View Full Version : Was the Iraq war in Vain?
Pre March 2003 I was against the IW. But once our troops were committed I was too much of a patriot to start dissenting.
But I am getting the definite impression that things aren't going the way we planned. I am not talking about the insurgency, crikey if we were invaded by a superior force I would be doing the same. I am talking about the fledgling democracy there. There is talk of women being treated as 2nd class citizens, MPs defending Lucifer, theocratic revolution etc. Our pet iraqi president came nowhere in the elections and without the secular sunnis taking part I am afraid the Iraqi members of parliament will be talking (word removed - bans next).
I am getting the feeling that we have killed the guards and the inmates are truly in charge of the asylum.
Does anyone else have similiar thoughts?
war *grrr* im surprised they havent called it a "Military movment " like Nam..
a bigger sham i havent seen in well i dont know..
Does anyone else have similiar thoughts?
Exxon Mobil $26 billion profits in 2004 up 52% on 2003.
Chevron Texaco $13 billion profits in 2004 up 85% on 2003.
Shell Oil $19 billion profits in 2004 up 48% on 2003.
Looks to me like everything is going to plan.
I don't think oil profits were the reasons for war, rather energy security was, under the smoke and mirrors of ridding the world of Saddam's WMD.
I don't think oil profits were the reasons for war, rather energy security was, under the smoke and mirrors of ridding the world of Saddam's WMD.
Just a coincidence that both George W Bush and Osma Bin Laden are from families who made a fortune in oil and Bin Ladens brother is one of George W Bushes business partners in an oil construction business I suppose. Just one of them coincidences that happen all the time, like two members of the same family, father and son, getting to be president of America in the space of a decade.
What does the "W" stand for anyway...don't tell me...I can guesse.
Margaret M.
12-Aug-05, 23:09
I am afraid the Iraqi members of parliament will be talking (word removed - bans next).
Why was the word removed? Shiite is a branch of Islam.
Bill Fernie
12-Aug-05, 23:20
This was an obvious replacement for swear word and not allowed as per the Forum Rules which everyone signs up to when joinung the boards. It is just this sort of attmept to avoid the rules that resulted in the need to tighten them up in the past as it causes the moderators more and more work that might ultimately end in the boards being suspended. Swearing will not be tolerated on the Caithness.org boards as it is a family friendly web site. If you want to use words that suggests a swear word as in this double entendre situation it will be treated as a swear word and the appropriate ban isssued. It really is quite annoying that regular users of the message boards still try to do this and it does not appear to be all that smart - merely a waste of our time.
http://www.caithness.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=5767
Sorry Bill, I would like to clarify. I understand the vast majority of Iraqi MPs are Shi'ite with a few Kurds thrown in. I should have said "Sharia" instead to keep the context proper. No double entendre intended.
We have a situation in Iraq where only two major groups in Iraq are represented.
This was an obvious replacement for swear word and not allowed as per the Forum Rules which everyone signs up to when joinung the boards. It is just this sort of attmept to avoid the rules that resulted in the need to tighten them up in the past as it causes the moderators more and more work that might ultimately end in the boards being suspended. Swearing will not be tolerated on the Caithness.org boards as it is a family friendly web site. If you want to use words that suggests a swear word as in this double entendre situation it will be treated as a swear word and the appropriate ban isssued. It really is quite annoying that regular users of the message boards still try to do this and it does not appear to be all that smart - merely a waste of our time.
http://www.caithness.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=5767
Aw, such a shame. Schoolboys everywhere have had great mileage out of Shiites, Turkish Kurds and other spooneristic delights for many years. Probing Uranus has also led to gales of laughter in many a Physics class and that was just the teachers!!
It seems to me that kids today are pretty well versed in the usual four-letter offenders. Listening to youngsters in the streets and in the Primary School playground makes you realise how quickly they pick up the profanities that will serve them so frequently throughout their lives. Modern popular music is rife with bad language and it can only be so long before Harry Potter needs to be reincarnated with a potty mouth so that he can have more street cred. Goodbye Hogwarts and Hello Dogfarts.
ps did Snoop Doggy ever sing a song about Muckle Flugga? I could have sworn (woops) that I heard him singing something about it during the Live 8 concert.
Osma Bin Laden are from families who made a fortune in oil
Wrong Fred, the Bin Laden family made their money in construction.
