PDA

View Full Version : Hardball: War hawk admits Iraq was about imperialism, not WMD


jAZ
08-14-2007, 07:03 PM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MS0go6M8Go"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MS0go6M8Go" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Bowser
08-14-2007, 07:11 PM
I think that opinion has been held by most people for some time now (and by most people I mean those that the hard line conservatives and Bush defenders lump together as "Liberals", even though that is a crock of shit label), but to hear it said in the open like this in a forum like that is suprising.

Bowser
08-14-2007, 07:11 PM
Oh, and Saturday Night Live has completely ruined Chris Matthews. LMAO

jAZ
08-14-2007, 07:16 PM
You can "Digg" it here:
http://digg.com/politics/War_hawk_admits_Iraq_was_about_imperialism_not_WMD

Jenson71
08-14-2007, 07:16 PM
I hate to be annoying in this thread, but lately, when I want to see the videos people post, there's just the Quicktime sign with a question mark. I'm not able to view them. Any suggestions?

Bowser
08-14-2007, 07:18 PM
I hate to be annoying in this thread, but lately, when I want to see the videos people post, there's just the Quicktime sign with a question mark. I'm not able to view them. Any suggestions?

Have you downloaded the latest version of QT player?

Jenson71
08-14-2007, 07:18 PM
Have you downloaded the latest version of QT player?

Yeah, I just did thinking that would take care of it. (version 7.2)

morphius
08-14-2007, 07:21 PM
imperialism is a bit of an odd choice, being we are trying to help them create an independent gov't.

Bowser
08-14-2007, 07:25 PM
imperialism is a bit of an odd choice, being we are trying to help them create an independent gov't.

I know I've posted this link a hundred times, but check it out. Imperialism seems to fit the bill.....

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

Hydrae
08-14-2007, 07:46 PM
The sad part of that is that imperialism is what those in the ME have been accusing us of from the beginning and is the main reason they want us out so badly. But we have maintain all along that imperialism is the last reason we would be there. :shake:

morphius
08-14-2007, 07:47 PM
I know I've posted this link a hundred times, but check it out. Imperialism seems to fit the bill.....

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/
I guess it depends on your definition of imperialism, we may be looking to add bases, but running other countries only ends badly. Of course we apply pressure, but others try to do the same against us all the time.

Jenson71
08-14-2007, 07:48 PM
I know I've posted this link a hundred times, but check it out. Imperialism seems to fit the bill.....

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

I fixed the Quicktime thing.

I've seen that movie. It's a good one. I posted a thread about the military industrial complex afterwards, and some people think it's as credible as UFOs.

Hydrae
08-14-2007, 07:50 PM
I guess it depends on your definition of imperialism, we may be looking to add bases, but running other countries only ends badly. Of course we apply pressure, but others try to do the same against us all the time.


So, why do we have so many bases in so many countries around the world?

Bowser
08-14-2007, 08:03 PM
I fixed the Quicktime thing.

I've seen that movie. It's a good one. I posted a thread about the military industrial complex afterwards, and some people think it's as credible as UFOs.

It was a strong movie, to be sure. Made me stop and think.

patteeu
08-14-2007, 08:47 PM
Who is this Mark Finelli and why should I care what he "admits"? Is there really something new in this video or are we just repackaging what we already knew as a previously unidentified form of imperialism?

BucEyedPea
08-14-2007, 09:00 PM
Who is this Mark Finelli and why should I care what he "admits"? Is there really something new in this video or are we just repackaging what we already knew as a previously unidentified form of imperialism?
Didn't you openly admit on this BB that we needed to do it for oil?
Whata'ya call that? :hmmm:

banyon
08-14-2007, 09:05 PM
Who is this Mark Finelli and why should I care what he "admits"? Is there really something new in this video or are we just repackaging what we already knew as a previously unidentified form of imperialism?

I actually almost posted this same comment (without the accusatory tone). I googled him, wiki'ed him, and sourcewatched him and got bupkus. He's nobody so far unless they screwed up his name spelling.

patteeu
08-14-2007, 09:18 PM
Didn't you openly admit on this BB that we needed to do it for oil?
Whata'ya call that? :hmmm:

No, I didn't ever say we needed to do it for oil. I've said that the middle east region is important to us because of it's oil and it's strategic position along important shipping lanes, but I've never said we were going to steal the oil.

I wouldn't call what we are doing in the middle east imperialism.

patteeu
08-14-2007, 09:19 PM
I actually almost posted this same comment (without the accusatory tone). I googled him, wiki'ed him, and sourcewatched him and got bupkus. He's nobody so far unless they screwed up his name spelling.

Regarding the tone, it's hard for me to give jAZ the benefit of the doubt.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2007, 09:23 PM
No, I didn't ever say we needed to do it for oil. I've said that the middle east region is important to us because of it's oil and it's strategic position along important shipping lanes, but I've never said we were going to steal the oil.

I wouldn't call what we are doing in the middle east imperialism.
:spock: :huh: I swear you did...but I don't claim you said steal it either.

patteeu
08-14-2007, 09:36 PM
:spock: :huh: I swear you did...but I don't claim you said steal it either.

If oil weren't there, we wouldn't be either (and the radical movements of the region wouldn't be anything more than a local problem). To that extent, we are indirectly there because of oil. But we aren't there because we want to take the oil (which would be imperialistic IMO). At most, we're there to prevent the oil from being withheld or blocked from the market (which isn't imperialistic IMO).

