U.S.A.’s high hypocrisy hobbles nuclear stance (cut and pasted collumn) [Archive]

lars573

08-15-2005, 15:25

U.S.A.’s high hypocrisy hobbles nuclear stance

By Stephen Kimber
The Daily News

Is it just me or does the American attitude to Iranian nuclear weapons development — and to Iran itself — hike to the highest, most hideous, nosebleed heights of hypocrisy?
Consider. The United States is the only country in the world ever to use nuclear weapons against an enemy, a decision that is still widely justified, even celebrated, in the U.S. Americans already lay claim to the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, but that didn’t stop George Bush from upping the ante: shortly after “winning” the presidency in 2000, he ended a freeze on nuclear weapons production and launched a program to develop smaller tactical nuclear weapons he could use on the battlefield. To make matters worse, Bush declared the U.S. would have no hesitation about using these weapons of mass destruction first if he, in his oxymoronic wisdom, decided that was what the situation called for.

This same George W. Bush, of course, now harrumphs about Iran attempting to develop nuclear weapons and says it must stop or face the “consequences.” A battlefield nuke, perhaps?

Consider, too, the Bush administration’s overall attitude toward Iran, a country Bush not that long ago described — along with North Korea and the soon-to-be-invaded Iraq — as a member of the “Axis of Evil.”

The U.S. has a long and truly ugly history of interfering in Iranian affairs. In 1953, it engineered the coup that overthrew the country’s last truly democratic government, then propped up an unelected, despotic but America-friendly Shah of Iran for more than 25 years before he was finally deposed in a popular uprising in 1979.

Despite the fact the Shah refused to rule out developing nuclear weapons of his own, his Washington backers happily approved the sale of assorted nuclear reactors and other equipment believed capable of enriching uranium, to his brutal regime. Among the Ford administration officials of the day most eagerly pushing those sales: Ford’s Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, Chief of Staff Dick Cheney and arms control czar Paul Wolfowitz, all of whom, of course, now claim the only possible reason Iran could want its own nuclear program is to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The irony — one of way too many — is that the Bush administration supports the only two countries in the region known to possess nuclear weapons — Israel and Pakistan — and has made no serious effort to force either to disarm. Or sign on to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — as Iran has done. The U.S., in fact, has blocked enforcement of United Nations Security Council resolutions calling on Israel to put its nuclear facilities under international trusteeship, and for Pakistan, along with India, to eliminate its nuclear weapons stockpiles.

Israel and Pakistan, of course, are among Iran’s most implacable, sabre-rattling enemies. And you wonder why the Iranians might want nuclear weapons of their own?

Far from attempting to ratchet up the nuclear ante, however, Tehran has publicly called for the entire Middle East to become a nuclear weapons-free zone. But the Bush administration threatened to veto a draft UN Security Council resolution in December 2003 that called for such a no-nukes zone.

Now that the newly elected president of Iraq, former Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, threatened to restart his country’s uranium conversion program — a potential step on the road to making nuclear weapons — the Americans have been busy questioning the new government’s legitimacy. Bush even claimed that Iran’s recent election failed to meet “the basic requirements of democracy.”

Huh? He of the hanging chads and stolen elections is questioning the legitimacy of another country’s election?

None of this is to suggest we shouldn’t be worried about Iran’s nuclear intentions, or concerned that Iranians have elected such a hardliner as its new president.

But the reality is that the United States — which knows a thing or two about electing a hardliner as its president — has painted itself into a corner with its long history of hypocrisy.

If it expects the Irans of this world to take its bluster seriously, it will have to rethink its own blinkered, might-is-right double standards and not only treat its friends, like Israel and Pakistan, the same way it deals with its enemies on the issue of nuclear proliferation but it must also begin to reconsider reining in its own mad nuclear weapons program.
As Cyrous Nasseri, an Iranian delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency, put it last week: “The United States is no position whatsoever to tell anyone and to preach to anyone as to what they should or should not do in their nuclear program.”

More’s the pity.

I can say that I agree with the point he's making. But this guy still think that the Bush camp rigged the 2000 election some how.

lancelot

08-15-2005, 15:42

I can say that I agree with the point he's making. But this guy still think that the Bush camp rigged the 2000 election some how.

Well, there is a wealth of literature out there that suggest there was quite likely some 'funny business' with regard to the election... The whole 'florida' issue for one thing...

IIRC, one of the judges deciding on the eligibility of votes was a senior name in the bush administration...

Now, said person might be completely legitimate and blameless but common sense says this is at the very least a conflict of interests..

scooter_the_shooter

08-15-2005, 15:44

It was not rigged...Thats just somtheing all the dems say because they are still mad.

Hurin_Rules

08-15-2005, 16:42

scooter_the_shooter

08-15-2005, 16:46

Well america and its allies dont chant things like "death to the infidels" I dont want people like that having nukes......do you?

Meneldil

08-15-2005, 16:49

Well america and its allies dont chant things like "death to the infidels" I dont want people like that having nukes......do you?

Surely a lot of people from Pakistan chant "Death to the Infidels", just as a lot of people from Isreal chant "Death to all Muslims", yet their respective country have the nuclear bomb, with the US blessing.

Steppe Merc

08-15-2005, 16:53

I have to say I agree. I hate nukes, and I think that Iran or anyone shouldn't be building them, or even keeping them, but how can we claim that others can't make a few nukes when we have far more?
People won't take us seriously when we do exactly what we tell them not to do, and more.

Hurin_Rules

08-15-2005, 17:07

Well america and its allies dont chant things like "death to the infidels" I dont want people like that having nukes......do you?

Wasn't it Jerry Falwell who said, and I quote:
'blow them all away, in the name of the Lord'

Does that mean your country doesn't get to have nukes anymore?

scooter_the_shooter

08-15-2005, 17:15

All I am going to say is..... if you want to try and get rid of America's nukes, come try and take them :charge:

Crazed Rabbit

08-15-2005, 17:18

Except, unlike Iran, his type is not in power here.

Iran wants these weapons a lot, and not for defensive capabilities, but so they can threaten the entire middle east (and perhaps the world).

The US, however, has shown that they are capable of responsibly controlling nuclear weapons.

just as a lot of people from Isreal chant "Death to all Muslims"

Any proof?

Crazed Rabbit

Al Khalifah

08-15-2005, 17:41

I think these accusations of extremism are being put out of context. There is a far greater number/percentage of extremists in Pakistan or Iran than in the U.S or Israel. There are a few of these idiots in America, but there are a lot of them in Iran.

Gawain of Orkeny

08-15-2005, 17:47

The typical poor attempt by the "left" at moral equivalincy.

Hurin_Rules

08-15-2005, 17:58

All I am going to say is..... if you want to try and get rid of America's nukes, come try and take them :charge:

Actually, if its a simple case of might makes right, I can respect your stance. What I don't respect is this holier-than-thou attitude that cloaks the realpolitik in something very different, a high moral stance. If you just don't like the idea of brown Muslim people who live near Israel and control your oil having the bomb, then say so. But don't pretend that your capable of using nukes 'responsibly' when you're the only one to use them against civilian targets--to use them at all, for that matter--and are breaking international treaties, fighting elective wars, invading other sovereign nations on false pretexts and breaking down the barriers between conventional and nuclear weapons at the same time. If it is just a case of might makes right, then at least have the balls to admit it.

Redleg

08-15-2005, 18:01

One must remember that Iran signed a document that stated they would not use the technology given to them to develope nuclear energy to develop nuclear weapons.

Proletariat

08-15-2005, 18:04

If it is just a case of might makes right, then at least have the balls to admit it.

It's both Hurin, and you and everyone else in the free west should be grateful that it's America who is the world's superpower and not Iran. Unless of course you want your daughters wearing burquas.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-15-2005, 18:04

Well, there is a wealth of literature out there that suggest there was quite likely some 'funny business' with regard to the election... The whole 'florida' issue for one thing...

IIRC, one of the judges deciding on the eligibility of votes was a senior name in the bush administration...

Now, said person might be completely legitimate and blameless but common sense says this is at the very least a conflict of interests..

The core truth of that election is that the liberal left shot itself in the foot.

Both parties nominated very beatable candidates:

Gore - a boring richboy who, though experienced in government. had few if any real policy goals and loved to take credit for things he had little to do with -- such as the internet.

