I'm as pro-clothhead as they come but.... (724 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.63 on 35 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Apollo (View user info) at 2006-10-05 01:39:39 EDT
the US stane against Iran and North Korea is correct.
I especially like the owrds of the vice secretary of state 'North Korea can exist or have nuclear weapons but not both'.
Some states can be trusted with nukes...some can't.
Those cunts can't.
They aren't accountable to reasonable patterns of behaviour.
There is the argument of course that they are looking for those weapons as a respone to american policy and Iran may have a valid point there but N.Korea hasn't.
No matter what you say about the US i trust them over the other nutjobs.
THIS JUST MAKES JTLCH MORE URGENT....RALLY WITH CAPTAIN SHANDY SHIP MATES....RALLY!
User Reviews
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-07 11:40:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Although supporters of the bombing concede that the civilian leadership in Japan was cautiously and discreetly sending out diplomatic communiques as far back as January 1945, following the Allied invasion of Luzon in the Philippines, they point out that Japanese military officials were unanimously opposed to any negotiations before the use of the atomic bomb.
While some members of the civilian leadership did use covert diplomatic channels to begin negotiation for peace, on their own they could not negotiate surrender or even a cease-fire. Japan, as a Constitutional Monarchy, could only enter into a peace agreement with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and this cabinet was dominated by militarists from the Japanese Imperial Army and the Japanese Imperial Navy, all of whom were initially opposed to any peace deal. A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan with the military increasingly determined to fight despite the costs and odds. Many continued to believe that Japan could negotiate more favorable terms of surrender by continuing to inflict high levels of casualties on opposing forces and end the war without an occupation of Japan or a change of government.
Historian Victor Davis Hanson points to the increased Japanese resistance, futile though it was in retrospect, as it became obvious that the result of the war could not be overturned by the Axis powers. The Battle of Okinawa showed this determination to fight on at all costs. More than 120,000 Japanese and 18,000 American troops were killed in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific theater, just 8 weeks before Japan's final surrender. In fact, more civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa than did in the initial blast of the atomic bombings. When the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, and carried out Operation August Storm, the Japanese Imperial Army ordered its ill-supplied and weakened forces in Manchuria to fight to the last man. Major General Masakazu Amano, chief of the operations section at Japanese Imperial Headquarters, stated that he was absolutely convinced his defensive preparations, begun in early 1944, could repel any Allied invasion of the home islands with minimal losses.
After the realization that the destruction of Hiroshima was from a nuclear weapon, the civilian leadership gained more traction in its argument that Japan had to concede defeat and accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. Even after the destruction of Nagasaki, the emperor himself needed to intervene to end a deadlock in the cabinet.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-07 11:40:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
According to some Japanese historians, Japanese civilian leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, as were the military men in the war cabinet. (Because the cabinet functioned by consensus, even one holdout could prevent it from accepting the declaration.) Thus the peace faction seized on the bombing as a new argument to force surrender. Kōichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest advisors, stated: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war." According to these historians and others, the pro-peace civilian leadership was able to use the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to convince the military that no amount of courage, skill and fearless combat could help Japan against the power of atomic weapons. Akio Morita, founder of Sony and a Japanese Naval officer during the war, also concludes that it was the atomic bomb and not conventional bombings from B-29s that convinced the Japanese military to agree to peace.
Supporters of the bombing also point out that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option—as a result of the war, noncombatants were dying throughout Asia at a rate of about 200,000 per month. Firebombing had killed well over 100,000 people in Japan since February of 1945, directly and indirectly. That intensive conventional bombing would have continued prior to an invasion. The submarine blockade and the United States Army Air Forces's mining operation, Operation Starvation, had effectively cut off Japan's imports. A complementary operation against Japan's railways was about to begin, isolating the cities of southern Honshu from the food grown elsewhere in the Home Islands. This, combined with the delay in relief supplies from the Allies, could have resulted in a far greater death toll in Japan from famine and malnutrition than actually occurred in the attacks. "Immediately after the defeat, some estimated that 10 million people were likely to starve to death," noted historian Daikichi Irokawa. Meanwhile, in addition to the Soviet attacks, offensives were scheduled for September in southern China and Malaysia.
The Americans anticipated losing many soldiers in the planned invasion of Japan, although the actual number of expected fatalities and wounded is subject to some debate and depends on the persistence and reliability of Japanese resistance and whether the Americans would have invaded only Kyushu in November 1945 or if a follow up landing near Tokyo, projected for March of 1946, would have been needed. Years after the war, Secretary of State James Byrnes claimed that 500,000 American lives would have been lost—and that number has since been repeated authoritatively, but in the summer of 1945, U.S. military planners projected 20,000-110,000 combat deaths from the initial November 1945 invasion, with about three to four times that number wounded. (Total U.S. combat deaths on all fronts in World War II in nearly four years of war were 292,000.) However, these estimates were done using intelligence that grossly underestimated Japanese strength being gathered for the battle of Kyushu in numbers of soldiers and kamikazes, by factors of at least three. Many military advisors held that a worst-case scenario could involve up to 1,000,000 American casualties.
The atomic bomb hastened the end of the Second World War in Asia liberating hundreds of thousands of Western citizens, including about 200,000 Dutch and 400,000 Indonesians ("Romushas") from Japanese concentration camps. Moreover, Japanese troops had committed atrocities against millions of civilians (such as the infamous Nanking Massacre), and the early end to the war prevented further bloodshed.
Supporters also point to an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on August 1, 1944. The order dealt with the disposal and execution of all Allied POWs, numbering over 100,000, if an invasion of the Japanese mainland took place.[36] It is also likely that, considering Japan's previous treatment of POWs, were the Allies to wait out Japan and starve it, the Japanese would have killed all Allied POWs and Chinese prisoners.
--------------------------------------------------------
Yes I know copied from wikipedia, but I want you to concentrate on one point. "execution of all Allied POWs"
Now I know you won't believe me or any stats I show, but look up the survival rates in Japanese POW camps vs German, russian, or Us's.
If I was president. If I was in power then, I wouldn't have gambled, I wouldn't have accepted a partial surrender, I would be thinking that I didn't want to go down like chamberlain, I wouldn't want to make the mistake of appeasement, I wouldn't want to leave a question mark on the war. I would want to end it.
I am glad there is debate over it, but blanket accusations that it was a power play by the Us, or wasn't needed at all are baseless.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-07 11:27:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-05 16:05:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
With perhaps only a single exception - and we all know what happened to him - our presidents since WWII have done the bidding of the industrialist warpigs and led our country down this road to ultimate ruin. In the footsteps of empires past we now follow. And whether our 'rule' will last 100 years or 1000, one thing is certain; we WILL eventually fall. Keep painting a target on yourself and someone, somewhere, will eventually hit it where it hurts.
---------------------------------------------------
Hahah you think JFK was different? Please read any book about the CIA, they expanded exponentially while he was president.
As far as the rest of your rant, I don't think the founding fathers intended us to be the "guardians" of the world. But isolationilism doesn't work. YOu can't back away from global affairs. the world isn't a friendly place. If you aren't making it better for you, somebody else is making it worse for you.
I don't have any illusions about the US having pearly white hands, we have gotten our hands dirty, but so has every country. And I think we should be called out on it. But you can't look at in a vacuum, look at the other fucking side. If you really think in the grand scheme of things we are the bad guys you are an idiot.
I don't like the way this country is going, but idiots like you who rant and rave about how we are the anti christ, and we were behind 9/11, only plays into right wing republican hands. You stifle real debate or thought about the US by painting it black.
As far as Japan goes there will ba a million armchair quarter backs. There will be a ton of generals
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-10-06 10:53:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
NFL GENIUS BELOW
|
|
|
|
|
v
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-06 02:31:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Brad, stop hijacking other people's posts you fucking whackjob.
Submitted by Entaran (user info) at 2006-10-06 01:22:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
With perhaps only a single exception - and we all know what happened to him - our presidents since WWII have done the bidding of the industrialist warpigs and led our country down this road to ultimate ruin. In the footsteps of empires past we now follow. And whether our 'rule' will last 100 years or 1000, one thing is certain; we WILL eventually fall. Keep painting a target on yourself and someone, somewhere, will eventually hit it where it hurts.
----------------------
ETS, you are agreed with from outside the USA.
The Euro is already worth more than the US Dollar. OPEC is now selling you oil in Euro so your gas prices will never truly go down, the US economy keeps heading towards a recession and then boucing back just enough to keep it going another year or two.
Half the world would like to see the overbearing foreign policies removed from the picture, pity it won't happen in my lifetime more than likely.
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2006-10-05 22:59:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:47:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
i don't remember posting this
------
Priceless.
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2006-10-05 16:33:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
What right do you have to make such claims?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-05 16:18:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Indoninja repeats the bullshit, candy-coated history of gradeschool children, while the REAL history of what happened lingers right under all our noses in the words of some of the most powerful and widely respected men in history. I think with the following quotes, I can safely rest my case on why we dropped the bomb twicce on Japan and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people needlessly. Our PRIDE demands we see only the candy-coated version of history that indo seeks to perpetuate, but our HUMANITY demands that we acknowledge the sins of our past and work to make them right...
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- PRESIDENT AND GENERAL DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
- ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."
- PRESIDENT HERBERT HOOVER
"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
- William Manchester, biographer of GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate."
Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb, New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-05 16:05:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 07:22:09 (#)
Ranking: 2
This is the epitome of a little education is a dangerous thing. The US is not perfect. It alone shouldn't (and doesn't) decide who should have nuclear weapons. But your understanding of history and current events is critically flawed. How has the US's economy been helped by going into Iraq, what possible benefit could they have or will have gained that they couldn't have gotten by playing nice with Saddam and leaving him in charge?
Japan was not about to surrender, it was far from helpless, but even for the sake of arguemnt lets pretend it was, do you think the Japanese people would be fairing better under Soviet rule (look at Europe and tell me which countries were better off after WWII)?
I have no illusion about the USA being perfect, or always looking out for other countries, but if you honestly think Iran or North Korea is a more just, free or caring country you know absolutely nothing.
-------------------------
I am not, nor have ever said I agreed with how the countries of Iran or North Korea are run. BUT, as a lover of freedom myself, and a thankful citizen of a nation that fought for its own freedom once from an unjust rule, I acknowledge the right of the peoples of these nations to rise up against their current leadership if they so deem fit. They have done it before. Only in the case of Iran in 1953, they did it for reasons that were falsely being manipulated by foreign psy-ops officers from the CIA and MI6.
1979 was OUR fault in the sense that it was a direct result of the injustices imposed on their country through that manipulation and the subsequent decades-long tyranny of the installed leader, the Shah.
It's funny that you say that Japan was not about to surrender when I've even seen HISTORY CHANNEL documentaries that say the opposite was probably, and the real reason for the atomic attacks were political. And most historians agree now that this was tanamount to the start of the Cold War.
Admiral William D. Leahy of the U.S. Navy said seven weeks before the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima: "It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression."
There are many many more people at the time - both military brass, and civilian leadership - that agreed with this assessment that Japan was about to surrender, but perhaps not on the same terms as the U.S. was demanding, which was to end their thousand-year tradition of having an emperor.
The bottom line is this, people... There were industrialists and hardcore capitalists in the United States and other allied countries who saw the 'liberation' and occupation of Japan as a way of both establishing military presence in the region for what it HOPED would be a coming long term military struggle with Russia and it would open up another avenue for trade of American goods and consumerist way of life.
The Cold War was like Christmas, birthday, and the Fourth of July all rolled into one for the emerging military industrial complex. Contracted companies making weapons for the war effort loved the idea of not having to cease production of armaments and provisions at inflated prices and go back to producing tin cans or whatever it was they were producing in their factories before the war, making far less money.
Korea was yet another strategic move in the grand chessmatch and emerging militarization of the United States of America, a country whose own Constitution strictly prohibits such occupations of foreign nations. We were never meant to be some sort of harbinger of peace or angel of mercy shouldering an M-16. That was NOT what our forefathers had in mind when they created this country.
I'm sorry, but we are so far away from what they had in mind at the moment, we should just go ahead and change the fucking name of this country to the "Union of American Capitalist Republics" or something. We've been taken over by empire-hungry leaders for the past half century.
With perhaps only a single exception - and we all know what happened to him - our presidents since WWII have done the bidding of the industrialist warpigs and led our country down this road to ultimate ruin. In the footsteps of empires past we now follow. And whether our 'rule' will last 100 years or 1000, one thing is certain; we WILL eventually fall. Keep painting a target on yourself and someone, somewhere, will eventually hit it where it hurts.
Submitted by jfreakman (user info) at 2006-10-05 16:01:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
agree. No nukes North Korea.
You like that alliteration? More where that came from...
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:52:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
WHAT HAVE YOU BECOME ??????????
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:47:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i don't remember posting this
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:36:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-05 01:56:20 (#)
Ranking: -2
"They aren't accountable to reasonable patterns of behaviour."
---------------------
Let me ask you something, Jamie... When's the last time North Korea invaded a neighbor? When's the last time it trekked halfway around the world to invade a sovereign nation on trumped up bullshit charges of WMD to secure it's own long term oil-based economy? When's the last time North Korea dropped two nuclear bombs on a helpless and crippled country that was about to surrender anyway just to beat Russia to post-war control of the country?
-------
Japan had no intention of surrendering prior to the atomic bombings - dont even bother arguing with me on this one Bradley.
Submitted by DrSeussman (user info) at 2006-10-05 15:15:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Jebus dude this has to be one of the crappiest posts I have seen from you man.
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2006-10-05 12:36:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
HANS BRIX?! ARRR NARRR!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-10-05 10:40:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 07:22:09 (#)
Ranking: 2
Japan was not about to surrender, it was far from helpless,"
===
thank you for pointing that out. i don't know where ETS got the idea that japan was about to surrender but even after the two bombs, half of Japan top military was against surrendering.
japan had amassed so much troops, a lot more than the US excpeted, that a ground invasion would've caused a lot more casualties on both sides. especially since japaneses were ready for a long struggle.
