Tinian, I'll agree Aspin farked up there. But for specifically the mission portrayed in Black Hawk Down, I don't think they would have gone through with it had they not believed that it would be relatively easy to do just with what they had on hand. It was really more of a severe underestimation of how pissed off the people in the city would be because they felt that they were the ones being attacked. It's not like most of these civilians (granted, armed civilians) were all for Aidid, but it's not likely that they were against him either, or I doubt Aidid would have housed his key men in that section of the city. A lot of innocent civilians got caught in the crossfire between Aidid's men and the U.S. forces, which ended up involving other people in the city who were under the impression that they were suddenly under attack by U.S. forces (even though it was more a case of accidental civilian deaths caught in the crossfire, and later just simply those killed out of self-defense).

Would an AC-130 gunship have helped? Perhaps marginally. I don't know its stats well enough to know how well it would do against people armed with RPGs, as Black Hawks seem notoriously vulnerable to rocket-propelled grenades (as seen both in Mogadishu and in Iraq).

Also, there was bad intel involved, as well as various unfortunate things which occurred during attempts to salvage the mission (like the guy who fell out of the Black Hawk early in the operation, or when they kept getting lost trying to get out of the city) and not bringing their IF goggles, water or extra rounds of ammo because they believed it would be an easy, routine mission, meant there was plenty of blame to go around.

incedentaly, the B-25 that flew into the Empire State building in 1946? Anyone remember that? That was the pilot of my Dads' B-17 during the war.

Tinian

That was a tragedy, Aspin was basically fired. Generals do not always get it right. Lincoln went through four Generals before getting to Grant. His first general McClelland was a failure. That was a tragedy, but there are tragedies occuring more often now. There are troops in Bosnia still, but they could have been removed three years ago now.

Emperor-Jay blind idiocy honestly scares the shiat outta me. I can only pray that there aren't too many that share his wackjob views.

It is entertaining as hell though!

/ctrl+f "jay"

DasNibblet, oh why oh why must you think in "Democrat/Republican" terms?

First of all, I'm not an American so I don't vote one way or another either way. Secondly, I'm not bumchums with Ted Kennedy.

I was simply asking a question about something which I felt didn't make sense, because either liberals are too pussy to wage war even when necessary, as enave seemed to be suggesting, or liberal Democrats like Clinton are chickenhawks. Of course, I don't know, maybe enave doesn't feel that Clinton was warlike enough, but it seems to be the standard Republican defense whenever a GOP administration is accused of being too eager to wage wars, Clinton's use of force during his tenure is also brought up (which would seem to disprove the theory that all liberal Democrats are too pussy to wage necessary wars).

Anyway, I don't really care either way since I'm not a Bush fanboy but I'm not a Clinton fanboy either. I don't think Clinton was a particularly remarkable president, or a particularly good one (or even a liberal one, for that matter). He may have been too left of center for those right of center, but he certainly wasn't left enough for my liking, and he often made promises to left wing lobbyists that he never really intended to keep (and didn't). I'd say he'd be just another one of those presidents people would have forgotten about, if the whole Lewinsky scandal hadn't been kept him in the media for so long. In fact, despite approval ratings, I think a more charismatic, or even an overall more competent Republican presidential candidate could have ousted him in 2000, even without Monicagate.

I agree with those who assert that Clinton really can't take all the credit for the technology boom that fuelled the economy during his term - it was mostly just the times, and was mostly inflated by the dotcom bubble and technological advances of the time.

So I don't really understand the Clinton obsession that people on both sides seem to have in America. He could play sax, and did so on Arsenio. Cool. But that's about all I can say for him. Lying on the stand and to the American people wasn't cool, even if what he lied about was really none of anyone's business. He should have just come clean and admitted it, said it loud and proud: YES, I GOT A BLOWJOB IN THE ORAL OFFICE! AND YOU DIDN'T IT!

