Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Atomic Japan

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 789
Poll Question: Do you believe it was neccessary for Japan to be nuked at WW2?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
38 [52.78%]
34 [47.22%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Atomic Japan
    Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 12:44
Yes, I did say that Japan was losing the war. I wrote ''losing the war'' on purpose instead of ''surrendering''. Note the difference. It was a matter of weeks before Japan lost the war.
A matter of weeks? Really, never heard that one before. Before the bombs dropped, they weren't willing to give up. They were worried about keeping a Empire they had carved out and willing to fight to the end.
It was going to be constant bombing and a high number of American deaths to finally end this war if it came to invasion. Even if we did get a foot hold, it was going to be a population who thought it was going to be life and death, and unlike D-Day, we weren't going to run into a population unwilling to fight too.
As I wrote before there is every possibility that the Soviet invasion was a big reason in Japan's surrender. Just read the whole thread.
Could've been, but I highly doubt it. You forget that alot of high ranking Japanese, including the Emporer who had last word didn't want to stop until the bombs were dropped. It took one bomb to get the thought in mind, took a second to make them release the Surrender Immediatly.
To stop massacres with massacres? That is very convincing.
Am I talking to walls? I've just repeated I don't know how many times that this was a country not wanting to give up a fight. That had a Empire and was masscreing a population. They resorted to suicide as a tactic in multple situations, the bombs were needed.
This fact alone shows that stopping massacres, saving lives and avoiding blood shed was not an issue for ''you'' (since you keep referring to America as we).
Sorry, I don't hold my head in shame ablout being American, yes I refer to my country as WE.
So we have a country willing to keep on fight, Japan, and they are the sole reason a war is still going on. They have a Empire that is killing the people in it by the thousands, China lost 16,000,000 people because of it. The killing wasn't ending and the World wanted the war to stop, including Americans, yes I said Americans, I know it's hard to believe but we're really not bloodthirsty.
If the Leaders of Japan refuse to surrender, and the people were told they need to fight because of the horrors that were to become of them if they didn't, what do you do? An Invasion is going to be alot worse then any of those Island invasions that took along time to even get near Japan.
And don't forget that ''you '' were going to do the land invasion any way, regardless of the bombs.
Whats your point? We did and then we helped build up Japan too. Without that bomb, fights would have still gone on and the Invasion into Japan would have been a long hard fight. But it wasn't, why, because we made the Empire Surrender.
As I wrote before, the 9 atomic bombs were only an addition/prelude to the invasion, not an alternative.
What makes you think you can bomb a enemy and then walk away from it if it says it surrenders? In war you want to dismantle the enemy, not just bomb them and say we trust that you've learned your lesson without getting a surrender from them.
And why do you think the invasion wouldn't happen even after dropping the bombs, they were ment to make a country to surrender. A invasion after the 9 bombs would have to happen if they didn't surrender, ofcourse. But even after the two bombs we still did it, only difference was the Emperor said it was over and we wnet in more peacefully.
However it is easy to see even for me that when the bombs were not dropped for the purpose of saving Asian people but rather for other motives, it means that even if they happened to save some people as a result,
The main motive was to cut down on Allied Casualties, that includes the Asians.
that they were not the best or the only way to achieve this.
Looking at it now it seems like it was the best way to end it. No further casualties were done to any Allies and that includes civilians. Through the war, Allied civilians took 50% of the casualties while all the Axis took 5%. Who's population do you think to the most pain even after those bombs were dropped. The Chinese who were getting the most pain from Japan at 16,000,000, or the Japanese who took 6,000,000 casualties and this is after the bombs? Thats not including the thousands of other civilians that the Japanese massacred.
The point is that the bombs were not a reasult of wanting to save the Asian people and that they were not a decision made out of concentrating on the issue of saving them.
There's not mcuh reason to believe otherwise. They wanted to end the war, everyone did! This is one way to stop the casualties for all the allies fighting Japan, even those defenseless civilians under Japnese rule.
It is easy to see that If America and the world had really concentrated on saving them, there would have been other ways.
Yeah that'd cause thousands of more lives. If Japan had just surrendered earlier, we wouldn't have had to get to that point too. But they didn't.
Japan would have been easily outnumbered if America and the world had really united for the sole purpose of helping the Asian people.
Your right, but it wouldn't stop lives being taken on the Allied side because a stubborn Emporer and his Military Elites didn't want to give up their Empire.
You don't need to be a military expert to see this.
You don't need a military expert to see that it prevented Allied lives being taken either, and in war thats usually the main objective. That includes allied civilians to who already suffered alot in Asia.
As I wrote many times the point is , saving them was not an issue in America's motives to drop the bombs.
If DukeC is right about what he says below, you seem to only say that because you don't really like the US. You basing it on a Bush Adminstration mentality back then. You seem to forget that the US didn't start the war, tried to stay out of it for quite sometime, and didn't go around raping and masscreing civilians like the Japanese had. The bomb was to end something that only brought on death. You said the Japanese were going to lose out in a matter of weeks, they are the only ones with that kind of information and yet they didn't surrender. They could have ended it the most easiest way, and they didn't. They could have stopped the bloodshed, and prevented anything like this from happening, but they didn't.
Why not criticize Japan when it could have ended it with no bloodshed, it could have been diplomatic.
How do you know that? that is a total speculation isn't it?
In the end Allies would die also on top of the civilian population who would have been probably fire bombed with the new airstrips we had gotten. Plus the fanatical Japanese military was going to fight til the end, only difference is they had hometeam advantage and it wasn't going to be like those Island landings.
As I wrote before the bombs were not an alternative to the invasion but only an addtion/prelude. The invasion was planned to take place regardless of the bombs.
And there was no reason to believ a invasion wouldn't happen, it's the last step in defeating a country. After we dropped the bomb we didn't just turn our boats around and said job done, we went in. And those bombs made a surrender that allowed a walk in the park compared to what it would have been a hundred fold had they not.
1, to scare the Soviets and to stop losing half of Japan to the Soviet Invasion,
One would have been enough. Besides that, we ended up telling the Soviet about it in 1945 and that included what the tests showed and what they were capable of. Though the Soviets weren't surpised at all since their spies kept them up to date on the programs.
2, to win the war and show its power to the world.
It could've been part of it, bu it was no where near the top in thinking of dropping the bomb. The bomb was created in the idea of ending this war, and thats what it did.
3, to test the newly developed nuclear weapons.
Test it? We already tested it multiple times. We know how much power it had through those tests, we knew what it was capable of. On top of that, you don't test something on a enemy without knowing it's capablities. We dropped them knowing exactly how much power and damage they'd do.
Your example only mentions about some children, it hardly shows that the whole country was ''one''
Some? The documentary showed hundreds, even little girls what looked like in a residential setting practicing with small spears. From what it said, it wasn't "some".
As I wrote before, Just like it is the norm in any country there must have been many people who were against fighting.
But most were brainwashed into believing they'd be raped and slaughtered as soon as the evil barbaric white man set foot in Japan. They made this fear known throughout the war and tought their population to die for their Emporer.
Also as I wrote, many people went in to hiding rather than preparing to fight.
Do you understand how large a population of a country is? Less then a quater is going to cause thousands of deaths on both side. On top of that they are going to have the military telling them to fight.
There belief in the  Emporer being at the divine level was widely believed. Look at all the College students who lined up to commit suicide in his name through the Kamikazi.
Stop taking sentences out of their contexts just for the sake of twisting and distracting the argument.
Stop taking sentence(s) out of context as if I did before? I didn't even realize I was doing it with this one. You keep trying to compare the America of then with the current American Adminstration. To me, now and then can't be compared either. It was a totally different setting.
the word ''terrorist'' is a very subjective word. One man's ''terrorist'' is another's ''freedom fighter''
No a terrorist slaughters civilians to cause fear and terror, a Freedom Fighter would be those who fight a invading nations military. The Iraqi insurgents who only target the US military and not civilians is a Freedom Fighter, and Insurgent that blows himself up to kill Iraqi's in a market is a terrorist.
Since you seem to have absolutely no idea what America has been doing to so many countries and why it is hated by so many people, I recommend you to read ''Heagemony or Survival'' by Noam Chomsky to start with.
A admitted Socialist who doesn't like the American government, yeah that has to be the most unbiased source right? He liked a anarchist ideology and was a critic on a pretty Conservative Nation.
Do you think a far left person is going to talk about how nice a Right winged government is?
This is indeed very childish, isn't it?
No, you asked I gave a answer. I thoroughly believe we made a huge wrong in going into Iraq. That our adminstration failed us by not listening to military experts and going by what they wanted which resulted in high casualties on civilians. We shouldn't have been there at all! I hope this adminstration does go up on trial for War Crimes. Rumsfeld was supposed to, wonder what happened with that...
You know very well what I mean, so stop playing with words on a superficial level.
No I have the slightest idea. We weren't even going to create a Federated government in Iraq where it has the best arguement. We didn't even think about it with Afghanistan. And it wasn't us who split up the mid east either.
That changes absolutely nothing.
How so, we said we weren't going to sit back anymore and let you kill our people at any level.
It took 3000 deaths to invade and destroy whole nations.
That went completely over your head. This went along with what I said above. If you take those two apart then you can "twist" it anyway you want. It took from the 1980s to 2001 before we said enough was enough. It took 3000 civilians to say that we weren't going to take it anymore. The whole reason Osama went after us was because we had soldiers stationed in what he calls the holy land, in Saudi Arabia. He was fine with us when he accepted hand outs from us during the Soviet Invasion, and was fine with us even before that when he went to a US school.
The fact that America helped China in the war does not mean that America cared for Chinese people at all.
Why do you say that? We were making moves to help them before we even entered. We could've let Japan continue if we didn't care about these people.
They gave Iraq all kinds of military trainings and weapons (including the chemical weapons),
No we didn't, Germany sold them the Chemical weaponry, which if memory serves me right dates back to Nazi Germany designs. In otherwords, they just sold off old weapons. Don't blame the US for something they didn't do because you don't like us.
They sanctioned Iran to weaken them, Saddam was practically being taught by America and was fighting alongside America against Iran.
We gave them money to fight a regime that was hostile to us. We didn't fight alongside them.
We all know what happened to Iraq the moment they became useless and became a target for America, Don't we?
No do share, because I don't recall anything like this in the history books. It took Iraq to invade Kuwait and a plea from Saudi Arabia to help stop them with the British telling us we should go. Infact, before that we didn't want to go and fight Iraq, it wasn't in our interests til he threatened Suadi Arabia.
How about the Kurdish people in Iraq? America orchestrated a revolt for the Kurdish people against Saddam but abandoned them at the last minute to let them be all slaughtered.
During tha Iraq-Iran war Saddam turned on them, not the other way around. If the US had a part in it afterwards, it was just giving them funds, nothing else. The Kurds were defending themselves.
Or how about Afghanistan? America helped and sided with the Afghans to fight against the Soviets, but look what they did to the Afghans afterwards
We didn't put the Taliban in, don't even say we did. You already twisted history enough above. It's pretty obvious why too.
The point is, it is normal for America to side and help with certain nations when it suits their interests.
Is there a nation that doesn't? Who are we the only ones with the Horns and Tails? Some of the things you said above is just twisted and vague to the point where you makie America look worse without giving the full story. Or even saying they did something they didn't like giving Chemical Weapons to Saddam which we didn't. We didn't even teach him how to make it.
 
 
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
bagelofdoom View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 27-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 81
  Quote bagelofdoom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 01:45
The bombs were not meant to simply make Japan surrender, although there was some hope that they would do so, nor were they meant to save the lives of the people of the continent.  They were a logical continuation of the concept of total war which had been around for centuries and which America had used before, in our civil war (Sherman's march to the sea, the union armies in the Shenandoah, etc.).  That having been said, since we are looking at the bombing with the benefit of hindsight, we are examining the consequences of the bombings, not the intentions of the leaders.  Were we using intentions, anyone attempting to both differentiate the A-bombs from other bombings and indict Truman would have a serious problem.  After all, he had no real idea of how bad the radiation would be.  You cannot attack a country's intentions without also accepting their ignorance of consequences and how that factored into their decision making.  So, I think that we can ignore the intentions of the US and focus on only the outcomes, be they positive or negative. 

Having said that, I would argue, as I have earlier in this thread, that although the bombs may not have been dropped with the intention of saving lives, they still, in hindsight, did so, at least in my opinion. 

On that subject, I would like to say that it is unlikely that the Soviet attack on Manchuria was the sole cause of the Japanese surrender.  It most likely had an effect on the Emperor as he broke the tie amongst the big six in favor of surrendering, but given the fact that the Japanese army in Manchuria had already been almost completely cut off from the homeland by American air deployed mines and submarines, and given the fact that the Ketsu-Go plan for a draining final battle relied on allowing the US onto Japanese soil, I can't really see how it would have been that immediate of a problem for them.  Sure the Soviets could invade in a few months, but otherwise, their attack didn't really represent the same kind of immediate threat that the Atomic bombs did. 


Edited by bagelofdoom - 05-Apr-2007 at 01:46
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 02:59
Well put.
 
The justification as I see it.
 
While the Japanese were losing the war, they were still able to create a great deal of resistance. On the tiny island of Iwo Jima they held out for six weeks and caused the deaths of over 6.000 American troops while losing over 20,000.
 
On the larger island of Okinawa the battle lasted for most of three months and caused 50,000 American casualties and over 200,000 Japanese both military and civilian.
 
The Japanese had extremely fortified the home island of Kyushu which was much larger and heavily populated, and the Allies next objective. Fighting there alone would have caused hundreds of thousands of Allied casualties and possibly millions of Japanese. It also could have lasted six months or more. The Japanese had the potential of creating a stalemate by violent resistance on all the home islands. While this was going on, much of the population would be threatened by starvation.
 
Considering the disgrace that the Empire of Japan and its' forces placed on it, I find it highly unlikely surrender would have come before the destruction of most of Japan. In almost all engagments with Japanese forces, when faced with death or surrender they almost always chose the former. The Japanese commanders and warriors were no less fanatical than the Germans who had fought till the bitter end in Europe. The Soviets took over 300,000 casualties in the battle for Berlin alone and the Germans over 500,000. That was when Germany had virtually ceased to exist as a nation. The Japanese would have used every means at their disposal to defend what they saw as sacred soil.
 
 
 


Edited by DukeC - 05-Apr-2007 at 03:01
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429
  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 04:33
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

[
No we didn't, Germany sold them the Chemical weaponry, which if memory serves me right dates back to Nazi Germany designs. In otherwords, they just sold off old weapons. Don't blame the US for something they didn't do because you don't like us.
Yes, ''You'' did.  From wikipedia:

Chemical weapons

Iranian%20soldier%20with%20gas%20mask%20in%20the%20battlefield.
Iranian soldier with gas mask in the battlefield.

According to Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China.

Do you not see United States written here?  ''You'' also gave them biological weapons.   