Bush - a boring richboy with character, but lacking anything even resembling effective comm skills or debating savoir faire (hey, I like him, but "smooth" he was not).

Despite a decent economy and the power of some degree of incumbency, which should have let Gore take the GOP apart, the rabid hatred of Clinton galvanized the right wing to support Bush with few exceptions - keeping his voter base solid.

By contrast, Gore wasn't stridently liberal enough for many left wing voters - despite writing a book on the evils of the ICE and staunch support for the mainstream liberal agenda items. He lost a lot of votes to a splinter leftie: Ralph Nader.

In Florida, the closest political battleground of the 2000 election, Bush won by less than 1,000 votes (this has been established by several recounts, some sponsored by the NY Times and Washington Post). The court shenanigans of both parties were ugly, but didn't change this basic fact. Under electoral college rules, winning by even 1 vote gives all of the electoral votes of that state to the winner, and that was Bush.

The saddest note for the Gore campaign was the votes taken by Nader in Florida -- some 90,000. If even a few of these anti-government lefties, say 2% of them, had held their noses and voted for Gore so as to stop the far more conservative Bush, then Gore would have been President.

A scan of the actual voting results (numerous sites) is quite instructive.

It's as simple as that.

SF

Gawain of Orkeny

08-15-2005, 18:05

If you just don't like the idea of brown Muslim people who live near Israel and control your oil having the bomb, then say so.

I say the less people who have them the better. I dont care what color or religion they are but how stable they are and how likely they are to use these weapons for their own gain.

But don't pretend that your capable of using nukes 'responsibly' when you're the only one to use them against civilian targets--to use them at all, for that matter-

And that use perobably stopped not only more deaths in WW2 but a great many more whena bigger bomb might have been used later on. The very terror of those two bombings maybe responsible for there being no major wars since and have prevented a nulear exchange between us and the USSR.

fighting elective wars, invading other sovereign nations on false pretexts and breaking down the barriers between conventional and nuclear weapons at the same time. If it is just a case of might makes right, then at least have the balls to admit it.

And what do you think the world would look like if Iran had the power of the US? Just think about it.

Redleg

08-15-2005, 18:08

Actually, if its a simple case of might makes right, I can respect your stance. What I don't respect is this holier-than-thou attitude that cloaks the realpolitik in something very different, a high moral stance. If you just don't like the idea of brown Muslim people who live near Israel and control your oil having the bomb, then say so.

No need to do that - there is an international treaty that states Iran would not use the technology to build weapons

But don't pretend that your capable of using nukes 'responsibly' when you're the only one to use them against civilian targets--to use them at all, for that matter

Do you really want to go in that direction - the historical evidence is out there about why the bomb had to be used in Truman's own words and futher backed up with the actions and words of the Japanese Military Council.

--and are breaking international treaties,

And what is Iran doing with the attempted building of nuclear weapons,

fighting elective wars,

An opinion

invading other sovereign nations on false pretexts

Not proven in any way shape or form - the best you have is that the reason stated for going to war were shown to be false - that means that the judgement was poor, the decision bad - not a false pretext.

and breaking down the barriers between conventional and nuclear weapons at the same time. If it is just a case of might makes right, then at least have the balls to admit it.

What barrier has the United States broken on the use of nuclear weapons? There is a certain treaty that the United States can be criticized for not ratifing in Congress, and then there is the building of new weapons to replace old weapons - an arguement that could be used to support your statement here.

scooter_the_shooter

08-15-2005, 18:09

Sjakihata

08-15-2005, 18:17

USA is very unstable as well, and I'd rather not that they have nukes. That WILL be the end of the world, sadly.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-15-2005, 18:23

I've never quite understood why the US gets the right to deny others what it and its allies already have. This has always seemed to me the height of hypocrisy. I really don't know how anyone can defend it.

A classic point. Ultimately, the USA has no moral right to deny nuclear capability to anyone. It is not our right to do so, it is our regrettable duty.

We once used atomic weapons to help end one war and to "send a message" to a less than friendly ally in that conflict. We did not know, then, the persistent horrors of nuclear fallout and contamination and counted them no worse than the other horrors of that war. We figured that by having a weapon which could destroy the target even if only one bomber got through -- and no air defence is perfect -- we would be too scary to push around.

Knowing these tools of destruction, the USA has never employed them in combat since. Even when called for by field commanders to stop the human wave attacks of the Chinese "volunteers" in 1951 or as a means to shred North Vietnam and preserve our client-state of South Vietnam, the US has chosen not to employ them. Soviet Russia sent equipment and fighter pilots, but let Soviet China send volunteers in range of UN battlefield nukes (I've always wondered if those hundreds of thousands of Chinese dead were what really began the breach between Red China and the CCCP?).

Underneath it all, we hope to prevent the spread of such weapons technology in order to limit the possibility that someone without a sense of restraint or history will ever possess such tools. Working to prevent proliferation is not a right -- it is a duty.

SF

Gawain of Orkeny

08-15-2005, 18:24

USA is very unstable as well, and I'd rather not that they have nukes. That WILL be the end of the world, sadly.

So just who do you think were getting ready to bomb? ~:confused: If the US is unstable then the rest of the world is in big doo doo.

Xiahou

08-15-2005, 18:26

I've never quite understood why the US gets the right to deny others what it and its allies already have. This has always seemed to me the height of hypocrisy. I really don't know how anyone can defend it.
If I'm in my home with a gun while some drugged-out whacko is trying to batter down my door, should I open a window and toss him a gun of his own so as not to be hypocrital?

Since when was it hypocritical to not want your enemies to have nuclear weapons?

Seamus Fermanagh

08-15-2005, 18:38

So just who do you think were getting ready to bomb? ~:confused: If the US is unstable then the rest of the world is in big doo doo.

Agreed.

Apply the ruthless gamesmenship you do in an RTW campaign.

In the late 1960's, the USA knew that a coordinated 1st strike against the USSR and the PRC was not only possible, but winnable. The liquid-fueled missiles then used by the Soviets were susceptible to a first strike, and a coordinated assault by our attack subs would have put a large percentage of the Soviet ICBM sub fleet on the bottom before firing. The USA would have lost a dozen or so cities and a few 10s of millions dead, but we would have broken both the USSR and the PRC beyond repair. We could then have dictated terms to the rest of the world. A number of you out there are just that ruthless in your fictional campaigns.

We didn't. The thought that even a few people were considering it turns our stomachs. We value life -- and not just USA life -- too highly for that. We do not have the stomach for true conquest. Hitler wouldn't have hesitated.

Hitler: You mean we are in a position to achieve TOTAL world domination for the forseeable future for the cost of only 15% of my population? Show me the button!

So just how unstable are we, really? A little inconsistent in our foreign policy - yes. Fixated on irrelevant consumerism - absolutely. A mixed bag of moralists and debauchees - okay, you got me. Unstable on key issues of life, death, and the universe -- our record isn't all that bad.

SF

Hurin_Rules

08-15-2005, 18:39

Do you really want to go in that direction - the historical evidence is out there about why the bomb had to be used in Truman's own words and futher backed up with the actions and words of the Japanese Military Council.

There are two important issues here. On the first, reasonable people could reasonably disagree: 1. Did America have to use the bomb to prevent losing hundreds of thousands of its own soldiers. I can understand why people make that argument. But on the second issue, there really is no defense: 2. The USA dropped the bomb on a civilian target. This completely undermines the argument that it is a 'responsible' user of nuclear weapons. This was a terrorist act, in every sense of the word.

And what is Iran doing with the attempted building of nuclear weapons,.

A red herring. If I murdered civilians does that make it right for you to do so as well? Obviously not.

An opinion

No, a fact. Iraq was an elective war.

Not proven in any way shape or form - the best you have is that the reason stated for going to war were shown to be false - that means that the judgement was poor, the decision bad - not a false pretext.

???? You've just proved my point. The reasons stated for the war were false. This is the very definition of a 'false pretext'.

What barrier has the United States broken on the use of nuclear weapons? There is a certain treaty that the United States can be criticized for not ratifing in Congress, and then there is the building of new weapons to replace old weapons - an arguement that could be used to support your statement here.

And the US is blurring the boundaries between nuclear and conventional weapons by its continuing development of 'tactical' nukes and a new generation of smaller nuclear weapons with lower yields. So in additon to pulling out of arms treaties, it is breaking down barriers on the use of nuclear weapons.