BucEyedPea
08-14-2007, 09:54 PM
If oil weren't there, we wouldn't be either (and the radical movements of the region wouldn't be anything more than a local problem). To that extent, we are indirectly there because of oil. But we aren't there because we want to take the oil (which would be imperialistic IMO). At most, we're there to prevent the oil from being withheld or blocked from the market (which isn't imperialistic IMO).
Well okay. That IS better than how it was put before.
Nevertheless, I don't agree because our actions toward Iraq have witheld it from the market...and that was never a stated reason for invading. But then we've gone through this before.

Velvet_Jones
08-15-2007, 07:31 AM
I take nothing that Chris Mathew says as serious. He is a partisan hake just like jIZ.

jAZ
08-15-2007, 08:24 AM
I take nothing that Chris Mathew says as serious. He is a partisan hake just like jIZ.
The guy voted for Bush at least once, if not twice. The guy is the ultimate "Washington insider" who's POV pro-establishment and pro-keeping his connections and status.

StcChief
08-15-2007, 08:40 AM
Imperialism NO.

Stabilizing and freeing the oppressed Iraqi's yes.

Oil is a factor since unfortunately our country/economy run on it.... ME change for long term.

Mr. Laz
08-15-2007, 09:27 AM
imperialism is a bit of an odd choice, being we are trying to help them create an independent gov't.
cough*bull*cough*shit*



we are hoping to create a government that depends on the U.S.




.

Mr. Laz
08-15-2007, 09:29 AM
Imperialism NO.

Stabilizing and freeing the oppressed Iraqi's yes.

Oil is a factor since unfortunately our country/economy run on it.... ME change for long term.

so it's back to being a 'humanitarian war' now?



what was all this talk about WMD and terrorism before then?

Taco John
08-15-2007, 09:30 AM
It's not imperialism if you wear a condom...

patteeu
08-15-2007, 09:57 AM
It's not imperialism if you wear a condom...

I'd imagine that just about everything including vacations abroad look like imperialism to a neo-isolationist.

Chief Henry
08-15-2007, 10:02 AM
The guy voted for Bush at least once, if not twice. The guy is the ultimate "Washington insider" who's POV pro-establishment and pro-keeping his connections and status.


Is Mathews up to 137 viewers right now.

And Mathews has no ax to grind !

morphius
08-15-2007, 10:14 AM
So, why do we have so many bases in so many countries around the world?
To get us closer to Russia and our enemies.

BIG_DADDY
08-15-2007, 10:52 AM
Would it be considered imperialistic if we are securing the oil source there for when the inevitable WWIII hits?

That is the real deal. That is what it is really all about. Big money / oligarchy think in terms of 100s of years, not with a short term douchebag mentality of the average loser. That is why they are who they are. This was a big risk and a subject I have always really wanted to talk about but all I ever get is the "Bush lied/people died" BS or better yet "where are the WMD?" crap. Frankly I am shocked that nobody on this BB wants to talk about what is really going on. That is why I don't post in here much anymore. The republicans are not any better talking about the war on terror endlessly.

Velvet_Jones
08-15-2007, 11:53 AM
The guy voted for Bush at least once, if not twice. The guy is the ultimate "Washington insider" who's POV pro-establishment and pro-keeping his connections and status.
Listen to him for 2 minutes and then tell me he isn't a hateful idiot.

Not only is the guy irrational and totally partisan, he is an azz that doesn't know how to show a person respect. Just like you.

jAZ
08-15-2007, 12:25 PM
...he is an azz that doesn't know how to show a person respect. Just like you.
That's funny as shit coming from you. You have no shame do you? Or is that no sense of irony? Hypocricy?

Hydrae
08-15-2007, 12:38 PM
Would it be considered imperialistic if we are securing the oil source there for when the inevitable WWIII hits?

That is the real deal. That is what it is really all about. Big money / oligarchy think in terms of 100s of years, not with a short term douchebag mentality of the average loser. That is why they are who they are. This was a big risk and a subject I have always really wanted to talk about but all I ever get is the "Bush lied/people died" BS or better yet "where are the WMD?" crap. Frankly I am shocked that nobody on this BB wants to talk about what is really going on. That is why I don't post in here much anymore. The republicans are not any better talking about the war on terror endlessly.


So are you ascribing this to a lead up to Armageddon? I have heard that there are those out there who think this is all a push by the hard core Christians who want to hurry the second coming by getting the war started. I never understood that perspective since those people should also believe it will happen in God's time and nothing we do here will change that.

Anyway, I am curious. Where are you trying to go here?

Chief Faithful
08-15-2007, 01:05 PM
Jaz, you admitted the same thing, so what?

BucEyedPea
08-15-2007, 01:22 PM
I'd imagine that just about everything including vacations abroad look like imperialism to a neo-isolationist.
Well, since America has never been an isolationist country, there really can't be such a thing as a "neo" isolationist as one precedes the other.

For argument's sake though, if I had to take a choice between the extreme of enforcing a world democratic (lol) empire that any given hegemon would seek which involves fooling the people into believing there are threats when there aren't or have been created by such hegemonic internationalist policies and being a true isolationist country aka hermit country like 19th century Japan...then I think the default choice of most would be isolationism. Funny how those types last longer than empires.

BIG_DADDY
08-15-2007, 01:28 PM
So are you ascribing this to a lead up to Armageddon? I have heard that there are those out there who think this is all a push by the hard core Christians who want to hurry the second coming by getting the war started. I never understood that perspective since those people should also believe it will happen in God's time and nothing we do here will change that.

Anyway, I am curious. Where are you trying to go here?

Follow the money dude. Our war machine doesn't work without fuel and securing all we can on the European continent is imperative to winning the next big war. You are taking this another step entirely. I think this is all about money and world power. We spend WAY more money than anyone else in the world on our weapons many of which don't work without fuel. It is in our best interest to secure as many resourses as possible especially of this size geographically placed where it is. This isn't a conversation anyone wants to have here they are much more interested in debating spin.