From Wikipedia:

Biological


On 25 May 1994, The U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that pathogenic (meaning disease producing), toxigenic (meaning poisonous) and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[45] The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Anthrax Bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding that "these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[46]



Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

 We gave them money to fight a regime that was hostile to us. We didn't fight alongside them.
Just read this . From wikipedia:

The Tanker War and Direct U.S. Support for Iraq

Donald%20Rumsfeld%20meeting%20Saddam%20Hussein%20on%2019%20December%20-%2020%20December%201983.%20Rumsfeld%20visited%20again%20on%2024%20March%201984;%20the%20same%20day%20the%20UN%20released%20a%20report%20that%20Iraq%20had%20used%20mustard%20gas%20and%20tabun%20nerve%20agent%20against%20Iranian%20troops.%20The%20NY%20Times%20reported%20from%20Baghdad%20on%2029%20March%201984,%20that%20American%20diplomats%20pronounce%20themselves%20satisfied%20with%20Iraq%20and%20the%20U.S.,%20and%20suggest%20that%20normal%20diplomatic%20ties%20have%20been%20established%20in%20all%20but%20name.
Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein on 19 December - 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."[9]

The United States had been wary of the Islamic Republic of Iran since the Iranian Revolution, not least because of the kidnapping of its Tehran embassy staff in the 1979-81 Iran hostage crisis. According to Robert Parry there was a secret encouragement by the US administration (President Jimmy Carter, conveyed through Saudi Arabia) which was embroiled in a dispute with the new Islamic Republic of Iran.[10][11][12] However, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Advisor (United States) does not support this assertion.[13]

Starting in 1981, both Iran and Iraq attacked oil tankers and merchant ships, including those of neutral nations, in an effort to deprive the opponent of trade. After repeated Iraqi attacks on Iran's main exporting facility on Khark Island, Iran attacked a Kuwaiti tanker near Bahrain on May 13, 1984, and a Saudi tanker in Saudi waters on May 16. Attacks on ships of noncombatant nations in the Persian Gulf sharply increased thereafter, and this phase of the war was dubbed the "Tanker War."

In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying weapons.[14] President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."[15] President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982.[16]

Lloyd's of London, a British insurance market, estimated that the Tanker War damaged 546 commercial vessels and killed about 430 civilian mariners. The largest of attacks were directed by Iran against Kuwaiti vessels, and on November 1, 1986, Kuwait formally petitioned foreign powers to protect its shipping. The Soviet Union agreed to charter tankers starting in 1987, and the United States offered to provide protection for tankers flying the U.S. flag on March 7, 1987 (Operation Earnest Will and Operation Prime Chance). Under international law, an attack on such ships would be treated as an attack on the U.S., allowing the U.S. to retaliate militarily. This support would protect ships headed to Iraqi ports, effectively guaranteeing Iraq's revenue stream for the duration of the war.

An Iraqi plane attacked the USS Stark (FFG 31), a Perry class frigate on May 17, killing 37 and injuring 21.[17] However, U.S. attention was focused on isolating Iran; it criticized Iran's mining of international waters, and sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 598, which passed unanimously on July 20, under which it skirmished with Iranian forces. In October 1987, the U.S. attacked Iranian oil platforms in retaliation for an Iranian attack on the U.S.-flagged Kuwaiti tanker Sea Isle City.[18]

On April 14, 1988, the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts was badly damaged by an Iranian mine. U.S. forces responded with Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, the United States Navy's largest engagement of surface warships since World War II. Two Iranian ships were destroyed, and an American helicopter crashed with no apparent combat damage, killing the two pilots.[19]

In the course of these escorts by the U.S. Navy, the cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew on July 3, 1988. The American government claimed that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, and that the Vincennes was operating in international waters at the time and feared that it was under attack. The Iranians, however, maintain that the Vincennes was in fact in Iranian territorial waters, and that the Iranian passenger jet was turning away and increasing altitude after take-off. U.S. Admiral William J. Crowe also admitted on Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles.[20] . The U.S. eventually paid compensation for the incident (to non Iranian passengers of the airliner), but never apologized.

According to an investigation conducted by ABC News' Nightline, decoys were set during the war by the US Navy inside the Persian Gulf to lure out the Iranian gunboats and destroy them, and at the time USS Vincennes shot down the Iranian airline, it was performing such an operation. [21]

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

No do share, because I don't recall anything like this in the history books.
 
Wow, You don't need to look in to history books. Just look at the news every day. The invasion of Iraq, Does it not ring a bell?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

During tha Iraq-Iran war Saddam turned on them, not the other way around. If the US had a part in it afterwards, it was just giving them funds, nothing else. The Kurds were defending themselves.
Just read this.

From new book Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda

How the U.S. Used Iraq's Kurds: A History of Repeated Betrayal

by Larry Everest

Revolutionary Worker #1226, January 25, 2004, posted at rwor.org

When the U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003, the U.S. government and media spoke glowingly of the two Iraqi Kurdish forces--the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), led by Jalal Talabani, and the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), led by Masood Barzani. And no wonder!

In the northern Kurdish regions of Iraq, these two major Kurdish parties, who are rivals and control different territories, put tens of thousands of their peshmerga troops at the disposal of the U.S. invaders. U.S. commandos and CIA forces were dropped in and essentially led the Kurdish troops in defeating the Iraqi government forces in the north. Not a single U.S. soldier died in this "northern front."

Before the war, these two forces had developed zones in the north that were essentially independent of Iraq's Baghdad government. The U.S. had created a northern "no fly zone" after the first Gulf war, and the U.S. air forces over the north prevented Saddam Hussein's government from exercising power there. When the U.S. invaded again in 2003, these same Kurdish forces joined in--hoping that the destruction of Saddam Hussein's central government would give them increased power, both in some future central government and in the form of a semi-independent Kurdish state carved out of northern Iraq.

However, now, as the U.S. occupation authorities are trying to hammer together some stable pro-U.S. order in Iraq, the demands and hopes of the Kurdish people of the north have been starting to clash in many ways with the interests of U.S. domination.

Powerful Forces Oppose Kurdish National Rights

The mountainous region of the Kurdish people, known as Kurdistan, has not had its own government in modern times. Kurdish people are ruled by the different governments in the region--there are sizable Kurdish populations in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria.

Kurds make up some 20 percent of Iraq's population living mainly in the mountainous northern 17 percent of Iraq's 438,446 square kilometers. (See the sidebar on "How the Kurds Were Denied a State")

Kurdish people have been oppressed in many ways by various governments and feudal landlords--often in extremely brutal ways--including denial of basic cultural and political rights.

It is widely discussed in the U.S. media how the Saddam Hussein government brutalized and massacred the Kurdish people to suppress their struggle for independence (though it is not discussed how he did this as an ally of the U.S!). In some similar ways, the government of Turkey--U.S.'s close NATO ally to the north of Iraq--has waged an intense, genocidal war for more than a decade against the Kurdish people in southeastern Turkey.

Imperialist control of this region has meant, over and over, the suppression of Kurdish national aspirations. And there is powerful opposition today in Baghdad, Washington, DC, and in Turkey's government to any attempt by the Kurdish parties to gain control of the northern Iraqi oilfields, which stretch on the borders of Kurdish areas near the cities of Kirkuk and Mosul. These vast underground oilfields represent about 40 percent of Iraq's reserves.

Both the U.S. and Turkish governments fear that Kurdish control of the northern oilfields would finance an independent army and government--that would make it harder for the U.S. to hold together and dominate Iraq as a multinational state.

Turkey's government fears that a separate Kurdish rule in northern Iraq will reignite the Kurdish struggle within Turkey (i.e. within northern Kurdistan) by giving Kurdish fighters and other forces a sanctuary across the border in Iraqi Kurdistan.

The U.S. government, military and CIA may have made some promises to prominent Kurdish politicians, but they definitely do not want the slightest power to fall into the hands of the Kurdish masses.

On paper, the main Iraqi Kurdish parties have promised the U.S. that they will not declare independence for their northern regions and that they would remain within a federated Iraq. The PUK leader, Jalal Talabani, has even served as temporary president of the "Iraqi Governing Council" --the U.S. puppet government-in-formation.

Repeatedly, the U.S. has wanted to bring thousands of Turkish government troops across the border into Iraq to help with the occupation--but this has been sharply opposed by Kurdish forces who believe the Turkish government intends to take over the northern oilfields for itself, using the troops and militia that Turkey has built up among Iraqis Turkmen nationality. Kurdish forces initially took the cities of Kirkuk and Mosul during the U.S. invasion, but they were quickly ordered by the U.S. to withdraw to their rural strongholds.

In short, the U.S. for years encouraged Kurdish aspiration for autonomy and armed the Kurdish peshmerga, and then used them to take over northern Iraq. Now, as the U.S. seeks to consolidate its control over all of Iraq and surrounding countries, the U.S. is putting great pressure on its Kurdish allies to give up any moves toward greater autonomy or toward control of the northern oil. In addition, the U.S. is expected to demand the eventual disarmament of Kurdish armed forces through the merger of their peshmerga into a new U.S.-controlled Iraqi army.

The U.S. was never going to distribute "liberation" like bags of rice to the oppressed people in Iraq and the region. New York Times columnist William Safire reports (January 14) that the U.S. colonial administrator of Iraq, Paul Bremer, "told Kurdish leaders brusquely last week to forget the past U.S. autonomy policy and get with the unity program."

While leading pro-U.S. forces among the Kurds are aspiring to power within a future Iraqi puppet government, the interests of the people, including the masses of Kurdish people, are clashing with U.S. plans for dominating this whole strategic region.

This is part of a long, familiar pattern. Whenever the U.S. has wanted to undermine a government in Iraq or Iran, it has encouraged and armed Kurdish separatist forces. And then it has built up those pliant conservative forces among the Kurds willing to fight for the U.S. against a central government.

Then, the moment the U.S. no longer needed to destabilize the central government, it has shown itself quite willing to betray its former Kurdish allies.

In the following excerpt from Chapter 3 of his new book, Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda , RW writer Larry Everest sketches how the U.S. government has used and then betrayed the Kurdish people before.

*****

To hear the Bush II administration tell it, Iraq's Kurds could have no better friends than their self- proclaimed allies in Washington. Bush and company repeatedly denounced the Hussein regime's "persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others," as Bush put it before the United Nations in September 2002, and argued that war, conquest, and regime change were needed to assure Kurdish freedoms.

The proponents of the 2003 war never saw fit, of course, to mention the actual, sordid record of Washington's manipulation and betrayal of the Kurds during the 1970s, which we delve into below. That history not only makes U.S. promises ring hollow and hypocritical, but casts Washington's true intentions toward the Kurds in a starkly different light.

In 1972, Nixon, Kissinger and Iran's Shah also came up with a cynical plan to deal with its concerns in the Persian Gulf: encouraging an insurgency by Iraq's Kurds in order to weaken Baghdad. In May, Nixon and Kissinger visited Moscow and promised that the U.S. would join the Soviets to "promote conditions in which all countries will live in peace and security and will not be subject to outside interference." Seymour Hersh, a long-time investigative journalist for The New York Times and later the New Yorker , writes in his biography of Kissinger that "The next day, Nixon and Kissinger flew to Tehran and made a secret commitment to the Shah to clandestinely supply arms to the Kurdish rebel faction inside Soviet-supported Iraq...." The goal, Kissinger later explained, was for the Shah to "keep Iraq occupied by supporting the Kurdish rebellion within Iraq, and maintain a large army near the frontier."

Since Iraq's creation by the British, its Kurdish population has suffered systematic discrimination and oppression. Much of Iraq's oil flows from fields around Kirkuk in Iraqi Kurdistan. Yet Iraqi Kurds saw few benefits from Iraq's petroleum wealth and had no voice in its oil policy. Kurdistan remained undeveloped, with fewer industries, roads, schools, and hospitals than the rest of Iraq. Kurds were discriminated against in government employment and had little control over even their local affairs.

Following the Ba'ath takeover in 1968, the new regime promised Kurds that their lot would improve. Iraq's new 1970 constitution recognized "the national rights of the Kurdish People and the legitimate rights of all minorities within the unity of Iraq." A 1974 "Law for Autonomy in the Area of Kurdistan" promised that Kurdish would be an official language, used in Kurdish schools. These actions marked Iraq's broadest official recognition of Kurdish identity and rights. (In contrast, neighboring Iran and Turkey, then staunch U.S. allies, have never even formally recognized the Kurds as a distinct nationality, let alone promised them national rights.)

However, during negotiations in 1971 between the Ba'ath regime and Kurdish representatives, it became clear that the key issues of Kurdish control of local security forces, receiving a fair portion of Iraq's oil income, and sharing national power were not on the table. The Ba'ath also began encouraging Iraqi Arabs to move to Kurdistan and attempted to assassinate Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani. Barzani, who had been in contact with the U.S. and the Shah (and perhaps Israel) since the early 1960s, turned to them once again for help against Baghdad. Barzani even promised the Washington Post that if the U.S. backed the Kurdish struggle, "we are ready to do what goes with American policy in this area if America will protect us from the wolves. If support were strong enough, we could control the Kirkuk field and give it to an American company to operate."

The Kissinger-Shah plan went into effect in 1972. Iran and the U.S. encouraged the Kurds to rise against Baghdad and provided them millions of dollars in weapons, logistical support, and funds. Over the next 3 years, $16 million in CIA money was given to Iraq's Kurds and Iran provided the Kurds with some 90 percent of their weapons, including advanced artillery.

The U.S. goal, however, was neither victory nor self-determination for Iraqi Kurds. The CIA feared such a strategy "would have the effect of prolonging the insurgency, thereby encouraging separatist aspirations and possibly providing to the Soviet Union an opportunity to create difficulties" for U.S. allies Turkey and Iran. A Congressional investigation of CIA activities, headed by New York Congressman Otis Pike, concluded that "none of the nations who were aiding [the Kurds] seriously desired that they realize their objective of an autonomous state." Rather, the U.S. and the Shah sought to weaken Iraq and deplete its energies. According to CIA memos and cables, they viewed the Kurds as "a card to play" against Iraq, and "a uniquely useful tool for weakening [Iraq's] potential for international adventurism."

To this end, Iran instituted "draconian controls" on its military assistance and never gave the Kurds more than three days worth of ammunition in order to deny them the freedom of action needed for victory. At one point in 1973, Kissinger personally intervened to halt a planned Kurdish offensive for fear it would succeed and complicate U.S. machinations in the wake of the October Arab-Israeli War. The Pike investigation concluded:

The president, Dr. Kissinger, and the Shah hoped that our clients would not prevail. They preferred instead that the insurgents simply continue a level of hostilities sufficient to sap the resources of our ally's [Iran's] neighbouring country. The policy was not imparted to our clients, who were encouraged to continue fighting.

"Ours Was a Cynical Enterprise"

By 1975, the Kurdish insurgency posed the gravest threat the Ba'ath Regime had yet faced. Some 45,000 Kurdish guerrillas, aided by two Iranian divisions, had pinned down 80 percent of Iraq's 100,000 troops, severely straining Iraq's economy and military. Kissinger and the Shah wanted neither all-out war, nor the collapse of the Iraqi regime. Rather, they sought to force Iraq to curb its anti- Israeli Arab nationalism and to pry it from its Soviet patrons, demonstrating to others in the region that being a Soviet client didn't pay. The Shah also wanted to prove that Iran was the Gulf's strongest power and a reliable regional gendarme for the U.S., as well as to renegotiate the Sa'dabad Pact of 1937, which had given control of the entire Shatt al Arab waterway between the two countries to Iraq.

The Shah planned to abandon the Kurds "the minute he came to an agreement with his enemy over border disputes," one CIA memo noted. Eight hours after Iraq did agree to U.S.-Iranian terms, which were formalized in the Algiers Agreement of March 1975, the Shah and the U.S. cut off aid -- including food -- and closed Iran's border, cutting off Kurdish lines of retreat.

The Kurds had no idea that they were about to be abandoned. But Iraq knew, and the next day it launched an all-out, "search-and-destroy" attack. The Kurds, who had been led to believe that the U.S. was acting as a "guarantor" against betrayal by the Shah, were taken by complete surprise. Deprived of Iranian support, Kurdish forces were quickly decimated and between 150,000 and 300,000 Kurds were forced to flee into Iran.

The U.S. coldly betrayed its erstwhile Kurdish "allies," but even then, as the Pike Commission sardonically noted, "The cynicism of the U.S. and its ally had not yet completely run its course." Barzani had written to Kissinger, pleading desperately for help. Kissinger didn't bother replying.

