American Atrocities

[quote]extol7extol wrote:

The following quote is from a veteran I know(who will of course remain anonymous):

“I fought in the Iraq war in 2003…I saw everything first hand and even got a chance to visit Sadams palace and the ancient city of Babylon (now being reconstructed.) For me, the whole war felt empty and meaningless, mainly because so many Americans just disgust me. I kept thinking, what the heck am I fighting for? For soldiers like these to pass out porno magazines to the Iraqi peoples and bring our own corruption to
this country? For these arrogant female (feminist) soldiers to demonstrate
their anger and pride in this country as well. We give them liberation and
food in one hand…then when the camera is off (or on if its politically
correct), toss them all our dirty laundry. Feminism, pornography, homosexuality, arminianism, humanism, relativism, you name it. Is that
really liberation?”

Me now:

Man, he told it like it is! Here America is, supposedly “spreading freedom”
around the world, and what are they spreading? American immorality. So the
Iraqis go from being in bondage to Saddam Hussein to being in bondage to
American immorality. That’s freedom? That’s liberation? “Freedom” is the
religion of the Bush administration. You can invade another country that
has not attacked your country as long as you are giving that country
“freedom.” The ends justify the means – go kill hundreds of thousands of
people who have not attacked you so you can give that country America’s
version of “freedom.” It is just so disgusting. And it’s not just the
administration that is disgusting. As this man said, the SOLDIERS are
disgusting. Support the troops? I don’t. They’re a bunch of perverts, peddling their perversity across the world. [1] You think Abu Ghraib was an anomaly? Yeah, right.

[1] Not all soldiers are perverts; just the ones doing and/or endorsing the said peddling.

And people like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Oliver
North are revered (worshipped?) by “evangelical Christians” and support the
war, support the killing (while hypocritically being against abortion),
support preemptive strikes against nations that have not attacked us,
support the spreading of “Americanism” around the world. Disgusting.[/quote]

Where did you get this text from? It reads awfully funny; wierd spacing as if you copied it from somewhere. It looks just as odd when I quoted it and added this input.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What exactly has been proven here? Something us christians already knew? [/quote]

Exactly.

I’m sure there is a place that smells like roses, where unicorns run free and where nobody has to make a life or death decision.

A wonderful place where love and peace and happiness flow from cool fountains and there is no war, there are no enemies and you can run naked and free from worry.

I just wish all these freaks would find it and stay there and leave the tough decisions to people willing to make the hard choices.

Reminds me of a line from the movie Cocoon; “We’ll never be sick, we won’t get any older, and we won’t ever die.”

[quote]extol7extol wrote:

The USA’s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasake was one of the worst things any country has ever done to another country.

[/quote]

With all due to respect to the poster who appears to be a man of faith, that sentence was the biggest load of horseshit that i have read for quite a while.

If you want to take over the world and invade other countries, eventually shit will catch up with you, why should one more allied life be lost before the japanese would surrender, have you read abot the Japanese atrocities in china or perhaps the concentration camps, sometimes when you fight rats, you have to get into the sewer.

Turning the other cheek and similar religious pacifism takes a certain faith that life on earth really is just a temporary stop on the way to eternity rather than the whole enchilada. Whichever way you choose, you will live a much happier life if you’re sure of your decision than if have doubt in it. But then that’s the situation with religion in general.

[quote]aussie486 wrote:
extol7extol wrote:

The USA’s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasake was one of the worst things any country has ever done to another country.

With all due to respect to the poster who appears to be a man of faith, that sentence was the biggest load of horseshit that i have read for quite a while.

If you want to take over the world and invade other countries, eventually shit will catch up with you, why should one more allied life be lost before the japanese would surrender, have you read abot the Japanese atrocities in china or perhaps the concentration camps, sometimes when you fight rats, you have to get into the sewer.

[/quote]

With all due respect using atomic bombs on civilians is a pretty atrocious thing. No?

[quote]Hanzo wrote:
aussie486 wrote:
extol7extol wrote:

The USA’s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasake was one of the worst things any country has ever done to another country.

With all due to respect to the poster who appears to be a man of faith, that sentence was the biggest load of horseshit that i have read for quite a while.

If you want to take over the world and invade other countries, eventually shit will catch up with you, why should one more allied life be lost before the japanese would surrender, have you read abot the Japanese atrocities in china or perhaps the concentration camps, sometimes when you fight rats, you have to get into the sewer.