The truth is America can't handle the truth we have become too soft. You want truth, follow the money. You want spin, listen to the news or come here.

StcChief
08-15-2007, 01:51 PM
Follow the money dude. Our war machine doesn't work without fuel and securing all we can on the European continent is imperative to winning the next big war. You are taking this another step entirely. I think this is all about money and world power. We spend WAY more money than anyone else in the world on our weapons many of which don't work without fuel. It is in our best interest to secure as many resourses as possible especially of this size geographically placed where it is. This isn't a conversation anyone wants to have here they are much more interested in debating spin.

The truth is America can't handle the truth we have become too soft. You want truth, follow the money. You want spin, listen to the news or come here.
We are soft. Started after Teddie Roosevelt.

Wilson, FDR,JFK,Carter,Clinton. see a theme here.

noa
08-15-2007, 02:25 PM
Wilson, FDR,JFK,Carter,Clinton. see a theme here.

Couldn't help but notice you left Harry Truman off that list.

StcChief
08-15-2007, 02:44 PM
Couldn't help but notice you left Harry Truman off that list.
Harry wasn't soft... he had the kahonys to drop two nukes to end war.
after trying the diplomatic route.

Not all dems are soft just most of our recent presidents. LBJ tried not too he was president during 'nam

Carter/Clinton soft. worried about poll numbers.

Jenson71
08-15-2007, 02:50 PM
Why was JFK soft? Or Wilson? Or FDR?

BucEyedPea
08-15-2007, 02:56 PM
We are soft. Started after Teddie Roosevelt.

Wilson, FDR,JFK,Carter,Clinton. see a theme here.
Wilson was not soft. He lied us into WWI and many of the problems we dealt with afterwards right up to today are blowback from his silly endeavor to use war to bring democracy to the world. The result was not only a vindictive treaty that lead to the rise of Hitler and WWII, its subequent Cold War and the Iron Curtain but the debacle in the MidEast is still raging today.

FDR navigated this country, successfully, through a WW on two fronts.

Truman was a coward who dropped two nukes on a defeated Japan who was trying to surrender despite what some say about the hardliners who wouldn't give in because the Emperor shut them down.

JFK esclated the war in Vietnam when Eisenhower only had some special forces and aides in there. It was Nixon who got us out.

Carter. Okay fine with his stupid meddling busy body Human Rights campaign.
But he was not the cause of the Iranian Hostage crisis and it was under him we began funding and creating the Mujaheedan, which is now the Taliban and AlQaeda. So he has his share of blowback from his own meddling.

Clinton bombed innocents in Serbia and Bosnia. He also knew SH disarmed and his so called inspection teams were trying to wage a coup against Saddam per Scott Ritter's book who was on those inspection teams. They had access to authorized inspections sites...they wanted access to unauthorized areas like SH inner security areas. So when Hillary says she would have voted differently on Iraq she's a liar too. She's a liberal hawk. Her husband also supported PGWI.

Call it how it really is. Dems got us into more wars than Pubs.Pubs have more of an anti-war history and was one reason I was happy to have switched parties when told this. It's a myth that Dems are weak on using force.

StcChief
08-15-2007, 03:11 PM
Wilson was not soft. He lied us into WWI and many of the problems we dealt with afterwards right up to today are blowback from his silly endeavor to use war to bring democracy to the world. The result was not only a vindictive treaty that lead to the rise of Hitler and WWII, its subequent Cold War and the Iron Curtain but the debacle in the MidEast is still raging today.

FDR navigated this country, successfully, through a WW on two fronts.

Truman was a coward who dropped two nukes on a defeated Japan who was trying to surrender despite what some say about the hardliners who wouldn't give in because the Emperor shut them down.

JFK esclated the war in Vietnam when Eisenhower only had some special forces and aides in there. It was Nixon who got us out.

Carter. Okay fine with his stupid meddling busy body Human Rights campaign.
But he was not the cause of the Iranian Hostage crisis and it was under him we began funding and creating the Mujaheedan, which is now the Taliban and AlQaeda. So he has his share of blowback from his own meddling.

Clinton bombed innocents in Serbia and Bosnia. He also knew SH disarmed and his so called inspection teams were trying to wage a coup against Saddam per Scott Ritter's book who was on those inspection teams. They had access to authorized inspections sites...they wanted access to unauthorized areas like SH inner security areas. So when Hillary says she would have voted differently on Iraq she's a liar too. She's a liberal hawk. Her husband also supported PGWI.

Call it how it really is. Dems got us into more wars than Pubs.Pubs have more of an anti-war history and was one reason I was happy to have switched parties when told this. It's a myth that Dems are weak on using force.

They are soft not on war but how to run gov't.
FDR knew about Japs heading to Hawaii....let it slide. Peace with Stalin. a fool, should have marched to Leningrad and avoided Cold War.

Taxes, social programs is and still is their game.

Clinton didn't know how to fight a war or defend america. He gutted military.

Truman may have ended it quick. had he not, who catches the first Nuke, USA/Russia in 50s?

Pubs may get us out of war, but like Vietnam Dems blame them.

Iraq is trying to be Vietnam with Dems in congress.

Why success for Iraq hangs in their hands, and they don't like it.

sHillary I can't trust that ashtray slingin' Bitch as far as I can throw her.

BIG_DADDY
08-15-2007, 03:25 PM
It's a myth that Dems are weak on using force.

