They will never be fogotten

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jacarandoso]In a pragmatic sense we were at war with Japan and they were at war with us prior to Pearl Harbor.

They were acting boldly against our interests.Embargoes were in place.
Any peace was extremely tenuous and the US was preparing war.We were aiding and abetting the enemies of her allies, in what was already a “world” conflagration.

The US had acted “imperially” in the the previous decades and had ramped up mobilization for war at least as early as 1939. We had not been sitting around eating apple pies and playing baseball. Everyone with the need to know anticipated a “sneak attack”…was certain of one, but expected it to be more of a proxy nature or at least not be as devastating as pearl harbor.[/quote]

Russ: Sorry, but none of this stands up to scrutiny. Japan was not acting against our interests, they were pushing an openly militaristic, hegemonic approach (exemplified by the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”) and had war plans in place regarding what they called the “ABCD powers” (America, Britain, China and the Dutch). Japan recognized that, in order to assert this hegemony, she’d need access to significant amounts of raw materiel, as well as additional industrial capacity and capability. To that end, she began a policy of bullying her immediate neighbors, such as China, as early as 1915. In point of fact, the Russo-Japanese War (1904 – 1905) can be successfully argued as a first attempt on the part of the Japanese to assert dominance over a (quasi) Western power, Russia. At no point did Japan consider using peaceful means to acquire this materiel and capacity and instead focused on taking it by force. As far as Pearl Harbor went, US Naval Intelligence was indeed aware that Japan had targeted the facility, but thought it more likely that Japan would seize the oil facilities in the Dutch East Indies first (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_Indies_campaign).

Further, the “mobilization” for war in 1939 was no such thing. Contingency planning was underway and a full-scale mobilization had been discussed in 1940 (including joint planning with Great Britain), but nothing significant had been implemented (and largely because FDR did NOT want to be seen as getting America involved in another European war) and the US, especially the US Army and US Army Air Corps, was not only woefully unprepared, but woefully undersized and ill-equipped (when compared to the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe, for instance) when America finally did enter the war.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jacarandoso]I didn’t realize how much you and Che agree, Allan… not until you mentioned the philosophical point about having to fight sometimes. Sometimes you just are out riding your moped around and it hits you.

Also, thanks for pointing out that you don’t respond on points you agree.I thought you had me on “ignore”.Instead, we’re just really having a meeting of the minds.[/quote]

Russ: Now, when have I ever ignored you? No, its simply that you, me and Che are generally so solidly in accord that there is no point in verbalizing it. We’re simpatico, man.

[Arraya]

[quote=walterwhite]When you act w reckless disregard for human life, you act intentionally.[/quote]

Actually 100,000 is on the very low end that goes up a magnitude of order more which also multiplies by a factor of 5 if you include seriously injured. Do you think all those families with lost loved ones, jobs, homes and critical infrastructure(electricity and water) are sitting around saying “Well, they didn’t intentionally do it.” Collateral damage is scholarly sounding name for oops sorry – which is supposed to make it all better and absolve guilt.

[scaredyclassic]

It might be slightly mitigated if we had some Tiny fucking reason to be there. But there is absolutely zero. Nothing. Utterly and completely meaningless. Devoid of even the most remote legitimate purpose any can fathom.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Arraya][quote=walterwhite]When you act w reckless disregard for human life, you act intentionally.[/quote]

Actually 100,000 is on the very low end that goes up a magnitude of order more which also multiplies by a factor of 5 if you include seriously injured. Do you think all those families with lost loved ones, jobs, homes and critical infrastructure(electricity and water) are sitting around saying “Well, they didn’t intentionally do it.” Collateral damage is scholarly sounding name for oops sorry – which is supposed to make it all better and absolve guilt.[/quote]
Guys, are you aware how careful we are in Afghanistan nowadays? How much analysis goes on before a bomb or missile or drone strike? How confirmation is required before shooting?

Just because you postulate that there are slobbering barbarians at the controls doesn’t make it so.

In Afghanistan, I believe NGOs have concluded something like 90% of the civilian deaths have been caused by Taliban and AQ.

In Iraq, are you saying *we* have killed 100,000 *civilians* and seriously injured 500,000? Can you back that up from a credible source?

[Veritas]

I am sure Patton is rolling over in his grave!

[scaredyclassic]

Without the war there would be zero war related deaths.

So if you go into a crowded casino with a shotgun and start shhoting the place up, and some guys start shooting back at you but hit some slots players who should get the bill for the deaths?

[NotCranky]

Chevere, Boludo!

[KSMountain]

[quote=walterwhite]Without the war there would be zero war related deaths.

So if you go into a crowded casino with a shotgun and start shhoting the place up, and some guys start shooting back at you but hit some slots players who should get the bill for the deaths?[/quote]

If the casino is also a fire hazard and a center of drug dealing and other criminality – and you lived nearby – would you want the police and fire department to clean the place up? Would you be satisfied if the mayor and police chief said, “well, we’d like to clean it up but someone might get hurt”…

I’m not saying I’m a fan of the Iraq war or any war. But just hoping that bad people will be nice if you’re nice has not proven to be a viable strategy historically. It would be so nice if the world worked that way, it really would. But you have to face that not everyone is as nice as you. Some are criminals. Some are opportunists. Ignoring them does not make them go away. Leading by example of niceness, does not make them nicer. On the contrary, left alone, they get stronger and ultimately it becomes a problem you have to deal with.

[Arraya]

[quote=KSMountain]

In Iraq, are you saying *we* have killed 100,000 *civilians* and seriously injured 500,000? Can you back that up from a credible source?[/quote]

Does it matter? They were unintentional. And if OBL was going for civilian body count he could have done a myriad of other things. Maybe he was just going after financial and military targets and all civilian killed were unintentional? After all he did hit the towers early in the morning and the side of the Pentagon that was going through renovation. Either way, he was not going for civilian body count. He could have easily hit the Indian point nuclear power plant and done much more damage. Or a sports stadium

Noam Chomsky

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

There’s more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the “Bush doctrine” that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and murder of its criminal president.

Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It’s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy.”

[NotCranky]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Jacarandoso]In a pragmatic sense we were at war with Japan and they were at war with us prior to Pearl Harbor.

They were acting boldly against our interests.Embargoes were in place.
Any peace was extremely tenuous and the US was preparing war.We were aiding and abetting the enemies of her allies, in what was already a “world” conflagration.

The US had acted “imperially” in the the previous decades and had ramped up mobilization for war at least as early as 1939. We had not been sitting around eating apple pies and playing baseball. Everyone with the need to know anticipated a “sneak attack”…was certain of one, but expected it to be more of a proxy nature or at least not be as devastating as pearl harbor.[/quote]

Russ: Sorry, but none of this stands up to scrutiny. Japan was not acting against our interests, they were pushing an openly militaristic, hegemonic approach (exemplified by the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”) and had war plans in place regarding what they called the “ABCD powers” (America, Britain, China and the Dutch). Japan recognized that, in order to assert this hegemony, she’d need access to significant amounts of raw materiel, as well as additional industrial capacity and capability. To that end, she began a policy of bullying her immediate neighbors, such as China, as early as 1915. In point of fact, the Russo-Japanese War (1904 – 1905) can be successfully argued as a first attempt on the part of the Japanese to assert dominance over a (quasi) Western power, Russia. At no point did Japan consider using peaceful means to acquire this materiel and capacity and instead focused on taking it by force. As far as Pearl Harbor went, US Naval Intelligence was indeed aware that Japan had targeted the facility, but thought it more likely that Japan would seize the oil facilities in the Dutch East Indies first (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_Indies_campaign).

Further, the “mobilization” for war in 1939 was no such thing. Contingency planning was underway and a full-scale mobilization had been discussed in 1940 (including joint planning with Great Britain), but nothing significant had been implemented (and largely because FDR did NOT want to be seen as getting America involved in another European war) and the US, especially the US Army and US Army Air Corps, was not only woefully unprepared, but woefully undersized and ill-equipped (when compared to the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe, for instance) when America finally did enter the war.[/quote]

I think you don’t mean to say that “none” of what I said stands to scrutiny? Conflict=war?

In the decades preceding the war the U.S. was not imperialistic, or hegemonic, if you prefer?

O.k, so Japan was going way beyond acting against our interests on the basis of what you posted, so we agree on that point too.In agreeing with me,you did not mentioned threatened impacts to our shipping, including the the worlds greatest navy.
Germany would have benefited greatly if Japan was able to interfere.

We embargoed against this hegemony in large part because of the war in Europe. Somewhere around this time assets were mutually frozen. Ultimatums were offered by the U.S. Japanese rejection signified war to anyone with the need to know.

Prior to Pearl Harbor there were not only contingency plans. There were multiple parties agitating for full entrance into the war. The Japanese surely new of it. U.S aircraft manufacturing was being dramatically increased before pearl harbor. You had the munitions program of 1940. While one could say that all this was defensive, it is subject to political persuasion or propaganda.In my opion it is “official story narrative”. In context it was a war activity. I do,however,agree with the “woefully unprepared” problem. I don’t agree that it changes the fact that we were tacitly,without declaration, in the war.

[scaredyclassic]

True; assholes must die. probably should go into every country that’s kind of shitty and knock some heads. Let’s start with Pakistan for hiding obl. Let’s go bomb the shit out of them. Obl is kind of a WMD; we found him; that country should be subject to us control, right. If a few hundred thousands pakistanis die, well, don’t hide terrorists in your country.

[NotCranky]

[quote=walterwhite]True; assholes must die. probably should go into every country that’s kind of shitty and knock some heads. Let’s start with Pakistan for hiding obl. Let’s go bomb the shit out of them. Obl is kind of a WMD; we found him; that country should be subject to us control, right. If a few hundred thousands pakistanis die, well, don’t hide terrorists in your country.[/quote]
Be careful what you ask for.

[briansd1]

[quote=walterwhite]It might be slightly mitigated if we had some Tiny fucking reason to be there. But there is absolutely zero. Nothing. Utterly and completely meaningless. Devoid of even the most remote legitimate purpose any can fathom.[/quote]

What did the wars bring us? They cost us trillions and thousands of American lives. Forget the local lives.

They aren’t worth the money and the Americans lives.

For what? Just to enrich the military industrial complex.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Russ: I think we’re arguing a distinction without difference at this point. My question to pri actually centered around the Lend-Lease Program (which is much of the reason for the increased manufacturing and munitions you spoke of). There is no doubt in my mind that FDR knew we would be embroiled in the war at some point, so I’m completely in accord with the “tacit” part of your argument.

Where I strongly disagree (and this isn’t pointed at you) is with the notion that we “bullied” Japan into war with the US. Complete nonsense. As to the imperialism argument: No argument from me there, either. Whether we’re talking about the “Banana Wars” or the Philippines or South America, the US certainly was strongly protecting and, in many cases, enforcing US business interests.

Good old Smedley Butler again. My favorite Marine.

[Author]

Posts