With all due respect using atomic bombs on civilians is a pretty atrocious thing. No?[/quote]

        With all due respect war is a atrocious thing, perhaps the 2500,000-300,000  civillians who were massacred by the japanese soldiers in Nanking might not agree with you or the other Chinese cities where anthrax and plauge were dropped in bombs, isn't that pretty atrocious as well.
          With the history of the japanese is it any wonder the bombs were dropped, even before the bombs were dropped it documented that the Japanese was looking for a final battle which would hopefully break the American spirit, civillian were intending to be combantents in that total battle.
            So to answer your question in re to that generation of japanese I personally don't think it was  atrocious in the context of the japanese society or its history at that time.
            My thoughts in re to the japanese surrender was it had to do more with the Russian declartion of war on japan between the two bombings, it appears as it was with the Germans they would rather surrender to the Americans(those mass murders and other names they have been called on this thread, strange how they have not been called liberators) than the soviets who would have dealt with them far more harshly than the Americans. 
             Hope for peace but be prepared to resist savagery with all means.

[quote]aussie486 wrote:
Hanzo wrote:
aussie486 wrote:
extol7extol wrote:

The USA’s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasake was one of the worst things any country has ever done to another country.

With all due to respect to the poster who appears to be a man of faith, that sentence was the biggest load of horseshit that i have read for quite a while.

If you want to take over the world and invade other countries, eventually shit will catch up with you, why should one more allied life be lost before the japanese would surrender, have you read abot the Japanese atrocities in china or perhaps the concentration camps, sometimes when you fight rats, you have to get into the sewer.

With all due respect using atomic bombs on civilians is a pretty atrocious thing. No?

        With all due respect war is a atrocious thing, perhaps the 2500,000-300,000  civillians who were massacred by the japanese soldiers in Nanking might not agree with you or the other Chinese cities where anthrax and plauge were dropped in bombs, isn't that pretty atrocious as well.
          With the history of the japanese is it any wonder the bombs were dropped, even before the bombs were dropped it documented that the Japanese was looking for a final battle which would hopefully break the American spirit, civillian were intending to be combantents in that total battle.
            So to answer your question in re to that generation of japanese I personally don't think it was  atrocious in the context of the japanese society or its history at that time.
            My thoughts in re to the japanese surrender was it had to do more with the Russian declartion of war on japan between the two bombings, it appears as it was with the Germans they would rather surrender to the Americans(those mass murders and other names they have been called on this thread, strange how they have not been called liberators) than the soviets who would have dealt with them far more harshly than the Americans. 
             Hope for peace but be prepared to resist savagery with all means.

[/quote]

Yes, war is an atrocious but so is the mass loss of innocent lives in a nuclear attack. The attacks were perhaps justifiable but it doesn’t make the loss of life any less tragic.

Furthermore, it is arguable whether the dropping of the atomic bomb was truly necessary. In June of 1945,Emperor Hirohito was considering a “conditional” surrender (the primary condition being that the emperor retains status in Japan). However, these proposals were throughly neglected which thus caused the Japanese to want to up the ante, I assume.

The US called for Japan to surrender unconditionally but made no mention of the atomic bomb (as a scare tactic). In fact it can be argued that the sole reason that the atomic bomb was used was because the US had already invested vast resources into developing it.

So, in all better diplomacy would have most likely been able to prevent the dropping of the atomic bombs.

[quote]Hanzo wrote:
aussie486 wrote:
Hanzo wrote:
aussie486 wrote:
extol7extol wrote:

The USA’s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasake was one of the worst things any country has ever done to another country.

With all due to respect to the poster who appears to be a man of faith, that sentence was the biggest load of horseshit that i have read for quite a while.

If you want to take over the world and invade other countries, eventually shit will catch up with you, why should one more allied life be lost before the japanese would surrender, have you read abot the Japanese atrocities in china or perhaps the concentration camps, sometimes when you fight rats, you have to get into the sewer.

With all due respect using atomic bombs on civilians is a pretty atrocious thing. No?

        With all due respect war is a atrocious thing, perhaps the 2500,000-300,000  civillians who were massacred by the japanese soldiers in Nanking might not agree with you or the other Chinese cities where anthrax and plauge were dropped in bombs, isn't that pretty atrocious as well.
          With the history of the japanese is it any wonder the bombs were dropped, even before the bombs were dropped it documented that the Japanese was looking for a final battle which would hopefully break the American spirit, civillian were intending to be combantents in that total battle.
            So to answer your question in re to that generation of japanese I personally don't think it was  atrocious in the context of the japanese society or its history at that time.
            My thoughts in re to the japanese surrender was it had to do more with the Russian declartion of war on japan between the two bombings, it appears as it was with the Germans they would rather surrender to the Americans(those mass murders and other names they have been called on this thread, strange how they have not been called liberators) than the soviets who would have dealt with them far more harshly than the Americans. 
             Hope for peace but be prepared to resist savagery with all means.