He's the only man I know who'd lie about not getting a BJ when he did... usually it's the other way around. :P

I recently visited Nagasaki with a Japanese guy and American. We visited the peace park and war museum there and it was very strange to walk through there as a foreigner (I'm Australian, but the people assume that I'm an American). The Japanese there never showed any kind of contempt for us. The guy who drove us was originally from Kokura, where the bomb dropped on Nagasaki was meant to be dropped. If this had happened his parents would most likely have been killed before he was born.

There's not really any point to this post, only that the museum could show respect to those who were killed. Irregardless of the fact they were the enemy at the time this plane contributed to the deaths of thousand of civilians, and this should be reflected.

The Japanese have moved on from what happened, and learnt and definately changed from this event. I can't help but think if the situation had occured the other way round that Americans would still remember and resent it today.

Generally, the number of casualties falls. But with the heavy handed treatment of Iraq, Bush has failed to gather any real support and the expense it would take to properly supply an adquate force is too much for a country running a deficeit. The war on terrorism is expense enough give the international scale that it has to be fought over. This whole situation is is riddled with problems, the military is designed for quick, direct action. Not pro-longed periods, while acting as guards for a rebuilding process that is being internally sabotauged. Rumsfeld best idea has been to redesign the military to meet modern needs. Too many wars to fight lately though.

nothing compares to the atomic bombing of Japan. All I can say is that everyone dies sooner or later, usually long and painfully. At least the folks at ground zero in Nagasaki, Hiroshima were zapped into oblivion at the speed of light, a merciful death. Really sucked for the survivors, though, burn victims only know the true meaning of pain. In Dresden the folks went into bomb shelters below ground, and were slowcooked into pools of rendered fat.

nothing compares to the atomic bombing of Japan. All I can say is that everyone dies sooner or later, usually long and painfully. At least the folks at ground zero in Nagasaki, Hiroshima were zapped into oblivion at the speed of light, a merciful death. Really sucked for the survivors, though, burn victims only know the true meaning of pain. In Dresden the folks went into bomb shelters below ground, and were slowcooked into pools of rendered fat.

Enola Gay set us up the nuke?

manhatten project.

thank god for weebl or this thread would have no cliches and/or humour.
and now for my opinion which i'm sure EVERYBODY wants to hear:
*ahem*

"i'm canadian"

Krantzstone

You seem to be missing several parts to various puzzles.

1) WWII was all-out war, and that is how it was fought. By all sides involved. Nobody was interested in losing the war by taking the moral high ground in matters such as collateral bomb damage.

2) It is not a transparent legal trick for the US to designate those who do not wear uniforms, who do not belong to any country's military and who carry out terrorist acts (eg Abdel Rahim, AKA Richard Reid, the "Shoe Bomber") unlawful combatants. The Geneva Convention does not apply to these individuals. We have not treated captured Iraqi soldiers as unlawful combatants, we have treated them as prisoners of war.

3) The US has not used tactical nukes, though we have had them in our inventory for many years. We have, however, always reserved the option to use them if we ever deem it necessary. This is nothing new. Tailoring our weapons for specific needs is also nothing new and we will continue to do so.

4) You can disagree with our policy to act preemptively against nations that we percieve to be both irresponsible and posing a serious threat to ourselves and/or others. We were, however, acting legally against Iraq because they failed to comply with agreements made at the end of the Gulf War. We have made every reasonable attempt to minimize civilian casualties and have treated captured soldiers as prisoners of war. While prosecuting the war in Iraq we have not violated (or flouted through technicalities) the Geneva Convention.

Please try not to confuse the above matters 2 through 4 with each other. Hope that helps.

cold fusion is impossible because ice doesn't conduct electricity.

re: cold fusion is impossible because ice doesn't conduct electricity.

what if temp gets close to 0 kelvin?

Some liberals would only be happy if we lost every war... certainly the cold war.

"Socialist paradise... /sigh ... it was THIS CLOSE."

