Saddam's lawyer

[crisis]

It does? I did post that 3 high-ranking Japanese officials refused to surrender even days after the 1st and 2nd bombings.

I have explained. I am waiting for examples of U.S. military leaders.

All right, enough with this "blind patriotism" garbage. Tell me, Crisis, what have you criticized your country about? Or do you have "blind patriotism?"

Let me begin then. Our current government is just as lamentable as yours in committing to the attack on Iraq. Even more so I would say as they blindly followed the U.S. based on nothing more that the propaganda that Bush fed to us all. Our government must share the responsibility to getting Iraq at least as safe as it was when Saddam was in power.
Our government is taking on a stance of that of a Little America in our region and it believes it has the right to influence internal affairs of other smaller nations.
Our ancestors were responsible for displacing the indigenous population of this country and in cases slaughtering them.
I could go on with many things I do not like about Australia. I don’t care. I like living here but I have no nationalistic ties nor do I excuse the failings of our governments or anyone else who is Australian.

Iraq invaded Kuwait. The U.S. and coalition countries took action and removed Iraq from country and rules were set up (by the U.N.), including a no-fly zone for Iraq to obey. So stop your whining.

The U.S. invaded Iraq to get rid of someone they did not want running a country. They also achieved (at this point) an influence within that country and in turn the region by way of the government now in place which naturally owes its existence in part to the fact that the U.S. created an opportunity for them. No fly zones, WMDs, and talk of terrorist support are no more than bogus excuses in the same way that saving thousands of lives by killing thousands of others with nuclear weapons is. While apologists exist so will governments be able to garner support for whatever they want to do no matter how deplorable.

I'm getting tired of you defending enemies like Iraq and Japan.

Examples please.

[crisis]

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

As soon as a blind patriotic Japanese person (or anyone else for that matter) comes along and tries to defend the actions of the Japanese I have no need to. I am unlikely to start a thread stating “the Japanese started the war with the U.S. by attacking Pearl Harbour.”

[The_Canuck]

I'd just like to point out that there's nothing wrong with patriotism, even if it is blind. It only becomes a problem when it turns into nationalism.

[Fleet 500]

As soon as a blind patriotic Japanese person (or anyone else for that matter) comes along and tries to defend the actions of the Japanese I have no need to. I am unlikely to start a thread stating “the Japanese started the war with the U.S. by attacking Pearl Harbour.”

So I am a "blind patriot" because I believe how the U.S. fought the war against Japan was the right thing to do? Okkkkkkay.

[Fleet 500]

Its hard to debate when they ban you.

But not before they did.

[Fleet 500]

Example please.

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 lives of soldiers of women and children?


“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.


Avenues for a humane solution were not exhausted.


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 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?


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.



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 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.

Look, Crisis... I happen to believe using the A-bomb in Japan was the right thing to do. Millions of Americans agree with me. You should just leave it at that and accept it.
We can go on and on about this just like the last time the subject came up.

[crisis]

So I am a "blind patriot" because I believe how the U.S. fought the war against Japan was the right thing to do? Okkkkkkay.

No. It’s why you believe.

But not before they did.

Example please.
If they could have dealt with me fairly they would not have needed to ban me.

Look, Crisis... I happen to believe using the A-bomb in Japan was the right thing to do. Millions of Americans agree with me. You should just leave it at that and accept it.
We can go on and on about this just like the last time the subject came up.

I know you do. I am just busily addressing your points and showing you why they are wrong or irrelevant.

As I stated it is not that you believe it was right, it is why. And that why comes down to a patriotic belief that what the president did at the time had to be right because he was the president and you cannot accept your country would do anything un just.

[Fleet 500]

As I stated it is not that you believe it was right, it is why. And that why comes down to a patriotic belief that what the president did at the time had to be right because he was the president and you cannot accept your country would do anything un just.

Approximately 30,000 citiczens and soldiers were killed in Dresden, Germany, as a result of the firebombings.
And around 100,000 Japanese were killed in the Tokyo firebombing.
Why do you only mention the A-bomb attacks and don't mention the above?

Were those bombings "unjust?"

[2ndclasscitizen]

Yes they both were. Dresden definately was, it had no tacitical advantage other than a show of force to the Russians.

[Fleet 500]

Yes they both were. Dresden definately was, it had no tacitical advantage other than a show of force to the Russians.

From what I've read, it was a strategy to destroy Japan's ability to produce war material (most likely Germany, too) and undermine the Japanese government's will to continue the war. Remember, the fire bombings in Japan began in Feb, 1945, after the war with the U.S. had dragged on for over 2 years. I know for sure that ball-bearing factories in Germany were being bombed; citizens were killed in those... it's a war, it can't be helped. The only way to prevent it is for countries (like 1930s Germany and Japan) to stop tyring to take over the world.

A former Japanese Prime Minister (Fumimaro) said the the B-29 firebombings were among the reasons to consider making peace. Too bad they didn't actually follow through with that before the A-bomb was used. But in any case, it was all the U.S.'s fault, right?

[Jack_Bauer]

Fleet, In reference to the bombings of Dresden this is a facsimile of a draft memo written by Winston Churchill in the aftermath of the Dresden bombing calling for a review of military objectives in light of the use of bombing "simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts". See also the final sentence, calling for a change from "mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive."



Sadly Churchill was swayed against his original gut instinct and was persuaded to suspend any review into the RAF's area bombing strategies.

Dresden did have industrial centres providing supplies to the German army, but they were concentrated on the outskirts of the city. The bombing focussed almost entirely on the CENTRE of Dresden, using initial high explosives followed by incendiaries with the intent of raizing the city to the ground. In fact, it is even suggested that the RAF dropped the first wave of incendiaries, left an hour's gap for the fire services and rescue teams to get in, and then resumed the bombing to disable and destroy the emergency services. If true then that is a despicable crime.

Dresden was also very weakly defended. The Germans didn't regard it as a significant military target so didn't see fit to put large air defences there. This made it a soft target for the allies to wreak as much havoc as they saw fit. Dresden was also largely used as a safe haven for several hundred thousand citizen refugees from the German cities that had already been destroyed. Many of those refugees would also have perished in the attack.

[Fleet 500]

All's fair in love and war...

[Coventrysucks]

"Terrorism as a threat to any person's personal safety is grossly overestimated anyway."

Either:
- You genuinely do not comprehend that concept (in which case; why respond?)
- You did not actually read my post before making your silly response (in which case; why respond?)
- You deliberately chose to be obtuse (in which case; why?)

There is no other way I can imagine that a sane, intelligent individual would be able to read that argument and come up with something as utterly banal and irrelevant by way of a response as you did.

Unless you wish to provide a realistic explanation as to why you are not able to engage with that point in any meaningful way?

All's fair in love and war...

You truly applaud the killing of thousands of innocent civilians for military gain?

I'm not convinced that if your family were wiped out by an aggressive military force you'd be brushing off their demise with such a shrug-of-the-shoulders mentality as you display here.

As for expecting people to accept your argument aggression and brutality as "justification" for use of nuclear weapons against principally civilian targets, you would do well to remember that according to the US government, those same acts were apparently not justification enough to go to war in the first place.

Genocide, murder and invasion was seen for many years in both East Asia and Europe before December 1941, but it was only after the Japanese, and by association, German governments declared war that any action was taken by the USA, aside from a strongly-worded letter or two.

As for the current political situation - I see again on the news today it is "alarming" that a country other than America has the technology to disable satellites.

Why is it that the USA is allowed to have these technologies, thrusting the onus of trust that they will not be used aggressively onto the world, yet the USA will never extend that same trust in return?

Especially when you consider which of the following countries is most likely to use a particular technology for the purposes of war?
a) Iran
b) North Korea
c) China
d) USA

Such jocularity, I may need thoracic surgery.

[Matra et Alpine]

All's fair in love and war...

As taught in every terrorist camp

[Pando]

About WWII and what happened in Europe and the Pacific, I think we have to keep in mind the completely different world people were living in back then. A war back then was very different to a modern war, not only for the soldiers but also for the civilians back home. The war affected everyone. The Allied bombings on Germany were in many cases seen as payback for the German actions. Having suffered from the heavy bombing of the Luftwaffe and held their own for 12 months, revenge was on many Brits' mind and when made possible RAF didn't have to force anyone for the almost suicide missions of bombing Nazi strongholds. Granted the Dresden bombings happened in a very late stage of the war. I still find it respectable that a leader like Churchill shows remorse in a moment like this.

To the average American the Pearl Harbor attacks came as a surprise and they felt like they've been dragged into the war just because of the cruelty of the enemy. Japanese soldiers were very dedicated, when you enlisted for the army you actually gave your life to the emperors hands for him to make you do what he saw fit. You were assumed to die and fight until you did. Coming from such backgrounds Japanese troops had respect for the enemy but none for soldiers who surrendered from either side. Because of this surrendered prisoners were seen as worthless and treated with no respect, usually put to work in prison camps with very little or no food. I remember a quote from a British veteran who fought the Japanese in Burma; "They were animals. *pause* But they were damn good soldiers". Keeping this in mind, and the increasing threat seen in Russia by the allied forces, the Allies were sure to cut a corner if they could. Just like the Dresden bombings, using atomic weapons for a swifter end of the war was cruel and inhumane, but still damn effective. In a similar situation, I'm quite sure history would repeat itself.