PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: GigaShadow on December 05, 2002, 05:31:58 AM
-
WASHINGTON (AP) - In the eyes of much of the world, this is America: an inconsiderate lone wolf that has really good entertainment but really bad values, that wants war with Iraq just to get oil but still should remain as the only superpower on Earth.
In a broad international survey released Wednesday, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found that the United States is falling out of favor in 19 of 27 countries where a trend could be identified.
The dislike was especially striking in Muslim countries. Seventy-five percent of those surveyed in Jordan had an unfavorable opinion of America, as did 69 percent of Egyptians and Pakistanis and 59 percent of Lebanese. In Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Senegal, Turkey and Lebanon, the vast majority said they oppose the U.S.-led war on terrorism.
But ill will toward the United States was also found in supposedly friendly nations like Canada, Britain and Germany.
"The biggest headline is the slipping image of the United States, not simply that we\'re not liked in the Muslim world," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "But there is still a great reserve of good will toward the United States."
The surveys in 44 countries were conducted by established survey organizations in each country between July and October, with polls done by phone in eight of the most developed countries and face-to-face in the others. The error margins ranged from plus or minus 2 percentage points to 4.5 points, depending on the sample size.
A generally favorable view of America is held in 35 of the 42 countries that took part in the survey. Among Russians, U.S. popularity has surged 24 points, from 37 percent two years ago to 61 percent today. Similarly, 77 percent of Nigerians and 85 percent of Uzbeks had pro-U.S. views, up 31 percent and 29 percent respectively.
The most common criticisms of the United States are that it acts by itself, it pushes policies that widen the gap between rich and poor nations, and it doesn\'t do enough to solve the world\'s problems.
Americans don\'t necessarily agree.
Seventy-five percent of Americans polled said U.S. foreign policy is considerate of others. But next door, only 25 percent of Canadians said America is a considerate world citizen. Perhaps surprisingly, U.S. foreign policy was deemed considerate by 53 percent of respondents in Germany, a harsh critic of President Bush (news - web sites)\'s position on Iraq.
World citizens admire American technology and culture, but not the spread of U.S. ideas and customs; 54 percent of Canadians, 67 percent of Germans, 71 percent of the French and 84 percent of Egyptians said it would be bad to spread American ideas and customs.
But Canadians — 77 percent of them — also said they like American music, movies and TV. It was much the same for Venezuela (78 percent), Poland (70 percent), Japan (74 percent), Ivory Coast (84 percent) and Great Britain (76 percent).
U.S. officials have tried to do something about America\'s image problem abroad. The White House established an office of "global communications" to provide in-depth explanations of President Bush\'s foreign policy.
Madeleine Albright (news - web sites), secretary of state during the Clinton administration and chair of the Pew survey, said the fact that the United States is the world\'s only superpower may have led to the results.
"In many ways, we are viewed as the rich guy living on the hill," Albright said. "We have seen this coming since the end of the Cold War."
Most of the people surveyed said they don\'t want the world to again have more than one superpower. Even in Russia, 53 percent said they believe the world is safer with just one.
In Germany, the percentage of people who hold a favorable view of the United States fell 17 points over two years. In 1999/2000, 78 percent of Germans considered the United States favorably, this year 61 percent.
In Turkey, which is being actively courted for help in a possible war with Iraq, pro-U.S. views dropped from 52 percent to 30 percent.
Sentiments were similar in Argentina, where 34 percent saw the United States in a good light, compared to 50 percent two years ago. In Indonesia and the Slovak Republic, favorable ratings fell 14 points.
Large percentages of Muslim respondents in several countries said they believe suicide bomb attacks are a justifiable defense of Islam. This was especially so in Lebanon, where 73 percent supported this belief.
Also, 21 countries rated the news media as a good influence, while the military was seen as a good influence in 15 countries. Five gave the top rating in influence to religious leaders. Only one, Ivory Coast, said the national government is the top influence.
In six countries — Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Turkey and the United States — the majority said Iraq poses a great or moderate threat to the world, and Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) must go.
Only 22 percent of Americans said oil is the United States\' real motive for pursuing war with Iraq, but 44 percent of the British, 75 percent of the French, 54 percent of Germans and 76 percent of Russians held that view.
When it comes to conditions at home, Uzbeks and the Vietnamese were the happiest of all. Sixty-nine percent said they are satisfied with the state of their countries. In Peru and Argentina, only 3 percent of respondents said they are pleased with the way things are at home.
-
They don\'t even mention Australia, one of, if not, the US\'s most steadfast allies at the moment.
Ask any Australian and most would, if not all, would support the US. Not necessarily the way Bush is dealing with everything but certainly that something needs to be done.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
But ill will toward the United States was also found in supposedly friendly nations like Canada, Britain and Germany.
well thats the price you pay for being the big rich kid on the block.
that and your foreign policy Suck’s Da big one
-
They didn\'t mention whether those countries liked all the foriegn aid money we dump on them over and over again. Ask those rat bastard cowards, the French, if they liked being saved from Germany TWICE, and us rebuilding their country TWICE. We still haven\'t been repaid for either. We look the other way for 50-60 years thinking "well, it\'s good diplomacy, at least we\'ll always have an ally in Europe we can count on..." They\'re nothing but complete scumbags.
-
As a European citizen I resent what Chizzy said. :)
Come on now, we\'re all in the same boat. We\'re f*cking western countries for Christ\'s sake and we\'re members of the UN, NATO and whatnot. I don\'t see the need to \'battle\' eachother.
-
Originally posted by ##RaCeR##
They don\'t even mention Australia, one of, if not, the US\'s most steadfast allies at the moment.
Ask any Australian and most would, if not all, would support the US. Not necessarily the way Bush is dealing with everything but certainly that something needs to be done.
Please don\'t speak for australia racer... Thank you.
-
I speaking for Australia, not Australians.
-
Originally posted by ##RaCeR##
I speaking for Australia, not Australians.
as in the Goverment ?
in that case we have something in common
My goverment constantly kisses Bush\'s hairy ass on a daily basis...even though we the British people what the Bush Admin to go to hell and Stop dragging us into conflicts
-
umm yea.... australia right.
Ask any Australian and most would, if not all, would support the US.
Get of the drugs.
and i guess you\'ve asked 25 million aussies right?
-
Yes, as in the government. John Howard and Bush are like buddy buddy beyond belief.
-
You said ask "any" Australian.
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
umm yea.... australia right.
Get of the drugs.
and i guess you\'ve asked 25 million aussies right?
I know I didn\'t imply it, but it was more so what the government is telling Australia. That Australians support the US automatically simply because the government does.
-
They hate us because they can\'t be us.
I don\'t see boatloads of Americans heading toward Europe to get away from the US government.
Here\'s a long read but a good one.
By the way, If I were the Prez I would let all you European countries that give us bull crap hang in the breeze.
Ace
Anti-Americanism Redux Abroad
By Arnold Beichman
The Washington Times | November 20, 2002
Salman Rushdie recently wrote that America was "facing an ideological enemy that may turn out to be harder to defeat than militant Islam: that is to say, anti-Americanism, which is presently taking the world by storm." Mr. Rushdie should know, since he contributed to this storm.
But Mr. Rushdie is right. The United States is today the target of an extraordinary wave of West European anti-Americanism greater perhaps than previous waves that crested between 1952 and 1974 — during the days of McCarthyism, the Bay of Pigs and the Vietnam War.
For many European intellectuals and mediacrats, democratic America has become the Rogue State No.1. Millions and millions of dollars have been invested by the U.S. in varied cultural projects with the hope of reducing this hostility. To no avail. There is an insufficiently discussed or understood reason for this continuing hate syndrome against the United States that I will allude to in a moment.
With the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, with democracy in the ascendant and the Berlin Wall a pile of rubble, one would have thought the European intellectual left would honor the country whose military preparedness and economic aid had helped liberate Central Europe from a Soviet yoke. On the contrary. Even before the Iraq crisis and the September 11 catastrophe, European anti-Americanism, especially in British and French left-liberal media, was boiling away.
Hostility to the United States seems to have risen to a new high because of American policy towards Iraq and the possibility of an American invasion seeking the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Even the unanimous Security Council vote demanding Saddam open Iraq to inspection hasn\'t diminished this tide of anti-Americanism. This tide is so powerful that had President Bush announced a year ago that he would not under any circumstances invade Iraq, you can be sure Europe, with American peaceniks joining in, would be denouncing him in protest parades for perpetuating the rule of Saddam Hussein, that bloody tyrant, in order, naturally, to protect Texas oil interests.
Forgotten is the aftermath of September 11 when the European press announced, "We are all Americans now." Actually even before the Iraq crisis, Western European intellectuals had invented another monster — globalization — with which to fan the flames of anti-Americanism. Articles have appeared in the British press that would have you believe America, the most democratic country in the world, resembles Nazi Germany. A few Sundays ago , the British weekly Observer published a Goebbelsian Big Lie article by Gore Vidal headlined: "Gore Vidal claims \'Bush junta\' complicit on September 11."
There are a number of theories seeking to explain the continued anti-Americanism in Western Europe directed at delegitimizing American foreign policy, no matter its thrust.
Few of these theories seeking to explain anti-Americanism have dealt with what I consider to be the driving force of this extraordinary hostility: the persistence into the 21st century of a Marxist ideological infrastructure that still dominates European culture. Marxism may have been repudiated by a global plebiscite, but European intellectuals continue to abominate the biggest capitalist power in the world. Marx predicted the inevitable collapse of capitalism because of its so-called internal contradictions, and here, in defiance of that "scientific" prediction, is the United States bigger than ever, more powerful than ever.
"Anti-Americanism early became a Marxist theme," Lewis Feuer has written, "for America offered a social alternative that threatened to reduce Marxist modes of thought and feeling into irrelevancies and absurdities."
While Marxism is on its last legs (except in American academic circles) as an acceptable solution to politico-economic problems, its afterglow is still part of West European culture. Its afterglow is energized by the nostalgic faith in vestigial Marxism as expressed by George Lukacs, one of its most revered theoreticians and a famous communist intellectual. He wrote that "Marxism as a general theory of society and history, no longer exists, that it came to an end sometime ago. We stopped with Lenin. After him there has been no Marxism." Despite this seeming obituary, he declaimed that even if Marx\'s propositions were proven false, even if every empirical prediction of Marxism were invalidated, he would still hold Marxism to be true and he would still be a Marxist. Marxism forever, dead or alive. Lukacs irrationalism runs in the European bloodstream.
This Marxisant anti-Americanism finds sympathetic echoes in Continental Europe, especially in Germany, and in the British Labor Party and is driven by a social-democratic credo which is wary of a free market economy, like that of the United States, especially with a Republican president at the helm. And above all, anti-Americanism exists among European elites because American capitalism has demonstrated a staying power that cannot be found anywhere else in the world even with all its Enron-esque thieveries.