Yes, war is an atrocious but so is the mass loss of innocent lives in a nuclear attack. The attacks were perhaps justifiable but it doesn’t make the loss of life any less tragic.

Furthermore, it is arguable whether the dropping of the atomic bomb was truly necessary. In June of 1945,Emperor Hirohito was considering a “conditional” surrender (the primary condition being that the emperor retains status in Japan). However, these proposals were throughly neglected which thus caused the Japanese to want to up the ante, I assume.

The US called for Japan to surrender unconditionally but made no mention of the atomic bomb (as a scare tactic). In fact it can be argued that the sole reason that the atomic bomb was used was because the US had already invested vast resources into developing it.

So, in all better diplomacy would have most likely been able to prevent the dropping of the atomic bombs. [/quote]

This is revisionist history. Japan was not going to surrender. They would have fought an invasion of th ehome islands.

[quote] extol7extol wrote:

   In complete agreement with that statement, Admiral William F Halsey was 110% spot on.
   There are still a large amount of Australians who are gratefull for American's role in the Pacific war and generally in ww2, my family lost 4 male members to the Pacific war, 2 were killed on the sadakan death march, my remaining uncle was a  veteran of the Pacific war drove a chev until the day he died, he would not allow anything made in Japan to be in his house. he stated that his achievment during ww2 was that he did not take one Japanese prisoner. 

[/quote]

Hey extol7extol, are you and your uncle Australian?

Hanzo:

I don’t see how you could have read that “Wikipedia” and gotten the impression that the Japanese Government and Imperial Command were ready to surrender. Far from it.

The islands, DESPITE being fire-bombed by thousands of B-29’s were being fortified; tunnel systems were being built similar to those on Iwo Jima; the harbors were being mined; civilians were being armed and were actually manufacturing munitions; and new fleets of both Kamikazi air AND submarine fleets were being trained.

“The Land of the Rising Sun” and the Emperor were going to be defended to the last man, women and child.

Mufasa

Think of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan”…

Invading the Japanese Home Islands would have made hitting the Normandy Beaches seem like a Sunday walk in the park…

Mufasa

An e-mail I thought was relevant…

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe
and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had
sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between
England and America for food and war materials. At that time the U.S.
was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted
nothing to do with the European or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage
Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on
Germany, which had not yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing.

We had few allies. France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of
France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers. Germany was
certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe.
Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and
controlling all of Asia.

Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada
and Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our
northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of
Asia and Europe. America’s only allies then were England, Ireland,
Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it. All of
Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the East, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was certainly not prepared for war. America had drastically
downgraded most of its military forces after WWI and throughout the
depression, so that at the outbreak of WWII, army units were training
with broomsticks because they didn’t have guns, and cars with “tank”
painted on the doors because they didn’t have real tanks. A huge chunk
of our navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600
million in gold bullion in the Bank of England, that was actually the
property of Belgium, given by Belgium to England to carry on the war
when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (! a little known fact).
Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to
oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into
rubble the next day just to prove they could. Britain had already been
holding out for two years in the face of staggering losses and the
near decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was
saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the
mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that
could be dealt with later, and first turning his attention to Russia,
at a time when England was on the verge of collapse, in the late summer of 1940.

Ironically, Russia saved America’s butt by putting up a desperate
fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany .

Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of
Stalingrad and Moscow alone… 90% of them from cold and starvation,
mostly civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers.

Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his
entire war effort against the Brits, then America. And the Nazis could
possibly have won the war.

2nd part of e-mail.

All of this is to illustrate that turning points in history are often
dicey things. And now, we find ourselves at another one of those key
moments in history!

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants
and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological,
or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs –
they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi
Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then
the world. And that all who do not bow to their will of thinking
should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the
Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is their mantra.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East – for the most
part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its
Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not known yet which will
win – the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control
the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies.

The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC – not an
OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC
dominated by the Jihadis. You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter?
You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad,
the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who
believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live
in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century
into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually
fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge. (The
rational mind of today says this).

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight
the Inquisition, i.e. the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and
the Islamic terrorist movements.

We have to do it somewhere. And we can’t do it everywhere at once. We
have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing…
in Iraq. Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in
Iraq, where we are doing two important things:

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly
involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been
actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a
terrorist. Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is
responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic
terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad
people, and the ones we get there we won’t have to get here. We also
have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will
be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East,
and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the
Middle East for as long as it is needed.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began
with a “whimper” in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began
with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years
before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 – a 17 year war
– and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and
Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again … a 27 year war.

World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a
full year’s GDP – adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars.
WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly
100,000 still missing in action.

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion, which is
roughly what 9/11 cost New York . It has also cost about 2,200
American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad
snuffed on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would
have been unimaginably greater
– a world dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

This is not 60 minutes TV shows, and 2 hour movies in which everything
comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy,
uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.

