Churchill is partly right

[Slinky]

Churchill is saying this:

* WTC was absolutely not a legitimate target.
* US has bombed civilian targets in war numerous times, something international law forbids (take for example, the deliberate bombing of a 100% civilian TV-building in former Yugoslavia).
* So, under US rules, a building that contains parts of US military infra structure is a legitimate target.

I think this reasoning makes sense. This is why it's important to follow international law, even if one has "god" or "freedom" of one's side. Remember, when USA bombed Hiroshima and Nagazaki, or bombed Tokyo with Napalm, killing hundreds of thousands civilians, the elite made excuces for those crimes. The moral thing to do is this: condemn 9/11 and urge the U.S. administation to follow international rule.

Here is an excerpt of an interview with Amy Goodman:

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Churchill, do you think that the World Trade Center was an acceptable target on September 11? Do you think it was a legitimate target?

WARD CHURCHILL: Do I personally think it was a legitimate target or should have been a legitimate target? Absolutely not. And that's said on the basis of all but absolute rejection of and opposition to U.S. policy. But what you have to understand, and what the listeners have to understand, is that under U.S. rules, it was an acceptable target. And the reason it was an acceptable target, if none other, was that because the C.I.A., the Defense Department, and other parts of the U.S. military intelligence infrastructure, had situated offices within it, and you'll recall that that is precisely the justification advanced by the Donald Rumsfelds of the world, the Norman Schwarzkopfs, and the Colin Powells of the world, to explain why civilian targets had been bombed in Baghdad. Because that nefarious Saddam Hussein had situated elements of his command and control infrastructure within otherwise civilian occupied facilities. They said that, in itself, justified their bombing of the civilian facilities in order to eliminate the parts of the command and control infrastructure that were situated there. And of course, that then became Saddam Hussein's fault. Well, if it was Saddam Hussein's fault, sacrificing his own people, by encapsulating strategic targets within civilian facilities, the same rule would apply to the United States. So, if you've got a complaint out there with regard to the people who hit the World Trade Center, you should actually take it to the government of the United States, which, by the rubric they apply elsewhere in the world, everywhere else in the world ultimately, they converted them from civilian targets into legitimate military targets. Now, that logic is there, and it's unassailable. It's not something that I embrace. It's something that I just spell out.

AMY GOODMAN: What are you saying was in the World Trade Center?

WARD CHURCHILL: There was a Central Intelligence Agency office. There were Defense Department offices. There was, I believe, an F.B.I. facility. All of which fit the criteria of the bombing target selection utilized by the Pentagon. If it was fair to bomb such targets in Baghdad, it would be fair for others to bomb such targets in New York. That's what I'm saying. I don't think it's fair to bomb such targets in Baghdad, therefore I reject New York, but so long as United States is applying those rules out in the world, it really has no complaint when those rules are applied to it.

[natedogg]

"Remember, when USA bombed Hiroshima and Nagazaki, or bombed Tokyo with Napalm, killing hundreds of thousands civilians, the elite made excuces for those crimes."

Good lord you people never cease to amaze me.

natedogg

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Good lord you people never cease to amaze me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Natedogg,

I used to be astounded at the percentage of nitwits in the poker world: when I saw so many mind-boggling plays, night after night, I could hardly believe it; and thought that I should never find a higher concentration of nitwits at any venue anywhere in the world, even were I to search the rest of my life.

Then I discovered politics.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Churchill is partly right

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, below are some examples:

What is our policy?.....to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime.

What is our aim?....Victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror; victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

-Winston Churchill, speech in the House of Commons, 13 May, 1940.

[Chris Alger]

The U.S. also bombed Iraq targets that had no military value at all, namely Iraq's media facilities. This is quite likely a war crime under the Geneva Convention. Notably, the same mainstream media that refuses to acknowledge Churchill's moral consistency argument not only failed to condemn this atrocity but pressured the U.S. government to commit it: <ul type="square">Prior to the bombing, some even seemed anxious to know why the broadcast facilities hadn't been attacked yet. Fox News Channel's John Gibson wondered (3/24/03): "Should we take Iraqi TV off the air? Should we put one down the stove pipe there?" Fox's Bill O'Reilly (3/24/03) agreed: "I think they should have taken out the television, the Iraqi television.... Why haven't they taken out the Iraqi television towers?" MSNBC correspondent David Shuster offered: "A lot of questions about why state-run television is allowed to continue broadcasting. After all, the coalition forces know where those broadcast towers are located." On CNBC, Forrest Sawyer offered tactical alternatives to bombing (3/24/03): "There are operatives in there. You could go in with sabotage, take out the building, you could take out the tower."

On NBC Nightly News (3/24/03), Andrea Mitchell noted that "to the surprise of many, the U.S. has not taken out Iraq's TV headquarters." Mitchell's report cautioned that "U.S. officials say the television headquarters is in a civilian area. Bombing it would further infuriate the Arab world, and the U.S. would need the TV station to get out its message once coalition forces reach Baghdad. Still, allowing Iraqi TV to stay on the air gives Saddam a strong tool to help keep his regime intact." She did not offer the Geneva Conventions as a reason to avoid bombing a media outlet.

After the facility was struck, some reporters expressed satisfaction. CNN's Aaron Brown (3/25/03) recalled that "a lot of people wondered why Iraqi TV had been allowed to stay on the air, why the coalition allowed Iraqi TV to stay on the air as long as it did." CNN correspondent Nic Robertson seemed to defend the attack, saying that bombing the TV station "will take away a very important tool from the Iraqi leadership-- that of showing their face, getting their message out to the Iraqi people, and really telling them that they are still in control." It's worth noting that CNN, like other U.S. news outlets, provides all these functions for the U.S. government.

New York Times reporter Michael Gordon appeared on CNN (3/25/03) to endorse the attack: "And personally, I think the television, based on what I've seen of Iraqi television, with Saddam Hussein presenting propaganda to his people and showing off the Apache helicopter and claiming a farmer shot it down and trying to persuade his own public that he was really in charge, when we're trying to send the exact opposite message, I think, was an appropriate target."

According to the New York Times (3/26/03), Fox's Gibson seemed to go so far as to take credit for the bombing of Iraqi TV, suggesting that Fox's "criticism about allowing Saddam Hussein to talk to his citizens and lie to them has had an effect." Fox reporter Major Garrett declared (3/25/03), "It has been a persistent question here, why [Iraqi TV] remains on the air."[/list](excerpt from FAIR (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1625), 3/27/03).

The U.S. burned and bombed to death thousands of Iraqi civilians because more than two-thirds of Americans thought Saddam had nuclear weapons and was likely responsible for 9/11. These erroneous beliefs were planted and propagated by the Bush administration and sympathetic "conservative" war mongers with ready access to the mainstream media.

If we accept the logic of the mainstream sources cited above, those opposed to burning children without a compelling defensive reason have as much right as the U.S. to target media facilities, "collateral damage" be damned.

[Chris Alger]

So one must wage war at "all costs," which by definition includes everything worse than the targeted "monstrous tyranny."

It doesn't surprise me that this logic appeals to you, especially coming from one responsible for the first use of mustard gas on the Kurds (while objecting to "squeamishness" of those who "objected to poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes").

[Slinky]

[ QUOTE ]
So one must wage war at "all costs," which by definition includes everything worse than the targeted "monstrous tyranny."

It doesn't surprise me that this logic appeals to you, especially coming from one responsible for the first use of mustard gas on the Kurds (while objecting to "squeamishness" of those who "objected to poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes").

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

A murdered civilian is a murdered civilian even if he or she lives under a dictatorship. And a war crime is a war crime, even if those who order the deed are elected.

[natedogg]

" This is quite likely a war crime under the Geneva Convention."

It's a war crime to take out the enemy's communications?

natedogg

[natedogg]

"So one must wage war at "all costs," which by definition includes everything worse than the targeted "monstrous tyranny."

If it is truly a war for survival, then yes. Otherwise you die. I'd be unwilling to die just because, for example, my govt was too squeamish to beat the Japanese.


"It doesn't surprise me that this logic appeals to you, especially coming from one responsible for the first use of mustard gas on the Kurds (while objecting to "squeamishness" of those who "objected to poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes").

This is called "poisoning the well" or "ad hominem". It is a commonly used logical fallacy. In essence you are making the argument that "Churchill has made some odious statements, therefore anything he says is of no value".

natedogg

[Slinky]

Don’t think that this is true:

1) It’s wrong to kill over 3,000 civilians by destroying two office buildings. (Terrorist attack against WTC.)
2) It’s wrong to kill over 100,000 civilians by Napalm bombing a mayor city. (U.S. attack against Tokyo.)

Tokyo had no military value:
“As capital of Japan, Tokyo was an obvious target as part of an assault on the ‘basic economic and social fabric of the country’.” http://www.answers.com/topic/bombing-of-tokyo-in-world-war-ii

The justification the U.S. administration used to carry out this attack (or the attack on other purely civilian targets), was probably similar to the justification the terrorist used when they carried out their attack. They were both horribly wrong. It’s is wrong to attack civilian targets, even during war. This is the same point Ward Churchill were making, and if one thinks about it, it’s not very controversial.

[natedogg]

1) It’s wrong to kill over 3,000 civilians by destroying two office buildings. (Terrorist attack against WTC.)
2) It’s wrong to kill over 100,000 civilians by Napalm bombing a mayor city. (U.S. attack against Tokyo.)



Aha. I see finally why people get confused.

Let's try rephrasing your two points.

"1. It's wrong for any old group to indiscriminately attack civilians to inflict terror for ideological purposes."

"2. It's wrong for military forces to target civilians".

The main difference between Tokyo '45 and WTC 9/11 is that 9/11 was not a military action. It's sad that this even has to be explained.

It was perpetrated by a lone band of superstitious morons who decided to commit an act of destruction for the purpose of inflicting terror and death on a culture they despised. They had no strategic objective. They were not even part of an overall military strategy! They were not part of an armed conflict between nations were they?

By your reckoning, Truman, bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh, Mohammed Atta, and the pilots of the Enola Gay are all morally equivalent. This is patently absurd. It shouldn't be necessary to explain but I guess it is.

"Tokyo had no military value"

Again, you people never cease to amaze me.

Imagine, for just a moment, a ground invasion of Japan. How do you think Tokyo would have fared? Do you think the allies would have ignored it? Do you think the Japenese defenses would have ignored it?

If you think a ground invasion would have been less destructive, just ask anyone who lived through the fall of Berlin in 1945, or anyone who lived through the seige of Stalingrad, or any major ground battle for a major city in the past century. The survivors of such battles have thing or two to say about how much more 'humane' it is for an invader to just go in with tanks and artillery over a period of weeks and months rather than bomb infrastructure .....

Take for example the last battle of the Pacific War. Okinawan civilians fared poorly, yet they were never firebombed nor were they specifically targeted by the military....

natedogg

[Zeno]

Churchill's Speech was reflexive. At 'all costs' was cost to the United Kingdom. Which came true, the cost to Britain (especially London) was heavy. The context of this famous speech is well known.

So to, the US has and will continue to absorb a heavy cost and in more than just a physical way.

The blatant sophistry of your definition is amusing. At word trickery, (and baiting emotional responses) you are a master. Go elsewhere, I don’t play.

-Zeno

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Churchill's Speech was reflexive. At 'all costs' was cost to the United Kingdom. Which came true, the cost to Britain (especially London) was heavy. The context of this famous speech is well known.

So to, the US has and will continue to absorb a heavy cost and in more than just a physical way.

The blatant sophistry of your definition is amusing. At word trickery, (and baiting emotional responses) you are a master. Go elsewhere, I don’t play.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

ni han

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, when USA bombed Hiroshima and Nagazaki, or bombed Tokyo with Napalm, killing hundreds of thousands civilians

[/ QUOTE ]

Your right, we should have launched a ground invasion to end the war instead. Killing millions is much better than killing hundreds of thousands. Or we should have just given up, letting the Russians do it instead. That way millions die in the brutal invasion and occupation, PLUS Japan would have been subjected to another totalitarian regime. If only the Swedes could make the big decisions...everything would be so peacefull.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Your right, we should have launched a ground invasion to end the war instead. Killing millions is much better than killing hundreds of thousands.

[/ QUOTE ]
There was no need for that. The japanese were ready to surrender before that. Plus, as far as I've read, and that has been very heavily referenced to military pm:s and other sources, no one belived it would kill millions of people to invade, I belive the highest number where in the vicinity of 100 000.
I'll dig up some sources when I get home tonight.