The oligarchy is the oligarchy and they are not soft and will use whatever party they want to do whatever they want whenever they want. The biggest misconception is that we have any control. The biggest waste of time is debating spin as it has nothing to do with anything that is real. You try to discuss anything that is real here though and people will just change back to debating spin. The older I get the more I realize the importance of staying focased on the things I can change.

BucEyedPea
08-15-2007, 03:32 PM
They are soft not on war but how to run gov't.
FDR knew about Japs heading to Hawaii....let it slide. Peace with Stalin. a fool, should have marched to Leningrad and avoided Cold War.

According to some here with more military knowledge that was not feasible. Anyhow, one argument I always hear from the right regarding Israel was that we won the war. Couldn't you say the same for Stalin getting his piece of the pie in Europe as an ally. We occupied Germany for a while too. ( not saying with the same intent though). I say that was planned to give Europe to Uncle Joe or at least not stopping him as his piece of the war spoils...the same way England and France occupied and carved up the ME after WWI.

Taxes, social programs is and still is their game.
True. Also true of Bush who governs left of LBJ domestically.
What do you call Prescription Drugs for the elderly. Now I'm reading he's moving on gw too. He's a liberal.

Clinton didn't know how to fight a war or defend america. He gutted military.
Bosnia/Serbia.

Truman may have ended it quick. had he not, who catches the first Nuke, USA/Russia in 50s?
Yeah the world's a better place having done that.
Guess it's a matter of opinion.
BTW I think dropping bombs from far in the air on mostly civilians is far more cowardly than fighting the enemy up close.

Pubs may get us out of war, but like Vietnam Dems blame them.
Huh?

Iraq is trying to be Vietnam with Dems in congress.
LMAO They have no will to end it at all. If they did they would have cut funds by now. They're pandering to their base is all. This is NOT a Dem vs Pub issue any more. Many of those are DLC Dems. Why do you think grassroots Americanas are so po'd?

Why success for Iraq hangs in their hands, and they don't like it.
Only partisans are playing this game. Both parties are responsible. Congress didn't live up to it's duties. It's not a partisan thing....even if the right or left keeps saying it is. The blame game is the game of an 8 year old and there's a lot of defensiveness to make one's side right. I say it's time we rise above this and put our country first. Of course, that means different plans on each side too. So we're back to square one/

sHillary I can't trust that ashtray slingin' Bitch as far as I can throw her.
Well I'm with ya' there but the same goes for the top tier candidates in both parties imo.

Pitt Gorilla
08-15-2007, 03:44 PM
Follow the money dude. Our war machine doesn't work without fuel and securing all we can on the European continent is imperative to winning the next big war. You are taking this another step entirely. I think this is all about money and world power. We spend WAY more money than anyone else in the world on our weapons many of which don't work without fuel. It is in our best interest to secure as many resourses as possible especially of this size geographically placed where it is. This isn't a conversation anyone wants to have here they are much more interested in debating spin.

The truth is America can't handle the truth we have become too soft. You want truth, follow the money. You want spin, listen to the news or come here.I think you're probably right. Why didn't they sell it this way? I think at least as many people would have supported it.

BIG_DADDY
08-15-2007, 03:45 PM
They are soft not on war but how to run gov't.
FDR knew about Japs heading to Hawaii....let it slide. Peace with Stalin. a fool, should have marched to Leningrad and avoided Cold War.

Taxes, social programs is and still is their game.

Clinton didn't know how to fight a war or defend america. He gutted military.

Truman may have ended it quick. had he not, who catches the first Nuke, USA/Russia in 50s?

Pubs may get us out of war, but like Vietnam Dems blame them.

Iraq is trying to be Vietnam with Dems in congress.

Why success for Iraq hangs in their hands, and they don't like it.

sHillary I can't trust that ashtray slingin' Bitch as far as I can throw her.

The Dems aren't against the war dude they just want to look like they are against it because the majority of Americans are right now.

BIG_DADDY
08-15-2007, 03:52 PM
I think you're probably right. Why didn't they sell it this way? I think at least as many people would have supported it.


Because America has become too soft. There has been steak on the table for too long now. We live on an island properity and we forget how the real world works and think we can all just hold hands and skip and everything will be alright. We start believing our own mamby pamby BS. This is the path that will eventually lead to the great fall as it has so many times before.

The other reason is we can't exactly tell the world that either. We have enough enemies as it is and it doesn't take much to get our brothers in Europe panties in a wad. That would definately strengthen the European Union as well which is not in our best interest.

StcChief
08-15-2007, 04:09 PM
The Dems aren't against the war dude they just want to look like they are against it because the majority of Americans are right now.
or so the media says that and has convinced the mindless sheep here to follow their version of "news" hook/line/sinker.

War is tough, We haven't been in one in long time people forget. This was one was run badly. Against an enemy that runs/hides. Difference here No jungles, but they still all look same, citizens afraid to turn them in for reprisal. No strong Iraq gov't to support us, too may politicos there too.

Adept Havelock
08-15-2007, 04:19 PM
Truman was a coward who dropped two nukes on a defeated Japan who was trying to surrender despite what some say about the hardliners who wouldn't give in because the Emperor shut them down.


You know, I've seen you post this in a couple of threads.

Prove it. Preferably, after you clarify how the hardliners wouldn't give in because the Emperor "shut them down". Seems to me if the Emperor "shut them down", they'd have no power or influence, so nothing would have stood in the way of the peace you claim Japan was so desperately trying to make.

Before you do, I suggest you study a little about who actually held POWER in Japan in 1945. Here's a hint, it wasn't the figurehead at the top of the org chart. ;)

Some elements of the Japanese Government were attempting to negotiate an independent peace, or something less than our (absolutely correct, IMO) demand for unconditional surrender. That's not the same as "trying to surrender". The Germans tried the same nonsense several times, and we ignored it then as well. Not to mention the Japanese didn't do much along those lines until after Aug. 6, 1945.