Gawain of Orkeny

08-15-2005, 18:41

No, a fact. Iraq was an elective war.

All wars are elective. Just because someone declares war on you dosent mean you are obliged to wage war on them.

???? You've just proved my point. The reasons stated for the war were false. This is the very definition of a 'false pretext'.

All the reasons or just your selected few?

Xiahou

08-15-2005, 18:44

Crazed Rabbit

08-15-2005, 18:55

Keeping in mind, of course, that the US put the theocracy in power there in the first place.

Um...the US supported the Shah (though Carter didn't have the guts to do anything about it when the revolution came, but that wasn't because he supported the Ayatollah Khomeni).

You've just proved my point. The reasons stated for the war were false. This is the very definition of a 'false pretext'.

There is a difference between acting on facts which turn out to be incorrect, and actively lying.

Crazed Rabbit

Redleg

08-15-2005, 19:05

There are two important issues here. On the first, reasonable people could reasonably disagree: 1. Did America have to use the bomb to prevent losing hundreds of thousands of its own soldiers. I can understand why people make that argument. But on the second issue, there really is no defense: 2. The USA dropped the bomb on a civilian target. This completely undermines the argument that it is a 'responsible' user of nuclear weapons. This was a terrorist act, in every sense of the word.

Under the standards of warfare as praticed by all combatants - you are still incorrect. The evidence of the military value of both cities are also on the web for those who wish to know can discover.

A red herring. If I murdered civilians does that make it right for you to do so as well? Obviously not.

How is it a red herring - Iran signed a treaty about not using technology given to them to build a nuclear device. To state the United States is by hypocritical in its approach to Iran is a valid arguement - but to say Iran can violated a treaty because the United States has weapons - is also hypocritical. The red herring is the arguement you are using to say Iran has the right to build one

No, a fact. Iraq was an elective war.

Prove it is a elective war - I happen to think its a continuation of Desert Storm since Iraq violated the cease fire.

???? You've just proved my point. The reasons stated for the war were false. This is the very definition of a 'false pretext'.

No a false pretext would be that the people in power knew that the weapon information were made up by themselves.

Pretext is defined as a purpose or motive alleged or an appearance assumed in order to cloak the real intention or state of affairs

False is defined as intentionally untrue

So once again bad decisions and poor judgement does not make for false pretext. Can you prove that the evidence was made up by the Bush adminstration or the Blair administration?

And the US is blurring the boundaries between nuclear and conventional weapons by its continuing development of 'tactical' nukes and a new generation of smaller nuclear weapons with lower yields. So in additon to pulling out of arms treaties, it is breaking down barriers on the use of nuclear weapons.

So care to explain why over 1000 "tactical nuclear weapons" have been destoryed by the United States? (And I already know the answer to this one).

So it seems your confusing build with the word use in this last paragraph also. The United States has not used a nuclear device in warfare since the end of WW2.

Louis VI the Fat

08-15-2005, 19:53

I say the less people who have them the better. I dont care what color or religion they are but how stable they are and how likely they are to use these weapons for their own gain.I agree with the conservative club's chieftain! :jumping:

Here's the deal: the minute anybody here steps forward and in all seriousness tells me he feels as threatened by France's nuclear force as he feels by North Korea's and (soon-to-be) Iran's, I'll admit to being a hypocrite.

Redleg

08-15-2005, 20:39

Here's the deal: the minute anybody here steps forward and in all seriousness tells me he feels as threatened by France's nuclear force as he feels by North Korea's and (soon-to-be) Iran's, I'll admit to being a hypocrite.

I am more worried about what France will be doing with its nuclear force then I am about the United States.

But then I know a little more then the average person about how nuclear release authority works for the United States.

Spino

08-15-2005, 21:22

There are two important issues here. On the first, reasonable people could reasonably disagree: 1. Did America have to use the bomb to prevent losing hundreds of thousands of its own soldiers. I can understand why people make that argument. But on the second issue, there really is no defense: 2. The USA dropped the bomb on a civilian target. This completely undermines the argument that it is a 'responsible' user of nuclear weapons. This was a terrorist act, in every sense of the word.

A red herring. If I murdered civilians does that make it right for you to do so as well? Obviously not.
That argument is rather hollow when you consider the Japanese approach to waging war during that era. Are you not familiar with the Japanese military's brutual treatment and outright massacre of civilian populations and POWs during the war?

It's also a little difficult for me to accept the label 'terrorist act' with respect to the dropping of both atomic bombs in light of the fact that both Axis powers were actively and openly bombing and ravaging the civilian populations of the territories they conquered for the entire duration of the war. In Germany's case the atomic bombs simply weren't ready in early 45 and even if they were they weren't necessary to ensure Germany's defeat and surrender. As to the justification for using the bombs by late 44/early 45 Germany's defeat was a forgone conclusion and unlike Japan, it wasn't a country drenched with 'do or die' nationalism at every level of society. Furthermore with the exception of certain SS units the Germany military didn't possess an equivalent to Japan's bushido code which made the average Japanese soldier deadly up until the moment where he took his last breath (show me one instance where Japanese soldiers surrendered en masse like the Germans did at Stalingrad). And last but not least thousands of young Germans didn't volunteer to fly suicide missions for the Luftwaffe to stop allied bombers like the thousands of young Japanese men who volunteered for kamikaze missions to stop the US Navy.

It took the stunning and immediate destruction caused by both atomic bombs (not to mention a failed coup against the emperor) to finally bring Japan to its senses and surrender. The use of the bombs not only saved American lives but probably saved countless civilian lives in Japan as well as those in the nations it conquered.

My apologies for pulling the topic slightly OTS...

Steppe Merc

08-15-2005, 21:32

Rabbit, the US supported the Shah during Carter. However, before that they installed a religous government during I believe the 50s.

And about Japan: it may have been neccasary, but it doesn't change the fact that it killed many innocents.

Redleg

08-15-2005, 22:00

And about Japan: it may have been neccasary, but it doesn't change the fact that it killed many innocents.

What you seem to not want to understand - that during WW2 whole populations were behind the war effort. In the aspects of TOTAL WAR - which is exactly what all nations in WW2 subscribed to - there were no innocent civilians in regards to the enemy.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-15-2005, 22:10

That argument is rather hollow when you consider the Japanese approach to waging war during that era. Are you not familiar with the Japanese military's brutual treatment and outright massacre of civilian populations and POWs during the war?

**** As has been noted, the wrongs of another party do not justify doing wrong yourself. Granted, Japanese practice was horrific, but your argument here is no more than tit-for-tat -- not a lot of moral high ground there.

It's also a little difficult for me to accept the label 'terrorist act' with respect to the dropping of both atomic bombs in light of the fact that both Axis powers were actively and openly bombing and ravaging the civilian populations of the territories they conquered for the entire duration of the war.

*** True, and with much effect. Germany's destruction of downtown Warsaw and Rotterdam were designed purely to terrorize. They also worked, bringing about the collapse of resistance, in both cases, within days. On the other hand, similar efforts in London and in Soviet Russia galvanized resistance -- Terrorism is a two-edged tool. Much of the RAF night-bombing campaign had a terror component, as did the fire-bombings of Hamburg US & UK), Dresden (US & UK), and Tokyo (US). Weapon accuracy did not lend itself to the minimization of "collateral damage" -- but neither side stopped bombing etc. because of that.

In Germany's case the atomic bombs simply weren't ready in early 45 and even if they were they weren't necessary to ensure Germany's defeat and surrender. As to the justification for using the bombs by late 44/early 45 Germany's defeat was a forgone conclusion and unlike Japan, it wasn't a country drenched with 'do or die' nationalism at every level of society.

Furthermore with the exception of certain SS units the Germany military didn't possess an equivalent to Japan's bushido code which made the average Japanese soldier deadly up until the moment where he took his last breath (show me one instance where Japanese soldiers surrendered en masse like the Germans did at Stalingrad). And last but not least thousands of young Germans didn't volunteer to fly suicide missions for the Luftwaffe to stop allied bombers like the thousands of young Japanese men who volunteered for kamikaze missions to stop the US Navy.

It took the stunning and immediate destruction caused by both atomic bombs (not to mention a failed coup against the emperor) to finally bring Japan to its senses and surrender. The use of the bombs not only saved American lives but probably saved countless civilian lives in Japan as well as those in the nations it conquered.

My apologies for pulling the topic slightly OTS...

****As noted on a history channel expose on the anniversary of the bombing:

Truman knew, at Potsdam, of both the successful Trinity test AND of Japanese efforts to use Soviet Russia and Sweden as a go-between to seek peace with the United States.

Truman's decision was based on two concerns:

1. Truman could not be sure that the peace element in Japan would prevail (and, in fact, a military coup seeking to stop the surrender nearly succeeded -- AFTER the bombings). A defended Japan would have killed many Americans as well as Japanese (though Truman cared little about the latter).

2. The menace of Soviet Russia. Our army was a tithe of theirs, but Stalin knew that he could not prevent our bombers from penetrating. Cold War message sending at its finest.

The saddest part of the affair is that Japan would have surrendered after the first bomb but didn't get their act together administratively in time to forestall the second attack.

SF

Soulforged

08-15-2005, 22:10

The attack was justified against japan. Do not say it wasn't. We would have lost over a million people in an invasion and if we blockaded them they would have lost alot more civilians.

I dont care if they are brown....wtf are you saying that for....I would not want the IRA to have nukes either.

It wasn't justified, it was an experiment to see nuclear energy woking in humans, and then say "we should be the guardians". I'm really tired of arrogance, for god's sake. If you blockaded them at least there would be no further repercutions on humans, like desease, black rain, or the lasting effect of the radiaton, it was the worst act against humanity ever (from Japan with love :bow: (ironic)). Redleg said that he's worried about what can do France with the bombs. What makes USA better than France (i mean as a state) or England. I can see it with Iran, Irak or any african nation or South America, but England and France, or Germany, have an historial of political seberty and good administrations.
But i understand some of you... how can we blame you when you grow up with the american propaganda? And is funny you have mentioned Hitler, the only difference beetween Nazi propaganda and American propaganda was that the second is not as direct and ovbious, and also the first is 100% hatred. But if you're saying that you're the only one who can have custody of nuclear weapons (and even research on it) then you're crazy :furious3: :furious3: WTF are you some race of superior beings, with superb intelligence and rational behavior. And you Redleg are talking from the state wich allows death penalty, that's not rational. The point here is that not a single state should have nuclear weapons, period. If USA have's it and Bush sais something like "we will use it if necessary" then i'm really not sure of two things: 1- what is necessary? An arbitrary resolution who puts all in jeopardy 2- Is really USA the best one to have it? With that historial of intrusions in wars that doesn't concern them or invansions behind excuses...mmmmm.

Gawain of Orkeny

08-15-2005, 22:14

If you blockaded them at least there would be no further repercutions on humans, like desease, black rain, or the lasting effect of the radiaton, it was the worst act against humanity ever (from Japan with love (ironic)).

And what of all the Chinese and POWs that would have died? Your ingnoring the facts. Did you know that Hiroshima is one of the healthiest places to life now. Seems it killed all the germs as well ~:)

Redleg said that he's worried about what can do France with the bombs. What makes USA better than France (i mean as a state) or England. I can see it with Iran,

Where were Iraq and Iran getting their nuclear tech from?

sharrukin

08-15-2005, 22:43

And about Japan: it may have been neccasary, but it doesn't change the fact that it killed many innocents.

One thing to consider is that the loss of Japanese civilians would have been far greater in an American invasion of the Japanese homeland. The nuclear bombs resulted in fewer Japanese civilian dead than would otherwise have been the case. That doesn't include any American or Japanese military casualties either.

Where were Iraq and Iran getting their nuclear tech from?

Well Iran got at least part of it from the United states during the time of the Shah.

Soulforged

08-15-2005, 22:51

And what of all the Chinese and POWs that would have died? Your ingnoring the facts. Did you know that Hiroshima is one of the healthiest places to life now. Seems it killed all the germs as well ~:)

Where were Iraq and Iran getting their nuclear tech from?

HEY WTF!!!!!! THIS IS ARROGANCE IN PURE STATE. DO YOU REALLY HAVE THE GUTS TO SAY THAT IT KILLED GERMS TO. FOR GODS SAKE!!! THIS IS NOT A JOKE YANKEE.

AND THEY GET IT FROM YOU MAN!!! YOU CREATED THE TECHNOLOGY, YOU DEVELOPED IT AND YOU SELL IT, OFICIALLY OR NOT, I DON'T CARE. YOUR COUNTRY SPENDS THE GREATEST PART OF THE BUDGET ON MILITARY, WHY DO YOU THINK IS THAT? THE FRENCH PERHAPS DO IT TOO, BUT YOU'RE NOT FREE!!!!

Louis VI the Fat

08-15-2005, 22:55

I am more worried about what France will be doing with its nuclear force then I am about the United States.Well, we use it for blowing up Pacific Atols to show how large our peni...oops, for protecting the stability of western Europe by nuclear deterrent.

Where were Iraq and Iran getting their nuclear tech from?Ouch.

Louis VI the Fat

08-15-2005, 22:57

Soulforged, tranquillo amigo. ~;)

Tribesman

08-15-2005, 23:04

It's both Hurin, and you and everyone else in the free west should be grateful that it's America who is the world's superpower and not Iran. Unless of course you want your daughters wearing burquas.
Errrrr...sorry Prole , I do seem to be a little lost here , but are burquas mandatory in Iran ?
Now forgive me about my confusion , but aren't there some countries that are supported by the "worlds superpower" who have very stringent "laws" on what women are allowed to do and what women are allowed to wear ?

I cannot understand your reasoning at all . You rail about these "1400 year old insect vermin" (no offence to anyone who follows Islam or comes from the middle east-but they are not my words) .
You support actions that strengthen the position on the fundamentalist hardliners , and you support actions that help to spread the hard line rubbish .
Yet you claim that you worry about our daughters ?

Where were Iraq and Iran getting their nuclear tech from?
Errr .... Gawain , I really hate to tell you this , but they were getting it from your allies , your enemies , and yourself . ~:cheers:

Proletariat

08-15-2005, 23:12

If you blockaded them at least there would be no further repercutions on humans, like desease, black rain, or the lasting effect of the radiaton, it was the worst act against humanity ever (from Japan with love :bow: (ironic)).

Translation: 6 millions Jews murdered < Two cities being bombed in order to end the bloodiest war the planet has faced.

But i understand some of you... how can we blame you when you grow up with the american propaganda? And is funny you have mentioned Hitler, the only difference beetween Nazi propaganda and American propaganda was that the second is not as direct and ovbious, and also the first is 100% hatred.

Yeah, because we're shoving Arabs in furnaces daily in an attempt to wipe out their race.

:dizzy2:

Redleg

08-15-2005, 23:14

It wasn't justified, it was an experiment to see nuclear energy woking in humans, and then say "we should be the guardians". I'm really tired of arrogance, for god's sake.

Again you would be incorrect about why the weapon was used against Japan.

If you blockaded them at least there would be no further repercutions on humans, like desease, black rain, or the lasting effect of the radiaton, it was the worst act against humanity ever (from Japan with love :bow: (ironic)).

You need to study WW2 and Japan a little more I think. Here is a link to a previous discussion on just this issue. I spent two years studying the history on Nuclear Weapons and how and why they were used in WW2. I read both the United States verision of the history and the reports of the Japanese about the end of the war. THe conlusion I drew from reading much 1st source information is different then the anti-nuclear propaganda that you seem to have fallen for. You accuse others of arrogance when your showing it yourself with your lack of knowledge concerning WW2, the decision, and the reasons behind the decision.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=42293&page=2&pp=30

Redleg said that he's worried about what can do France with the bombs. What makes USA better than France (i mean as a state) or England. I can see it with Iran, Irak or any african nation or South America, but England and France, or Germany, have an historial of political seberty and good administrations.

I guess sarcism is not just lost on citizens of the United States - its lost on almost all who live in the Americas.

But i understand some of you... how can we blame you when you grow up with the american propaganda?

Now that is funny.

And is funny you have mentioned Hitler, the only difference beetween Nazi propaganda and American propaganda was that the second is not as direct and ovbious, and also the first is 100% hatred. But if you're saying that you're the only one who can have custody of nuclear weapons (and even research on it) then you're crazy :furious3: :furious3: WTF are you some race of superior beings, with superb intelligence and rational behavior.

Yep I guess we are if that is your opinion - (again that is a sarcastic Statement).

And you Redleg are talking from the state wich allows death penalty, that's not rational.

We are not talking about the states that use the death penalty - look who is not being rational here.

The point here is that not a single state should have nuclear weapons, period.

The genie was let out of the bottle and can not be put back in. The weapons are out there - so controls should be supported by the world community.

If USA have's it and Bush sais something like "we will use it if necessary" then i'm really not sure of two things: 1- what is necessary? An arbitrary resolution who puts all in jeopardy 2- Is really USA the best one to have it? With that historial of intrusions in wars that doesn't concern them or invansions behind excuses...mmmmm.

So we should of stayed out of WW1, WW2, and Korea. Yea right - get real.

Redleg

08-15-2005, 23:16

Well, we use it for blowing up Pacific Atols to show how large our peni...oops, for protecting the stability of western Europe by nuclear deterrent.

I see you got the gist of my sarcastic comment - unlike someone else

Tribesman

08-15-2005, 23:22

Translation: 6 millions Jews murdered < Two cities being bombed in order to end the bloodiest war the planet has faced.
Blimey , I never realised the Nipponese were slaughtering the Jews as well .

Redleg

08-15-2005, 23:48

Translation: 6 millions Jews murdered < Two cities being bombed in order to end the bloodiest war the planet has faced.
Blimey , I never realised the Nipponese were slaughtering the Jews as well .

Well they did rape a few cities, did bio experiments on an unknown number of Chinese Citizens, and a few other crimes aagainst civilians - and I am not even talking about what they did to soldiers who surrendered to them.

Soulforged

08-16-2005, 00:06

Again you would be incorrect about why the weapon was used against Japan. Don't accuse others of arrogance when you are guilty of it yourself.

You need to study WW2 and Japan a little more I think.

I guess sarcism is not just lost on citizens of the United States - its lost on almost all who live in the Americas.

Now that is funny - and speaks of someone else growing up with propaganda.

Yep I guess we are if that is your opinion - again that is a sarcastic opinion.

We are not talking about the states that use the death penalty - look who is not being rational here.

The genie was let out of the bottle and can not be put back in. The weapons are out there - so controls should be supported by the world community.

So we should of stayed out of WW1, WW2, and Korea. Yea right - get real.

You yankees always try to set all in your side. Everybody does good things, not just you. And this is great because you talk about arrogance, just tell why i'm arrogant?. Always the thing about WW I, WW II, well that was some profit for you too don't? Why don't you mention Vietnam, the Gulf War, Irak? Or maybe the supporting of the USA state behind the uprisings in South America, and later behind it's end. In those times USA and the Soviet Union were disputing the world, USA seems to still want to do it. And i'm not talking about the people i'm talking about the government (but i see some people think the same way, sadly). I grew up with propaganda???, wtf, i don't know about you but many of your country sure grew up with movies like "Presidential Plane" (Avion Presidencial, i don't know how you call it there), that's f**** propaganda. You sure know nothing about Argentina, but if you knew you will not make that coment, here nothing is absolute, we don't live in "paradise" so everything is grey here and you don't fall in propaganda, everyone talks bad about our government, but they are saying the truth, nothing is "pink", but again tell me what propaganda, maybe i don't understand you. Not you are in the state that allows it (Texas, right), my point is that you're trying to be rational about killing a bunch of people and leave lasting effects to save your own asses (if the problem are the Chinises then leave it to them, why do you think that USA has to get in everybody else's business?), when the politics of you're own state says that killing people and say that they're delincuents is fair.
That sentence of the genie is a classical excuse. If you want something to be done then begin from making an example. At least you're government can wash their hands and say "hey we are not keeping them", that's good at least. And you get real, do you really think that USA entered the WW I just for helping? Analize the profit that yout country has received just for entering the wars. Especially in the WW II they created a debt with almost all European potences, especially with Germany wich was diveded. They helped it as you helped much, i'm not saying that, but your country sticks his nose all over the world. That's at least a potencial empire, but it's an economical empire without doubt.
Hey you're modern crusaders if you like, going like fanatics, defending democracy everywhere, and then being arrogant about it. Why don't you write a book with this title "Why should everybody praise America". And i would write this one "Why Argentinians are so arrogant".
And on what basis do you tell me that i must read more history of Japan (tough i readed it) when i'm talking on public facts? You always will say that it was necessary while almost the rest of the world will say no. The things i said are not complex at all, it's simple: you can see Hiroshima as necessary or not, and then Nagasaki... But correct if i'm wrong. Didn't Truman launch the first bomb based on assumptions, like "the japanese will attack again".
I didn't lost my sarcism i lost my perspective on your post. With all these fight i almost forget what was this about... Anyway your jokes are surely bad (except for the Simpsons).

Tribesman

08-16-2005, 00:09

Well they did rape a few cities, ......
Really , I did used to wonder why all those old POWs of the Japanese that I used to work with seemed to have some sort of a problem with anything slightly Nippon , maybe that explains it .
But I don't remember any links to the final solution .

OT , but as you mention the bio-chem experiments , didn't the British do experiments during the war and after on its own servicemen and Empire/Commonwelth troops?

scooter_the_shooter

08-16-2005, 00:12

Soul make sperate paragraphs please.....it is to awkward to read your post if you do not. ~;)

scooter_the_shooter

08-16-2005, 00:14

And if we get rid of our nukes..... north korea and the like will have some fun :help:

Our enemies have them so we need to keep ours....and do all we can to keep them away from our other enemies!

And what have you read about japan....if you tell us maybe we can direct to sources that show why the nuke was justified. ~;)

kiwitt

08-16-2005, 00:22

The US doesn't like IRAN's nuclear programs for two main reasons.

1) It fears that the programs may lead to the Nuclear Weapons and affect the balance of power, even though the US supported India and Pakistan, who recently threatened to use them.

2) It does not want to see successful exploitation of Nuclear Power as opposed to "oil" based power sources.

In addition, a lot of this rhetoric is to detract attention from IRAN's plan to sell it's future oil supplies in "Euros" from March 2006. I have mentioned this in another thread. (do a search for these plans, if you like)

Redleg

08-16-2005, 00:38

You yankees always try to set all in your side. Everybody does good things, not just you.

Hold your horses for a second there cowboy - I never said only the United States does good things - that is your allegation and your interpation of what is being said.

And this is great because you talk about arrogance, just tell why i'm arrogant?.

See the above statement for an examble of your arrogance.

Always the thing about WW I, WW II, well that was some profit for you too don't? Why don't you mention Vietnam, the Gulf War, Irak?

Thought it was obvious - you made a blanket statement - I used the wars that the United States fought that were not within the scope of the statement of

With that historial of intrusions in wars that doesn't concern them or invansions behind excuses...mmmmm.

Those three wars go to disprove your intial statement without providing any background material. Now Vietnam was a messed up political mess by numerous administration - but to prove or dispove an intrusion that was uninvited by the nation would take a long history thesis

Desert Storm was by invite - try doing a little research on the subject. You might want to check out the fact that Iraq invaded one of the allies to the United States. Again you made an allegation that was to simple to disprove.

The only one that comes close to an intrusion is the current war with Iraq - but since I link it to the cease fire of 1991 - well the intrusion is just not there.

Or maybe the supporting of the USA state behind the uprisings in South America, and later behind it's end.

Now there you would have a better case of making an allegation of intrusion - but again your initial statement was a blanket one at that was it not?

In those times USA and the Soviet Union were disputing the world, USA seems to still want to do it. And i'm not talking about the people i'm talking about the government (but i see some people think the same way, sadly). I grew up with propaganda???,

Sure you did - you accuse others of growing up with propaganda but can not see it in your ownself. That again speaks of arrogance.

wtf, i don't know about you but many of your country sure grew up with movies like "Presidential Plane" (Avion Presidencial, i don't know how you call it there), that's f**** propaganda.

Never saw it - so don't have a clue about it.

You sure know nothing about Argentina, but if you knew you will not make that coment, here nothing is absolute, we don't live in "paradise" so everything is grey here and you don't fall in propaganda, everyone talks bad about our government, but they are saying the truth, nothing is "pink", but again tell me what propaganda, maybe i don't understand you.