And you can be sure that President Bush\'s midterm election victory will prove to European intellectuals that their culture faces an imminent takeover from "Macdisco," the Unholy Three — MacDonald-Disney-CocaCola.
There is little we can do about this anti-Americanism in Western Europe although I suppose the State Department should be encouraged to hold behind-closed-door conferences on anti-Americanism as it did last September. Good luck.
Arnold Beichman, a Hoover Institution research fellow, is a columnist for The Washington Times.
-
howard is a american kissarse. He reminds me of a little weasel..
The government doesn\'t = 25 million aussies. There\'s NEVER been any kinda voting on backing up americas war against iraq idea.
Simple statement.
PROVE IT.
-
Originally posted by ##RaCeR##
Yes, as in the government. John Howard and Bush are like buddy buddy beyond belief.
more like Tony Blair , John Howard and Bush in a 3 some.
its sickening
we the UK people have no grievance with Iraq.
But as usual the “almighty US” can’t go it alone unless it has British Troops to lead the way.
so we get dragged into this hell thanks to the fact that Captian 1 brain Cell has cold feet.
-
Samwise is right. The real enemy to the Western World are the Islamic extremists who seem to be quite numerous in the Arab world as well as other Islamic countries. Most of these extremists want to see the destruction of the US and I am sure Europe not soon after - or at least convert Europe to Islam.
-
Originally posted by Ace
They hate us because they can\'t be us.
I don\'t see a boatloads of Americans heading toward Europe to get away from the US government.
Respectfully stfu.
Do you see boatloads of Europeans heading towards America to get away from their governments? :confused:
Besides, you can\'t compare Europe and the US. Europe consists of a lot of different countries.
I hate, really REALLY hate the sort of "we\'re much better/holier than you" attitude - nomatter if it\'s from an American, a European or someone from a whole other nation. I look upon myself as a world citizen, not some uptight nationalistic f*cker who can only see other\'s faults. :evil: :mad: Those people make me sick to my stomach and I hope they\'ll rot and burn in hell.
-
Dude chill!
I get swept up in patriotism and I don\'t like what I am seeing from our so-called friends.
P.S. This is America and I will not STFU. Thank You!
Ace
-
I think we know what pushes Samwises buttons :p
-
He has a point though.
They hate us because they can\'t be us.
That\'s just plain delusional.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I think we know what pushes Samwises buttons :p
I do like pushing buttons. I will note this in my big book of buttons.
Ace
-
Well Ace you and I are in the minority on this forum. I guess I shall vote you Minority Leader and I can be the Minority Whip. ;)
-
Hehe, I\'m sorry guys, but I hate ignorance from either sides. I don\'t know why people can\'t just accept eachother for what they are and be positive.
Besides there\'s propaganda and stupid people in both the US and Europe (and everywhere in the world for that matter). Some people are, and always will be, narrowminded sheep. There\'s not much we can do about that. But we can however choose to be above that - be critical of BS no-matter where from (nationally or internationally). Don\'t get swept away and remember: Intelligence and rational people do exist everywhere. Even if it doesn\'t seem that way sometimes.
-
Originally posted by Ace
I get swept up in patriotism and I don\'t like what I am seeing from our so-called friends.
yeah i know you don\'t like what you here from us Europeans but we like to call it common sence ;)
Originally posted by Ace
P.S. This is America and I will not STFU. Thank You!
errrr this is a international forum
you lost your right to free speach when you clicked on the Accpet terms and condtions box when your registered.
so please STFU ;)
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
He has a point though.
That\'s just plain delusional.
That\'s one of the kinder things said about me and my views.
Thanks!
Ace
-
Originally posted by ooseven
errrr this is a international forum
you lost your right to free speach when you clicked on the Accpet terms and condtions box when your registered.
so please STFU ;)
I know that. I was being funny, I thought. I guess I have to use more smiley faces.
Ace
-
Now come on ooseven, there is no need for that kind of attitude. I know you don\'t particularly like the US, but there is no need to belittle us Americans who do happen to love our country.
-
yeah you should
ohhhhh only in America
damn forgot the smiley face ;8)
-
Giga, I think it was an attempt at humor; if a bit misplaced IMO.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Well Ace you and I are in the minority on this forum. I guess I shall vote you Minority Leader and I can be the Minority Whip. ;)
Hey Giga,
I have to recruit you in my army. I go to some other boards (not gaming) and I have to deal with a lot of lefties. They seem to be generally good people, but as far as I am concerned they live on Pluto. I\'m sure they say the same about me. :)
Ace
-
Is it me or does anyone else thinks ooseven has had a wee bit too much to drink when he posts sometimes ;)
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Now come on ooseven, there is no need for that kind of attitude. I know you don\'t particularly like the US, but there is no need to belittle us Americans who do happen to love our country.
I am not a big fan of patriotism ,for me it just ONE step away from Extremism.
And no I am not a Liberal
-
Originally posted by Ace
Hey Giga,
I have to recruit you in my army. I go to some other boards (not gaming) and I have to deal with a lot of lefties. They seem to be generally good people, but as far as I am concerned they live on Pluto. I\'m sure they say the same about me. :)
Ace
PM me and let me know - most of my day at work consists of this sort of thing anyway. :snore:
-
I too am sick of hearing this BS from some US citizens who say "I guess they don\'t like us because they\'re jealous." How remarkably self centered and egocentric is that? People have all sorts of theories about why the world hates us, and I find the pundits and columnists theories are usually the furthest from reality. I think it\'s pretty simple.
The world is turning into an enormous corporate plutocracy. If things keep going as they are, eventually everyone on Earth will be spoon-fed the same monoculture where ever they are. From food to entertainment to postal service, language, and the rule of law, it\'s going to be the same everywhere because that\'s the way it\'s most profitable and convenient for the corporations. It may be hard to believe now, but consider what can happen in the next 200-300 years. It\'s actually inevitable.
Of course for this to happen, that means the old cultural elements have to be absorbed or destroyed. I think people in other parts of the world instinctively sense this happening when they see Britney Spears on tv, or Starbucks on the corner. They subconsciously rebel against it, and the United States is the target for their hatred. The strange thing is that we Americans are as much victims of it as the rest of you. In fact we\'re worse off because the process is much further along in the US than it is in Europe or elsewhere. Just look at any rapidly growing city in the US, like Phoenix AZ and you\'ll see that all the newly developed areas are nothing but prefabricated corporate consumption generation and product distribution machines. The only way to feel like you\'re in a unique place in the United States is by going to an older city, or staying away from cities altogether.
Well, our Foreign Policy sucks too, but I think it\'s our cultural imperialism that the world really hates. Sorry, guys. I wish I could fire that proton torpedo into the deathstar for everyone, but there ain\'t no exhaust port on this one. :(
-
if it wasnt for america, ooseven would be eating leber wurst and krout for dinner everynight, no?
:)
-
I believe the general consensus as to why a lot of people may look down on America is purely the egocentric attitude of the nation, shown in comments such as what Ace put earlier.
But that\'s much more general, Coredweller, you\'re probably more correct on a more extreme level.
-
Originally posted by mm
if it wasnt for america, ooseven would be eating leber wurst and krout for dinner everynight, no?
:)
It would probably be a step up from the hagas he eats now :D
-
Originally posted by mm
if it wasnt for america, ooseven would be eating leber wurst and krout for dinner everynight, no?
:)
Without America, there wouldn\'t be alot of things. Such as fast computers (hey M$ was good for somethi.......wait, they don\'t make computer ;) ), England, France and most, if not all of Europe will be speaking German right now. We saved Europes ass in WWI and WWII. Without it, Europe would have lost. That\'s what I find funny. All these countries hate us be we saved them from being destroyed or taken over. Our men died for them and that\'s the thanks we get?
-
Hey,
I\'m proud of my country. Do we have problems? Yes! Do we do everything right? No! Do we do a lot of good. Yes!
I don\'t sit here in the land of oz and think everything is peachy. But I also don\'t sit here bashing my head in because I have some ongoing hatred for my country. There is a lot of America bashing going on here and abroad and I am not happy about it.
If you want to list all the things a country has done wrong in the past then we will all be on that list.
Ace
-
Exactly Ace - a fair amount of the worlds problems can be attributed to British Colonialism alone in the Middle East and Africa.
-
I wonder if people would hate the US more if they suddenly stopped helping other nations out?
I think Isolationism might be a good thing right now. Leave the world alone, Uncle Sam, they\'ll be fine. AIDS in Africa? Why bother with them? We got AIDS here! Food for starving nations? No, less for them, more for us I say.
If the World really hates the US, then I think we need an American leader that could care less about them and just shut them out. Although....I think there is one nation we can not afford to NOT help out - Russia. I think they need to be built up again so they can use their less diplomatic ways of dealing with terrorism.
:)
-
Agreed Ace. I too love my country. I love it so much, I\'m willing to give my life in the next war to defend it. Hell, I\'m thinking about recruiting in the Air Force as my career. I\'m willing to sacrifice everything for this country. It hurts me to see someone hate it just because of our beliefs, customs and the way we do things. I hate the way people bash us for those things. We could bash England, France and Russia for their customs and the way they run their countries the same way they bash us. I don\'t attack other countries because of the way they do things because I respect their beliefs, their customs and their ways of handling problems.
-
Originally posted by mm
if it wasnt for america, ooseven would be eating leber wurst and krout for dinner everynight, no?
:)
oh God not this old chestnut again :rolleyes:
look we wouldn\'t of lost WW2 with out the US,but it would of taken longer for the war to reach its Eventual conclusion.
Ok with out the US the war could have lasted 3 to 5 years more
But it would have also saw the Russians capture Berlin and indeed Germany FIRST.
And with a reunified Germany under Communisim were would the cold war end ? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by mm
if it wasnt for america, ooseven would be eating leber wurst and krout for dinner everynight, no?
:)
No, he would be eating caviar and he would be drinking vodka instead of beer ;)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehistorychannel.co.uk%2Fclassroom%2Fgcse%2Fpics%2Fred_flag_berlin.jpg&hash=2cde5d67020e3db18869129a2feace342fcfb556)
-
No. If the Germans were able to put more soldiers on the Eastern Front and less on the Western Front (they shouldn\'t worry too much about a British invasion - especially from Monty), Russia would have gone for a truce.
-
Bob, did I say that American\'s don\'t bash other countries?
ooseven, Europe would have been aniallated. The Allied Forces just barely won. The German U-boats would have raped you, the German tanks were strong as hell (shells from Allied tanks litterally bounced off) and their artillary was way ahead of our time. The reason the Allies won was because of German mistakes.
-
Originally posted by Titan
Agreed Ace. I too love my country. I love it so much, I\'m willing to give my life in the next war to defend it. Hell, I\'m thinking about recruiting in the Air Force as my career. I\'m willing to sacrifice everything for this country. It hurts me to see someone hate it just because of our beliefs, customs and the way we do things. I hate the way people bash us for those things. We could bash England, France and Russia for their customs and the way they run their countries the same way they bash us. I don\'t attack other countries because of the way they do things because I respect their beliefs, their customs and their ways of handling problems.
Good for you Titan for serving this country.
Good luck in your career.
Ace
-
Thanks :) I actually can\'t wait. But if I was to have a family, I\'m not so sure what I\'d do. I\'d like to stay grounded somewhere but if I was in full time, I\'d be moving all the time.
-
Titan, I deleted my post ;)
But I was making reference to
We could bash England, France and Russia for their customs and the way they run their countries the same way they bash us
Just sounded... odd.. :)
-
Originally posted by ooseven
oh God not this old chestnut again :rolleyes:
look we wouldn\'t of lost WW2 with out the US,but it would of taken longer for the war to reach its Eventual conclusion.
Ok with out the US the war could have lasted 3 to 5 years more
But it would have also saw the Russians capture Berlin and indeed Germany FIRST.
And with a reunified Germany under Communisim were would the cold war end ? :rolleyes:
ooseven you weren\'t only getting manpower - Lend Lease my friend. Without it, Britain would not have won the Battle of Britain. You would have run out of planes, fuel, ammunition, etc. Also, without Lend Lease the Russians might have lost Stalingrad as well. Before we actually sent men over to fight we were supplying both with tanks, planes, ammunition, etc.
-
Originally posted by Titan
Bob, did I say that American\'s don\'t bash other countries?
ooseven, Europe would have been aniallated. The Allied Forces just barely won. The German U-boats would have raped you, the German tanks were strong as hell (shells from Allied tanks litterally bounced off) and their artillary was way ahead of our time. The reason the Allies won was because of German mistakes.
yeah and you would be speaking Japanese if it wasn\'t for a lack of resourse to the empire and 2 nuke\'s dropped on their main land.
& Also i\'ll think you will find that all plans for Nazi Germany to have their own D-Day on the UK were either Scrapped or deamed to be a "waste" of resources.
plans revealed after the war showed numerous plans for a land/para invation of main land Britian.
-
I wonder how many Americans posting in this thread have ever been outside North America?
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
Titan, I deleted my post ;)
But I was making reference to
Just sounded... odd.. :)
Uh, ok. Keep in mind, I never proofread my posts (actually, I don\'t proofread reports, essays, homework, ect). That\'s why they usually sound somewhat odd.
-
Originally posted by ooseven
yeah and you would be speaking Japanese if it wasn\'t for a lack of resourse to the empire and 2 nuke\'s dropped on their main land.
& Also i\'ll think you will find that all plans for Nazi Germany to have their own D-Day on the UK were either Scrapped or deamed to be a "waste" of resources.
plans revealed after the war showed numerous plans for a land/para invation of main land Britian.
Actually, we wouldn\'t be speaking Japanese. The only reason the US got into the war was because we were bombed and it was a wake up call that the Nazi\'s were going to get Europe and go after us. That\'s why. As for the two nukes dropped on japan, they weren\'t nukes. Nukes are newer weapons. We dropped ATOM bombs. Different than nukes. Nukes blow up and leave radiation for thousands of years (we use a different type of radioactive material in nuclear bombs taht wasn\'t isolated until post 1940s). Atom bombs are less severe (smaller blast radius) and the radiation brakes down in years. People are living on the blast site right now. However, the US is destroying nuclear missles and war heads. We signed a treaty with other nuclear bearing countries (which are our allies except for N.Korea) and it said that we will destroy X amount of nuclear war heads.
I personally am for the war against Iraq. I\'d like to volunteer if I wasn\'t too young. I love this country and would die for it. Saddam has broken our treaty beween Iraq and the UN. He\'s got something big planned and need to get him out before the shit hits the fan.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
I wonder how many Americans posting in this thread have ever been outside North America?
I know the question is probably meant for someone who might have lived out of the US for an extended period of time.
I have a couple of times. I can\'t say that I have lived anywhere for a long period of time but I have traveled a wee bit and I want to do more. My dream is to do Oktoberfest and drink myself into a coma. How\'s that for American overindulgence? :)
Ace
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
I wonder how many Americans posting in this thread have ever been outside North America?
I have - lived in Germany and Korea.
-
Can\'t We All Just Get Along???
Nope, it\'s not in human nature and the ones that think everyone in this world will ever get along, are just too ignorant to see anything. For the most part I\'m fine with the inspections this should be done, before or if any strike on Iraq is done. The thing is with these countries you never know who is going to come into power. People don\'t like other people butting into their business, that is why America gets alot of flack, cuz we go in there and tell them what they have to do, people don\'t like that, if someone tried doing that to us, we\'d say F*CK YOU, and blow your ass to pieces.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
I wonder how many Americans posting in this thread have ever been outside North America?
I don\'t see how this would relate to the topic we are talking about. The only reason I\'m not traveling right now is because I don\'t want to learn a second language (I\'d say something like "How about we go to my room and we can rape a herd of sheep" :) ). I\'m learning french and I hate it. I do have plans for going to see the 24 Heures du Mans one day.
-
Originally posted by Titan
I don\'t see how this would relate to the topic we are talking about. The only reason I\'m not traveling right now is because I don\'t want to learn a second language (I\'d say something like "How about we go to my room and we can rape a herd of sheep" :) ). I\'m learning french and I hate it. I do have plans for going to see the 24 Heures du Mans one day.
When you learn French and visit their fair country can you flip them the bird for the rest of us? :)
Ace
-
I was born in Germany and went back when I was five until I was 8, so I\'ve lived outside of the U.S. for a total of 6 years long enough for you???
-
I\'d curse them off in English :D . French used to be a good subject for me in school until I got this French teacher that is like a friggin communist.
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
I was born in Germany and went back when I was five until I was 8, so I\'ve lived outside of the U.S. for a total of 6 years long enough for you???
I\'m half German. MY family came here in like 1910 or something. I enjoy learning about my German heritage. Actually, I enjoy learning history period. Its my favorite subject this year, if I stop slacking off :)
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
I was born in Germany and went back when I was five until I was 8, so I\'ve lived outside of the U.S. for a total of 6 years long enough for you???
Yes. And your opinions reflected in your previous post suggest a different point of view from the other American posters here. I think living outside of the US is a worthwhile experience that WILL change your views on our role in the world. The US is too insular, and too many hyper patriotic nationalistic opinions are passed around like a feedback loop. Also, I think living as a child on a US military base a foreign country does not qualify. I\'ve been to one of those bases in Germany, and it was just like a miniature USA.
By the way, Titan. I think you should consider living in a foreign country and getting to know what non-americans are like in peacetime before you volunteer to go and kill them for the US government. I\'m not saying that isn\'t sometimes needed, I\'m just saying that a lot of young men did the same thing in the late 60\'s and rushed off to Vietnam without asking any questions. Many later changed their gung-ho outlook. I was a little disturbed by your statements like "I too love my country. I love it so much, I\'m willing to give my life in the next war to defend it. " without mentioning any other conditions that need to be met. (Like it being a just war, with meaningful goal)
-
Originally posted by Titan
Actually, we wouldn\'t be speaking Japanese. The only reason the US got into the war was because we were bombed and it was a wake up call that the Nazi\'s were going to get Europe and go after us. That\'s why. As for the two nukes dropped on japan, they weren\'t nukes.
thats complete and total BullSh!t
Japan was already on its knees before the USAF (THE home of many "great"` Cockups) dropped Nuke\'s on to Citys filled with Civilians
i\'ll do this huge so that you can understand it
Civilians are NOT Combatants
and as a result the United States is the only Country in the World history (to date :rolleyes:)to use Nuclear weapons in a act of aggretion.
FFS it makes me laugh when i here US Advisors say “it would be a nightmare if Saddam developed nukes.. he might use them to wipe out a city or 2”
Ah people in Glass houses :rolleyes:
anyway BACK on Topic
-----------------------------
and on the subject of Weapons of mass Destruction
the US has use more Questionable weapons through conflicts than most rouge states put together
A list the Taliban would be proud to say they used, Unfortunately this hall o shame is all Uncle Sam’s Doing
- 2 H bombs on Civilian targets
- The use of the skin eating Agent orange
- Napam (to many uses to count .. )
- Depleted Uranium shells (kill your enemy and then Pollute his homeland with radiation for the next 1.5 million years)
- The Development and depoloyment of the "Dasiy Cutter" (take out units...villages...F%^&A weapon that suffocates and then vaporises anyone caught in its considerable blast range including civilians)
- Not a weapon but a common USAF practice Friendly Fire and the follow up denial and never apologising to the victums family
and maybe that will answer your original question of "why do people hate us"
-
I\'ve been brainwashed :) . Actually, I\'m not just going into the military to kill people (which isn\'t the role of the military). I\'m giving back to my country which has given so much to me. People are taking that for granted. I will be doing what I\'ve wanted to since I was little. I\'ve always wanted to fly and this will give me a free education about aviation and will do what I\'d love. Plus, everything the military gives you is pure profit. The majority of bills are payed for by the government so everything is profit which is quite a bit (depending on rank). So far, the military of the US isn\'t just about killing people, they are really trying to defend their country. War is a last resort. We aren\'t really at war with Iraq yet. They fire on us so we fire at them in retalliation. We don\'t bomb civilians, we only bomb military targets.
-
Originally posted by ooseven
- 2 H bombs on Civilian targets
[/b]
Firebombs are almost worse. Between 500 000 - 700 000 civilians were killed in the firebomb bombings.
In one raid the firebombs killed cirka 100 000 civilians in Tokyo (even the people seeking cover in the river were killed because the water started boiling)
But also Germany and Brittan used firebombs on each other, but the Americans did low altitude bombings so they would not miss the buildings.
-
. . . and our military has been used for peace keeping as well. Sometimes to the point of stretching our ability to fight.
By the way, when you fight a war the idea is to win.
Does that shock some of of you?
Ace
-
Originally posted by ooseven
thats complete and total BullSh!t
Japan was already on its knees before the USAF (THE home of many "great"` Cockups) dropped Nuke\'s on to Citys filled with Civilians
i\'ll do this huge so that you can understand it
Civilians are NOT Combatants
and as a result the United States is the only Country in the World history (to date :rolleyes:)to use Nuclear weapons in a act of aggretion.
FFS it makes me laugh when i here US Advisors say “it would be a nightmare if Saddam developed nukes.. he might use them to wipe out a city or 2”
Ah people in Glass houses :rolleyes:
anyway BACK on Topic
-----------------------------
and on the subject of Weapons of mass Destruction
the US has use more Questionable weapons through conflicts than most rouge states put together
A list the Taliban would be proud to say they used, Unfortunately this hall o shame is all Uncle Sam’s Doing
- 2 H bombs on Civilian targets
- The use of the skin eating Agent orange
- Napam (to many uses to count .. )
- Depleted Uranium shells (kill your enemy and then Pollute his homeland with radiation for the next 1.5 million years)
- The Development and depoloyment of the "Dasiy Cutter" (take out units...villages...F%^&A weapon that suffocates and then vaporises anyone caught in its considerable blast range including civilians)
- Not a weapon but a common USAF practice Friendly Fire and the follow up denial and never apologising to the victums family
and maybe that will answer your original question of "why do people hate us" [/B]
If we didn\'t drop those ATOM BOMBS (NOT H bombs and NOT nuclear. Why can\'t you understand this?) on the targets, the war\'s outcome would be different. I haven\'t studied what the targets and reasons were for dropping the two ATOM BOMBS so don\'t bash me onit.
We don\'t use chemical weapons anymore. Actually there is a treaty that says that we can\'t. It was signed by the leaders of all the nations that had chem. weapons during WWI. Yes we have them but we won\'t use them. Why do we have thousands of nuclear warheads? Are we going to use them all? No.
Napalm is a kind of weapon that kills massive amounts of enemy troops. The reason we use this is because its just like firing an artillary shell from a Howitzer. Same reason.
No comment on why we use uranium shells. Like before, its just like firing an artillary shell. We don\'t even use them much anymore.
Never heard of the Daisy Cutter but will comment on the killing civilians. In war, civilians will get killed. There is no way to avoid it. It happens.
I\'m not saying our government is perfect. You are making us Americans sound like we are saying that it\'s perfect. Even Bush will admit that we have our share of problems. We make mistakes, just like England, France, Germany and Russia. ooseven, have you ever been to America? Do you know anything about America besides our mistakes we have made in modern artillary and warfare? I\'m getting from what I\'m reading that you know jack shit about what our country is really like.
-
Originally posted by Titan
We don\'t bomb civilians, we only bomb military targets.
Since when has Uncle sam and adopted that policy ?
I mean the widely known sick joke at the time of the Gulf war about the USAF goes something like
Q ”how do you get the USAF to hit a target ?”
A “paint a red cross on the roof or "stupidly" look like a Allied unit”
Q ”how do you get the USAF to NOT hit a target ?”
A “have a 50 foot sing pointing to the target with the words (THIS IS A ENEMY TARGET) in 20 foot letters”
i say this because it was the jokes that started around the gulf war when 2 A10 Tank killers attacked 2 Royal mariens APC which they "mistaken for Iraqi main Battle tanks even though
- The British APC\'s were clearly marked as Allies
- There position and route was provided by British Staff to USAF intel
- The "browdcasted a Friendly" signal
- They were 50 miles from action and advanceing at flank speed towards Iraqi positions
- The look nothing like a Iraqi main battle Tank
- The F%^&ing A10\'s were only 200 feet above ground
- the A10\'s were Equippedwith the lates Electronic equipment that made the job of "target" ID all the easyer
- the A10\'s and British APC were no were near any action..
- The A10\'s were not fired appon during the incident
- The Weather conditons were perfect at thje time and it was daylight (no Fog ..or poor light ect)
- the APC didn\'t not stray from common battle practice ..in other
words they were not behaving Erratically.
- The A10\'s even performed CLOSE a fly past before they open fired.
And as for civilian targets how about that USAF bombing raid on the wedding in Afghanistan ?
With over 100 dead
-
It was a mistarget. That or I believe that there was some kind of military officer there and we got rid of him. Why cant\' you realize that pilots aren\'t always accurate when they bomb. They do miss. In war, CIVILIANS DO DIE. Like Ace said, when you are in war, you don\'t really care about the repercussions of the weapon you use until the war is over. You just want to try and win. "Fight now, ask questions later."
-
As one of my favorite radio hosts (name withheld so the attacks are at a minimum) often says: The idea of war is to kill more people (hopefully military) and break more things of the opposition.
Ace
-
^^^^ True dat. I have to agree with what Ace said. War isn\'t just for military targets but civilians do and will get caught up. Just like in WWII. The Jewish citizens were exterminated by the Nazis.
-
Originally posted by Titan
It was a mistarget. That or I believe that there was some kind of military officer there and we got rid of him. Why cant\' you realize that pilots aren\'t always accurate when they bomb. They do miss. In war, CIVILIANS DO DIE. Like Ace said, when you are in war, you don\'t really care about the repercussions of the weapon you use until the war is over. You just want to try and win. "Fight now, ask questions later."
oh F\'ingbig Whaoooo
After the incident both A10 pilots were never disciplined
Nor was there any apology to the families of the Dead BRITISH Royal Marines
Nor was there any compensation paid to the families
Nor is there any chance there will ever be an apology or compensation
Also its shocking to note that After the war the USAF performed a test with a A10 and a British APC and a captured Iraqi Main battle tank
The conditions were made to simulate that of the day
And not only that the British APC was Painted BRIGHT RED
And still the A10 Pilot was not told which was which before the test
The A10 took off and The pilot then targeted and destroyed Painted BRIGHT RED British APC despite getting a clear ID on BOTH
it show despite a lot of technology and clames of power a simple thing as ID has tripped up the USAF for the past 12 years
anyway i am going to let off some steam
i just want to STRESS I am NOT ANti- American
i just get mad at the constant BS that we (one of your oldest Allies) have to put up with.
-
War is exactly that war, like they\'ve said earlier oo7 civilians will get caught up, you act like we f*cking hit these targets on purpose, how ignorant is that??? Makes me wonder what they teach in your Universities, or what ever the hell ya call them over there for History, you easily listen to too much propaganda, and bullshit your media seems to like to feed you!!! Why don\'t you read both sides of the story before you come to a conclusion, you will learn so much more by doing this. Don\'t be blind to one side and not the other!!!
-
Originally posted by Titan
If we didn\'t drop those ATOM BOMBS (NOT H bombs and NOT nuclear. Why can\'t you understand this?) on the targets, the war\'s outcome would be different. I haven\'t studied what the targets and reasons were for dropping the two ATOM BOMBS so don\'t bash me onit.
You might want to drop this bizarre distinction between the different types of weapons. They are all fission devices, and they can all be classified as "nuclear," whatever the technology behind them. The fact is that the Uranium-based atomic bomb was the best thing we had in 1945, and if we\'d had something worse, we would have used that instead.
Targeting Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done for several reasons, but not to end the war quicker or to ensure it\'s outcome. We were seeking to test the weapons on human beings, and to demonstrate to the Russians our capability, and our willingness to use them. The weapons could have been used in a much less densely populated area of Japan, or on an island. The effect of giving Japan an honorable way of surrendering would have been achieved either way.
-
The A10 took off and The pilot then targeted and destroyed Painted BRIGHT RED British APC despite getting a clear ID on BOTH
THATS BECAUSE IT WAS BRIGHT RED! Thats like hitting the broad side of a barn two feet away! In ACUTAL combat conditions, they are CAMOFLAGED! You don\'t know what happened in the cockpit of the bombers either. They could have dropped the bombs too early, too late or had a malfuntion or something. Geez. Your posts are so ignorant. You weren\'t in the cockpit so don\'t make assumtion that they did it on purpose.
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
War is exactly that war, like they\'ve said earlier oo7 civilians will get caught up, you act like we f*cking hit these targets on purpose, how ignorant is that??? Makes me wonder what they teach in your Universities, or what ever the hell ya call them over there for History, you easily listen to too much propaganda, and bullshit your media seems to like to feed you!!! Why don\'t you read both sides of the story before you come to a conclusion, you will learn so much more by doing this. Don\'t be blind to one side and not the other!!!
you do realise that the
USAF bombing raid on the wedding in Afghanistan
With over 100 dead
happend Months afterthe fall of the last Taliban stronghold
and not only that was in a Area that was heavily dominated & controlled by the northern allience
the Press debriefing said that the pilot attacked because he though he was under fire from small arms being shot of to celebrate the wedding.
Despite the fact that his F16 (I think it was) was flying well above 15,000 feet on a recon mission .
And how on Earth you can mistake small group of people celebrating wedding with handguns and light arms as a AAA instillation is Way beyond me
again no apology or compensation were payed to the families of the dead.
I don’t know but to me (being someone who lives outside the US), this and other incidents like this STICK and I’ll think you will find that most non-US national would agree that the Almighty US armed forces are losing a PR and Propaganda war Big time.
Remember it only take on mistake (weather if it is Friendly fire or the Death of innocents and it stick like mud)
-
An F-16 is a fighter craft, not fitted with bombs. Its fitted with missles. And if he\'s on a recon mission, I doubt they\'d give him missles.
happend Months afterthe fall of the last Taliban stronghold[/quote[
We were fighting with Al Quada. We are STILL fighting with Al Quada.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
You might want to drop this bizarre distinction between the different types of weapons. They are all fission devices, and they can all be classified as "nuclear," whatever the technology behind them. The fact is that the Uranium-based atomic bomb was the best thing we had in 1945, and if we\'d had something worse, we would have used that instead.
Targeting Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done for several reasons, but not to end the war quicker or to ensure it\'s outcome. We were seeking to test the weapons on human beings, and to demonstrate to the Russians our capability, and our willingness to use them. The weapons could have been used in a much less densely populated area of Japan, or on an island. The effect of giving Japan an honorable way of surrendering would have been achieved either way.
Core who taught you this??? Truman was very distressed about making the decision, but when he was told what the projected allied casualities would be he went ahead and authorized their use.
-
Originally posted by Titan
THATS BECAUSE IT WAS BRIGHT RED! Thats like hitting the broad side of a barn two feet away! In ACUTAL combat conditions, they are CAMOFLAGED! You don\'t know what happened in the cockpit of the bombers either. They could have dropped the bombs too early, too late or had a malfuntion or something. Geez. Your posts are so ignorant. You weren\'t in the cockpit so don\'t make assumtion that they did it on purpose.
What despite the fact that the silhouettes ,size and shape profiles are nothing like each other ?
and despite that fact that the British APC has a fully funtional Friend or Foe Broadcasting device ?
and despite that fact the A10 pilot was not in a combat situation?
oh and despite the fact that the British APC during the test DID have Massive sings saying this is not a target that were clearly visible *
*yes it did..it the pilot even commented on how strange it was at the time.
-
Europeans and their clean wars... :rolleyes: Ok I can understand Europeans apathy towards war, after all 2 in the last 100 years is enough, but lets be honest here. There is no such thing as a war without civilian loss of life. We don\'t line up 20 yards from each other in an open field and shoot till the other side runs away or is killed anymore.