Washington then "refused to extend humanitarian assistance to the thousands of refugees created by the abrupt termination of military aid," the Pike Commission reported. One CIA cable acknowledged, "[O]ur ally [Iran] was later to forcibly return over 40,000 of the refugees and the United States government refused to admit even one refugee into the United States by way of political asylum even though they qualified for such admittance."

The U.S.-Iranian covert campaign further poisoned relations between Baghdad and Iraq's Kurds. The Pike Commission concluded that if the U.S. and the Shah hadn't encouraged the insurgency, the Kurds "may have reached an accommodation with the central government, thus gaining at least a measure of autonomy while avoiding further bloodshed. Instead, our clients [the Kurds] fought on, sustaining thousands of casualties and 200,000 refugees."

Baghdad also retaliated with a massive pacification campaign: some 250,000 Kurds were forcibly relocated to central and southern Iraq, while many Arab Iraqis were forced to move to traditionally Kurdish areas.

In what became an infamous remark, Kissinger dismissed the Pike Commission's concerns: "Covert action," he said, "should not be confused with missionary work." Nonetheless, the Commission concluded, "Even in this context of covert operations, ours was a cynical enterprise."

It is important to note here that as these events were taking place (beginning in September 1973), Kissinger's top aide was General Brent Scowcroft, who would later become National Security Advisor under Bush, Sr. and an architect of the 1991 Persian Gulf war on Iraq.

It is also important to note that if the U.S. government had had its way, the Pike Commission's damning exposures would have never seen the light of day. First, the House of Representatives voted not to release the document. Then, when CBS correspondent Daniel Schorr obtained a leaked copy and gave it to the Village Voice , he was promptly fired by CBS and threatened with contempt of Congress for refusing to reveal his sources. A new Director of Central Intelligence had just been appointed when this attempted cover-up took place. His name was George H.W. Bush. 


Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

We didn't put the Taliban in, don't even say we did. You already twisted history enough above. It's pretty obvious why too.
Did I ever mention Taliban? I wrote Afghans. Any way just read this before accusing me of twisting history, Perhaps the problem is that you just can not face the reality.

The Largest Covert Operation in CIA History

By Chalmers Johnson

The Largest Covert Operation in CIA

The Central Intelligence Agency has an almost unblemished record of screwing up every "secret" armed intervention it ever undertook. From the overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953 through the Bay of Pigs, the failed attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro of Cuba and Patrice Lumumba of the Republic of Congo, the Phoenix Program in Vietnam, the "secret war" in Laos, aid to the Greek colonels who seized power in 1967, the 1973 killing of Salvador Allende in Chile and Ronald Reagan's Iran-contra war against Nicaragua, there is not a single instance in which the agency's activities did not prove acutely embarrassing to the United States. The CIA continues to get away with this primarily because its budget and operations have always been secret and Congress is normally too indifferent to its constitutional functions to rein in a rogue bureaucracy. Therefore the tale of a purported CIA success story should be of some interest.

According to the author of the newly released Charlie Wilson's War, the exception to CIA incompetence was the arming between 1979 and 1988 of thousands of Afghan moujahedeen ("freedom fighters"). The agency flooded Afghanistan with an astonishing array of extremely dangerous weapons and "unapologetically mov[ed] to equip and train cadres of high tech holy warriors in the art of waging a war of urban terror against a modern superpower," in this case, the USSR.

The author of this glowing account, George Crile, is a veteran producer for the CBS television news show "60 Minutes" and an exuberant Tom Clancy-type enthusiast for the Afghan caper. He argues that the U.S. clandestine involvement in Afghanistan was "the largest and most successful CIA operation in history" and "the one morally unambiguous crusade of our time." He adds that "there was nothing so romantic and exciting as this war against the Evil Empire." Crile's sole measure of success is the number of Soviet soldiers killed (about 15,000), which undermined Soviet morale and contributed to the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the period from 1989 to 1991. That's the successful part.

However, he never mentions that the "tens of thousands of fanatical Muslim fundamentalists" the CIA armed are some of the same people who in 1996 killed 19 American airmen at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia; bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; blew a hole in the side of the U.S. destroyer Cole in Aden harbor in 2000; and on Sept. 11, 2001, flew hijacked airliners into New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Today, the world awaits what is almost certain to happen soon at some airport -- a terrorist firing a U.S. Stinger low-level surface-to-air missile (manufactured at one time by General Dynamics in Rancho Cucamonga) into an American jumbo jet. The CIA supplied thousands of them to the moujahedeen and trained them to be experts in their use. If the CIA's activities in Afghanistan are a "success story," then Enron should be considered a model of corporate behavior.

Nonetheless, Crile's account is important, if appalling, precisely because it details how a ruthless ignoramus congressman and a high-ranking CIA thug managed to hijack American foreign policy. From 1973 to 1996, Charlie Wilson represented the 2nd District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives. His constituency was in the heart of the East Texas Bible Belt and was the long-held fiefdom of his fellow Democrat, Martin Dies, the first chairman of the House Un-American Affairs Committee. Wilson is 6 feet, 4 inches tall and "handsome, with one of those classic outdoor faces that tobacco companies bet millions on." He graduated from the Naval Academy in 1956, eighth from the bottom of his class and with more demerits than any other cadet in Annapolis history.

After serving in the Texas Legislature, he arrived in Washington in 1973 and quickly became known as "Good Time Charlie," "the biggest playboy in Congress." He hired only good-looking women for his staff and escorted "a parade of beauty queens to White House parties." Even Crile, who featured Wilson many times on "60 Minutes" and obviously admires him, describes him as "a seemingly corrupt, cocaine snorting, scandal prone womanizer who the CIA was convinced could only get the Agency into terrible trouble if it permitted him to become involved in any way in its operations."

Wilson's partner in getting the CIA to arm the moujahedeen was Gust Avrakotos, the son of working-class Greek immigrants from the steel workers' town of Aliquippa, Pa. Only in 1960 did the CIA begin to recruit officers for the Directorate of Operations from among what it called "new Americans," meaning such ethnic groups as Chinese, Japanese, Latinos and Greek Americans. Until then, it had followed its British model and taken only Ivy League sons of the Eastern Establishment. Avrakotos joined the CIA in 1961 and came to nurture a hatred of the bluebloods, or "cake eaters," as he called them, who discriminated against him. After "spook school" at Camp Peary, next door to Jamestown, Va., he was posted to Athens, where, as a Greek speaker, he remained until 1978.

During Avrakotos's time in Greece, the CIA was instrumental in destroying Greek freedom and helping to turn the country into probably the single most anti-American democracy on Earth today. Incredibly, Crile describes this as follows: "On April 21, 1967, he [Avrakotos] got one of those breaks that can make a career. A military junta seized power in Athens that day and suspended democratic and constitutional government." Avrakotos became the CIA's chief liaison with the Greek colonels. After the fall of the colonels' brutally fascist regime, the 17 November terrorist organization assassinated the CIA's Athens station chief, Richard Welch, on Dec. 23, 1975, and "Gust came to be vilified in the Greek radical press as the sinister force responsible for most of the country's many ills." He left the country in 1978 but could not get another decent assignment -- he tried for Helsinki -- because the head of the European Division regarded him as simply too uncouth to send to any of its capitals. He sat around Langley for several years without work until he was recruited by John McGaffin, head of the Afghan program. "If it's really true that you have nothing to do," McGaffin said, "why not come upstairs? We're killing Russians."

Wilson was the moneybags and sparkplug of this pair; Avrakotos was a street fighter who relished giving Kalashnikovs and Stingers to the tribesmen in Afghanistan. Wilson was the more complex of the two, and Crile argues that his "Good Time Charlie" image was actually a cover for a Barry Goldwater kind of hyper-patriotism. But Wilson was also a liberal on the proposed Equal Rights Amendment and a close friend of the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-Texas), and his sister Sharon became chairwoman of the board of Planned Parenthood.

As a boy, Wilson was fascinated by World War II and developed an almost childlike belief that he possessed a "special destiny" to "kill bad guys" and help underdogs prevail over their enemies. When he entered Congress, just at the time of the Yom Kippur War, he became a passionate supporter of Israel. After he traveled to Israel, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee began to steer large amounts of money from all over the country to him and to cultivate him as "one of Israel's most important Congressional champions: a non-Jew with no Jewish constituents." Jewish members of Congress also rallied to put Wilson on the all-powerful Appropriations Committee in order to guarantee Israel's annual $3-billion subsidy. His own Texas delegation opposed his appointment.

Wilson was not discriminating in his largess. He also became a supporter of Anastasio "Tacho" Somoza, the West Point graduate and dictator of Nicaragua who in 1979 was swept away by popular fury. Before that happened, President Carter tried to cut the $3.1-million annual U.S. aid package to Nicaragua, but Wilson, declaring Somoza to be "America's oldest anti-Communist ally in Central America," opposed the president and prevailed.

During Wilson's long tenure on the House Appropriations Committee, one of its subcommittee chairmen, Clarence D. "Doc" Long, used to have a sign mounted over his desk: "Them that has the gold makes the rules." Wilson advanced rapidly on this most powerful of congressional committees. He was first appointed to the foreign operations subcommittee, which doles out foreign aid. He then did a big favor for then-Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr. (D-Mass.). The chairman of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee at the time, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), had been caught in the FBI's ABSCAM sting operation in which an agent disguised as a Saudi sheik offered members of Congress large cash bribes. O'Neill put Wilson on the Ethics Committee to save Murtha, which he did. In return, O'Neill assigned Wilson to the defense appropriations subcommittee and made him a life member of the governing board of the John F. Kennedy Performing Arts Center, where he delighted in taking his young dates. Wilson soon discovered that all of the CIA's budget and 40 percent of the Pentagon's budget is "black," hidden from the public and even from Congress. As a member of the defense subcommittee, he could arrange to have virtually any amount of money added to whatever black project he supported. So long as Wilson did favors for other members on the subcommittee, such as supporting defense projects in their districts, they would never object to his private obsessions.

About this time, Wilson came under the influence of a remarkable, rabidly conservative Houston woman in her mid-40s, Joanne Herring. They later fell in love, although they never married. She had a reputation among the rich of the River Oaks section of Houston as a collector of powerful men, a social lioness and hostess to her fellow members of the John Birch Society. She counted among her friends Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, dictator and first lady of the Philippines, and Yaqub Khan, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, D.C., who got Herring named as Pakistan's honorary consul for Houston.

In July 1977, the head of Pakistan's army, Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq, seized power and declared martial law, and in 1979, he hanged Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the president who had promoted him. In retaliation, Carter cut off U.S. aid to Pakistan. In 1980, Herring went to Islamabad and was so entranced by Zia and his support for the Afghan freedom fighters that on her return to the United States, she encouraged Wilson to go to Pakistan. There he met Zia, learned about the Afghan moujahedeen and became a convert to the cause. Once Reagan replaced Carter, Wilson was able to restore Zia's aid money and added several millions to the CIA's funds for secretly arming the Afghan guerrillas, each dollar of which the Saudi government secretly matched.

Although Wilson romanticized the mountain warriors of Afghanistan, the struggle was never as uneven as it seemed. Pakistan provided the fighters with sanctuary, training and arms and even sent its own officers into Afghanistan as advisors on military operations. Saudi Arabia served as the fighters' banker, providing hundred of millions with no strings attached. Several governments, including those of Egypt, China and Israel, secretly supplied arms. And the insurgency enjoyed the backing of the United States through the CIA.

Wilson's and the CIA's greatest preoccupation was supplying the Afghans with something effective against the Soviets' most feared weapon, the Mi-24 Hind helicopter gunship. The Red Army used it to slaughter innumerable moujahedeen as well as to shoot up Afghan villages. Wilson favored the Oerlikon antiaircraft gun made in Switzerland (it was later charged that he was on the take from the Zurich-based arms manufacturer). Avrakotos opposed it because it was too heavy for guerrillas to move easily, but he could not openly stand in Wilson's way. After months of controversy, the Joint Chiefs of Staff finally dropped their objections to supplying the American Stinger, President Reagan signed off on it, and the "silver bullet" was on its way. The Stinger had never before been used in combat. It proved to be murderous against the Hinds, and Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev decided to cut his losses and get out altogether. In Wilson's postwar tour of Afghanistan, moujahedeen fighters surrounded him and triumphantly fired their missiles for his benefit. They also gave him as a souvenir the stock from the first Stinger to shoot down a Hind gunship.

The CIA "bluebloods" fired Avrakotos in the summer of 1986, and he retired to Rome. Wilson became chairman of the Intelligence Oversight Committee, at which time he wrote to his CIA friends, "Well, gentlemen, the fox is in the hen house. Do whatever you like." After retiring from Congress in 1996, he became a lobbyist for Pakistan under a contract that paid him $30,000 a month. Meanwhile, the United States lost interest in Afghanistan, which descended into a civil war that the Taliban ultimately won. In the autumn of 2001, the United States returned in force after Al Qaeda retaliated against its former weapon supplier by attacking New York and Washington. The president of the United States went around asking, "Why do they hate us?"

Crile knows a lot about these matters and presents them in a dramatic manner. There are, however, one or two items that he appears unaware of or is suppressing. For the CIA legally to carry out a covert action, the president must authorize a document called a finding. Crile repeatedly says that Carter signed such a finding ordering the CIA to provide covert backing to the moujahedeen after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on Dec. 24, 1979. The truth of the matter is that Carter signed the finding on July 3, 1979, six months before the Soviet invasion, and he did so on the advice of his national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in order to try to provoke a Russian incursion. Brzezinski has confirmed this sequence of events in an interview with a French newspaper, and former CIA Director Robert M. Gates says so explicitly in his 1996 memoirs. It may surprise Charlie Wilson to learn that his heroic moujahedeen were manipulated by Washington like so much cannon fodder in order to give the USSR its own Vietnam. The moujahedeen did the job, but as subsequent events have made clear, they may not be grateful to the United States.


Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Some of the things you said above is just twisted and vague to the point where you makie America look worse without giving the full story. Or even saying they did something they didn't like giving Chemical Weapons to Saddam which we didn't. We didn't even teach him how to make it.
 
Well now you know that ''you'' did give Saddam chemical weapons too. Perhaps You just call any thing that you can not face or accept ''vague'' and ''twisted'', but that does not change the reality.
 
 - edited font size - Aelfgifu


Edited by Aelfgifu - 05-Apr-2007 at 05:42
Back to Top
karajoz View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary

Suspended

Joined: 29-Mar-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote karajoz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 05:05
Shocked yes very right, japan had invaded the pacific region and attact the usa.
what happend happend. now today im the opinion japan has the right to have nukes aswell, just to bring the scale equale with north korea (and china?)
 
its important for japan to have the power to defend itself from kim jong ill.
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 06:51
@omshanti
 
You obviously have some serious issues regarding America, and while that's unfortunate, it's not really historically relevant or even accurate.
 
In your completely one-sided criticism of America you leave out an very important aspect, its' opponents.
 
Until 1941 America was not a dominant global power militarily. Its' army wasn't even ranked in the top ten worldwide. Many people and politicians were firmly isolationist. It was the unprovoked attack by another nation that eventually launched America on the path it's on now(don't even think of claiming Japan was justified because of embargoes, their leaders chose the path of violence not Americas').
 
Even after the war was over, the U.S. began the traditional demobilization during peacetime. It was Washington that originally pointed out the corrosive effect of a large standing army on a democracy. When the Korean war started the U.S. had only one combat ready division, the 101st Airborne. Most divisions were only really suited for the occupation role they were employed in Europe and Asia. The Navy had scrapped hundreds of ships and the airforce thousands of aircraft. It was only the availability of many WW II veterans that prevented a communist backed government from overrunning the entire Korean penninsula. Or maybe you'd prefer a regime that lets many of it's citizens starve while maintaining one of the largest armies in the world.
 
