang delivering supplies to the British Diplomatic Community in Nanking and to stand-by to evacuate them if it became necessary. The Chinese Nationalist Government had no objection to this being done.
To try to present that act as some kind of aggressive military act is, to say the lest, disingenuous.
The Chinese Communists, who held only one bank of the River, without provocation, commenced top shell the ship at point blank range killing 17 crew including, I understand, the captain. They claimed that they had “mistaken” her as a Chinese Nationalist ship but, even when they had established differently, decided to hold both the ship and the crew hostage.
At no stage was there any intent to become involve in a Chinese Civil War. The Civil War, which the Communist eventually won was not resolved for a further six months or more.
Yet another attempt at twisting events to make accusations of aggression by the Running Dogs of Capitalist Imperialist Warmongers (I think that is meant to be some kind of Chinese Maoist insult) gets blown out of the water or at least the river.
Even after that act of provocation by the Chinese Communists, Britain still did not become involved in the Chinese Cicil War.
Unfortunately for both fred and George Gabbaway more people than they would like to think actually do question things.
Jeemag_USA
13-Apr-07, 01:01
The only reason I am posting this is because I just watched a documentary on it last week. The Japanese Navy did attack the american mainland in 1942, it was in California, they were trying to shell the Oil Tanks at Elwood. They only fired from a small artillery gun from a submarine, but it was enough to prove to the government that it could be done and the Japanese had plans to shell San Francisco. The only reason I took an interest in that was because it was the influence behind one of my favorite movies "1941" ;) There is also reports of a balloon bombing attempt in Hayfork California in 1945.
Who cares its history forget about it, theres more important things in life!
rich12345
13-Apr-07, 03:19
I agree,I know some of you feel strongly about it but its just starting arguements.
The only reason I am posting this is because I just watched a documentary on it last week. The Japanese Navy did attack the american mainland in 1942, it was in California, they were trying to shell the Oil Tanks at Elwood. They only fired from a small artillery gun from a submarine, but it was enough to prove to the government that it could be done and the Japanese had plans to shell San Francisco. The only reason I took an interest in that was because it was the influence behind one of my favorite movies "1941" ;) There is also reports of a balloon bombing attempt in Hayfork California in 1945.
Yes Jeemag_USA but if you look back at what I actually wrote you will see that I was talking about the Japanese attack on Pearl harbour, comparing it to the American invasion of Iraq, both initiating crimes which lead to the ensuing conflicts. During the attack on Pearl harbour the Japanese didn't bomb America, they didn't invade America whereas America did bomb Iraq and did invade.
Unfortunately quirbal consistently ignores what I write and argues against things I didn't write which leads to a great deal of confusion.
In any case I don't think that a few shells fired from a submarine or anti-personel mines tied to balloons in any way compares to the firebombing of Tokyo or the nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki now does it?
Gibberings of a mad fool, you do not read my posts do you, or if you do yo dont understand them. Are you saying that nothing was learnt from WWII? Come on Fred, we have had 60 years of realative peace.
I do read your posts, you live in a strange world where the most devastiting killing machine ever devised by man saves lives. Where elections in an occupied country with an ongoing insurgency, where voters, election officials and candidates are threatened, intimidated and murdered, where the occupying power decides who can stand, who has access to the media and who gets protection while campaigning is fair.
In the real world the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed a quarter of a million innocent civillians, once you go further and start trying to justify it by what might have been then anything anyone does can be justified by what might have been. In the real world our invasion of Iraq caused the deaths of around a million Iraqi civillians and counting, once you start trying to justify it by saying we brought them our ideals then you justify the invasion of any country by anyone to bring them their ideals, once you justify it by saying not every last person in that country objects then you justify the invasion of any country by anyone just so long as not everyone objects.
Yes we in the west have been fortunate to live in a bubble of relative peace while the carnage took place in far away countries but that bubble can burst at any time, never has it been in greater danger of bursting, America can only push the world so far before it fights back.
In the real world our invasion of Iraq caused the deaths of around a million Iraqi civillians and counting.
