I agree, DM. The left needs to figure out how to win elections without becoming like the Reps (I hope it's possible), and the right needs to figure out what direction they want to take the country in the post Bush era, i.e., will they go back to true conservatism or not.
4 More Years!
- Thread starter onthebottom
- Start date
Re: Re: American Exceptionalism
"They" initiated a war of aggression,eh? As if "they" got a vote.
The Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Tokyo firebombings were intended to kill non-combatant civilians. They were not targeted on combatants.
This is clearly immoral. What amazing arithmetic do you use to say MILLIONS of Japanese lives were saved??
The killing of non-combatants has often been considered murder.
Soldiers in combat zones in WWII were court-martialled and executed for killing civilians. Not often, but it did happen.
I guess if you get an order to commit murder then it's OK. Wasn't this discussed at the Nuremberg trials?
Apologies, rebuilding efforts etc are mere justifications for
this behaviour.
It's amazing to me that gay marriage is a moral issue, but 20,000 dead Iraqis is not.
How about "immoral" instead of illegal?Ranger68 said:
"They" initiated a war of aggression,eh? As if "they" got a vote.
The Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Tokyo firebombings were intended to kill non-combatant civilians. They were not targeted on combatants.
This is clearly immoral. What amazing arithmetic do you use to say MILLIONS of Japanese lives were saved??
The killing of non-combatants has often been considered murder.
Soldiers in combat zones in WWII were court-martialled and executed for killing civilians. Not often, but it did happen.
I guess if you get an order to commit murder then it's OK. Wasn't this discussed at the Nuremberg trials?
Apologies, rebuilding efforts etc are mere justifications for
this behaviour.
It's amazing to me that gay marriage is a moral issue, but 20,000 dead Iraqis is not.
*sigh* Glad you're missing the point.Asterix said:
Saying that you're going to come over and "do a Bastogne" on someone is like saying you're going to come over and "do a Thermopylae".
"Yeah, I'm gonna come over and stand in your doorway so nobody can come or go. You're gonna beat me up, yes, but when my bigger friend gets there, he's gonna take care of business!"
There are probably better analogies to use.
Okay?
Okay.
LOL
I debate ideas with people *capable* of debating ideas.Drunken Master said:
Which hasn't yet included you, Drunken Master.
Maybe one day.
Those who can't *understand English* get semantic debates.
Of course, if you say the sky is red, and I say it's blue - and you say it's now a semantic debate, wellllll ........
Re: Re: Re: American Exceptionalism
ANY country that EVER was involved in a war has comited war crimes. NO EXCEPTIONS.
While you can discuss numbers, no country can ever defend it's war record.
"War is the devils play ground"(DQ a man who's been there)
We better not get in to a discussion on war crimes. It is a non winning issue.clipper said:
ANY country that EVER was involved in a war has comited war crimes. NO EXCEPTIONS.
While you can discuss numbers, no country can ever defend it's war record.
"War is the devils play ground"(DQ a man who's been there)
Re: Re: Re: American Exceptionalism
(Although, of course, DM will say this is just more semantics. LOL)
Uh, yes, THE JAPANESE initiated a war of aggression. I'm sorry - are we now distinguishing between the actions of a government and the will of its populace? *You're* not.
To get into the debate, how would the war have ended if not by the use of the atomic bomb?
The US had a plan ready - Operations Olympic and Coronet. The first phase would have involved comprehensive destruction, by air, of the Japanese transportation network, and total interdiction of sea and air traffic - essentially, a total blockade. This would have lasted upwards of *six months*.
This would have quickly turned into an utter disaster for the entire Japanese population - mass starvation would have been the order of the day since they would not be able to effectively move what food they had across islands and prefectures to the large population centres on Honshu. Of course, they relied extremely heavily on imports of practically everything in any case, including much of their foodstuffs. Not to mention that the Japanese civilians, en masse, were being recruited into defense organizations. The armed forces still believed, as late as mid-1945, that they could defend the islands - operation Ketsu Go - that they possessed a rational military-political strategy to continue the war.
Considering that no Japanese government had surrendered in 2600 years, and no Japanese outpost had surrendered during the course of the War, it seems likely that they would have fought for their homeland, like at Okinawa, to the death.
The Japanese casualty figures, due to combat, disease, and starvation, would most likely have climbed to *several million*.
I won't debate the rest of your *supposition* that the firebombings (of which, two were *atomic* bombings, not firebombings, of course - and, not to mention, that *sixty* Japanese cities, not just three, were destroyed by strategic bombing) were intended to kill noncombatants. It's not worth it. I will say again that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the subsequent capitulation of the Japanese government likely saved MILLIONS OF JAPANESE LIVES.
How's my arithmetic now?
I will say, as a blanket statement, that the bombings of civilian centres in World War II ranks as one of the most heinous developments in mankind's history.
This does not alter my premise.
And, regarding "apologies", my point was that the US has been more apologetic for more things than MOST if not ALL nations regarding the conduct of World War II, so to criticize them on this point is terribly weak.
Okay, immoral is probably a better argument than illegal.clipper said:
(Although, of course, DM will say this is just more semantics.