[jokerthief]

Let's just set aside the fact that after the bombs were dropped and the Emperor was ready for surrender, that the generals formed a coup and almost derailed the entire process. With that fact put aside, before the bombs were dropped, they were not ready for a full surrender and if we accepted a partial surrender the Russians would have invaded. There is no way Stalin would have given up the opportunity to crush an Imperial opponent. That would have easily meant tens of millions of causualties.

[Il_Mostro]

In this you are probably correct. What I object is the idea that a US invasion of Japan would have costed millions of lives, I don't think "anyone" at the time really belived that.

And no matter what you think about all this I don't think anyone can really belive that the second bomb was necessary for anything at all, except testing purposes.

[jokerthief]

General Marshall's own internal reports estimated that 500,000 American combat deaths and 100,000 POW deaths would result from an invasion. Americans lost 75,000 taking Okinawa alone. They would be facing 2,000,000 Japanese troops on the mainland. Americans didn't take hardly any POW's in the Pacific campaign because it was "dishonorable" for the Japanese to surrender. They fought to the death. Add to that the Japanese slogan of "the honorable death of a hundred million" when speaking to it's own citizens about a possible American invasion and it's folly to think that millions of Japanese wouldn't have died.

[Slinky]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's try rephrasing your two points.

"1. It's wrong for any old group to indiscriminately attack civilians to inflict terror for ideological purposes."

"2. It's wrong for military forces to target civilians".

The main difference between Tokyo '45 and WTC 9/11 is that 9/11 was not a military action. It's sad that this even has to be explained.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if one has a great military power, it’s no longer wrong to murder women and children (to in this case, hurt the economics and morale of the enemy)? I disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
By your reckoning, Truman, bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh, Mohammed Atta, and the pilots of the Enola Gay are all morally equivalent. This is patently absurd. It shouldn't be necessary to explain but I guess it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, never said they were morally equivalent. This style of making up opinions for one’s opponent in a debate is silly. All I said was both deeds were crimes.

Also, it well understood that it is a war crime to bomb purely civilian targets like a big city. This is why it today is uncommon to bomb hospitals, apartments and schools. But if you believe your own army can do no wrong, then I guess it’s necessary for you to adopt a different set of values.

[jaxmike]

who live in a world that doesn't exist. god help you.

[jaxmike]

you sir, are not very well informed.

the japanese were NOT ready to surrender, if they were, don't you think they would have surrendered after the first atomic bomb was dropped?

estimates were that a land invasion of japan could kill millions. this includes troops and civilians.

[jaxmike]

its revisionist history. they lie and lie and lie and some idiots believe them.

dropping the atomic bombs on japan was not only justified, but necessary to humanely ending the war.

millions stood to die if the US invaded the main home islands of japan.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
If it is truly a war for survival, then yes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then no. It's purely logical and literal: since "all costs" encompasses the equivalent cost of losing, waging war with no cost ceiling never makes sense. Churchill was just being rhetorical.

[ QUOTE ]
In essence you are making the argument that "Churchill has made some odious statements, therefore anything he says is of no value".

[/ QUOTE ]
Officially authorizing the use of mustard gas on civilians is something more than an "odious statement." It's not an ad hominem error because the only argument I'm making is that Zeno tends to applaud moral monsters whom the popular culture holds in high repute (like Bush). <ul type="square">Churchill [in 1920] ordered the use of mustard gas against the Iraqi civilian population, stating: "I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes." Churchill argued that the military use of gas was a "scientific expedient" and it "should not be prevented by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly". Whole villages were bombed and gassed. There was wholesale slaughter of civilians. Men, women and children fleeing from gassed villages in panic were mercilessly machine-gunned by low-flying British planes. [/list] Henry C.K. Liu, "Geopolitics in Iraq and Old Game," Asian Times (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FH18Ak02.html), 8/18/04

[Chris Alger]

It wasn't "the enemy's communications" that were being discussed but the civilian-run media. The commentators advocating the bombing were clear on this, urging that the Iraqi media be targeted because it allowed the Iraqi government to propagandize, a rationale that would apply equally to U.S. media. See the AI and Human Rights Watch statements on this issue for the legal specifics.

[Slinky]

No, they were in fact ready to surrender. "Others contend that Japan had been trying to surrender for at least two months, but the US refused by insisting on an unconditional surrender—which they did not get even after the bombing, the bone of contention being retention of the Emperor." I've read this in many serious essays. There's a debate concerning this in the US. For a summary of both sides of the debate, read this article.

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

Perhaps you should study the subject some more, before calling others revisionists.

[jaxmike]

roflmao at "civilian run". you people are so naieve.

[jaxmike]

oh no, i am well versed in the subject. it is you who are trying to revise things. the FACT is that Japan was NOT willing to SURRENDER under OUR TERMS which are the only ones that MATTER! So, because they were NOT ready to surrender to us, the atomic bombs were dropped. We DID get the "unconditional surrender" that WE wanted, IE no conditions that they put forth.

[andyfox]

The invasion was not scheduled until November 1. Having broken the Japanese code, we knew surrender was imminent. The bombs were dropped because we had them. They were a weapon and we were at war. It would have taken a major decision [not to have used them; using them was SOP.

Had the U.S. dropped it's demand for unconditional surrender, the use of the bombs would not have been necessary. It was not the bombs that caused the Japanese surrender. It was the entry of the Russians into the war (on time and as promised to Roosevelt by Stalin) and the embargo that brought the Japanese to surrender.

The bombing from the air of civilians was decried by Roosevelt at the start of the war. We then firebombed every Japanese city except for Kyoto (spared by Secretary of War Stimson for cultural reasons) and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were being saved for the bombs. The fire bombings were a natural outcome of the interwar policies recommended by air war theorists like Douhet and Billy Mitchell and the "total war" that World War II became.

[Warchant88]

A few facts about the bombing of Japan. There were a few primary reasons.

1. Save lives: An invasion of Japan would have cost 1 million American lives and 5 million Japanese lives(civilians and soldiers). How is the government supposed to tell the mothers of those 1 million Americans, that we had a weapon that could end the war, but we chose not to use it, so your son died?

2. Intimidate Russia: There was the threat of Russia taking control of Asia. When Truman found out about the weapon, he told Churchill that he had something that could end the war. Churchill's response was to use it. Let the Russians know what you have, and that will make them think twice before the attempt to take over Asia.

3. Unfortunately, revenge was also a major contributor. Japan started this war by bombing Pearl Harbor. Also, 100,000 American and Filipino soldiers walked in the Death March to the POW camps. 13,000 Americans died in the March. Also, the 4 soldiers shot down during the Doolittle Raid were POW's. However, the Japanese did not believe in surrendering, so the pilots were tried and executed.

Obviously, it is morally wrong to kill civilians, even during war. However, the atomic bomb could not be avoided, and was the correct decision.

[Slinky]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Save lives: An invasion of Japan would have cost 1 million American lives and 5 million Japanese lives(civilians and soldiers).

[/ QUOTE ]

Source? This claim is absurd.

[Il_Mostro]

The sources I promised:

First a few disclaimers
* I'm not an expert on these things, so feel free to give me counter-references. Don’t, however, attack me.
* The quotes below are taken from a Swedish book which in turn quotes other texts, I have no reason to doubt the quotes, but they have been translated first to Swedish and then back to English (by me) and thus they might not be exactly correct.

In the beginning of July 1946 the US Strategic bombing survey drew the following conclusions in their official report on the airborne war on Japan (1)
[ QUOTE ]

Japan would have surrendered even if no atomic bombs had been used, and even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been contemplated or carried out.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not win the war for the US and according to the beaten Japanese leaders own testimonies it was not these bombs that forced Japan to accept unconditional capitulation


[/ QUOTE ]

To counter these arguments Henry Stimson, former minister of defence, wrote, or at least signed, an article stating that the bomb was used to save the 0.5 to 1 million American lives it would have cost to invade Japan.
So, where did these numbers come from? No one seems to know, the chiefs of staff had estimated the number to 25000 to 50000(2), and why invade at all when Japan would surrender anyway?

The highest estimate from that time on the number of casualties in an invasion was 63000. (3)

In Truman’s diary from the Potsdam conference and from his letters to his wife there is evidence that he was very clear about the political advantage to using the bomb and he was aware that Japan wanted to surrender and he realised that Russia entering into the war meant the end for Japan. Thus, when he dropped the bomb he knew it was not necessary to win the war. (4)

(1)
Lifton, Robert Jay &amp; Mitchell, Greg: Hiroshima in America 50 years of denial (1995), p 83.
(2)
Lifton, ch, 7
Alperovitz, Gar: The decision to use the Atomic bomb and the Architecture of an American myth (1995), p466f, p520.
(3)
Lifton, p293
(4)
Lifton, p272 fp

[Warchant88]

I don't have a online source, but my father is a WW2 historian. I will look for a link for you though.

[Warchant88]

I believe that Japan surrendered exactly one day after the second bomb was dropped. It wasn't the only factor which led to the surrender, but I definitely believe it was the primary reason.

[Il_Mostro]

I'd be interested, since according to what I have read the highest estimated number at the time was 63000, see my post above.

[andyfox]

Truman, at times, used the figure. There is no basis in fact for it.

[Il_Mostro]

Well, it seems the Japanese was ready to surrender before even the first bomb was dropped. At least Truman seemed to think so.

[Warchant88]

I'm not positive on the American live saved. My number is probably high, but I have no doubt that the amount of Japanese lives lost during an invasion would ahve been catastrophic.

[Il_Mostro]

Hundreds of thousands of Japanese people where killed by the bombs. How many would have been killed in an invasion I don't know. I rememeber reading an article about Hiroshima and Nagasaki today, stating that the effects of the radioactivity is still present today in higher numbers of cancer and other things. No links to that, sorry, think I read it in a Swedish paper.

But Japan was ready to surrender without invasion.

[jaxmike]

sure buddy..

[jaxmike]

wrong.

the yeild of the bombs is fairly insignificant to todays standards. further, the amount of radiation is fairly small.

the areas the bombs were dropped in are still livable today.

the bombs killed a couple hundred thousand, this is true, however, invasion would have led to a likely 10 fold higher casualty rate.

reading things in a swedish paper does not lend to credibility much like reading things in the NYT does not lend to credibility.

[jaxmike]

not really. a little high MAYBE, but CERTAINLY not absurd.

[jaxmike]

where are you getting this from? you are making things up. thats one of the most idiotic things i have ever read, and you have written a lot of really ignorant things.

[jaxmike]

"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."

"It was hoped that the Japanese military would capitulate once American forces occupied the Tokyo Plain, but it is possible that they would fight to the last man. On Saipan, nearly 900 Japanese killed themselves rather than be taken prisoner by Americans. Such was the Japanese philosophy to fight to the last man. If an entire nation was compelled to launch suicide attacks against the occupying army, it is conceivable that many, many millions of Japanese civilians would die."

"In order to make an accurate comparison between the dropping of the atomic bombs and Operation Olympic, one must be adequately knowledgeable of the destruction that took place in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Hiroshima bombing killed about 66,000 people and devastated 4. 4 square miles, over two-thirds of the city. The Nagasaki bombing killed about 39,000 people, and destroyed half the city, bringing the total to 105,000 Japanese dead."

http://oror.essortment.com/presidenttruman_rywp.htm

nice 63000 number genius.

[Utah]

The problems with Churchill's comments were not his ideas but rather the hatred he spewed towards his fellow countrymen.

I think the World Trade Center was perfectly legitimate target, if there is such a thing.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
where are you getting this from?

[/ QUOTE ]
Read my post again and you will see that it is referenced. You are welcome to give counter arguments, if you reference them, but saying that I make things up when I cleary reference my statements are silly.

[jaxmike]

i provided specific refutation of your imaginary numbers. you are making things up, or just not hearing anything that you dont want to hear. 63000 was the highest you could find? then you are an idiot and terrible at research.

[Il_Mostro]

You claim me wrong. Well, give me at least a shred of evidence, I do not hold your word in high regard.
[ QUOTE ]

the areas the bombs were dropped in are still livable today.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did not claim they are not, I said the radiation is still noticable, in a higher cancer rate and other things.
[ QUOTE ]

reading things in a swedish paper does not lend to credibility

[/ QUOTE ]
You know a lot about Swedish journalism? If not, your statement is ignorant, silly and absurd.

[Il_Mostro]

Who wrote this? What is his credentials?
[ QUOTE ]
The only way anyone can judge Truman’s motives in dropping the atomic bomb is by analyzing the result of his decision.

[/ QUOTE ]
You may belive this, I do not. Motives are not measured with results.

[Il_Mostro]

You provided a link to a random internet source refuting my claims.

from your link:
[ QUOTE ]
along with the 50,000 to one million American dead

[/ QUOTE ]
Not very specific, are we.

