It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Hypocrisy.

page: 14
80
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





You do realize that the current wars in the middle east are being fought by Coalition forces and not by the US military alone. Right?



Yes, apart from the British they are generally token forces used to try and give some kind of legitimacy to what essentially is and always has been a US led war.

I'm sure you'll respond with lists and statistics of the number of forces that other countries have stationed in the region. For example such military powerhouses as Poland or Georgia, but you know, I don't hear about Australian or French drones blowing the *beep* out of people or Italian troops committing war crimes.
edit on 28/9/12 by Kram09 because: typos




posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





it is the United Nations Security Council that bears the load of the guilt.


No it's not. The United Nations is only invoked when it suits the United States. The rest of the time it is ignored and treated with contempt.

The UN is flawed and needs to be reformed. As the US is the country which has the most political influence in the world it should be a leader in this regard, but as we all know it won't do anything. It will continue to abuse the use of it's veto along with the other four permanent members of the Security Council.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Kram09
 



Originally posted by Kram09

Yes, apart from the British they are generally token forces used to try and give some kind of legitimacy to what essentially is and always has been a US led war.

I'm sure you'll respond with lists and statistics of the number of forces that other countries have stationed in the region. For example such military powerhouses as Poland or Georgia, but you know, I don't hear about Australian or French drones blowing the *beep* out of people or Italian troops committing war crimes.
edit on 28/9/12 by Kram09 because: typos


It is the last paragraph here that gives me pause to even bother responding because it reads to me as if you're saying "And I'm sure you'll reply with facts and evidence, but they will be ignored because they don't match my personal opinion."

Are you inferring that the United States has a monopoly on warfare?
Are you inferring that any other nation that engages in warfare is simply doing so out of cronyism to the US?
Are you inferring that only American soldiers engage in wartime activities that generate controversy or that might, one day, qualify for war crimes?

Here is a list of the FIFTY NINE nations that have participated thus far.... You'll notice countries like the UK, China, the UAE and Russia, just to name a few... So playing it off like it's the US and a few tiny nations is very insincere and factually inaccurate.

~Heff



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Kram09
 


You've made some compelling statements about the US and the UN. Can you prove any of them? Opinions are great and I heartily admit that you are more than welcome to have yours. I'll also defend and support your right to have opinions. But I will take exception if they are presented as fact.

~Heff



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by Hefficide
 





it is the United Nations Security Council that bears the load of the guilt.


No it's not. The United Nations is only invoked when it suits the United States. The rest of the time it is ignored and treated with contempt.

The UN is flawed and needs to be reformed. As the US is the country which has the most political influence in the world it should be a leader in this regard, but as we all know it won't do anything. It will continue to abuse the use of it's veto along with the other four permanent members of the Security Council.


I thought we wanted the US out of international affairs and to stop sticking it's nose in where it does not belong Or do some guys have no problem with US interventionism as long as they agree with the interventions.
edit on 28-9-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

The concept of wanting to send a message to Russia at that point in time is feasible, but I do not see it as primary. Russia was still busy divvying up their newly won lands in the west, from the smoldering remains of the Third Reich and Russia has little concern for the Japanese military threat. China, on the other hand, was very much opinionated about Japan, as the earliest engagements included the Japanese attacks on mainland China. Japanese soldiers had taken an entire province of China by abuse of a treaty that allowed Japanese military to patrol Chinese rail lines.


Yes and no...what we were really worried about in the Pacific was the Russians acting through the Chinese. Yes...the Chinese were a concern due to their vast numbers and close proximity...but in the grand scheme of things we were far more worried about the Russians at the end of the War and they were in a dead heat w/ us in a race to develop the atom bomb.


Did Truman want to show the world a new paradigm by exploding a "world ending weapon"? I do not know because that's a topic that relies upon speculation about the man himself. As far as I know, no such letter or document has surfaced, as of yet, to support that idea.

There are documents referenced in the previously cited scholarly works that seem to allude to this...hence the reason that the vast majority of professional historians have concluded that this was likely the motivation. True enough...there hasn't been a "smoking gun" unveiled with Truman stating in no uncertain terms that he was going to teach those Ruskies a thing or two...but the declassified documents do seem to indicate that was the primary motivation...ESPECIALLY for the bombing of Nagasaki a couple days later.



I do know that Nimitz, and others, did feel that an invasion of Japan would prolong the war by several years and would cost millions of lives.

~Heff


Sure...but it's a false dichotomy. It implies that it was NECESSARY to invade Japan. What for? What are they going to do...swim out to our aircraft carriers and try to tip them over like canoes? They had no navy, no airforce, ZERO means of rebuilding one and no allies left in the entire world. If we were interested in preserving lives...US or otherwise...A handful of ships could have enforced an blockade which would have ensured that Japanese don't even go out fishing until they surrender.