LOL)Uh, yes, THE JAPANESE initiated a war of aggression. I'm sorry - are we now distinguishing between the actions of a government and the will of its populace? *You're* not.
To get into the debate, how would the war have ended if not by the use of the atomic bomb?
The US had a plan ready - Operations Olympic and Coronet. The first phase would have involved comprehensive destruction, by air, of the Japanese transportation network, and total interdiction of sea and air traffic - essentially, a total blockade. This would have lasted upwards of *six months*.
This would have quickly turned into an utter disaster for the entire Japanese population - mass starvation would have been the order of the day since they would not be able to effectively move what food they had across islands and prefectures to the large population centres on Honshu. Of course, they relied extremely heavily on imports of practically everything in any case, including much of their foodstuffs. Not to mention that the Japanese civilians, en masse, were being recruited into defense organizations. The armed forces still believed, as late as mid-1945, that they could defend the islands - operation Ketsu Go - that they possessed a rational military-political strategy to continue the war.
Considering that no Japanese government had surrendered in 2600 years, and no Japanese outpost had surrendered during the course of the War, it seems likely that they would have fought for their homeland, like at Okinawa, to the death.
The Japanese casualty figures, due to combat, disease, and starvation, would most likely have climbed to *several million*.
I won't debate the rest of your *supposition* that the firebombings (of which, two were *atomic* bombings, not firebombings, of course - and, not to mention, that *sixty* Japanese cities, not just three, were destroyed by strategic bombing) were intended to kill noncombatants. It's not worth it. I will say again that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the subsequent capitulation of the Japanese government likely saved MILLIONS OF JAPANESE LIVES.
How's my arithmetic now?
I will say, as a blanket statement, that the bombings of civilian centres in World War II ranks as one of the most heinous developments in mankind's history.
This does not alter my premise.
And, regarding "apologies", my point was that the US has been more apologetic for more things than MOST if not ALL nations regarding the conduct of World War II, so to criticize them on this point is terribly weak.
Agreed.
In "the Fog of War" -- the Errol Morris documentary on Robert McNamara one of the more honest and interesting things McNamara says is that if the Americans had been on the losing side the enemy would have been well within their rights to convict both he and General Curtis Lemay(Lemat) of war crimes for the firebombings of the Japanese cities.
For the more knee jerk members of the audience this is no way intended to be an anti anything statement -- just the recounting of an opinion of a man who was put into the position of making harder decisions that any of us will ever have to make.
In "the Fog of War" -- the Errol Morris documentary on Robert McNamara one of the more honest and interesting things McNamara says is that if the Americans had been on the losing side the enemy would have been well within their rights to convict both he and General Curtis Lemay(Lemat) of war crimes for the firebombings of the Japanese cities.
For the more knee jerk members of the audience this is no way intended to be an anti anything statement -- just the recounting of an opinion of a man who was put into the position of making harder decisions that any of us will ever have to make.
"Firebombings" is a bugbear. MILLIONS of civilians were killed *by all sides* during bombing raids of all sorts. To assert that these raids were somehow "beyond the pale" is to put too fine a point on things.lenharper said:
Again, the mass "strategic" bombing of civilians during World War II was one of the most heinous acts ever perpetrated, from a moral perspective.
5Ranger youy seem to know a liitle about the subject, but you lweave out a very important part of the plan for the invasion of Japan. I am wondering wherther or not this was on purpose, if it was you're a jerk.
There was an excellent show on the The Learning Channel a couple of years ago on the now declassified plan.
Even on the show howewver they very briefly mentioned it.
The dirty little secret was this, the Americans had stockpiled millions upon millions of gallons of Chemical weapons in the South Pacific. They knew what kind of reception they would have gotten had they invaded the home islands. Had the Atomic bomb not worked the invasion of Japan would have made Normandy look like a picnic. Preceded in all likelyhood by a carpetbombing of Japan with chemical weapons. The casualitiies and devastation would have been uncomprehensible.
War is Hell, unfortunately under Bush the US is now adopting the
foriegn policy of Imperial Japan, pre-emption, kind of makes you wonder how all the spirits of those dead marines feel.
There was an excellent show on the The Learning Channel a couple of years ago on the now declassified plan.
Even on the show howewver they very briefly mentioned it.
The dirty little secret was this, the Americans had stockpiled millions upon millions of gallons of Chemical weapons in the South Pacific. They knew what kind of reception they would have gotten had they invaded the home islands. Had the Atomic bomb not worked the invasion of Japan would have made Normandy look like a picnic. Preceded in all likelyhood by a carpetbombing of Japan with chemical weapons. The casualitiies and devastation would have been uncomprehensible.
War is Hell, unfortunately under Bush the US is now adopting the
foriegn policy of Imperial Japan, pre-emption, kind of makes you wonder how all the spirits of those dead marines feel.
McNamara was saying that he and General Curtis Le-- whateverthefuckhisnameisican'tremember,sorry were the authors of this strategy and that he now considers their actions to be that of war criminals in the accepted understanding of that charge.
