American Imperialism


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:53 pm

Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: Is strengthening our geopolitical position versus Russia a sufficient moral justification for nuking Japan?


I have met quite a few people that would give you an unqualified "yes".

You've met Japanese who've said that they are glad we nuked them? Really? :?:
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:54 pm

TN1965 wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I'm fully aware of how Russia may have played a role in Truman's decision-making, but this had nothing to do with the safety and well-being of the American people. Is strengthening our geopolitical position versus Russia a sufficient moral justification for nuking Japan?


You'd better ask that question to people in Northern Japan, who might have been forced to live under a communist puppet regime for several decades. Or South Koreans, who might be still living in the Dear Leader's "Workers' Paradise."

What about asking the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby TN1965 » Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:01 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:What about asking the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?


We already know the answers to that. In fact, in about a month, many of them will appear on Japanese TV networks and tell their stories like they have done every August for the last 65 years.

And of course, people in Hokkaido would never tell anyone how glad they were to be spared of a communist rule, because saying that in public would be politically incorrect in the most extreme degree. So you will never know how they really feel.

About the Koreans... we already know the answer to that as well.
TN1965
 
Posts: 1187
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Pego » Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:05 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: Is strengthening our geopolitical position versus Russia a sufficient moral justification for nuking Japan?


I have met quite a few people that would give you an unqualified "yes".

You've met Japanese who've said that they are glad we nuked them? Really? :?:


Japanese :shock: ?
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:55 pm

Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Pego wrote:I have met quite a few people that would give you an unqualified "yes".

You've met Japanese who've said that they are glad we nuked them? Really? :?:


Japanese :shock: ?

Okay, now I get it. I misunderstood at first. You're talking about Americans saying "yes", not Japanese.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Pego » Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:04 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Pego wrote:I have met quite a few people that would give you an unqualified "yes".

You've met Japanese who've said that they are glad we nuked them? Really? :?:


Japanese :shock: ?

Okay, now I get it. I misunderstood at first. You're talking about Americans saying "yes", not Japanese.


Yep. I bet you know a few of those, too :wink: .
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: American Imperialism

Postby lonewolf » Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:55 pm

Ya know, all this sniping at history is worse than Monday morning quarterbacking. It is more like the Friday after quarterbacking.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:13 am

lonewolf wrote:Ya know, all this sniping at history is worse than Monday morning quarterbacking. It is more like the Friday after quarterbacking.

Ike wasn't a Monday morning quarterbacking when he warned us about the military industrial complex and opposed nuking Japan. Those were gametime decisions from arguably the greatest field general in American history.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby lonewolf » Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:53 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:Ya know, all this sniping at history is worse than Monday morning quarterbacking. It is more like the Friday after quarterbacking.

Ike wasn't a Monday morning quarterbacking when he warned us about the military industrial complex and opposed nuking Japan. Those were gametime decisions from arguably the greatest field general in American history.

Ok, but the game was over 65 years ago. We live with the results,not "what if?"
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: American Imperialism

Postby bad hammy » Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:34 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Violence against innocent civilians for the purpose of intimidating, coercing or breaking the will of a government; or for the purpose of disrupting or influencing a democratic process in order to promote or oppose a political agenda.

See? That very act of defining it in terms you agree with is the very problem with semantics. Here's the one I found on-line FIRST:

"the use of violence to achieve political aims"

Oh, you mean war. Now I get it!
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby bman » Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:18 pm

That terrorism definition debate is ridiculous, I normally like Marlow but either I'm missing something here or you are acting quite hypocritical. The very least one can do is apply the USA's own definition (of terrorism) to itself as well as its enemies. How it is defined is not the point, we need to stop people from being killed. We need to at least play by our own (professed) rules.
bman
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: Columbus

Re: American Imperialism

Postby TN1965 » Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:30 pm

Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Okay, now I get it. I misunderstood at first. You're talking about Americans saying "yes", not Japanese.


Yep. I bet you know a few of those, too :wink: .


How about...

Fumio Kyuma (Defense Minister 2006-07): "I now have come to accept in my mind that in order to end the war, it could not be helped that an atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and that countless numbers of people suffered great tragedy."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/07/ ... 3720070701

Hitoshi Motoshima (Mayor of Nagasaki City 1979-95): ""It was a matter of course for atomic bombs to have been dropped on Japan, which had launched a war of aggression. Japan does not have the right to criticize the atomic bomb."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitoshi_Motoshima

Emperor HIrohito: "It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped because that happened in wartime."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_ove ... d_Nagasaki
TN1965
 
Posts: 1187
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: American Imperialism

Postby lonewolf » Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:42 pm

jazzcyclist wrote: Personally, I think we had it coming on 9/11.

I missed this the first time through.
jazz, I long ago accepted that you and I seldom agree on anything and thats OK.
As Ricky Van Shelton sang, "..don't we all have the right to be wrong now and then?" But, this statement by an intelligent, educated, articulate American cannot be parsed away. Beyond that, I am speechless..
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Marlow » Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:34 pm

bman wrote:That terrorism definition debate is ridiculous, I normally like Marlow but either I'm missing something here or you are acting quite hypocritical. The very least one can do is apply the USA's own definition (of terrorism) to itself as well as its enemies. How it is defined is not the point, we need to stop people from being killed. We need to at least play by our own (professed) rules.

I'm not on a side here; I'm just messengering (yeah, I made that up) the semantics of the situation. I thought I made it clear that I'm both horrified by what we did in Hiroshima and also completely agree that it was totally understandable in the context of a WORLD at war. I'm not sure I can take a side, so I certainly hope I'm NOT being hypocritical. :|
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:23 pm

lonewolf wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: Personally, I think we had it coming on 9/11.

I missed this the first time through.
jazz, I long ago accepted that you and I seldom agree on anything and thats OK.
As Ricky Van Shelton sang, "..don't we all have the right to be wrong now and then?" But, this statement by an intelligent, educated, articulate American cannot be parsed away. Beyond that, I am speechless..

But I did parse it to make it more palatable to folks like you. How about "it was appropriate to hold the citizens of that nation-state responsible for the actions of their government"? Does that sound better?

By the way, what do Rush Limbaugh and Osana bin Laden have in common? They both believe(d) in terrorism.

Osama bin Laden, March 1997

We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal . . . As for what you asked regarding the American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility, because they chose this government and voted for it despite their knowledge of its crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and in other places.



Rush Limbaugh, July 31, 2006

Here's the thing. And I know some people disagree with me on this that the civilians and the citizens in these tyrannical regimes are irrelevant. But one of the ways -- how do you think a terrorist organization, which cannot compete with us or anybody else militarily, how else does it support itself, how else does it entrench itself? It does so by making the local population depend on its existence, making the civilian population depend on them. Until civilians -- frankly, I'm not sure how many of them are actually just innocent little civilians running around versus active Hezbo types, particularly the men, but until those civilians start paying a price for propping up these kinds of regimes, it's not going to end, folks. What do you mean, civilians start paying a price? I just ask you to consult history for the answer to that.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:24 pm

bman wrote:The very least one can do is apply the USA's own definition (of terrorism) to itself as well as its enemies. How it is defined is not the point, we need to stop people from being killed. We need to at least play by our own (professed) rules.

Amen bman! Amen! 8-)

By the way, whenever the U.N. has made any attempts to define terrorism and put it in writing, it has been western nations in general, and the U.S. in particular, who have objected to such efforts, because they were afraid of having their own hands tied by such rules. When asked if waterboarding was torture during the 2008 Presidential campaign, Rudy Guiliani answered, "It depends on who's doing it." That's the American nationalist attitude in a nutshell.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:36 pm

TN1965 wrote:Hitoshi Motoshima (Mayor of Nagasaki City 1979-95): ""It was a matter of course for atomic bombs to have been dropped on Japan, which had launched a war of aggression. Japan does not have the right to criticize the atomic bomb."

Of course they had it coming. The U.S. was the griever and Japan was the grievee, grievees have no right to tell they grievers how they can address their grievance.

TN1965 wrote:[Emperor HIrohito: "It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped because that happened in wartime."

All;s fair in love and war? Nothing new here.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby kuha » Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:43 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:When asked if waterboarding was torture during the 2008 Presidential campaign, Rudy Guiliani answered, "It depends on who's doing it." That's the American nationalist attitude in a nutshell.


Total bullshit. Absolute, total, and outrageous bullshit. That was Rudy Guiliani's attitude--and the attitude of those who thought like him. It's an insult to a very large group of people to say that it was "the American nationalist attitude."