Osma Bin Laden are from families who made a fortune in oil
Wrong Fred, the Bin Laden family made their money in construction.
Constructing things for the oil industry.
Wrong Fred, they were involved in Civil construction, roads & buildings. Never let the truth get in the way of a conspiracy theory though. I suppose Bews the Butcher in Thurso made his money in the Nuclear Industry?
This was an obvious replacement for swear word and not allowed as per the Forum Rules which everyone signs up to when joinung the boards. It is just this sort of attmept to avoid the rules that resulted in the need to tighten them up in the past as it causes the moderators more and more work that might ultimately end in the boards being suspended. Swearing will not be tolerated on the Caithness.org boards as it is a family friendly web site. If you want to use words that suggests a swear word as in this double entendre situation it will be treated as a swear word and the appropriate ban isssued. It really is quite annoying that regular users of the message boards still try to do this and it does not appear to be all that smart - merely a waste of our time.
http://www.caithness.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=5767
I accept your warning but disagree with it. You say in the rules that humour is fine in threads, this was an attempt at humour, a pun is the lowest form of wit.
I did not profane or m@$k a profanity or even replace a swear word, I merely played on words. If punning is to be banned then reflect it in the rules. I still think that I acted within the rules.
I have done over 1000 posts without swearing, in fact I think of myself as a white knight in that dept, I am not going to let myself down now...
I'm with rheghead on this one.... boo hiss......
Keep up the fine posting sir.
I am etc.
I don't think oil profits were the reasons for war, rather energy security was, under the smoke and mirrors of ridding the world of Saddam's WMD.
I agree with the above statement. I believe Saddam did have WMD and am concerned about which country now have these Weapons of Mass Destruction. And now Iran enters upon the scene with their nuclear capability to use such weapons against whom? I believe that many will become victims of the WMD and Iran's possibility of using their nuclear capability against many potential victims.
SandTiger
13-Aug-05, 20:11
Interesting example of how censoring an word draws far more attention to it - I actually missed it on the first speed reading of the post :o)
I digress..
Back to you Marion...
:lol:
I don't think oil profits were the reasons for war, rather energy security was, under the smoke and mirrors of ridding the world of Saddam's WMD.
I agree with the above statement. I believe Saddam did have WMD and am concerned about which country now have these Weapons of Mass Destruction. And now Iran enters upon the scene with their nuclear capability to use such weapons against whom? I believe that many will become victims of the WMD and Iran's possibility of using their nuclear capability against many potential victims.
Iran doesn't have nuclear capability.
America does and that worries me far more, not only do they have them they have used them.
SandTiger
13-Aug-05, 22:05
Yep, but who has those WMD now and how were they smuggled out of Iraq evading all those cunning US satellite systems?
:roll:
SandTiger
13-Aug-05, 22:08
America does and that worries me far more, not only do they have them they have used them.
Yes but America would only use them for a just cause, wouldn't they? :confused
I think history has shown that the US has proven themselves to be trusted custodians of nuclear weapons.
Their use of them that ended WW2 was not a unilateral one either. The allies gave joint consent for their use. Arguably they brought a quick end to the war which saved a milloin plus allied lives and millions more Japanese civillians. The Japanese weren't going to surrender without a serious wake up call.
Let us not forget that the firefight for Tokyo cost more lives than Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.
SandTiger
13-Aug-05, 22:28
... they brought a quick end to the war which saved a milloin plus allied lives and millions more Japanese civillians....
Not if they happened to live in Nagasaki or Hiroshima, but hey...
Not if they happened to live in Nagasaki or Hiroshima, but hey...
But is does matter to the millions saved that live in the dozens of spared cities across Japan who grew up in peace in a free Japan who are now staunch allies of the US.
Go figure...
SandTiger
13-Aug-05, 22:45
Is it really that simplistic?
I am afraid to say for those in charge of military campaigns and who have the tough decisions to make then I would say 'yes, it is that simplistic'.
How would history have judged the US if they took Japan by conventional means alone?
3 million dead on both sides when they could have used available technology to avoid such a bloodbath?
I couldn't make that decision but I am glad Truman and Churchill were able to...
SandTiger
13-Aug-05, 23:04
3 million dead on both sides when they could have used available technology to avoid such a bloodbath?
And the long term after effects of those bombings were..?
3 million dead on both sides when they could have used available technology to avoid such a bloodbath?
And the long term after effects of those bombings were..?
Viibrant bustling cities rebuilt from the ashes.
Do you think the long term effects of wounds sustained from conventional means are anyless painful and debilitating? Burns, shellshock, Amputations, eye injuries, etc etc etc.
Cancer is a battle taken by 1 in 3 adults in Britain. Have we been struck by a nuke as well? :roll:
I think history has shown that the US has proven themselves to be trusted custodians of nuclear weapons.
You mean like the time they went and put nuclear missiles in Turkey causing the Russians to put missiles in Cuba and came within minutes of blowing the entire world up?
Their use of them that ended WW2 was not a unilateral one either. The allies gave joint consent for their use. Arguably they brought a quick end to the war which saved a milloin plus allied lives and millions more Japanese civillians. The Japanese weren't going to surrender without a serious wake up call.
Of course they would have surrendered, they just wouldn't surrender unconditionally as the Americans demanded. They were ready to negotiate a surrender, possibly with only one term, that they be allowed to keep their Emperor. They kept their Emperor anyway as it happens though in an altered state and he had to make a declaration that he wasn't divine, which the Japanese believed he was, that's a term they probably wouldn't have agreed to.
So that's why all those people died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to make one man stand up and admit that he wasn't a God, was it worth it.
So that's why all those people died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to make one man stand up and admit that he wasn't a God, was it worth it.
So 3 million casualties are worth it so one man can still stand up and admit he is a God?
But I am getting the definite impression that things aren't going the way we planned.
Lets get things back on track here to Rhegheads original post.
The reason things are not going to plan are three fold.
1. The plan was to impose democracy as we have come to view democracy through a western lens.
2. You cannot impose a western idea of democracy on a "nation" of tribes whose collective value system is not aligned with the principles of western democracy.
3. The plan was flawed from the beginning.
4. The current outcome is the only outcome there could ever have been given points 1, 2 and 3 above.
So in summary, things are not going the way "we" planned whoever "we" may be. But they are very much going the way they were always going to go given a) the life conditions and b) values in the nation of tribes called Iraq along with c) the compelling event which was the invasion of March 2003.
It would very much appear that one reaps what one sows. One would be foolish to plant a feather and think a hen would grow.
So that's why all those people died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to make one man stand up and admit that he wasn't a God, was it worth it.
So 3 million casualties are worth it so one man can still stand up and admit he is a God?
I don't understand your logic. Japan surrendered and three million casualties didn't happen.
What makes you think that if we had done a deal and let them keep their Emperor instead of dropping atomic bombs that there would have been three million casualties?
Anyway even if we hadn't done a deal or dropped the bombs I doubt any Americans would have died invading the Japanese mainland, I doubt America would have invaded Japan, I think Russia would have got there first.
Fred, if you think my logic is flawed then please provide facts to back up your logic that the Japanese would have surrendered.
Even after Nagasaki there were some Generals that wanted to keep up the fight.
Rheghead,you are absolutely correct, even after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped the Emperor was given the chance to surrender, he refused, and if the any of the Allies had invaded Japan, all POW were to be put to death, as I had relatives that survived the horrors of the POW camps, and was lucky enough to hear first hand from them of their ordeal.
Fred whats with all this anti American crap you are spouting, Uncle Sam is not the ogre you make out.
Go and read "The Knights of Boshido" and then maybe you will understand
The Japanese government and the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned via leaflets that their city was to be destroyed many days before it was. The casualties decided to stay. Both cities were legitimate military targets, hiroshima was the HQ for the 2nd imperial army and Nag was a majorwar manufacturing centre.
It seems to me that the blame for the death toll laid firmly at the feet of Hirohito and his cronies.
I think Russia would have got there first.
Read up on your history.
Russia was at peace with Japan.
Fred, if you think my logic is flawed then please provide facts to back up your logic that the Japanese would have surrendered.
Even after Nagasaki there were some Generals that wanted to keep up the fight.
You post your facts to back up your logic that they wouldn't.
Even after Nagasaki there were some Generals that wanted to keep up the fight rather than agree to unconditional surrender, I doubt that there were any that wouldn't have agreed a conditional surrender, they were just holding out for the best possible terms.
The Japanese knew they couldn't win, they would have done a deal to disarm, they would have been fools not to. They would not have given up their Emperor though, that was not negotiable, they would have fought to the last man for their Emperor.
I think Russia would have got there first.
Read up on your history.
Russia was at peace with Japan.
You read up on your history, Russia declared war on Japan on the 9th of August 1945 and started attacking Japanese troops in China. Four days after Japan surrendered to the Allies Russia invaded the Kuril Islands, Japan was still at war with Russia and China till the 12th of September.
The Russian entry into the war had a lot more to do with Japans surrender than the atom bombs did, the chances are that Japan would have surrendered anyway rather than face a Russian invasion. Given the right terms I'm sure they would.
You post your facts to back up your logic that they wouldn't.
The onus is on you to provide evidence that they would have surrendered without the bombs.
The Japanese knew they couldn't win, they would have done a deal to disarm, they would have been fools not to. .
Pure Speculation. Surrender was not in their make up, their opinion of those that have surrendered were nothing more than rats and were to be treated as such, do you really think the Imperial Army wanted to think of themselves as rats?
By the time of the second bomb, old Hirohito got the message thank goodness.
I think Russia would have got there first.
Read up on your history.
Russia was at peace with Japan.
You read up on your history, Russia declared war on Japan on the 9th of August 1945 and started attacking Japanese troops in China. Four days after Japan surrendered to the Allies Russia invaded the Kuril Islands, Japan was still at war with Russia and China till the 12th of September.
The Russian entry into the war had a lot more to do with Japans surrender than the atom bombs did, the chances are that Japan would have surrendered anyway rather than face a Russian invasion. Given the right terms I'm sure they would.
When the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945 and carried out Operation August Storm, the Japanese Imperial Army ordered its ill-supplied and weakened forces in Manchuria to fight to the last man, an order which it carried out.
Russians at war with Japan? Declared 2 days after Hiroshima and 1 day before Nagasaki? A week before surrender? I repeat Fred, Russia was at peace with Japan.
Ok fred you say Russia had more to do with Japan surrendering than the A bombs, certainly alternative history, so how do you account for the fact that the Japanese troops were ordered to fight to the last man?
Again fred, you provide evidence that Japan was gonna surrender without those bombs.
I am still waiting...
And of course this does kind of conflict with what Fred wrote earlier on the subject of suicide bombers:
The first Kamikaze pilot flew in October 1944 when a superior American fleet was steaming towards Japan. The name Kamikaze means "divine wind" and dates back to the 13th century when an army invading Japan was turned back by a typhoon.
The suicide bomber is and has always been a weapon of defence not attack
:roll:
When the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945 and carried out Operation August Storm, the Japanese Imperial Army ordered its ill-supplied and weakened forces in Manchuria to fight to the last man, an order which it carried out.
Russians at war with Japan? Declared 2 days after Hiroshima and 1 day before Nagasaki? A week before surrender? I repeat Fred, Russia was at peace with Japan.
Yes, the Russians already had troops in place ready to move on Japan when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. They wern't in much of a hurry before the bomb was dropped, it would have taken America months to prepare for an invasion across the Pacific, it would have been November at the earliest.
Erm you just posted a quote from Answers.com stating that Russia declared war on Japan and claiming that it proves that Russia was at peace with Japan.
Ok fred you say Russia had more to do with Japan surrendering than the A bombs, certainly alternative history, so how do you account for the fact that the Japanese troops were ordered to fight to the last man?
Of course they would have fought to the last man against a Russian invasion, they even surrendered unconditionally to the allies rather than face a Russian invasion. You don't honestly think it was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that persuaded them do you? America had been hammering Japanese cities since 1942, they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and still the Japanese didn't agree to unconditional surrender but the moment the Russians start their advance they give up to the Americans.
Again fred, you provide evidence that Japan was gonna surrender without those bombs.
I am still waiting...
I didn't say Japan was gonna surrender without those bombs, I said that with assurances for the future of the Emperor I have no doubt they would have surrendered. Assurances which were originally included in the Potsdam Proclamation made by America,
Britain and China in July 1945 calling for Japan to surrender but which had to be removed on the insistence of President Truman despite the fact they were strongly recomended by both the British and American military leaders and that he was advised that removal of the assurances would make it impossible for Japan to surrender.
Now you show me one scrap of evidence that Japan would not have agreed to a conditional surrender without the use of atomic bombs.
Now you show me one scrap of evidence that Japan would not have agreed to a conditional surrender without the use of atomic bombs.
