Saddam's lawyer

[Fleet 500]

it is not about what you are supporting, it is the way in which you think those goals can be best achieved.

How would you have done it?

[Fleet 500]

that is a relatively minor issue.

What is a minor issue?

It is your Pavlovian approach that any criticism or questioning of American activities in general is seen as equal to anti-americanism.

Really? Then I must be anti-American! Becuase I've criticized and/or questioned American activities, too. But I guess that's different than criticizing everything America does.

[Fleet 500]

Because I don't think the actions of Japanese is at discussion at the moment, more the actions of the US in dropping 2 nuclear weapons, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, on a country that was nearly at the brink of surrender, and weakened enough for a normal bombing campaign to finish them off.

Japan's actions in WW2 were completely deplorable, but that never justifies the pointless killing of thousands of innocents. An eye for an eye isn't particularly Christian, considering how the US was founded by Christians and its laws are based on Christian values and the current President is a devout member of a quite religious Christian church.

Again, Japan started the whole thing. Don't try to place any blame on the U.S. We didn't want to go to war with Japan (but we sure ended it!).

Interesting how you don't mention the hundreds of thousands the Japanese killed (and tortured). Another case of "blame the U.S. for everything."

[henk4]

How would you have done it?

In the case of Iraq by carefully planning what needs to be done after any military action and to have those plans ready to be implemented before any military action. The American policy has been destructive, and has generated/resulted in more acts of terror then there have ever been in Iraq.

[henk4]

Really? Then I must be anti-American! Becuase I've criticized and/or questioned American activities, too. But I guess that's different than criticizing everything America does.

How to greatly miss a point

[Matra et Alpine]

Oh, yeah... the guys you couldn't effectively debate!

ha ha ha
You're best post yet.

Go back ( you can I can't ) and look up EVERY point made.
History proves one party right and the forum extremists 100% wrong

[2ndclasscitizen]

Again, Japan started the whole thing. Don't try to place any blame on the U.S. We didn't want to go to war with Japan (but we sure ended it!).

I don't remember blaming the Pacific part of WW2 on the USA

Interesting how you don't mention the hundreds of thousands the Japanese killed (and tortured).

So what if I didn't? That doesn't make the US killing thousands of Japanese civilians any better or justified.

Another case of "blame the U.S. for everything."

What did I blame the US for apart from the unneccessary nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[ruim20]

Hmmm... maybe the U.S. military should treat prisoners like the terrorists do- chop off their fingers and toes, kill them and drag them through the streets... do you like that better? Now you are getting really ridiculous.



Like I said, you are getting ridiculous. Even a vague comaprison to terrorists means you are not living in reality. If terrorists had nuclear weapons, they would have kept bombing Japan (even with a surrender) and attempted to take over the world. Try to be rational.

No... but maybe the US could start by imprisioning real terrorists, instead of normal ppl poited out by the new afghanistan gorvernment, people who had a different view of that government, but i guess getting your political oposition out of the way is much easiear when you'r even getting paid for it! The Afghan govenment is paid by the Us for every terrorist they surrender, easy to turn your political opposition in to revenue, isn't it!

[Mr.Tiv]

Current and some of the past administrations, all of thoose who have done wrong to bennefit themselves and their political position on the map, reagardless of lives lost in the process.

Alright, I can agree with that. I just wasn't sure what you meant, thanks for clarifying.

[Pando]

I'm not judging the american ppl, i'm judging the US government and thoose who stand by it, nothing else.

Ok, I misinterpreted your point. What about that signature of yours then?

In all fairness to Fleet you should see this mob!
www.ronaldreagan.com
I think you described them in the start of your post.

Oh, yes. Those guys again. The thing about Fleet that surprises me is that he doesn't seem to be openly racist and a Christian fanatic since that would really fit the profile.

Oh, yeah... the guys you couldn't effectively debate!