I'll repeat my comment on an earlier page. Your stirring of the pot here really isn't going anywhere. You're pretending to deal with deep ethical and philosophical issues, and you simply aren't. There MAY well be interesting and enlightening ways to deal with these matters, but you haven't discovered them.
kuha
 
Posts: 9036
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: American Imperialism

Postby bman » Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:24 pm

kuha wrote:Total bullshit. Absolute, total, and outrageous bullshit. That was Rudy Guiliani's attitude--and the attitude of those who thought like him. It's an insult to a very large group of people to say that it was "the American nationalist attitude."


Water boarding is not the point. Fact is that there are many more important issues where the "American Nationalist" (I don't care for the term but I'll use it here) viewpoint is in fact, implicitly or explicitly, if we are doing it is fine if they are doing it it is terrorism.
bman
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: Columbus

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Marlow » Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:35 pm

bman wrote:Water boarding is not the point. Fact is that there are many more important issues where the "American Nationalist" (I don't care for the term but I'll use it here) viewpoint is in fact, implicitly or explicitly, if we are doing it is fine if they are doing it it is terrorism.

I hate to break it to you, but the VAST majority of the world's population sees the rest of the world through a filter called nationalism, squarely centered on national self-interest. The USA has no monopoly on it.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:42 pm

kuha wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:When asked if waterboarding was torture during the 2008 Presidential campaign, Rudy Guiliani answered, "It depends on who's doing it." That's the American nationalist attitude in a nutshell.


Total bullshit. Absolute, total, and outrageous bullshit. That was Rudy Guiliani's attitude--and the attitude of those who thought like him. It's an insult to a very large group of people to say that it was "the American nationalist attitude."

You obviously didn't catch which definition of nationalist I'm using. I'm not talking about definition #1 which is a synonym for patriot. I'm talking about definition #2 which is a synonym for jingoist. This is the definition that George Orwell was using when he wrote his Notes on Nationalism which included ideas like this:

All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage-torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians-which does not change its moral color when committed by ‘our’ side.… The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.... A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one’s own mind.


Based on your post history, I definitely would not classify you as an "American Nationist", kuha.

kuha wrote:I'll repeat my comment on an earlier page. Your stirring of the pot here really isn't going anywhere. You're pretending to deal with deep ethical and philosophical issues, and you simply aren't. There MAY well be interesting and enlightening ways to deal with these matters, but you haven't discovered them.

Regardless of how you feel about me, I enjoy reading you posts and look forward to reading more of them in the future, KUHA. Thanks for keeping it civil. :)
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby bman » Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:46 pm

Marlow wrote:I hate to break it to you, but the VAST majority of the world's population sees the rest of the world through a filter called nationalism, squarely centered on national self-interest. The USA has no monopoly on it.


Yes but many other nations tend to be better at expressing this self interest in less harmful ways.
bman
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: Columbus

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Daisy » Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:51 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Regardless of how you feel about me, I enjoy reading you posts and look forward to reading more of them in the future, KUHA. Thanks for keeping it civil. :)

For crying out loud jazz, here I am waiting for the knock out punch and this is the best you can do! We want blood! GH, I want my money back :twisted:
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby kuha » Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:18 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Regardless of how you feel about me, I enjoy reading you posts and look forward to reading more of them in the future, KUHA. Thanks for keeping it civil. :)


I totally respect you and posted what I did because I know you are a very thoughtful and serious guy. I just happen to disagree with the angle you're taking on this issue.
kuha
 
Posts: 9036
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Marlow » Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:51 am

bman wrote:
Marlow wrote:I hate to break it to you, but the VAST majority of the world's population sees the rest of the world through a filter called nationalism, squarely centered on national self-interest. The USA has no monopoly on it.

Yes but many other nations tend to be better at expressing this self interest in less harmful ways.

Only because they don't have the 'power' to back up their self-interests. Their attitudes are identical.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:08 am

Marlow wrote:
bman wrote:
Marlow wrote:I hate to break it to you, but the VAST majority of the world's population sees the rest of the world through a filter called nationalism, squarely centered on national self-interest. The USA has no monopoly on it.

Yes but many other nations tend to be better at expressing this self interest in less harmful ways.

Only because they don't have the 'power' to back up their self-interests. Their attitudes are identical.