Is the U.S. perfect? No. But it wouldn't be in the position it is now if it wasn't constanly having its' survival threatened by some of the most vile leaders and regimes to ever appear. You have a problem with that, tough. There are many who do value the massive sacrifice and contribution that has been made to the world by Americans, even at the cost of its' faults.


Edited by DukeC - 05-Apr-2007 at 06:54
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429
  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 07:51
See DukeC , I knew that you can not resist writing back again. Yes Just blame every thing on others and refuse to face things. First you blame every single thing that I have pointed out on me having issues, then you blame on other nations every thing that America does or has done. When did I even try to judtify Japan's violence? Stop putting words in my mouth based on your assumption and your own ''issues''. You just simply can not see the reality because that does not match with your ideal of America. Perhaps instead of blaming me for having ''issues'', you should try holding a mirror and look within yourself.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

A matter of weeks? Really, never heard that one before.
Yes a matter of weeks. Just beacause you have not heard something it does not mean that it could not have happened
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Before the bombs dropped, they weren't willing to give up. They were worried about keeping a Empire they had carved out and willing to fight to the end.
I don't think that the general Japanese population was concerned about the empire. Most of the population apart from the fanatic leaders was probably tired of the war.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

It was going to be constant bombing and a high number of American deaths to finally end this war if it came to invasion. Even if we did get a foot hold, it was going to be a population who thought it was going to be life and death, and unlike D-Day, we weren't going to run into a population unwilling to fight too.
No you were running in to a population tired of the war , the poverty and all the hardships, which had hardly any capable military left in the country.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

but I highly doubt it.
Your doubt does not change the history.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

You forget that alot of high ranking Japanese, including the Emporer who had last word didn't want to stop until the bombs were dropped.
yes, the high ranking Japanese. How many do you think they were? They would not have been able to hold out in front two super powers.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

It took one bomb to get the thought in mind, took a second to make them release the Surrender Immediatly.
Wow , Are you psychic? How can you talk about other people's minds like that?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Am I talking to walls?
No, I am the one talking to a wall.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

I've just repeated I don't know how many times that this was a country not wanting to give up a fight. That had a Empire and was masscreing a population.
And? This does not change the fact that killing civilians is a crime.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

They resorted to suicide as a tactic in multple situations,
This shows that they were in a desperate situation fighting against Super powers that they can not win.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

the bombs were needed.
For what? Perhaps for America's ego. If the issue was helping the Asian people, No they were not needed because there would have been other ways if the world only concentrated on this issue.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Sorry, I don't hold my head in shame ablout being American, yes I refer to my country as WE.
Well, don't refer to other nations as ''you'' because unlike you I am not talking on behalf of nations.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

So we have a country willing to keep on fight, Japan, and they are the sole reason a war is still going on.
I don't think so, The weapon industry was already there, There would have been many nations who were benefiting from the war.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

They have a Empire that is killing the people in it by the thousands, China lost 16,000,000 people because of it. The killing wasn't ending and the World wanted the war to stop, including Americans,
exactly, I am sure many people in Japan wanted it to end.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

yes I said Americans, I know it's hard to believe but we're really not bloodthirsty.
Well, history shows it otherwise. Don't tell me that a country who dropps atomic bombs is not bloodthirsty.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

If the Leaders of Japan refuse to surrender, and the people were told they need to fight because of the horrors that were to become of them if they didn't, what do you do? An Invasion is going to be alot worse then any of those Island invasions that took along time to even get near Japan
Perhaps ''you'' should not have planned to invade Japan, but rather concentrated only on saving and freeing the Asian people that ''you'' so much cared for.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Whats your point?
the point is that you keep talking as if the bombs were an alternative to the invasion, and I am pointing out that they weren't
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

We did and then we helped build up Japan too.
Yes by putting huge military bases in the country in order to control/dominate the Pacific and Asia.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Without that bomb, fights would have still gone on and the Invasion into Japan would have been a long hard fight.
maybe , maybe not.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

What makes you think you can bomb a enemy and then walk away from it if it says it surrenders? In war you want to dismantle the enemy, not just bomb them and say we trust that you've learned your lesson without getting a surrender from them.
Wow you are completely ignoring peoples' lives under your ''we'' ''enemy'' ''teach a lesson'' mindset.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

And why do you think the invasion wouldn't happen even after dropping the bombs, they were ment to make a country to surrender. A invasion after the 9 bombs would have to happen if they didn't surrender, ofcourse. But even after the two bombs we still did it, only difference was the Emperor said it was over and we wnet in more peacefully.
Yes, peacefully after the massacre of the civilians
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

The main motive was to cut down on Allied Casualties, that includes the Asians.
Cutting down the allied Casualities by slaughtering civilians. I have pointed out the motives behind the bombs many times, How about giving them a consideration. ''Am i talking to a wall''?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Looking at it now it seems like it was the best way to end it.
that is called hindsight which can easily overlook so many things.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Who's population do you think to the most pain even after those bombs were dropped. The Chinese who were getting the most pain from Japan at 16,000,000, or the Japanese who took 6,000,000 casualties and this is after the bombs? Thats not including the thousands of other civilians that the Japanese massacred.
So is it all about being even? Having even amount of civilians killed? Yes Japan was evil, but that is another matter. Don't try to justify a violent act by other violent acts.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Originally posted by omshanti

The point is that the bombs were not a reasult of wanting to save the Asian people and that they were not a decision made out of concentrating on the issue of saving them.
There's not mcuh reason to believe otherwise. They wanted to end the war, everyone did! This is one way to stop the casualties for all the allies fighting Japan, even those defenseless civilians under Japnese rule.
There is alot of reason to believe otherwise, If America really wanted to save Asian people it would have concentrated on that instead of invading and dropping bombs. WW2 gave America the base to be a Super power and to dominate the whole world. Lots of reasons to think that the bombs were dropped for America's own (imperialist) reasons.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

If Japan had just surrendered earlier, we wouldn't have had to get to that point too. But they didn't.
That is the way to go, Just blame others for your own actions.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Originally posted by omshanti

Japan would have been easily outnumbered if America and the world had really united for the sole purpose of helping the Asian people.
Your right, but it wouldn't stop lives being taken on the Allied side because a stubborn Emporer and his Military Elites didn't want to give up their Empire.
that does not change the fact that the bombs were a crime and that they killed huge amount of civilians.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

You don't need a military expert to see that it prevented Allied lives being taken either, and in war thats usually the main objective. That includes allied civilians to who already suffered alot in Asia.
You don't need a military expert to see that dropping the bombs were not a decision made from wanting to save the lives of Asian people and from concentrating on this issue.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

If DukeC is right about what he says below, you seem to only say that because you don't really like the US. You basing it on a Bush Adminstration mentality back then. You seem to forget that the US didn't start the war, tried to stay out of it for quite sometime, and didn't go around raping and masscreing civilians like the Japanese had. The bomb was to end something that only brought on death. You said the Japanese were going to lose out in a matter of weeks, they are the only ones with that kind of information and yet they didn't surrender. They could have ended it the most easiest way, and they didn't. They could have stopped the bloodshed, and prevented anything like this from happening, but they didn't.
Yes yes, just blame others for every bloodshed and deny any responsibility for your own actions.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Why not criticize Japan when it could have ended it with no bloodshed, it could have been diplomatic.
Yes yes, Again just blame others. Remember ''you'' are the one who dropped the bombs, which are the topic of this thread.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Originally posted by omshanti

How do you know that? that is a total speculation isn't it?
In the end Allies would die also on top of the civilian population who would have been probably fire bombed with the new airstrips we had gotten. Plus the fanatical Japanese military was going to fight til the end, only difference is they had hometeam advantage and it wasn't going to be like those Island landings.
This is still a total speculation.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

And there was no reason to believ a invasion wouldn't happen, it's the last step in defeating a country. After we dropped the bomb we didn't just turn our boats around and said job done, we went in. And those bombs made a surrender that allowed a walk in the park compared to what it would have been a hundred fold had they not.
Remember? the issue of our argument is whether the bombs were used with the intension of saving Asian people. What you write here has nothing to do with that.


Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

The bomb was created in the idea of ending this war, and thats what it did
No they were made to kill people and that is what they did .
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Test it? We already tested it multiple times. We know how much power it had through those tests, we knew what it was capable of. On top of that, you don't test something on a enemy without knowing it's capablities. We dropped them knowing exactly how much power and damage they'd do.
Wow, this actually makes the crime worse, Dropping atomic bombs knowing what they do. Also what you say here contradicts with what Bagleof doom says about Truman havingg no idea.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Some? The documentary showed hundreds, even little girls what looked like in a residential setting practicing with small spears. From what it said, it wasn't "some".
What documentary? your example was a story told by another mamber's grand mother.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

But most were brainwashed into believing they'd be raped and slaughtered as soon as the evil barbaric white man set foot in Japan. They made this fear known throughout the war and tought their population to die for their Emporer.
We are talking about a population here as you yourself say. There are people with many different ideas within a population.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Do you understand how large a population of a country is? Less then a quater is going to cause thousands of deaths on both side. On top of that they are going to have the military telling them to fight.
So you generalise a population and call them one when it suits you but here you bring up how many people a population consists of?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

There belief in the Emporer being at the divine level was widely believed. Look at all the College students who lined up to commit suicide in his name through the Kamikazi.
I don't think they lined up for the emperor. They probably believed that they are saving their families.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

You keep trying to compare the America of then with the current American Adminstration. To me, now and then can't be compared either. It was a totally different setting.
Different setting , same country , same imperialism.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

No a terrorist slaughters civilians to cause fear and terror, a Freedom Fighter would be those who fight a invading nations military. The Iraqi insurgents who only target the US military and not civilians is a Freedom Fighter, and Insurgent that blows himself up to kill Iraqi's in a market is a terrorist.
So according to you, a ''terrorist'' is somebody who kills civilians, isn't it? Then America IS a huge terrorist by dropping atomic bombs and killing civilians.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

A admitted Socialist who doesn't like the American government, yeah that has to be the most unbiased source right? He liked a anarchist ideology and was a critic on a pretty Conservative Nation.Do you think a far left person is going to talk about how nice a Right winged government is?
Perhaps you should read the book before judging it without reading.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

I thoroughly believe we made a huge wrong in going into Iraq. That our adminstration failed us by not listening to military experts and going by what they wanted which resulted in high casualties on civilians. We shouldn't have been there at all! I hope this adminstration does go up on trial for War Crimes. Rumsfeld was supposed to, wonder what happened with that...
Wow you really think that invading Iraq is the only crime of America?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

No I have the slightest idea. We weren't even going to create a Federated government in Iraq where it has the best arguement. We didn't even think about it with Afghanistan. And it wasn't us who split up the mid east either.
Afghanistan and Iraq are not the only places that America has meddled with. There are countless nations in the world that America meddles with by supporting separatists,    causing a coup or killing the leaders.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Originally posted by omshanti

That changes absolutely nothing.
How so, we said we weren't going to sit back anymore and let you kill our people at any level.
What do you mean by ''you'' ? I am not talking on behalf of any nation here like you. Also You are the one who wrote that childish comment of ''nuke us if you feel it is justified'' , so you can't complain about 9/11 can you? Because 9/11 was obviously (whether you admit it or not) a response to what America has been doing in the middle east.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

It took from the 1980s to 2001 before we said enough was enough. It took 3000 civilians to say that we weren't going to take it anymore.
According to your logic of justifying violence with another violence, then you can't complain , not to mention invading countries for this reason.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

The whole reason Osama went after us was because we had soldiers stationed in what he calls the holy land, in Saudi Arabia. He was fine with us when he accepted hand outs from us during the Soviet Invasion, and was fine with us even before that when he went to a US school.
Wow , Are you his friend? how do you know so well what was the reason.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Why do you say that? We were making moves to help them before we even entered. We could've let Japan continue if we didn't care about these people.
I am saying that because it is a very obvious fact. America helps and sides with nations when it suits its interests, not because it cares for its people.

Originally posted by bagelofdoom


The bombs were not meant to simply make Japan surrender, although there was some hope that they would do so, nor were they meant to save the lives of the people of the continent. They were a logical continuation of the concept of total war which had been around for centuries and which America had used before, in our civil war (Sherman's march to the sea, the union armies in the Shenandoah, etc.). That having been said, since we are looking at the bombing with the benefit of hindsight, we are examining the consequences of the bombings, not the intentions of the leaders. Were we using intentions, anyone attempting to both differentiate the A-bombs from other bombings and indict Truman would have a serious problem. After all, he had no real idea of how bad the radiation would be. You cannot attack a country's intentions without also accepting their ignorance of consequences and how that factored into their decision making. So, I think that we can ignore the intentions of the US and focus on only the outcomes, be they positive or negative.
That is indeed a very convenient way of seeing things when judging the crimes of one's own nation. The point is, since the bombs were not dropped with the intension of saving the Asian people, that it wasn't a decision made out of concentrating on and wanting to help them, it means that they were not the best or the only way to save them. The point is if America and the allies really wanted to save those people and that was what they cared for, there would have been other ways to save them without dropping the bombs and killing that amount of people. If their motive was saving/freeing the Asian people, they would have concentrated on that instead of dropping bombs in Japan and invading it. The fact that they went for Japan instead of concentrating on saving those people shows very well that they were after their own interests rather than helping others.
Originally posted by bagelofdoom


Having said that, I would argue, as I have earlier in this thread, that although the bombs may not have been dropped with the intention of saving lives, they still, in hindsight, did so, at least in my opinion.
It is common in wars for some people to survive because of other people's deaths. This does not change any thing about a crime being a crime, especially when that was not the intention.


I would like to quote from a book called ''Heagemony or Survival'' written by Noam Chomsky.

'Victors do not investigate their own crimes, so that little is known about them, a principle that brooks few exceptions: the death toll of the US wars in Indochina, for example is not known within a range of millions. The same principle underlay the war crimes trials after world war 2. The operational definition of ''crimes of war'' and ''crimes against humanity'' was staraightforward: crimes qualified as crimes if they were carried out by the enemy, not by the Allies. Destruction of urban civilian concentrations, for example, was excluded. The principle has been applied in subsequent tribunals, but only to defeated enemies or others who can be safely despised.'

It is easy to see why the destruction of urban civilian concentrations was excluded, The atomic bombs.


As a whole, I see a a very clear tendency in nations and people to only memorialize their own victimhood while forgetting or trying to justify what they have done (or are doing) to others.

Japan is being hypocritical
1, by only commemorating the atomic bombs dropped on themselves while not giving a damn about what they have done to the Asian people.
2, by saying ''world peace'' or ''no more fighting'' every time they remmember the atomic bombs, while supporting and helping America in the war in Iraq or the so called ''war on terrorism''.

America is being exactly the same when it keeps saying ''remember Pearl harbour'' or ''Remember 9/11'' while justifying/ignoring what it has done or is doing to so many countries in the world.

In my opinion people/countries will really learn from history when they remember what they have done to others. In this respect both Japan and America have not really learnt anything.

In short neither Japan nor America (nor any other country) is innocent as a nation, but this has nothing to do with pointing out and criticising a violent and inhuman action/crime (in the case of this thread the atomic bombs) in order to stop them from happening again. Regardless of who is the victim and who is the aggressor, a crime is a crime and it should be remembered as such rather than a necessity or a just action. Otherwise history will keep repeating itself and violence will never end.






Edited by omshanti - 05-Apr-2007 at 08:33
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 12:47
It's become painfully ofvious reading through your replies that you have read about Imperial Japan or much of World War 2. You have a biases on history and equate your thinking for a nations. Documents, including video show the society of Japan back then. All I can do is smile when I read your replies and it's obvious that no matter what I say your just going to run me in circles. Maybe someone with more patients can continue the issue with you, but I can only see it lasting for years if they continue.
I suggest reading some books on World War 2 and not look at war as a time for human rights. You say the Japanese were tired of War as if the Allies weren't. The Japanese were the ones who continued to fight, and history tells us that the Japanese were willing to fight til the end.
And no I'm not a psychic, again History has this documneted. The Emporer started to record his surrender after the first bomb. The high Ranking Japanese officers had him on lock down and were searching for the recording. It took the Second bomb to finally make them release it. Read history and you don't have to accuse people of being psychic. I believe I mentioned this in some way above, so I must be talking to a wall....
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429
  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 17:57
Search and Destroy, I am not accusing you of being psychic at all, I only asked you a question because you write as if you know the minds of people inside out. History is documented by people and is full of bias and one-sided perceptions. You can never be 100% sure about any thing and you have to question every thing, especially with such an issue which is influenced greatly by all kinds of blinding national perceptions and educations. So please don't accuse me of accusing you when I didn't.

I am not saying at all that only the Japanese were tired as if the the allies weren't. It is just that you (and other members) keep saying that the whole population of Japan was all one for fighting while the Americans were really tired of the war, and I am only pointing out that (as it is the norm for any population) many Japanese people must have been tired and sick of fighting as well. Just read my posts carefully , this is how I wrote.

Yes we have been going in circles for ever , but I patiently went in to the circle with you (and other members) to point things out regardless of how many times I wrote the same things.

I am only questioning and pointing things out using my common sense without being influeneced by national perceptions. As I have said many times, unlike most mambers I am not talking on behalf of any nation. You can't accuse me of being full of biases and not having read anything just because I am not in agreement with your perceptions/national bias.

Human rights are human rights whether it be during a war or not. That is how we learn from history.



Edited by omshanti - 05-Apr-2007 at 18:14
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 18:18

You've expressed an anti-American bias that negates a lot of what you say.

America and the allies were fighting for the cause of human rights against fascism. If you think there was anything even remotely approximating human rights in Germany or Japan in WW II you need to learn more history. Nations like America and Britain were fighting for their survival during that period, and any means were seen as being justified. There was no overarching authority in the world to establish a code a behaviour, just nations fighting for thier lives. Much of what you refer to as human rights has come out of the lessons learned in WW II and paid for in human blood much of it American. Some of here had relatives in that conflict and some of those didn't come back. The world is a better place because of their sacrifice. You have the right to your own opinion, you don't have the right to devalue those of others.

Edited by DukeC - 05-Apr-2007 at 18:19
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 18:31
Search and Destroy, I am not accusing you of being psychic at all, I only asked you a question because you write as if you know the minds of people inside out. History is documented by people and is full of bias and one-sided perceptions.
True, but history is all we have to go on. We know that the Japanese educated their people to believe that the Emporer was divine. They were taught to fight at a young age, and the population was taught to believe that the Allies were going to bring unspeakable terror if they invaded. And this was from the beginning.
You can never be 100% sure about any thing and you have to question every thing, especially with such an issue which is influenced greatly by all kinds of blinding national perceptions and educations.
We barely touched the Japanese in our edcation system. The only things that are mentioned are how we rounded up our own Japanese citizens and put them into camps out of fear and Pearl Harbor. Everything else I spoke of comes from a mix of studying over the years.
It is just that you (and other members) keep saying that the whole population of Japan was all one for fighting while the Americans were really tired of the war, and I am only pointing out that (as it is the norm for any population) many Japanese people must have been tired and sick of fighting as well.
The isssue is though that this population was brainwashed into believing in the worst horrors. They were told we'd rape the women, kill the men, and BBQ their infants. And they spoon fed them this for years. They taught them how to defend against these supposed horrors and how the divine Emporer was doing everything to protect them and so they should protect him too. The population didn't have any outside sources to make their own conclusions, the government at that time educated them on how the Allies were.
Yes we have been going in circles for ever , but I patiently went in to the circle with you (and other members) to point things out regardless of how many times I wrote the same things.
It was probably wrong of me to join in this far in then. But WW2 has a soft spot for me, it's a history with a lot of lessons. I believe the dropping of the bombs is one of them that shows when a people are dedicated to the cause, it may take to much to open their eyes.
I am only questioning and pointing things out using my common sense without being influeneced by national perceptions.
Which is a good thing. Maybe I'm biased, but I've always felt that the Americans of this time period were truely genuine in being caring then the periods of now. Before that war Americans were isolationist, we weren't the Greedy ones we were today and to me they were true heroes. Today, the Bush adminstration does put me to shame.
You can't accuse me of being full of biases and not having read anything just because I am not in agreement with your perceptions/national bias.
What made me believe that is your comparing todays American idealogy with yesterdays. As far as I can tell from studying it, it wasn't about a show of power or anything of that sort. True we kept it secret from the Soviets before the bombs dropped, but we felt we couldn't trust them due to the number of German spy infiltrations in the Soviet Union. But a few days before the bomb dropped we told them. And we did let other allies know of it when we were testing it.
Human rights are human rights whether it be during a war or not. That is how we learn from history.
In a perfect world civilians won't die, but in war it's not going to happen. Right now the US is spending millions to make technology that will better safe guard civilians, but we aren't there yet and war probably will never be a safe time for civilians.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429
  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 07:37
Originally posted by DukeC

I get the feeling that you and many others don't like the fact that the Allies did win the war.
Originally posted by DukeC

Just because you have such a low opinion of America and Americans doesn't make your opinion relevant in the slightest.
Originally posted by DukeC

The fact is I have a low tolerance for B.S., which is why I'm not going to waste any more time playing head games with you.
Originally posted by DukeC

@omshanti
You obviously have some serious issues regarding America, and while that's unfortunate, it's not really historically relevant or even accurate.
Originally posted by DukeC


your completely one-sided criticism of America
Originally posted by DukeC

You've expressed an anti-American bias that negates a lot of what you say.


Originally posted by DukeC

You have the right to your own opinion, you don't have the right to devalue those of others.
Duke C, You have done nothing but name-calling and accusing me without reasons in your posts. What happened to your statement of not wasting your time any more playing head games with me because my opinions are ''BS''. Couldn't resisit to have the last word perhaps?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

True, but history is all we have to go on. We know that the Japanese educated their people to believe that the Emporer was divine. They were taught to fight at a young age, and the population was taught to believe that the Allies were going to bring unspeakable terror if they invaded. And this was from the beginning.
No, history is not what all we have. We have common sense, we have human psyche and behaviour, we have all kinds of examples...etc, from which we can guess things. History only talks generally and usually the average individual is ignored for the sake of the whole. We know that the Japanese   leaders brain washed people, but we can also easily see that since people are all different and act differently, there would have been many people who were against fighting. Also with common sense we can easily see that after years of fighting, poverty, deaths and hardship the general people would have been really tired and sick of war. I can easily see those things from my own experience of a 9year war.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Originally posted by omshati

You can never be 100% sure about any thing and you have to question every thing, especially with such an issue which is influenced greatly by all kinds of blinding national perceptions and educations.
We barely touched the Japanese in our edcation system. The only things that are mentioned are how we rounded up our own Japanese citizens and put them into camps out of fear and Pearl Harbor. Everything else I spoke of comes from a mix of studying over the years.
if you read what I wrote carefully, you will notice that I wrote PERCEPTIONS and educations. I did not only write educations did I?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

The isssue is though that this population was brainwashed into believing in the worst horrors. They were told we'd rape the women, kill the men, and BBQ their infants. And they spoon fed them this for years. They taught them how to defend against these supposed horrors and how the divine Emporer was doing everything to protect them and so they should protect him too. The population didn't have any outside sources to make their own conclusions, the government at that time educated them on how the Allies were.
As I wrote before, a population consists of many different people. different people react differently to brain washing. Some people believe it, some don't. You can never make a whole population act in a uniform manner, no matter how severe the brain washing is. From my own experience the worse the brain washing is, the stronger the opposition.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

   It was probably wrong of me to join in this far in then. But WW2 has a soft spot for me, it's a history with a lot of lessons. I believe the dropping of the bombs is one of them that shows when a people are dedicated to the cause, it maytake to much to open their eyes.
I am having difficulty understanding what you mean here, because it's ambiguous. By ''a people'' are you referring to Japan or America? My response will completely depend on which one you mean. I am looking forward to hearing from you so i can write a response to this sentence.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Originally posted by omshati

I am only questioning and pointing things out using my common sense without being influeneced by national perceptions.
Which is a good thing.
Thank you. I appreciate your honest remark.   
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Originally posted by omshanti

Human rights are human rights whether it be during a war or not. That is how we learn from history.
In a perfect world civilians won't die, but in war it's not going to happen. .
My point was, that you can not use the situation of war as an excuse to justify crimes by saying ''it was war, there were no rules, no human rights'' . if there were ''no human rights'' then how can you complain about the horrible acts of Germany and Japan? I am not talking about the legal ''human rights'' , I am talking about human rights in a moral level , which exists in each person's mind regardless of the time or situation. In situations like wars when there are no rules and where crimes can easily be justified, this human rights on the moral level will be even more precious. By pointing out crimes in a war we will learn from history and will hopefully be able to prevent them from happening again.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

As far as I can tell from studying it, it wasn't about a show of power or anything of that sort. True we kept it secret from the Soviets before the bombs dropped, but we felt we couldn't trust them due to the number of German spy infiltrations in the Soviet Union. But a few days before the bomb dropped we told them. And we did let other allies know of it when we were testing it.
Letting them to know is completely different from actually dropping on people and showing its effect of killing people/mass-destruction. The shock is incomparable.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Maybe I'm biased, but I've always felt that the Americans of this time period were truely genuine in being caring then the periods of now. Before that war Americans were isolationist, we weren't the Greedy ones we were today and to me they were true heroes. Today, the Bush adminstration does put me to shame.
Originally posted by omshanti

You can't accuse me of being full of biases and not having read anything just because I am not in agreement with your perceptions/national bias.
What made me believe that is your comparing todays American idealogy with yesterdays.
America's imperialism is exactly the same then and now, it is not something new that only started recently, with the Bush administration.

Mohammad Mosaddegh the democratically elected prime minister of Iran who passionately opposed foreign intervention in Iran and who was the architect of the nationalisation of the Iranian oil industries, was removed from power in a CIA orchestrated coup in 1952.   

A quote from the book ''Hegemony or survival'' : The global system of military bases from the Pacific to the Azores was designed in considerable measure for operations in the Gulf region. US counterinsurgency and subversion in Greece and Italy in the 1940s were in part motivated by concern over the free flow of Middle east oil to the west.

Another quote from the book ''Hegemony or Survival'': Wilson did secure US domination of the Caribbean rejeon by force, leaving a terrible legacy that remains to this day, and was able to move somewhat beyond, driving the British enemy out of the oil-rich Venezuela and supporting the vicious and currupt dictator Juan Vicente Gomez, who opened the country to US corporations. Open-door/free-trade policies were instituted in the usual way : by pressuring Venezuela to bar British concessions while continuing to demand-and secure- US oil rights in the middle east , where the British and the French were in the lead. By 1928 Veneuzela had become the world's leading oil exporter , with US companies in charge. The story continues right to the front pages of 2003, with enormous poverty in a country of rich resources and potential, yielding great wealth to foreign investors and a small sector of the population.
The reach of US power was limited in Wilson's time, but as president William Howard Taft had presciently observed, ''the day is not far distant (when) the whole hemisphere will be ours in fact as, by virtue of our superiority of race, it already is ours morally.'' Latin Americans may not understand , the Wilson administration added, but that is because ''they are naughty children who are exercising all the privileges and rights of grown-ups'' and require ''a stiff hand, an authoritative hand.'' More gentle means should not be overlooked, however. It may be usefull to ''pat them a little bit and make them think that you are fond of them,'' secretary of state John Foster Dullas advised president Eisenhower.
There are naughty children every where. Wison regarded Filipinos as ''children (who) must obey as those who are in tutelage''-at least, those who survived the liberation he had called for while extolling his altruism. his state department also regarded Italians as ''like children (who) must be (led) and assisted more than almost any other nation.'' It was therefore right and proper for his successors to offer enthusiastic support for the ''fine young revolution'' of Mussolini's fascism that crushed the threat of democracy among Italians who ''hunger for strong leadership and enjoy ..being dramatically governed.'' The conception remained in place through the 1930s and was revived immediately after the war. As the US undertook to subvert Italian democracy in 1948 by withholding food from starving people, restoring the Fascist police , and threatening worse, the state department's Italian desk officer explained that policies must be designed so that ''even the dumbest wop would sense the drift.'' Haitians were ''little more than primitive savages,'' according to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who claimed to have rewritten the Haitian Constitution during Wilson's military occupation-so as to permit US corp[orations to take over Haiti's land and resources after its recalcitrant parliament had been sent packing by the marines. When the Eisenhower administration was seeking to overthrow the newly established Castro government in Cuba in !959, CIA chief Allen Dullas complained that ''there was in Cuba no opposition to Castro who were capable of action,'' in part because ''in these primitive countries where the sun shone, the demands of the people were far less than in the more advamced societies,'' so they were unaware of how much they were suffering.
The need for discipline has been reiterated forcefully over the years. To mention another case of contemporary relevance, When Iran's conservative parliamentary government sought to gain control of its own resources, the US and Britain Instigated a military coup to install an obedient regime that ruled with terror for 25 years. The coup sent a more far-fetching messege, spelled out by the editors of the NewYork Times; '' underdeveloped countries with rich resources now have an object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid by one of their number which goes berserk with fanatical nationalism....Iran's experience (may) strangthen the hands of more reasonable and more far-seeing leaders (elsewhere), who will have a clear-eyed understanding of the principles of decent behaviour.''
The same lasson had been taught nearer home, at the Chapulatepec (Mexico) Conference in February 1945 that laid the basis for the postwar order now that the Monrow doctrine could be enforced in the Wilsonian sense. Latin Americans were then under the influence of what the state department called ''the philosophy of the New Nationalism, (which) embraces policies designed to bring about a broader distribution of wealth and to raise the standard of living of the masses.'' Washington was concerned that ''economic nationalism is the common denominator of the new aspirations for industrialization''-just as it had been for England the United Syates , and in fact every other country that succeeded in industrializing. ''Latin Americans are convinced that the first beneficiaries of the development of a country's resources should be the people of the country.'' That was unacceptable ; the ''first beneficiaries'' must be US investors, while Latin America fulfills its service function. The US therefore imposed an ''Economic charter for the Americas'' designed to eliminate economic nationalism ''in all its forms.'' With an exception , however ; economic nationalism remained a critial feature of the US economy, which relied far more than in the past on a dynamic state sector, often operating under the cover of defense.

Another quote from the book: The basic principles of the imperial grand startegy of september 2002 go back to the early days of World war 2. Even before the US entered the war, high level planners and analysts concluded that in the postwar world the US would seek ''to hold unquestioned power,'' acting to ensure the ''limitation of any exercise of sovereignty'' by states that might interfere with its global designs. They recognized further that ''the formost requirement'' to secure these ends was ''the rapid fulfillment of a program of complete rearment''- then ,as now, a central componenet of ''an integrated policy to achieve military and economic supremacy for the United States.'' At the time, these ambitions were limited to '' non-German world,'' which was to be organized under the US aegis as a ''Grand Area,'' including the western hemisphere, the former British Empire, and the Far East. After it became fairely clear that Germany would be defeated, the plans were extended to include as much of Eurasia as possible.