:)

Tinian,

1) I agree. But the concept of 'war crimes' and 'crimes against humanity' developed as a direct result of the acts of certain participants in WWII, most infamously with regards to Nazi Germany (but could just as easily apply to Unit 731 and the atrocities by the Japanese Imperial Army), so obviously people thought, 'hey, maybe there should be a limit on what exactly should or should not be allowed in warfare' - which, while that may sound strange considering war is really organized barbarism, it does make sense from the perspective of at least limiting casualties to those who actually do the fighting. In any case, I realize that I'm trying to impose my ethics (developed as a result of a post-Holocaust / WWII / Hiroshima / Nagasaki / Nanking / Dresden / etc. world) in judging the military strategy of the Allies in a time of great uncertainty, but I would like to think that civilized behaviour was not something that was totally foreign to the Allies even in 1945. In either case, I would hope at least everyone can agree that given similar circumstances now, that we wouldn't automatically rush off to repeat history, preferring to at least take a deep breath and consider other alternatives before going for the last resort of nuclear weapons.

2) Again I agree that I am using the Geneva Conventions (which is a pre-9/11 document) to judge the actions of those today, but like it or not, the U.S. did adopt these conventions just like everyone else, so they should be followed. I am glad that Bush agreed to protect Taliban fighters as per Geneva Convention, but I should think it should apply equally to alleged Al Qaeda members. Yes, I do agree that after 9/11, the whole concept of terrorism has been taken to a new level, but it's not like terrorists didn't exist before 9/11, and I don't see how terrorists have really changed that much since before 9/11. In any case, it's not the treatment of convicted terrorists that I'm concerned with, as I am sure they will most likely get the death penalty (even though I'm against capital punishment, I can certainly understand why many people would push for it). I am more concerned with people, including American citizens but also Canadian citizens and those of other nationalities, who get picked up on allegations or suspicions of having terrorist ties. Those people deserve the right to due process, a fair public hearing, not because they are terrorists, but because they are innocent until proven guilty. That's the cornerstone of the justice system in any democracy, because to decide otherwise means you can arbitrarily arrest anyone, even a several-generation American, simply by alleging that they are a terrorist, and then just lock them up and throw away the key without even charging them with anything or having any proof. Maybe that's alright if they're actually terrorists, but what if they're not? To lock up innocent people, even by accident, is unlawful and unjust, and should happen as little as possible in a democracy founded on the ideals of freedom and liberty for all. Mistakes do happen, but that's why there are appeals courts. Because you never know when one day someone who doesn't like you might decide to fabricate 'proof' of your terrorist ties, and anonymously report you to the government. To think that the men in black could just suddenly come and pick you up, spirit you off to X-Ray without one formal charge, or allowing you the right to an attorney, or any of the Miranda Laws... that's not democracy, that's not justice, that's totalitarianism, and that's scary. That's what I'm against.

As for "unlawful combatants", I think they should either go under the "spies and saboteurs" portion of the Geneva Convention, or the U.S. needs to push to have the term "unlawful combatants" defined and introduced as an amendment or addition to the Convention. It's high time that thing's been reviewed and updated in any case, considering it was last reviewed in '49. Meanwhile, I think the U.S. owe it to themselves to show other countries, especially the Islamic Fundamentalist regimes, that terrorists may come and terrorists may go, but it will never change the heart of American justice and right to due process or a fair trial, or the right to be presumed innocent until proof of guilt. That would go a lot further in undermining the credibility or sympathies for terrorists than any amount of brute force.

3) I am wary of the use of any kind of nuclear weapons, regardless of their size. However, if they can be conclusively proven to have no radioactive side effects or other long-lasting harm by their use, I suppose they are no more dangerous than your average bomb. But then, I suspect the definition of WMDs might need to be changed to redefine small tactical nuclear arms as not being a weapon of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons in general though are really not something to be deployed lightly, though, as much because people like me are likely to equate even tac nuke rounds as being synonymous with the use of ICBMs with nuclear warheads, and in less stable nations with nuclear capabilities, may be enough to trigger an international incident. Maybe not an outright nuclear exchange, but certainly something like a repeat of the Cuban Missile Crisis (and that was bad enough).

