American Imperialism

[Daisy]

Eye for eye seems to be quite the norm here, even from many professing to be Christian. But shouldn't Christian's throw out the old testament in favor of the new?

[Marlow]

Eye for eye seems to be quite the norm here, even from many professing to be Christian. But shouldn't Christian's throw out the old testament in favor of the new?

Zackly. And since it's FSW, that's my chief objection to SOME C-Fundamentalists: they're more into the FEAR of God, than the LOVE of God. The OT Covenant was about not destroying everybody, the NT Covenant was about redeeming everybody.

[jazzcyclist]

Eye for eye seems to be quite the norm here, even from many professing to be Christian. But shouldn't Christian's throw out the old testament in favor of the new?

Zackly. And since it's FSW, that's my chief objection to SOME C-Fundamentalists: they're more into the FEAR of God, than the LOVE of God. The OT Covenant was about not destroying everybody, the NT Covenant was about redeeming everybody.

Speaking of Christians, Bill Maher absolutely nails it in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAvDtPz33w0

[jazzcyclist]

How about if I replace "they had it coming" with "it was appropriate to hold the citizens of that nation-state responsible for the actions of their government"?

Last year I came too late to respond. I am not sure, I agree that the citizens of a country should be held responsible for the actions of their gov. I'll give you a personal example. I hated (still do) the German Nazi gov as much as anybody, yet to this day I find senseless destruction of Dresden appalling. I have major problems with a tit-for-tat behavior.

What happened at Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki clearly violated the rules of war, but even before the U.S. resorted to terrorism, the citizens of Germany and Japan had suffered a great deal from the conventional war that was being waged on them. Can you think of any example in history in which war was waged on a nation-state in such a way that the citizens didn't suffer?

[Pego]

Can you think of any example in history in which war was waged on a nation-state in such a way that the citizens didn't suffer?

No, of course not. I was shaking my head in disbelief over atrocities in the Bosnian civil war. Neighbors living in peace for centuries side-by-side all of a sudden "discovered" grievances against each other. Totally senseless.

[Conor Dary]

What happened at Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki clearly violated the rules of war...

Comparing Dresden, which was appalling, with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is in my opinion, idiotic.

Germany in Feb. 1945, when Dresden was bombed was pretty much done.

Meanwhile the Japanese were still fighting to the end.

The battle of Okinawa in the spring of 1945 had 12,000 American deaths and tens of thousands of casualties. The Japanese were not giving up. An invasion of Japan itself, would have probably had hundreds of thousands of US dead. My father was stationed in the South Pacific and everyone was quite scared of an actual invasion, and people were talking about a war that would go on until 1946 or later. Fortunately, the Bomb put a quick end to the war.

This reminds of a talk I heard David Halberstam gave about 9 years ago in Chicago. A question from the audience brought up this same point and I really could see that Halberstam, hardly a war monger, was pissed off at the question and pretty much said so.

[Marlow]

Comparing Dresden, which was appalling, with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is in my opinion, idiotic.

This vet will disagree. Both were meant to demoralize (aka terrorize) a dangerous enemy. In war one doesn't wait to see how the enemy is doing. If they haven't surrendered, their intent is still to kill YOU. If you can't kill them all, then you do something to get their attention. None of the three sites were of paramount military importance, but in all cases the message was crystal clear.

[jazzcyclist]

What happened at Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki clearly violated the rules of war...

Comparing Dresden, which was appalling, with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is in my opinion, idiotic.

All three incidents were clear violations of the rules of war, and it would take some very Orwellian mental gymnastics to say otherwise with a straight face.

Germany in Feb. 1945, when Dresden was bombed was pretty much done.

Meanwhile the Japanese were still fighting to the end.

The battle of Okinawa in the spring of 1945 had 12,000 American deaths and tens of thousands of casualties.

But we nuked them in August 1945.

The Japanese were not giving up.

Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas McArthur both disagreed and called the bombing of Hiroshima unecessary.

In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'

http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues ... r-bomb.htm

Ronald Takaki wrote, in his article on the sunject in the July 31, 2005 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle, "During the days before that fateful Aug. 6, 1945, Gen. Douglas MacArthur learned that Japan had asked Russia to negotiate a surrender. 'We expected acceptance of the Japanese surrender daily,' one of his staff members recalled. When he was notified that an atomic bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima, the general was livid. MacArthur declared that the atomic attack on Hiroshima was 'completely unnecessary from a military point of view.'"
General Dwight D. Eisenhower, commander of allied forces in Europe and later president of the U.S., also called it "completely unnecessary" and later told an interviewer, " It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

http://web.mac.com/rolandgarret/iWeb/si ... gain!.html

http://libcom.org/history/1945-us-respo ... a-nagasaki

An invasion of Japan itself, would have probably had hundreds of thousands of US dead.

Even if this were true, would it have justified terrorism? Here's the central question: does a nation's unwillingness to take military casualties in order to achieve its objectives give it the moral and/or legal authority to resort to terrorism in order to pursue those objectives?

[Marlow]

Even if this were true, would it have justified terrorism? Here's the central question: does a nation's unwillingness to take military casualties in order to achieve its objectives give it the moral and/or legal authority to resort to terrorism in order to pursue those objectives?

I'm the most pacifist military guy you'll ever meet, and even I understand that the purpose of war is to win at any cost. An enemy who has not surrendered is a mortal enemy. The massive killing of civilians, as was the case in D, H and N, is indeed unconscionable, but that's what war is . . .

[jazzcyclist]

Even if this were true, would it have justified terrorism? Here's the central question: does a nation's unwillingness to take military casualties in order to achieve its objectives give it the moral and/or legal authority to resort to terrorism in order to pursue those objectives?

I'm the most pacifist military guy you'll ever meet, and even I understand that the purpose of war is to win at any cost. An enemy who has not surrendered is a mortal enemy. The massive killing of civilians, as was the case in D, H and N, is indeed unconscionable, but that's what war is . . .

I agree with you 100% Marlow, and just so you know, I'm no pacificist either. I believe that terrorism, like war, is a necessary evil. I just hate it when politicians try to hide behind pious platitudes and fake altruism to justify our military actions, such as concern for Japanese civilians was the motivating factor that led Truman to nuke Japan. Here's what Norman Schwarzkopf once said about going to war:

There's not a General out there today who didn't go through the Vietnam experience. In my case, I happened to go through the Vietnam experience twice, and also Grenada. So we know the horrors of war. And I think that probably you will find that we are greater pacifists than most people you would meet.

[Conor Dary]

Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas McArthur both disagreed and called the bombing of Hiroshima unecessary.
MacArthur declared that the atomic attack on Hiroshima was 'completely unnecessary from a military point of view.'"

Using MacArthur is a bit rich.... He was probably upset he would lose out on glory that an invasion would have brought....

"The reclusive dictatorship's dream of a nuclear arsenal dates back half a century, to the years just after the Korean War. Kim Il-sung, North Korea's founder, was acutely aware that Gen. Douglas MacArthur had requested nuclear weapons to use against his country during the (Korean) conflict..."

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/inte ... index.html

[kuha]

Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas McArthur both disagreed and called the bombing of Hiroshima unecessary.
MacArthur declared that the atomic attack on Hiroshima was 'completely unnecessary from a military point of view.'"

Using MacArthur is a bit rich....

Indeed.

For what it's worth, I am squarely on the side of not trying to second-guess this history. All things considered, I fully believe the US action (Truman's action) was justified. Was the result pretty or nice? No, it was neither. But the Japanese regime was brutal: look at what they did in China, or to captured US troops. And many people expected that an invasion of their homeland would cost many, many lives--on both sides. It's not a matter of an eye for an eye, but of war being Hell from top to bottom. In that context, the US use of nukes was not something we should either brag about or apologize for.

[jazzcyclist]

For what it's worth, I am squarely on the side of not trying to second-guess this history. All things considered, I fully believe the US action (Truman's action) was justified.

Again I ask, does a nation's unwillingness to take military casualties in order to achieve its objectives give it the moral and/or legal authority to resort to terrorism in order to pursue those objectives?

Was the result pretty or nice? No, it was neither. But the Japanese regime was brutal: look at what they did in China, or to captured US troops.

Are you suggesting that we should calibrate our conduct/moral principles based on that of the folks we're fighting? If not, what difference does it make how brutal the Japanese were?

[kuha]

For what it's worth, I am squarely on the side of not trying to second-guess this history. All things considered, I fully believe the US action (Truman's action) was justified.

Again I ask, does a nation's unwillingness to take military casualties in order to achieve its objectives give it the moral and/or legal authority to resort to terrorism in order to pursue those objectives?

Was the result pretty or nice? No, it was neither. But the Japanese regime was brutal: look at what they did in China, or to captured US troops.

Are you suggesting that we should calibrate our conduct/moral principles based on that of the folks we're fighting? If not, what difference does it make how brutal the Japanese were?

Wow.

"A nation's unwillingness to take military casualties..."? Really? There was no such unwillingness; plenty of casualties were taken. It's entirely reasonable for a nation to work to limit its own carnage. And you are somehow offended by that idea?