Friendly fire is a reality that has to be looked up as a mistake. ooseven don\'t whine about 2 guys in an APC getting killed my accident... they were soldiers and no compensation is going to be paid - whats next compensate everyone who thinks they were hit mistakenly?
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Core who taught you this??? Truman was very distressed about making the decision, but when he was told what the projected allied casualities would be he went ahead and authorized their use.
Giga is right
Truman was briefed that if a land invasion of Japan was attempted the losses would be incredible (basically the Japanese army wouldn’t hold anything back if they did*)
The old back your enemy in a corner and he will do just about anything to take you with him.
But in saying that a Blockade wouldn’t off been out of the question
Even the pride of the Japanese fleet the Yamato meet it end due to the fact that supplyes were running out EPS FUEL
Six months after MUSASHI was sunk, her identical twin, the battleship YAMATO, was sent to attack the U.S. Fleet with only enough fuel for a one-way trip.
The largest ship in the world, sent on a desperate suicide mission, was caught and destroyed by Navy fliers before she ever reached the U.S. Fleet.
-
CHRIST
i have just been reading more about the Yamato
64,000 and Suicide mission to Okinawi
could this be the largest number on a Suicide mission :eek:
i\'ll try and find the total of the amound of Torpedoes and bombs that were used to finally sink it :eek:
from whay i remember it was a LOT
-
*pisses on the rest of the world*
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Core who taught you this??? Truman was very distressed about making the decision, but when he was told what the projected allied casualities would be he went ahead and authorized their use.
That is the "official" version of what happened, as repeated over and over to make ourselves feel ok about it. Just like so much of our clean and tidy grade school history, it makes no sense. The Japanese AND US governments both knew that the end of the war was inevitable. We just needed a face-saving method of allowing the Japanese to surrender. Any demonstration of the atomic bomb on Japanese territory would have been sufficient; it didn\'t need to be done to two heavily populated civilian targets.
-
Please post a source Core - not your opinion. The fact is Japan was ready to sacrifice everyone to prevent the Allies from landing.
-
Originally posted by Coredweller
That is the "official" version of what happened, as repeated over and over to make ourselves feel ok about it. Just like so much of our clean and tidy grade school history, it makes no sense. The Japanese AND US governments both knew that the end of the war was inevitable. We just needed a face-saving method of allowing the Japanese to surrender. Any demonstration of the atomic bomb on Japanese territory would have been sufficient; it didn\'t need to be done to two heavily populated civilian targets.
there could of been many different why those 2 targets were chosen, perhaps the though of a long and EXTREMLY bloody land war on main land Japan prompted the Action.
Also reports from Escapees from Japanese POW camps + Kamikazi pilots and torpedo riders along with the Atrocities committed by the Japanese armed forces would of made the option of a land war less palatable
-
you know whats funny japan is the only contry we\'ve ever dropped a nuke on and they love us to death they cant get enough of american culture maybe theyre still worried we\'ll drop another one if they get out of line
maybe we should have dropped more nukes then everyone would love us
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Please post a source Core - not your opinion. The fact is Japan was ready to sacrifice everyone to prevent the Allies from landing.
from what the 3 of us have been saying its clear to see why the Decision reached its ultimate conclusion
- It was known that Japan was “with its back to the wall” the war with them could be over (Support to both land landings and the Atomic boom)
- It is also known about the mentality of the way for fighting (kamikaze pilots and lack of human compassion to POW’s) (opinion shifting to the Atomic boom)
- It is also know with the ideologies of the Japanese Empire (the Emperor = God in the eyes of the japans at the time) it is realised that any action would have to be decisive and a show of technological superiority in other words TO strike the Fear of GOD into them.
Hence the possible selection of 2 heavily populated Cities
-
Originally posted by Jar O Pickles
you know whats funny japan is the only contry we\'ve ever dropped a nuke on and they love us to death they cant get enough of american culture maybe theyre still worried we\'ll drop another one if they get out of line
maybe we should have dropped more nukes then everyone would love us
It wasn\'t always like that... it took years for the rift to heal (publicly and privately)
note on a side :In fact most Allied Veterans that were Entered in Japanese POW camps still find it hard to this day to "trust or even forgive Japan for what they done)
mid you if you lived through that hell would you "forgive and forget ? "
-
Here you go core -
They also say that Truman should have chosen one of the several available ways to compel a Japanese surrender without an atomic bombing of two cities. The most obvious alternative is an American invasion of Japan. Olympic was the code-name given to the planned American invasion of Kyushu, one of the four Japanese home islands, if an atomic bomb were not available by late October. Two separate estimates exist to rate the number of American casualties that would result from such an invasion. A joint war plans committee comprised of the army and navy came to the conclusion that 46,000 Americans would die in an invasion of Kyushu and later Honshu. The number of American wounded averaged three to one during the later years of the war, so according to this estimate, 175,000 American casualties were not out of the question. However, these figures were based on such tentative intelligence that George Marshall, the army’s chief of staff, bluntly rejected them.
A second estimate proposed by Admiral Leahy was much higher. The invasion of Iwo Jima caused 6,200 American deaths, and the U. S. outnumbered the Japanese by four to one. Okinawa cost 13,000 U. S. servicemen, and they outnumbered the Japanese by two and one-half to one. These 13,000 men made up more than 35% of the U. S. landing force. Consequently, Admiral Leahy came to the conclusion that it was absurd to think that any less than 35% of the American force that invaded Japan would be killed. Based on the estimate of 560,000 Japanese soldiers on Kyushu as of early August, Leahy predicted that at very minimum over 250,000 American soldiers would lie dead as a result of an invasion of the Japanese islands.
It was later found that the troop strength on Kyushu was greatly under-estimated, and that by August 6 the Japanese had over 900,000 men stationed on Kyushu, nearly twice as many as thought. Leahy’s estimates that the Americans would have a preponderance, when in fact the 767,000 American soldiers who would comprise the landing force were already greatly outnumbered three months before Operation Olympic was actually to begin. By November, Japanese troop strength could easily double or triple, making between 500,000 and 1,000,000 American deaths conceivable.
These numbers do not even begin to account for the Japanese dead. In Okinawa, twice as many Japanese were killed as Americans. It is therefore plausible that between 100,000 (according to the earliest estimate) and two million soldiers would die in an invasion. This number does not include Japanese civilians dead, which could conceivably have been even higher than the number of dead soldiers.
The Japanese army was already training its civilians to fight with sharpened bamboo poles. According to samurai tradition, there was no more honorable way to die than to do so for Japan and the emperor, and the civilians were quite prepared to take this philosophy to heart. Using sharpened pikes the Japanese could easily prevent a military government from being effective in those towns which the U. S. captured. Futher, and even more brutal, was the training of young children to be “Sherman carpets.” Japanese children were to be strapped with TNT and throw themselves under American tanks, thereby dying in the most honorable way possible--by killing the enemy. It can be assumed that at least as many civilians would have died as soldiers, bringing the totals somewhere around 200,000 to four million Japanese dead, along with the 50,000 to one million American dead, totaling 250,000 to five million total dead.
This can found at http://oror.essortment.com/presidenttruman_rywp.htm
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
This can found at http://oror.essortment.com/presidenttruman_rywp.htm
thanks for the info Giga
hey can you see if you can find out info on the Yamato ?
i am trying to get figures on how much damage it took to sink her.
-
Yeah I will look - jeez take a look at this though...
-
Here it is...
She was met by aircraft of Task Force 58 shortly after noon on April 7th. Attacked in waves, Yamato could do little but absorb the punishment inflicted by at least five 1,000 lb bombs and ten torpedoes. By approximately 1420 hours it was all over; Yamato had capsized to port and exploded. Five of her escorts had been sunk as well. A total of 2,498 men had been lost aboard Yamato, 446 from Yahagi, and a further 721 from the destroyers. The Japanese Navy was effectively kaput. There would be only one more grisly act to play out.
I don\'t think there is an accurate account of exactly what hit and what missed. We only lost 12 planes though. As a followup to the picture above - that thing must have been loaded down with a ton of ammo for it go up like that - the ship on the left is a destroyer and shows the scale of the explosion.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Please post a source Core - not your opinion. The fact is Japan was ready to sacrifice everyone to prevent the Allies from landing.
And isn\'t that YOUR opinion? My theory is more logical. Why DIDN\'T the japanese wage an all-out guerrilla war against US occupation, even after the war ended? It was because their emperor surrendered to US forces, and ordered his nation to cooperate. Primary documents obtained after the war have indicated that the Japanese government was extending feelers to the US indicating they were willing to consider surrender, even before the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks. All they needed was a sufficient display of power to allow the surrender to occur in a face-saving manner.
The only thing left for debate is whether a demonstration of the atomic bomb on an unpopulated island would have been sufficient, or if the deaths of thousands of civilians were required. You know my opinion, and you\'re never going to find a definitive answer because it\'s a "what-if" question. You\'re entitled to your opinion, just as I am.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I don\'t think there is an accurate account of exactly what hit and what missed. We only lost 12 planes though. As a followup to the picture above - that thing must have been loaded down with a ton of ammo for it go up like that - the ship on the left is a destroyer and shows the scale of the explosion.
yeah thanks G :D
i remember hearing storys about what it took to sink the Yamato and the fact that if it was fully loaded and with the ability to refuel.. it could of been a major Thorn in the side of the US Fleets
a bit like a Japanese Version of the Axis Bismark
Big...Heavyly armoured and with enough fire power to sink a small island :eek:
-
Its not an opinion core - see my post above. The Japanese would not surrender unless the Emperor remained in power - not a figurehead. The US wouldn\'t agree. I am not posting my opinion, all of this is well documented. I am sorry if I don\'t subscribe to the Revisionist attitudes that seem to run rampant these days.
-
Originally posted by ooseven
yeah thanks G :D
i remember hearing storys about what it took to sink the Yamato and the fact that if it was fully loaded and with the ability to refuel.. it could of been a major Thorn in the side of the US Fleets
a bit like a Japanese Version of the Axis Bismark
Big...Heavyly armoured and with enough fire power to sink a small island :eek:
yeah ooseven that was one scary ship, but sadly the era of the super dreadnaught is over. :( I saw the USS New Jersey this summer in Philadelphia and it was pretty impressive, even if it is outfitted with cruise missles and the latest technology. Still the size of the main guns and the sheer tonnage is overwhelming.
-
Well, I missed a lot in this topic so far. I\'ll just start with where it seems to have gone though (at least where it was semi-recently).