Submitted by drgoatcabin (user info) at 2006-10-05 09:49:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fuckin-A, Jeanneee......Fuckin-A.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-10-05 09:33:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
America, FUCK YEAH
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2006-10-05 08:28:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I've had that tune from "Willy Wonka" stuck in my head all morning.
Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-10-05 08:12:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-10-05 07:22:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-05 01:56:20 (#)
Ranking: -2
"They aren't accountable to reasonable patterns of behaviour."
---------------------
Let me ask you something, Jamie... When's the last time North Korea invaded a neighbor? When's the last time it trekked halfway around the world to invade a sovereign nation on trumped up bullshit charges of WMD to secure it's own long term oil-based economy? When's the last time North Korea dropped two nuclear bombs on a helpless and crippled country that was about to surrender anyway just to beat Russia to post-war control of the country?
Let me tell you something, dude, and I know this probably isn't going to compute to you or anyone else raised and indoctrinated in a western country, but we ARE the fucking anti-christ.
--------------------------------------------
This is the epitome of a little education is a dangerous thing. The US is not perfect. It alone shouldn't (and doesn't) decide who should have nuclear weapons. But your understanding of history and current events is critically flawed. How has the US's economy been helped by going into Iraq, what possible benefit could they have or will have gained that they couldn't have gotten by playing nice with Saddam and leaving him in charge?
Japan was not about to surrender, it was far from helpless, but even for the sake of arguemnt lets pretend it was, do you think the Japanese people would be fairing better under Soviet rule (look at Europe and tell me which countries were better off after WWII)?
I have no illusion about the USA being perfect, or always looking out for other countries, but if you honestly think Iran or North Korea is a more just, free or caring country you know absolutely nothing.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-10-05 06:46:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Gotta say I agree with a whole lot of what ETS says on this post.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-05 02:27:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I look forward to the debate. I may or may not be in the mood for one tomorrow as the thought of debating - if you can call it that - on this website anymore is almost not worth the trouble. You, however, have surprised me of late with your willingness to admit that some of my 'crazy' ideas (otherwise known as the history our leaders - both US AND British - have long suppressed) might make a little sense.
Paint_it_black: Do I have your addreass? electrictoothsyndrome.at.gmail.com
Submitted by Wildman (user info) at 2006-10-05 02:24:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm as pro-clothhead as they come but....that's quite a lot of fabric.
Submitted by paint_it_black (user info) at 2006-10-05 02:13:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-05 01:56:20 (#)
Ranking: -2
"They aren't accountable to reasonable patterns of behaviour."
---------------------
Let me ask you something, Jamie... When's the last time North Korea invaded a neighbor? When's the last time it trekked halfway around the world to invade a sovereign nation on trumped up bullshit charges of WMD to secure it's own long term oil-based economy? When's the last time North Korea dropped two nuclear bombs on a helpless and crippled country that was about to surrender anyway just to beat Russia to post-war control of the country?
Let me tell you something, dude, and I know this probably isn't going to compute to you or anyone else raised and indoctrinated in a western country, but we ARE the fucking anti-christ.
___________
emailme brad
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-10-05 02:06:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-05 01:56:20 (#)
Ranking: -2
but we ARE the fucking anti-christ.
-=-=--=-=-=
dude, not even.
We aren't that important.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-10-05 01:59:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
brad
i understand your points, laboured and as rooted in a privileged upbringed as they are, however I cannot respond to them now as I am going to sleep.
i promise to respond properly tomorrow.
however, and please look at my history, i agree with you more than you realise but i have very good reasons for tyhis stance.
give us a chance and i'll debate it with you.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-10-05 01:56:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"They aren't accountable to reasonable patterns of behaviour."
---------------------
Let me ask you something, Jamie... When's the last time North Korea invaded a neighbor? When's the last time it trekked halfway around the world to invade a sovereign nation on trumped up bullshit charges of WMD to secure it's own long term oil-based economy? When's the last time North Korea dropped two nuclear bombs on a helpless and crippled country that was about to surrender anyway just to beat Russia to post-war control of the country?
Let me tell you something, dude, and I know this probably isn't going to compute to you or anyone else raised and indoctrinated in a western country, but we ARE the fucking anti-christ.
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2006-10-05 01:56:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
yeah
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-10-05 01:55:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
fuck the us
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-10-05 01:53:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
not funny
you are mixing your alters
write one then oh crafty creator of the scat engine
Submitted by paint_it_black (user info) at 2006-10-05 01:45:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
fuck off why should america be the only cuntry with nuclear capamabilities you dumb uck what gives the Us and its faggoty citizens the right to dictate what other countries can or can't have? are you going to finish that snickers ? I AM HUNGRY
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2006-10-05 01:44:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I really want to write another JTLOCH. I'll try to find some time.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-10-05 01:42:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/86581#1934716