[jaxmike]

i do know enough about sweedish journalism to know the liberal slant and dishonest reporting that is rampant.

[jaxmike]

who wrote the nonsense that you suggest, what are his credentials. if you are so ignorant as to discount any source that i present, yet expect me to believe your nonsensical prose then you are far beyond help. please, stop trying to win a battle of intellect with me as you will fail and fail miserably. there is no question that dropping the bombs on japan saved lives over an invasion. to suggest otherwise it to be totally and incompetently ignorant of the facts.

[Il_Mostro]

This is simply not true. There are liberal papers, leftist papers, rightist papers and many other. Please give me references to why you belive the way you do.
You can belive what you want, but if you are going to attack sources (I know it was not really a source this time, but you still attacked) based on them being Swedish you really need to tell me why you do that.

[Warchant88]

Wow, I didn't mean for the number I gave to start this, LOL. But it seems my numbers, although not perfect, were pretty accurate.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Had the U.S. dropped it's demand for unconditional surrender, the use of the bombs would not have been necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK then: given Japan's attitude and actions, I'd say the demand for unconditional surrender should not have been lowered to a lesser demand.

A highly belligerent and fanatic Japan had to be thoroughly defeated; their will to fight had to be removed; their Samurai/Kamikaze/Imperial spirit had to be BROKEN--unconditionally, in order that they should not rebuild and arise belligerent again.

Same with Germany.

After WWI, Germany did not FEEL truly defeated, and this helped set the stage for their eventual belligerent resurgence in WWII.

Today, it is belligerent Islamic fanatics who must be thoroughly defeated. They must be thoroughly broken in spirit as well as defeated materially (or killed).

I'm not saying that for sure it was necessary to drop the Bombs on Japan. However I do think that the unconditional Japanese surrender was a vital component of what it would have taken to ensure that they would not eventually rebuild belligerently again.

If you don't break your enemy psychologically, his giving up may prove to be an eventual mirage. The humbling, humiliation and complete subjugation of Japan was fully necessary, given their incredible belligerence and fanaticism at the time.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
who wrote the nonsense that you suggest, what are his credentials.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've already stated what my sources are. I have also stated that I am not an expert on these things, and that anyone is free to disagree, and if they give sources and references to refute I will look. You have not done so.

[ QUOTE ]
f you are so ignorant as to discount any source that i present

[/ QUOTE ]
I do not discount it, but it still is a random article from the internet. And it addresses historians that do not state the same thing it does as "revisionist", that's a warning sign. It also states the estimated number of deaths to bewteen 50 000 and 1 million, which means the author has absolutely no clue. And it states that motives can only be judged based on outcome. Another warning sign.


amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0380727641/002-0179602-4889633)
Lifton (http://www.answers.com/topic/robert-lifton)
From looking around at the net it seems the Lifton / Mitchell book I referenced are used quite a bit in education in the US.

[Il_Mostro]

What numbers do you mean? I still belive the 0.5 to 1 million deaths in invasion is hogwash.

[jaxmike]

then you are a fool. because the number would likely have been higher in terms of total deaths.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
I've already stated what my sources are. I have also stated that I am not an expert on these things, and that anyone is free to disagree, and if they give sources and references to refute I will look. You have not done so.


[/ QUOTE ]

I personally am an expert on World War II and History in general. You might not believe me, and I don't care whether you do or not, but my opinion, however distasteful to you, is more qualified than most.

[ QUOTE ]
And it addresses historians that do not state the same thing it does as "revisionist", that's a warning sign.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, a warning sign to the truth. Revisionist try to make the case against the use of the atomic weapons against Japan despite the overwhelming support for its use.

[ QUOTE ]
It also states the estimated number of deaths to bewteen 50 000 and 1 million, which means the author has absolutely no clue.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
By November, Japanese troop strength could easily double or triple, making between 500,000 and 1,000,000 American deaths conceivable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try making up numbers from the article. Learn how to read and count please.

[ QUOTE ]

From looking around at the net it seems the Lifton / Mitchell book I referenced are used quite a bit in education in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which makes me question its reliability.

[Il_Mostro]

From your article:
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can read just fine, thank you. Can you?

[jaxmike]

and from my article i have the one that says from 500,000 to 1,000,000 dead. however, at least i am smart enough to have decent reading comprehension. perhaps you should read the whole thing and realize what was meant in that paragraph. of course, reading at a 5th grade level would help.

[Il_Mostro]

Yes, your article has many many numbers. And it states at some places 500 000 to 1000 000 dead, and in another place 50 000 to 1000 000 dead. It's basically all over the place.

But please, if you are going to debate me, don't use all these ad hominem attacks you are using, it's not good practice. It's getting old really fast, you know.
And please tell me how I am to interpret that paragraph.

[jaxmike]

Basic reading comprehension.

In the article, he goes through the history of the estimates of casualties. Starting from the initial estimates of approximately 50,000 American service men killed to the higher numbers as more intelligence was gathered culminating with the 1,000,000 or more final numbers prior to the dropping of the bombs.

Near the end of the article, when he is wrapping up his point on the casualties, he puts in the numbers from 50,000 to 1,000,000 to encompass the entire range of the estimates on US casualties from the early to the final numbers. This is basically an overview, in the conclusion of this point, as to what he wrote about earlier, its simply common practice and a good idea when writing an essay.

I says in your bio that you are from Sweden. Let me say first that I am sorry, and second that I am going to assume that English might not be your first and most comfortable language and this might explain your failure to comprehend what you read all the time. Thus, its not entirely your fault, just an unfortunate result of your education.

[Slinky]

[ QUOTE ]
Basic reading comprehension.

In the article, he goes through the history of the estimates of casualties. Starting from the initial estimates of approximately 50,000 American service men killed to the higher numbers as more intelligence was gathered culminating with the 1,000,000 or more final numbers prior to the dropping of the bombs.

Near the end of the article, when he is wrapping up his point on the casualties, he puts in the numbers from 50,000 to 1,000,000 to encompass the entire range of the estimates on US casualties from the early to the final numbers. This is basically an overview, in the conclusion of this point, as to what he wrote about earlier, its simply common practice and a good idea when writing an essay.

I says in your bio that you are from Sweden. Let me say first that I am sorry, and second that I am going to assume that English might not be your first and most comfortable language and this might explain your failure to comprehend what you read all the time. Thus, its not entirely your fault, just an unfortunate result of your education.

[/ QUOTE ]

Either way, it's always amusing with people who can’t debate without getting very emotional and personal (like in the qute above). Here’s another classic:

[ QUOTE ]
oh no, i am well versed in the subject. it is you who are trying to revise things. the FACT is that Japan was NOT willing to SURRENDER under OUR TERMS which are the only ones that MATTER! So, because they were NOT ready to surrender to us, the atomic bombs were dropped. We DID get the "unconditional surrender" that WE wanted, IE no conditions that they put forth. (-jaxmike)

[/ QUOTE ]

Hilarious /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Warchant88]

His posts may sound dumb, but he is correct in this discussion, I believe.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
The problems with Churchill's comments were not his ideas but rather the hatred he spewed towards his fellow countrymen.

I think the World Trade Center was perfectly legitimate target, if there is such a thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto.

[Slinky]

[ QUOTE ]
His posts may sound dumb, but he is correct in this discussion, I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I believe he isn’t. Clearly there’s a debate among American historians over this subject, and thus we should be able to discuss it without capital letters. Once again, I recommend this good look at the arguments for and against the bombings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
Scroll down to “Debate over the decision to drop the bombs”.

[ QUOTE ]
oh no, i am well versed in the subject. it is you who are trying to revise things. the FACT is that Japan was NOT willing to SURRENDER under OUR TERMS which are the only ones that MATTER! So, because they were NOT ready to surrender to us, the atomic bombs were dropped. We DID get the "unconditional surrender" that WE wanted, IE no conditions that they put forth. (-jaxmike)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, so if the Emperor doesn’t “SURRENDER” under "OUR TERMS", then it’s ethical to wipe out his people? Say you happen to be a Japanese child in Tokyo at the time and you dislike being burned to death. Too bad, you should have thought of that before you were born in a dictatorship, right?

Well, I think the ethical thing to do was to let the Japanese elite have their “preservation of an imperial system”, if that could have saved a few hundred thousand civilian lives. Many American scholars agree with me here.

“The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that there was no military justification for the bombings.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

So jaxmike, i know you are well versed in the subject. But something tells me that General Douglas MacArthur was even more so. So maybe you can admit that charing his standpoint isn’t necessarily revisionism?

[fimbulwinter]

do they just not teach world history in sweden?

many posters with sweden as their locaton seem to have no idea what the heck they're talking about with respect to ancient (but gigantic) and recent historical events.

fim

[Slinky]

[ QUOTE ]
do they just not teach world history in sweden?

many posters with sweden as their locaton seem to have no idea what the heck they're talking about with respect to ancient (but gigantic) and recent historical events.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you point out something that I have written that makes it obvious that I don't know what I'm talking about? Or perhaps not...

[natedogg]

So if one has a great military power, it’s no longer wrong to murder women and children (to in this case, hurt the economics and morale of the enemy)? I disagree.

Well, that's not what I said either. If I may quote a great debater: "This style of making up opinions for one’s opponent in a debate is silly."

I said that 9/11 was not a military action. I did NOT say that if you have a great military you can kill civilians with impunity and without regard to morals. During a time of war, the morality of violence gets less clear. If you can't see that, you're hopeless.

Al Qaeda is not a military force and they weren't at war, so their violence is more clearly immoral. It's sad, absolutely pathetic in fact, that this needs to be explained.

If, for example, we were at war with Germany and the Germans sent some commandos to blow up the WTC because it housed crucial infrastucture, then I would honestly not condemn their actions. Nations have a right to wage war, and terrible things are done in war. People do not have a right to commit terrorist acts. There is a difference.

Thus, bombing the Cole is an immoral terrorist act. The men were not in action. If the Cole had been in action and taken a hit, that's different.

Now, on the issue of WWII.

Nothing is black and white my friend. I tried to point out patiently that a ground invasion would not have necessarily saved any more lives than the bombing campaign. I mentioned the battle for Okinawa as a good example of how poorly the civilian populace can fare during a battle between ground forces that does not in any way target civilians.

Furthermore, the arguments in this thread against saving allied forces' lives astonish me. Is this a joke?

Go find yourself a veteran of the Pacific Theatre and ask him how he feels about the argument that "hey, only X thousand soldiers would have been killed in a ground invasion, not one million, so we should not have used the bombing campaign to induce a surrender!"

Yeah right.

If you want to second-guess the political decision to demand surrender, fine. You might have a point. But given the military's instructions to achieve surrender, you must be insane to suggest that the bombs did not save allied lives.

They did. Obviously not 1 million, but many. How many is not enough? Go to the trenches and ask a soldier if he wants to die rather than bomb some of the enemy's infrastructure. And this "spare the civilians with a ground campaign" nonsense is just that: nonsense. Again, I urge you to study the battles of Stalingrad or Okinawa to help you understand.

To have such an unflexible view as you seem to espouse bespeaks of the same kind of fundamentalism that drove the 9/11 pilots. An unbending world view is usually quite dangerous. Black and white is really shades of grey, especially in war.

Here's a helpful thought experiment to illuminate the problem of black and white thinking.

I assume we all agree torture is wrong. It's a terrible thing and never justified.

Or is it? Imagine the world is about to blow up and one man has the secret to stop the catastrophe but he won't tell. You know you can get it from him through torture. What do you do? What if he is someone you know? Your brother? What if you are ordered to torture the information from him or you'll be executed for treason? What if you will be tortured if he isn't? What if he has been brainwashed or hypnotized or something it's not really him in a sense, but you have to do it anyway? What if it's just that he has the secret to save a minor catastrophe? 9/11? Another world war? Where do you draw the line?

You see, some decisions are difficult to make. They are muddy and confusing and you can't be sure what's right.

natedogg

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the World Trade Center was perfectly legitimate target, if there is such a thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Why? Why??? What am I missing?

Lastchance???? wtf?

[Slinky]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, that's not what I said either. If I may quote a great debater: "This style of making up opinions for one’s opponent in a debate is silly."

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn’t write “by your reckoning” and so on. I asked you a question. You said that the difference was that Tokyo was a military action. I wanted to know if you thought that this fact was justification for attacking civilians with Napalm. I can see that morale is more complicated during war. But I still think these Napalm terror bombings were war crimes. And you don’t, right?

[ QUOTE ]
Al Qaeda is not a military force and they weren't at war, so their violence is more clearly immoral. It's sad, absolutely pathetic in fact, that this needs to be explained.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you don’t need to explain that. I agree. I think both actions were immoral, and yes, one was clearer than the other. If you read what I wrote less sloppily, you can see that I wrote “No, never said they were morally equivalent.” Pathetic?

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is black and white my friend. I tried to point out patiently that a ground invasion would not have necessarily saved any more lives than the bombing campaign. I mentioned the battle for Okinawa as a good example of how poorly the civilian populace can fare during a battle between ground forces that does not in any way target civilians.

Furthermore, the arguments in this thread against saving allied forces' lives astonish me. Is this a joke?

[/ QUOTE ]

“The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that there was no military justification for the [atomic]bombings.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

As I’ve written on other places, I’m not alone in thinking they were unjustified. Read the text in the link, it’s not a joke.

[ QUOTE ]
Go find yourself a veteran of the Pacific Theatre and ask him how he feels about the argument that "hey, only X thousand soldiers would have been killed in a ground invasion, not one million, so we should not have used the bombing campaign to induce a surrender!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Well visit a Japanese grandmother whose brothers and sisters were burned alive, just because the US military wanted to hurt the economics and morale of the dictatorship they lived under. Then present your arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to second-guess the political decision to demand surrender, fine. You might have a point. But given the military's instructions to achieve surrender, you must be insane to suggest that the bombs did not save allied lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, I really think I do have a point. And, I’m not insane. At least I cannot remember saying that the bomb didn’t save American lives. But I think we both agree that it at some point it becomes immoral to kill civilians to save soldier lives, don’t we? I think US crossed that line. Nothing is black and white (and I am glad that you wish to be friends).

[ QUOTE ]
To have such an unflexible view as you seem to espouse bespeaks of the same kind of fundamentalism that drove the 9/11 pilots. An unbending world view is usually quite dangerous. Black and white is really shades of grey, especially in war.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t want to be inflexible, but I’m not sure you are the best role model for me. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I agree that the “save the world with torture” argument is interesting (and a very constructed). But bombing every mayor Japanese city with Napalm was not justified, in my opinion. It had no direct military effect, but killed hundreds of thousands civilians. Therefore, I think it was a crime. I don’t think this makes me into a fundamentalist.

If as many states as possible follow international law and condemn those who don’t, the world will be a lot safer. The worlds only super power should set a good example and refrain from attacking civilian buildings.

[Il_Mostro]

So far I have mostly cited American authors.

[nicky g]

"Al Qaeda is not a military force and they weren't at war, so their violence is more clearly immoral. It's sad, absolutely pathetic in fact, that this needs to be explained. "


Why are your posts so consistently obnoxiously condescending? This is a moral issue, your judgement on it is not the be all and end all.

"If, for example, we were at war with Germany and the Germans sent some commandos to blow up the WTC because it housed crucial infrastucture, then I would honestly not condemn their actions. Nations have a right to wage war, and terrible things are done in war. People do not have a right to commit terrorist acts. There is a difference. "

So anything a nation does in war is sort of OK, or at least sort of blurry, because bad things happen in war? And nations have a right to go to war? So if the Taliban had have done this instead of AQ, it would have been OK because they represented the nation of Afghanistan? Look, if that's your ethical code, never mind. But it's not some universal ethical code that everyone has to subscribe to. Some of the us see that nations have the right to go to war only in very specific circumstances, and regard any deliberate attacks on civilians as war crimes, terrorism, or whatever you want to call it, whether in or out of a state of war.

Posts like yours seem to be the vogue amongst the libertarian right on this forum. You guys have these almost religious ideas of what government's purpose is, of what is acceptable in and out of war etc, as if they were written in stone somewhere, as if you have had some kind of divine revelation, as if these were universal metaphysical truths passed down through the ages. You are welome to your opinions but you are not welcome to tell people they are flat out wrong when they judge that targetting civilians in war is morally wrong.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Do I personally think it was a legitimate target or should have been a legitimate target? Absolutely not. And that's said on the basis of all but absolute rejection of and opposition to U.S. policy. But what you have to understand, and what the listeners have to understand, is that under U.S. rules, it was an acceptable target.

[/ QUOTE ]

A nuanced position if I ever read one. Churchill called the WTC victims "Eichmans" and that is the source of the controversy. The "Eichman" connotation is far different than this nuanced position. BTW if you'd be so kind please explain the difference between "legitimate target" and "acceptable target."

[adios]

The United States had a keen interest in ending the war with Japan ASAP as Japan had a nuclear program. Yeah it's easy to be an armchair QB and state that Japan's nuclear program wasn't a real threat but I'm not ready to state that the U.S. knew this at the end of WWII. With that said I do believe that much of the U.S. bombing of civillian targets in WWII was wrong and I think the U.S. government of today would tacitly agree.

Using WWII events as a justification for 9/11 is demented.

[Utah]

Bombing civilians has and always will be a weapon of war and the tactic will be used by any army if needed. As we all know, the U.S. smoked 100,000s to a million civilians in WW2.

The U.S. doesnt need to bomb civilians now so we dont. However, lets say we got in a war with China and we were in desperate straights and we thought we were losing the war and we thought the only way to win was to bomb civilians. i guarantee you we would then bomb civilians.

To think of war as legitimate or non legitimate targets or to think in terms of good or evil is wrong.

There are enemies and you fight to win. It is that simple. Why would we ever expect an enemy to fight by our rules?

[jaxmike]

thanks. clearly you are intelligent.

[Slinky]

[ QUOTE ]
"Al Qaeda is not a military force and they weren't at war, so their violence is more clearly immoral. It's sad, absolutely pathetic in fact, that this needs to be explained. "


Why are your posts so consistently obnoxiously condescending? This is a moral issue, your judgement on it is not the be all and end all.

"If, for example, we were at war with Germany and the Germans sent some commandos to blow up the WTC because it housed crucial infrastucture, then I would honestly not condemn their actions. Nations have a right to wage war, and terrible things are done in war. People do not have a right to commit terrorist acts. There is a difference. "

So anything a nation does in war is sort of OK, or at least sort of blurry, because bad things happen in war? And nations have a right to go to war? So if the Taliban had have done this instead of AQ, it would have been OK because they represented the nation of Afghanistan? Look, if that's your ethical code, never mind. But it's not some universal ethical code that everyone has to subscribe to. Some of the us see that nations have the right to go to war only in very specific circumstances, and regard any deliberate attacks on civilians as war crimes, terrorism, or whatever you want to call it, whether in or out of a state of war.

Posts like yours seem to be the vogue amongst the libertarian right on this forum. You guys have these almost religious ideas of what government's purpose is, of what is acceptable in and out of war etc, as if they were written in stone somewhere, as if you have had some kind of divine revelation, as if these were universal metaphysical truths passed down through the ages. You are welome to your opinions but you are not welcome to tell people they are flat out wrong when they judge that targetting civilians in war is morally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was well said! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Slinky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do I personally think it was a legitimate target or should have been a legitimate target? Absolutely not. And that's said on the basis of all but absolute rejection of and opposition to U.S. policy. But what you have to understand, and what the listeners have to understand, is that under U.S. rules, it was an acceptable target.

[/ QUOTE ]

A nuanced position if I ever read one. Churchill called the WTC victims "Eichmans" and that is the source of the controversy. The "Eichman" connotation is far different than this nuanced position.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is partly why I titled this thread “Churchill is partly right”. The Eichman remark was stupid and false, since there is a real difference in working for the "third reich" and working for "the engine of profit".

[ QUOTE ]
BTW if you'd be so kind please explain the difference between "legitimate target" and "acceptable target."

[/ QUOTE ]

The key words here are “under U.S. rules”. “I don't think it's fair to bomb such targets in Baghdad, therefore I reject New York, but so long as United States is applying those rules out in the world, it really has no complaint when those rules are applied to it.” – Ward Churchill. He is saying neither of the targets should be acceptable.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

The key words here are “under U.S. rules”. “I don't think it's fair to bomb such targets in Baghdad, therefore I reject New York, but so long as United States is applying those rules out in the world, it really has no complaint when those rules are applied to it.” – Ward Churchill.

He is saying neither of the targets should be acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The U.S. took great pains to minimize civilian casualties in Iraq, and I don't think there was any building bombed in Iraq where the ratio of civilian to military personnel was 100:1 (or whatever it was in the WTC), or even close to that.

So: the U.S. is trying to minimize civilian casualties whilst al-Qaeda is trying to maximize them.

Putting aside for the moment the matter of al-Qaeda's illegitimacy, al-Qaeda is NOT playing by our rules (not by our current rules at least) because they have repeatedly tried to maximize civilian casualties in various attacks around the world.

Therefore Churchill's comparison, and his following argument, is simply not apt.

[jaxmike]

these people behead innocent civilians and he wants to compare the people in the WTC to Eichman. thats where is incompetence and negligence shows. he should be fired.

[CORed]

Japan had a nuclear program? I don't think that is correct. At least I've never heard or read that before. Germany had a nuclear program. That was one of the reasons for starting the Manhattan Project. Their program really didn't make a lot of progress, largely because most of the scientists that could have gotten the job done had been run out by the Nazis (and Fermi by the Fascists) and were working for us. If Japan did in fact have a nuclear program, I'd like to know your source for that information.

[CORed]

The contrast between the two W. Churchills is notable.

One was a great statesman, the other is a ridiculous fraud.

[jaxmike]

they were given information about a great many programs from the germans, i believe that the information about the nuclear program was enroute from berlin to tokyo when it was intercepted and either captured or destroyed. however, there i dont not recall whether or not japan had any nuclear program in the works. the germans were not as far off as you are insinuating, they were in no way immenent, but they were capable.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Bombing civilians has and always will be a weapon of war and the tactic will be used by any army if needed. As we all know, the U.S. smoked 100,000s to a million civilians in WW2.

The U.S. doesnt need to bomb civilians now so we dont. However, lets say we got in a war with China and we were in desperate straights and we thought we were losing the war and we thought the only way to win was to bomb civilians. i guarantee you we would then bomb civilians.

To think of war as legitimate or non legitimate targets or to think in terms of good or evil is wrong.

There are enemies and you fight to win. It is that simple. Why would we ever expect an enemy to fight by our rules?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a valid arguement that is hard to argue against. Just a FYI:

Lee Harris describes the WTC attacks as insipirational works of art. Art designed to motivate people to rise up against the west. Art designed to show that the sleeping giant is able to bleed.

[jaxmike]

remember what happened the last time it did. thats my only warning. in the end i have these words of advice to those who wish to harm us.

dont [censored] with the US, we are the only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons, we will again if we need to.

[adios]

I'm sorry but your answer doesn't explain the difference between "illegitimate" and "acceptable."

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
“I don't think it's fair to bomb such targets in Baghdad, therefore I reject New York, but so long as United States is applying those rules out in the world, it really has no complaint when those rules are applied to it.” – Ward Churchill. He is saying neither of the targets should be acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I thought he stated that it's illegitimate but acceptable.

I put Churchill's key phrases in italics

WARD CHURCHILL: Do I personally think it was a legitimate target or should have been a legitimate target? Absolutely not. And that's said on the basis of all but absolute rejection of and opposition to U.S. policy. But what you have to understand, and what the listeners have to understand, is that under U.S. rules, it was an acceptable target. And the reason it was an acceptable target, if none other, was that because the C.I.A., the Defense Department, and other parts of the U.S. military intelligence infrastructure, had situated offices within it, and you'll recall that that is precisely the justification advanced by the Donald Rumsfelds of the world, the Norman Schwarzkopfs, and the Colin Powells of the world, to explain why civilian targets had been bombed in Baghdad. Because that nefarious Saddam Hussein had situated elements of his command and control infrastructure within otherwise civilian occupied facilities. They said that, in itself, justified their bombing of the civilian facilities in order to eliminate the parts of the command and control infrastructure that were situated there. And of course, that then became Saddam Hussein's fault. Well, if it was Saddam Hussein's fault, sacrificing his own people, by encapsulating strategic targets within civilian facilities, the same rule would apply to the United States. So, if you've got a complaint out there with regard to the people who hit the World Trade Center, you should actually take it to the government of the United States, which, by the rubric they apply elsewhere in the world, everywhere else in the world ultimately, they converted them from civilian targets into legitimate military targets. Now, that logic is there, and it's unassailable. It's not something that I embrace. It's something that I just spell out.

I think this is fine lot of BS and mental masturbation by Churchill, illegitimate but acceptable? Puleeze /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[adios]

Your account is basically how I understand it.

[natedogg]

Some of the us see that nations have the right to go to war only in very specific circumstances, and regard any deliberate attacks on civilians as war crimes, terrorism, or whatever you want to call it, whether in or out of a state of war.

Let's back up.
I was specifically addressing the asinine comparison between 9/11 and the Pacific War in 1945.

When did the US deliberately target civilians in an unprovoked war action pre 9/11? Maybe there's an instance. I'd like to hear about it and condemn it with you.

But comparing Tokyo to 9/11 is fallacious because of many reasons, not the least of which is that it was most certainly NOT an unprovoked attack on civilians. Sorry if you find this condescending but I have only contempt for any of the little minds that can't see the differences between 9/11 and 1945.



natedogg

[andyfox]

My reading is that he's using the words legitimate and acceptable as synonyms. He thinks the WTC was not a legitimate or acceptable target; but he thinks that accordig to the United States "rules," it was a legitimate and acceptable target.

[Slinky]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's back up.
I was specifically addressing the asinine comparison between 9/11 and the Pacific War in 1945.

When did the US deliberately target civilians in an unprovoked war action pre 9/11? Maybe there's an instance. I'd like to hear about it and condemn it with you.

But comparing Tokyo to 9/11 is fallacious because of many reasons, not the least of which is that it was most certainly NOT an unprovoked attack on civilians. Sorry if you find this condescending but I have only contempt for any of the little minds that can't see the differences between 9/11 and 1945.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pre 9/11? The US bombed civilian buildings in former Yugoslavia. Famous are the bombings of Vietnam and Cambodia. Approximately 600,000 died as a result of US bombing campaigns only in Cambodia…

Here is an example where US attacked a civilian building in Iraq (post 9/11): http://hrw.org/press/2003/03/iraqtv032603.htm

I can see the difference between 9/11 and Tokyo during WW2. But I think you really understand that. Two things can both be immoral, without beeing the same thing. Besides, I take your insults lightly. I was using the US campaign against Japan as an example where the good side murdered civilians and then make excuses for it. That is how this new debate started.

I’ve been called stupid, fundamentalist and many other things during this debate, mainly because I argued against the Napalm and nuclear bombings on Japan. But don’t take my word for it. Listen to the words of Dwight Eisenhower, then General of the US army:

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

<font color="red"> "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." </font>

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

I think it’s always a crime to attack purely or almost purely civilian targets, even during war. Apparently this is very provocative to some. I’m not going to post anymore in this debate. Thanks, it’s been fun.

[Cyrus]

I think you are losing your grip here, nate. You are jumping from one assumption to the next and from one time frame to the next without so much as a second thought at what you are losing in the process!

Could you re-state your argument, please, but this time with a specific set of constants? Start by defining when a civilian area is off limits for military operations. We'll take it from there.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
When did the US deliberately target civilians in an unprovoked war action pre 9/11?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this some kind of a sick joke?

The United States has been hitting civilians routinely throughout its long and illustrious history! From cavalry officers poisoning Injun women and children to raining bombs on the heads of civilians in Yugoslavia and Iraq -- and that's only for the last decade or so.

For more, check out Slinky's post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1845532&amp;page=0&amp;view=e xpanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=&amp;vc=1).

And, by the way, I take it you concede with your statement above that the United States deliberately targeted civilians in an unprovoked war action after 9/11.

It's a start. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[natedogg]

"and, by the way, I take it you concede with your statement above that the United States deliberately targeted civilians in an unprovoked war action after 9/11."

Cyrus, I know you think I'm a neo-con or whatever, but I'm not a supporter of the Iraq war. I basically qualified the it as pre-9/11 so I wouldn't have to get into it about Iraq. Even so, I don't think we deliberately targeted civilians there. TV stations broadcasting info during a war are a legitimate target IMO. Maybe I'm unaware of other examples?

Also:
"The United States has been hitting civilians routinely throughout its long and illustrious history! "

There is a difference between war actions that end up hitting civilians and deliberately attacking civilians with the primary purpose of killing as many civilians as possible. You agree don't you?

Also, I am referring to unprovoked attacks on civilians. Bombing Tokyo is not in my book at unprovoked attack on civilians, and furthermore I think it qualifies as a Solomon's choice for many reasons. I can explain them but I'm sure you actually know them.

Lastly:

"From cavalry officers poisoning Injun women and children"

In this you have a point of course. But I consider both the Indian wars and Slavery to be so far in the past it's not the same country that did those things. Blaming today's USA for those crimes is like blaming today's England for Henry II's war crime of murdering French prisoners at Agincourt.

BTW, welcome back wherever you went.

natedogg

[natedogg]

Start by defining when a civilian area is off limits for military operations.

Never. Get out of the way people. There's a war on.

Now.... there's a difference between bombing a city because you need to occupy it as part of a strategic goal during your war vs. just unleashing your military on some unsuspecting civilian population with the goal of annihilating people (which is what 9/11 basically was, ignoring for a moment the illegitimacy of the "forces" to begin with).

This seems pretty easy to understand for everyone who's panties aren't in a bunch over the Iraq war going on today.

These people are so pissed off about Iraq, a war I don't support by the way, that they've abandoned all reason in their rush to hate all things American. And now they can't even tell the difference between murder and war collateral, and the make asinine comparisons between the Pacific Air War and 9/11, making themselves look like fools.

Just my humble opinion of course.

natedogg

[adios]

From Churchills statement:

[ QUOTE ]
Do I personally think it was a legitimate target or should have been a legitimate target? Absolutely not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep the WTC was an illegitimate target.

[ QUOTE ]
And that's said on the basis of all but absolute rejection of and opposition to U.S. policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not only illegitimate it's very illegitimate.

[ QUOTE ]
But what you have to understand, and what the listeners have to understand, is that under U.S. rules, it was an acceptable target.

[/ QUOTE ]

Legitimate? No. Acceptable? Yes! /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
My reading is that he's using the words legitimate and acceptable as synonyms. He thinks the WTC was not a legitimate or acceptable target; but he thinks that accordig to the United States "rules," it was a legitimate and acceptable target.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, I pretty much agree with how you are reading Churchill here, but that said, I think this rationale is probably something he concocted after his notorious statement was publicized. I also think he is playing word and idea games somewhat, and is also the old equivalence game (inappropriately of course).

By the way, in addition to holding scorn for Churchill's views and rationalizations, I am pretty sure the wacky bastard actually DOES think the following: that the WTC was a legitimate target, that al-Qaeda is a legitimate adversary, and that the U.S. (and the financial workers in the WTC) deserved it and deserves more 9/11's.

Please feel free to state your candid guess as to what you think Churchill really thinks. You will of course notice that I am essentially calling him a liar when he states that (in his view) the WTC was not a legitimate target--I would put it at least 90% that he thinks the exact opposite, as well as the other things outlined above. So in my view he is not only a nut but a con man as well.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a supporter of the Iraq war.

[/ QUOTE ] When I wrote that "you concede that after 9/11 America attacked civilians" I was joking! i.e. America never stopped attacking but I didn't expect you to concede the point.

[ QUOTE ]
Blaming today's USA for those crimes is like blaming today's England for Henry II's war crime[s].

[/ QUOTE ] Well, the time frame is somewhat different! /images/graemlins/cool.gif But, seriously, America (and Britain) never stopped killing! Continuity is their outstanding characteristic.

Unlike, for instance, Sweden, which changed from a viciously warmongering country to a most peaceful one (for various reasons), the US and Britain have been attacking civilians with gusto continuously.

Must be something in the cousins' genes. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think we deliberately targeted civilians [in Iraq]. There is a difference between war actions that end up hitting civilians and deliberately attacking civilians with the primary purpose of killing as many civilians as possible. I am referring to unprovoked attacks on civilians. Bombing Tokyo is not in my book at unprovoked attack on civilians.

[/ QUOTE ] At some point in time, during a prolonged conventional war, hitting the other side's civilians becomes inevitable. As has happened throughout History. (Note that before WWI, it was thought "natural" to plunder and pillage the countryside of the "enemy"!)

In modern day terror warfare, waged with organised states pitted against renegade individuals/groups, the boundaries between civilians and combattants are drawn arbitrarily and mostly with one eye towards the propaganda aspect of an operation.

I proceed on the assumption that military action against civilians (whether deliberate or as-careless-as-to-be-equivalent-to-deliberate) is worse when undertaken by organised states, e.g. Britain, the US, than when undertaken by individuals or groups of individuals, e.g. al Qaeda. Morally as well as materially.

* * *

I'm currently ordering a book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393059863/qid=1109867361/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7936951-4668917?v=glance&amp;s=books) about how Great Britain treated the Mau Mau freedom fighters and the civilian population in Kenya, post-WWII, when Kenya tried to gain its independence. (Foolishly believing all that anti-colonial rhetoric!) From the reviews I've read, it will be a book to make my hairs stand on end - and I need that before I hit the barbers.

[andyfox]

Acceptable under U.S. rules, but not under Churchill's. The way I read it.

[andyfox]

I've browsed through Churchill's books at the bookstore, but never actually read any of them. My sense is that you're correct when you say he is indeed trying to cover his ass. Not having read his books, I can't guess what he "really" thinks. His sentence structure makes his thinking hard to follow, at least for me.

[Slinky]

No message, I just wanted the thread to reach 100 replies. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[natedogg]

I proceed on the assumption that military action against civilians (whether deliberate or as-careless-as-to-be-equivalent-to-deliberate) is worse when undertaken by organised states, e.g. Britain, the US, than when undertaken by individuals or groups of individuals, e.g. al Qaeda. Morally as well as materially.

This is a pretty astonishing statement. Are you really saying that you find the actions of Mohammed Atta and Timothy McVeigh to be less morally objectionable than the actions taken by military leaders in any case where they end up killing civilians, even if only collaterally? Wow.

Let's just say our moral codes are different. Ironically, I am the one who generally despises the state and you are the one who supports such encompassing nanny-state intrusions like Social Security.

Yet I am more offended by indiscriminate killing of civilians when done by fanatics and you are more offended by killings done by a state's military with a strategic objective (even when the objective is justified). Funny eh? I realize that my view may be somewhat inconsistent, as is yours.


natedogg

[Zeno]

What may be a surprise to some, but not all, is that I listened to the majority of Amy Goodman’s 'Democracy Now' interview with Mr. Churchill. Like all good liberals, I love NPR. Anyway, in hearing Mr. Churchill’s responses to Amy's questions some things were clear to me about Mr. Churchill: He loves to hear himself talk; He rambles a bit and strings together discontinuous thoughts; He is disingenuous; He was covering his tracks; He employs obfuscation as a screen to his ‘real ideas and thoughts’; He adores the attention he is getting and will use it to the hilt to further whatever political agenda he marches in lock step with.

In all probability, Mr. Churchill is dogmatic in the extreme, similar to many terrorists. He is genuinely pleased that a group of religious fanatics killed people in New York City from the WTC attacks as it proves and shows that America and Capitalism are great evils in the world. He justifies the WTC attack and behavior with a blend of academese, false analogy, misguided and faulty logic, and selective use of ethics that all come together to satisfy his own preconceived notions of the world.


All the statements above are my interpretations and opinions, I could be wrong in some statements. I have met people like Mr. Churchill before – in general, they are academic charlatans. But not in all areas of thought or ideas, which makes them doubly dangerous and slippery as eels.

-Zeno

[Chris Alger]

Nonsense. In the first place, the destructive effect of the bombs could have been demonstrated by dropping them on unpopulated or at least less populated areas, rather than huge civilian concentrations.

Second, the "partial surrender" proposed by the Japanese was the one they eventually obtained: to be allowed to keep their emperor, a position the Japanese adopted even before the bombs were dropped. Russia wasn't about to and never did invade over that. The U.S. was obsessed about "unconditional surrender" and probably willing to murder millions over this niggling point. From Stephen Shalom, " VJ Day: Remembering the Pacific War (http://www.bcasnet.org/articlesandresources/article11_1.htm), Critical Asian Studies, 12/4/04: <ul type="square">The United States had broken the Japanese code and therefore knew what Japanese leaders were holding out for: they wanted to be assured that they could retain the emperor. Washington, however, was insisting on unconditional surrender, which, as Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori cabled to his ambassador in Moscow in July 1945, "is the only obstacle to peace."84 Undersecretary of State Joseph Grew, the former U.S. envoy to Tokyo, recommended that the Japanese be told that they could maintain the emperor, but Truman rejected the advice. The Potsdam declaration which called on Japanese forces to surrender unconditionally said nothing about the emperor.85 And the U.S. made no effort to contact Japanese diplomats privately to convey that the emperor could be retained. [/list]

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
the FACT is that Japan was NOT willing to SURRENDER under OUR TERMS which are the only ones that MATTER!

