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 Conor Dary » Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:34 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:

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
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 kuha » Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:43 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:

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.
kuha
 
Posts: 9036
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:57 pm

kuha wrote: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?
kuha wrote: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?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby kuha » Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:11 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
kuha wrote: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?
kuha wrote: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.
kuha
 
Posts: 9036
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: American Imperialism

Postby catson52 » Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:37 pm

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.
catson52
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:22 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:37 pm

kuha wrote: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.
kuha wrote: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.

kuha wrote: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. :P 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.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby shivfan » Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:19 am

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....
shivfan
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:30 am
Location: Just outside London

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Pego » Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:29 am

shivfan wrote: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.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Conor Dary » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:45 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
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.
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 Marlow » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:50 am

jazzcyclist wrote: 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.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: American Imperialism

Postby kuha » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:57 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: 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.
kuha
 
Posts: 9036
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:11 am

Conor Dary wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
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.

Conor Dary wrote: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
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:21 am

kuha wrote: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.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Pego » Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:25 am

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


Add "conservative" to this list.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:27 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: 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?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Marlow » Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:33 am

jazzcyclist wrote: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.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:54 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: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.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Pego » Sun Jul 03, 2011 1:53 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:the word "terrorism" has become the most misused word in the English language


What is your definition?
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Marlow » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:07 pm

jazzcyclist wrote: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.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: American Imperialism

Postby JRM » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:12 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: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.'").
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Marlow » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:19 pm

JRM wrote: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!!! :twisted:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: American Imperialism

Postby TN1965 » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:35 pm

Conor Dary wrote: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?

catson52 wrote: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?
TN1965
 
Posts: 1187
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:39 pm

Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: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.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby TN1965 » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:42 pm

jazzcyclist wrote: 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.
TN1965
 
Posts: 1187
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Marlow » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:48 pm

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"

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! :roll:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:52 pm

TN1965 wrote:
Conor Dary wrote: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?



People can give plenty of justifications for attacks against civilians, but none of the justifications have anything to do with the nature of the act itself. Does it matter if the act is performed for a good cause? No, because it will always be impossible to get a common definition for "good cause".
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:58 pm

TN1965 wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: 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.

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?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: American Imperialism

Postby TN1965 » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:22 pm

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."
TN1965
 
Posts: 1187
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: American Imperialism

Postby Pego » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:23 pm

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".
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: American Imperialism

Postby TN1965 » Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:33 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:People can give plenty of justifications for attacks against civilians, but none of the justifications have anything to do with the nature of the act itself. Does it matter if the act is performed for a good cause? No, because it will always be impossible to get a common definition for "good cause".


Well, this negates the idea of "justification" itself. No one would be able to possibly engage in any "illegal" act regardless of the circumstances.
TN1965
 
Posts: 1187
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

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

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests