Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Closing Gitmo Just the Beginning
LONDON -- Kudos to President Barack Obama for closing the U.S. prison at Guantanamo, Cuba, and the CIA's network of secret, or "black,'" prisons abroad, both blots on America's honour and grave violations of international law.
The U.S. conquered Cuba in the 1898 Spanish-American War. Washington then installed a U.S. citizen as president who granted Washington base rights to Guantanamo in perpetuity. A century later, the U.S. made a similar sweetheart deal in Afghanistan.
Now is an excellent time for Obama also to close the U.S. base at Guantanamo and return it to Cuba. Gitmo is a military white elephant. Returning it to Cuba would be a good start to thawing relations between Havana and Washington.
Obama's next step in returning America to its senses should be ending use of the propaganda terms, "terrorism," and "war on terror."
Britain's youthful foreign secretary, David Miliband, is one of its most interesting and brainy politicians. He could very well replace Gordon Brown as prime minister if Britain's rapidly worsening financial crisis goes critical.
Rebuking the George W. Bush administration, the outspoken Miliband recently urged Washington to cease using the term "war on terror," which he calls "misleading and mistaken."
This term implies a unified, pan-national enemy when there is none. It also encourages war psychosis, fear and employing the military to deal with problems the West "could not kill its way out of."
The Bush administration was a ship of fools steered by crypto-fascist neoconservatives and religious fundamentalists. It failed at everything except propaganda.
Thanks to White House domination of U.S. media, brilliant news manipulation, propaganda worthy of Joseph Goebbels, and a public largely ignorant of world affairs, the White House fib factory marketed fear of "terrorism" to win votes and justify colonial adventures abroad.
As disenchanted former Republican party strategist Kevin Phillips points out, some of Bush's strongest supporters were "security moms" in the Midwest and South. They were terrified into believing Osama bin Laden and his turbaned devils were coming to Pocatello, Iowa, and Tupelo, Miss., to attack their little Johnnies.
Nonsense
Proclaiming "war on terrorism" -- a logical and grammatical nonsense -- boosted the Pentagon's budget by 50%, unleashed armies of mercenaries run by big Republican donors, facilitated Dick Cheney's crusade to grab the world's oil, and justified invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans who opposed Bush's phony global conflict were branded traitors, appeasers and anti-American.
The term "terrorism" is designed not only to arouse potent emotions of fear and loathing, but to dehumanize one's foes and deny them any legitimate motivations. "Terrorists" are sub-human, just like "anti-state elements" in the Soviet Union and China. Terrorists are a disease. One can never negotiate with them. Even their children are legitimate targets.
Slapping this label on all who oppose the U.S. and its allies totally distorted reality. I always avoided using "terrorism," which became the most cherished word in the Bush administration's version of George Orwell's totalitarian "Doublespeak."
The proper term we should use is "anti-western groups" or "violent extremists." The U.S., which burned alive 100,000 Japanese civilians on the night of March, 9 1945, killed two million Vietnamese civilians, and is responsible for 500,000 to one million Iraqi civilian deaths has no right to brand others "terrorists."
Iraqis and Afghans who oppose U.S. and/or NATO occupation should be called "the resistance," not "insurgents." We invaded them and overthrew their governments. One might as well call the French resistance, "insurgents."
Watch for other key propaganda terms being used by the media: "Nation building," "free world," "collateral damage," "counter-terror operations," "enhanced interrogation" and "exporting democracy."
I hope Obama will heed Miliband's good advice and end Bush/Cheney's Orwellian lies. Americans need the truth about their foreign wars.
They need to know al-Qaida was only a handful of extremists, and 9/11 likely a one-off event.
And that crimes such as Guantanamo, torture, kidnappings (rendition) and stomping small countries create more enemies of the West than Osama bin Laden ever dreamed of.
85 Comments so far
Show All"The U.S., which burned alive 100,000 Japanese civilians on the night of March, 9 1945"
Its another history revisionist that from the safety of his armchair in Canada would rather have sent my Dad and his brothers in invasion barges onto the Japanese mainland. Extrapolating the loss's from Iwo Jima which is quite fair, we would have lost over 100,000 men.
I don't think he would feel the same if he were facing that landing. Nor would anyone unless they are able to lie to themselves. For thats the only way anyone could advocate doing it.
If you agree with him, take a very close look in the mirror.
Talk about your revisionist history!" Mr. More, you revise a well-documented revision of the history of World War II which discredits the propagandist history which justified the A-bombing of Japanese cities for their having "shortened the war," obviating the need for your dad and uncles and others to invade the Japanese mainland, and otherwise "shorten" the war and save many lives. (Though not those of the unfortunates at Hiroshima and Nagasaki) The reality seems to be that the Japanese were actually attempting to surrender prior to the bombings, but that Truman wanted to do a "shock and awe" demonstration of U.S. military might that would put us in better stead in the Cold War with the Soviet Union that was expected to follow the war. The problem with adhering to such discredited histories of the World War II is that they encourage similiar shock and awe atrocities like those visited on Gaza by Israel, Iraq by the United States.
Jerry D Rose
With respect, I must disagree.
The men that were there disagree with you. There was certainly no demonstrable fact that the Japanese were trying to surrender. What proof of that did you see?
A well documented revision? Look again my friend. Unsupported you mean. There is not one substantiated fact that what you just said was true. Not a one. The Japanese were trying to surrender? Where exactly is the proof of it?
I have no idea what went thru Trumans mind, but if its a cjhoivce between my Dad and all those other Marines, and the Japanese that died there, Its an easy one for truthful people.
Ask yourself this, if the Japanese were so eager to surrender as was claimed, why didn't they? Why was the other bomb dropped. The argument really makes no sense.
Fact....not opinion. "The literature on the subject is extensive."
It is. But suppositions are not facts. Where exactly did you find the surrender overtures from the Japanese? Where are the papers now. Where did you see one offer from the Emperor to stop the hostilities?
If I'm wrong, then those documents would be available...and they are not.
Thanks for the reference. A useful summary of Aloperovitz' revised (1995) views on the subject are in a NY Times article by Michael Bechloss: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE2DA143CF933A05754C0A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
And you will note in it a lot of "insists", conclusions, etc, but absolutely no comncrete evidence that Japan was about to surrender or had even made any concrete overtures.
None.
I haven't read the Alperovitz book (but maybe I will if I get hold of it). Have you? For what it's worth, Beschloss says of it: "a book that is elegantly documented (with the aid of seven research collaborators) and intensely argued." Maybe we'll suspend argument about this "documentation" until we can see if for ourselves rather than arguing about whether it does or doesn't exist.
.Thomas, once again I am taken aback by your refusal to see what is written in the historical record. If you and I have gained any bit of trust between us I would urge you to visit a search engine and reeducate yourself on this issue. The Japanese Military was trying desperately to find a way to surrender with honor, this has been verified in numerous correspondences and diaries of high ranking officers and the Emperor's own aides.
The Japanese Navy was sunk, the armed forces decimated and , while an invasion would certainly have met fierce resistance from a proud people, no such invasion was needed. A blockade was easily done and a short wait of one or so months would have seen a peace treaty without the need to drop two nuclear devices on civilian populations.
Just the way the two targets were chosen, for their geographical features which magnified the effects of the bombs, shows plainly that they were dropped for their effect upon the growing Soviet might. There are letters from Truman and his aides which intimate this as well.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
.http://www.ww2pacific.com/surrender.html
The war in Europe had ended in May 1945. Russia was obligated by agreements made at Yalta, 11 Feb 1945, to enter the war in the Pacific within three months of VE day. On 5 April, the Soviets announced their intention to not renew the Neutrality Pact with Japan, signed 13 April 1941, at a time before either had entered into a war. Word came from attaches in Europe that Allied troops were being sent to the Pacific. Russia massed troops on the Mongolian border. Oil was so short in Japan, they could no longer fight except on the home islands; she could not fuel planes to defend from the air raids that were destroying military production. All defenses were conserved for the final battle, even as B-29s proceeded unopposed.
.....
The cabinet meeting over the night of 9-10 August was deadlocked with six in favor of surrender under certain conditions, three to fight on until after the final battle had shown Japan's will, and with five neutral members. Issues discussed that night were: that the Emperor must remain; that Japan must disarm her own troops and not surrender arms to a foreign power; and that Japan must try her own war criminals.
..............