[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting how quickly you jettison the pretense of wanting to save lives. Now you admit that tens of thousands of civilians needed murdering merely because "our" surrender terms "are the only ones that matter." In other words, The U.S. should always get its own way, even if what we're offered (they just wanted to keep their emporer) is something we'll eventually give them anyway.

By your analysis, the U.S. justifiably used atom bombs on Japan merely to score debating points about the "conditionality" of the surrender.

Scratch a "conservative," uncover a Nazi.

[Chris Alger]

This is repugnant. We can dispense with the first because invasion was never a realistic scenario. By July 1945, the U.S. knew that Japan was willing to surrender and wasn't going to sacrifice a million troops over a "conditionality" dispute.

Your other reasons are purely terroristic: killing over a hundred thousand innocents for "revenge" against something their government but they themselves never did and to "intimidate" a third country.

For these reasons, you contend that nuking Japan "was the correct decision." Hasn't it occurred to you that the same reasons would justify all sorts of individuals, groups and countries doing the same to the U.S., and that you'd have to agree with them?

[lastchance]

War is what it is, don't kid yourself.

The only reasons there are rules of war is because it is mutually beneficial for both sides to agree not to do things in fighting a certain war. Rules of war are about as morally-bound as any other thing in foreign relations.

A WTC attack like this is a standard guerilla tactic, and has been for about 100-200 years. What would you have the terrorists do? Go up against the US army? You can't expect terrorists to take a tack which is clearly going to be ineffective and pointless.

And 9/11 was effective. It accomplished the goal of making the US's depression even deeper. It also helped create a deficit. This is +EV, and it is a legitimate war aim.

That said, the US is going to beat the terrorists. Guerilla tactics are generally designed to make a foreign army leave your land, to force your opponent concessions because it is too costly to stay in. They can't drive the price steep enough to destroy the US without nukes or biological weapons, maybe even with nukes + biological weapons.

[Cyrus]

You need to retrace your steps. I'm serious.

On one hand you are anti-big government and pro-individual freedoms. (I recall you are somewhat of a libertarian bend.)

On the other hand, you are saying that the actions of dangerous and/or invididuals are somehow morally more objectionable than the actions taken by organised states.

This is a contradiction.

I am consistent, though : Although the end result is the same (civilian Joe dies - and there is only one state of being dead!), an organised regime is, by definition, far more (potentially) dangerous than any kind of individual or group of individuals.

Note: I am using the term "dangerous" to signify the extent of material threat (how much damage can be inflicted) as well as the political threat (how can political rights and freedoms be affected).

Therefore, morally, we have to object more strongly (even if only slightly more) against civilian killing perpetrated by organised states, such as Britain, the US, etc, than when perpetrated by deranged and/or dangerous individuals. Yes, even by the likes of Atta.

I understand that this is hard to stomach but the reason is that there is a disproportionate representation of the two in most analyses. Nonetheless, the organised state is omnipresent, albeit in mostly its imaginary (but extremely potent) institutionalisation.

An important book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0262531550/qid=1109923400/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-7936951-4668917?v=glance&amp;s=books&amp;n=507846)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The US is going to beat the terrorists. Guerilla tactics are generally designed to make a foreign army leave your land, to force your opponent concessions because it is too costly to stay in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah but what if this is not the aim of those "guerillas"?

I submit that this is not a war about territory. Although one of the reasons that bin Laden offers is "the American presence in (occupation of) the Land of the Holy Mosques" (i.e. Saudi Arabia), there is no way in hell that this is about national liberation.

Watch "The Battle Of Algiers" for insights and tactics (and entertainment) but this is a different war altogether!

Therefore, one must proceed in diff (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1574888498/qid=1109925615/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-7936951-4668917)erent syllogisms.

[natedogg]

On one hand you are anti-big government and pro-individual freedoms. ...

On the other hand, you are saying that the actions of dangerous and/or invididuals are somehow morally more objectionable than the actions taken by organised states.

This is a contradiction.

It seems like it. I even thought maybe so at first. But I don't think it is.

I value individuals freedoms more and hold individuals more responsible for their actions. My love of the individual causes me to condemn individuals more harshly when they commit moral mistakes.

You love the state more and hold the state more responsible for its actions. Your love of the state causes you to condemn the state more harshly when mistakes are made (even when an immoral intent is not even there! Which I find rather odd).

This discussion began because of an asinine comparison between the immorality of 9/11 and Tokyo '45. I still shake my head thinking about that. The comparison fails for many reasons, not the least of which is intentionality.

If you think that intentionality is not relevant when judging the morality of an action we can just stop. We'll never agree.

Tim McVeigh's strategic objective was to slaughter civilians out of anger. The War Department's strategic objective in the Pacific War was to end a global war as quickly as possible, a war they did not start. It was not a war of aggression or conquest.

Even in the Iraq War, the strategic objective was NOT just to go in and slaughter people. The goal and justification of the war was complex, and not worth hashing out here. But I would think you'd have a hard time finding anyone in the U.S. who would tell you that the reason to invade Iraq was so we could kill civilians.

It's like the difference between murdering in self-defense and murdering to steal. Murder isn't wrong. It's the reason for a given murder that gives it its morally objectionable status. If a person invades my home and tries to murder or even merely harm my child, I am perfectly justified in shooting him. If I want to break into an old woman's apartment and steal her stuff, I'm not justified in killing her with an ax to silence her witness*.

All humans intuitively understand this except pacificists. These days, America-haters tend to conveniently forget intionality for purposes of discussion so they can condemn all things Western while ignoring this basic fact ...

Killing civilians in war is absolutely unavoidable, and the moral culpability for the deaths comes from the moral justification of the war. It doesn't go the other way. The civilian deaths do not automatically mean the war action was immoral or unjustified.

In order for a nation to be as morally culpable as Mohammed Atta, it would have to go to war FOR THE PURPOSE of killing civilians and causing as much mayhem as possible out of hatred and anger.

I don't recall that my country has ever done that.

I am consistent, though : Although the end result is the same (civilian Joe dies - and there is only one state of being dead!), an organised regime is, by definition, far more (potentially) dangerous than any kind of individual or group of individuals.


"More dangerous" does not mean more morally culpable. Those are two different things. If you judge morality of an action only on the results of an action, then you can end up justifying or condemning anything...

And my underlying assumption when discussing acts of war is that there's a justification for the war. Immoral wars are immoral. It's not the civilian collateral that's inherently immoral.

natedogg

*English Major alert

[natedogg]

Man you just can't win against these people.

If the U.S. had pulled up and struck a deal with the Emperor, there's a chance that the Fascists and militarists could have resurged in Japan. Then we'd be here listening to you condemn America for creating another mess with bungled foreign policy, and for dealing with dictators only when its convenient, blah blah blah.

It was absolutely vital that the Fascist leadership not be allowed to save face by securing the life of the Emperor. The Emperor was a powerful symbol to the fanatic leadership and much of the fanatic population. The Allies could not concede on that demand, especially that demand.

Does this all really need to be explained? The embers of Fascism could not be allowed to smolder in post-war Japan (or Germany). Unconditional surrender was an important part of achieving that against the Axis, and no where more so than in Japan.

Even if it wasn't absolutley vital, it's easy to condemn the U.S. now... but at the time the fear of a resurgent Japanese militarism was not unjustified. The whole war was the result of allowing a resurgent German militarism.

It was important to the future of the region, the world, and even the Japanese people that we achieve unconditional surrender. It was one of the wisest policies the Allies pursued.

natedogg

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
By your analysis, the U.S. justifiably used atom bombs on Japan merely to score debating points about the "conditionality" of the surrender.

Scratch a "conservative," uncover a Nazi.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scratch a bleeding heart pacifist, watch him resort to name-calling?

Unconditional surrender was crucial. See my post above. It had nothing to do with "debating points".

natedogg

[jaxmike]

funny how i am a nazi now. even though that is like not consistent with any of my views. but go back to the name calling because thats all you know how to do.

the US was justified in doing whatever it wanted to end World War II. thats all, and that cannot be argued because we were attacked first and the japanese fought a very dirty war. so, knowing this, I am willing to justify anything that we wanted or did do in that war.

calling me a nazi is not only ignorant, its pointless. to try to compare conservatives to nazis is equally stupid. do you understand the ideological differences? i doubt it, its just what you have been trained to do.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
funny how i am a nazi now. even though that is like not consistent with any of my views. but go back to the name calling because thats all you know how to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny Alger calling people Nazi's when he clearly supports murder, terrorism, and oppressive dictatorial regimes.

[jaxmike]

ZING!

[Chris Alger]

How would you describe someone who tries to justify killing of tens of thousands of civilians to obtain a surrender term -- retaining the emperor -- so immaterial and inconsequential that the U.S. never enforced it?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
If the U.S. had pulled up and struck a deal with the Emperor, there's a chance that the Fascists and militarists could have resurged in Japan. ... It was absolutely vital that the Fascist leadership not be allowed to save face by securing the life of the Emperor. The Emperor was a powerful symbol to the fanatic leadership and much of the fanatic population. The Allies could not concede on that demand, especially that demand.

[/ QUOTE ]
We know this speculation is nonsense because the U.S. let the Emperor stay. It did so because the chance of a contested or troubled occupation following surrender was greater if the imperial throne were terminated. The policy of unconditional surrender cannot possibly be justified on the grounds of refusing to let the fascists "save face" because our policy was to allow the fascists to do exactly that.

Your argument is as comic as justifying the destruction of Japan's industrial centers on the grounds that it was vital that Japan remain an agrarian, deindustrialized society for all time.

[Slinky]

[ QUOTE ]
the US was justified in doing whatever it wanted to end World War II. thats all, and that cannot be argued because we were attacked first and the japanese fought a very dirty war. so, knowing this, I am willing to justify anything that we wanted or did do in that war.

[/ QUOTE ]

jaxmike's and natedog's ethics is extremely repulsive to me. The Japanese civilians didn’t start the war, so how can murdering them be justified. If they’re not responsible, then what makes it justified? Are Japanese sub-human? Here are some relevant American voices from the time:

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman) "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."


GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. "
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE
(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)
"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. "
Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.


Couldn't resist posting...

[player24]

A fair and balanced point-of-view...

Effects of the WWII Atomic Bombs
When the atomic bomb went off over Hiroshima on Aug. 6th,
1945, 70,000 lives were ended in a flash. To the American people who were weary from the long and brutal war, such a drastic measure seemed a necessary, even righteous way to end the madness that was World War II. However, the madness had just begun. That August morning was the day that heralded the dawn of the nuclear age, and with it came more than just the loss of lives. According to Archibald MacLeish, a U.S. poet, "What happened at Hiroshima was not only that a scientific breakthrough . . . had occurred and that a great part of the population of a city had been burned to death, but that the problem of the relation of the triumphs of modern science to the human purposes of man had been explicitly defined." The entire globe was now to live with the fear of total annihilation, the fear that drove the cold war, the fear that has forever changed world politics. The fear is real, more real today than ever, for the ease at which a nuclear bomb is achieved in this day and age sparks fear in the hearts of most people on this planet. According to General Douglas MacArthur, "We have had our last chance. If we do not devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door." The decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japanese citizens in August, 1945, as a means to bring the long Pacific war to an end was justified-militarily, politically and morally.

The goal of waging war is victory with minimum losses on one's own side and, if possible, on the enemy's side. No one disputes the fact that the Japanese military was prepared to fight to the last man to defend the home islands, and indeed had already demonstrated this
determination in previous Pacific island campaigns. A weapon originally developed to contain a Nazi atomic project was available that would spare Americans hundreds of thousands of causalities in an invasion of Japan, and-not incidentally-save several times more than that among Japanese soldiers and civilians. The thousands who have
died in the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far less than would have died in an allied invasion, and their sudden deaths convinced the Japanese military to surrender.

Every nation has an interest in being at peace with other
nations, but there has never been a time when the world was free of the scourge of war. Hence, peaceful nations must always have adequate military force at their disposal in order to deter or defeat the aggressive designs of rogue nations. The United States was therefore right in using whatever means were necessary to defeat the Japanese
empire in the war which the latter began, including the use of superior or more powerful weaponry-not only to defeat Japan but to remain able following the war to maintain peace sufficiently to guarantee its own existence. A long, costly and bloody conflict is a wasteful use of a nation's resources when quicker, more decisive means are available. Japan was not then-or later-the only nation America had
to restrain, and an all-out U.S. invasion of Japan would have risked the victory already gained in Europe in the face of the palpable thereat of Soviet domination.