4) There are cases where war is justified (such as when for example a nation which carries out human rights abuses or commits crimes against humanity, refuse to stop), but I would hope that every last diplomatic initiative and route is exhausted before any shots are fired. Sure, it may seem slow and tedious, and to some it may not seem particularly effective, but diplomacy has always been the slower method of dealing with international problems. Ultimately, however, I believe diplomatic relations tend to ensure that fewer wars are fought needlessly, meaning fewer casualties, less cost in human life and tragedy, and I think that's better than just running off to war. I think in the case of war with Iraq, there really needed to be more conclusive evidence of the existence of WMDs and clear and present danger to the U.S. or other countries to justify immediate military action, at least if the government really is declaring war for those reasons. I am just highly suspicious when reasons for war keep changing every time one reason has been shot down, a new one takes its place. I can fully support going in to oust Saddam for humanitarian reasons (although Iraq is not by far the only one who would need to have their regimes toppled), but it appears really dishonest when the reasons keep changing (not to mention such ambiguity causes a huge rift within the nation between those for war and those against, which might not have occurred had things been clearer from the start).

All in all though, Tinian, I respect your views and the fact that you stated them in... shall we say, more diplomatic terms than many of us have come to expect from you, considering the usual tone of your posts. I commend you on that. ;)

fishrockcarving, there were Japanese who were against the war, and who would not have kept fighting. It's not simply a matter of my viewing Japan circa 1945 in the perspective of Japan in 2003. Nagasaki as a port city was one of the only cities in Japan to have a strong Western influence because it was engaged in trade with other nations. It was through there that Christian missionaries came to Japan, and by the time WWII came around, there were plenty of Japanese Christians in Japan (and specifically Nagasaki) who were deadset against the war.

Yet it was some of these very anti-war peacenik Christian Japanese who paid the price in Nagasaki, and that doesn't seem particularly fair to me. If you're going to bomb the crazy Japanese who wouldn't surrender, at least bomb the right ones.

Christianity at one time was banned in Japan, and many Christians were martyred before it was legal to practice that faith. And it was sad that those most likely to have surrendered were the ones who got bombed.

fishrockcarving Having people around military factories is unavoidable. I don't think it was planned that way.

Were Japanese expected to drive to work?

Btw. I think the reason most Japanese fought to the death was because their families would suffer back home. (not because of lost wages)

Incidentally, does anyone know how Kurt Vonnegut survived the Dresden fire bombings? I haven't read Slaughterhouse Five yet, much to my shame.

Slaughterhouse five ain't exactly the most central spot of Dresden. The place is an overgrown outskirt of the town even now, in the future, when things've been built up. I can't remember, maybe he got lucky, or maybe he was just out of the way. Read the book.

You know what, I think the ONE thing that we have failed to learn from the last two World Wars, and ANY war for that matter, is that it SUCKS. War is wasteful, pointless, and horrid. It has no real purpose in society, just a by-product of primitive Human drives and selfish desires. Those may have served SOME purpose back in the times of B.C., before we could appearantly think RATIONALLY as a species, but now that line of thinking has become outdated, much like Windows 90-whatever, or any other symonious metaphor or simile you'd like to attach.

War as a means to an end has become invalidated. We need to stop looking at using guns and bombs to solve our problems (like a GOOD portion of the world has began to do, a la Canada). People attack us, so farkin' what, I hate to say it folks, but when you jump up on a hill and scream out at the YOU are numero uno, it tends to attract a lot of attention, and some of it isn't the kind you want, but why should we offended about that. I mean, WE are dependant on the REST of the WORLD for a good portion of our goods, I mean, it's not like we've ever NEEDED them, or anything....(ugh)

I'll sum it up like this. America is like that group of friends in the huge bar of the planet Earth, and they're just there to have a good time, but of course, they start to have a little TOO much fun, and so do a few other countries, and SOME of them don't particularly LIKE said group for some reason (popularity, wealth, nice clothes, etc.). Some of them are usually nice, but the alcohol has made them a little edgey, and minor grudges bubble to the surface for whatever reason (zealouts, religious or political, bitter age-old rivalries, jealousy, etc.), and now it starts to come out. The insults fly, and sometimes they get into brawls, and sometimes others close to them get sucked in too, whether they were part of it or not. Eventually the fight gets broke up. One group goes home pissed, passes out, and blames the ensuing hangover on the other guy(s).