Most of the deaths are caused by Iraqi/foreign fighter insurgency and are not done by the forces that are there by the UN mandate.
In the real world our invasion of Iraq caused the deaths of around a million Iraqi civillians and counting
Most of the deaths are caused by Iraqi/foreign fighter insurgency and are not done by the forces that are there by the UN mandate.
You are talking about two different times:
Fred is talking about the US led invasion which occurred without a UN mandate and Rheghead is talking about the post invasion time, after the UN mandate in June 2004.
Fred wrote, “In any case I don't think that a few shells fired from a submarine or anti-personnel mines tied to balloons in any way compares to the firebombing of Tokyo or the nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki now does it?”
You would if it was one of your own family killed! Then it becomes personal.
“I do read your posts, you live in a strange world where the most devastating killing machine ever devised by man saves lives.”
Did you know that the Machine-Gun was invented to save lives! The lives of those with machine-guns! Like most weapons, they are invented to save lives, those who have them. Or they were items, which were invented for other uses, but turned into weapons, like TNT and Barbed Wire. Then again man has a very good ability to improvise weapons, from a stone to the atom.
However trying to keep to the original post.
Most people have a tendency to look at actions, which happened years ago, through today’s eyes, which we cannot do, unless it is to learn from our mistakes.
To try to understand the Japanese during the 30’s and 40’s is hard for people today. They believed the Emperor was a divine being and that of above God or Gods. They also believed they were on a divine mission to rule the Far East and save the East from the West. They also had the “three-all” policy and that was to “Loot all, Kill all, Burn all”, or what is “Total War.
I would recommend reading “The Rape of Nanking” by Iris Chang (ISBN 0 14 02.7744 7) if you can stomach it and not have nightmares. It is worse than a Stephen King horror movie. It contains photos of Japanese conducting bayonet practice on live Chinese “civilians”. 5 Chinese “civilians” being buried alive. One shows “the moment of a victims decapitation.” All nice reading and more which are not suited to this site. The question you are left with is what made these people behave as they did and not only the soldiers, but also that of the Japanese at home. One of the Japanese officers, who made a sport out of beheading 100 people, was asked why he had carried it out after the war and before he was executed. His reply was to “better attract a wife when he returned to Japan.” Now imagine if that was a low 2nd Lieutenant of the US or British Army and they had carried out this “sport” and then arrived home, how would his family or potential wife feel in today’s society or even during the war? It would not have been the same as the Japanese’s reaction, of one of treating him as a hero. With this in mind, how can we understand the Japanese?
Instead of dropping the two A-bombs the options were…
1/ Negotiate surrender. But as the Allies had agreed that it would be an unconditional surrender in 1943 this was out of the question.
2/ Invade Japan that could lead to the deaths of millions of lives military and civilian.
3/ Not to invade but to carry on “Fire Bombing” towns and cities until nothing was left and millions of people were dead or dying.
4/ Everyone pack up and go home, and try to pretend it was all a bad dream.
Fred which one would you pick?
You also make an issue out of Pearl Harbour not being part of the US. What you forget is that most countries had coaling stations dotted all around the world. Some were rented, some were bought and some were taken by force. These stations needed to be protected and some were converted into military bases, like Pearl Harbour. Also it was a better policy to have these bases in front of your country to intercept the enemy before they reach you. That is why we ended up with the Falklands and Gibraltar. Or you could argue that Spain owns Gibraltar and we stole it from them and they stole it from the Moslems who stole it from the Gaul’s, who stole it from X, who stole it from Adam and Eve, who stole it from Cheetah and so on.
The issue that you seem to forget is that the USA did not attack Japan or German. They tried embargoes, but Japan still attacked rather than seek a peaceful settlement. Then again some people think they should have done that against Iraq. Maybe they have learnt from a previous mistake!