I have to agree - banning everyone who disagrees is a quite effective way. It's seems to be a republican thing, influences from Fox news maybe? The current government? Unfortunately for the republicans you cannot silence everyone around the world who disagrees, which makes the culprits look like idiots for trying.

Extreme! Lol. You are wrong and you know it.
Yeah, I'm sure extreme... supporting the removal of Saddam, the liberation of Iraq & Afghanistan, working toward a democracy for both of those countries and taking terroism seriously and fighting it. Real extreme!

Like I said there are people with more extreme opinions than you, but I don't think even you would like to be associated with that crowd. Like henk said:

it is not about what you are supporting, it is the way in which you think those goals can be best achieved.

All right, enough with this "blind patriotism" garbage.
...
Iraq invaded Kuwait.
...
So stop your whining. I'm getting tired of you defending enemies like Iraq and Japan.

Confused as to why Crisis keeps criticizing how the U.S. fought WWII, yet doesn't criticize the country that started the Pacific invasion.

Again, it's not about everyone defending your enemies and being anti-american - it's about pointing out big holes in your arguments, which are ALWAYS blindly pro-republican American. If someone was blindly arguing on behalf of anyone of your arch nemesis' (Iraq, Saddam, Japan, Bill Clinton, the Democrats, al-Qaida, Bin Laden, the UN, terrorists etc) they would be argued against as well.

[cmcpokey]

No... but maybe the US could start by imprisioning real terrorists, instead of normal ppl poited out by the new afghanistan gorvernment, people who had a different view of that government, but i guess getting your political oposition out of the way is much easiear when you'r even getting paid for it! The Afghan govenment is paid by the Us for every terrorist they surrender, easy to turn your political opposition in to revenue, isn't it!

see, now whats funny is that a lot of what has really happend is classified. i happen to have classified access and know for a fact that, with out giving out specifics, not only are we getting terrorists (even in places other than afghanistan) but that those who we have caught are helping us significanty

[crisis]

Oh, yeah... the guys you couldn't effectively debate!

Its hard to debate when they ban you.

[crisis]

Actually, I was talking about Crisis and his trying to defend Japan.

Example please.

[crisis]

I find sickening your trying to defend the (then enemy) Japan.

Example please.

I think the U.S. was right in using the A-bomb. It's not "blind patriotism," it's my opinion.

Based on blind patriotism. You claim it was right because of the belief you leaders engendered into you that it saved lives when the military leaders (the U.S. ones!) believed it unnecessary. You then state it must be right because Truman said. That is blind patriotism.

At the cost of how many more lives?

At the cost of how many lives of soldiers of women and children?

That was the problem. We've been through all of this before in another thead. The Japanese were not the type to surrender. All of the votes to surrender were needed and they weren't there.

“They are not the type to surrender.” An exquisitely bigoted comment and again an example of parroting the propaganda fed you to justify the act. Time was needed and if the knowledge of what could happen could have been conveyed to the few who would not agree it may have made a difference. Surely a more humane way than killing civilians. If that failed then you cold have still used your bombs.

In a June 18, 1945 meeting with Truman and his military advisors, Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy argued that Japan should be permitted to retain the Emperor and should be given a warning of the atomic bomb in order to bring an earlier and less deadly surrender.

Except those three I listed. And without their "yes" vote, Japan couldn't surrender.

Avenues for a humane solution were not exhausted.

Right. President Truman made a "rash" decision without thinking it over.

Right. Without taking advice from those he was happy to have lead his military. Hitler made similar rash decisions while ignoring his military leaders.

I think you misread. What I posted was accurate... those high-ranking officials were not ready to surrender. I don't know why you twisted that into dropping the bomb!

I think you are loosing track of the debate. That particular conversation started here (kind of) -



Originally Posted by Fleet 500
Crisis, yes I know that there were high-ranking U.S. officials opposed to using the A-bomb, but the ultimate decision was up to President Harry S Truman. And you can bet that the U.S. troops who were to invade Japan in Nov., 1945 had the A-bomb not been used were in favor of using it.