After a few nights, or weeks, everything goes back to normal, but there's still tension between parties, and we wanna go get back at them, I mean, c'mon, WE didn't start, they did, it's only fair that we repay the favor, right?

Maybe, but you're a little drunk, remember (greed, unbalanced demand and supply, blinded by emotions, need for vengence, lack of understanding, etc.)? You start making taunts, and you inadvertantly insult other patrons, and THEY certainly don't like that. Before you know it, you've got OTHER people telling you shut the hell up and mind you're own business, but you don't listen cuz you know that you've been wronged, and you want the whole world to know it.

The bartender (UN, etc.) tells you to keep you're voice down, tells you that it's the alcohol talking, but you don't wanna here, even from the designated driver in the group (whoever that may be, make up your own metaphor).

Folks, more people died in the world on Sept. 11 than the the people in NY in the US, okay. I'm not saying it sucked, I SAW it on TV, as it HAPPENED. When the towers collapsed, it was all I could do not go off, but I also remembered Oklahoma. Bush says he's going after terrorists, why doesn't he start HERE. The last time I looked, the KKK was a terrorist organization, and killed a bunch of black people and forgive the expression, "N((((r-lovin" caucasion sympathizers. Of course, I haven't forgotten about Tim McVeigh. Jesus, was I the ONLY person in America that day that didn't automatically assume the Arabs were responsible for this. It could have very well been a bunch of looney Militia/White Supremacists/Nazis cooks.

Ugh, our rashness and our nasty temperment is rivaled by our blindness to getting reliable info about such events and doing something to PREVENT it (the CIA needs a serious boot in the ass for dropping the ball in this, it practically invalidates their existence, of course, I could say the same for the DIA...). We need to address the issues that plague OUR country before we move on to berate other nations for their ability (or inability) to do otherwise. We only make ourselves look like hypocrites otherwise.

The only REASONABLE way to overcome this "terror", is to simply stop barking at the top of our lungs for vengence, and LISTEN for a frickin' change. This has been the ONE farkin' problem this country has had since its inception, and it's the chief cause for today's problems.

WE are ONE nation in a world full of a BUNCH of OTHER, larger/smaller, more/less densely populated, good upstanding/ corrupt ass-backwards countries. No matter HOW you slice it, face it America, WE are the farkin' minority on this planet. Britain put up with this shiat, but they didn't (everything BUT, I hope). Israel puts up with it, but that's another discussion for another day...

The point is, this crap isn't new to the world, it's happened throughout history, and WE innocent victims need to get it through our drunken skulls that WE are partly to blame for this mess. We've manipulated world affairs so much (during the Cold War, againt the EVILS of Communism) around the world, for our own ends at the expense of OTHER people's lives, that this was BOUND to come back and bite us in the ass sooner or later.

We aren't the ONLY ones who've endured terror. And the only REAL way to fight it is to not fight at all. Ghandi freed India without firing a single shot. Martin Luther King got black equality without killing a single caucasion (although the same can't be said for us when it came to opposing those "N*****s", disgusting, just farking shameful that we let these bastards get away with this line of thought today, just sickening...). We have to drop the guns, go home, get OUR act together, realize that we are a PART of this world, and that we have to SHARE it with other people. Come back, TRY to fix the damage we've done, and start trying to HELP the nations less fortunate than us WITHOUT trying to sway their inherent beliefs, or governments.

To the world, the guy on top eventually starts to look like an oppressor, an arrogant fool that'll get what's coming to him. Just like we love to watch people in power and celebrity's take the fall, so does the world do so when someone whom they hold in contempt take a tumble themselves.

Our country has become blind and irresponsible, and our best friends, the bartender, the UN, is trying to tell us this, but just like when we declined to participate with the League of Nations, we're turning our backs on the ones we NEED to listen to. We're IGNORING them. We're acting like brats, and we're ignoring the rules that WE ourselves helped to set down.

Folks, the sooner we come to realize that despite our beliefs, skin color, sexual preferences, or whatever the hell else bigots and narrow-minded folks can muster up, that we are all THE SAME, despite whatever religion says, if you boil it down, we are all BROTHERS and SISTERS in this world, and the sooner we realize it's far better to get along than to make war, the better off we'll be.

The only weapon we have to use to fight this "war on terror", is understanding, and self-reflection. We have to come to grips with our government's shady past, our ignorance, and our lack of understanding, and unwillingness to change. It's the ONLY way things will ever change for the better, and I believe that people can be bad, but I also believe that people can be GOOD, we just gotta treat each other better, that's ALL we have to do. It's so simple, but we miss it completely, because the unsure, afraid narrow-minded, materialistic few fear they'll lose what they have and who they are if things were to change for the betterment of ALL humanity, so they see it as bad, not realizing that they are hurting THEMSELVES as much as everybody else, be it religious zealouts or self-righteous politicians.

We have to let go, it's that simple. Let go and accept that life isn't "us vs. them". To be honest, I've never been in a fight in my life. I get angry, but I don't fight...I just blow it off, even when people insult me based off of false pre-concieved notions (hint hint particular person). I may not know everything, or even a lot, but I know ONE thing, one truth: everything changes. Never in a million years could I imagine how I could have turned out today, three or four years ago. Looking back, I realize I have come a long way since then, and I realize that I have a much better life when my outlook toward my fellow man is one of understanding and love as opposed to trivial bitterness and hateful feelings.

If I can change, then surely to god, EVERYBODY can change. Life is what you want it to be, and if you want it to be crappy, you'll get it, and if you want it to be good, then it'll be that way, but we can't blow off the others who CAN'T make that a reality because they are bad of economically, or whatever. The first change we need to make is to HELP other countries, hell in any and EVERY way possible. Not just money, but manpower, or volenteers to go over and do charity work or something. If they made a program like that, I'D do it. I'd love to make a difference, to help show other countries that not ALL Americans are as bad as we've made ourselves out to be.

Huh, look, what it boils down to is a change of mindset. If we keep trying to lay the blame, and exact vengence we're never gonna change. I'd rather not quote the Bible, but my grandfather showed me that GOOD Christians exist, so "Turning the other cheek," is required to turn this mess around. 3,000 died on 9/11, tens of THOUSANDS died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and MILLIONS have died at the hands of primitive brutality throughout history. It has to stop. But we can't forget what has happened in our past, we have to REMEMBER how we got here, and WHY, and WHAT we can do to change, and pave a new road for the Human race, one that isn't soaked with the blood of our enemies...

...One that was paved from peace, understanding, and love...

//call me Communist, Hippie, whatever, I don't care, everyday is another affirmation that hate is going out of style...

cleverloginname:
FACT: DROPPING NUKES IS/WAS/ALWAYS WILL BE the most terrible act in human history.

False. The Nazi initiated extermination of 6,000,000 Jews takes the cake. Moron.

Don't think the Japanese wouldn't have struck our shores, if given the opportunity. They did it once before.

I doubt they would have left it at that, if they had the chance.

MegaManNobody

You must have a lot of spare time.

Heh. I love to see all these people whining as they try to apply their Y2K+3 ethics to something that happened 60 years ago.

Hey, here's a shocking tidbit for you.

B-17s and -29s loaded with conventional bombs could NOT hit their target worth crap. That's why bombing runs were usually done with FLIGHTS and FLIGHTS of aircraft, each one holding dozens of bombs. You've seen the footage, a crapload of bombers in stagger formation, and when those bomb bay doors open, a whole scatter of bombs fall out?

This is because those bombs were unguided iron bombs, and so tended to fall wherever the damn well fell. This means, in military parlance, that they had an absolutely miserable Circular Error Probable. (draw a circle around your target, with the radius of the circle being that distance from your aim point of which half your bombs hit. That distance is your CEP. The longer the distance, the more error you had: the more of your bombs went wide and probably hit something else.)

But this was as good as they had. Those bombs have to go SOMEWHERE, and what they hit, they will blow up.

That meant collateral damage was a way of life.

WWII was not a time to be worrying about what's NEAR your target.

Flying from five or six miles up, dropping unguided bombs through a visual bombsight--you were a hell of a hot pilot if you could keep your CEP down to HUNDREDS of yards.

You've become far too spoiled by modern smart munitions...you forget that just because a modern JDAM has a 15-30 meter CEP, and thus hits what it is aimed at, that back then they certainly did not!

Whew, sorry about the speech, it may sound cheesy, and old, but dammit, you can only find so many different ways to convey the same message, oh well, one day, some day, people won't write off "peace" and "change" as stupid and insignificant...

(what else am I gonna do at night when I'm not working)

2003-12-16 03:23:49 PM Darkhop

FUBuddy, you're reading someone's heavily biased interpretation of declassified documents. Read "The Longest Day" by the Japan Historical Society to get an idea of just how ready the Japanese were to surrender.

No bias there. No siree.

fishrockcarving

Krantzstone There were Christians in Japan, but Japan was definitively anti-Christian, to the point that the Christians that Japan elected to deal with, exclusively the Dutch, were required to denounce their faith publicly in order to conduct business.

Just that Japan as a nation, under Japan's leadership during WWII, was not just willing, but felt honor bound to die in service of the Emperor whose stated position was that it was better to die as a race than surrender.

Perhaps the reason Japan hated the US so much has something to do with the US previously invading their harbours and forcing them at threat of military overthrow to cede some of their sovereign land to the US, which was then used for military (naval) and trading bases. The US government used 'spreading christianity' as part of the justification propaganda for that invasion, btw.

So Japan had a formative experience with the 'American Way' right then I'd say. From that moment on they were bound to be enemies that would try to give you back your own game.

That's the way human nature works, after all.

Sometimes wonder if this was the first shiatty foreign policy decision that earned the US blowback - and economic and military intimidation always earns blowback of some kind.

.. and I should learn to proofread. Meant to deal more with how christianity was seen as a tool used by colonialists to penetrate new societies rather than a benign or good religion, hence the anti-christian bias in many cases.

I wonder why it's always "The Nazis" - should be "Germany" in my opinion.

Those farking Germans!


Don't forget the Gypsies- they suffered about the same as the Jews.

ratbane

Don't forget the Gypsies- they suffered about the same as the Jews.

Someone (perhaps here) told me a few weeks ago that Gypsy is a prejudicial corruption of Egyptian. Any person with middle eastern blood was likely to be called gypsy, the wandering around thing probably came from the bedouin (sp?) lifestyle.

It seems Hitler hated all the peoples of the middle east, not just Jews. I wonder if our resident arab haters like Rayonic realise they share their hate of 'sand attractive and successful African-Americans' with the person imho they most resemble.

Oh yeah and MegaManNobody - *applause*

There seems to be a lot of "they committed atrocities too, how dare they have the gall to protest!" being posted, however it must be credited that they did a cultural 180 as a result, and profoundly changed their worldview on what was acceptable in war and in life and behaviour. I haven't seen anything remotely like that in US culture. (If anything, you still often see the culture of superiority and might-is-right when it comes to international disputes - much like pre-nuke Japan). I'm not casting stones at the US here, I'm saying that 50 years of Japan (by and large) practicing what is being preached, does shield them to an extent from hypocracy retorts of "they have blood in their past too, so they can't talk!".

That said, it wasn't the Japanese that were protesting anyway, and it's BS that the museum is merely displayig a B-29 - who cares if a B-29 gets dented? There are plenty more! The only reason it matters that it got dented is precisely because it _isn't_ just a B-29, it's the historically significant Enola Gay, and that historical sigificance should not be tucked away.