That is true. There's no nation in history that once it became a superpower, didn't eventually abuse its power and overextend itself. In that regard, the U.S. is very unexceptional. A truly exceptional nation would be a nation that didn't abuse this power IMO. Will China be any different once it passes us up?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Marlow » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:27 am

jazzcyclist wrote:That is true. There's no nation in history that once it became a superpower, didn't eventually abuse its power and overextend itself. In that regard, the U.S. is very unexceptional. A truly exceptional nation would be a nation that didn't abuse this power IMO. Will China be any different once it passes us up?

How many nations have done as we did in the first Gulf War, when we defeated a country and left the guy who instigated it in power? Not many. And it was a mistake.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:38 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:That is true. There's no nation in history that once it became a superpower, didn't eventually abuse its power and overextend itself. In that regard, the U.S. is very unexceptional. A truly exceptional nation would be a nation that didn't abuse this power IMO. Will China be any different once it passes us up?

How many nations have done as we did in the first Gulf War, when we defeated a country and left the guy who instigated it in power? Not many. And it was a mistake.

Well, we did have other allies to consider, but I don't think it was a mistake. The mistake was the second Iraq War. After Saddam had been neutered and was no longer a threat to anyone in the region, we should have done what the French wanted to do, which was go back to doing business with Iraq as usual instead of punishing the Iraqi people with s decade of sanctions. Just think of all the business opportunities that were lost during that period and all the blowback that was created by the suffering of the Iraqi people.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:03 am

kuha wrote:I totally respect you and posted what I did because I know you are a very thoughtful and serious guy. I just happen to disagree with the angle you're taking on this issue.

Maybe one day when you lose the red, white and blue tinted glasses, you'll come around.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby kuha » Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:12 am

jazzcyclist wrote:the red, white and blue tinted glasses


Now, that's just funny. I honestly don't think I remotely qualify for that role.
kuha
 
Posts: 9036
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: American Imperialism

Postby catson52 » Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:44 am

Interesting discussions and views. Two comments.
"Will China be different"? Absolutely no, they have already showed by many of their actions that their "we" and "they" attitude is perhaps worse than those of others. Small hints hold the key. As a long term democrat voter, I dropped John Edwards like a hot potato, as soon as I heard his reactions to taking $800-$1500 haircuts at others' expense. I had serious arguments with members of my family. Have not heard anything from them after Edwards' true colors were revealed.

The First Gulf War may have been justified, though many will argue re driving oil interests. But the way things were conducted, leaves something to be desired. Incinerating soldiers and tanks that were running away like in a video game, leaves a lot to be desired. Getting children of advertising agency people (from the Middle East) to give totally concocted evidence to Congress, about Iraqi soldiers pulling babies off breathing apparatus in hospitals, is indefensible.

Ultimately, when no action is taken against those who commit crimes, it is an open invitation to others to try and top it. "Imperial" powers have long suffered from this, be it the Brits in their colonies in the 19th and 20th century (a particularly bad example is that the British Foreign Office has destroyed its notes/communications on what went on during the Mau-Mau rebellion in Kenya). We Americans have also been guilty, be it in the Phillipines early 20th century - Mark Twain's devastating comments, or My Lai, just to quote two examples. Given their past record, I for one am not looking forward to China's hegemony.
catson52
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:22 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:18 am

TN1965 wrote:Truman certainly would not have liked the idea of allowing USSR to have a stronger position on the postwar settlement of Japan (or Korea for that matter). He already knew that USSR would start attacking Japan three months after Germany's surrender (Aug. 9), and wanted to force Japan to surrender as soon as possible. And given how quickly USSR conquered the Kuril islands, it is not hard to imagine what they might have done to Hokkaido had the war continued even for a few extra months.

Of all the many reasons given for nuking Japan, this one is by far the most believable, logical and understandable. Truman's sense of urgency would have meant that even a land invasion would have not been quick enough. Why do you think we don't hear this more from pundits and historians? Is it because it doesn't sound noble and altruistic enough? And that it doesn't match the pious platitudes that politicians like to use when describing the US's conduct during WWII?

One thing I like about James Baker is that he spoke to us like adults when he was Secretary of State. When asked why were going to war with Iraq back in 1990, he said, "It's about the oil". No pious platitudes out of his mouth. This country really needs more leaders like him who will give it to us straight.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:21 am

kuha wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:the red, white and blue tinted glasses


Now, that's just funny. I honestly don't think I remotely qualify for that role.