I am sure you don't understand what propaganda is given this statement. You accuse others of living in a world of propaganda - the statement by itself shows that you are falling for propaganda of your own making.

I know only what I read on Argentina - which is obvious the only thing you know about the United States - is from information you read concerning it - that also falls in line with the propaganda statement.

Careful of accusations when you yourself are guilty of the same thing.

Not you are in the state that allows it (Texas, right), my point is that you're trying to be rational about killing a bunch of people and leave lasting effects to save your own asses (if the problem are the Chinises then leave it to them, why do you think that USA has to get in everybody else's business?), when the politics of you're own state says that killing people and say that they're delincuents is fair.

WTF are you talking about - another exambe of ignorance of WW2 is all I can think of when people make statements like this. Care to guess how many nations were fighting in WW2. BTW guess who brought the United States into WW2 - it wasn't the Germans now was it?

That sentence of the genie is a classical excuse. If you want something to be done then begin from making an example.

And that is why I used it - it sums up the situation nicely

At least you're government can wash their hands and say "hey we are not keeping them", that's good at least.

idealistic - but not realistic.

And you get real, do you really think that USA entered the WW I just for helping? Analize the profit that yout country has received just for entering the wars.

Again you made a blanket statemetn about intrusions in wars - making a profit in war - does not equate to an intrusion in a war that had to be fought.

Especially in the WW II they created a debt with almost all European potences, especially with Germany wich was diveded. They helped it as you helped much, i'm not saying that, but your country sticks his nose all over the world. That's at least a potencial empire, but it's an economical empire without doubt.

Again like I said - you made a blanket claim of intrusions in wars the United States was attacked by Japan and then we got into the war. Care to guess what other countries made serious profit off of WW2.

Hey you're modern crusaders if you like, going like fanatics, defending democracy everywhere, and then being arrogant about it.

Another examble of propaganda. LOL to bad you can't see it.

Why don't you write a book with this title "Why should everybody praise America". And i would write this one "Why Argentinians are so arrogant".

No need to - there is enough propaganda out there already.

And on what basis do you tell me that i must read more history of Japan (tough i readed it) when i'm talking on public facts?

Because you are not talking of public facts - if you did you would know how many civilians causalities were estimated from a blockade, from an invasion, and many other things - however you spout all the information that only comes from propaganda sites that are anti-nuclear.

You always will say that it was necessary while almost the rest of the world will say no. The things i said are not complex at all, it's simple: you can see Hiroshima as necessary or not, and then Nagasaki... But correct if i'm wrong. Didn't Truman launch the first bomb based on assumptions, like "the japanese will attack again".

You would be incorrect - go to the Truman Library and you can find exactly what he stated.

I didn't lost my sarcism i lost my perspective on your post. With all these fight i almost forget what was this about... Anyway your jokes are surely bad (except for the Simpsons).

Just like yours it seems ~D

Redleg

08-16-2005, 00:39

OT , but as you mention the bio-chem experiments , didn't the British do experiments during the war and after on its own servicemen and Empire/Commonwelth troops?

I believe so - and so did the United States - a couple of them involving how humans react to nuclear explosions from a distance.

Proletariat

08-16-2005, 00:45

Translation: 6 millions Jews murdered < Two cities being bombed in order to end the bloodiest war the planet has faced.
Blimey , I never realised the Nipponese were slaughtering the Jews as well .

What the hell? He's the one who said the act of dropping those bombs were the worst action in the history of the world, ignoring non-American atrocities like the Holocaust that were obviously much worse.

Gawain of Orkeny

08-16-2005, 00:48

I believe so - and so did the United States - a couple of them involving how humans react to nuclear explosions from a distance.

Ive actually got a 35mm old black and white training film called the Atomic soldier that my father got while he was a projectionist in the navy. It shows the tests with all the buildings and trucks and tanks and stuff before and after the test. It also shows the soldiers doning their goggles and getting into the trenches and then the bomb going off. I use to use it before showomg the rocky horror picture show at midngiht. Id keep the sound off and play ELPs Brain Salad Surgery real loud. It went well with the expolsions especially Tocatta.

PanzerJaeger

08-16-2005, 01:54

Only an idiot cannot tell the difference between Iran and the United States.

Redleg

08-16-2005, 02:04

Only an idiot cannot tell the difference between Iran and the United States.

That is a little unfair there Panzer the propaganda about the United States being the over aggressor is out there - and that the United States government doesn't do enough to counter such press is also obvious.

Then considering the United States government's actions in South and Central America - its not hard to see why someone from that part of the world would view the United States in worse light then Iran. Iran - a nation that has never meddled in South American affairs. The United States can not claim the moral high ground at all in regards to any actions done in Central and South America, since we have often meddled in that area - either as the government or in some instances corporations doing the meddling to increase their profit line.

That we were doing it to fight communism is not a good enough excuse for some of the facist and over the top right wing dictorships that we have supported in that part of the world.

I actually understand a lot of where Soulforged is coming from - its just that he is incorrect in his base assumption about WW2 in regards to the use of the Atomic Bomb, and some of his blanket statements. But his sentiment comes from watching several countries around him suffer from the decades of United States meddling in their internal affairs. He is just as entitled to his opinion as I am entitled to mine. Its actually fun to argue with someone from that part of the world. It provides a prespective of how the United States has done wrong in our own part of the world.

However it doesn't mean I will allow demonizing terms and allegations to go unanswered, because this is a debate and information board.

Roark

08-16-2005, 02:19

$0.02: I for one am glad that it is the US who possesses the nukes, but the whole "approved list" nonsense (concerning who can and can't also possess them) leaves a bad taste, especially considering the various US administrations' track record in screwing around with other countries.

Soulforged

08-16-2005, 02:20

Well that's good to listen... anyway... all cool man ~D . The truth is that i cannot stand a fight against you (i just know the basics of WW I and II) but you'll never make me say "that was necessary". What i know for sure is the effect of certain countries that are neo-emperialist (England, France, Spain, Germany, well just as normal) on the situation in Latin America, is almost an Emergency Topic here. And by the way i really don't understand what's exactly "blanket statement", you mean like unsupported...And hipocresy is a certain thing too...

PanzerJaeger

08-16-2005, 02:21

To compare America and Iran in the same vein completely negates the geopolitical situation of the cold war.

There is a huge difference between the major players and the minor players, and to simply act as if America and Iran are on the same page - in any sort of area of comparison - lacks historical perspective.

Soulforged just hates America... Good for him. :yes:

Steppe Merc

08-16-2005, 02:25

Seamus Fermanagh

08-16-2005, 03:08

PJ would you strongly dislike a place that has meddeled in American affairs for years and years, all while claiming the high moral ground?

A good point, though I believe we've mesed around with Argentina less than anyone else in the New World.

Canada: 2 Invasions (both failed), coupled with an attitude that occasionally treats them as though they were the state of North Minnesota rather than an independent nation.

Mexico: 2 Invasions (1 win, 1 draw/loss), annexed approx. 35% of Mexican territory at gun point after the win.

Belize, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua: "Banana" politics encouraging local political leaders to run quasi-feudal fiefs to further plantation fruit profits.

Nicaragua: Defeated Sandino's insurgent movement in the 1920's using the USMC (got us skilled jungle fighters useful in 42-44); supported numerous anti-Sandanista rebels in a prolonged civil war as part of our Cold War effort.

Panama: The country TR "stole fair and square" carving it out of Venuzuela in order to facilitate the building of a strategically important (and financially lucrative) canal between the oceans. Panama functioned as a protectorate of the US for much of its history and was slapped down on one occasion when the local dictator got out of hand.

Venuzuela: See above, plus recent pressure on current government.

Columbia: Some economic exploitation, mostly coffee, plus a huge appetite for cocaine that has funded huge distortions in Columbian society.

Chile: Helped engineer a coup d'etat in the 1970's to get a more pro-US government in place.

Brazil: Some economic exploitation, pressured Brazil into joining the Allied effort in WW2.

Carribean: Much of the Carib slave trade was in yankee hulls, and our distillers furthered the plantation systems so hated by the slaves of those islands as the chief importer of black strap -- the "Triangle trade", Conquered Cuba and Puerto Rico, freeing Cuba without adequate support and never providing PR with the development it needed.

I can't think of anything we did, in particular, to Argentina, Paraguay, Uraguay or the Guyanas however. Perhaps SF could enlighten me.