What does the word "terrorism" have to do with anything here? That word is too inflected with contemporary meaning to have any use in this historical matter.

I"m honestly not sure what point you are trying to make with the second quote.

What is the point of this discussion, exactly? So that you can feel morally superior to people of 65 years ago who were in positions of responsibility and weight that you--and I--could never imagine? If that makes you feel better--go ahead and feel superior. I have no desire to do so.

[catson52]

Don't usually look at these threads. Some pretty interesting stuff said by many parties. Two points/observations.

(1) There seems to be credible evidence that the Japanese surrendered so quickly, not only because of the two A bombs, but also the fact that Stalin declared war on Japan in that time frame. Within a few days/weeks Russia took over Sakhalin, and the Japanese were concerned what else they may have wanted/grabbed. I am reminded of the tired chestnut that D-Day saved Europe from Hitler. It certainly saved most of western Europe from Stalin.

(2) I saw the statement about Gen. Schwarzkopf going through the Vietnam experience twice. What exactly does that mean? He, of course, remains at the head of all time great generals, having achieved magnificent victories against Saddam's troops and in Grenada.

[jazzcyclist]

Wow.

"A nation's unwillingness to take military casualties..."? Really? There was no such unwillingness; plenty of casualties were taken. It's entirely reasonable for a nation to work to limit its own carnage. And you are somehow offended by that idea?

Okay, now you've gone Orwellian on me. In the context of this discussion, "unwillingness to take military casualties" = "limit its own carnage" IMO, but I'll humor you. But I must point out that you're on a very slippery slope if "limiting its own carnage" is a justiable reason for a nation to attack civilians. For the record, I'm not offended by your position. How can I be? Afterall, I've already said that I believe that terrorism is a necessary evil.

What does the word "terrorism" have to do with anything here? That word is too inflected with contemporary meaning to have any use in this historical matter.

If massacring hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in order to break the will of a government is not terrorism, the word has no meaning.

I"m honestly not sure what point you are trying to make with the second quote.

What is the point of this discussion, exactly? So that you can feel morally superior to people of 65 years ago who were in positions of responsibility and weight that you--and I--could never imagine? If that makes you feel better--go ahead and feel superior. I have no desire to do so.

Gee, you're getting chippy. Come on man, lighten up. I just don't understand what the actions of the Japanese have to do with American moral principles, that's all. Perhaps you view our moral principles as something fluid that change based on the situation.

[shivfan]

There's no black and white answer to foreign wars. The best thing to do is look at it on a case-by-case basis for the past 100 years....

Was the US right to intervene in:

1) World War I? I don't know - it was a bloody pointless war to start with!

2) World War II? definitely! Hitler was pure evil - the US should've entered the war much earlier.

3) Korea? Yes, otherwise the Chinese would've taken over the whole peninsular, and may even have threatened Japan and the Pacific.

4) Vietnam? No, that was a war of independence from the French colonialists - intervention was doomed to fail. If anyone has any doubt, I suggest you watch 'The Quiet American', or read Graham Greene's excellent novel....

5) Kuwait? Yes, because Saddam had invaded Kuwait, and needed to be thrown out - I also believe it was wise not to try to conquer Iraq.

6) Yugoslavia? Yes, because the Serbs were brutally oppressing and slaughtering all the other ethnic groups in the region.

7) Afghanistan? Yes, because al-Qaeda were operating there - however, the US were wrong in trying to set up their puppet Hamid Karzai as president, and that's one of the main reasons why they're losing the civil war that's going on now....

8) Iraq? No, because Saddam was not a threat to world peace - intervention there has destabilised the reason and has created rafts of anti-American feelings in the region.

9) Libya? Yes, because it's in the throes of civil war - however, there is a need to accept that Gaddafi won't be overthrown, and that a division of country between east and west is inevitable.

There are other countries who are deserving of intervention, but who are being ignored - 72 has rightly raised the example of the Congo, which is being torn apart by a brutal civil war. Also, Bahrain is brutally suppressing its people, like Syria is now doing, but Bahrain is our friend, so it's all right....

With regards to bringing democracy to places like Afghanistan, we have to accept whoever they elect, and not tell them you can have democracy, but only if you elect folks we approve of. The Palestinians have elected Hamas in their democracy, but the West doesn't like that. Hell, non-Americans don't like Bush, but we can't tell Americans whom they are allowed to vote for! Karzai's corruption, and those of his dictatorial warlord allies in the districts, is so bad that it's driving rural Afghans into the camps of the Taliban. As long as Karzai remains president, it's inevitable that the Taliban will come to power in Afghanistan. That country is a missed opportunity....

[Pego]

6) Yugoslavia? Yes, because the Serbs were brutally oppressing and slaughtering all the other ethnic groups in the region.