Yes, kuha, the well-known American Jingoist. The only historian, I know, who has his own militia. I hear he wants to buy a truck. Maybe he can see if Ted Nugent has one for sale. :D
Last edited by Conor Dary on Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:31 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Why do you think we don't hear this more from pundits and historians? Is it because it doesn't sound noble and altruistic enough? And that it doesn't match the pious platitudes that politicians like to use when describing the US's conduct during WWII?


It might also be because it is not true.

Truman wanted to end the war. Full Stop. He had a weapon, a horrible one, that might end it. He used it twice and it ended the war.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:44 am

Conor Dary wrote:
kuha wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:the red, white and blue tinted glasses


Now, that's just funny. I honestly don't think I remotely qualify for that role.


Yes, kuha, the well-known American Jingoist. The only photo historian, I know, who has his own militia. I hear he wants to buy a truck. Maybe he can see if Ted Nugent has one for sale. :D

We're probably all guilty of this to some degree. After 9/11, I'll admit that my inner-jingoist reared its ugly head for a little while. Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who represents the People's Republic of Berkeley was the sole member of Congress to vote against invading Afghanistan. Even Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul voted for it. Perhaps Congress should have waited a few weeks to take their vote instead of doing it only three days after 9/11 with the rubble still smoldering at the Pentagon and WTC. Back then I was so certain that an Afghanistan invasion was the right thing to do, but now I'm not so sure.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:49 am

Conor Dary wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Why do you think we don't hear this more from pundits and historians? Is it because it doesn't sound noble and altruistic enough? And that it doesn't match the pious platitudes that politicians like to use when describing the US's conduct during WWII?


It might also be because it is not true.

Truman wanted to end the war. Full Stop. He had a weapon, a horrible one, that might end it. He used it twice and it ended the war.

But what gave him that sense of urgency, believeing that he only had hours or days to make something happen and not weeks or months? Japan was no longer a threat to us. Why couldn't he have given Japan a little time to come up with a face-saving way to surrender which is what Ike recommended?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby bman » Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:15 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:Only because they don't have the 'power' to back up their self-interests. Their attitudes are identical.

That is true. There's no nation in history that once it became a superpower, didn't eventually abuse its power and overextend itself. In that regard, the U.S. is very unexceptional. A truly exceptional nation would be a nation that didn't abuse this power IMO. Will China be any different once it passes us up?


A few comments here. First of all, to Marlow, their attitudes are not identical, because they do not equate self-interest and violence like we do. Self-interest is peaceful cooperation (creation of the EU, recent efforts at increased South American partnership). My thinking here is that we had to use violence to build and maintain our "superpower" status and we now justify it by saying we do it out of "self-interest". Fact is there are more sensible attitudes toward self-interest that many other places seem to have. Not China though. Although they are not all bad.

To Jazz, I would argue that power is a function of violence.
bman
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: Columbus

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Marlow » Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:22 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:Truman wanted to end the war. Full Stop. He had a weapon, a horrible one, that might end it. He used it twice and it ended the war.

But what gave him that sense of urgency, believeing that he only had hours or days to make something happen and not weeks or months? Japan was no longer a threat to us. Why couldn't he have given Japan a little time to come up with a face-saving way to surrender which is what Ike recommended?

Say what? WHAT gave him a sense of urgency?! Maybe it had something to do with the WORLD WAR we were in that was killing more Americans every day. This is going to sound very callous, but it's a war truth: all 'bad guys', military and civilian, are expendable. OUR soldiers are not. If killing 300,000 Japanese civilians is the the price we have to pay (sic) for an unconditional surrender (which we asked for 2 weeks before the first bomb dropped), so . . . be . . . it. Dropping the bomb was not a decision ANYone made, least of all Truman. When the bomb was ready, we dropped it, simple as that. It was certainly NOT a matter of morality. It was the expediency of WAR!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:23 am

Let us not get off topic here and try to compare our present military lunacy to WW2, a war we didn't start.

Oops, this is not a comment on marlow, who I agree with on this point.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:32 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:But what gave him that sense of urgency, believeing that he only had hours or days to make something happen and not weeks or months? Japan was no longer a threat to us. Why couldn't he have given Japan a little time to come up with a face-saving way to surrender which is what Ike recommended?

Say what? WHAT gave him a sense of urgency?! Maybe it had something to do with the WORLD WAR we were in that was killing more Americans every day.

Americans were not dying when we nuked Japan because there was no mainland invasion taking place and the other battles had been wrapped up.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest