[jtfanclub]

mike777, on Jan 19 2009, 08:12 PM, said:

Needless to say I disagree with your facts as well as your analogy.

You're right, last estimates were 140,000 dead, my mistake. The first number was the number of immediate dead.

Quote

I expect the General and Truman would have been shot.  I expect many men would have become slaves and women turned into "comfort girls". I expect Japan would have taken over some land and treasure and stolen it from americans.

Nah. In less than a year Japan would have been conquered if we hadn't used nukes. The problem is, it would have been conquered by the Russians. With the defeat of Hitler, Russia was moving troops into Manchuria. They declared war on Japan on August 8th and would have invaded soon after. The staggering number of troops and materiel that the Russians could have sent against Japan would have defeated them in short order.

[mike777]

jtfanclub, on Jan 19 2009, 08:40 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 19 2009, 08:12 PM, said:

Needless to say I disagree with your facts as well as your analogy.

You're right, last estimates were 140,000 dead, my mistake. The first number was the number of immediate dead.

Quote

I expect the General and Truman would have been shot.  I expect many men would have become slaves and women turned into "comfort girls". I expect Japan would have taken over some land and treasure and stolen it from americans.

Nah. In less than a year Japan would have been conquered if we hadn't used nukes. The problem is, it would have been conquered by the Russians. With the defeat of Hitler, Russia was moving troops into Manchuria. They declared war on Japan on August 8th and would have invaded soon after. The staggering number of troops and materiel that the Russians could have sent against Japan would have defeated them in short order.

hmm My post assumed Japan wins, it seems you do not disagree if they win.

Now given you feel we can win in a year without nukes..how many die in total in the next year? How much property is destroyed. Granted given my Granddad in the Pacific would have been one of those who may die....I may be biased

As a side note remember when Russian invaded China they raped and stole at will. Give them another year how many millions die and are raped by USSR?

In any event I thought firebombing was a better analogy.

[kenberg]

jtfanclub, on Jan 19 2009, 08:40 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 19 2009, 08:12 PM, said:

Needless to say I disagree with your facts as well as your analogy.

You're right, last estimates were 140,000 dead, my mistake. The first number was the number of immediate dead.

Quote

I expect the General and Truman would have been shot.  I expect many men would have become slaves and women turned into "comfort girls". I expect Japan would have taken over some land and treasure and stolen it from americans.

Nah. In less than a year Japan would have been conquered if we hadn't used nukes. The problem is, it would have been conquered by the Russians. With the defeat of Hitler, Russia was moving troops into Manchuria. They declared war on Japan on August 8th and would have invaded soon after. The staggering number of troops and materiel that the Russians could have sent against Japan would have defeated them in short order.

The fact is this: Worrying about what happens to those on the other side is a modern development. I suppose there were some folks who worried about such thins in 1945 but they were not paid any heed. I'm sure I mentioned before one of my childhood memories. At Halloween we had a large woodpile at the playground. On top were figures of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito. We all cheered as the adults poured gasoline on the figures and put a match to them. Made me what I am today, no doubt.

Before Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese did not surrender. After, they did. I doubt that many, especially families with boys in the Pacific, thought about it beyond that point.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Jan 19 2009, 10:33 PM, said:

Before Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese did not surrender,After, they did. I doubt that many, especially families with boys in the Pacific, thought about it beyond that point.

My father made it home from Europe after heavy combat there, and was going to the Pacific theater after Germany surrendered. He told my mom he did not expect his luck to hold out there. Our family was overjoyed that he could return home when Japan surrendered.

Now we have friends and relatives in Japan that we love dearly.

It is vital to avoid war whenever possible. That includes avoiding policies and actions that incite others to attack.

[mike777]

"That includes avoiding policies and actions that incite others to attack."


Yes we must avoid any policy or action that may incite others to attack.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The fact is this: Worrying about what happens to those on the other side is a modern development. I suppose there were some folks who worried about such thins in 1945 but they were not paid any heed.