Finally, we can never forget the maxim of Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor brought us into a war which we had vainly hoped to avoid. We could no longer "do nothing" but were compelled to "do something" to roll back the Japanese militarists. Victims of aggression have every right both to end the
aggression and to prevent the perpetrator of it from continuing or renewing it. Our natural right of self defense as well as our moral duty to defeat tyranny justified our decision to wage the war and, ultimately, to drop the atomic bomb. We should expect political leaders to be guided by moral principles but this does not mean they
must subject millions of people to needless injury or death out of a misplaced concern for the safety of enemy soldiers or civilians.

President Truman's decision to deploy atomic power in Japan
revealed a man who understood the moral issues at stake and who had the courage to strike a decisive blow that quickly brought to an end the most destructive war in human history. Squeamishness is not a moral principle, but making the best decisions at the time, given the circumstances, is clear evidence that the decision maker is guided by
morality.

The atomic bomb was considered a "quick" and even economical way to win the war; however, it was a cruel and unusual form of punishment for the Japanese citizens. The weapon that we refer to as "quick" was just the opposite. On one hand, it meant a quick end to the war for the United States, and on the other hand, a slow and painful death to many innocent Japanese. According to a book called Hiroshima Plus 20 the effects of radiation poisoning are horrific, ranging from purple spots on the skin, hair loss, nausea, vomiting, bleeding from the mouth, gums, and throat, weakened immune systems, to massive internal hemorrhaging, not to mention the disfiguring radiation burns. The effects of the radiation poisoning continued to
show up until about a month after the bombing. In fact the bomb also killed or permanently damaged fetuses in the womb. Death and destruction are always a reality of war; however, a quick death is always more humanitarian.

When this powerful nation called the United States dropped the bomb, we sent out the official "go ahead" for the rest of the world that nuclear weapons were a viable means of warfare. We unofficially announced that it was O.K. to bomb women, children, and elderly citizens. The thought that atomic weapons are needed to keep the peace is exactly the idea that fueled the cold war. Albert Einstein said
in a speech, "The armament race between the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R., originally supposed to be a preventative measure, assumes hysterical character. On both sides, the means of mass-destruction are perfected with feverish haste . . . The H-bomb appears on the public horizon as a probably attainable goal. Its accelerated development has been
solemnly proclaimed by the president."

In short, according to Hiroshima Plus 20, by now, the military has at least 50, 000 nuclear warheads in storage and ready with a handful of people in charge of them. In the words of James Conant, President of Harvard, "The extreme dangers to mankind inherent in the proposal wholly outweigh any military advantage."

Has the atomic bomb introduced "the fear of total annihilation ...that has forever changed world politics"? That seems to be the main point of the argument against dropping the atomic bomb on Japanese cities in August, 1945. Yet this judgment completely abstracts from the concrete circumstances in which the decision was made-a world exhausted by war; an implacable, cunning and ruthless
enemy; hundreds of thousands of casualties in an allied invasion of Japan; permanent strategic considerations; and the like. In other words, the reply fails to meet the argument for dropping the bomb and changes the subject from "the immediate decision to the long-term consequences of the decision.

But even if one grants the point about fear of annihilation, it is not clear that the world has fundamentally changed nor that the whole world is always in danger of nations from time immemorial. For example, ancient Rome sacked Carthage, plowed it under and salted the earth. Medieval and modern religious wars have annihilated millions. More recently, there was Hitler's genocidal six-million-death "final solution to the Jewish problem," and the Communists' ten of millions of mass murders continue to this day. All this has been done without benefit of nuclear power.

Gen. MacArthur's comments came at the beginning of the atomic or nuclear age, and while the source and the judgment deserve respect, experience has shown that nuclear power in Western hands deterred a third world war and ultimately caused the collapse of the greatest threat to world peace since World War II, namely, the Soviet Union.
But even during the much-decried "arms race" of the Cold War years, both East and West refined their crude nuclear technology to suit the requirements of waging war, e.g. targeting the enemy's missiles, aircraft and submarines, rather than putting all their eggs in the nuclear annihilation basket. War is a terrible thing but the fear of annihilation will curb even the greatest tyrants' bloodlust.

In short, fear is part of the human condition and those
peaceful nations which learn to live with the destructive potential of nuclear power are capable of great good. Great evil is more likely to be the result of unchecked nuclear power in hands of lawless nations. As ever, peace and safety depend upon military power being in the
right hands.

---
Works Cited

"Fifty Years Later"; Internet Document;
http://www.sjmercury.com/hirohome.htm

Finney, et. al. Hiroshima Plus 20. New York, New York; Delacorte; 1965

[natedogg]

"The policy of unconditional surrender cannot possibly be justified on the grounds of refusing to let the fascists "save face" because our policy was to allow the fascists to do exactly that."

Actually killing him was not the important part. Getting the surrender and having him in position to suffer execution was.

I'm sorry you don't get it. That's really too bad.

Allowing the emperor to live after we achieved total surrender of Japan, which included the life of their emperor, was brilliant move and probably crucial to the future peace and prosperity of the region.

Allowing the Fascist leadership to save face in front of their people and their emperor would have been a bad move.

I don't know how much more plainly to put it. It was extremely important to have the emperor.

natedogg

[natedogg]

jaxmike's and natedog's ethics is extremely repulsive to me. The Japanese civilians didn’t start the war, so how can murdering them be justified. If they’re not responsible, then what makes it justified?

For one, I think you misunderstand my position, and certainly you misunderstand my ethics. The civilians killed in Japan and Germany did NOT deserve to die. And killing them for the sake of slaughter would be morally abhorrent. But to quote a great movie, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it". And the allies did not orchestrate civilian deaths for the sake of slaughter.

If you don't value your own people more than the enemy, why are you even fighting in the first place? At some point you owe it to your own soldiers to effect a peace as quickly as possible, but in a way that provides a secure future for your nation. To leave the facsist beast smoldering would have been folly. The entire war was the result of accepting peace in WWI before eliminating the militarists in Germany... Can you really blame the Allies for wanting to avoid that mistake again at all costs?!

Bombing the hell out of Japan shortened the war. Unconditional surrender paved the war for peace and prosperity in the future. Life sucks.

Other courses of action would have had different costs and I'm sure you'd be ranting against the USA right now for 'getting in bed with fascist dictators when it was convenient'.

It's SOOOOO easy to be an armchair general 60 years later isn't it?

Two, if I find some quotes from prominent leaders who voice support for my position, does that help my case? If not then you should realize the fallacy of using your own quotes to bolster your point. (Especially Douglas MacArther who was a petulant prima-donna on the outs with Truman... his is a suspect analysis to say the least.)

I still contend that if you can't see the moral difference between a terrorist attack like 9/11 perpetrated by the like of Mohammed Atta, and the actions taken during wartime by a nation defending itself against Fascist aggression .... then YOU are the one whose ethics are questionable.

I have a strong suspicion you'd come out more harshly against 9/11-type terrorist attacks if it had not happened to the USA.

natedogg

[Zeno]

Interesting article:

The Decision that Launched the Endola Gay, Air Force Magazine, April, 1994 (http://www.afa.org/media/enolagay/07-02.html)

Excerpts from the article:

Through July and into August, Japan continued to hope it could negotiate terms, including concessions for control of the armed forces and the future of its military leaders. The passage of time and the repeated publication of pictures from Hiroshima and Nagasaki have transformed Japan's image to that of victim in World War II. In the 1940s, Japan's image was different.

The Allies had imposed unconditional surrender on Germany. The United States was not inclined to make deals with the Japanese regime responsible for Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death march, the forced labor camps, habitual mistreatment of prisoners of war, and a fifteen-year chain of atrocities stretching from Manchuria to the East Indies.


Options

Basically, President Truman and the armed forces had three strategic options for inducing the Japanese surrender:

Continue the firebombing and blockade. After the war, the Strategic Bombing Survey would conclude that without the atomic bomb or invasion, Japan would have accepted unconditional surrender, probably by November and definitely by the end of the year. In 1945, however, the AAF was not able to persuade General Marshall that this strategy would work.

Invasion.

Neither Marshall nor Truman was convinced that LeMay's B-29 bombing campaign could bring a prompt end to the war. In their view, the only conventional alternative was invasion.

Use the atomic bomb.

Within a few years after World War II, the specter of global nuclear war (combined with visions of Hiroshima) would imbue the bomb with special horror. In 1945, the perspective was different. Doubts about use of the atomic bomb were mostly of a strategic nature, reflecting the belief that an invasion might not be necessary or that bombing and blockade would be sufficient. (Use of the bomb to end the war eventually saved Japanese casualties, too. The incendiary bombs from B-29s were taking a terrible toll. The attack on Tokyo in March killed more people than either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs.)

Truman was acutely aware that hesitation would be paid for in blood. The Japanese refusal to surrender led to 48,000 American casualties in the battle for Okinawa between April and June. Kamikaze attacks in that battle sank twenty-eight US ships and did severe damage to hundreds more. The Japanese force on Okinawa was only a fraction the size of the one waiting in the home islands.

************************************************** ****


The unit that would deliver the atomic bombs, the 509th Composite Group, had been organized in 1944. Crews were hand-picked by the commander, Col. Paul W. Tibbets, Jr. In the early morning hours of August 6, the Enola Gay, flown by Tibbets, took off from Tinian. The primary target was Hiroshima, the seventh largest city in Japan, an industrial and military shipping center on the Inland seacoast of Honshu. At precisely 8:16 a.m., the atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima. More than half of the city was destroyed in a flash, and about 80,000 people were killed.

Reaction by the Japanese Cabinet was split between the war faction and the peace faction. With the cabinet at an impasse, Hirohito took a more assertive position. On August 8, the Emperor instructed Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo to tell Prime Minister Suzuki that Japan must accept the inevitable and terminate the war with the least possible delay and that the tragedy of Hiroshima must not be repeated.

Anami could not bring himself to flatly defy the Emperor, but he continued to argue his position passionately. Hard-liners in the military were plotting to kill Suzuki and others of the peace faction. Anami was not part of the plot -- although his brother-in-law, Masahiko Takeshita, was a ringleader.


************************************************** ****

"Bear the Unbearable"

Japanese deliberation on August 9 lasted all day and into the night. At a cabinet meeting that began at 2:30 p.m. -- hours after the second atomic bomb had fallen -- Anami said, "We cannot pretend to claim that victory is certain, but it is far too early to say the war is lost. That we will inflict severe losses on the enemy when he invades Japan is certain, and it is by no means impossible that we may be able to reverse the situation in our favor, pulling victory out of defeat." Finally, at 2:00 a.m. on August 10, the Emperor told the Big Six meeting (the Supreme War Council) that "the time has come to bear the unbearable" and that "I give my sanction to the proposal to accept the Allied Proclamation on the basis outlined by the Foreign Minister."

At 4:00 a.m., the cabinet adopted a message for radio transmission to Allied powers, saying in part: "The Japanese Government ready to accept the terms enumerated in the joint declaration which was issued at Potsdam on July 26th, 1945, by the heads of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, and China, and later subscribed to by the Soviet Government, with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler."

The Allied response August 11 said that the "authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers" and that "the Emperor shall authorize and ensure the signature by the Government of Japan and the Japanese General Headquarters of the surrender terms."


V-J Day

The Anami faction continued to haggle, but at noon on August 14, the Emperor asked the cabinet to prepare an Imperial Rescript of Surrender. He said that "a peaceful end to the war is preferable to seeing Japan annihilated." The plotters engaged in various disruptive actions in the hours that followed, but it was over. At 11:30 p.m. the Emperor recorded his radio message for broadcast the following day. General Anami, preferring to die rather than see Japan surrender, committed seppuku at 5:00 a.m., August 15.

In the Imperial Rescript of Surrender, broadcast at noon on August 15, Emperor Hirohito said, "Despite the best that has been done by everyone -- the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people -- the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.

"Moreover, [i]the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. [Emphasis added.]

"Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers."


__________________________________________________ ______


One reason I posted the above excerpts is to show that the article is fairly balanced. Note that the author concedes that the Japanese probably would have surrendered later in the year without the use of the Atomic bomb - but at the cost of a blockade and continued firebombing of cities. The firebombing was very deadly and probably would have killed more people than the two Atomic Bombs that were dropped. Not to mentioned that a blockade would add to Japanese citzens overall misery.

Another very interesting and important factor to all this is the War Faction within the Japanese Military Command that wished to continue the fight, even after the two Atomic Bombs were dropped. The fanaticism of some of the High Command within the Japanese Military is reveled in this intransient stance in addition to their plot to kill some important ministers.

Note also: 'The plotters engaged in various disruptive actions in the hours that followed, but it was over."

This refers to an attempt by the war faction to destroy the wax discs that held the Emperor's record broadcast about the decision to surrender. Some senior offices did in fact take as prisoners some of the Emperor’s aides (and killed a few also, I believe) in this attempt, but fortunately it failed.

-Zeno

[andyfox]

"Bombing the hell out of Japan shortened the war."

It didn't. The escalating costs and risks to the population hardly mattered in Japanese decision making. If they had, Japanese leaders would have moved rapidly to end the war when the massive an devastating incendiary raids began in March. Japanese leaders agreed to surrender not because civilians were at risk or had been killed but because the home islands were vulnerable to American invasion. The army was dominant in Japanese decision making and it paid absolutely no attention to cilivan vulnerability or deaths, even after the atomic bomb.

The collapse of Japan's war economy did hasten surrdender, but the bombing was not responsible. It was the sea blockade which crippled Japan's ability to produce and equip the forces necessary to execute its war strategy.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
In order for a nation to be as morally culpable as Mohammed Atta, it would have to go to war FOR THE PURPOSE of killing civilians and causing as much mayhem as possible out of hatred and anger. I don't recall that my country has ever done that.

[/ QUOTE ] I trust that we are both knowledgeable enough about the ways of the world, otherwise going over the elementary stuff would get boring pretty soon.

Organised states have routinely used terror against both their own citizenry (to keep 'em down) and other states' civilians (to scare them into submission).

As I said, I happen to have placed an order for a book on the subject of the British colonialists (intentionally, of course) engaging in murder, torture and pillage towards the "restless natives". Centuries ago? Nope, in the 1950s, in Kenya (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393059863/qid=1110011804/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-7092173-3507352). Have a look see, if you fancy. This is a British officer reminiscing:

...They wouldn’t say a thing, of course, and one of them, a tall coal-black bastard, kept grinning at me, real insolent. I slapped him hard, but he kept right on grinning at me, so I kicked him in the balls as hard as I could. He went down in a heap but when he finally got up on his feet he grinned at me again and I snapped, I really did. I stuck my revolver right in his grinning mouth and I said something, I don’t remember what, and I pulled the trigger. His brains went all over the side of the police station. The other two Mickeys were standing there looking blank. I said to them that if they didn’t tell me where to find the rest of the gang I’d kill them too. They didn’t say a word so I shot them both. One wasn’t dead so I shot him in the ear. When the sub-inspector drove up, I told him that the Mickeys tried to escape. He didn’t believe me but all he said was ‘bury them and see the wall is cleared up.’

The same thing routinely happens when any world power wants to subdue another country: ripping out the will to even think about resisting (or helping resisters) is a basic tenet of military strategy and it translates to hitting the civilian populace. I do not see where's the difficulty in understanding this -- or recalling historical examples that involve the United States merrily snuffing civs (the Philippines, Santo Domingo, Phoenix in 'Nam, etc etc).

I will not even bring up the "easy" one about carpet bombing civilians by the hundreds of thousands in World War II; too trivial...

PS : There is no "hatred and anger" in these tactics. Why do you bring up feelings? This is not about feelings.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Allowing the emperor to live after we achieved total surrender of Japan, was [a] brilliant move and probably crucial to the future peace and prosperity of the region.

Allowing the Fascist leadership to save face in front of their people and their emperor would have been a bad move.

I don't know how much more plainly to put it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you could start by explaining how it was perfectly acceptable to allow, after their capitulation, precisely what the "fascist leadership" was asking, ie retaining the Emperor. But it was not acceptable to allow the Japanese to surrender AND keep their emperor.

Perhaps you could then elaborate about the relative importance of "saving face", so important, according to you, as to merit the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians -- the death of whom you otherwise lament...

[andyfox]

He seemed a bit nervous. He wasn't very articulate. Maher asked him twice about hte "little Eichmanns" statement and he mumbled something about technocrats in service of the state. Then Maher brought out a brother of a 9/11 victim who was quite eloquent. But the segemnt was not teribly interesting.

[Beavis68]

Does Churchill make not distinction between a decleared war, and undeclared attacks by maniacs that are not attached to any nation?

[natedogg]

Perhaps you could start by explaining how it was perfectly acceptable to allow, after their capitulation, precisely what the "fascist leadership" was asking, ie retaining the Emperor. But it was not acceptable to allow the Japanese to surrender AND keep their emperor.

Perhaps you could then elaborate about the relative importance of "saving face", so important, according to you, as to merit the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians -- the death of whom you otherwise lament...


I've explained already. Perhaps you disagree. That's fine. But I think you're wrong.

One last time: The Fascist leadership had to be utterly defeated. They had to surrender unconditionally. Letting the emperor live or die was moot once we had the capitulation that included the emperor, so failing to hang him hardly proves your point. The key was to expose him to the gallows as a result of the Fascist leadership's utter defeat. Anything less could have paved the way for a Fascist resurgence in post-war Japan. That emperor was practiclly a god, a very powerful symbol. The utter defeat was important not only for the USA but ALSO the future of the region, and Japan itself. Things have turned out well for Japan haven't they?

The Allies were understandably very concerned about leaving any room at all for Fascism to rise again, and they didn't want to repeat the mistakes they made with Germany after WWI. Those mistakes ended up costing quite a bit.

If they had defeated Germany utterly in 1918, perhaps we'd all be listening to today's pacifists condemning America and Britain for not accepting an incomplete surrender then and pursuing a war to the finish that killed innocent civilians ....


I hardly blame the allies for demanding unconditional surrender in light of their experiences...

That is all.

natedogg

[Slinky]

[ QUOTE ]
It's SOOOOO easy to be an armchair general 60 years later isn't it?

Two, if I find some quotes from prominent leaders who voice support for my position, does that help my case? If not then you should realize the fallacy of using your own quotes to bolster your point. (Especially Douglas MacArther who was a petulant prima-donna on the outs with Truman... his is a suspect analysis to say the least.)

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red"> I quote leading US militaries and officials, like the General of the US Army. What is more relevant, a quote from General Eisenhower or one from you, telling it like it is? Others can judge who the armchair general is.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
The entire war was the result of accepting peace in WWI before eliminating the militarists in Germany [...]

[/ QUOTE ]

You don’t seem to care much about actual history. This is another example. The reason for that war was not that the winners accepted an easy peace, but the very opposite. From Wikipedia:

”Treaty of Versailles: The Treaty can be said to be the single most important, indirect cause of the war. It placed the blame, or "war guilt" solely upon Germany. Secondly, harsh reparations imposed by the treaty hampered the German economy by causing rapid hyperinflation (the Weimar Republic printed trillions to help pay off its debts) and caused people to support authoritarian parties like the Nazis and the Communists. In Germany, the Treaty forced the country to limit its armed forces to 100,000, forbade it having an airforce, demilitarized the Rhineland, a region in western Germany next to France, and placed the Saar region under the League of Nations' control. These restrictions not only hampered the German economy (the Saar region, though small, was fairly industrialized) but also created bitter resentment towards the victors of the First World War within Germany making it easy to whip up popular sentiment against the Western Allies. A part of that resentment was that many Germans felt that they had never been truly defeated in battle since the country had never been conquered; many felt that the German government had agreed to an armistice on the understanding that Wilson's Fourteen Points would be used as a guideline for the peace treaty. However, the Treaty of Versailles and the subsequent peace treaties disregarded the Fourteen Points in many instances.”

[natedogg]

There is no "hatred and anger" in these tactics. Why do you bring up feelings? This is not about feelings.

I'm talking about intention, not feelings. It appears you do not agree with me that intent has everything to do with the morality of an action.

Ignoring intent makes this all moot.

But intent is important, and most humans understand that. That's why there is 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder. The same notion applies to the difference between Tokyo 45 and 9/11... Tokyo 45 may not have been a shining moment in America's history, but it was no 9/11. The reasons are practically self-evident.

For most at least.

natedogg

[Bjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The entire war was the result of accepting peace in WWI before eliminating the militarists in Germany [...]

[/ QUOTE ]

You don’t seem to care much about actual history. This is another example. The reason for that war was not that the winners accepted an easy peace, but the very opposite. From Wikipedia:

”Treaty of Versailles: The Treaty can be said to be the single most important, indirect cause of the war. It placed the blame, or "war guilt" solely upon Germany. Secondly, harsh reparations imposed by the treaty hampered the German economy by causing rapid hyperinflation (the Weimar Republic printed trillions to help pay off its debts) and caused people to support authoritarian parties like the Nazis and the Communists. In Germany, the Treaty forced the country to limit its armed forces to 100,000, forbade it having an airforce, demilitarized the Rhineland, a region in western Germany next to France, and placed the Saar region under the League of Nations' control. These restrictions not only hampered the German economy (the Saar region, though small, was fairly industrialized) but also created bitter resentment towards the victors of the First World War within Germany making it easy to whip up popular sentiment against the Western Allies. A part of that resentment was that many Germans felt that they had never been truly defeated in battle since the country had never been conquered; many felt that the German government had agreed to an armistice on the understanding that Wilson's Fourteen Points would be used as a guideline for the peace treaty. However, the Treaty of Versailles and the subsequent peace treaties disregarded the Fourteen Points in many instances.”

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a VERY simplistic description of the treaty and its effects. The "Treaty of Versailles" is perhaps the most complex international agreement of all time and of course it is therefore impossibly to sum up in a short paragraph.

That said.

1) The economic reparations in the treaty was a mistake. The european economy as a whole was so thoroughly wreked that getting it running again should've been the priority not getting reparations.

2) The original sums talked about were truely astronomical, but the sums actually payed by germany wasn't that great. (It still had a very detrimental effect on their economy though.)

3) It's stupid to demand conditions that you are not prepared to enforce. (Rhineland, 100.000 army, Germ-Aus unification etc.)

The treaty was certainly no picknick but compared to what the germans demanded (and got) from the Russians in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk it was actually quite mild.

In comparison the Harsh treaty that was advocated by the "Hawks" of the time (such as Foch and Pershing) included things such as permanent french occupation of the rhineland (plus bridgehead areas on the eastern bank) and possibly even breaking up germany into its principalities (Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover, etc) effctivly renouncing the german unification of 1871.

Personaly I don't think they could've gotten the Germans to execpt such a far reaching treaty without renewed miltary conflict and the allies was probably to war-weary for that.

Historicly the conventional wisdom when making peace with a defeated foe is to:

a) Make such a mild and fair aggrement that the loser(s) doesn't want a rematch.

or

b) Make such a harsh and crushing peace that the loser(s) can't strike back or if they do they are so much weaker as to almost automaticly lose.

My personal take on Versailles is that they couldn't do B (because they couldn't enforce it) but they couldn't do A either because the voting public back home wouldn't accept it.

/Bjorn

[Bjorn]

First of all this is how I extremly simplisticly percive the Al-Quajda position.

1) Muslims are cultrarly, economicly and religiously oppressed by the west.

2) Non-muslims are heretics who will burn in hell and whose lifes and rights aren't worth anything.

3) Wanting to live as you yourself decide is moraly wrong, you have to live as is prescribed in the Quoran.

Now I 100% disagree with this position as I suspect more or less everyone on this forum does. In fact I find it extremly moraly reprehensible.

That said i belive that the means of the 9/11 attacks are totaly understandable and justified. I mean if you feel oppresed by the current economic world order why not strike at the heart of it? The way these people see it the trader in his WTC office is just as much a combatant as the marine on the ground. Just better educated and with more sofisticated weapons.

I would also put it that if their position was (heaven forbid) the mainstream one and the position of western liberalism was in the fringe i belive we would use simliar methods to rid ourself of oppression.

This doesn't mean that i like these bastards, in fact I hate Al-quada. But guys it's not the means, it's the END that makes them so reprehensible.

/Bjorn

[jaxmike]

Turns out you might be able to add plagarist to idiot and jackass.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7156384/

[The Armchair]

Your reply is a complete tautology:
a) You're suggesting that they believe x, y, and z, part of which is to believe that a 9/11-style attack is justifiable and understandable; therefore, the attack is justifiable and acceptable. Well, duh.
b) You think that if the majority of the world held this position, that majority would also use said tactics. Again, duh: why would their tactics change simply because of how many of them there are?

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
To leave the facsist beast smoldering would have been folly. The entire war was the result of accepting peace in WWI before eliminating the militarists in Germany... Can you really blame the Allies for wanting to avoid that mistake again at all costs?!

[/ QUOTE ]

That part of your post is very definitely inaccurate. The "militarists" or "Nazis" were a product of the worldwide depression of the late 20's/early 30's and overreaching reparations that lead to a rise in nationalism. The Axis power players of WWII were not holdovers from WWI.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The Axis power players of WWII were not holdovers from WWI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that the point needs any belaboring, but Japan did not take part in World War I and Italy fought in it alongside Britain and France.