BTW- Truman was a coward? That's as lame (and accurate) as the crap meme posts.

If Truman was a coward, then Churchill must have been an absolute bed-wetter. After all, he destroyed cities as well. He just did it with thousands of firebombs, instead of one or two.

Were the Japanese cowards? After all, they put a regional military HQ and several divisions of troops in Hiroshima, or military production facilities in Nagasaki. That and the transport networks=Legitimate Military Target under the WW2 doctrine of "Total War", AFAICS.

Then there's the little matter of demonstrating our ability to Iosef Vissaronivich, to keep his nose out of W. Europe.

Like I said the last time I posted this response-


War is Hell


I'd think a Southern girl would know that little fact. ;)

BIG_DADDY
08-15-2007, 04:38 PM
or so the media says that and has convinced the mindless sheep here to follow their version of "news" hook/line/sinker.

War is tough, We haven't been in one in long time people forget. This was one was run badly. Against an enemy that runs/hides. Difference here No jungles, but they still all look same, citizens afraid to turn them in for reprisal. No strong Iraq gov't to support us, too may politicos there too.


This was a HUGE gamble. I got news for you, We never plan on leaving.
The whole reason we are there is to secure that oil. Leaders of other countries know that which is why they are pushing so hard to get the UN involved and in there. That oil supply could make the difference between winning or losing the next major war, if it does GW will be remembered as the gratest president we ever had. If we can't secure it, leave he will be known as the worst president ever. Dems on this board don't want to talk about this at all as you may have noticed. I have brought this up manyt imes and this thread is by far the biggest response I have gotten. All anyone wants to do here is debate spin.

BucEyedPea
08-15-2007, 04:53 PM
You know, I've seen you post this in a couple of threads. Prove it.
I did in another thread. I put the Emperor's actual quote up and date. You weren't in that thread which was a few months ago. Something tells me in my gut though that won't be proof enough for you though. FTR I used to be on your side of the argument and changed my mind...just a few years ago.

Now you prove yours: that it was absolutely necessary for ending the war with them.

You know you can find history books and even history sites that bring up both views on Japan at the end of WWII giving them equal treatment leaving the reader to decide. In fact they even bring up a third pov, which was that demonstrating the bomb first on some unihabited atoll would have been enough.

Not only that but the US govt lied about the after effects, even covering it up by paying a reporter to go in and sayotherwise. Until some two independent reporters got in on their own and told the truth. There was a public outcry which led to questioning their use.

History is about viewpoints. The winner writes the history books.


BTW- Truman was a coward? That's as lame (and accurate) as the crap meme posts.
That's your opinion. And that's my opinion on Truman. T'is subjective.
If Japan was all but defeated and were trying to surrender.

Were the Japanese cowards?
I know those sites were military installations too.
They were still heavily populated by civilians. On that day children were out in the street playing and Japan was still trying to negotiate a surrender.


I'd think a Southern girl would know that little fact. ;)
Well you need to get the facts straight because I told you before I'm not a southern girl. Florida is hardly truly southern and I only live here now but am not from here.

BucEyedPea
08-15-2007, 04:56 PM
This was a HUGE gamble. I got news for you, We never plan on leaving.
I agree. Bush is even saying he's using the Korea model.
Outside of Iran and Syrian the ME, I wonder who the next major war will be with? Russia is my guess since Bush is provoking a new cold war with them by putting missiles in eastern Europe which is po'ing them.

BIG_DADDY
08-15-2007, 05:12 PM
I agree. Bush is even saying he's using the Korea model.
Outside of Iran and Syrian the ME, I wonder who the next major war will be with? Russia is my guess since Bush is provoking a new cold war with them by putting missiles in eastern Europe which is po'ing them.

I think I would have went about it differently investing in technology. I could go on and on about that but what do I know? I may hate a lot of things that are going on here but one thing is clear, we have the bull by the balls now and have no intention of ever letting go. Frankly we are in as good a position to do that as anyone ever has been. I still think we will fall the same way others have some day. Won't be in our lifetime though.

I wish you would talk about some of this stuff more as you are one of the few in this forum I believe may have a clue about what is actually going on.

Adept Havelock
08-15-2007, 05:31 PM
I did in another thread. I put the Emperor's actual quote up and date. You weren't in that thread which was a few months ago. Something tells me in my gut though that won't be proof enough for you though. FTR I used to be on your side of the argument and changed my mind...just a few years ago.
The quote is good, but you should really be looking at who actually held the power in WW2 Japan. It was Tojo and the Cabinet, not the empty suit at the top of the org chart.

Now you prove yours: that it was absolutely necessary for ending the war with them.
I did, in the Hiroshima tribute thread.

Short version- I've studied Ketsu-Go as well as Olympic/Coronet. I've read a multitude of works on the subject from different perspectives. Better that two cities die in a nuclear fire, than an entire nation be devastated by a prolonged, bloody, ground campaign.

Not to mention the horrific costs in US and Allied lives. I doubt it would have been in the millions as some allege, but several hundred thousands are certainly well within the realm of possibility.

Then there's the millions of Japanese that would have perished. Again, Ketsu-go is a pretty good source for how the Japanese would have responded. After all, they wrote it.

Then there's the little matter of Uncle Joe's 20 million troops and tens of thousands of heavy tanks and millions of artillery pieces sitting across the demarcation line from 2 million allied troops.

