Japan rearming

[Barry the Sprout]

I am afraid I don't take quite such a trusting view. Undoubtably many American (and British - my grandfather would have been on that front line I should point out at this stage, he was stationed ready to attack at the time) lives were saved. But it has never really been shown that the loss of life overall was lowered. In fact estimates seem to suggest that the loss of life was drastically increased. It is something that we have to learn about Japanese culture - surrender is not an option even when you know you will lose. When the first offer of surrender was made they knew they were beaten as they were isolated on the world stage and hopelessly outgunned. Yet surrender was not contemplated.
Instead it would have been more likely for them to have surrendered if Japan had been invaded. Lets not beat around the bush - Americans would have been killed but it would have saved Japanese lives. That made American leaders and the general public uncomfortable so they decided to drop the bomb. I am not just saying "Down with the US!" but in this case it was one of the greatest atrocities ever committed.
Also we shouldn't avoid the legacy that action has left us with. That one event pushed world politics onto a completely different level. It was a clear message to the USSR "You don't like us and we don't like you, and we are more powerful so just keep quite.". That piece of rocking the boat led to the greatest and most costly stand off in political history. It was not the only cause but it definately helped. And how many people died as a result of the Cold War? No - I do not think the nukes saved lives in any way. But that is my own opinion. Please write me your views.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: The problem at the moment with the whole of this "War on Terrorism" is that people don't seem to understand who created the current crisis. The West have, systematically over the years. Radio Havana put it quite well "The chickens have come home to roost. There is no smugness in saying it, only anxiety for what will follow."

Afghanistan is not being bombed because of the actions of Western Civilization over the past century. Afghanistan is being bombed because it harbored terrorists who killed 6,000 innocents on September 11th. Those who orchestrated those attacks created this crisis. Just the same as a man who puts a gun to someone's head and pulls the trigger is guilty of murder, whether or not his mom hugged him enough when he was a kid. She may have helped shaped the person he became, but ultimately, it's his decision, his choice, and his responsiblity. Those who commit murder are murderers.

I agree with Radio Havana's words, if not the sentiment. Yes, "the chickens have come home to roost." After a generation of America slapping terrorists on the wrist over attacks, now America is beginning to charge "full" price.

------------------


"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Lets not beat around the bush - Americans would have been killed but it would have saved Japanese lives.

That's kind of the point, we didn't start the war, so if we could end it without lossing 1 more American, that was the way to go.

Our problem today is that we worry too much about the condition of the enemy. The condition of the enemy is the enemy's problem.



------------------


"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

[Barry the Sprout]

Thats the thing I disagree with about world politics in general. Peoples lives should be valued equally whichever world leader started the war. You shoud read "All quite on the Western Front" by Remarques (help me out here - I can't remember how you spell his name dammit...). There is an inspiring passage in that where one of the german soldiers starts questioning why he is killing Frenchmen. He says basically "What have the French ever done to me.". Someone else says basically "They have killed your friends". And he replies with "Only because they were told to - we are told to kill Frenchmen, it doesn't make it right.". Excellent book in general but that passage has stayed with me for life.

Also about the man whose mother didn't hug him enough... I hardly call having your religion and all it stands for ground into the durt for 50 years and every protest being portrayed as the actions of a radical minority "not being hugged enough". It is not like Osama bin Laden just got up oe morning and said "You know what - I hate Americans.". There were reasons for what he did and whilst it doesn't excuse him those reasons still need looking at. I would say personally that if those reasons were looked at then we might even be able to avoid innocents dying.

By the way, the new estimate of dead is more like 3000. But it changes nothing - it still shouldn't have happened.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Thats the thing I disagree with about world politics in general. Peoples lives should be valued equally whichever world leader started the war.

In a perfect world, this would be true, but in a perfect world there would be no conflict.

The world was at war! To say we shouldn't have used a weapon to end the war because more Japanese would die than Americans doesn't make sense to me. This doesn't mean the Japanese were less important than US, but it's impossible to wage war and look out for the other guys population. That's what the other guy is suppose to do!

It's the same problem we face in Afghanistan today, we are so concerned about the other guy, we place ourselves in jeopardy.


------------------


"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: [B]Also about the man whose mother didn't hug him enough... I hardly call having your religion and all it stands for ground into the dirt for 50 years and every protest being portrayed as the actions of a radical minority "not being hugged enough". It is not like Osama bin Laden just got up one morning and said "You know what - I hate Americans.” There were reasons for what he did and whilst it doesn't excuse him those reasons still need looking at. I would say personally that if those reasons were looked at then we might even be able to avoid innocent’s dying.[B]

I do not believe the US can truthfully be said to have "ground" any, "...religion and all it stands for ground into the dirt for 50 years." We may not have provided the respect they desired, or saw things from their point of view, but this is a great exaggeration.

According to the newspaper articles, news segments, and interviews with his family, Bin Laden was taught his hate for Israel, and American's for their support of Israel, from his father. His hate was furthered by the presence of Americans in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. I’m sure his reasons are more serious than "not being hugged enough", but the analogy is true. The bottom line is that it's his choice, his decision, and his responsibility. He and those involved with him, for whatever reason, are guilty. Western Civilization may have made many unhappy, but it is not responsible for September 11th attacks.