Oh...wait...they tried surrendering time and time again for 7 months previous to dropping the bomb on them...and before invading Okinawa as well, for that matter.

That's my whole point. This myth of "it would have cost us millions of lives to invade Japan" sure SOUNDS good...but it's 100% propaganda. We now know that the Japanese were even pounding on the doors of the Catholic Church and trying to get them to intercede on their behalf since at least January 17th, 1945 because the US CONTINUED TO SACRIFICE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN LIVES LONG AFTER THE JAPANESE TOLD US THEY WERE READY TO GIVE UP. Those conclusions were formed by historians from the statements made by Truman, Nimitz, MacArthur, Dulles, and a few others. However...when the documents which illustrated that this was a lie were finally declassified...the general consensus of historians HAS CHANGED BASED UPON THE NEW EVIDENCE.

See how hard it is to change the myth once it's been ingrained in everyone's head? I've said the same thing about four or five times now, provided a host journal articles from professional military historians and nuclear scientists, and even the CIA's own website which ALL SUPPORT exactly what I've been saying...and you still refuse to believe what is plainly in front of you.

Why do you think all those documents were classified for so long? Because once the myth gains traction...it's almost impossible for people to accept that they've been wrong all these years. Again...not necessarily any fault of your own...every historian in the world believed the "official" story until the mid-80's. However, there is a reason why almost no historians continue to think that this was the justification for detonating the nukes in Japan....it's because the documents indicate that (gasp!) the government lied to all of us peasants again.

Go figure, huh?
edit on 28-9-2012 by milominderbinder because: formatting

edit on 28-9-2012 by milominderbinder because: formatting



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by yuppa

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by yuppa
 


Do you recall the IRA providing evacuation warnings to the British Police too? That they failed to act upon in order to label them "Terrorists"?

PLEASE START ANOTHER THREAD IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS IRELAND.


Well that sure was neighborly of them to call ahead. Would have been better if they would have not done it in the first place right? And you are reaching with They ignored the warnings to label the IRA as terrorist. The IRA did a fine job of that itself with no help at all. And the IRA is NOT IRELAND,but I started a new thread anyway.


It is rather ironic that someone who calls Americans terrorists calls a band of terrorist thugs "her army."



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


...true enough. Ironic, indeed.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rubicant13
Wow, this thread has fired up a lot of people. I am not completely sure why. I am an American and all I see is hypocrisy within the government of this country and it's corrupt two party system. Americans criticize other countries all the time. I have heard it constantly since I was very young. Somehow as Americans, we feel it is our right to criticize every other country of the world and it should be expected to be seen as alright. But what I am seeing now is that someone not from America is criticizing America, and has made some great points in doing so, but is getting slammed for doing so. That kind of thinking is the perfect representation of what hypocrisy is. And many within this thread are showing in full form. Why do Americans have the right to criticize the rest of the world but when the criticism is turned toward the United States everyone gets upset? I am all for patriotism, but America isn't the same country it was decades ago. Hell, it isn't the same country it was 15 years ago. There are many threads on here that criticize the American government - many started by Americans. But a girl makes a thread from another country on here criticizing America and people get downright angry. So, if she is somehow out of line for criticizing America, why should Americans be given some kind of free pass to criticize other countries? So, if I am understanding correctly, only Americans should have the right to criticize America and anyone who isn't American doesn't have the right? That right there, is the true meaning of hypocrisy.
edit on 28-9-2012 by Rubicant13 because: (no reason given)


Perhaps we like factual criticism rather that the wild-eyed, irrational, unfounded type? C'mon...a person who calls us terrorists but supports the IRA talking about hypocrisy? That is a laugh.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


...true enough. Ironic, indeed.


Thank you. I appreaciate the injection of objective reason in the thread. I'll star your post for that.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


I will reply onto to the last part of that - as the rest, I am sure you agree, becomes rhetorical and circular academic debate over nuances and interpretations.

As to why Japan was still a threat after the defeat of their navy. You are aware that the military sect in Tokyo did actually seek to assassinate their own Emperor when he announced that he was going to surrender. I assume you are aware of this. The followers of the old ways, of Bushido, came precariously close to claiming control of Japan - even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This military segment was the threat that needed to be addressed.

Most of the Japanese military high command were steeled to fight to the death and their cultural legacy demanded that they could not back down. This was an enigma that had to be worked around.

Without an extreme show of force, Japan would not have surrendered. Even if Hirohito had surrendered, the reality of it is that his military probably would not have followed suite.

~Heff



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


So you want me to prove that the US is the country with the most political influence in the world and the one with the most ability to change the UN? You somehow think it isn't? Well...maybe we could ask Burundi to use it's influence instead?