I never made any such claim so I don't need to provide that evidence. All I said was that Japan was not showing any signs of surrendering at all.
Now you show me one scrap of evidence that Japan would not have agreed to a conditional surrender without the use of atomic bombs.
I never made any such claim so I don't need to provide that evidence. All I said was that Japan was not showing any signs of surrendering at all.
Then like I said, the justification for the use of nuclear weapons and the killing of thousands of inocent civilians is based on a lie. The decision to drop the bombs was not a military decision it was a political one.
Wrong fred, it was exactly the reason why the bomb was legitimate, the Japanese weren't for surrendering, no matter how you wrap up your misinterpretation of history in ifs and buts and speculation.
The US was struck first by an aggressor and you don't beat back an aggressor just to his borders because they'll be back to annoy everyone in the future. The invasion of Japan would have ramped up the casualties on both sides severely (I think we have gone over this before?)The bombs saved lives period. Legitimate targets in a declared war.
I doubt whether the allies were really interested if the emperor kept his throne or not it was his militarist regime that was really in charge.
No doubt it is easy for those of us who have an anti american agenda to judge looking back 60 years but nobody has any idea what life would be like 60 years on...
Do you really think America dropped the bomb just to get rid of the divinity of the Emperor? That is a rubbish notion, again I say, they saved countless lives on both sides and they targetted legitimate targets in a legitimate war.
Russia declared war a week before VJ and invaded a few islands and attacked a few troops in another countrymeanwhile, back at the ranch on the Japanese's doorstep the US was taking out cities.
Go figure it out for yourself.
Wrong fred, it was exactly the reason why the bomb was legitimate, the Japanese weren't for surrendering, no matter how you wrap up your misinterpretation of history in ifs and buts and speculation.
Wrong Rheghead. Japan would have surrendered anyway, even without the atomic bombs, even without the threat of invasion from Russia, even without an invasion from America. That is not speculation, that is the findings of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (Pacific) , an investigation conducted for the US government, published in 1946, based on testimony from top Japanese officers and surviving records.
See http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm for a copy of the report.
The US was struck first by an aggressor and you don't beat back an aggressor just to his borders because they'll be back to annoy everyone in the future. The invasion of Japan would have ramped up the casualties on both sides severely (I think we have gone over this before?)The bombs saved lives period. Legitimate targets in a declared war.
Actually the US wasn't struck, the US Navy was attacked in Hawaii, Hawaii didn't become part of the US till 1959.
As for the saving of lives then simply giving terms of surrender that the Japanese could agree to would have saved all those lives and the lives of the innocent women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well.
I doubt whether the allies were really interested if the emperor kept his throne or not it was his militarist regime that was really in charge.
Oh no The American government wern't worried about the Japanese Emperor at all, they were worried that Japan might surrender before they had chance to use their bomb.
Now you go figure that one out.
More Speculation and retrospective twaddle with the value of hindsight.
We have come to an impasse or are we just going round in circles? All I know is that history records my views as factually correct rather than speculation.
Unless you were a Soviet historian who was locked in a post war nuclear face off and had the invested interest of undermining the free world's ethos of free trade and peace the world over. I can't get the feeling that fred has been taken in hook line and sinker by propaganda.
More Speculation and retrospective twaddle with the value of hindsight..
Rheghead, get your head out of the sand and look at the facts. My information comes from official sources, it isn't speculation.
Here are the facts.
1. The Japanese wanted to negotiate a surrender and Truman knew it. He knew it from intercepted Japanese radio messages and he knew it because the Japanese had already asked the Russians to act as a go between.
2. The one condition they could not agree to was the removal of their Emperor, that was not in their power and Truman knew it. When the Japanese did surrender after the dropping of the bombs it was because the Emperor himself ordered them to voluntarily, if the Emperor hadn't done that there would have been no surrender.
We have come to an impasse or are we just going round in circles? All I know is that history records my views as factually correct rather than speculation.
Actually there are a lot of very eminent historians that say you are wrong.
If you take a look at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0803-26.htm you can see the arguments from the historians point of view.
Unless you were a Soviet historian who was locked in a post war nuclear face off and had the invested interest of undermining the free world's ethos of free trade and peace the world over. I can't get the feeling that fred has been taken in hook line and sinker by propaganda.