There is no question that an invasion of Japan was something we should have tried to avoid at any cost. It would have been far too difficult, far too risky, and far too deadly to pull off. I just don\'t think that the bombing of specifically Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do at all. Perhaps selecting an island, or an open area of land, and dropping it there to demonstrate its power to the Japanese would have been better. We should have showed that to them, then given them a chance to surrender. If they had clearly been unwilling to do so, then move on to actual targets.
However, even if we were chosing targets for these bombs, why Hiroshima? Nagasaki is even a bit understandable...it was an industrial city. But why Hiroshima? No military, no major industry. It was a civilian city. I just can\'t understand why we pick that location. Why not find a place where the military is concentrating, and bomb that? Or find a place where something is being produced for the war, and target that? Why civilians? That\'s what I can\'t forgive.
As for how the rest of the world sees us, I think we are the most hated nation in the world. Do we deserve that? Partially, but not totally. We have done many wrong things, some of which have been pointed out by ooseven and others, so I won\'t go into detail on them. However, some of it is simply a case of having a bad image. The Cold War certainly didn\'t help, with the Russians trying to push anti-american mentalities on whoever would accept them. People claiming we are the enemy of a religion aren\'t helping either. Also, when we have leaders, whether it is Bush, or Clinton before him, that are mocked, and made to look stupider in Bush\'s case, and less honest in Clinton\'s, than they probably were, that doesn\'t help either. Sure, we do more than our share of bad things to support these problems, whether it is overthrowing a democratically elected leader in order to put a dictator in control whose policies we agree with more, or dropping an atomic bomb on a city or two, as we are talking about. Basically, I think we are worse than we see ourselves as being, but better than a lot of the rest of the world thinks. Somewhere in between...a nice happy medium.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Its not an opinion core - see my post above. The Japanese would not surrender unless the Emperor remained in power - not a figurehead. The US wouldn\'t agree. I am not posting my opinion, all of this is well documented. I am sorry if I don\'t subscribe to the Revisionist attitudes that seem to run rampant these days.
Your statement about the status of the Emperor is irrelevant. In the end this argument cannot be solved because it is a matter of opinion about a "what if" scenario. No matter what the motivations of the Japanese leadership, or the US government, I think we can both agree that the weapons were used as a display of power to bring about the end of the war. They served no tactical purpose. So you\'re only left with the question: would it have been a sufficient display of power to demonstrate them on a lightly populated island or were the deaths of thousands of civilians required?
Your argument would be better served by stating that Truman was worried about our limited supply of fissionable Uranium, and decided to err on the side of caution by demonstrating the weapons in the most horrifying way possible. That makes sense, but it doesn\'t free him, or us from all blame for it. I submit that the Japanese were waiting for a good excuse to surrender, and demonstrating the weapons on an unpopulated area would have also provided that excuse.
-
Your blame statement implies guilt and that is opinion. I don\'t share it. The Japanese started the war against us and we finished it. Many Americans, especially veterans have no regrets.
-
Originally posted by Jar O Pickles
you know whats funny japan is the only contry we\'ve ever dropped a nuke on and they love us to death they cant get enough of american culture maybe theyre still worried we\'ll drop another one if they get out of line
maybe we should have dropped more nukes then everyone would love us
Nah. So many countries have nukes now, they\'d nuke us :) Hey, then we\'d love THEM to death.
-
To death. You got that right, heh.
After all this, what do we learn? War sucks.
When it\'s the business of killing people, it\'s hard not to upset somebody, don\'t you think?
And it seems as long as we\'re willing to let what happened in the past fuel how we\'re going to feel in the present, oh I don\'t know, history is doomed to repeat itself?
-Eik
-
American customs can spread all over the world.... no one is forcing any country to accept them.
As for invading Iraq with the aid or other countries....
Time and time again Saddam has proven to be very dangerous to the world. This isnt a US-Iraq issue, and the US isnt in it for the oil. This is a Saddam-world issue.
When the french were invaded by the nazies, lead by hitler, other countries didnt sit back and say, well it is a french-germany problem. true, this war and WW2 are competely different, but my point is that if the world wants to be a better place; we must work together to that goal and not let one country try to do it all. yea US is considered a superpower, but in another 15 years, who knows.
and another point i am angered with is this anti-americanism
so you dont like what our military is doing or what bush is pulling out of his ass this time. thats fine... protest that. i hate seeing US flags being burnt on cnn, that is taking a shot at all of america. i am pretty sure all of america isnt the problem.
EDIT
ill list my respected and unrespected countries and then hopefully get some harsh feedback for my views...and why am i doing this? cuz i am american....:rolleyes:
respected:
1. Japan
2. China
3. South Korea
4. Russia
5. Austraila
6. India
unrespected
1. France
2. Italy
3. North Korea
4. Pakistan
5. A few middle eastern countries
-
Originally posted by square_marker
Time and time again Saddam has proven to be very dangerous to the world. This isnt a US-Iraq issue, and the US isnt in it for the oil. This is a Saddam-world issue.
Show me one other nation that would go to war with Iraq if we didn\'t.
-
no idea why this is my answer....but no other country would until further damage is done
-
Well, I agree with that answer. As of right now, we are the only ones who really want this war, so it\'s our war, not the world\'s war yet.
And what\'s wrong with Italy :mad: ;)
-
/me rattles his sabre....
"rattle rattle.." ;)
Actually I think whoever said we should commit to a bit o\' isolationism was on the right track. Let\'s spend the billions upon billions of dollars we give to other countries on fixing shit around here. And Sammy, no offense meant towards Europe as a whole. Just France. F*cking smelly c*nts.... :D
-
Also, we are probably the only ones to do it without a lot of casualties, due to the military training. I saw on FOX News that Saddam is supplying everyone in the country with a gun. When the US gets there, they will lay down their weapons and not even fight.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
And what\'s wrong with Italy :mad: ;)
it kinda sucks for me to say it, im 100% italian, but i do not respect what they said about the US going to war with Iraq during Cliton\'s reign. But i sure do love the country, so beauftiful....i highly recommed going sometime.
i may be 100% italian but i am also a 3rd generation american
-
Originally posted by Titan
Also, we are probably the only ones to do it without a lot of casualties, due to the military training. I saw on FOX News that Saddam is supplying everyone in the country with a gun. When the US gets there, they will lay down their weapons and not even fight.
Saddam providing everyone in the country with a gun? If he\'s as bad as we make him out to be, then I\'d think the people would just revolt if armed. Sure would make things easier for us.
Originally posted by square_marker
it kinda sucks for me to say it, im 100% italian, but i do not respect what they said about the US going to war with Iraq during Cliton\'s reign. But i sure do love the country, so beauftiful....i highly recommed going sometime.
i may be 100% italian but i am also a 3rd generation american
Italians rule.
/me hands square a lemon smoothie.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
I\'d think the people would just revolt if armed. Sure would make things easier for us.
Italians rule.
/me hands square a lemon smoothie.
mmmm smmothie....
yea it sure would be great if they revolted, although i believe the majority of that country supports Saddam. i could be wrong... and probably am.....but at least i wont be excuted for my opinion :D
-
Originally posted by square_marker
it kinda sucks for me to say it, im 100% italian, but i do not respect what they said about the US going to war with Iraq during Cliton\'s reign. But i sure do love the country, so beauftiful....i highly recommed going sometime.
i may be 100% italian but i am also a 3rd generation american
Off Topic,
I went to Italy a couple or so years ago to do some work and I thought it was great. The food and the adult beverages and the women are all top notch.
Being 100 percent Italian myself I felt right at home. I plan on going back in the spring to see all the things I missed the first time around.
Ace
-
Woo, go Italians.
/me high fives Ace.
-
I\'m chiming in a bit late, but I still want to throw my hat into this one regardless.
Without America, there wouldn\'t be alot of things. Such as fast computers (hey M$ was good for somethi.......wait, they don\'t make computer ), England, France and most, if not all of Europe will be speaking German right now. We saved Europes ass in WWI and WWII. Without it, Europe would have lost. That\'s what I find funny. All these countries hate us be we saved them from being destroyed or taken over. Our men died for them and that\'s the thanks we get?
Wrong. You think we joined WWII just to save Europe? Let me put it this way, in a few years once all of Europe was theres, who do you think was next? You think Africa posed a massive threat to their massive military build up? Germany tried fighting a war on two fronts and without our intervention, it was definitely possible that Europe would have falled and Germany could have steam rolled right over Russia, joined their allies in occupying China, and then built a massive naval force to come and take the US out. It\'s all highly possible and to assume that we did it for anyones benefit other than our own is insane.
Our men died when our best interests were realized many years after the war had started.
Actually, we wouldn\'t be speaking Japanese. The only reason the US got into the war was because we were bombed and it was a wake up call that the Nazi\'s were going to get Europe and go after us.
Don\'t forget that we brought this entire thing upon ourselves. We cut off Japan\'s oil supply crippling their entire country and then had a good laugh about it from hundreds of miles away believing that we were untouchable with our naval fleet at anchor. When the life blood of a country is gone, there\'s no choice but force when there\'s a possibility that a GREAT victory could turn the possibility of victory in your favor.
Civilians are NOT Combatants
That\'s a given, but in war, especially with so many new weapons that are bent on the idea of mass killing, it\'s unavoidable. You have to admit, for every ally we accidentally nail, we hit a thousand times more of the enemy and today there are still accidents, but there are far fewer thanks to the advances of technology. Just think about how we used to wipe out entire platoons of troops because of a misguided mortar or napalm bomb and how much less it happens now. The advent of the media makes the small accidents that much more massive in comparison to the propaganda released in the thirties and forties speaking of the war.
As for the two bombs on Japan, why couldn\'t the reasoning be for both possibilities? We save troops and demontrate our strength to Russia in one fell swoop. As to why a populated area, it\'s to show JUST how destructive it could be. Seeing a ball of fire wipe out a tiny town is hardly as impressive as seeing that same ball of fire wipe out a massive city and kill thousands of people. It\'s just simple cause and effect analysis, nothing more.
I love my country and I love the freedoms that we stand for and although I do believe our foreign policy is utter garbage, I still don\'t feel its my place to totaly bad mouth it when I don\'t personally do anything about it. I don\'t vote and I don\'t participate in legal matters and I honestly don\'t care about them, but I do respect them when they deserve it.
-
Even if it was necessary to bomb a populated city, why not an industrial one? Hiroshima was a civilian city with no major contributions to the war effort at all. I just think that a military or industrial city should have been targetted instead.
-
Originally posted by Ryu
Don\'t forget that we brought this entire thing upon ourselves. We cut off Japan\'s oil supply crippling their entire country and then had a good laugh about it from hundreds of miles away believing that we were untouchable with our naval fleet at anchor. When the life blood of a country is gone, there\'s no choice but force when there\'s a possibility that a GREAT victory could turn the possibility of victory in your favor.
Oh God not another revisionist... They are everywhere!!!
The roots of the Japanese attack lie deep within cultural and institutional factors within Japan and the U. S. and in the longer term U. S. - Japanese relationship, beginning with the forced opening of Japan for mercantilist purposes by Commodore Perry, and longstanding racist attitudes on the part of both parties. Some modern historical revisionists have attempted to show that an oppressive and bullying U. S. forced Japan into a corner, where it had no choice but to fight. From the Japanese military viewpoint this is correct, since the U. S. had embargoed certain strategic goods (such as oil and scrap metal), and within a few years, Japan would have used up its reserves and been unable to strike. However, this embargo was a response to Japan\'s cruel and brutal war to seize China for the Empire.
The rest of the article can be found here:
http://www.ccdemo.info/PearlHarbor/PearlHarborDayRemembered.html
People stop posting garbage. Do some research. It was because of their war with China that we cut off their oil and steel.
Both of these are used for war.
Another interesting piece of information for all of you Japanese sympathizers and revisionists -
The goal of this attack was to sufficiently cripple the US Fleet so that Japan could then attack and capture the Phillipines and Indo-China and so secure access to the raw materials needed to maintain its position as a global military and economic power. This would enable Japan to further extend the empire to include Australia, New Zealand, and India (the ultimate boundaries planned for the so-called "Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere"). The prevailing belief within the Japanese military and political establishment was that eventually, with the then expected German defeat of Great Britain and Soviet Russia, the United States\' non-involvement in the European war, and Japan\'s control of the Pacific, that the world power structure would stabilize into three major spheres of influence.
-
Reason for Bin Laden\'s popularity = One little middle eastern man standing up against the bully that is the U.S. = middle east loves him
The US needs to mind its own business
BTW, they fried 200,000 civilians. Much more then the 4,000 on 9-11.
-
Originally posted by Clowd
BTW, they fried 200,000 civilians. Much more then the 4,000 on 9-11.
How can you even compare these?
-
Originally posted by Clowd
Reason for Bin Laden\'s popularity = One little middle eastern man standing up against the bully that is the U.S. = middle east loves him
The US needs to mind its own business
BTW, they fried 200,000 civilians. Much more then the 4,000 on 9-11.
Ok clowd dispute this...
The use of nuclear weapons brought the war to a quick termination at a time when the defeat of Japan was assured, but expected to be at further great cost to both Japan and the Allies. That the projected costs were high was based upon the experience in taking Okinawa. The Samurai culture within the Japanese military (the "Spirit of Bushido"), dictated that dying for the Emperor was a high honor, opposed to the disgrace of any surrender. Surrender may have appeared much more horrible to the Japanese establishment than it proved to be, as they likely expected to be treated as they had treated those they had conquered. Ultimately, the decision to surrender was made by Emperor Hirohito, contrary to the wishes of the Japanese Army, and then only after the offer by the U.S that the institution of the Emperor would remain in place. It is unclear if an earlier offer of this condition would have made unnecessary the use of nuclear weapons - that is one of the great questions of history.
It not only took one bomb - but two. You think they would have gotten the hint after the first. Do you read clowd? I posted something to this effect a few pages back with a source. Also for your information the death toll was 104,000 compared to the 5 million that was the worst case scenerio had we had to invade.
By the way my young revisionist friends - who do exactly think were the good guys during World War 2? By the way most of you sound I would swear you were all Japanese.
-
Im not comparing them
Im just showing you the cycle of the world
You do bad, expect to get bad back
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Ok clowd dispute this...
The use of nuclear weapons brought the war to a quick termination at a time when the defeat of Japan was assured, but expected to be at further great cost to both Japan and the Allies. That the projected costs were high was based upon the experience in taking Okinawa. The Samurai culture within the Japanese military (the "Spirit of Bushido"), dictated that dying for the Emperor was a high honor, opposed to the disgrace of any surrender. Surrender may have appeared much more horrible to the Japanese establishment than it proved to be, as they likely expected to be treated as they had treated those they had conquered. Ultimately, the decision to surrender was made by Emperor Hirohito, contrary to the wishes of the Japanese Army, and then only after the offer by the U.S that the institution of the Emperor would remain in place. It is unclear if an earlier offer of this condition would have made unnecessary the use of nuclear weapons - that is one of the great questions of history.
It not only took one bomb - but two. You think they would have gotten the hint after the first. Do you read clowd? I posted something to this effect a few pages back with a source. Also for your information the death toll was 104,000 compared to the 5 million that was the worst case scenerio had we had to invade.
By the way my young revisionist friends - who do exactly think were the good guys during World War 2? By the way most of you sound I would swear you were all Japanese.
Would the U.S. surrender if one if its city\'s got hit with an A-bomb?
U.S. bombing Hiroshima was no different then Germany\'s carpet bombins of cities in Europe. Isn\'t war suppose to be between soldiers?
4 reasons why U.S. dropped bomb
Show Russia how big and bad they are
Didnt want to not use considereing they spent oh so much money on it.
Wanted to prevent Soviets from occupying it,
Save U.S. lives.
The people Hiroshima, what alot of them probably had nothing to do with the war and were probably hopping it to get over soon. Only to be destroyed in a flash,.
You agree with killing civilians over certain reasons, I agree with killing them over no reasons.
Besides, Japan was defeated. Eisenhower said there was no need for the bomb.
-
This is what you get when liberals run our school systems. It is an indoctrination into the liberal lifestyle.
I swear, I wish I could go back to school now at my age knowing what I know. It would be great to butt heads with some of my old teachers.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Clowd
You do bad, expect to get bad back
True true
-
Wow, cool thread... Interesting read..
-
Originally posted by Ace
This is what you get when liberals run our school systems. It is an indoctrination into the liberal lifestyle.
I swear, I wish I could go back to school now at my age knowing what I know. It would be great to butt heads with some of my old teachers.
Ace
I do that some now :) Probably not over stuff you\'d often agree with, but still.
-
Oh God not another revisionist... They are everywhere!!!
Hardly. All because I didn\'t post the reason as to *why* we cut off their resources has no bearing on me being a "revisionist." You reposted exactly what I said with a little bit extra thrown in. Also, I don\'t agree that they were just after the Phillipines. Consider if they actually did win the naval battle at Midway and defeated the pacific fleet -- The Phillipines would be a TINY prize in comparison to the resource rich land of the US.
-
Originally posted by Ryu
Hardly. All because I didn\'t post the reason as to *why* we cut off their resources has no bearing on me being a "revisionist." You reposted exactly what I said with a little bit extra thrown in. Also, I don\'t agree that they were just after the Phillipines. Consider if they actually did win the naval battle at Midway and defeated the pacific fleet -- The Phillipines would be a TINY prize in comparison to the resource rich land of the US.
Ryu read the whole thing... Australia, New Zealand, Indo China (aka Vietnam/Thailand) and India. Also you brought up that we brought it on ourselves. What for not aiding them in their war effort? You think that justifies their attack on Pearl Harbor?
-
I think alot of people are forgetting how many of our citizens come from their countries.
Heh, if someone already brought this up, ignore it. I only read the first page :)
-
Originally posted by Clowd
U.S. bombing Hiroshima was no different then Germany\'s carpet bombins of cities in Europe. Isn\'t war suppose to be between soldiers?
4 reasons why U.S. dropped bomb
Show Russia how big and bad they are
Didnt want to not use considereing they spent oh so much money on it.
Wanted to prevent Soviets from occupying it,
Save U.S. lives.
The people Hiroshima, what alot of them probably had nothing to do with the war and were probably hopping it to get over soon. Only to be destroyed in a flash,.
Besides, Japan was defeated. Eisenhower said there was no need for the bomb.
Clowd the last time I checked war was war... planes, missles, ships... this isn\'t the 18th century (as I stated in an earlier post on this very thread) and we don\'t line up 20 yards from one another in an open field and fire until someone loses.
Your 4 reasons... I think you have them listed backwards. Saving US lives is the #1 reason. Wouldn\'t you agree? Oh wait maybe you don\'t think your own country should come before the enemy.
The people of Hiroshimi most definitely supported the war effort for Japan. You have to be kidding me. Were they somehow isolated from the rest of Japan during the war?
As for Eisenhower... how the hell would he know? He was in the European theater. I don\'t remember seeing him return to the Phillipines or coordinate plans to invade Iwo Jima.
-
What for not aiding them in their war effort? You think that justifies their attack on Pearl Harbor?
I\'m not talking about justification. I\'m talking about survival. Just tell me what the US would do if their oil supplies ran dry and no one outwardly helped us fix the problem. You think we would just switch over to the electric car and everything would be fine?
All I\'m saying is that during war times, desperate times call for desperate measures. For us to take such bold action against Japan and not expect any retaliation is what\'s ludicrous. Japan did what they felt was necessary as would we. We\'re all people and we all make choices given our environment, but I\'m wondering if you realize that. Japan may have been our enemies, but we\'re not all that different in the long run.
-
Originally posted by Ryu
I\'m not talking about justification. I\'m talking about survival. Just tell me what the US would do if their oil supplies ran dry and no one outwardly helped us fix the problem. You think we would just switch over to the electric car and everything would be fine?
All I\'m saying is that during war times, desperate times call for desperate measures. For us to take such bold action against Japan and not expect any retaliation is what\'s ludicrous. Japan did what they felt was necessary as would we. We\'re all people and we all make choices given our environment, but I\'m wondering if you realize that. Japan may have been our enemies, but we\'re not all that different in the long run.
I didn\'t realize the purpose of this thread was to be objective :rolleyes: I can\'t understand why some in this thread would make excuses for the Japanese during WW2... maybe Sony put a little something extra in every PS2 :rolleyes:
I predict that in 50 years - long after all the WW2 vets are gone some President will officially apologize to Japan for using the atomic bomb. Hopefully I won\'t be around either to see it.
-
If Hillary ever wins, God forbid, she will apologize for everything we have ever done and some things we haven\'t done.
Ace
-
I didn\'t realize the purpose of this thread was to discuss Japan and WW2. Threads don\'t have set purposes, they evolve into whatever people make them :)
Originally posted by Ace
If Hillary ever wins, God forbid, she will apologize for everything we have ever done and some things we haven\'t done.
Ace
See, we can agree on some things. I absolutely hate that woman.
-
By \'cut off\', does he mean \'refuse to sell Japan our oil\'? If so, how is that wrong? It\'s our oil to do with as we please. Refusing to sell Japan our resources is not a valid provocation of war by any stretch of the imagination IMO.
If by \'cut off\', he meant a blockade of some sort, well, that\'s another story.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
I didn\'t realize the purpose of this thread was to discuss Japan and WW2. Threads don\'t have set purposes, they evolve into whatever people make them :)
See, we can agree on some things. I absolutely hate that woman.