Another quote from the book: Long before world war 2, the U.S. was by far the greatest economic power in the world but not a leading actor in global management. The war changed that. Rival powers were either devastated or severely weakened, while the U.S. gained enormously. Industrial production almost quadrupled under the semi-command economy. But also position of incomparable security: it controlled the hemisphere, the surrounding oceans, and most of the territory bordering them . U.S. planners moved quickly to organise a global system, following plans that had already been developed to satisfy the ''requirement(s) of the United States in a world in which it proposed to hold unquestioned power" while limiting the sovereignity of those who might pose a challenge.

Another quote from the book:
In the early postwar years, US planners sought to fashion East and Southeast Asia into a Japan-centred system within the "overall framework of ordeer" maintained by the US.The basic framwork was outlined in the San Francisco peace treaty (SFPT) of 1951, which formally ended the war in Asia. Apart from the three French colonies in Indochina, the only Asian countries that accepted the SFPT were Pakistan and Ceylon, both recently freed from British rule and remote from the Asian war. India refused to attend the San Francisco conference because of the terms of the treaty, among them the US insistence on retaining Okinawa as a military base, as it still does, over strong protests from Okinawans, whose voices barely register in the US.
Truman was outraged by India's disobediance. His reaction. no less elegant than the current reaction to the disobediance of Old Europe and Turkey, was that India must have "consulted Uncle Joe and Mousie Dung of China." The white man got a name, not just avulgar epithet. Partly that may be ordinary racism, or perhaps it is because Truman genuinely liked and admired "Old Joe," who reminded him of the Missouri boss who had launched his political career. In the late 1940s, Truman found Old Joe to be a "decent fellow", though "a prisoner of the Politburo" who "can't do what he wants to." Mousie Dung, however, was a yellow devil.
These distinctions extended wartime propaganda. Nazis were evil but merited a certain respect: in the stereotype, at least, they were blond, blue-eyed, orderly, far more appealing than the Frogs, whom truman particularly disliked, not to speak of the Wops.And they were a wholly different species from the Japs, who were vermin to be crushed, at least once they became enemies: before that, the US was ambivalent about Japanese depredations in Asia, as long as US business interests were protected.The primary victims of Japanese fascism and its predecessors-China and the Japanese colonies of Korea and Formosa (Taiwan)- did not attend the San Francisico Peace conference and were accorded no serious concern. Koreans and Chinese received no reparations from Japan: nor did the Philipines,which also did not attend the conference. Secretary of State Dulles condemned filipinos for the "emotional prejudices" that kept them from grasping why they would have no relief from the torture they had endured. initialy, Japan was to pay reparations, but only to the US and other colonial powers, despite the fact that the war was a japanese war of aggression in Asia through the 1930s and only became a US-led Western war with japan after pearl harbour. Japan was also to reimburse the US costs of the occupation. For its Asian victims, Japan was to pay"compensation" in the form of export of Japanese manufacturing products using Southeast asian resources, a central part of the arrangements that, in effect, reconstructed something like the "New Order in Asia" that Japan had attempted to construct by the conquest, but was now gaining under US domination, so that it was unproblematic.
Some Asian victims of Japanese fascism- forced laborers and prisoners of war_ brought suit against Japanese corporations with subsidiaries in the US, the legal successors of those responsible for the crimes. On the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of the SFPT, their suit was dismissed by a California judge, on grounds that their claims were barred by the terms of the SFPT. Relying on an amicus brief filed by the State Department in support of the accused Japanese corporations, the court ruled that the SFPT had "served to sustain US security interests in Asia and to support peace and stability in the region." Asian historian John Price described this judgment as "one of the more abysmal moments of denial," pointing out that at least ten million people had been killed in wars in the region while Asia was enjoying "peace and stability."

next quote:
It is useful to remember that no matter where we turn, there is rarely any shortage of elevated ideals to accompany the resort to violence. The words accompanying the "Wilsonian tradition" may be stirring in their nobility, but also should be examined in practice not just rhetoric: for example, Wilson's call for conquest of the Philipines, already mentioned; or as president, his interventions in Haiti and the Dominican Republic that left both countries in ruins; or what Walter LaFeber calls the "Wilson corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, which dictated "that only American oil interests receive concessions" within reach of its power.

A quote from Wikipedia: American foreign relations since 1914 have rested on Wilsonian idealism, argues historian David Kennedy, even if adjusted somewhat by the "realism" represented by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Henry Kissinger. Kennedy argues that every president since Wilson has, "embraced the core precepts of Wilsonianism. Nixon himself hung Wilson's portrait in the White House Cabinet Room. Wilson's ideas continue to dominate American foreign policy in the twenty-first century. In the aftermath of 9/11 they have, if anything, taken on even greater vitality."[27]

Just for the record, these examples are only the tip of the Iceberg.

Now you see that America's foreign policy and its Imperialism (which is well disguised and accompanied by elevated ideals) was exactly the same in 1945 as it is now. In fact it has been there and has not changed since the early 20th century.



Edited by omshanti - 06-Apr-2007 at 10:59
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 12:54
No, history is not what all we have. We have common sense, we have human psyche and behaviour, we have all kinds of examples...etc, from which we can guess things. History only talks generally and usually the average individual is ignored for the sake of the whole. We know that the Japanese   leaders brain washed people, but we can also easily see that since people are all different and act differently, there would have been many people who were against fighting. Also with common sense we can easily see that after years of fighting, poverty, deaths and hardship the general people would have been really tired and sick of war. I can easily see those things from my own experience of a 9year war.
We also understand that people can be brainwashed very easily. They may have been sick of war, but they were still going to fight it because of what they believed. And history shows how powerful belief is even if it's miniscule. Hell even psychology says that. These people were made to fear, another emotion that gives them the will to want to survive and fight back.
if you read what I wrote carefully, you will notice that I wrote PERCEPTIONS and educations. I did not only write educations did I?
Perceptions come through education too. And today we don't view the Japanese the same way as we did the WW2 Japanese. Most Americans couldn't tell anything about them at all. There is no wide perception of them.
As I wrote before, a population consists of many different people. different people react differently to brain washing.
Nazi Germany didn't, maybe a small minority. It was the sme case for the Japanese. It was made into a Education for them.
Some people believe it, some don't. You can never make a whole population act in a uniform manner, no matter how severe the brain washing is.
Civilization seems to be a good example that you can. Everyone follows the same rules, lives the same life style, hell people even believe in religions to a mass extent. All those started off small, but when people group together, they seem to start thinking the same. Brain washing takes it a step further by educated it's own people, not giving them a outside perspective and basicly making a strong belief system. You only have to look at religion to see what effects it has on the masses and thats with something thats not even visible and are told you need to have "faith" to believe it. Again, history shows this continuosly.
From my own experience the worse the brain washing is, the stronger the opposition.
It also depends how you do it. Bring in fear, nationalism, and a common goal and most people fall right into it. Ofcourse there will be some who don't, and usually the majority targets them.
I am having difficulty understanding what you mean here, because it's ambiguous. By ''a people'' are you referring to Japan or America? My response will completely depend on which one you mean. I am looking forward to hearing from you so i can write a response to this sentence.
lol If I had to guess, I'm thinking your hoping I say Japanese, which I am. The Japanese belief was that their emporer was divine, as divine as people think the pope is Holy. Imagine if someone went after the pope after they were told they have to defend him. How many Christians do you think would be up in arms with just being told they had to defend him. Now imagine being educated and brainwashed from the beginning to believe you had to defend him, it'd move masses.
My point was, that you can not use the situation of war as an excuse to justify crimes by saying ''it was war, there were no rules, no human rights'' . if there were ''no human rights'' then how can you complain about the horrible acts of Germany and Japan? I am not talking about the legal ''human rights'' , I am talking about human rights in a moral level , which exists in each person's mind regardless of the time or situation. In situations like wars when there are no rules and where crimes can easily be justified, this human rights on the moral level will be even more precious. By pointing out crimes in a war we will learn from history and will hopefully be able to prevent them from happening again.
There were two nations who brainwashed their people, one fell for it, the other didn't. Japanese fell for it, because it was also based on a belief system. The Italians didn't, and though it took quite a few losses, the Italians finally revolted and killed their own leader. I believe there was even a Italian resistance against the Fascist government. But the Japanese never even questioned it. They were raised to believe that the Emporer was on a totally different level and that his words were to be followed. The Japanese military used this belief to a great extent and the education system had always preached his divinity. Look at all the Christians and Muslims who believe Muhammed and Jesus were more then just men. They truely believe they are on another level, and look how it moved thousands of people to fight in their name throughout history. The majority rule over the minority, it was the majority of Japanese who were tuaght to fear the allies, and who when have been moved to believe they were protecting themselves and their home land.
Letting them to know is completely different from actually dropping on people and showing its effect of killing people/mass-destruction. The shock is incomparable.
They gave them the full details of it. Truman was shocked after telling Stalin about them because Stalin didn't seem shocked or impressed. That was due to him knowing about them the whole time though.
They were dropped to end a war that the Japanese didn't want to end. If you want to look at in a different more cruel light, it was done in the interests of the US so they didn't have to waste anymore American lives on a war they wanted done with.
Yes, 1945, but I still believe the bombs had no part in that movement. Truman did what he felt best, it was up to him. Before world war 2 and going into it we were isolationist, we didn't want any strong politics outside of our interests. We didn't go and seek out those interests, we did what kept us afloat, and doesn't every nation do that?
Wilsons ideology was anti-isolationist, yet before WW@ we were isolationist to a great extent.
The current adminstration embodies it with it's moves into Iraq and causing conflict. It has more to do with the Neoconservative belief and that was short lived and has basicly dyed now.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 18:53
Duke C, You have done nothing but name-calling and accusing me without reasons in your posts. What happened to your statement of not wasting your time any more playing head games with me because my opinions are ''BS''. Couldn't resisit to have the last word perhaps?
 
I'm not calling you anything, I don't even know you. I'm saying your views are based on a personal dislike you have for America and have no real historical accuracy. You're accusing others of going off-topic but posting reams of information that have nothing to do with this subject.
 
The CIA, Bush or anything else that happened after WW II have no relevance to the dropping of the bombs. As I and others have been trying to point out, there is very good evidence that the dropping of the bombs probably saved lives. You don't seem to have a very good grasp of the nature of either Germany or Japan in WW II and equate them with the Allies. These human rights you're talking about wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the many Allied service people who gave everything for their preservevation.
 
You've claimed earlier that the victory of the Allies in WW II means nothing to you. Their victory meant the end of the Holocaust in Europe and the violent oppression of civilian populations there. In the Pacific it meant the end of a war of conquest started by the Japanese in 1937 which if anything was even more brutal than what was going on in Europe. And yet you claim to be concerned about human rights? I think what you're really concerned about is only the rights of people who you consider to be human.
 
 


Edited by DukeC - 06-Apr-2007 at 19:51
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429
  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 06:05
Originally posted by DukeC

Originally posted by omshanti

Duke C, You have done nothing but name-calling and accusing me without reasons in your posts. What happened to your statement of not wasting your time any more playing head games with me because my opinions are ''BS''. Couldn't resisit to have the last word perhaps?

I'm not calling you anything, I don't even know you.
Did you not read the examples I quoted from your posts. You have called me ''anti-American'' , ''biased'' , you have told me that ''I have issues'' , You have accused me of siding with Germany and Japan, You wrote that my opinions are ''BS''. You have said that my opinions are ''inaccurate'' ,''historically irrelevant'' . And you have done all of this without giving even a single reason. What is this called if not name-calling? Any way I really do not expect a person who can not even recall what he/she has done to others, to admit a crime that his country commited 60 years ago.
Originally posted by DukeC

I'm saying your views are based on a personal dislike you have for America and have no real historical accuracy.
See you are doing it again. you say that my opinions have ''no historical accuracy'' without even giving a reason, I am the only one who has put links to, copied and quoted from other sources to back my opinions, Remember? To prove that my opinions are inaccurate, you have to prove that my sources are wrong. Have you done that? No.
Originally posted by DukeC

I'm saying your views are based on a personal dislike you have for America
You just wrote above that you don't know me, but yet here you are accusing me based on your own assumptions without explaining and giving a reason.
Originally posted by DukeC

You're accusing others of going off-topic but posting reams of information that have nothing to do with this subject.
Before Accusing me, will you please quote for me the part in which I accused or complained about going off topic? If not stop accusing me of what I did not do. If you are talking about this part (read the quote below)
Originally posted by omshanti

    
Originally posted by DukeC

So many gave their lives so we had a chance to live in freedom. However things have turned out, it's a world better than what would have happened if the Japanese and Germans had achieved their dreams of domination.
What are you talking about again? The topic is about the atomic bombs. The Germans had already lost the war and the Japanese were losing the war regardless of the bombs.
what I was saying in this post is quite obvious, isn't it? Furthermore whether you can face it or not, the information I have posted here has every thing to do with the subject, and if you read my posts carefully you will notice that I proved their relevance by quoting other sources.
Originally posted by DukeC

The CIA, Bush or anything else that happened after WW II have no relevance to the dropping of the bombs.
Did you read my posts? The examples that I gave are not only about after the war but from 1920s and before the war all the way to the present. Since we are discussing the motives of America , they have every relevance (whether you like them or not).   
Originally posted by DukeC

As I and others have been trying to point out, there is very good evidence that the dropping of the bombs probably saved lives.
And what? My argument is that since the intention was different, there would have been other ways to ''save lives'' instead of killing that amount of people.
Originally posted by DukeC

You don't seem to have a very good grasp of the nature of either Germany or Japan in WW II and equate them with the Allies.
Where did I ''equate'' them? will you please be kind enough to point it out by quoting. Let me guess, pointing out that America was after power, is ''equating'' to you isn't it?
Originally posted by DukeC

These human rights you're talking about wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the many Allied service people who gave everything for theirpreservevation.
What are you talking about? I did say that human rights in a moral level exist in people's minds. ''human rights don't exist if it weren't for the allies and America''? Yes yes, as usual America accompanied by elevated ideals.
Originally posted by DukeC

You've claimed earlier that the victory of the Allies in WW II means nothing to you. Their victory meant the end of the Holocaust in Europe and the violent oppression of civilian populations there. In the Pacific it meant the end of a war of conquest started by the Japanese in 1937 which if anything was even more brutal than what was going on in Europe. And yet you claim to be concernedabout human rights?
Each Alled nation has abused human rights one way or another at some point in history. Regarding my ''non-concern'' of human rights, that is exactly why I am against bombs. They are weapons of mass-murder.
Originally posted by DukeC

I think what you're really concerned about is only the rights of people who you consider to be human.
What the whole planet bar Americca? Don't worry I am just joking. But isn't it ironic that you accuse me of only caring about some people, while you don't give a damn about the people who died under the bombs for the sake of America's pursuit of power. I am criticising the bombs because I believe that by doing this, we can hopefully prevent them from happening again in the future.
Any way , as I have been asking you many times, what happened to your statement of not wasting your time with me because my opinions are BS?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

We also understand that people can be brainwashed very easily. They may have been sick of war, but they were still going to fight it because of what they believed. And history shows how powerful belief is even if it's miniscule. Hell even psychology says that. These people were made to fear, another emotion that gives them the will to want to survive and fight back.