So China sent some insignificant minesweepers and trained some Afghan police. Is that meant to somehow absolve the United States of it's primary role in the shambles that it has created?

Facts?

You know what I said is true. I'm sure there are many threads already on ATS discussing such things, infact I imagine you've probably already read some or posts similar.

You wants facts when you're unable to counter any of the things I've said. If I'd posted any opinions which correlated with your own you wouldn't be demanding facts, instead you'd be giving my post a star.

edit on 28/9/12 by Kram09 because: typos and missed out words



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I think this picture fits in this thread




posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





Without an extreme show of force, Japan would not have surrendered.


Such a thing cannot be known with certainty.

The Japanese were already making known their desire for peace on the proviso that the Emperor was retained on the throne.

The bomb was seen at the time as merely another weapon in the US arsenal and one that they saw no reason not to use, although some had reservations.

The US could have blockaded Japan with it's navy which by the latter stages of the war was larger than all the world's navies combined. The Japanese merchant fleet was decimated as they did not bestow much honour upon being a merchant seaman and thus did little to protect their merchant shipping.

The vast majority of Japan's cities were in ashes or severelly ruined and they pretty much had no oil and few skilled pilots.

The atomic bomb wasn't needed.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 

How long did it take you to figure this out? You should also be aware that when you make such large generalizations you are bound to be wrong. But when peoples rants are fueled by their biases, they never consider that.


So mods, when are you going to apply a voting (minus a flag or star, not just add one) system to these threads?



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by frequentflyer
 





You should also be aware that when you make such large generalizations


I don't consider the OP's post to be a large generalisation.

On the contrary I consider it to be an astute observation of American foreign policy.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09

The Japanese were already making known their desire for peace on the proviso that the Emperor was retained on the throne.


Aspects of the Japanese government were making peaceful overtures to the Allies. But the Japanese military was not. In fact they were openly preparing and threatening a coup.


Originally posted by Kram09

The vast majority of Japan's cities were in ashes or severelly ruined and they pretty much had no oil and few skilled pilots.

The atomic bomb wasn't needed.


Can you source this? Beyond Doolitles raid and Hiroshima and Nagasaki I cannot recall reading of bombing campaigns against Japan. Surely Germany ( and much of Europe ) was pretty well cratered, but I believe mainland Japan was relatively untouched. They controlled their airspace even after the atomic bombs were dropped.

~Heff
edit on 9/28/12 by Hefficide because: grammatical faux paus



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by frequentflyer
reply to post by Sinny
 

How long did it take you to figure this out? You should also be aware that when you make such large generalizations you are bound to be wrong. But when peoples rants are fueled by their biases, they never consider that.


So mods, when are you going to apply a voting (minus a flag or star, not just add one) system to these threads?


generalisations? (spelt with CORRECT english by the way
) they're all true


And you can take back a flag you know



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Your contesting another members research here, maybe you want to reply to him?

I'll brb with his name


ETA: Mr. milominderbinder
edit on 28-9-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





I cannot recall reading of bombing campaigns against Japan. Surely Germany ( and much of Europe ) was pretty well cratered, but I believe mainland Japan was relatively untouched. They controlled their airspace even after the atomic bombs were dropped.


Really? And you claim to read advanced degree level text books?

It's Pacific War 101.

Link 1




Curtis LeMay had experienced the bombing of cities in Germany as the leader of the 8th Air Force. Now in the Pacific theatre, he was convinced of one thing – that any city making any form of contribution to Japan’s war effort should be destroyed.








Link 2





Conventional bombs from B-29s destroyed over 40% of the urban area in Japan's six greatest industrial cities.




Link 3





The first raid using the new tactics, against Tokyo on the night of 9-10 March 1945, involved 279 B-29s dropping over 1650 tons of incendiaries. A firestorm was successfully raised, and the death toll was somewhere between 80,000 and 120,000 persons. This was probably the most devastating single air raid of the war, exceeding even the nuclear raids. From then on, the U.S. strategic air forces began systematically burning the cities of Japan to the ground.




Link 4





He was right. Following the March raid on Tokyo, the 20th Air Force set up a systematic process for bombing Japanese cities that saw aircrews flying 120 hrs each month (they had flown 30 per month in Europe). The planners set up the target lists, and the bombers checked them off one by one. The limiting factor proved to be how many bombs they could get shipped from the U.S. By the time the war ended the 20th Air Force had fire bombed 175 square miles of urban real estate in 66 Japanese cities. The estimates of Japanese civilians killed vary dramatically, some put the number as high as 1 million, others say it was more like 600,000. Whatever the number, it was large. Over 10 million Japanese saw their homes destroyed, and Japanese industry had virtually ceased to exist.



new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join