Then there is the US in the UK and that the Yanks were not welcome. Not true. We wanted them to stay when we thought the Big Bad Russian had their eyes on the rest of Europe. What we also forget is that the vast majority of them left when the Cold War ended. Or is there a secret base under Forss and Murkle, or maybe Holy Loch is still in use, but we just can’t see the submarines. The Yanks stayed by request and left when they were no longer required. Again actions of a power mad country!
moonshadow
13-Apr-07, 14:08
Who cares its history forget about it, theres more important things in life!
i cant believe the stupidity of comments like that! history is there as a reminder not to make the same mistakes. [evil]
Jeemag_USA
13-Apr-07, 16:09
i cant believe the stupidity of comments like that! history is there as a reminder not to make the same mistakes. [evil]
Have to agree with you, flippant one liners from people who don't care, than why post, if people want to come on here and argue about something thats whata community forum is for, if they want to continue talking about then they have a right to, if your not interested why bother wasting space by posting in the thread because you think you tell people to give it a rest. Makes no sense. if you don't like it don't read it!!!!! [lol]
Blazing Sporrans
13-Apr-07, 16:43
Unfortunately quirbal consistently ignores what I write and argues against things I didn't write which leads to a great deal of confusion.
"This is a public announcement - Pot calling kettle, pot calling kettle, come in kettle......" [lol] [lol]
You are talking about two different times:
Fred is talking about the US led invasion which occurred without a UN mandate and Rheghead is talking about the post invasion time, after the UN mandate in June 2004.
Exactly, when you considered that fred's figure of a million deaths did not occur during the original invasion.
Exactly, when you considered that fred's figure of a million deaths did not occur during the original invasion.
But fred did not say they occurred during the original invasion, but that as a result of the invasion we are in the situation we are in, including all those deaths.
This thread seems to be about picking out the least little error in wording so it seemed fair to point out the different times you two were speaking of. The times the two of you spoke about are different but you and fred are both correct there have been far, far more deaths since the war was "declared" over, which I find to be a very interesting statistic.
But fred did not say they occurred during the original invasion, but that as a result of the invasion we are in the situation we are in, including all those deaths.
This thread seems to be about picking out the least little error in wording so it seemed fair to point out the different times you two were speaking of. The times the two of you spoke about are different but you and fred are both correct there have been far, far more deaths since the war was "declared" over, which I find to be a very interesting statistic.
Yes, he said that the million deaths was caused by the invasion. I say that is wrong wording, the greater part of the deaths are caused by the insurgency.
Jeemag_USA
13-Apr-07, 19:27
I'd say the invasion was the cause of the insurgency personally, no invasion no insurgency? Therefore on is a direct result of the other.
I'd say the invasion was the cause of the insurgency personally, no invasion no insurgency? Therefore on is a direct result of the other.
Which I believe is the point of fred's initial thread and my attempts to clarify dates and numbers.
Regardless of whether or not we should have invaded Iraq (under the guise of looking for WMD or overthrowing Saddam), we are now seeing the results of that invasion.
Which I believe is the point of fred's initial thread and my attempts to clarify dates and numbers.
Regardless of whether or not we should have invaded Iraq (under the guise of looking for WMD or overthrowing Saddam), we are now seeing the results of that invasion.
Maybe this thread is getting a little lost. What has Saddam and Iraq or WDM got to do with the dropping of A Bombs on Japan?
Am I being too picky for you Tristan?
I'd say the invasion was the cause of the insurgency personally, no invasion no insurgency? Therefore on is a direct result of the other.
I don't think so. If you were going to take that line then you can blame anything on anything as historical events lead to others, how far back can you go before it makes no sense at all?? I know fred is keen on pointing out that events of many years ago caused event X though. It doesn't take into account the steps in between.
But it is true that the insurgency has caused the greatest number of deaths in Iraq.
I think the insurgents if they really have the interests of Iraq at heart should lay down their arms because it is the Iraqi government that is doing all the civil rebiulding and it is the insurgency that is seriously hampering things. How can this be blamed on the invasion and the acts of the US. People should know when they have lost the war.
I really think we should be on about hiroshima and nagasaki though.