In fact they even bring up a third pov, which was that demonstrating the bomb first on some unihabited atoll would have been enough.
This was covered in the Hiroshima thread as well, by someone considerably more in the know than myself (Donger). Let me ask you, do you really believe Tojo and the militarists would have ever allowed the average Japanese to learn of it? That our leaflets showing it would have been seen as anything but propaganda?

Not only that but the US govt lied about the after effects, even covering it up by paying a reporter to go in and sayotherwise. Until some two independent reporters got in on their own and told the truth. There was a public outcry which led to questioning their use.
Every government has tried to cover up actions or unintended side effects. It'd be nice if we lived in Utopia, where everyone was honest, wouldn't it?

History is about viewpoints. The winner writes the history books.
Especially revisionist history like "Japan was trying to surrender". ;)

Thankfully many of the materials from the German and Japanese governments survived, so we can make our own deductions from a primary source. This wasn't Athens and Sparta where we all have to take Thucydides word for it.

That's your opinion. And that's my opinion on Truman. T'is subjective.
If Japan was all but defeated and were trying to surrender.
If Japan were, perhaps. That's a mighty big (and unproven) if. Out of curiousity..if Truman is a coward, why isn't Winston?

I know those sites were military installations too.
They were still heavily populated by civilians. On that day children were out in the street playing and Japan was still trying to negotiate a surrender.
See previous quote from William Sherman. There were children killed in Honolulu on the morning of December 7, 1941 as well (from Japanese and US firepower).

Well, now you're claiming they were only trying to negotiate a surrender. That's an improvement in the direction of reality. The reality being, it was bargaining for less than our stated (and entirely proper) objective of "Unconditional Surrender".

The bottom line is there is no way Tojo and the Cabinet would have allowed a surrender. The alternative to the bomb was destroying the nation utterly in a far more destructive ground campaign.

There was plenty of opposition even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. An operation to launch Kamikazes at the Mighty Mo on the morning of the surrender ceremony was only stopped at the last minute. I think that simple fact speaks volumes as to the fanaticism of our enemy, and the appropriateness of our action.

BucEyedPea
08-15-2007, 05:39 PM
The quote is good, but you should really be looking at who actually held the power in WW2 Japan. It was Tojo and the Cabinet, not the empty suit at the top of the org chart.

I put more than just the quote. I put how the hardliners were defeated.
It's not revisionist history though. That implies changing facts as opposed to looking at facts from certain perspectives. Historians choose what they put in based on what they think matters most. So things can be left out. Even wiki, where I got the quote, cites this pov. Amnorix made an excellent point about the subjective aspects.

There was plenty of opposition even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. An operation to launch Kamikazes at the Mighty Mo on the morning of the surrender ceremony was only stopped at the last minute. I think that simple fact speaks volumes as to the fanaticism of our enemy, and the appropriateness of our action.
Interesting. Never heard that one.
I'd have to get the whole context on something like this though.
Because it could be an argument by some that a third nuke was needed or that the first two didn't do the job either.

BucEyedPea
08-15-2007, 05:44 PM
I think I would have went about it differently investing in technology. I could go on and on about that but what do I know? I may hate a lot of things that are going on here but one thing is clear, we have the bull by the balls now and have no intention of ever letting go. Frankly we are in as good a position to do that as anyone ever has been. I still think we will fall the same way others have some day. Won't be in our lifetime though.

I wish you would talk about some of this stuff more as you are one of the few in this forum I believe may have a clue about what is actually going on.
I haven't heard this angle on invading Iraq and was wondering where you might have heard it. I was going to google it tonight. ( I hate tv pretty much).
I have read that we were able to be energy efficient even twenty years ago but didn't continue in that direction. We buy most of our oil from Canada and only one of our 4 top suppliers is from the ME which is SA.

I have certain sources I use that have been unbelievably accurate in what has happened so far. I just haven't heard this one yet.

BIG_DADDY
08-15-2007, 06:02 PM
I haven't heard this angle on invading Iraq and was wondering where you might have heard it. I was going to google it tonight. ( I hate tv pretty much).
I have read that we were able to be energy efficient even twenty years ago but didn't continue in that direction. We buy most of our oil from Canada and only one of our 4 top suppliers is from the ME which is SA.

I have certain sources I use that have been unbelievably accurate in what has happened so far. I just haven't heard this one yet.

What is going on is pretty much a given when I talk to most top senior executives or financial experts. #1 thing to remember when looking for truth is to follow the money. If we don't control that oil source somebody else will. This isn't just about the value of that oil in dollars and cents either it's about the strategic placement of that large of a supply of oil. Controlling it is worth almost any price in the long term. That's the way I think they look at it. Try selling that to soft ass America though.

Adept Havelock
08-15-2007, 06:36 PM
Because it could be an argument by some that a third nuke was needed or that the first two didn't do the job either.

It'd be a weak argument. After all, the Japanese were there to put their name on the dotted line of an "unconditional surrender". I'd say that pretty much proves Fat Man and Little Boy did the job just fine. ;)

BucEyedPea
08-15-2007, 07:45 PM
It'd be a weak argument. After all, the Japanese were there to put their name on the dotted line of an "unconditional surrender". I'd say that pretty much proves Fat Man and Little Boy did the job just fine. ;)
I looked up the military holdouts...called scragglers. There were numerous ones who refused to surrender and continued killing for years after the official surrender one held out until 1974!! He and his men finally surrendered in the Phillipine jungle.

Per the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city and escaped serious damage." The target was the center of the city where civilians were and even a POW camp. Even Truman has some twinges of guilt over killing 'all those kids" as a reason for not dropping a third and often got testy with people on it. Pearl Harbor was a military installation. Hiroshima was a city.