Not quite so simple. I remain unconvinced regarding that NATO intervention.

[Conor Dary]

If massacring hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in order to break the will of a government is not terrorism, the word has no meaning.

Is this suppose to be a joke? Terrorism? WWII had lots of 'terrorism' starting with Pearl Harbor, continuing on to the bombing of London, twice, etc.

It is 1945 and Truman has a choice between invading Japan and costing hundreds of thousands of American lives against an enemy that started the whole thing, besides the Bataan death march and other atrocities, Nanking 1937 ring a bell?, Okinawa. And using a weapon that will end the war, which I might add it did. A no brainer, the only choice was where.

[Marlow]

If massacring hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in order to break the will of a government is not terrorism, the word has no meaning.

The word does NOT have a meaning. Or, more clearly, it has ANY meaning anyone wants to assign it. That's the thing about semantics; people use words differently and then get their panties all bunched up when someone else uses it differently. 'Terrorism' has been evolving very quickly since 9/11 and has been used wildly inappropriately (respective of its pre-9/11 meaning) of late. As with the word 'post-modern' or 'existential', it has almost entirely LOST its meaning.

[kuha]

If massacring hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in order to break the will of a government is not terrorism, the word has no meaning.

The word does NOT have a meaning. Or, more clearly, it has ANY meaning anyone wants to assign it. That's the thing about semantics; people use words differently and then get their panties all bunched up when someone else uses it differently. 'Terrorism' has been evolving very quickly since 9/11 and has been used wildly inappropriately (respective of its pre-9/11 meaning) of late. As with the word 'post-modern' or 'existential', it has almost entirely LOST its meaning.

I tried to make that point above. The use of that word in relation to official military action--ANY military action since at least 1914--is stupid and potentially deeply offensive. Jazz is a perfectly smart guy, but his whole line of argument above goes absolutely nowhere, leading to no interesting questions or helpful answers.

[jazzcyclist]

If massacring hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in order to break the will of a government is not terrorism, the word has no meaning.

Is this suppose to be a joke? Terrorism? WWII had lots of 'terrorism' starting with Pearl Harbor, continuing on to the bombing of London, twice, etc.

WWII certainly had plenty of terrorism by all the major players but the attack on Pearl Harbor, a military installation, certainly wasn't one of them.

It is 1945 and Truman has a choice between invading Japan and costing hundreds of thousands of American lives against an enemy that started the whole thing, besides the Bataan death march and other atrocities, Nanking 1937 ring a bell?, Okinawa. And using a weapon that will end the war, which I might add it did. A no brainer, the only choice was where.

This is nothing more than Orwellian doubletalk and rationalization. In 1945, Truman had several choices since Japan's Navy was at the bottom of the Pacific and it was no longer any sort of threat to the U.S. Truman may not have liked these choices, but that doesn't mean that they didn't exist and weren't presented to him. Certainly Supreme Allied Commander and future President Dwight Eisenhower thought we had other choices and I presume he was in the loop.

Furthermore, the conduct of Japan during the war was irrelevant to our own conduct. It amazes me how folks will use the conduct of people it despise to determine what their own conduct should be. The implication is that if the enemy abides by the Marquis of Queensbury rules, we should fight with one hand tied behind our back. I believe we should be willing to use all the tools in our tool chest regardless of how the enemy conducts themselves.

[jazzcyclist]

I tried to make that point above. The use of that word in relation to official military action--ANY military action since at least 1914--is stupid and potentially deeply offensive. Jazz is a perfectly smart guy, but his whole line of argument above goes absolutely nowhere, leading to no interesting questions or helpful answers.

I think what you're getting at is that actions carried out by nation-states can not be classified as terrorism. Do I understand you correctly?

By the way, it goes without saying that views expressed on this forum would be offensive to some people, and that's why gh only unlocks it once a year for a few days. However, I can assure you that my motive wasn't to offend you or anyone else. All I'm doing is taking full advantage of free speech weekend and expressing my views as candidly as I can.

[Pego]

As with the word 'post-modern' or 'existential', it has almost entirely LOST its meaning.

Add "conservative" to this list.

[jazzcyclist]

If massacring hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in order to break the will of a government is not terrorism, the word has no meaning.

The word does NOT have a meaning. Or, more clearly, it has ANY meaning anyone wants to assign it. That's the thing about semantics; people use words differently and then get their panties all bunched up when someone else uses it differently. 'Terrorism' has been evolving very quickly since 9/11 and has been used wildly inappropriately (respective of its pre-9/11 meaning) of late. As with the word 'post-modern' or 'existential', it has almost entirely LOST its meaning.