I would consider a war crime, no matter what side perpetrated it, to be "beyond the pale".
I would consider a war crime, no matter what side perpetrated it, to be "beyond the pale".
I'm not sure what your point is, except to insinuate that I'm a jerk. LOLassoholic said:
The atomic bombing of Japan saved millions of Japanese lives. Not to mention countless American lives, of course.
I'm glad you get all your information from the Learning Channel, but you may want to broaden your input. The proposition that the US was going to use chemical weapons in a mass fashion on Japan is pretty spurious, and has been rigorously and vigorously attacked by military historians of many nationalities.
Anway, what's your point again? It's not clear amid the rhetoric.
This is nonsense unless you accept Clausewitz's definition of "total war". Which, apparently, all the warring nations of World War I and II did.bbking said:
This should not be taken as evidence that this needs to be the only way to conduct war now and in the future. Indeed, despite protestations to the contrary, I think it likely that much of the world has taken a step back from this insanity in recent decades.
Keegan has written several excellent books on the topic.
The US did not develop the dubious "strategy" of bombing of civilian populace. It was, in fact, an Italian who first proposed that an air campaign could so totally destroy and demoralize a nation that it would lose its will to fight. This theory had many proponents among the antagonists of World War II, but the British and Germans, and Italians naturally, were foremost among them. In fact, the Americans came late to the strategic air force table.lenharper said:
And if you want to call it a war crime, fine. I'm not going to argue very strongly against it. But DON'T prosecute the perpetrators of "fire bombing" apart from the rest of the perpetrators. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. That was my point, once again.
OK, get the stick out of your ass, there's no need to get your back up.
All I was trying to say about the bombing of civilian centers in Japan (and yes I know all about the blitz and the fire(don't say Fire it seems to enrage him) bombing of Dresden and yes they are all crimes.
I tried to make it clear in my post that this wasn't anti-american and was simply agreeing with Langiele's assertion that all nations in any war committ war crimes.
I used the McNamara example because it seemed most salient to the discussion. He is also a fascinating fellow in that he can sit in judgement of himself and can look at his past actions analytically.
Christ some of you people act like mad dogs...
All I was trying to say about the bombing of civilian centers in Japan (and yes I know all about the blitz and the fire(don't say Fire it seems to enrage him) bombing of Dresden and yes they are all crimes.
I tried to make it clear in my post that this wasn't anti-american and was simply agreeing with Langiele's assertion that all nations in any war committ war crimes.
I used the McNamara example because it seemed most salient to the discussion. He is also a fascinating fellow in that he can sit in judgement of himself and can look at his past actions analytically.
Christ some of you people act like mad dogs...
Re: Re: Re: Re: 4 More Years!
OTB
2 years, ah yes the mid term elections. You will of course remember who is the only sitting president to expand his parties control of Congress during a mid-term election - that's right sports fans W in 2002. The Dems are in even worse shape locally than they are nationally - that and demographics are working against them. It's a Red nation!
OTB
...my point is this, the American had stock piled millions of gallons of the stuff, no in the official plans they were not mentioned but. Not everything was de-classified. I am so tired of idealologues continually trying to "convince us" , just tell us the facts. We could argue all day about whether ore not they would have used them, the fact they were there is not debatebale, if you care about the facts. Some of us are actually searching for the truth of things and welcome any additional info, some are dumbasses who think they know it all and simply make up crap they "know" to be true or convenienetly leave out facts that might not support their position.
War is killing, think of your mom or dad or kids because thats what makes up the 100,000 killed in Iraq. Bush is a snivelling upper class twit who still has not really told us why they were killed. I give a shit , some of you apparently dont.
War is killing, think of your mom or dad or kids because thats what makes up the 100,000 killed in Iraq. Bush is a snivelling upper class twit who still has not really told us why they were killed. I give a shit , some of you apparently dont.
The Americans STILL have *vast stockpiles* of chemical and biological agents. This is not evidence that they intend to use them, or that they have been weaponized. You argument is AWFUL, terribly weak.
The Americans were the ONLY major combatant not to *regularly* use chemical weapons in WWI - this should tell you something - the fact that they have been involved in major conflicts, in possession of these weapons, for almost a hundred years, and have not used them.
Keep clutching at straws, though.
The Americans were the ONLY major combatant not to *regularly* use chemical weapons in WWI - this should tell you something - the fact that they have been involved in major conflicts, in possession of these weapons, for almost a hundred years, and have not used them.
Keep clutching at straws, though.
No, the US was NOT a very junior participant in WWI. You are wrong. The US had about four million men mobilized by the end of the war, FAR more than Canada.
But, thanks for playing.
Look, if your proposal is that the US was prepared to use massed chemical munitions on the Japanese populace in preparation for the homeland invasion, why weren't these weapons used during some of the many amphibious invasions of the Pacific campaign? It defies logic.
But, thanks for playing.
Look, if your proposal is that the US was prepared to use massed chemical munitions on the Japanese populace in preparation for the homeland invasion, why weren't these weapons used during some of the many amphibious invasions of the Pacific campaign? It defies logic.