Nazi Germany didn't, maybe a small minority. It was the sme case for the Japanese. It was made into a Education for them.
Civilization seems to be a good example that you can. Everyone follows the same rules, lives the same life style, hell people even believe in religions to a mass extent. All those started off small, but when people group together, they seem to start thinking the same. Brain washing takes it a step further by educated it's own people, not giving them a outside perspective and basicly making a strong belief system. You only have to look at religion to see what effects it has on the masses and thats with something thats not even visible and are told you need to have "faith" to believe it. Again, history shows this continuosly.
It also depends how you do it. Bring in fear, nationalism, and a common goal and most people fall right into it. Ofcourse there will be some who don't, and usually the majority targets them.
Actually I think you are right regarding brain washing. People do get brain washed easily, and from what I have seen, it is not surprising that Japanese people might have gone completely uniform although as you said this does not change the fact that they must have been sick and tired of war and fighting. Also I guess we have a fundamental difference, I have always been carefull and have avoided being brain washed (which is the reason that I don't talk on behalf of any nation and that I am always a minority/outsider in my beliefs ), so to me it appeared that people don't get brain washed easily . But now seeing your and other members' examples who believe in the ideal and the righteous America that does not really exist no matter how much evidence they are shown, I can see that people do get easily brainwashed. But any way, so what? The Japanese were brain washed, but this does not change the slightest thing about the bombs being a crime.   
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Perceptions come through education too.
Yes perceptions come through education too, but education is only a part of it. There is the media, entertainment, society...etc so many things that shape perception.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

And today we don't view the Japanese the same way as we did the WW2 Japanese. Most Americans couldn't tell anything about them at all. There is no wide perception of them.
I am not talking about ''your'' perception of the Japanese people today but your present perception of the Japanese people then. True Japan as a nation was horribly brutal and evil, but each individual person is a human. It seems to me that in America they are all perceived as the inhuman evil monster rather than people, very conveniently in order to justify the bombs and the killings. This is very apparent from your posts in which you keep writing such things as ''the Japanese deserved it'' ''The japanese caused it'' ''they got their lesson''   

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

lol If I had to guess, I'm thinking your hoping I say Japanese, which I am. The Japanese belief was that their emporer was divine, as divine as people think the pope is Holy. Imagine if someone went after the pope after they were told they have to defend him. How many Christians do you think would be up in arms with just being told they had to defend him. Now imagine being educated and brainwashed from the beginning to believe you had to defend him, it'd move masses.
the whole war including the atomic bombs was a lesson that the Japanese should have learnt from (which they have not learnt in my opinion), but what surprises me is this mindset: that the bombs were a lesson that ''you'' gave them, hence the bombs are justified.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Originally posted by omshanti

My point was, that you can not use the situation of war as an excuse to justify crimes by saying ''it was war, there were no rules, no human rights'' . if there were ''no human rights'' then how can you complain about the horrible acts of Germany and Japan? I am not talking about the legal ''human rights'' , I am talking about human rights in a moral level , which exists in each person's mind regardless of the time or situation. In situations like wars when there are no rules and where crimes can easily be justified, this human rights on the moral level will be even more precious. By pointing out crimes in a war we will learn from history and will hopefully be able to prevent them from happening again.
There were two nations who brainwashed their people, one fell for it, the other didn't. Japanese fell for it, because it was also based on a belief system. The Italians didn't, and though it took quite a few losses, the Italians finally revolted and killed their own leader. I believe there was even a Italian resistance against the Fascist government. But the Japanese never even questioned it. They were raised to believe that the Emporer was on a totally different level and that his words were to be followed. The Japanese military used this belief to a great extent and the education system had always preached his divinity. Look at all the Christians and Muslims who believe Muhammed and Jesus were more then just men. They truely believe they are on another level, and look how it moved thousands of people to fight in their name throughout history. The majority rule over the minority, it was the majority of Japanese who were tuaght to fear the allies, and who when have been moved to believe they were protecting themselves and their home land.
First of all, there were not only two nations who brainwashed their people. Almost all the nations did and still do. Secondly , in my post that you quoted I wrote about human rights, but yet you are still writing about brain washing. what is the point of quoting if you are going to write about something different? Are you trying to say that human rights don't apply to brain washed people?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

They gave them the full details of it. Truman was shocked after telling Stalin about them because Stalin didn't seem shocked or impressed. That was due to him knowing about them the whole time though.
Again you are talking as if you know these people's minds inside out.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Yes, 1945, but I still believe the bombs had no part in that movement. Truman did what he felt best, it was up to him.
Truman obviously did what he thoght best to gain a foothold in Asia to extend America's power. This is obvious from the sources I have quoted.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Before world war 2 and going into it we were isolationist,
Well, history and reality shows otherwise.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

we didn't want any strong politics outside of our interests.
yes and ''your interests'' were the whole hemisphere.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

We didn't go and seek out those interests,
Yes you did , otherwise ''you'' would not have built military bases all around the world, you would not have gone to help the fascism in Italy in 1930s . You would not have gone to Latin America and the middle east ,....etc.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

we did what kept us afloat, and doesn't every nation do that?
''You'' did not keep afloat at all, you were trying to dominate the world.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Wilsons ideology was anti-isolationist, yet before WW@ we were isolationist to a great extent.
Well, historians and famous authors say otherwise. Obviously the reality and history show it otherwise. You have to prove THEM wrong, not me.
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

The current adminstration embodies it with it's moves into Iraq and causing conflict. It has more to do with the Neoconservative belief and that was short lived and has basicly dyed now.
You are using one administration as an scapegoat by blaming every thing on them. The sources that I quoted, show very clearly that America's imperialism is not something new or something that ''dies out'' with one administration. If you are not convinced by the sources that I have quoted, then whatever. There is no point in going on like this.

PS, Moderators, Isn't it time to do something about this endless discussion and bickering that is only going in circles?

Aelfgifu, Thank you for changing the font size in my post.

Edited by omshanti - 07-Apr-2007 at 09:59
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 12:29
Actually I think you are right regarding brain washing. People do get brain washed easily, and from what I have seen, it is not surprising that Japanese people might have gone completely uniform although as you said this does not change the fact that they must have been sick and tired of war and fighting. Also I guess we have a fundamental difference, I have always been carefull and have avoided being brain washed (which is the reason that I don't talk on behalf of any nation and that I am always a minority/outsider in my beliefs ), so to me it appeared that people don't get brain washed easily . But now seeing your and other members' examples who believe in the ideal and the righteous America that does not really exist no matter how much evidence they are shown, I can see that people do get easily brainwashed. But any way, so what? The Japanese were brain washed, but this does not change the slightest thing about the bombs being a crime. 
Started reading what you had said and thought we were making progress in understanding each other, then you called me brainwashed... lol owell.
You can say America was brainwashed for the reasons of going into Iraq and believed that we were going to have our lives at risk if we didn't. But that seems to be the only time, atleast in recent years as I can't go back further without looking at history and expierence something first hand.
Everything I use for information isn't done by looking at our media only, and I try not to look into conspiracies anymore. I might be agreeing with you 100% a couple of years ago, but there's so many conspiracies without knowing the reasons behind some actions that I just wall them off now. Maybe thats my down fall, and maybe you convince me to look at these conspiracy source. BUT I"LL NEVER ADMIT IT!Tongue
Yes perceptions come through education too, but education is only a part of it. There is the media, entertainment, society...etc so many things that shape perception.
The Japanese had control of this too. It was basicly a nation under strict control geared towards a belief. Much like the Christian nations in the past, only I don't think the Japanese killed their people for not believing. It was basicly a religion, they still pray at shrines dedicated to the Japanese Soldiers in that era.
I am not talking about ''your'' perception of the Japanese people today but your present perception of the Japanese people then. True Japan as a nation was horribly brutal and evil, but each individual person is a human. It seems to me that in America they are all perceived as the inhuman evil monster rather than people, very conveniently in order to justify the bombs and the killings. This is very apparent from your posts in which you keep writing such things as ''the Japanese deserved it'' ''The japanese caused it'' ''they got their lesson''
From what I can tell, the Japanese are protrayed victims of their own government. The documentaries I've seen on the state of their population then is portrayed in away that they infused with great fear and educated in in believing the Emporer was divine. The lesson is one for everyone, and it tells that you shouldn't trust everything. Now your probably saying,"Look at you as an example", well I say what about you? You fully believe in what you say 100%, you won't even look the other way. I'm not saying I'm any better, but once people latch on to a belief it's hard to let go.
I've looked through alot of this time period, and I just feel these bombs were not dropped for imperial reasons. I think if that was the case we could've used a couple in Soviet Russia so we could have global control. General Patton wanted to rush into Russia immediatly, but they told him no.
the whole war including the atomic bombs was a lesson that the Japanese should have learnt from (which they have not learnt in my opinion), but what surprises me is this mindset: that the bombs were a lesson that ''you'' gave them, hence the bombs are justified.
There was no lesson then, the bomb was dropped to end a long war. The lesson is now, and history teaches us that a brainwashed society can last so long as it's belief is strong, and can take a significant sacrefice from that population to open their eyes.
First of all, there were not only two nations who brainwashed their people.
Never said there was, I was giving to examples of to very different situations with the same goal. One knew how to brainwash, the other didn't. Atleast not to the extent where it was a basic belief system.
Almost all the nations did and still do.
Agreed, but not to the level of Imperial Japan.
Secondly , in my post that you quoted I wrote about human rights, but yet you are still writing about brain washing.
You spoke of the human mind in that post. The human mind is something that can easily be programed. Americans are said to be a nation of very independent minded people, to the point where your rewarded for being one. And yet we have even we have a growing faith of Evangelicals where their children don't even get to enjoy really being a child and they spout out everything their parents say and don't think for themselves. That brainwashed, their morals are very different from mine. Morals maybe related, but most societies and even sub-cultures have very different ideas on what morals are.
The Ancients used to think it was ok to sacrefice babies to their gods, to leave a baby on a hill side to die. Do you think you hold a moral supiority over them, or do you think that was just their morals at the time? Morals are based on culture, the Japanese had a culture that shaped them to believe they had to fight. All I'm saying is there wasn't away around it unless you wanted to go head on into Japan. I have a feeling I probably confused you, but I assure you, it makes sense in my head!Smile
Again you are talking as if you know these people's minds inside out.
No, again I'm going by first hand testimony and history.
Truman obviously did what he thoght best to gain a foothold in Asia to extend America's power. This is obvious from the sources I have quoted.
Alot of whats up there says post war, late 1940s, and so on. And how many of these military bases around the world were created during the 1920-30s? As far as I know, the Colonial times is when the US went after alot like forcing Japan to open up to the west, taking Hawaii, forcing Spain to hand over Cuba and Peurto Rico and so on. We even took parts of Asia and set up bases, but this isn't the time when we were isolationist.
Though thanks for sharing about us getting Moussolini. I think I'll be looking up information on this, as admittedly I've never heard of this.
Well, history and reality shows otherwise.
Not to sure of that. Other powers were gaining more control then us at this time. Atleast from what I understand.
yes and ''your interests'' were the whole hemisphere.
As far as I can tell, it wasn't. We were in a depression, wasn't much power we could project. It took the world war to allow to even think of doing so as it allowed us to grow.
''You'' did not keep afloat at all, you were trying to dominate the world.
huh?
Well, historians and famous authors say otherwise.
That he was isolationist? I think at this time period we had what they call Jacksonites.
You are using one administration as an scapegoat by blaming every thing on them.
You were using them before as a example of the past. I'm saying they are a totally different movement. They follow PNAC, which could be based on Wilsonian ideals, but I think is much more agressive.
The sources that I quoted, show very clearly that America's imperialism is not something new or something that ''dies out'' with one administration.
I believe times change all the time. Every country tries to get to the top, the US has. But I highly doubt they follow the same rules. Neoconservatives seem very strong on the idea of using force immensly to project it's power. They are pretty much destroying our army at the moment by these moves, and PNAC finally got it's real power through this adminstration. And it seems they failed that.
PS, Moderators, Isn't it time to do something about this endless discussion and bickering that is only going in circles?
You know, you could just stop and not take part. I was but I felt we were actually getting beyond making things personal.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429
  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 22:22
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Started reading what you had said and thought we were making progress in understanding each other, then you called me brainwashed... lol owell.
I did not CALL you brainwashed. I stated what was obvious from your posts and gave you a VERY clear reason as to why i think so by writing ''seeing your and other members' examples who believe in the ideal and the righteous America that does not really exist no matter how much evidence they are shown''. Furthermore, To you ''making progress'' is only when I agree with you, isn't it?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

You can say America was brainwashed for the reasons of going into Iraq and believed that we were going to have our lives at risk if we didn't. But that seems to be the only time,
This is exactly why I think ''you'' are brain washed. That you think Going to Iraq is the only time. That you think other than the recent administration, America was ideal , righteous , ''isolationist'', ''the true hero'' or ''caring'' regardless of how much evidence I show you that proves otherwise.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

BUT I"LL NEVER ADMIT IT!
Yes yes, just don't admit any thing no matter how real they are.   

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

The Japanese had control of this too. It was basicly a nation under strict control geared towards a belief. Much like the Christian nations in the past, only I don't think the Japanese killed their people for not believing. It was basicly a religion, they still pray at shrines dedicated to the Japanese Soldiers in that era.
Remember? we were not talking about the Japanese when I mentioned perception frist. I was talking generally. Regarding the Japanese I agreed with you that they were brain washed, didn't I? The fact that you keep mentioning this all the time regardless of what we are talking about, shows that you are wrapped up in your perception of them.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

From what I can tell, the Japanese are protrayed victims of their own government. The documentaries I've seen on the state of their population then is portrayed in away that they infused with great fear and educated in in believing the Emporer was divine. The lesson is one for everyone, and it tells that you shouldn't trust everything.
I did say that the whole thing was a lesson the Japanese should have learnt from. So what are you going on about still. Yes the lesson is one for every one but there are separate lessons too. For America, the leasson is to accept its crimes instead of blaming others and Justifying them with this mindset of ''we gave them a lesson''.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Now your probably saying,"Look at you as an example", well I say what about you? You fully believe in what you say 100%, you won't even look the other way. I'm not saying I'm any better, but once people latch on to a belief it's hard to let go.
OK, Remember how 9/11 affected America, just imagine how it would have felt if two whole cities were wiped out. My belief is not about who is more righteous, but about avoiding violence from happening again.   

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

I've looked through alot of this time period, and I just feel these bombs were not dropped for imperial reasons.
The sources I have quoted for you show otherwise. Did you read them?
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

I think if that was the case we could've used a couple in Soviet Russia so we could have global control.
First of all do you think America could have done that to the Soviet Union? Soviet Union was not a losing small nation but a super power, just like America. Secondly by dropping bombs in Russia you would not have gained power over the Pacific, East Asia, and south east Asia.   

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

There was no lesson then, the bomb was dropped to end a long war. The lesson is now, and history teaches us that a brainwashed society can last so long as it's belief is strong, and can take a significant sacrefice from that population to open their eyes.
Wow you are only talking about the lesson the Japanese should have learnt. Not surprising though because it can be an excuse to justify America's crime.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Agreed, but not to the level of Imperial Japan.
No, It should be '' Not obviously as Japan.''

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

You spoke of the human mind in that post. The human mind is something that can easily be programed. Americans are said to be a nation of very independent minded people, to the point where your rewarded for being one. And yet we have even we have a growing faith of Evangelicals where their children don't even get to enjoy really being a child and they spout out everything their parents say and don't think for themselves. That brainwashed, their morals are very different from mine. Morals maybe related, but most societies and even sub-cultures have very different ideas on what morals are.
You are right but this does not change the fact that humans are capable of undestanding others' pains if they tried to. There are universal feelings that don't change regardless of who you are.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

The Ancients used to think it was ok to sacrefice babies to their gods, to leave a baby on a hill side to die. Do you think you hold a moral supiority over them, or do you think that was just their morals at the time? Morals are based on culture, the Japanese had a culture that shaped them to believe they had to fight
Yes , and the Americans have a culture that shaped them (and it still does) to believe that they were always right and the ''caring hero'' no matter what.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

All I'm saying is there wasn't away around it unless you wanted to go head on into Japan. I have a feeling I probably confused you, but I assure you, it makes sense in my head!
Yes there wasn't a way aroud it since America wanted a foothold in Asia to extend its power/dominance. But as I said many times If it really wanted to free and help the Asian people, it would have concentrated on that instead of dropping bombs and invading Japan for its own interests.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

No, again I'm going by first hand testimony and history.
Well, then quote them before writing.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Alot of whats up there says post war, late 1940s, and so on. And how many of these military bases around the world were created during the 1920-30s? As far as I know, the Colonial times is when the US went after alot like forcing Japan to open up to the west, taking Hawaii, forcing Spain to hand over Cuba and Peurto Rico and so on. We even took parts of Asia and set up bases, but this isn't the time when we were isolationist.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Though thanks for sharing about us getting Moussolini. I think I'll be looking up information on this, as admittedly I've never heard of this.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Originally posted by omshanti

Well, history and reality shows otherwise.
Not to sure of that. Other powers were gaining more control then us at this time. Atleast from what I understand.


Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Originally posted by omshanti

yes and ''your interests'' were the whole hemisphere.
As far as I can tell, it wasn't. We were in a depression, wasn't much power we could project. It took the world war to allow to even think of doing so as it allowed us to grow.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Originally posted by omshanti

''You'' did not keep afloat at all, you were trying to dominate the world.
huh?


Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Originally posted by omshanti

Well, historians and famous authors say otherwise.
That he was isolationist? I think at this time period we had what they call Jacksonites.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Originally posted by omshanti

You are using one administration as an scapegoat by blaming every thing on them.
You were using them before as a example of the past. I'm saying they are a totally different movement. They follow PNAC, which could be based on Wilsonian ideals, but I think is much more agressive.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Originally posted by omshanti

The sources that I quoted, show very clearly that America's imperialism is not something new or something that ''dies out'' with one administration.
I believe times change all the time. Every country tries to get to the top, the US has. But I highly doubt they follow the same rules. Neoconservatives seem very strong on the idea of using force immensly to project it's power. They are pretty much destroying our army at the moment by these moves, and PNAC finally got it's real power through this adminstration. And it seems they failed that.
Since You don't seem to have read carefully the sources I have quoted I will post them again.

quote from a book called ''Heagemony or Survival'' written by Noam Chomsky.
'Victors do not investigate their own crimes, so that little is known about them, a principle that brooks few exceptions: the death toll of the US wars in Indochina, for example is not known within a range of millions. The same principle underlay the war crimes trials after world war 2. The operational definition of ''crimes of war'' and ''crimes against humanity'' was staraightforward: crimes qualified as crimes if they were carried out by the enemy, not by the Allies. Destruction of urban civilian concentrations, for example, was excluded. The principle has been applied in subsequent tribunals, but only to defeated enemies or others who can be safely despised.'

Mohammad Mosaddegh the democratically elected prime minister of Iran who passionately opposed foreign intervention in Iran and who was the architect of the nationalisation of the Iranian oil industries, was removed from power in a CIA orchestrated coup in 1952.   

A quote from the book ''Hegemony or survival'' : The global system of military bases from the Pacific to the Azores was designed in considerable measure for operations in the Gulf region. US counterinsurgency and subversion in Greece and Italy in the 1940s were in part motivated by concern over the free flow of Middle east oil to the west.

Another quote from the book ''Hegemony or Survival'': Wilson did secure US domination of the Caribbean rejeon by force, leaving a terrible legacy that remains to this day, and was able to move somewhat beyond, driving the British enemy out of the oil-rich Venezuela and supporting the vicious and currupt dictator Juan Vicente Gomez, who opened the country to US corporations. Open-door/free-trade policies were instituted in the usual way : by pressuring Venezuela to bar British concessions while continuing to demand-and secure- US oil rights in the middle east , where the British and the French were in the lead. By 1928 Veneuzela had become the world's leading oil exporter , with US companies in charge. The story continues right to the front pages of 2003, with enormous poverty in a country of rich resources and potential, yielding great wealth to foreign investors and a small sector of the population.
The reach of US power was limited in Wilson's time, but as president William Howard Taft had presciently observed, ''the day is not far distant (when) the whole hemisphere will be ours in fact as, by virtue of our superiority of race, it already is ours morally.'' Latin Americans may not understand , the Wilson administration added, but that is because ''they are naughty children who are exercising all the privileges and rights of grown-ups'' and require ''a stiff hand, an authoritative hand.'' More gentle means should not be overlooked, however. It may be usefull to ''pat them a little bit and make them think that you are fond of them,'' secretary of state John Foster Dullas advised president Eisenhower.
There are naughty children every where. Wison regarded Filipinos as ''children (who) must obey as those who are in tutelage''-at least, those who survived the liberation he had called for while extolling his altruism. his state department also regarded Italians as ''like children (who) must be (led) and assisted more than almost any other nation.'' It was therefore right and proper for his successors to offer enthusiastic support for the ''fine young revolution'' of Mussolini's fascism that crushed the threat of democracy among Italians who ''hunger for strong leadership and enjoy ..being dramatically governed.'' The conception remained in place through the 1930s and was revived immediately after the war. As the US undertook to subvert Italian democracy in 1948 by withholding food from starving people, restoring the Fascist police , and threatening worse, the state department's Italian desk officer explained that policies must be designed so that ''even the dumbest wop would sense the drift.'' Haitians were ''little more than primitive savages,'' according to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who claimed to have rewritten the Haitian Constitution during Wilson's military occupation-so as to permit US corp[orations to take over Haiti's land and resources after its recalcitrant parliament had been sent packing by the marines. When the Eisenhower administration was seeking to overthrow the newly established Castro government in Cuba in !959, CIA chief Allen Dullas complained that ''there was in Cuba no opposition to Castro who were capable of action,'' in part because ''in these primitive countries where the sun shone, the demands of the people were far less than in the more advamced societies,'' so they were unaware of how much they were suffering.
The need for discipline has been reiterated forcefully over the years. To mention another case of contemporary relevance, When Iran's conservative parliamentary government sought to gain control of its own resources, the US and Britain Instigated a military coup to install an obedient regime that ruled with terror for 25 years. The coup sent a more far-fetching messege, spelled out by the editors of the NewYork Times; '' underdeveloped countries with rich resources now have an object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid by one of their number which goes berserk with fanatical nationalism....Iran's experience (may) strangthen the hands of more reasonable and more far-seeing leaders (elsewhere), who will have a clear-eyed understanding of the principles of decent behaviour.''
The same lasson had been taught nearer home, at the Chapulatepec (Mexico) Conference in February 1945 that laid the basis for the postwar order now that the Monrow doctrine could be enforced in the Wilsonian sense. Latin Americans were then under the influence of what the state department called ''the philosophy of the New Nationalism, (which) embraces policies designed to bring about a broader distribution of wealth and to raise the standard of living of the masses.'' Washington was concerned that ''economic nationalism is the common denominator of the new aspirations for industrialization''-just as it had been for England the United Syates , and in fact every other country that succeeded in industrializing. ''Latin Americans are convinced that the first beneficiaries of the development of a country's resources should be the people of the country.'' That was unacceptable ; the ''first beneficiaries'' must be US investors, while Latin America fulfills its service function. The US therefore imposed an ''Economic charter for the Americas'' designed to eliminate economic nationalism ''in all its forms.'' With an exception , however ; economic nationalism remained a critial feature of the US economy, which relied far more than in the past on a dynamic state sector, often operating under the cover of defense.

Another quote from the book: The basic principles of the imperial grand startegy of september 2002 go back to the early days of World war 2. Even before the US entered the war, high level planners and analysts concluded that in the postwar world the US would seek ''to hold unquestioned power,'' acting to ensure the ''limitation of any exercise of sovereignty'' by states that might interfere with its global designs. They recognized further that ''the formost requirement'' to secure these ends was ''the rapid fulfillment of a program of complete rearment''- then ,as now, a central componenet of ''an integrated policy to achieve military and economic supremacy for the United States.'' At the time, these ambitions were limited to '' non-German world,'' which was to be organized under the US aegis as a ''Grand Area,'' including the western hemisphere, the former British Empire, and the Far East. After it became fairely clear that Germany would be defeated, the plans were extended to include as much of Eurasia as possible.

Another quote from the book: Long before world war 2, the U.S. was by far the greatest economic power in the world but not a leading actor in global management. The war changed that. Rival powers were either devastated or severely weakened, while the U.S. gained enormously. Industrial production almost quadrupled under the semi-command economy. But also position of incomparable security: it controlled the hemisphere, the surrounding oceans, and most of the territory bordering them . U.S. planners moved quickly to organise a global system, following plans that had already been developed to satisfy the ''requirement(s) of the United States in a world in which it proposed to hold unquestioned power" while limiting the sovereignity of those who might pose a challenge.

Another quote from the book:
In the early postwar years, US planners sought to fashion East and Southeast Asia into a Japan-centred system within the "overall framework of ordeer" maintained by the US.The basic framwork was outlined in the San Francisco peace treaty (SFPT) of 1951, which formally ended the war in Asia. Apart from the three French colonies in Indochina, the only Asian countries that accepted the SFPT were Pakistan and Ceylon, both recently freed from British rule and remote from the Asian war. India refused to attend the San Francisco conference because of the terms of the treaty, among them the US insistence on retaining Okinawa as a military base, as it still does, over strong protests from Okinawans, whose voices barely register in the US.
Truman was outraged by India's disobediance. His reaction. no less elegant than the current reaction to the disobediance of Old Europe and Turkey, was that India must have "consulted Uncle Joe and Mousie Dung of China." The white man got a name, not just avulgar epithet. Partly that may be ordinary racism, or perhaps it is because Truman genuinely liked and admired "Old Joe," who reminded him of the Missouri boss who had launched his political career. In the late 1940s, Truman found Old Joe to be a "decent fellow", though "a prisoner of the Politburo" who "can't do what he wants to." Mousie Dung, however, was a yellow devil.
These distinctions extended wartime propaganda. Nazis were evil but merited a certain respect: in the stereotype, at least, they were blond, blue-eyed, orderly, far more appealing than the Frogs, whom truman particularly disliked, not to speak of the Wops.And they were a wholly different species from the Japs, who were vermin to be crushed, at least once they became enemies: before that, the US was ambivalent about Japanese depredations in Asia, as long as US business interests were protected.The primary victims of Japanese fascism and its predecessors-China and the Japanese colonies of Korea and Formosa (Taiwan)- did not attend the San Francisico Peace conference and were accorded no serious concern. Koreans and Chinese received no reparations from Japan: nor did the Philipines,which also did not attend the conference. Secretary of State Dulles condemned filipinos for the "emotional prejudices" that kept them from grasping why they would have no relief from the torture they had endured. initialy, Japan was to pay reparations, but only to the US and other colonial powers, despite the fact that the war was a japanese war of aggression in Asia through the 1930s and only became a US-led Western war with japan after pearl harbour. Japan was also to reimburse the US costs of the occupation. For its Asian victims, Japan was to pay"compensation" in the form of export of Japanese manufacturing products using Southeast asian resources, a central part of the arrangements that, in effect, reconstructed something like the "New Order in Asia" that Japan had attempted to construct by the conquest, but was now gaining under US domination, so that it was unproblematic.
Some Asian victims of Japanese fascism- forced laborers and prisoners of war_ brought suit against Japanese corporations with subsidiaries in the US, the legal successors of those responsible for the crimes. On the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of the SFPT, their suit was dismissed by a California judge, on grounds that their claims were barred by the terms of the SFPT. Relying on an amicus brief filed by the State Department in support of the accused Japanese corporations, the court ruled that the SFPT had "served to sustain US security interests in Asia and to support peace and stability in the region." Asian historian John Price described this judgment as "one of the more abysmal moments of denial," pointing out that at least ten million people had been killed in wars in the region while Asia was enjoying "peace and stability."

next quote:
It is useful to remember that no matter where we turn, there is rarely any shortage of elevated ideals to accompany the resort to violence. The words accompanying the "Wilsonian tradition" may be stirring in their nobility, but also should be examined in practice not just rhetoric: for example, Wilson's call for conquest of the Philipines, already mentioned; or as president, his interventions in Haiti and the Dominican Republic that left both countries in ruins; or what Walter LaFeber calls the "Wilson corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, which dictated "that only American oil interests receive concessions" within reach of its power.

A quote from Wikipedia: American foreign relations since 1914 have rested on Wilsonian idealism, argues historian David Kennedy, even if adjusted somewhat by the "realism" represented by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Henry Kissinger. Kennedy argues that every president since Wilson has, "embraced the core precepts of Wilsonianism. Nixon himself hung Wilson's portrait in the White House Cabinet Room. Wilson's ideas continue to dominate American foreign policy in the twenty-first century. In the aftermath of 9/11 they have, if anything, taken on even greater vitality."[27]



Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Originally posted by omshanti

PS, Moderators, Isn't it time to do something about this endless discussion and bickering that is only going in circles?
You know, you could just stop and not take part. I was but I felt we were actually getting beyond making things personal.
Who started frst by saying things such as ''you have twisted history enough'' or calling my opinions ''vague''? My point was that the moderators should have realized by now that this thread is done to death and should have taken some action.

None of us is going to convince each other, I am not going to participate any more.


Edited by omshanti - 07-Apr-2007 at 23:23
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 22:58
I can see your not very happy with me, so I'll make it easy. YOU WIN!Big%20smile
Hopefully we can have a nice conversation on the forums sometime.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
The Hidden Face View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Ustad-i Azam

Joined: 16-Jul-2005
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1379
  Quote The Hidden Face Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 23:23

Man, what a conversation, indeed. Thumbs%20Up

 
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 01:00
I'm not giving up, I think omshanti is another Bankotsu trying to rewrite history in favour of the Soviets.
 
Originally posted by omshatin

Yes what Japan did to Asian people was evil and should never be forgotten, however whether the bombs ended the war or not is disputed. The fact that Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb but surrendered immediately after the start of the Soviet Invasion from the north (which happens to coincide with the timing of the second bomb), shows that there is every possibility that the Soviet invasion was the reason behind Japan's surrender.
 
The Soviets played a minor role in the Pacific war, only entering at the end to grab as much territory as possible. They posed no immediate threat to the Japanese home islands as the Soviet armed forces lacked a strategic air arm and heavy sea-lift capability in 1945. Their frontal aviation also lacked the range to operate over the Japanese home islands.
 
It was the immense American naval and airpower that did most of the work in defeating Japan, it's very arrogant of you to claim otherwise. It's ridiculous to state that the limited military operation in Manchuria had more influence on the Japanese surrender than the total destruction of two of it's cities. I doubt the Japanese leadership even noticed the Soviet land-grab.
 
Originally posted by omshanti

Well they are quite similar, aren't they? Both are imperialist. both invade and destroy other nations for their own selfish reasons,....etc. Perhaps the difference is that with Japan it was really obvious whereas with America it is not because they are the most powerfull nation in the world and are so good at disguising it.
 
They weren't similar in 1941 when the Japanese started the war with a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. What nation did the U.S. annex in the immediate pre-war period? It was an isolationistic nation at the time, the events of WW II and later the Cold War caused it's outward movement.
 
At the same time the Soviets made an unprovoked attack on Finland and annexed the three Baltic states and eastern Poland in concert with the Nazi invasion. They were much closer in nature to the fascist states.
 
If you're actually trying to present the Soviets as being somehow morally superior to the U.S. you're wasting your time with me. As a university student, my godfather organized and led the student brigade that held the Hungarian border open so that 200,000 people could escape the insanity of communism in 1956. From his first hand stories I know what scumbags the Soviets were, I'm glad they didn't get their chance to take over Japan and all of Korea, which IMO is really what bothers you about the atomic bombs.
 


Edited by DukeC - 09-Apr-2007 at 13:00
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 789

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.367 seconds.