MegamanNobody:
My childhood wasn't in the USA, so I don't know if this theory is crackpot or not, but I have a suspicion that one reason Americans seem generally more inclined to see war as a productive thing that achieves Useful Goals, than people of other nations, is because the country was born through the war of independance, and so you hear a lot about how much good stuff came out of war.

However, times appear to have changed - off the top of my head I can't think of a war in this century or the last, that has worked, or could be said to have been a success. Hitler's war failed. The Japanese failed. Saddam failed. Vietnam failed. (Russian) Afghanistan failed. (US afghanistan is still being resolved, and it's not really in this state military-vs-state military catergory anyway). I don't know enough about the Falklands to know if it was an Argintine war that failed, or a British war than suceeded, but I suspect the Falklands may have been a successful use of war.

There are some successes I can think of, but they seem to be the odd dirty little wars of terror, (and while US alongside other has some successes in this category, I think we're agreed that civilian-aimed terrorism is not really an acceptable form of warfare for any great nation).

But then, I haven't thought about this very hard :-)

Archvillain - Good thinking. I think it's because no living American has the same experience of war that those in Asia and Europe do. Not that they weren't there (23 countries since 1945 have been attacked by the USA) but that they always had a safe home to go to when it was 'over.' It's not just the war that people object to, it's the aftermath and the suffering of their own civilians, the traumatisation of the children and rebuilding of infrastructure - something the USA hasn't experienced since the civil war.

Herodotus said that power never stays in the same place long, and since he said that it's been demonstrably true. America's fortunes will change sooner or later, then maybe they'll grow up.

Ok, better explaination for the farkheads who obviously can't understand a simple concept...


Say, someone builds a 9/11 monument glorifying the plane that destroyed the WTC and called the pilots "heros"... OF course us and the people who lost family are going to be pissed, it's the same for every country... You kill their people and family, they are going to hate your GD guts and feel upset if a monument GLORIFYING the thing as built.

Tinian

Nice to see you've departed from last weeks "The UN stuffed up in Somalia and Americans got killed!" position and fell back to just blaming Clinton. ;)

"then maybe they'll grow up."

I always find that an amusing argument. America needs to grow up, America is a young country.

Look at the atrocities committed by Europe who had been around for a millennium by the time they brought war onto the world-twice.

No, Europe is the one who needed to grow up. And I still don't see any proof they're more responsible now then they were 50 years ago.

HUMANS SUCK AND THAT'S THE BOTTON LINE, I WISH AN ATEROID WOULD WHIPE OUT THE EARTH, SO ANOTHER LIFEFORM WOULD TAKE OVER.

First off Japan did try to cause massive damage in the US during WWII, they used weather ballon bombs they sent over on the jetstream, it didn't work to well since that was a ver wet year in the rockies region, so the wildfires they planned never happened.

Second, let's try to drop the myth that Democrats are pansies or peace-niks. WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Kosovo/Serbia were all entered by Democrat Administrations. Korea, Gulf I and Gulf II were under Republican Administrations. Both parties make war.

Third, above people who talk about the Dixiecrats are correct. There was a dramatic shift in power in the South during the civil rights era. They left the Democrat party and joined the Republican during the Nixon Administration.

And lastly, if you read the second article posted it wasn't the survivors of Hiroshima who threw the bottle, that man was from Ohio.

As far as I'm concerned there were many bad things America and Britan did during WWII, and we should not attempt to gloss over and rewrite history. We were wrong to firebomb Dresden, we were wrong to intern Japanese Americans in concentration camps while allowing German PoWs to wander freely throughout the midwest, and we were wrong to write off Eastern Europe to decades of slavery to the Soviets.

Could we have done any of these things differenty? Probably not, but maybe we should have tried other solutions. Considering the outcome I think our leaders chose wisely in a time of great strife.

Can we be both proud of the courage it took to make a decision to end the war in the manner we did and sad that the solution was the lesser of two evils?

I'd like to see that protester's head dented.

LesPhilky

Good point...in case you ever read down this far.