Despite the aforementioned, I don't view us yanks as any more arrogant than any other powerful nation has been, and a great deal less arrogant than many. I suspect that no perfect cultures exist, but I have enough belief and faith in my own to see it adding to the sum total of existence more than it detracts.

SF

Soulforged

08-16-2005, 03:09

Only an idiot cannot tell the difference between Iran and the United States.

Just for fun i would say the situation on this here (but i don't believe that iraki way of thinking and it's govenment is best to USA, it's much worse, the problem is not there):
1- Bush is pictured as a Nazi (also others but him principaly).
2- Some people that were living in ignorance and total isolation (some even on the sewers system, or in caves!!!) and other that are ignorant for the placer of being one, speaks of USA like a big monster (and that's not enterily wrong because they refere to the state, not the people), the problem is that certain groups wants you all dead, and i mean it.
3- When a yankee comes here is like God himself, especially for little capitalists (like motel owners) that can make some profit in dolars (1 dolar= 2,87 pesos now).
4- The multinationals may not cause much damage there. But imagine putting Lions on the same place of little recently born rabbits. Then you open the doors and let the Lion come in and satisfy. That's a pretty good anallogy of what happened to ours companies here. The first government that opened up the commercial limits at the style of neo-liberalism was a military state, supported by USA. That's pretty much the case of the rest of Latin America (there must be some exceptions like Chile and Mexico). And of course USA will support it, here the margin beetween rich people and poor will increase, there will make the companies gain pretty much.
5- Well the rest is public knowledge. But i tell you here're from time to time actual movilizations of studants against emperialism, with words against USA only and speacially against things like the ALCA, for example.
6- But in the universities the teachers don't preach any of this, is just a popular movement, that may occur inside public universities.
7- Now Irak is different from USA in one thing, the world does not revolve around them. That's why you will listen a lot of bullshit about USA and a lot of bullshit about Irak. But anyway not so many people think that way, the great majority are religious (fanatics) that live working and begging to God. There're some ignorants that heve Hussein or Bin-Laden as they idols, and in almost all the cases is not a joke, they really don't know about what they've done or don't care really. And they don't know about the limited freedom of speech there too.
8- Almost all material seen here about America politics (i mean in open public) is material from Michael Moor, that just helps to rise the hatred.
9- Here specially existed a demagoge called Peron, who hated americans, but was a political genius, and one of our best presidents. That helps too.
10- Recents (or every day afairs) problems were about the FMI (i think that you call it IMF) and they politics towars pressing our pockets and paying our debts. The problem is that USA has all the right to manage his own a economy and rise the interest on those taxes, so actually we're not paying the debt but the interest with the money of education, public health and other important matters.
Well that's all i can remember for now, but i think it can give you a simple explanation of the "why".
Another thing i hope we are not talking about the people, but the government here, because talking and comparing peoples from different nations will lead to racial profiling. Is not true that any of them is better than the others. The irakies specially have being living in harsh conditions and tiranical rulers, they are just working people like everybody else.

scooter_the_shooter

08-16-2005, 03:14

When a yankee comes here is like God himself, especially for little capitalists (like motel owners) that can make some profit in dolars (1 dolar= 2,87 pesos now).

Are you a commie; you don't seem to like capitalist ~:confused:

bmolsson

08-16-2005, 03:18

I am more worried about what France will be doing with its nuclear force then I am about the United States.

For me it's the other way around......

bmolsson

08-16-2005, 03:21

Are you a commie; you don't seem to like capitalist ~:confused:

If he is a commie, you can always trade with him for some cheap stuff..... ~D

Redleg

08-16-2005, 03:25

Red and Sharrukin: I did consider that, and that is why I am no longer as opposed to it as I was before seeing some of the prior arguments on this board. I see it may have been neccassary. But there were innocents (babies, kids) who were killed, and that was still wrong. Perhaps the lesser of the two evils, but still. I probably don't make much sense...

Oh you make perfect sense - its just that you are placing your values and opinion on a decision that was made in 1945.

PJ would you strongly dislike a place that has meddeled in American affairs for years and years, all while claiming the high moral ground?

I know I would - that is way I understand some of the arguement that is being used.

At Soulforged- yes blanket statement is another term for an over-generalization - or as you put it. you mean like unsupported...And hipocresy is a certain thing

scooter_the_shooter

08-16-2005, 03:26

If he is a commie, you can always trade with him for some cheap stuff.....

Yeah I can buy an sks from him, thats one of those guns you hate so much ~;) .....and it was made by the commies ~:cheers:

bmolsson

08-16-2005, 03:26

Actually, it's all about being humble. If Bush didn't continue building up the nuke arsenal, at least I would support his efforts to prevent other nations to get nukes. If US was leading talks on removing nukes from earth, I would salute US foreign policy.
Even more, if US today would stop trying to justify and glorify the use of nukes during WWII, I would even send Christmas cards to Bush.
It's all about being humble and respectful.

bmolsson

08-16-2005, 03:29

Oh you make perfect sense - its just that you are placing your values and opinion on a decision that was made in 1945.

Why not ? Nothing is going to change history, but some humbleness wouldn't hurt. If you today agree with the nukes being used 1945, don't you think that it is logical to assume that you would support the use today ?

kiwitt

08-16-2005, 03:30

NZ went through a similar revolution with pressure from the IMF to implement reforms, because as the economy was geared to supplying the UK and when they joined the EEC in the late 70's, we were in a real hole, because of the restriction on agricultural imports.

After those horrendous peroid of reforms, we are now a heathly country with a huge government surplus. However 20 years is long period to endure, but necessary to get to where we are today.

scooter_the_shooter

08-16-2005, 03:30

Ask any ww2 vet what they think about the nukes...all the ones I have met are glad that they were used instead of an invasion.

But they were all people who may have had to/ or already were there....what do they know ~;)

Soulforged

08-16-2005, 03:37

I can't think of anything we did, in particular, to Argentina, Paraguay, Uraguay or the Guyanas however. Perhaps SF could enlighten me.
SF

Or nothing in particular. It was just world wide politics. Actually we're paying for that ignorance and manipulation. It was just an usual affair in the relationship beetween nations, arrangements, treaties, wich implies the support of USA (and some mention of your leaders too, coming up here and talking about support and an age of progress, wich our own leaders knew was bullshit, but was a perfect excuse to mantain power, keep ignorance, gain money and make people disapear). Some people actually think that that was actually our best period of "democracy", altough it was a dictatorship. You will find no mention of USA invading us (but i have posted elsewhere an interesting movement), the only think i can remember is them helping the british to reclaim the Falklands, wich territory is (following our law) ours, but they have an alliance. Is not a military thing, you must understand that, is just political and economical questionable movements, and the constant pressure on the taxes (besides some folkclore as i say in the last post).
And until recently the Guyanas where colonies of other empires.
Pretty much the same happened to the rest. Now Peru for example has it's own economy dolarized. But many of the problems were brought here by just opening the national commerce (to make it short the multinationals, almost all american, were so powerful, and the state so weak, that the second will have to agree to any policy they wanted, i mean like excention on taxes, etc), and the other part brought by simple and old corruption (the president of Paraguay -the one after this- was known to rob cars and make a collection of it, here Menem -personal friend of Jorge Bush and Clinton- developed a healthy and rather systematic custom of using "emergency decrets" (and the actual government does pretty much the same) wich means surpase the power of the Congress (a surprising case: Menem launched a emercency decret to buy a Ferrari for the people :furious3: and then he kept it.)

Soulforged

08-16-2005, 03:46

Are you a commie; you don't seem to like capitalist ~:confused:

I hate capitalists (the actual guy with all the money, the one who begins production following actual theories) and capitalism. But i'm not a communist (i like community that's all) as i said i'm much more anarquist (and it doesn't mean just havoc). If you want to get cheap things then South America in general is your perfect place, being the best Peru. And enjoy it while you can, nobody knows when USA can fall.

scooter_the_shooter

08-16-2005, 03:49

If capitalisn is so bad.. why is the west the richest place?

Soulforged

08-16-2005, 04:09

Oh man i will love to start the discussion on communism vs. capitalism again, but it's not the place. West may be the richest but social differences really componsates the thing. Besides communism (real communism, not again :help: ) is superior on production because everybody works, there're no "holes" in the economy. But this is not the point, please don't follow.

kiwitt

08-16-2005, 04:10

If capitalism is so bad.. why is the west the richest place?If you exclude money and the things money can buy. What other riches are there in the west.