Thomas, there were factions in Japan pushing for surrender. The Emperor was not dismissing it out of hand and the issue was certainly going to end in said surrender, without resorting to the inhumanity of nuclear attack.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
hey tom - you related to harry truman
sounds like it cause that was his bullshit line about the nuking of these two helpless, undefended "paper cities"
they were left untouched by the merciless bombings of japan so the military could get some good stats about the detonation; like how was the damage at 100 yards, 1/2 mile; what did it do to steel structures, how far away from ground zero could the blast melt eyeballs - shit like that, they wanted to know
the reality of it was that the japanese were totally defeated and were trying to surrender but the american government insisted that the emperor not only read the surrender but that he also go on a wide ranging tour around japan to further humiliate the country and this there were loathe to do
there were also the memos inside the manhattan project urging the scientists to hurry up and get the bomb functional because the military was having difficulty in delaying the japanese surrender
this often cited figure of 100,000 dead americans is about as real as bernanke's 700 billion for the scum on wall street - even he admitted he just "made it up" as he wanted "a big number"
at the end of the day here is the fact - the only country sick and cruel enough to deploy nuclear bombs (against a defenseless population i remind you) is the united states - and the unites states used it twice - sick fucks that you are
in their madness and sickness the us stands alone
today there are only to countries who are mad enough and sick enough to use nukes: the united states and their hateful little mini-me - the stolen state of israel
so tom lay of the bullshit and face up to what and who you are - a citizen of the sickest most warlike country in the whole world
so, smear the blood on your face and dance naked in the moonlight - the blood appears quite black
cheers, b
Want to talk about the UK Bryan. We can't hold a candle to yiou boys when it comes to surpressiing colnial populations, which we don't have any of....or any other area yodu'd care to name. Look top your own history.
We lost 36,000 Marines at Iwo Jima, if anyone speculates that it would have been less than 3 times as many, thay are literally fools.
"the reality of it was that the japanese were totally defeated and were trying to surrender but the american government insisted that the emperor not only read the surrender but that he also go on a wide ranging tour around japan to further humiliate the country and this there were loathe to do
Pure horseshit. Marxist propaganda unsupported by any facts at all. Ask yourself when the last Japanese soldier surrendered. Ought to give you a clue. Believe all the horseshit you want, but it will never be true.
In the end, tell me you would happily jump in that assault craft rather than use that weapon. Tell me you'd condemn that many of your own to death, let alone the wounded.
If folks don't start admitting the truth here instead of a dead ideology, it will defeat any Progressive or liberal gains.
The only sick fucks are you Europeans that shelter under us and then spit on us. Thats my definition of a sick fuck.
Smearing blood is something only someone that never faced anything would say.
Cheers indeed.
Thomas More is simply unable to recognize the absolute moral vaccum of his position on the dropping of the Nuclear bombs on those two cities.
He is a narcissist so in love with the MYTH of America, he would defend mass murder of Civilians to perpetuate that myth.
He has stated clearly that the LIFE of an American soldier, whose JOB it is to fight is worth more then the life of Japanese women and children and that it the lives of japanese children and women are to be murdered en-masse to protect American soldiers, he fully supports such.
He applies this same belief system to Vietnam and Afghanistan, to Granada and Panama. To Iraq and Iran.
In short ANYWHERE a US soldiers life at risk, Mr More proclaims the RIGHT and willingness to murder anothers countries civilians to protect that American soldiers life.
As to his claims on the willingness of Japanese troops to surrender. It is MR More who is UNINFORMED.
They surrendered en masse to the Russians in Manchuria and to the British In Burma without the need of either of those countries to Nuke them. They were spanked soundly by the British in Burma in Slims offensive.
Mr More refuses to acknowledge these facts because it does not meet his definition of a brainwashed enemy willing to fight to the last man for the emperor.
The fact that the Japanese did NOT fight to the last man and in fact surrendered should be proof to anyone with a lick of sense that they were not willing to fight to the last man to defend their emperor or their homeland.
It is a LIE that apologists for war crimes persist in and any American should be ashamed of that lie just as Germans should be ashamed of the lies their leaders used to justify the slaughter of Russians and Poles and just as Canadians should be ashamed of the lies told about the Japanese_Canadians when they were stripped of properties and interned in camps.
>>There is reason to believe that the safe conduct passes were effective. We cannot say if the Japanese in the Philippine Islands who surrendered did so because of the leaflets, the military situation, or simply because they were tired of the war and realized that they could not win. Whatever the reason, statistics show that in November 1944, One hundred Japanese soldiers died in battle for every one that surrendered. Two months later, the ratio fell to 60:1. Three months after that the ratio dropped to 30:1. By July 1945, one Japanese soldier surrendered for every seven of his comrades killed. In early 1945, interrogations proved that 46% of the Japanese taken prisoners in the Philippine campaign were "influenced" by the Allied propaganda leaflets. Whatever the reason, the myth of the Samurai warrior, the code of Bushido, and that Japanese soldiers never surrender was effectively destroyed
A foolish posting, I'm surpriosed at you. Though I know you are anti-American, I've always known you to be truthful, not like some of these anti-American scum that post here with their lies and distortions that suit their own little pursuits.
You attribute things to me that I've never said or indicated and frame other things in your own ideology. Very disappointing and needs no response.
Look above and you will find some honest people that framed their argument on the facts. I'd suggest that you should too.
Your hiding behind the shield of Anti-Americanism anytime you cannot refute the facts is telling. It the same tactic the Zionists use to defend their crimes in Gaza. It is rather ineffectual unless you are posting on sites like Free Republic.
You stated CLEARLY that the US was justified in dropping Nuclear weapons on cities because it would save the lives of American soldiers.
You have said much the same in other posts regarding air strikes in Afghanistan. You can hide behind the spin you try and put on it if you like but this is the essence of your arguement.
I am confident in my recollection as to what you said regarding this matter in the vvery many debates we have had when the subject of killing Civilians has come up. Given your propensity to deny in the next breath the very thing you said in another, I will be sure to cut and paste your posts in the future.
BTW what is not factual in what I posted? Is it your claim Japanese soldiers were NOT executed when they surrendered to Americans. Is it your claim that japanese did not surrender to the Russians and British forces in Burma and manchuria?
I have posted the links to these facts. Please dispute them with your own FACTS and not this tired "Anti_americanism" nonsense.
"You stated CLEARLY that the US was justified in dropping Nuclear weapons on cities because it would save the lives of American soldiers."
Absolutely. Except you say I said cities when we are speaking specifically of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no others. Why would you state it differently?
"You have said much the same in other posts regarding air strikes in Afghanistan"
If I have I sure don't remember it and I'm fairly sure I didn't, since I don't believe that as an open propisition. You cannot take a specific instance and make it an absolute.
It aint tired anti-Americanism....if you don't hate America and Americans you could sure fool me. Its spelled out in every posting. But at least you are honest about it.
"Given your propensity to deny in the next breath the very thing you said in another, I will be sure to cut and paste your posts in the future."
Bullshit. And please do.
"Is it your claim Japanese soldiers were NOT executed when they surrendered to Americans. Is it your claim that japanese did not surrender to the Russians and British forces in Burma and manchuria?"
Trying to extrapolate an entire answer out of a specific comment is an old (excuse me) Marxist trick and an old debating trick.
I never said any such thing. As a matter of fact I can assure you that some Japanese were killed while trying to surrender. But if you are trying tio say the same thing didn't happen with the Russians and the British you are less than honest in your research.
One reason why Japanese appeared to be unwilling to surrender, was diue to the fact that US and Aussie troops would execute many of those that DID surrender. I am sure Mr More will simply deny this but it got so bad in the US MIlitary, General Macarthur had to form units of men who would go out to various American Units to try and impress upon them how counter productive it was.
http://www.psywarrior.com/ICeaseJap.html
In June 1945, the U.S. Office of War Information reported that 84% of interrogated Japanese prisoners had expected to be killed by their captors. This fear was clearly far from unwarranted. Two years before, a secret intelligence report noted that only the promise of ice cream and three days’ leave would suffice to induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese…
Surrender passes and translations of the Geneva Convention were dropped on Japanese positions, and concerted efforts were made to stamp out the practice of taking no prisoners. On 14 May 1944 General MacArthur sent a telegram to the commander of the Alamo Force demanding an “investigation . . . of numerous reports reaching this headquarters that Japanese carrying surrender passes and attempting to surrender in Hollandia area have been killed by our troops.”
>>The Psychological Warfare Branch representative at X Corps, Captain William R. Beard, complained that his efforts were being negated “by the front-line troops shooting [Japanese] when they made an attempt to surrender.” By the time the Americans took Luzon in the Philippines, 70 percent of all prisoners surrendering made use of surrender passes or followed exactly the instructions contained in them’. The Philippines had been deluged with over 55 million such leaflets, and it seems plausible to attribute to this propaganda effort the fall in the ratio of prisoners to Japanese dead from 1:100 in late 1944 to 1:7 by July 1945. Still, the Japanese soldier who emerged with six surrender leaflets – one in each hand, one in each ear, one in his mouth, and one tucked in a grass band tied around his waist – was wise to take no chances.
Again Mr More has bought totally into the US GOvernments propaganda, then has the gall to suggest that any who disagree with him are "marxists".
As a matter of fact thats quite true. And the boy's doing that surrendering were indeed in the Philippines, Malaya and other places and were garrison troops. They had "political" officers for want of another designation that were telling them exactly what you were saying.
How do you explain Iwo Jima and the Japanese troops there? I'm suggesting to you that you may find a difference between troops. Troops defending the Mainland might be a bit better than others. I'd say though you hate the Marines, you consider why we were used in certain areas rather than the army.
Its strictly a Marxist argument straight out of the fifties to contend the Japanese couldn't wait to surrender.
Its akin to the one that we lured the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor and other conspiracy theories.
Now this posting was from you.
.You are conflating two separate things, Thomas. The fanaticism of the Japanese army and the potential surrender of the Japanese government. I must confess to being very, very surprised at the tone and tenor of your posts here, are you trying to emulate me?
You bringing up the "spectre" of Marxism when confronted with a less than flattering opinion of our nations actions is just plain silly, and your xenophobic responses to our British ally seems rather meanspirited and angry, once again have I had a bad influence upon you?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Thomas More is correct and is trying to repair your broken mind. Instead of bashing Thomas More, why not take some time off and read a history book and learn sir.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
.The adults are speaking here. Please return to the kiddie table, fool.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"The adults are speaking here. Please return to the kiddie table, fool."
Awww, what's the matter? Poor ardee can't stand the truth so the fat slob calls truth tellers kiddies. Tsk tsk tsk. Ardee needs to go back to school and study history and quit being so anti-USA.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
>>We lost 36,000 Marines at Iwo Jima, if anyone speculates that it would have been less than 3 times as many, thay are literally fools.
FALSE statement. You did not lose 36000 marines at Iwo Jima.
Total casualties were 26,000 which included some 6000 killed. A casualty could mean anything from limbs being blown off, to the more common sharpnel taken and soldier returned to battle weeks later.
According to your own countries Military records 85 PERCENT of all casualties were treated and the injured Soldier returned to battle.
So your "36000 marines LOST at iwo Jima" suddenly becomes a number of around 7000.
Just for some perspective the allies suffered over 220,000 casualties in the Battle Of Normandy.
Iwo Jima was an island of 8 square miles meaning no room to maneuver. In battles of maneuver the Japanese at a distinct disadvantage as shown in Manchuria when the Soviets Invaded.
The Japanese had absolutely NO ARMOR, no effective anti tank weapons and no air force.
Furthermore they had NO OIL. Their fleet was sunk at anchor or on suicide missions because they had NO FUEL to sortie. All of these planes you claim were stashed away needed FUEL and pilots to fly.
Lastly as I pointed out before (again ignored because it does not meet you theory of "Japanese bezerkers slaughtering US troops with Suicide attacks) , the kamikaze attack was ineffective after the intitial surprise worn off. Americans adapted their tactics and the grade of japanese Pilots dropped significantly by wars end meaning the chances of successful attacks plumetted.
The US "official History" , that one which they used to support their dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities was a complete farce. Numbers were pulled out of the air. They were claiming MORE casualties in a few months action on the Japanese mainland, then the Americans had sufferred in total during the past 4 years of war in Asia and Europe COMBINED.
Bogus numbers leading to a bogus conclusion to support a bogus assertion.
.
bryanD --
Agreed. We need a new investigation into 9/11.
Check out Jason Bermas' "Fabled Enemies." It's got a lot info straight from the horse's mouth (Fox News, Biden, etc.) that has turned around some cops and military that I know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu0xfz4DEN4
What we see playing out is all by design, and it's the international banking elite (e.g., Federal Reserve, J.P. Morgan, Bank of England) that is pulling the strings of our so-called leaders. With 95% of the public against the $8.5 trillion (and growing) banker heist (numbers according to Bloomberg), how is it that Congress voted for it anyway? And did you know that it was unconstitutional for the Senate take up an appropriations bill that hadn't yet passed the House?
Did you know that it was the Rothschilds (Zionist British banking family) who created Israel to begin with, and that the Israeli supreme court building is dedicated to Lord Rothschild with all sorts of masonic icons all over the place? NWO indeed.
NORTHCOM has its sights on us now. In the Global War On Terror the "homeland" of the USA is a field of military operations. I hear that the secret detentions will be shifted to the US and abroad, and that Gitmo houses only about 2% of total US black site detainees stripped of Habeus Corpus.
If we bring back the 800 year old law of Habeus Corpus, why don't we end the "drug war" while we are at it and stop spending billions of dollars per year criminalizing marijuana users? Had enough of our government's need to control, rob, and dumb us down yet? How much worse does it need to get before people wake up?
***
911 was an inside job. Cheney suspended the Constitution via the imposition of Continuity of Government on 911. Congress has been denied access to the COG details. COG is martial law. http://prisonplanet.tv/alex_jones_live.html
Get lost you extremely small person. You call yourself Progressive?
Progressives and liberals are not intolerant. Your incivility defines your person better than I ever could.
I believe its quite evident who is full of hate here and is most certainly a crackpot who fails to bring any facts to his (or her) arguments.
.Errr, for one who claims tolerance you have repeatedly singled out Mr. More for your vituperative remarks. He may be wrong, and I believe he is in this matter if not in others as well, but that does not give you the right to demand his exile to elsewhere. I happen to appreciate his civility and debating style in the main and am much, much less so of your responses to him.
I doubt that you have any right to call anyone else rude.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"He may be wrong, and I believe he is in this matter if not in others as well, but that does not give you the right to demand his exile to elsewhere."
And yet you have the nerve to do just that to others who are just as civil as him just because they don't agree with you.
"I happen to appreciate his civility and debating style in the main and am much, much less so of your responses to him."
I don't see that in most of your responses to him. You're just as rude and condescending as peckinpah.
"I doubt that you have any right to call anyone else rude."
Neither you nor peckinpah have the right to call anyone rude and yet both of you do. Hypocrite.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
I have posted before in response to this argument. There was no need for an invasion of Japan. That seeming need is used by those who wish to legitimize the nuking of Japan.
BTW, American and other POWs died in those bombings. Not using nukes, not invading, would have saved American lives.
What never gets discussed is the possibility of a blockade, naval and air, of Japan in late 1945. Japan had no navy and no effective air force and was close to surrendering.
Using the simplistic dichotomy of invasion/nuking is misleading and self-serving.
Locust
The losses our Navy was taking would lead me to disagree that we could blockade them effectively into surrender without significant loss of life. It possibly could have worked with less loss of life than the Marines would have suffered though.
Could you really condemn your own men to death to save enemy lives? Lets say we would have lost 50,000 of our men instead of their 100,000? Please ask the Chinese if you plan to use the argument that it was a city of civilians.
"Japan had no navy and no effective air force and was close to surrendering."
Thery had enough navy left and sufficien numbers of planes. Most of their fighter aircraft were pulled back to the mainland just before the Iwo Jima landings. There were hundreds hidden in bunkers aside from those on airfields. when the 3rd went ashore.
There was certainly no demonstrable fact that the Japanese were trying to surrender. What proof of that did you see?
"Using the simplistic dichotomy of invasion/nuking is misleading and self-serving"
I would say there was nothing simplistic about it at all. Especially for the actual people involved. Perhaps its easier to make judgements on their actions now than then. Perhaps you kight consider the frame of the time.
In any case, I must now and always respectfully disagree because I would never agree to kill our troops in lieu of the enemy in this type of situation. And I repeat, there was not one shred of credible evidence that Japan was about to surrender. Tjhe length of time between the two bombs and their surrender should be a cklue if noything else.
.Planes with no fuel and guns with no ammo...Try harder ,Thomas.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
HEY ! Japan dropped the bombs on Pearl Harbor and we fight right back at them because they asked for it ! If we hadn't done our job back in 1945, we'd be speaking Japanese and comitting suicide like crazy by now !!
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Your problem here is that Germany was the agressor and so was Japan. I don't believe that is the same argument at all.
"If angry Muslims got hold of a "suitcase nuke" and blew up NY City with it, they could "justify" it with a similar argument."
Considering Iraq, if they were Iraqi, it would be a valid argument. But not just any
Muslim could use it.
"BTW -- there's nothing the slightest bit revisionist about the history of the fire-bombing of Tokyo."
Wasn't aware we were discussing that or that I'd said anything about it.
The problem with thinking like Dave Bronstein is that he asserts the Japanese were in the right. I don't believe so, there is no doubt in my mind my country was in the right in WW2. And there are a lot of mens relatives that agree with me.
If you insist the Japanese were right, can we have the money back we paid you for those Palm trees after the war?
.Nice assessment....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Translation, ardee and DaveBronstein are defending Nazi Germany and Japan against the US. Such pathetic anti-Americanism.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Sioux Rose
DAVE B: You may have defined the strategy of "the international chessboard" and the moves its pieces call for; but there is no mention of the Holocaust here? If your argument is valid that Germany had a right to move up on the board, where do the ends justify the means, down to the slaughter of millions fitting in?
OK let's pretend the fact (that I presume you refuse to allow because you went to school in the USA and read the approved history textbooks) that the Japanese were no longer able to defend themselves in August 1945 and were attempting to surrender was not a reality.
Don't you think an ultimatum coupled with demonstration somewhere over the Pacific with top Japanese officials in attendance of the destructive magnitude of the A-bomb, as well as sharing some of the documentation from the NM tests would not have persuaded the Imperial Japanese to unconditionally surrender without the need to obliterate two entire cities? Do you not think it would at least be worth a shot?
The USSR had just declared war on Japan, and were gearing up for an invasion themselves. The US used the A-bomb to put a quick end to the war, yes, but primarily to secure the spoils of Germany and Japan from the big communist bear, and put themselves in a strong bargaining position in the aftermath of the war.
Thomas More - it's time to start reading history from an objective perspective.
Thomas,
Baloney. The wanton killing of civilians, which the US has made a staple of its wars, is a violation of the law of war and the Geneva Conventions for any reason. There were other options in Japan than either a mass invasion or the incineration of Japanese civilians at Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Eric,
1. Closing the US military prison in Cuba is also just a beginning because the two hundred poor souls there are merely a fraction of the tens of thousands of untried civilians that the US holds in other prisons around the world, principally in Iraq and Afghanistan. What about them?
2. You are entirely correct in pointing that occupation resisters are not insurgents. From the DOD Dictionary: "insurgency: An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict." So according to the government's own definition it is the US military that are the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the resistance are counterinsurgents. But we already knew that the truth is nearly always opposite of what the government tells us, didn't we.
3. You are also correct in calling for an end to the "war on terror." Even Bush and Rumsfeld believed that it was a bogus term. This label is merely a cover for US aggression against defenseless third-world countries for power and profit.
Donald Bacon
I stated the lack of an offer to surrender above, some of the facts as to how they were preparing to resist the invasion, The possibility that a naval blockade migh possibly have succedded, but with high casualties also , but not near the 100,000 plus we would have taken. I back my estimate up with the fact that we lost 30,000 plus on Iwo Jima and anyone that knows anything at all about the military will know that a 100,000 based on that is conservative.
So I'll say I must disagree with the balony comment.
USer scum always have excuses for their evil.
Poor boob.
This is the most succinct and reasonable argument against the "Global War on Terror" that I have read in eight years.
Most Americans will not read it.
And most brainwashed Americans who will read it will neither understand nor accept it.
Well thank God someone read it. And most American's are brighter than you elite's know.
-- ending use of the propaganda terms, "terrorism," and "war on terror." --
Okay, so what should we call the US military effort started by Public Law 107-40, the AUMF that authorized the President to use military force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
Since the attackers all suicided, how about 'the war against the supporters of the attackers of 9/11'?
Oh, wait. The cross-border attack into Syria last year was aimed at 'foreign fighters linked to al-Qaeda', so how about 'the war against the supporters, and the supporters of the supporters, of the attackers of 9/11?
Would that be better?
Remember, Congress (in that execrable piece of legislation P.L. 107-40) wrote that the goal of the military was 'preventing future terrorism' by our announced enemies (al-Qaeda and the Taliban).
The UK may be refusing to use the words 'war on terror' anymore, but did they enact legislation using such words?
BTW, the US military awards 'The Global War on Terrorism Service Medal'.
Refusing to use the words 'war on terror' in any form only adds to the 'fog of war' which hides this insane and unwinnable military effort from the American people, but which the US government and military are actively waging.
Instead, we must bring this madness into the light of day in order to show that there cannot be victory in any effort to 'prevent future terrorism'.
Ignoring it won't make it go away.
locusts opines: "authorized the President to use military force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks?"
before you go running around killing millions of arabs why not have an investigation into 9/11 to determine who actually pulled that one off
if you want to kill bushco/nwo/rothschild bank after that then go ahead
then let's have a new and proper investigation into who smeared jfk's brains all over dealey plaza
they are the same culprits
cheers, b
"BTW, the US military awards 'The Global War on Terrorism Service Medal'."
Damn. I hope you are kidding. I've not heard of that nor do I know of the Marines awarding it.
Don't know what to call it, but its no War on Terror. You can't have a war on a loosely knit bunch of militant Muslims that aren't even agreed on the same reasons for fighting the west.
locust asks:
(Q) "Okay, so what should we call the US military effort started by Public Law 107-40, the AUMF that authorized the President to use military force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks?"
(A) criminal.
That wasn't criminal in and of itself. It was Bush annd Cheney's perversion of iot, their use of it to fulfill their criminal little ambitions. That is what was criminal.
Getting away from the dust-up a few of us have had with Thomas More about U.S. behavior in World War II. How about the main theme of Margolis that the Gitmo closing is "just a beginning" of a more enlightened Obama foreign policy? Well, the closing itself (and the companion forbidding of torture interrogations) was announced with Clintonesque "triangulations" that would please civil libertarians a little and the terrorists who promote the "war on terror" a little, but nobody completely. And the next proposed "steps" are mostly semantic (the way we talk about our foreign policy)and are well-taken, but scarcely a decent sprint off the starting block. There are two further "steps" that don't even begin to be addressed in anything Obama or his staff have said or done, and without which promised "changes" are merely cosmetic: I'd say lipstick on a pig if that phrase were not already pre-empted.
(1) Nobody in his administration has addressed any aspect of the need to control and down-size the huge stockpile of deadly armaments that are used not only in our own military operations and threats thereof, but by Israel currently and any number of our "allies" in the days ahead. (2) There is nothing beyond some long ago and far away campaign mutterings of Obama about "sitting down" with Hamas or Iranian leaders to engage in serious diplomatic effort to settle or avert military conflicts by the use of aggressive and creative diplomacy. Sending "special envoys" like Dennis Ross or George Mitchell to Middle Eastern trouble spots is obviously a cosmetic approach of appearing to deal with issues when in fact the U.S. will continue its drone bombs in Afghanistan and Pakistan, will continue to furnish whatever armaments Israel thinks it will need to blast the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank into near-extermination. These are the ones we have been waiting for, and nothing yet gives me any encouragement to believe that they are anywhere on the radar of the chicken-hawk "foreign policy" team that Obama has chosen to administer the next phase of the American Empire
Jerry D Rose
"Getting away from the dust-up a few of us have had with Thomas More about U.S. behavior in World War II"
Felt more like a flood Jerry!
1. You are probably right. Though I am opposed to the use of Nukes, I have come to the conclusion that its a waste of time to discuss getting rid of them. I don't believe any government thast has them is going to give them up. Not now, not later.
2. Though Obamas priority musty be our economy and our country, I am certain they will be talking to Iran and Syria about all this, They can, Bush couldn't. How sucessful thry will ge remains to be seen. But Hillary is a million more times likely to open real conversations and communications with the three behind Hamas than Sleeza ever was.
Who cares what happens to soldiers. They know what they face--better that they get blown to hell than innocent civilians or the ecology.
They are the problem- fools on both sides of a conflict who are willing to be maimed and killed for people behind desks. The only noble soldiers are the ones who refuse to fight.
Dropping a couple of nukes on cities killed every living thing--far more innocent victims than would have died if soldiers were killed in battle(and that's not to say carpet bombing Dresden was any better).
If you think soldiers are so wonderful and preserve our freedoms(instead of preventing people from protesting and killing them as happens in dictatorships) then get your ass over to a war zone and show us what you are made of.
Charles Lindbergh was criticized for saying jews controlled the media in the late 1930s and pushing for war with Germany, but after the war he criticized both german prisoner camps and also the looting and raping being done by US soldiers(which you NEVER hear about).
The idea that the US soldier was a bastion of nobility in battle was pure bullshit.
They are no better than any of the others.
The US government even used soldiers in atomic testing(when they were detonating a-bombs) with ships full of barnyard animals(who did not enlist). The soldiers were radioactive and laughing about it. No for long though.
Ten dollar bet that our resident war mongers wont be enlisting(or re-enlisting)
to fight the good fight along side american soldiers despite all the conflicts to choose from.
Here's an alternative, why not volunteer for some medical research experiment?
If soldiers are willing to die for ideology and oil why not be maimed or killed fighting cancer?
It might help spare some of those innocent lives(animals in labs or children in Africa) being tortured and killed.
Oh right right--soldiers lives are more precious than the innocent.
"To be humane is to be cruel, vicious and unrestrained, like humans.
To be inhumane is to be compassionate, restrained, moderate, like non humans."
>>Ask yourself this, if the Japanese were so eager to surrender as was claimed, why didn't they? Why was the other bomb dropped. The argument really makes no sense.
one could turn this around and ask you. If they were so willing to fight to the last man why did they surrender after two mombs dropped.
Again you IGNORE the facts that do not support your fallicous arguement. I have posted this many times and you just ignore it.
>> As a result of the Russians' meticulous planning and
bold offensive plan, they took 594,000 Japanese prisoners
including 143 generals and 20,000 wounded. The Kwangtung
Army suffered over 80,000 men and officers killed in combat
which lasted less than two weeks. In contrast, the well-
prepared Soviet Army had 8,219 killed and 22,264 wounded.
[13-175]
Were the Soviets just THAT much better then US forces? At the loss of 8200 dead they took 600,000 priosoners and killed 80,0000 Japanese?
BTW they also Invaded what were part of the Japanese Home Islands in the Kuriles and Sakhalain suffereing almost no losses and forcing the surrender of all japanese forces there.
So why were these fanatical JAPANESE not fighting to the last man? Why the MASS surrender?
How did the Russians manage to kill 80,0000 LOSE 8200 and take 600,0000 prisoners?
Was it because of allt he Nukes they were dropping?