Yes, I was taken in hook line and sinker by propoganda just like you were. Then I examined the facts instead of just believing what I wanted to believe and came to the conclusion that the dropping of the atomic bombs was totally unjustified.
Hasn't it dawned on you yet, the people of Britain and America were lied to just as they were lied to over Iraq.
1. The Japanese wanted to negotiate a surrender and Truman knew it. He knew it from intercepted Japanese radio messages and he knew it because the Japanese had already asked the Russians to act as a go between.
Yet you still haven't provided any transcriptions of said radio signal to back up your theory nor have you proved that Truman has heard them if they existed.
2. The one condition they could not agree to was the removal of their Emperor, that was not in their power and Truman knew it. When the Japanese did surrender after the dropping of the bombs it was because the Emperor himself ordered them to voluntarily, if the Emperor hadn't done that there would have been no surrender.
Yet you still haven't provided any contemporaneous verbal evidence to back up your claims
Still waiting
the Japanese had already asked the Russians to act as a go between.
How do you know the Japanese weren't contacting the Russians to join forces with them? Sounds ridiculous I know but you have got be a bit more investigative than you have been up to now.
I don't actually believe this one but how can you discount that the Japanese weren't just trying the enemy of my enemy is my friend thing because they realised an Iron curtain had descended on Europe. A cheap get out for the Japanese, but given the situation it was worth a try...
BTW Commondreams is an alternative history website.
all wars are in vain in that they are allways going to be the last one. since 1945 the british army has had only one year when its not had to fight in some other godforsaken hole on the planet. this war like all others is the fault of politians and big conglomorates and the fact that we seem to be willing to do wht ever the americans want us to do. since 9/11 they have sudenly become the leaders in the war on terror despite the fact that they know nothing about anti terrorism as the casualty figures from this conflict show when comparing them with say our own casulty list. in short we have jumped to the tune of america and are now embroiled in a conflict with no foreseable end in sight our armed forces are stretched to breaking point and whilst MR blair and MR bush want to go round playing the worlds police force its ouir lads and lasses that have to pay the piper.
OK compo we just roll over and let them take potshots at us.
Hail compo for Secretary of Defence!!!
well reghead. i dont tend to roll over myself i just shoot back. id leave the secerety of defence jobs to the wanna bees :D but thanks for the vote
frank ward
15-Aug-05, 19:57
Supporting Blair's war on the grounds that you claim to be 'a patriot' is errant nonsense. This 'my country right or wrong' is the worst kind of jingoism.
I opposed the war from the start and still do. A hundred thousand Iraqis died so the USA could impose itself still more on the middle east. Meanwhile the Palestinians have their country stolen from them - with the continued help of the USA and UK - and are herded into camps to rot.
If you still forgive the lies peddled by Trust-Me Tony you really are a sad case. No wonder the lying, murdering scumbags got re-elected.
I have some big posters for your bedroom wall. It's a photo of George W under the title "World's number 1 terrorist. If you want a copy (£2 posted) contact me.
fred/rheghead,
There is a History Channel show called X-Day - not sure when its on next - but its all about the planning for a proposed invasion of Japan by the Americans and what it would cost etc.
Sorry I can't tell you any more - but maybe you can buy it on video or DVD and the two of you can get together for a beer or two and watch it...
I could tell you how it ends but I don't want to spoil it for you. Lets just say a little boy and a fat man make a late appearance.
;)
the Japanese had already asked the Russians to act as a go between.
How do you know the Japanese weren't contacting the Russians to join forces with them? Sounds ridiculous I know but you have got be a bit more investigative than you have been up to now.
I don't actually believe this one but how can you discount that the Japanese weren't just trying the enemy of my enemy is my friend thing because they realised an Iron curtain had descended on Europe. A cheap get out for the Japanese, but given the situation it was worth a try...
BTW Commondreams is an alternative history website.
If you don't believe it why say it? You don't believe it, I don't believe it, no one else believes it, sounds like a silly basis for a discussion to me.
Have you any evidence that what it says on commondreams isn't true? If you have could you post references please, they give references which can be checked, could you do the same?
frank ward
15-Aug-05, 20:27
I agree with Reghead in some areas re the use of the Bomb.
Disregarding the benefit of the hindsight we now enjoy regarding radiation, fallout etc etc, I cannot blame the Yanks for dropping the A bomb on Japan.