I was being sarcastic shockwaves. Meaning I think a little too much objectivity is going into some of these posts.
I will pull an Alec Baldwin if Hillary does and I will actually follow through with my threat! :D
-
Originally posted by Event Horizon
By \'cut off\', does he mean \'refuse to sell Japan our oil\'? If so, how is that wrong? It\'s our oil to do with as we please. Refusing to sell Japan our resources is not a valid provocation of war by any stretch of the imagination IMO.
If by \'cut off\', he meant a blockade of some sort, well, that\'s another story.
No, there was no blockade. Japan had quite a fearsome navy itself.
-
So for understanding the fact that they did what they had to do and we did what we had to do, I\'m brainwashed? That\'s the second inference to such behavior you\'ve made in this thread, are you going to start calling our Chinese members dirty communists now?
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I was being sarcastic shockwaves. Meaning I think a little too much objectivity is going into some of these posts.
I will pull an Alec Baldwin if Hillary does and I will actually follow through with my threat! :D
Don\'t worry, I know. I\'m just trying to pick out things to post about in this thread that won\'t piss me off :) I don\'t have the energy for an arguement now, but I wanna stay in the thread
/me shrugs
And you think Hillary is bad for you guys...I live in the state that elected her. :( Both of my parents voted for her, and I was one election too late to vote against her :(
-
I don\'t see how bombing Pearl Harbor would have gotten us to re-open our oil supply to them.
-
My view is that they believed that the United States was going to enter the war anyway. If they had this belief, then why not take out as much of their pacific fleet as possible before they do.
-
Originally posted by Ace
This is what you get when liberals run our school systems. It is an indoctrination into the liberal lifestyle.
You have no idea what you\'re talking about. The explanations that Giga is presenting, which you seem to agree with are the conventional wisdom that IS taught in schools.[/i] Your knee jerk reaction is not applicable here.
Everyone else:
I don\'t seek to make any argument for Japan being a pillar of virture in WWII. Their massacres and subjugation of the Chinese during the war was as bad as any crime committed by any participant at the time. I\'m just saying that it\'s a bit hard for me to believe that our nation was completely justified in murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians by bombing two large populations centers with no tactical value. I say that the same outcome could have been achieved by demonstrating the weapons in a more sparsely populated area of Japan.
Someone stated earlier that our leaders at the time, and many veterans today had no problem with the decision after what the Japanese did to us at Pearl Harbor, and so forth. To that I say... I\'ve always felt that the most admirable characteristics in a person and a people (a nation) is their capacity for mercy and forgiveness. I think the conclusion of WWII proved that our nation lacks those qualities. Even in my lifetime, long after the war, I have sensed that Americans can be a very mean spirited and unforgiving people. I\'m not afraid to look in the mirror and see those qualities in me, as a product of this society. Recognizing it gives you the opportunity to oppose it.
-
[...] the conclusion of WWII proved that our nation lacks those qualities.
That could be said with all of the participating countries excluding Canada and maybe Great Britain.
-
All in all Japan needs oil, we don\'t give it to them, they get pissed like a five year old wanting candy in a line at Wal-Mart and decide to bomb us!!! U.S acting back beats the living hell out of the little kid a.k.a Japan.
We may have not needed to use the Atom bomb, but decisions are made in this world that we may regret, just because we regret them doesn\'t mean at that point and time they were wrong or even now. Innocent lives are lost every day it\'s a simple fact of life, war just brings out the worst in everything. Civilian casualties are bad as are friendly fire, but no one is perfect.
-
Coredweller,
I know what I\'m talking about, sometimes I like to tweak my Friends to the left. :)
By the way, it\'s true! It\'s what Giga calls revisionist attitudes and it\'s being taught in our schools by people who want to change history.
Even in my lifetime, long after the war, I have sensed that Americans can be a very mean spirited and unforgiving people. I\'m not afraid to look in the mirror and see those qualities in me, as a product of this society. Recognizing it gives you the opportunity to oppose it.
*queue God Bless America*
I see America, for the most part, exactly the opposite of your view. Why is that? I see all the good we do around the world. I see when a disaster strikes, in some god forsaken land, we are there to lend a hand. I see us dropping food on a country that we are at war with to feed the hungry.
I know we have had our problems in this country and we have made mistakes, but I don\'t look into the mirror and see an ugly American. There are enough people, it seems, in other countries to hate us. I am not willing to be one of them.
Ace
-
The fact of the matter is, I don\'t mind someone debating the merits of todays issues ie. Iraq. What really irks me is when people try and rewrite history or worse - justify what the enemies of this country did during that time.
Its one thing to discuss the present, but to say Japan was justified (for example) or even "see it from their point of view" is sickening. I ask all of you who said we were wrong to drop the bomb this: Its 1945, you are an 18/19 yr old marine sitting in the Pacific preparing to invade the Japanese homeland. All of a sudden 2 bombs are dropped and the war is over. Are you upset? I can not see the logic in any American having regret for dropping the Atomic bomb and saving American lives. As I have stated before in this thread over and over again... Studies show that more Japanese lives were saved than if the bombs hadn\'t been dropped.
On a different note - I think this topic is justified in this thread since it about the popularity of the US around the world and the dropping of the Atomic bombs does play a part in how people view us - as this thread has so aptly pointed out.
-
Originally posted by Ace
*queue God Bless America*
I see America, for the most part, exactly the opposite of your view. Why is that? I see all the good we do around the world. I see when a disaster strikes, in some god forsaken land, we are there to lend a hand. I see us dropping food on a country that we are at war with to feed the hungry.
Ace
Call me picky but isn\'t that the reason why the US\'s popularity isn\'t as high as some of you want it to be outside America :rolleyes:
that fact that all of this never usualy reaches the starving masses ?
i mean most Aid is Either Captured by Warlords to feed their troops.
or
"acquired" by a corrupt Government.. then repackaged and then given to the starving masses (result ?) = starving masses think the corrupt Government saved the day.
-
Its one thing to discuss the present, but to say Japan was justified (for example) or even "see it from their point of view" is sickening.
I\'m just wondering how your knowledge is somehow absolute on the whole subject. Considering how many "Sources" of information there are any how many different versions of the same story of history there are, and considering the fact that you did not sit in on the meetings of any of these world leaders, how can you be so sure that the message conveyed to you was the absolute correct one without any flaws? We can what-if about this all day and neither of us would get anywhere, but I just don\'t see how you can still hold this deep down hatred for a generation\'s actions that have since rescinded.
I remember the importance of what happened, but I can\'t hold a grudge against any one person or any one people. I understand and forgive and that\'s all I\'m trying to say. We ate it at Pearl Harbor, the Japanese ate it just about everywhere else and now our two countries overlap with citiznes, business, production, creativity, and so many other factors that to hold a grudge against them for past mistakes just doesn\'t make any sense. It\'s been nearly 60 years and both countries have done some things that they are not particularly proud of, but I would rather embrace and enjoy the benefits of our two cultures mingling rather than constantly remind our children of their past regression and treachery.
They\'re human beings just like we are and the number of people killed on both sides is more than enough compensation for any wrong doings of either nation.
-
Ryu I am not debating how Japan is now. Hell I love Japan now. I am just referring to the World War 2 era. Just because I like them now doesn\'t mean I think they were justified in attacking us in 1941. The scope of my argument is limited to the war years - nothing after. Maybe that is where some peoples point of view comes from in this thread. I can seperate the two and have. I have no hatred of the Japanese people at all. Do I think they got what they deserved during the war? Yes.
-
Originally posted by Ace
If Hillary ever wins, God forbid, she will apologize for everything we have ever done and some things we haven\'t done.
Ace
Hey, Clinton will be the first lady :D
-
Nope I don\'t see a lady president for a long time, call me arrogant, or ignorant, but in all likely hood it may be another 15-20 years b4 we even think of a women being Pres.
-
I agree completely. I don\'t see a woman being able to be elected right now. I\'m not saying that\'s right, because it definitely isn\'t, but that\'s just the way I think it happens to be right now.
-
I believe we will have a minority leader before a woman....
!
perhaps a woman which is a minority.....kill 10 birds with 5 stones!
-
Elect a black jewish lesbian in 2004! :D
-
Chances of a woman ever being president is about the same as a colored man being president of the US. In no way am I saying the citizens of the U.S. are racist but they favor their own. Every race does.
-
But aren\'t there as many women in the US as men? I don\'t get the reasoning behind that side of it.
-
Sorry, the way I wroteit was confusing
The first 7 words in my post have nothing to do with the rest of my post.
-
Ok, got ya.
I agree though. The way our country views things at this moment, there is very little chance of a minority president being elected anytime soon.
-
Well if enough minorities and women voted then it might change things a little. Hell if we had enough young people voting I think we would be able to get a much stronger solid president in the next coming years, all they need to do away with is the electoral college, that equals a bunch of bullshit. We aren\'t the ignorant peasants of the 1800\'s
-
P. Diddy for president.
-
I would rather move to Canada then to have P. Diddy as Pres.
I can just here his campaign anthem "Y\'all can\'t stop me uh uh uh yeah bad boys in the White House"
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
Elect a black jewish lesbian in 2004! :D
She\'ll be assassinated in about a week. I\'m not kidding either. When I minority enters office, the KKK and other racism groups will be pissed and shoot the minority president. I don\'t think its fair and I think everyone should have the right to office without worrying about being killed.
Call me picky but isn\'t that the reason why the US\'s popularity isn\'t as high as some of you want it to be outside America
that fact that all of this never usualy reaches the starving masses ?
i mean most Aid is Either Captured by Warlords to feed their troops.
or
"acquired" by a corrupt Government.. then repackaged and then given to the starving masses (result ?) = starving masses think the corrupt Government saved the day.
We try to help starving people. Yes. Its called humanitarian work. America does it all the time. We tried it in Somalia but Adid (sp), stole the food and gave it to his troops. We went after him and got our ass kicked but in actuality, we kicked their ass. We lost a total of 19 Rangers and Delta Force soldiers and we killed over 2000 of their troops.
You can\'t blame the fact that the food doesn\'t meet our target people on the US. You have to blame it on whoever steels it. From what I understand when reading this post, you are saying that its our fault. Our rules of engagement are if you are fired upon is only when you fight back. So we can\'t just go fireing on the theifs. But there were only a few times when the food was stolen, Somalia being the big one. It usually does reach the starving people but it doesn\'t help all that much, but its better than nothing.
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
I can just here his campaign anthem "Y\'all can\'t stop me uh uh uh yeah bad boys in the White House"
Wouldn\'t he rename it "The Black Hizhouse"
-
Originally posted by nO-One
Wouldn\'t he rename it "The Black Hizhouse"
True and I\'m sure that would be the first title of his album while as pres.
-
That\'s "the black hizzee".;)