Maybe this thread is getting a little lost. What has Saddam and Iraq or WDM got to do with the dropping of A Bombs on Japan?
Am I being too picky for you Tristan?
Are you trying to be?
I was simply commenting on an earlier post of Rhegheads where he looked at a line in fred's earlier postings. I am surprised you missed that and only commented on my post. http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=212253&postcount=211
But you are right back to A bombs. Anything else would be off topic.
I do read your posts, you live in a strange world where In the real world the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed a quarter of a million innocent civillians, once you go further and start trying to justify it by what might have been then anything anyone does can be justified by what might have been.
Well Fred, instead of pondering what might have been, I will give you some facts and then you can provide some answers.
Saipan, mandated to the Japanese by the League of Nations had a military garrison of 30,000, and a Japanese civilian population of approximately 35,000. Virtually none of the military garrison survived and 22,000 cililians died - mothers were jumping off cliffs with their children rather than surrender.
Take Okinawa, A Japanese civilian population of at least 300,000 before the US invasion. Following the capture of the islands the population was 190,000. The Japanese military deaths were approx 107,500 with up to another 25,000 killed by incineration and being blocked into the many caves on the island. 7,500 soldiers survived the battle.
Now as you can see Fred, the casualites from a conventional invasion of Japanese territory were horrendous, military deaths at over 95% and civilian at over 35% of the population.
Now to simply infer that because the casualties were so high for these two islands that they would be so high for a mainland invasion is simplistic to say the least, but do you see the scenarion Fred?
The bombs killed close to 250,000 civilians but in light of the above that seems like a small number.
I am really struggling to understand what your objection to the use of the bombs were, considering that their use bought a swift end to the greatest human disaster ever. Is it
a)That you simply object to nuclear weapons
b)That 250,000 cililians were killed by the bombs
c)The weapons were used by the US
d)Some other answer (please specify)
Yes we in the west have been fortunate to live in a bubble of relative peace while the carnage took place in far away countries but that bubble can burst at any time, never has it been in greater danger of bursting, America can only push the world so far before it fights back.
Yes Fred, it is strange is it not that those countries that were involved most in WWII have lived in relative peace since the war, or certainly since Korea (although this is in many ways a continuation of WWII) they have.
Most of the conflicts have been in countries that played a relatively small part, if any in the war. Maybe therefore we have learnt from their use.
Most people have a tendency to look at actions, which happened years ago, through today’s eyes, which we cannot do, unless it is to learn from our mistakes.
While other countries have been reducing the number of nuclear weapons in their arsenal, under the terms of the NPT which America signed, the Bush administration has been actively trying to increase Americas. They have been developing new weapons, a violation of the NPT. Last year they tried to get funding for more "bunker buster" nuclear weapons to add to their arsenal, Congress turned them down. This year they are pushing hard for funding for the "Reliable Replacement Warehed" which is basically a way of increasing your nuclear arsenal by pretending to be replacing warheads. America's nuclear warheads should remain reliable for another 50 years, there is no need.
Bush has changed America's rules of engagement to allow pr-emtive strikes and strikes against non-nuclear states, both illegal under the NPT.
The “National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” published last year says “Our deterrence strategy no longer rests primarily on the grim premise of inflicting devastating consequences on potential foes, both offenses and defenses are necessary. . . . Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role.”
Bush has taken the gateway to the East and the oilfields of Iraq and now he is after Iran but Iran is different, they arn't crippled by eight years of war and twelve years of sanctions, they can fight back if they get half a chance.
Now look back to our mistakes of 50 years ago and learn from them, be afraid, be very very afraid, not of some imaginary threat, be afraid of what we ourselves are capable of.
While other countries have been reducing the number of nuclear weapons in their arsenal, under the terms of the NPT which America signed, the Bush administration has been actively trying to increase Americas. They have been developing new weapons, a violation of the NPT. Last year they tried to get funding for more "bunker buster" nuclear weapons to add to their arsenal, Congress turned them down. This year they are pushing hard for funding for the "Reliable Replacement Warehed" which is basically a way of increasing your nuclear arsenal by pretending to be replacing warheads. America's nuclear warheads should remain reliable for another 50 years, there is no need.
And your position on Iran and NPT are?
The “National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” published last year says “Our deterrence strategy no longer rests primarily on the grim premise of inflicting devastating consequences on potential foes, both offenses and defenses are necessary. . . . Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role.”
And what are the positions of Russia, china, Isreal, France, the UK, Pakistan, India and North Korea?
Now look back to our mistakes of 50 years ago and learn from them, be afraid, be very very afraid, not of some imaginary threat, be afraid of what we ourselves are capable of.
Correct, but not only of ourselves but of others as well
Last year they tried to get funding for more "bunker buster" nuclear weapons to add to their arsenal, Congress turned them down.
Congress did not turn them down, the Bush administration retracted the application for funding.
Congress did not turn them down, the Bush administration retracted the application for funding.
All the posts I could find said that congress turned them down including the Washington post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html. Seems congress wouldn't even allow funding for a study so Bush and co backed down. If you have reliable source saying otherwise could you post it please.
All the posts I could find said that congress turned them down including the Washington post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html. Seems congress wouldn't even allow funding for a study so Bush and co backed down. If you have reliable source saying otherwise could you post it please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster
The Bush administration removed its request for funding [7] of the weapon in October 2005. Additionally, US Senator Pete Domenici announced funding for the nuclear bunker-buster has been dropped from the Department of Energy's fiscal 2006 budget at the department's request [8].
Here is another webpage that says the same thing.
http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=3336
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster
Checked your wikepedia link and the one link to a reliable source, CNN, does not exist.
However my Washington post link saying congress wouldn't play ball does and so does the others listed below.
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_12/Dec-Bunker.asp
http://www.basicint.org/update/WNU041124.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/28/MNGIKFV3FK1.DTL
and from your own link
But Congress has been cool to the idea of a new nuclear warhead. The House blocked funding for the program, even though the Energy Department had requested only $4 million, scaling back earlier requests.
and
Your lobbying played a key role in persuading Congress this week to agree to eliminate all funding for the nuclear “bunker buster,’ effectively rejecting for the second year in a row the president’s request to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons.
Checked your wikepedia link and the one link to a reliable source, CNN, does not exist.
However my Washington post link saying congress wouldn't play ball does and so does the others listed below.
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_12/Dec-Bunker.asp
http://www.basicint.org/update/WNU041124.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/28/MNGIKFV3FK1.DTL
and from your own link
But Congress has been cool to the idea of a new nuclear warhead. The House blocked funding for the program, even though the Energy Department had requested only $4 million, scaling back earlier requests.
and
Your lobbying played a key role in persuading Congress this week to agree to eliminate all funding for the nuclear “bunker buster,’ effectively rejecting for the second year in a row the president’s request to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons.
Despite all you say, Congress did not actually turn the Bush administration down for its application for funding into nuke bunker-busters. the application for funding was withdrawn before it got to Congress. I believe the Bush admin was reacting to Public opposition and withdrew. What responsible Government wouldn't do this?? As for the application in the first place, the Bush administration was acting upon advice from its military for wanting weapons designed to do a specific job, which military wouldn't want tailor made weapons for specific applications?
Anyway, this thread should be about Hiroshima and stuff.
Despite all you say, Congress did not actually turn the Bush administration down for its application for funding into nuke bunker-busters. the application for funding was withdrawn before it got to Congress. I believe the Bush admin was reacting to Public opposition and withdrew. What responsible Government wouldn't do this?? As for the application in the first place, the Bush administration was acting upon advice from its military for wanting weapons designed to do a specific job, which military wouldn't want tailor made weapons for specific applications?
It is possible that the Washington post is lying and that both my and your links that say congress was not playing ball with Bush, refusing the request for two years in a row, before he finally gave up could be wrong but I don't think so.
It does not change the fact that congress refused his request 2 years in a row. I will grant you Bush did give up in his third year of trying which goes to show even he can be taught.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.