The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism
until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if w! e ignore it.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq , then we
have an " England " in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can
work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of
the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and
civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war
is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending war. And
now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to have nuclear weapons. Unless somebody prevents them.

We have four options:

  1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
  2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which
    may be as early as next year, if Iran’s progress on nuclear weapons is
    what Iran claims it is) 3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept
    its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years
    or decades, and ultimately in America.
  3. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the
    Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has
    dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe . It
    will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.

If you oppose this war, I hope you like and accept the idea that your
children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the
Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law), an America that resembles Iran today.

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes,
cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society
and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The
pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Remember, perspective is every thing, and America’s schools teach too
little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall
came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the
19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year
occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan.
World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people,
maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken more than 2,000 killed in action in Iraq.
The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on ONE morning of June 6,
1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism.

In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week – for four years.
Most of the individual battles of WWII cost more Americans than the
entire Iraq war has done so far.

But the stakes are at least as high … A world dominated by
representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and
personal freedoms … or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi
movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).

Take-away message;

The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Fantastic post Derek. Far better than I could say it.

derek, don’t you know that you are just stirring up anti-islamic feelings and thus contributing to the ongoing illegal agression which is creating more terrorists?

(Sorry, I’ve been feeling extra liberal today, must be low on T?)

Europe maybe eventually, but the US? No. Unless they master blue ocean sailing in banana boats, this isn’t what the fight is about.

In considering the probability of various outcomes, I think this vision is substantially less likely to result than one which actually parallels western political development. The reformation and the religious wars which followed were not a battle between freedom and oppression, peace and war, or democracy and theocracy, rather the core religious battle was between what we would consider religious fanatics on both sides. This isn’t to say that freedom, free-thought, and democracy weren’t beneficiaries or at least eventual beneficiaries; they were. Those ideas really got their boost though as a result of the carnage and destruction wrought by the fanatics in the wars which culminated in the 30 Years War. After witnessing the results of this the seeds were planted, albeit with genuine enthusiasm only in limited areas and minds, though many more learned the practical benefits of toleration. Of course it took Europe another couple centuries before religious freedom and democracy became fully widespread.

The parallel that we might witness in Iraq is similar. A widespread many years- or even decade- war between Sunnis and Shias could extinguish the desire for holy war and sectarian identities in general. Just as two world wars largely burnt out the flame of militant nationalism in Europe, the same might be the eventual unintended consequence of the situation in Iraq spinning out of control and becoming a flash point for the middle east. The centrifugal forces in Iraq are extremely strong while the geopolitical shifts in relative power in the region have built up the seismic energy cause a massive quake. All that’s needed to set it all off is Christopher Walken draining a reservoir into the fault. Iraq is that Christopher Walken; I’m not sure what would be the Grace Jones.

I often ask myself this question;

How would I view the situation if the group(s) currently setting off suicide bombs and killing so damn many of thier brethren (our sworn enemies) was to take over leadership of Iraq and it’s almost unlimited supply of oil (oil=$$$$$$$=POWER).

Then I compare THAT scenario to having some form of representative democracy in Iraq who were allies of the U.S., the EU etc. having control over the oil supply (oil=$$$$$$$=POWER).

No doubts which scenario would be safer for the entire world huh?

[quote]derek wrote:

Then I compare THAT scenario to having some form of representative democracy in Iraq who were allies of the U.S., the EU etc. having control over the oil supply (oil=$$$$$$$=POWER).
[/quote]

That right there is the hard part though. As the US is discovering, especially in Latin America, democracy does not equal pro-US. Chavez has repeatedly won overwhelming victories in elections which have been considered valid by international observers- though Venezuela may make the leap from “illiberal democracy” to something plainly authoritarian in the near future. Similarly, Morales, Correa and all sorts of other characters less friendly to American interests have had a great deal of success down there.

Why would we expect an Iraqi democracy to be an American ally? Why wouldn’t we expect it not to be? While we certainly can expect some friendliness while we have large numbers of troops there, provide tens of billions worth of services, and basically keep things from collapsing entirely, why would we assume that that would continue after we ceased providing that level of support?

Consider who is in charge there. The United Iraqi Alliance, representing the conservative Shia majority, won something like 41% of the vote in the most recent elections. The UIA is an alliance of smaller conservative Shia parties with the following characteristics appearing in many or most of the members:

Supports some form of theocracy
Currently has or has had a militia or military wing
Currently or has in the past received financial or military support along with safe harbor from Iran
Support for or participation in terrorism at some point
Opposition to “western imperialism”

The demographics are changing, but not for the better.


Ride one.