Since 9/11, the word "terrorism" has become the most misused word in the English language, but even if you believe that governments can't commit acts of terrorism, can't we at least agree that the in order for an act to be considered terrorism, civilians must be the targets of the act?

[Marlow]

can't we at least agree that the in order for an act to be considered terrorism, civilians must be the targets of the act?

Nah, pre-emptive, unprovoked attacks even on military personnel can be seen as 'terrorism' also, which is why Pearl Harbor can be labelled as such. Problem is, as Japan soon discovered (sleeping giant remark), it had the opposite effect they intended.

[jazzcyclist]

can't we at least agree that the in order for an act to be considered terrorism, civilians must be the targets of the act?

Nah, pre-emptive, unprovoked attacks even on military personnel can be seen as 'terrorism' also, which is why Pearl Harbor can be labelled as such. Problem is, as Japan soon discovered (sleeping giant remark), it had the opposite effect they intended.

So let me get this straight. According you, "pre-emptive, unprovoked" attacks are considered terrorism even when carried out by nation-states against military installations? There are a lot of folks who would be covered by these loopholes whom I am quite sure you didn't intend to be covered.

[Pego]

the word "terrorism" has become the most misused word in the English language

What is your definition?

[Marlow]

So let me get this straight. According you, "pre-emptive, unprovoked" attacks are considered terrorism even when carried out by nation-states against military installations? There are a lot of folks who would be covered by these loopholes whom I am quite sure you didn't intend to be covered.

Yup.
Reread my semantics primer above and you will be enlightened, grasshopper.

[JRM]

can't we at least agree that the in order for an act to be considered terrorism, civilians must be the targets of the act?

Nah, pre-emptive, unprovoked attacks even on military personnel can be seen as 'terrorism' also, which is why Pearl Harbor can be labelled as such.

Oh, nonsense, Marlow! Those are the textbook definition of "acts of war." Unless you believe each side must agree to the attack first? ("Hi, Poland? It's the A-H-man. I'm going to invade on, oh, Sept. 1st or so. Just wanted to give you a heads up, so you don't get the wrong idea about me being a 'terrorist.'").

[Marlow]

Oh, nonsense, Marlow! Those are the textbook definition of "acts of war." Unless you believe each side must agree to the attack first? ("Hi, Poland? It's the A-H-man. I'm going to invade on, oh, Sept. 1st or so. Just wanted to give you a heads up, so you don't get the wrong idea about me being a 'terrorist.'").

Oh, nonsense, JRM. If I want to call PH an act of cowardly terrorism, guess what, I am WELL within my semantic rights to do so. Your mileage may vary, and obviously does, but semantics am my bidniss and I know my damn rights!!!

[TN1965]

The battle of Okinawa in the spring of 1945 had 12,000 American deaths and tens of thousands of casualties. The Japanese were not giving up. An invasion of Japan itself, would have probably had hundreds of thousands of US dead. My father was stationed in the South Pacific and everyone was quite scared of an actual invasion, and people were talking about a war that would go on until 1946 or later. Fortunately, the Bomb put a quick end to the war.

The Battle of Okinawa also killed 94,000 Japanes soldiers and close to 100,000 civilians. How many more Japanese civilians would have been killed by an invasion of the mainland? We don't know. But can we tell that would have been fewer than the victims of two atomic bombs?

There seems to be credible evidence that the Japanese surrendered so quickly, not only because of the two A bombs, but also the fact that Stalin declared war on Japan in that time frame. Within a few days/weeks Russia took over Sakhalin, and the Japanese were concerned what else they may have wanted/grabbed. I am reminded of the tired chestnut that D-Day saved Europe from Hitler. It certainly saved most of western Europe from Stalin.

Stalin would have had a far stronger position on the postwar settlement on Japan (and Korea) if atomic bombs had not been dropped. We never know what he actually would have got, but
could we say the atomic bombs might have saved South Korea and part of Northern Japan from Stalin?

[jazzcyclist]

the word "terrorism" has become the most misused word in the English language

What is your definition?

Well, since you've asked:

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.

[TN1965]

In 1945, Truman had several choices since Japan's Navy was at the bottom of the Pacific and it was no longer any sort of threat to the U.S. Truman may not have liked these choices, but that doesn't mean that they didn't exist and weren't presented to him.

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.

[Marlow]

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"

I like it better because it doesn't try so hard to 'spin' the term, but I'd even quibble with the word 'political'. Although 'political' is another word we use to mean many different things, I don't think all terrorist aims are 'political' in the normal every day use of the word. They CAN be religious too, but then some people will argue that religion IS politics or vice versa!