Vice President in hiding, to be jailed as "terrorist" by his political enemies. Good thing that sort of thing could never happen here.

12/22/2011 10:14:35 PM

Here he wouldn't be jailed. He'd be indefinitely detained.

12/22/2011 10:16:34 PM

Iraqi government has seized(socialized) Exxon oil operations in the country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/business/energy-environment/exxon-mobil-and-iraq-clash-over-payment.html

12/22/2011 10:50:19 PM

Your thread got locked.





Feds did it.

12/22/2011 11:00:21 PM

This was gonna happen when we left, regardless of when it was. Now, instead of Iraq being a regional counter balance to Iran, they will be under their direct influence.

Nation building! Freedom spreading!

12/23/2011 11:37:49 AM

Quote :

"Now, instead of Iraq being a regional counter balance to Iran"

Did anyone seriously believe that this would come to fruition? Hell, half the country has been a de facto proxy of Iran for a number of the last years when we were still there.

12/23/2011 11:49:01 AM

^^i'm with him. i say let them kill themselves and war themselves to death endlessly. why should we be involved

0% trolling
0% sarcasm

[Edited on December 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM. Reason : ,]

12/23/2011 11:50:12 AM

Quote :

"let them kill themselves and war themselves to death endlessly"

This.

Although, they'll get tired of that sooner or later, and they'll look to the rest of the world and see that, hey, endless fighting actually isn't necessary. Once we're out of their hair, they've got a lot more reason to put aside their differences and just live.

12/23/2011 12:02:02 PM

^^ 100% agreed. Ron Paul

12/23/2011 12:44:59 PM

but if they DO try to fuck with us i say we drop the hammer. no more bullshit police invasions.

bring them to their fucking knees begging for us to stop.

12/23/2011 1:10:42 PM

Quote :

"but if they DO try to fuck with us i say we drop the hammer. no more bullshit police invasions. bring them to their fucking knees begging for us to stop."

This will never happen again in an American war, because of the liberalization of America and the new found social engineering of the military. You will never see the hammer fall again, grab some WWII documentaries because thats as close as you will get. When you have moron liberals today who consider us war criminals for using the atomic bombs on Japan, there is no hope ever again to see us drop the proverbial hammer. I love how historical context loses all relevance to a liberals argument when it does not support their preconceived notion.

12/23/2011 2:41:19 PM

It won't happen again because firebombing Tokyo and other civilian cities was the downright shittiest thing any humans have ever done to other people in a single moment. It was also not particularly effective, as I think most historians credit the ultimate surrender to the Soviet declaration of war. If you want blood go pick a fight in a bar and leave matters of importance to the adults.



[Edited on December 23, 2011 at 2:53 PM. Reason : .]

12/23/2011 2:49:04 PM

Yeah, a lot of atrocities were committed by every side during WWII, especially Germany, Japan and USSR...whats your point. Killing people is bad, no one is saying its good but there is a lot of historical context in WWII that had effects on the tactics. It was also the last war we truly fought to win, as well as the last "total war".

[Edited on December 23, 2011 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

12/23/2011 2:59:49 PM

Total atomic bombs used on civilian populations in the history of Earth:

United States: 2
The rest of the world: 0

...and we're the ones that have gone to war with/sanctioned countries that attempt to develop nuclear power for themselves. How shameful.

12/23/2011 3:01:13 PM

Ignoring the historical context, thank you for making my point. Ya know d357r0y3r, sometimes you make excellent points and Im in total agreement, but then you sometimes say things that are just academically dishonest of the facts.

Its easy to say "we used atomic bombs, therefore we are bad" without going into the context. Thats like saying someone is bad for killing a person and ignoring the fact that the person killed had broken into the mans house and threatened his family. When you take away all context, it is a dishonest argument.

[Edited on December 23, 2011 at 3:09 PM. Reason : .]

12/23/2011 3:03:53 PM

Japan posed essentially no threat to the United States mainland by that point(if ever). Massive benefits to China and other oppressed peoples aside, it's hard to justify total war when your own populace is safe at home.

[Edited on December 23, 2011 at 3:17 PM. Reason : it's hard to justify total war when your own populace is safe at home.]

12/23/2011 3:14:44 PM

I understand the historical context. There's some evidence that the leaders of Japan were already looking to surrender when we dropped the first bomb.

It's absolutely ridiculous that the United States issued an ultimatum that we'd drop a fucking nuclear bomb on their citizens if they didn't surrender unconditionally. That was not reasonable. Perhaps Truman didn't know how much damage would really be caused.

I don't pledge allegiance to the United States, so it doesn't pain me to say that it has done some fucked up things. Japan did (and condoned) some detestable acts in WWII too, but I can never condone the wholesale slaughter of civilians. I don't think the use of nuclear weapons against civilians can be justified.

It's easy enough to play armchair quarterback here, but I don't think that it's at all "settled" that one (much less two) nuclear bombings were necessary.

Admiral Leahy, who was Chief of Staff to Roosevelt and Truman, put it succinctly:

Quote :

"It is my opinion that the use of the 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 was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

Was Hiroshima necessary? http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

[Edited on December 23, 2011 at 3:20 PM. Reason : ]

12/23/2011 3:15:28 PM

Im not denying the past sins of this country, nor am I saying it was a good thing, Im simply saying things must be looked at in the proper context. The casualty figures for an invasion were staggering, for not only US troops but also Japanese soldiers and civilians. Seeing as how the war in Europe ended in May, by July 1945 Truman was looking for a quick and expedient way to totally end the war. Ripping the band aid off fast so to speak, instead of a long dragged out invasion occupation of Japan. One could make the comparison to Iraq, thus bringing the thread topic back in play, that Truman (who had just taken over after FDR died earlier in the year) was looking to help himself politically by ending the war quick. When his advisors told him the bombs were ready, he had a choice I would never want to make. You are right, some in Japanese leadership wanted to surrender after the battle of Okinawa, but the die hard military leaders who ran the country (Emperor was a figurehead) were prepared to commit national suicide rather than surrender. The bushido code was still very strong in Japan, never surrender. So it was either use the bombs, invade and have a huge occupation and guerrilla war with casualties in the millions, or not invade but have a state of perpetual war with Japan. The people here were ready for the war to be over, troop morale was low for the guys who survived Europe and were going to be shipped to the Pacific, and Truman had two shitty options to end the war. That is the historical context.



I wrote my history thesis on this topic BTW, I did a lot of research as objectively as I could

Hell after the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki, when the Emperor himself said it was over, he made a taped radio address to the country announcing the surrender, and still some fanatical military leaders wanted to destroy the tape and keep fighting, there was a failed coup.




[Edited on December 23, 2011 at 3:41 PM. Reason : .]

12/23/2011 3:29:26 PM

It would have been fiscally irresponsible to NOT use the bomb after diverting so much money and
personnel from the war effort to develop it. Isn't that some shit?

There were other options though, stringent blockades for one. All of them prolonged and unpleasant, but not necessarily as bloody for civilians. I like to think that in the long run fanaticism subsides when the practical needs of the populace demand attention. Maybe that's true. Perhaps not.

By the way, I just trolled you from "liberal morons" to rational discussion in two posts.

[Edited on December 23, 2011 at 4:02 PM. Reason : .]

12/23/2011 3:46:48 PM

I always post rational discussion points , but I will give you your props. I think I was mainly arguing with my boy d357r0y3r though....but well done

Quote :

"There were other options though, stringent blockades for one. All of them prolonged and unpleasant"

The Japanese Navy was crushed after The Phillipines, however they still had a lot of airplanes in reserve for an invasion defense. Unlike the Germans who lost all their experienced pilots and were sending rookies into combat against bomber formations, the Japanese could easily send rookie pilots on kamikaze missions...so long as they could take off. The battle of Okinawa showed that kamikazes could have a brutal effect, so a prolonged blockade would have still had risks despite our blatant air superiority at that point. Also, the simple fact of war weariness at home was a huge factor to end the war quickly.

[Edited on December 23, 2011 at 4:24 PM. Reason : .]

12/23/2011 4:03:50 PM

Quote :

"but I can never condone the wholesale slaughter of civilians. I don't think the use of nuclear weapons against civilians can be justified"

WWII was total war on all sides. I don't really see what makes nuclear attack any worse than the firebombing of various cities or sieges laid which caused the deaths of HUGE numbers of civilians. I don't really have a problem with Hiroshima in the sense that it wasn't any worse than plenty of other things in that war.

Nagasaki would be arguable. I think it's pretty clear that a big factor in nuking them a 2nd time without more delay was that the USSR had declared war on Japan (in between the two nuclear attacks), and with the war won and both sides seeing the Cold War writing on the wall, we weren't about to let the Soviets have a hand in shaping postwar Japan, having a North Japan and a South Japan. We wanted that shit over before any Soviet troops got that far.

[Edited on December 23, 2011 at 6:13 PM. Reason : ]

12/23/2011 5:43:51 PM

another valid point

12/23/2011 5:59:32 PM

nothing new, as i predicted ages ago.

arabs are not japanese, neither are they germans.

among arabs you have shia, sunni, kurds, christians, and many other smaller tribal/religious sects. THEY ALL HATE EACH OTHER, especially the shias and sunnis.

any country which has at least 10-20% shias, or majority shias but sunni rulers, will see strife, pretty much forever. examples: iraq, bahrain, pakistan, saudi arabia. there is nothing the US or any other Western country can do about it.

of course, this is aside from the generally anti-democratic and anti-freedom stance of pretty much any arabs in power, as i have posted about recently in a few detailed posts. in any arab muslim country, EVEN if it has so-called democracy (iraq, tunisia, egypt, libya), there are 3 perpetual truths/facts of life:

1) no true freedom of thought, expression, or action.
2) women always come a distant second.
3) massive corruption/nepotism, and disgusting bureaucracy.

look at egypt right now... the army is sexually humiliating and assaulting women in the streets, in broad daylight. forced virginity tests, stripping of clothes, beatings, etc. it is a disgrace.

I AM FUCKING SICK OF LIVING HERE.

the only reasons wife and i are staying is huge money-saving potential, and familiarity with the place. but we have decided, we want to save as much as we can for the next 2-3 years, and get the fuck out of this brain-killing place.


[Edited on December 23, 2011 at 9:20 PM. Reason : ]

12/23/2011 9:11:27 PM

Unfortunately I'm afraid you're probably right on all that. I don't think that Iraq will mature in a Western image. Hopefully the pieces will settle in a fashion acceptable to its people and the civilized world.

12/23/2011 9:15:50 PM

post edited

12/23/2011 9:21:43 PM

smc,

hahahahahahahahaha
so you drop bombs on pearl harbor on a sunday morning and expect us to sit back and do nothing.

wow what kind of degenerate human being actually operates in the world with that logic. you'd probably let somebody spit in your gf's face and tell her to suck it up 'be the better person' pfffft.

enjoy life bro, and keep ignoring the outright endless killing sprees going on in africa that currently make ww2 look like a 'gentlemans war'

12/23/2011 10:10:06 PM

hey look, a surprisingly rational conversation in soap box and pack bryan comes in to the rescue

12/23/2011 10:14:22 PM

12/23/2011 10:15:30 PM

spoiler alert

12/23/2011 10:19:39 PM

OEPII1 continue ... that was a good read....

12/23/2011 10:29:08 PM

All of you are stupid. Japan started it with the attacks at Pearl Harbor, and the US ended with epic pwnage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

12/26/2011 4:16:09 PM

Evil White Empire America

12/27/2011 11:09:24 AM

I don't think there's any doubt that some soldiers have done good or heroic things, just like cops.

The overall problem is policy. Soldiers and police simply carry out those policies, with various degrees of integrity.

12/27/2011 11:18:35 AM

Peace embracing and equal rights protecting Iran

12/27/2011 11:28:18 AM

Quote :

"THEY ALL HATE EACH OTHER"

Actually a lot of them are fairly secular and live in diverse neighborhoods where violence is uncommon and cultural sharing occurs.

12/30/2011 7:37:17 PM

I find it a little bizarre that people talk about the atomic bombings as if:

a) they were different from the ethical standard we set with fire bombings
b) WWII was not an improvement from the enemy treatment in past major wars

However much it should have been non-obvious to use the bomb, the behavior was predictable. If you have a dog that bites every time he sees you, then you have a predictable behavior. The US had already been practicing a war philosophy of "fight Japan until there's no Japan left" if need be. It's not right, but think about all of the past wars where one side would have literally destroyed the other warring nation given the technology to do so (surrender or not).

The Marshal Plan basically created the world we live in today. It ended war between the superpowers, and that single change was basically the foundation for every fucking thing about the modern world. And you know what, this probably wouldn't have happened if the US had been hit hard on the mainland. We behave like animals until we have the luxury to do otherwise. Real history isn't a story of individuals, it's a story of economics and evolution.

We would use nuclear weapons again if we felt threatened. This is why affluence is now a requisite for existence of the human race.

12/30/2011 8:21:59 PM

I find it bizarre that you're trying to justify the nuclear bombing of civilians by saying "well, it used to be worse!"

12/31/2011 1:25:58 AM

I find it bizarre that you're trying to justify the nuclear bombing of civilians by saying "well, it used to be worse!" and "look, the modern world today wouldn't be so modern had we not nuclear bombed civilians!"

12/31/2011 6:44:22 AM

I find it bizarre that you would rather enable those ruthless leaders and nations to continue their invasions and genocide when you have the option to end the most devastating conflict in earths history in a single day instead of drag it out for 2 or 3 more years with losses in the hundreds of thousands on your side starring you in the face.

But yeh, to each his own logic. I'm just glad history, and a huge majority of the world agrees with me and not the fanatic viewpoints of a few post grad schoolboys.

12/31/2011 9:49:35 AM

^^^ didn't do
^^ didn't do

You're showing a poor level of reading comprehension. Neither the a) or b) points were justifying the action. Check yo self!

While you were caught up in what that post didn't say, you also lost the central point, that affluence and technology are needed to continue the comparatively pacifist state of the world, which both a&b are needed for. This is quite a point to miss, particularly when so caught up with the moral grounds for the use of nuclear weapons. So concerned you are about the justification of a past action, and so ambivalent about applying the lessons to prevent it happening in the future.

Our leaders will behave mechanically when given certain political and military circumstances. They hold their position with mantra of protecting their constituents, and as such, will take the suboptimal utilitarian moral outcome. There is no moral justification for the sacrifice of 10,000 Iraqi or Japanese to save 1 American. That is moral relativism. They were not hired to do the ethical thing, and they behaved exactly as anyone should have predicted.

12/31/2011 3:02:50 PM

Maybe you should make your points clearer? I still have no idea what you're trying to say.

12/31/2011 3:26:10 PM

Japan was on the brink of surrender anyway. We were completely heavy handed with the nukes.

The war was clearly already ending and the use of the weapons had a lot more to do with posturing to become the most feared nation in the world than ending the war. We had to show the soviets and everyone else what kind of new destruction we were capable of.

Although this was a terrrible and inhumane incident, without the nuking in Japan, somebody, somehwere would have used them down the road. Its hard to envision a world with wars and nuclear weapons and one never ever being used. One had to be used so we could see how bad they were.

From a technology perspective, the sooner that happened the better, because if it happened a decade or two later, it would've been fusion bombs killiing millions instead of a few hundred thousand.

12/31/2011 3:31:27 PM

They say the first bomb ended the war with Japan and the 2nd bomb started the war with the Soviet Union.

There are some interesting historical perspectives you can find. For instance, it's not clear that there ever was a window during which the leaders of Japan actually had an opportunity to surrender knowing that the 1st bomb was dropped and preventing the 2nd bomb from being dropped.

The Trinity test was only about 1/3rd the power of those anyway. Everything that the US did was consistent with the objective of fucking up Japan as fast as technically feasible. That is my point.

No culture, however, excuses from an individual from making an immoral decision. We can say that our leader failed to rise above the maximum damage way of thinking at a time when they should have. It doesn't mean I would have made a better decision in that situation or that Truman was an evil man, but it does mean that it is our moral responsibility to create a culture of peace just as much as it is to make peaceful decisions.

12/31/2011 4:08:23 PM

Quote :

"We were completely heavy handed with the nukes."

i agree. we could've afforded another 50k-100k losses in a ground invasion. why would ever think to end it in 1 single instance? pure utter nonsense

also, yeh it was purely for posturing. lol

good thing your opinions and inaccurate representations of history represent 0% statistically of the normal human population. but you are free to express it

12/31/2011 4:09:01 PM

I'm pretty sure a lot more than 50k innocents were killed in the nukes and they weren't just killed many were made to suffer a long lingering death.

The normal human population are sheep who also believe Christopher Columbus "discovered" "America" and sang kumbaya with "indians".

12/31/2011 5:26:08 PM

i get the feeling people aren't reading the posts they're responding to ITT

12/31/2011 6:07:03 PM

^^ if I recall, Hiroshima was about 100k; Nagasaki was significantly less. The incendiary raid on Tokyo was >100k.

Quote :

"They say the first bomb ended the war with Japan and the 2nd bomb started the war with the Soviet Union."

Pretty much. The first one was for Japan. The second one was for Japan and the Soviets...had the USSR not declared war on Japan and started advancing in that direction, we prob would have been less hasty about Nagasaki.

Of course, when you start a war with someone, set a precedent of fighting to the bitter end (Tarawa, for example, was defended by thousands of Japanese; I think the Marines killed all but 15-20 of them...they wouldn't surrender), well, what other response from us could have reasonably been expected, aside from maybe waiting a little longer before the 2nd one (a course that I would call arguable at best).

12/31/2011 7:33:41 PM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure a lot more than 50k innocents were killed in the nukes and they weren't just killed many were made to suffer a long lingering death. The normal human population are sheep who also believe Christopher Columbus "discovered" "America" and sang kumbaya with "indians"."

how many american soldiers lives should we have spent in your opinion in a ground invasion to force japans surrender?

how many japanese lives would have been spared during the event of a ground invastion? are you misinformed so much that you forgot even women and children were trained with weapons and preparing for an invasion?

has that fact magically slipped your mind? we understand that american soldiers lives are not a priority in your book. your priority is only your own mind and it's miseducated opinions.

1/2/2012 2:40:37 PM

The idea of "Total War" is no longer okay.

1/3/2012 9:11:38 AM

anyone who knows anything about operation downfall would know that the atomic bombs were merciful, if anything.

1/3/2012 9:21:00 AM