Stong family and community are 2 good riches that can be found in a lot of countries where money is in short supply.

Strike For The South

08-16-2005, 04:13

Soulforged

08-16-2005, 04:15

If you exclude money and the things money can buy. What other riches are there in the west.

Stong family and community are 2 good riches that can be found in a lot of countries where money is in short supply.

To finish it (because your going way far the thread) communism (a lot of them) don't believe in family as a necessary or sacred structure (Marx always portrayed it as the first form of domination, so he really hated it). And when i say community i don't mean hippy like community, i mean all equals, not just before the law, but before the economy, the work...

Roark

08-16-2005, 04:15

If capitalisn is so bad.. why is the west the richest place?

Ah, but this only makes sense if you consider money to be the benchmark of human success.

Redleg

08-16-2005, 04:19

Why not ? Nothing is going to change history, but some humbleness wouldn't hurt. If you today agree with the nukes being used 1945, don't you think that it is logical to assume that you would support the use today ?

If the same conditions are meet as were in 1945 then yes I would support there use in wartime. However no such conditions have ever been meet again - and I doubt very seriousily if they ever will. Just to make it clear to you - the condtions is that your nation is getting war weary, that the casuality estimates to your nation's troops exceed the 1,000,000 million mark, and that the casualty estimates without using the weapon exceed over 1,000,000 of your enemies soldiers + plus over 3 million of the citizens of the enemy nation, plus the enemy who was loosing the war would not meet the surrender condtions that you offered them. You think any such conditions have been meet again?

And if you are only discussing how you would of dealt with the situtation its perfectly fine - however when discussing it in historical context - it is not a necessary part of the discussion.

kiwitt

08-16-2005, 04:23

Oops ... I seem to have almost hijacked the thread. (see my previous post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=886644&postcount=53))

The US doesn't like IRAN's nuclear programs for two main reasons.

1) It fears that the programs may lead to the Nuclear Weapons and affect the balance of power, even though the US supported India and Pakistan, who recently threatened to use them.

2) It does not want to see successful exploitation of Nuclear Power as opposed to "oil" based power sources.

In addition, a lot of this rhetoric is to detract attention from IRAN's plan to sell it's future oil supplies in "Euros" from March 2006. I have mentioned this in another thread. (do a search for these plans, if you like)

PanzerJaeger

08-16-2005, 04:25

PJ would you strongly dislike a place that has meddeled in American affairs for years and years, all while claiming the high moral ground?

I am from one of those countries America "meddled in" and can tell you Im damn glad it did.

Let me remind you of a few events that the liberal propaganda wont mention.

After WW2, America saved half of Germany from going communist. The US saved us from starving right after the war, and helped us rebuild into a strong country once again. Same with Japan.

And I can also tell you they had the highest of moral high grounds. I grew up in a country occupied by America, and guess what - I was happy they were there.

All these people who bitch about America have no historical perspective. Look at where they are, and look at where the soviet states are. Even today, the differences between West Germany and East Germany are stark.

So before you all bemoan the evil capitolist empire, blame yourselves for not being able to make it into the 20th centery - ie, elections, democracy, stability. America saved South America and countless other places from themselves.

Its called the greater good. :book:

scooter_the_shooter

08-16-2005, 04:27

To finish it (because your going way far the thread) communism (a lot of them) don't believe in family as a necessary or sacred structure (Marx always portrayed it as the first form of domination, so he really hated it). And when i say community i don't mean hippy like community, i mean all equals, not just before the law, but before the economy, the work...

Well I love capitalism it has enabled my father's roofing company to be profitable... so my family is doing very well financially because of capitalism. It enables me to live in a good neighborhood and a nice home.

If america was communist I would not be in the good situation I am in now ~;)...because the state would own the company :help:

bmolsson

08-16-2005, 04:27

scooter_the_shooter

08-16-2005, 04:31

Well all the vets I have meant are americans...I have got to meet quite a few because my grandpa used to run the DAV in his county.

bmolsson

08-16-2005, 04:32

If america was communist I would not be in the good situation I am in now ~;)...because the state would own the company :help:

I am sure your father would have had a high position in the party so you still would be the favorite on the school yard.... ~:grouphug:

bmolsson

08-16-2005, 04:40

Well all the vets I have meant are americans...I have got to meet quite a few because my grandpa used to run the DAV in his county.

That was kind of my point.... ~;)

AntiochusIII

08-16-2005, 04:47

I think we should get the "liberal propaganda" context out of here. :bow:

It is a propaganda against the liberals (:p) by other groups that hate them.

However, in the argument over the US use of nuclear weapons on the two Japanese cities in 1945 there are several points around.

1. It happens in 1945, when the world was bloody horrible and people are being killed left and right (no pun intended). If it happens now it will see a massive international "uprising" against anybody that use it...first. Bush's a big mouth as ever (now, now, we must accept that - remember the axis of evil?) and even if he acts like a cowboy over how he would use it "as necessary" only a complete idiot would ever actually do so.

2. True, the nuclear is necessary from the viewpoint taken, and I will not deny that.

3. But don't justify it. Mass killing can never be justified with enough reason. War can never be justified with enough reason. It's killing. It's not Americans-only task, but it's not going to be justified properly either. Especially not by any god of any religion. Don't take the message one-sided, though...

Justification allows for glorification - allows for, not necessarily must - and I don't think you (not anyone in particular) should EVER be proud for killing people.

4. The less nuclear bombs this world has, the better and safer it is. There are no aliens (yet) that threaten our existence. No need for them. They are no good except as threats and deterrent. It's not even like guns (which I dislike, but that's another debate) and you can't hunt your food with it.

Therefore, the US stance against the Iranian program I support. But I would like to see the US stop *building* more nukes, as well. However, considering the attitude of the current US administration I suppose I shouldn't hope much....

Redleg

08-16-2005, 05:17

I think we should get the "liberal propaganda" context out of here. :bow:

It is a propaganda against the liberals (:p) by other groups that hate them.

Sure it is - its also done by those who don't review the history around the use of the weapons.

However, in the argument over the US use of nuclear weapons on the two Japanese cities in 1945 there are several points around.

1. It happens in 1945, when the world was bloody horrible and people are being killed left and right (no pun intended). If it happens now it will see a massive international "uprising" against anybody that use it...first. Bush's a big mouth as ever (now, now, we must accept that - remember the axis of evil?) and even if he acts like a cowboy over how he would use it "as necessary" only a complete idiot would ever actually do so.

Posturing is what it is called - What do you think Iran is doing when they refer to the United States as the "Great Satan"

2. True, the nuclear is necessary from the viewpoint taken, and I will not deny that. You do realize that you just contradicted yourself with points 2 and 3. Necessity is a justification.

3. But don't justify it. Mass killing can never be justified with enough reason. War can never be justified with enough reason. It's killing. It's not Americans-only task, but it's not going to be justified properly either. Especially not by any god of any religion. Don't take the message one-sided, though...

Again which would you prefer the deaths caused by the use of the weapon - or the estimated casualities and deaths from an invasion? Or would you prefer the estimate casualities from a blockade. Again as I pointed out above necessity is a justification for the use.

Justification allows for glorification - allows for, not necessarily must - and I don't think you (not anyone in particular) should EVER be proud for killing people. Incorrect - justification shows why it was necessary. Glorification is done by those who think killing in warfare is something to be proud of. Killing is never anything to be over proud of - but it is a necessity of war.

4. The less nuclear bombs this world has, the better and safer it is. There are no aliens (yet) that threaten our existence. No need for them. They are no good except as threats and deterrent. It's not even like guns (which I dislike, but that's another debate) and you can't hunt your food with it.

There is a counter arguement that states that the nuclear weapons in the hands of the USSR and the USA prevented a war from happening.

Therefore, the US stance against the Iranian program I support. But I would like to see the US stop *building* more nukes, as well. However, considering the attitude of the current US administration I suppose I shouldn't hope much....

There is always hope - Bush's approval rating is falling - if it falls enough before 2006 - the Republican party will lose seats in both the house and senate - balance will be restored, and most likely a good moderate will be elected as President.