Originally Posted by crisis
So you take this back then?

Originally Posted by Fleet 500
No, because there were also high-ranking officials who favored using the A-bomb.

Originally Posted by crisis
As I said, who?

Originally Posted by Fleet 500
I'll get back to you on that.

Originally Posted by crisis
Considering there were merely 4 days between bombings it didn’t give them a lot of time. And as stated in the quotes I have posted many (in which I meant many U.S. military leaders as per the examples that I posted) believed surrender negotiations were already underway.

You then went on to outline how 3 Japanese military advisers would not vote with the other 3 in the JAPANESE Supreme Council For the Direction of the War to surrender.

Many may have "believed" the Japanese were ready to surrender, but a few notable high-ranking officials were not.

On the 13th, the Supreme Council For the Direction of the War (known as the "Big 6") met to address the Postdam Proclamation's call for surrender. Three members of the Big 6 favored immediate surrender; but the other three- War Minister Anami, Army Chief of Staff Umezu, and Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda- adamantly refused. The meeting adjourned in a deadlock, with no decision to surrender .


So I again asked

There is nothing in your post to support this comment. “Many may have "believed" the Japanese were ready to surrender, but a few notable high-ranking officials were not.”

Who are these notable high-ranking officials ?

Because you listed no U.S. military leaders.

And you answered thus.

Who? The ones mentioned in the parts I posted... the War Minister Anami, Army Chief of Staff Umezu and the Navy Chief of Staff Toyoda. All of whom refused to agree to a surrender.

I will ask again, can you find any high ranking U.S. military leaders who thought the war could only be ended by dropping the nuclear bomb and Japan would never surrender unless?

I'm saying the Japanese were lucky that the U.S. didn't destroy their entire country.

And I would say that no country or military force in history has ever done such a thing. Then again no other country has used nuclear weapons much less on civilians.

Yeah, "brutal war crimes" (which ones?).

Chenogne massacre 1944
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenogne_massacre

No Gun Ri Massacre between July 1950.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Gun_Ri

My Lai Massacre March 1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

The various atrocities carried out by Tiger force in Vietnam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Force

• Battle of the Bismarck Sea- On orders from U.S. Army Air Force General George Kenney, U.S. aircraft strafed and bombed unarmed survivors from sunken Japanese warships and transports swimming or floating in the ocean.
• Strafing unarmed survivors from the sunken Japanese cruiser Nachi
• Strafing unarmed survivors from the sunken Japanese cruiser Kumano [13]
• Strafing unarmed survivors from the Japanese battleship Yamato and the cruiser Yahagi during Operation Ten-Go.
• Canicattì slaughter: killing of Italian civilians by an American officer
• Biscari massacre: killing of Axis Prisoners of War in Sicily.
• Dachau massacre: killing of captured concentration camp guards by American soldiers and inmates of the camp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_...g_World_War_II

I'll remind you that the Japanese started the whole thing in the first place, but you seem to be one of those "blame America for everything" kind of individuals. Sad.

I’ll remind you countries go to war without the 100% support of their population. Just like Bush did. Making the civilians pay for the decisions of others may be ok for those with no conscience.
What is sad is that you can not differentiate the difference between objective criticism of particular acts and subjective criticism of a country or culture.

[crisis]

Hmmm... maybe the U.S. military should treat prisoners like the terrorists do- chop off their fingers and toes, kill them and drag them through the streets... do you like that better? Now you are getting really ridiculous.

Point well ignored.

Like I said, you are getting ridiculous. Even a vague comaprison to terrorists means you are not living in reality. If terrorists had nuclear weapons, they would have kept bombing Japan (even with a surrender) and attempted to take over the world.

So the idea of totally annihilating a country based on the actions of its military is not extreme in your view. To suggest that a country is lucky not to be totally annihilated because its leaders took it to war exposes an extremely violent and vengeful attitude. I see extreme radical terrorist the same way.

Try to be rational.

lol