Faced with a fanatical militarist society (the emperor was a willing pawn) where all internal opposition had been wiped out before the war, the Allies (and Japan) would have faced huge casualties in invading Japan.
Maybe the Japs were about to surrender, we'll never know for sure. Historical accounts - and intelligence - are conflicting. Maybe the US did want to use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as experiments. But the choice was made to end the war quickly and dissuade the Russians from further adventures.
The US chose not to bomb Tokyo - which would probably have eliminated the Emperor as well as the military councils - in order to preserve a governable post-war framework.
sounds like a silly basis for a discussion to me.
It is no more silly than the claims on commondreams where in fact no references have been given :roll: That was my point, alternative history is a big thing now, it usually ends up with someone writing a book with a political agenda, you can buy these publications at any airport bookshop.
Pure Speculation.
OK compo we just roll over and let them take potshots at us.
You don't seem to understand how wars start, Iraq didn't take any pot shots at us.
Try reading this, it's a PDF file containing an actual American military doccument from 1962, it might give you a better insight.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
fred/rheghead,
Its actually irrelevant whether Japan wanted to conditionally surrender or not. That was not an option.
The allies at the Casablanca conference in Jan 1943 stated that all axis countries should surrender unconditionally. Unconditionally meaning without conditions or negotiations.
An invasion or a blockade of Japan were the two most likely scenarios for this unconditional surrender.
However, the allies also were keen to see that the war with Japan be over within 12 months of the war in Europe finishing. After the US and Anzacs had a whole shipload of fun at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, Truman and his chiefs of staff became aware that to fight the Japanese hand to hand on sovereign soil would cause an incalculable loss of life. On the last two islands captured, the japanese had fought lterally to the last man and the US had taken heavy casualties as a result.
Invasion vs blockade? What to do? Invasion seemed like the best political choice as a blockade may have taken who knows how long plus would have been tough to take for the american people once they saw pictures of millions of starving japanese.
Invasion too would have been unpopular as the loss of US life would have not been well received at home.
At Potsdam in 1945, Truman (by that time aware that the US had the bomb) told the allies that the US was prepared to use a new unspecified weapon to bring about a speedy unconditional Japanese surrender. Stalin egged him on having known ahout the US A bomb before Truman probably did.
So the die was cast. - The Potsdam Declaration gave new conditions for Japanese unconditional surrender or else. The Japanese did not surrender - Truman true to his word gave the go ahead for Little Boy and Fat Man to do their worst. The Japanese surrendered -unconditionally - as had always been the objective. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives are lost versus millions. A land invasion is avoided. A million or so US lives are spared. And Stalin gets to witness that the US weren't joking about the bomb.
As one of the US generals who was responsible for the incendiary bombing of Tokyo said - war keeps on going until you kill enough people.
The US brought the war to a close by demonstrating that it had the capability to kill enough people regardless of how popular or moral that decision may have been.
The US chose not to bomb Tokyo - which would probably have eliminated the Emperor as well as the military councils - in order to preserve a governable post-war framework.
I think the US decided not to bomb Tokyo because Tokyo had already been well and truly bombed, there wasn't too much left of it to destroy.
The targets were chosen because they were undamaged by previous bombing raids and all the destruction afterwards would be known to have been caused by the atom bomb.
sounds like a silly basis for a discussion to me.
It is no more silly than the claims on commondreams where in fact no references have been given
It is full of references, it is almost entirely references, are you sure you read the right web page?
sounds like a silly basis for a discussion to me.
It is no more silly than the claims on commondreams where in fact no references have been given
It is full of references, it is almost entirely references, are you sure you read the right web page?
OK point one out to support your arguements
fred/rheghead,
Its actually irrelevant whether Japan wanted to conditionally surrender or not. That was not an option.
That's what I've been saying, the offering of assurances for the Japanese Emperor was not an option but the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people was.
You don't see anything wrong with that?
You don't see anything wrong with that?
The US brought the war to a close by demonstrating that it had the capability to kill enough people regardless of how popular or moral that decision may have been.
eh Fred, I think I answered your question before you asked it. I was not/am not passing judgement. I wasn't condoning the loss of life, merely providing a rationale for the decision from the allies perspective.
Of course, there was one thing the allies did not try which might have worked. They could have shouted, "Japan, unconditionally surrender or we will shout unconditionally surrender again!"
That would have put the (divine) wind up them for sure..... ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.