Islamic nations around the world have condemned these acts and stated that what was done was against the teachings of Islam. Fanatical, militant Muslims, who practice terrorism, are no more a true representation of Islam, than KKK members, who claim to be Christians, are representatives of Christ.

I haven't heard that the numbers of dead and missing from September 11th, have been cut in half. When did this happen? I haven't heard it on MSNBC. If it's true, then it's wonderful news.


------------------


"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

[This message has been edited by Ronn_Bman (edited 10-28-2001).]

[Barry the Sprout]

The number 6000 was an estimate based entirely on speculation by the news channels. The problem was that it stuck. The estimate based on casualty lists and those still missing is closer to 3000. Once again however that is still an estimate. The funny thing I find (although comedy is probably not all that applicable) is that Guiliani's estimates change practically everyday.

Also with your point about war not being about caring for the enemy. Life should be about caring for other people. Whether or not we are at "war" with someone doesn't mean we have the right to not care about their life. We still have to justify what we do - and I find the nuclear weapons use unjustifiable. In the same way that I find this war on Afghanistan and the Taliban unjustifiable.

Finally - I didn't say that Osama was not responsible for his actions. I just said that so are we. At this stage of the day we have to start realising that maybe things need to change. He is not the only person pissed off out there and just killing him and his band of merry men will not stop world terrorism. The war on terrorism needs to have a moral victory before it can have a physical one.

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: The number 6000 was an estimate based entirely on speculation by the news channels. The problem was that it stuck. The estimate based on casualty lists and those still missing is closer to 3000. Once again however that is still an estimate. The funny thing I find (although comedy is probably not all that applicable) is that Guiliani's estimates change practically everyday.

To be fair to Giuliani, it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to estimate exactly how many lost their lives. Casualty is based on bodies recovered. Missing lists assume that there is someone to report someone as missing. What about illegal aliens working at the WTC? Single people with deceased parents? International workers?

An educated guess is the best that you can go for.

------------------

[Barry the Sprout]

All I am saying is that his educated guess can't be all that educated if he has to keep changing it. But I do get the point - thats why I said it is still an estimate.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Also with your point about war not being about caring for the enemy. Life should be about caring for other people. Whether or not we are at "war" with someone doesn't mean we have the right to not care about their life. We still have to justify what we do - and I find the nuclear weapons use unjustifiable. In the same way that I find this war on Afghanistan and the Taliban unjustifiable. Finally - I didn't say that Osama was not responsible for his actions. I just said that so are we. At this stage of the day we have to start realizing that maybe things need to change. He is not the only person pissed off out there and just killing him and his band of merry men will not stop world terrorism. The war on terrorism needs to have a moral victory before it can have a physical one.

You can't have a peaceful war. It's not possible. You have to protect your own interest. You can't respect the enemy's life at the cost of your own. Those who want their own lives respected should not take the lives of others. If they do there will be retaliation, and those who initiate hostilities know the risks.

Nuclear weapons good or bad? I think most of the world will recognize that nuclear weapons are a huge danger to life on this planet. But it is an evolution in weapons development that's time had come. Fortunately we got them first and in conjunction with our allies, used them to end a World War started by an aggressive, militarist, expansionistic empire. After WWII as bombs increased in power, they were used exclusively as a deterrent. There were tense times, but now we see a reduction in nuclear proliferation. The threat now is that a rogue nation or terrorist group will access one.

It's hard to look back now and accurately assess whether leaders did the right thing. We have nearly 60 years of information at our disposal that Truman didn't have. What Truman did have was tens of thousands of dead American soldiers.

Regarding an earlier point, I find it hard to believe the Japanese would have surrendered once we landed troops on their homeland. Japanese soldiers fought to the death on every island they occupied in the Pacific to protect their homeland, frequently killing themselves rather than being taken alive. On the History Channel, I've seen videos of Japanese civilian men, women, and children being trained to fight off Allied invaders. Think Hitler Youth, twelve year old boys with automatic weapons, and this doesn't seem so unrealistic. The death toll would have been higher in an invasion than by the use of the bomb. No one can give an accurate count of the numbers, they are just an estimation, but based on the experiences in the Pacific it's not hard to see how high the numbers could have gone.

In truth, the quest to manufacture the "bomb" was a huge arms race. If Hitler had been successful in his endeavors to manufacture a bomb, the war could have ended much differently for Europe. Keep in mind, Hitler started his "bomb" program well before the Allies did. Had Hitler realized his goal, he would have used it on his own countrymen and Allies alike in an effort to forestall defeat.

Osama is responsible for his actions, and we are not. He may not be happy, and we may be the cause of “that”. But we are not responsible for the terrorist attacks. It’s not our job to make the world happy, and we spend too much time trying. His death will not end terrorism, but it’s a start. Steadily eliminating terrorist who plague, not only the US, but the world is the goal. Bombs explode killing innocents everyday, include innocent Middle Easterners, let’s put an end to it. We can’t do it through our moral convictions alone, it will take a combination of morals and military action.
------------------


"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

[This message has been edited by Ronn_Bman (edited 10-29-2001).]