I think this is as much a statement about modern "war" and "war crimes". Since WWII, the American Congress has abdigated their responsiblity to declare a war and left it in the President's hands where to take actions - this has led to the "police actions" and "limited warfare" that produced a whole new term of "collateral damage" when talking civilians.

In WWII, the allies were at declared war with the nation states of Germany and Japan - not the Nazi party of Germany and Hirohito and his followers in Japan. These were national wars with national consequences.

I do not see any correlation with WWII and to conflicts that have occured since - Israel goes to "war" with Hamas? How can it be called war when only one side has military arms and the orther side is a political party that is trapped within a prison-like area with no retreat possible? That is not war. That is nothing more than a punitive action designed to cause suffering.

And how can American go to war on terror? How is that possible? Before you can war on terror you must define terror - which is exactly what no one wants to do because it limits the power of where we can go and who we can attack. We like to call our operations war, though, because it makes it sound more important than it truly is to national security. But targeting small groups is not war in the traditional sense of a national task - it is an excercise in military tactics.

War requires a stategy.

[jtfanclub]

mike777, on Jan 19 2009, 08:45 PM, said:

hmm My post assumed Japan wins, it seems you do not disagree if they win.
.
.
In any event I thought firebombing was a better analogy.

Firebombing is a better analogy. I tend to pick the most heard of instead of the best, for fear of getting sidetracked.

It simply wasn't possible for Japan to win. What were they going to do, conquer Russia?

Quote

Now given you feel we can win in a year without nukes..how many die in total in the next year? How much property is destroyed. Granted given my Granddad in the Pacific would have been one of those who may die....I may be biased

As a side note remember when Russian invaded China they raped and stole at will. Give them another year how many millions die and are raped by USSR?

No argument there, but can't the same be said in Israel? If they don't attack, how many die from rockets and malnutrition? My point was not that what Truman did was a war crime, but surely if what Truman did was not a war crime, that what Israel is doing during the invasion can't be a war crime either.

[Winstonm]

Quote

what Israel is doing during the invasion can't be a war crime either.

I agree for the reason that before there can be war crimes there must first be a war. To elevate the Israel-Hamas conflict to the status of war is simply an excuse for Israel to utitlize military power - the Israeli Iron Fist - instead of negotiating.

Much of what we term "war crimes" are about world perception of who was right and who was wrong. In the past when Israel was viewed as David battling the Arab Goliath their Iron Fist methods were cheered - but time has altered perceptions to the point now that the Palestinians have taken over the mantle of David while Israel is now the Goliath - so the same Iron Fist actions that used to be cheered are being criticized as crimes because Israel is in the superior power position.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jan 20 2009, 01:41 PM, said:

In the past when Israel was viewed as David battling the Arab Goliath their Iron Fist methods were cheered - but time has altered perceptions to the point now that the Palestinians have taken over the mantle of David while Israel is now the Goliath

how so, winston? i think you view the palestinians in a vacuum, as if syria and jordan and iran and saudi arabia, et al, don't want israel (i'm sorry, i mean the zionist state) to be destroyed

[sireenb]

luke warm, on Jan 20 2009, 06:34 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 20 2009, 01:41 PM, said:

In the past when Israel was viewed as David battling the Arab Goliath their Iron Fist methods were cheered - but time has altered perceptions to the point now that the Palestinians have taken over the mantle of David while Israel is now the Goliath

how so, winston? i think you view the palestinians in a vacuum, as if syria and jordan and iran and saudi arabia, et al, don't want israel (i'm sorry, i mean the zionist state) to be destroyed

Keep Jordan out of this. Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel zillions of years ago when King Hussein was still alive.

Long live peace!

Sireen (from Jordan)

[mycroft]

I thought that part of the "win" of both world wars (frankly, all the major wars since about 1865) was when the civilized world said "these things are too barbaric, we will not do them again to an enemy, even though we can." And, in many cases, we did not, even when in future wars, we fought an enemy who didn't follow those rules.

It's what makes us civilized. Better than our enemy. Worthy of awe, and from those who won't give those freedoms to their people, hate. And it comes with a cost - in lives (on our side), in expensive munitions, and in time and work.

But choosing to revert from our civilization also comes with a cost - in lives, in time, and in work. And really, truly, from a position of power, against a "powerless" enemy, that is the only way they can truly beat us - if they make us "as bad as them", or cause us to inconvenience ourselves more than they possibly could.

I reiterate, when the annual 5-year amortized deaths from terrorism meet the monthly, 5-year amortized deaths from automobiles, I'll start to worry. When I'm even one fifth as likely to die from a terrorist attack as I am crossing the street in the morning, I'll consider extraordinary measures. Until then, it's just a power grab by those who want the power, and a win condition for the terrorists.

[Lobowolf]

mycroft, on Jan 20 2009, 08:05 PM, said:

I reiterate, when the annual 5-year amortized deaths from terrorism meet the monthly, 5-year amortized deaths from automobiles, I'll start to worry. When I'm even one fifth as likely to die from a terrorist attack as I am crossing the street in the morning, I'll consider extraordinary measures. Until then, it's just a power grab by those who want the power, and a win condition for the terrorists.

Part of your relatively low probability of dying in a terrorist attack is due to the fact that some people take it more seriously than you do.

[onoway]

It seems to me that some of the (to many Americans) bewildering antipathy they sometimes meet in other parts of the world stems from a perception that often the U.S. is seen to act in a way which says do as I say, not as I do.

Therefore, it is fine to prosecute other countries and other leaders for "crimes against humanity" while indulging in them ..because who can challenge the States?This means to me that Americans themselves may have to step up to the plate unless the image of an out of control bully is not to continue to be part - now- of the image many non-americans have of the States.

Didn't the U.S. sign the Geneva Convention? Didn't that have something to say about what sort of behaviours people at any level of authority might indulge in? I was taught that silence in such situations signifies at least acquiecense if not direct approval. If the U.S. can't or won't show leadership in tough and uncomfortable situations with their own, then what is the point of their "bringing democracy"" or anything else to the rest of the world (whether they want it or not)? Without the willingness/ability to deal with questions of the legality of behaviour no matter by whom, indeed all you are left with is might makes right. At that point is it only a matter of degree (actual ability to do what you want) and a few p.o.v.s between you and the Taliban, for example?

[Winstonm]

It is my thread so I feel as if I should answer as often as possible - if this is not correct decorum please someone straighten me out.

Onoway and Mycoroft - I think you make some awesome points. I, and others, call this attitutude of "do as I say and not as I do" American Hubris. I am 100% with your sentiments that if you allow yourself to adopt the enemies' tactics then you are no better than your enemy. This is why I so despise ex V.P. Dick Cheney and everything he stood for and espoused.

Lobowolf - although you may be right there is no proof either way. We also didn't have any U.S. terrorist attack from the WTC bombings until 2001. My perception is it is very difficult to organize and carry out an attack from halfway around the globe.

Sireen - thank you for giving us the up close and personal viewpoint. As Americans, we are not always expert on the realities of middle east conflicts - we tend to rely on mainstream news, which more and more to me seems like propaganda than factural information.

And Jimmy - if you will look outside the U.S. I think you will find more and more opposition to and questioning of Israeli action. Although the U.S. Senate and House both passed almost unanimous resolutions backing Israel, polls point to a more even division within U.S. voters of support of Israel's Gaza action, and worldwide the anti-Israel sentiments are much, much stronger.

[luke warm]

sireenb, on Jan 20 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 20 2009, 06:34 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 20 2009, 01:41 PM, said:

In the past when Israel was viewed as David battling the Arab Goliath their Iron Fist methods were cheered - but time has altered perceptions to the point now that the Palestinians have taken over the mantle of David while Israel is now the Goliath

how so, winston? i think you view the palestinians in a vacuum, as if syria and jordan and iran and saudi arabia, et al, don't want israel (i'm sorry, i mean the zionist state) to be destroyed

Keep Jordan out of this. Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel zillions of years ago when King Hussein was still alive.

Long live peace!

Sireen (from Jordan)

my apologies