Also there are three versions of who held power in Japan one being the military with the Emperor as a front. That was public relations for the Emperor post war. It's a myth that the emperor had none. He had sovereign power to resolve the issue and defeated hard-line factions.

Other than that I think I'll enjoy sharing company with the following folks: not exactly meme types


Admiral William Leahy, 5-star admiral, president of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combined American-British Chiefs of Staff, and chief of staff 9top military aid to the commander-in-chief of the army and navy from 19421945 (Roosevelt) and 19451949 (Truman) said in his war memoirs, I Was There:
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. My own feeling is that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages." And General Dwight Eisenhower agreed.

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz,commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, quoted by his widow:
". . . I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life. . . . We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything." And E. B. Potter, naval historian wrote: "Nimitz considered the atomic bomb somehow indecent, certainly not a legitimate form of warfare."

Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet:
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake ever to drop it . . . (the scientists) had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before."

Rear Admiral Richard Byrd:
"Especially it is good to see the truth told about the last days of the war with Japan. . . . I was with the Fleet during that period; and every officer in the Fleet knew that Japan would eventually capitulate from . . . the tight blockade."

Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy:
"I, too, felt strongly that it was a mistake to drop the atom bombs, especially without warning." [The atomic bomb] "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion . . . it was clear to a number of people . . . that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate . . . it was a sin to use a good word [a word that] should be used more often to kill non-combatants. . . ."

Major General Curtis E. LeMay, US Army Air Forces (at a press conference, September 1945):
"The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb . . . the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."

Major General Claire Chennault, founder of the Flying Tigers, and former US Army Air Forces commander in China:
"Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped..."

Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces.
". . . [F]rom the Japanese standpoint the atomic bomb was really a way out. The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell. . . ."

Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker, Arnold's deputy.
"Arnold's view was that it (dropping the atomic bomb) was unnecessary. He said that he knew that the Japanese wanted peace. There were political implications in the decision and Arnold did not feel it was the military's job to question it. . . . I knew nobody in the high echelons of the Army Air Force who had any question about having to invade Japan."

Arnold, quoted by Eaker:
"When the question comes up of whether we use the atomic bomb or not, my view is that the Air Force will not oppose the use of the bomb, and they will deliver it effectively if the Commander in Chief decides to use it. But it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion."

General George C. Kenney, commander of Army Air Force units in the Southwest Pacific, when asked whether using the atomic bomb had been a wise decision.
"No! I think we had the Japs licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit."
W. Averill Harriman, in private notes after a dinner with General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz (commander in July 1945 of the Pacific-based US Army Strategic Air Forces), and Spaatz's one-time deputy commanding general in Europe, Frederick L. Anderson:
[size=1]"...Both felt Japan would surrender without use of the bomb, and neither knew why a second bomb was used."

General Dwight D. Eisenhower:
"I voiced to him [Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum of loss of 'face'. . . . It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

former President Herbert Hoover:
"I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

Richard M. Nixon:
"MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it. . . . He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be to limit damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off, which I think speaks well of him

Norman Cousins, from an interview with MacArthur:
". . . [H]e saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it did later anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."


Reciprocal -----> ;)

BucEyedPea
08-15-2007, 07:55 PM
I just wanted to add that I found out from my research tonight that it was the conservatives of that time that condemed the use of these bombs, calling them war crimes, while the mass media parroted the government line in praising the atomic incinerations.

Felix Morley, constitutional scholar and one of the founders of Human Events, 9 a conservative newpaper, drew attention to the horror of Hiroshima, including the "thousands of children trapped in the thirty-three schools that were destroyed."

Father James Gillis, editor of The Catholic World and another stalwart of the Old Right, castigated the bombings as "the most powerful blow ever delivered against Christian civilization and the moral law." David Lawrence, conservative owner of U.S. News and World Report, continued to denounce them for years. The distinguished conservative philosopher Richard Weaver was revolted [by the act.]----Ralph Raico, LewRockwell.com

Funny how it's conservatives today that call out such talk anti-American. Shows the difference as to what this movement has become.

Adept Havelock
08-15-2007, 08:57 PM
I looked up the military holdouts...called scragglers. There were numerous ones who refused to surrender and continued killing for years after the official surrender one held out until 1974!! He and his men finally surrendered in the Phillipine jungle.

Yep. There's a funny riff on those troops in an old Kurt Russell Disney flick called "The Last Flight of Noahs Ark". I seem to recall one showed up on Gilligan's Island as well.

Per the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city and escaped serious damage." The target was the center of the city where civilians were and even a POW camp.
And also, the headquarters of the Fifth Military Region for Ketsu-Go, and several Infantry Divisions.

Even Truman has some twinges of guilt over killing 'all those kids" as a reason for not dropping a third and often got testy with people on it.
I'd certainly hope so. Anyone who would drop a nuclear bomb without deep reflection, thought, and guilt is a psychopath. Truman clearly wasn't.

Pearl Harbor was a military installation. Hiroshima was a city.

Pearl Harbor was. The city of Honolulu (which suffered many civilian casulties, including children) was not.

Nor, I should point out were Dresden, London, Coventry, Frankfurt, Brussels, Warsaw, Tokyo, Paris, Hamburg, St. Petersburg, etc. ad naseum. They were also considered legitimate military targets under the doctrine of total war. Are you going to suggest that every Civilian Leader of WW2 was a coward for destroying those cities? Or do they get a pass as you've apparently given Sir Winston Churchill, as they did it the hard way instead of using a nuke?

Also there are three versions of who held power in Japan one being the military with the Emperor as a front. That was public relations for the Emperor post war.

There are always multiple sides to any story. As I said, luckily we have primary sources, primarily evidence saved for evidence in War Crimes Trials.

It's a myth that the emperor had none. He had sovereign power to resolve the issue and defeated hard-line factions.
Have you anything to offer to support your allegation that Tojo and the Cabinet didn't have control of the nations war policy?

Other than that I think I'll enjoy sharing company with the following folks: not exactly meme types

My only comparison to meme was your contention that Truman was a coward. It is a matter of opinion, and personally I find it as laughable as the vast majority of her posts. :shrug:

Let's consider some of the Nuclear Policy pushed for by some of the tsk-tsk'ers in that list of yours...many of whom had a political bone to pick with Mr. Harry Truman (as I'm beginning to wonder if you do as well.) That list contains the primary architects of NSC-68, Containment, the doctrine of Massive Retaliation, the SIOP, and many of the other threads that wove the fabric of the Cold War. IMO, hardly the actions of people who found the use of nuclear weapons unconscionable.

Also, one must consider the fact that many of the military leadership that was aware of the Manhattan Project opposed it because of it's high priority for resources. Plus there's the streak that led to Billy Mitchell getting cashiered for proving Dec. 7, 1941 was possible years before because the Admirals didn't like the notion a BB could be sunk by a plane. There's institutional resistance to things like that.

Major General Curtis E. LeMay, US Army Air Forces

Head of SAC during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and his saber-rattling (against the express orders of JFK) got him shown the door shortly thereafter in favor of General Powers. Aside from my studies of the man, I've got a family member that served under him in SAC and he was as bloodthirsty as they come. He was also a polticial opponent of Truman's, as he was a big fan of Ike. He also (without orders) forward deployed nuclear-capable B-50's to Guam when Dugout Dougie was trying to stir up sh*t with China by parking troops in untenable positions along the Yalu river.

Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Command US Army Air Force and his deputy

I'd agree with him it was a way out for the Japanese. They were utterly defeated at sea. They had large land and air forces on the home islands. This allowed them to surrender and ignore the obligations of the Bushido code, or rather, the perverted interpretation of that code as expressed by the Tojo regime. I think I alluded to that in my earlier posts.

Admiral William Leahy
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz
Admiral William "Bull" Halsey
Rear Admiral Richard Byrd
Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss

All honorable, some brilliant naval officers. Officers of the old school, who received their commissions in a different era. I can certainly understand why they would be seriously taken aback, indeed repulsed, by the new face of warfare.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

- Truman's biggest political rival even when FDR was alive. Ike was aimed squarely at the presidency throughout his tenure as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. It surprises me the man who signed off on the doctrine of "Massive Retaliation" and oversaw a massive buildup of our nuclear forces would make such a statement.

As for the claims attributed to MacArthur.... he wanted to be Eisenhower. He wanted to use his position as the "American Caesar" as a springboard to the presidency. Then the Korean war came along, and the idiot decided to try to start a war with the PRC, and got his ass fired. Strong food for Sour Grapes.


We're going to have to agree to disagree. I've spent years researching this era in history, and this specific operation (Olympic/Coronet vs. Ketsu-Go) in particular. It's always been among the what-ifs I find most intriguing.

In all of that, I've not found much to make me doubt that without the A-Bomb, Japan would have stayed in the fight for at least another half to two thirds of a year (at which point their resources would have been utterly exhausted). That the price of that fight would have been steep for the US, but utterly devastating to the Japanese. Again, better two cities than an entire nation. JMO.

In closing, one thought for you. In 1945, the US placed an order for 400,000 Purple Heart medals for the expected casualties of Olympic/Coronet. Those medals have supplied our needs through Korea, Vietnam, the larger Cold War, Gulf War 1, and are still being distributed today.

Good night BEP, apologies for getting snippy.

BucEyedPea
08-15-2007, 09:36 PM
Actually Eisenhower warned Truman beforehand to not use those bombs.
I still feel the "unconditional surrender" requirement was the major problem leading to this as a solution. Just think, what history may have looked like in the east if surrender was accepted earlier.

No I have no bones to pick with Truman, except for this, and even if some military did it doesn't make their assessments wrong...since they were in the field. I actually originally read this angle while reading something else one day and just looked up that side of it briefly. I still say it was more a political descision than military. Agree to disagree is fine with me though.

SBK
08-15-2007, 09:36 PM
This is a pretty good thread.

I always figured Iraq was how we'd make Iran fight us on 2 fronts. We'd be able to attack from Afghanistan and from Iraq, and the Mullahs would have nowhere to run.

Following the money does make sense though, as everything is always about the money. Interesting to read, pretty though provoking actually.

BIG_DADDY
08-16-2007, 10:25 AM
This is a pretty good thread.

I always figured Iraq was how we'd make Iran fight us on 2 fronts. We'd be able to attack from Afghanistan and from Iraq, and the Mullahs would have nowhere to run.

Following the money does make sense though, as everything is always about the money. Interesting to read, pretty though provoking actually.
Following the money is always the answer. It would have been nice if we could have actually discussed the real issues about this war istead of spin.

StcChief
08-16-2007, 11:56 AM
Agreed with BD We are in ME to stay and secure our Oil interests for our economy.

This won't change until we are energy self sufficient. So figure 50 more years.

Or more nuclear power, hydrogen, wind, solar, electric cars etc.

The technology has to cut loose and fully funded supported to really make this a non-issue.

Then they can continue their fight over which version of Islam is better.

Adept Havelock
08-16-2007, 12:42 PM
I still say it was more a political descision than military.

I'd agree with that.
War is the continuation of politics through other means.