US Hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Kram09
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.

And all of the POW from the Bataan death march would have died while we waited offshore and the Japanese Armies in Manchuria, SIngapore, various Pacific Islands, Korea, China, and Vietnam would have continued fighting while we waited and a cost of even more lives.

People do not realize that a single fire bombing raid on Tokyo caused more deaths than the atom bomb. It was the one bomb from one plane that pushed them for surrender. Realise also that they did not surrender after the first one, it took the second one that demonstrated our ability to do this again that caused them to surrender. Little did they know that the first two were all we had and did not have the ability to make more for quite a bit after. It was a bluff, because we did not have another to drop on them at the time. They did not call the bluff.

The problem with the usa is the majorithy of its people are ignorant and its goverment like All goverments is corrupt to the corr but can easy fool its people by making them think they are the savours of the world
The op says america is hypocritical which it is IT CREATED AL CID DA IT STILL SUPPORTS THEM IN SYRIA AND LIBYA FACT THEY ARE NOT TERRORIST BUT MEAR HIRED KILLERS
What goals do they want to acchevie none that i know of
Also do they really exsist ??? somebody mentioned the IRA they had a goal feck all support from the majoithy of the Irish people and not a lot of money but yet this band of a few paddys with fertalizer held the brithish to randsom and in terror for 30 years or so how come the al qaeda cant do a fraction of this with suposed millions of pounds and people willing to strapp bombs to them selfs ???????
(by the way the op said she was an Irish loyalist so there for she would consider herself british and against the IRA) some people showing there ignorance again

The USA are the bullys of the world and like a bully in a play ground britain is the the little fella behind him shaking his fist say yaeeeeee listen to him or else

HONEST QUESTION WHAT GOOD HAS THE USA EVER DONE FOR THE WORLD??? OR WHAT GOOD HAS IT EVEN DONE FOR IT'S SELF FOR THAT MATTER?????

IM ALL EARS PEACE OUT

Originally posted by NavyDoc

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.

No worries. While I do emphatically agree with OP that the US has a MAJOR problem w/ hypocrisy... sorta like you pointed out a few posts ago w/ the guy who wants to end US Interventionism...except for when it's intervention that he thinks is a good idea. That's hypocrisy in action.

Likewise, I really can't understand how the US military could be labeled "terrorists"...but somehow have the IRA escape this same definition. One would say that it's almost...well...hypocritical, I suppose.

Originally posted by Kram09
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.

LOL. While supporting the IRA. Hypocrisy indeed.

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by NavyDoc

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.

No worries. While I do emphatically agree with OP that the US has a MAJOR problem w/ hypocrisy... sorta like you pointed out a few posts ago w/ the guy who wants to end US Interventionism...except for when it's intervention that he thinks is a good idea. That's hypocrisy in action.

Likewise, I really can't understand how the US military could be labeled "terrorists"...but somehow have the IRA escape this same definition. One would say that it's almost...well...hypocritical, I suppose.

I like you. ALthough we may disagree on a few historical points, I have found you to be a reasoned intellectual. I appreciate the discourse we have had. One thing I miss from university are discussions like this. I thank you for the intellectual stimulation.

Originally posted by coolforschool
The problem with the usa is the majorithy of its people are ignorant and its goverment like All goverments is corrupt to the corr but can easy fool its people by making them think they are the savours of the world
The op says america is hypocritical which it is IT CREATED AL CID DA IT STILL SUPPORTS THEM IN SYRIA AND LIBYA FACT THEY ARE NOT TERRORIST BUT MEAR HIRED KILLERS
What goals do they want to acchevie none that i know of
Also do they really exsist ??? somebody mentioned the IRA they had a goal feck all support from the majoithy of the Irish people and not a lot of money but yet this band of a few paddys with fertalizer held the brithish to randsom and in terror for 30 years or so how come the al qaeda cant do a fraction of this with suposed millions of pounds and people willing to strapp bombs to them selfs ???????
(by the way the op said she was an Irish loyalist so there for she would consider herself british and against the IRA) some people showing there ignorance again

The USA are the bullys of the world and like a bully in a play ground britain is the the little fella behind him shaking his fist say yaeeeeee listen to him or else

HONEST QUESTION WHAT GOOD HAS THE USA EVER DONE FOR THE WORLD??? OR WHAT GOOD HAS IT EVEN DONE FOR IT'S SELF FOR THAT MATTER?????

IM ALL EARS PEACE OUT

I agree with most your sentiments, although, I think you may be a little confused over the term "Irish Loyalist"

Originally posted by coolforschool


HONEST QUESTION WHAT GOOD HAS THE USA EVER DONE FOR THE WORLD??? OR WHAT GOOD HAS IT EVEN DONE FOR IT'S SELF FOR THAT MATTER?????

IM ALL EARS PEACE OUT

Something about some mean dudes known as the Nazis who were trying to take over the world. I kind of recall that the US had something to do with that...you know stopping them and stuff...and helping out our British friends when they were being bombed to # while the Irish were neutral and didn't want to upset the Nazis...but I'm not sure 'cause I gots to play X-box.

reply to post by NavyDoc


You mean whilst the Bushes and banking cartel families were financing them... ?

reply to post by Kram09


While I don't see the need for the cheap shot, I do appreciate the links and stand corrected on that aspect of the debate.

In all fairness, I did simply ask for sources.

I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. So thank you for the correction.

Looky there.... no cheap shots at all! See how nicely that works out.

~Heff

No confusion an Irish Loyalist is loyal to the Queen of England.
As for the usa singal handedly beating Hitler i must say it was pure genius to create the Russian winter and convince Hitler he could beat the red army and hold the western front better again creating israel after it was all done and dusted my god you " guyss" really have made the world a better place
oh and lets not forget the genocide of the native amercian people now that was a good one who would of thought germ warfare could be so effective. HOW MANY NATIVE AMERCIAN MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE POSIANED WITH SMALLPOX OR SLAUGHTER BY THE FOUNDERS OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY FOUNDED BY EUROPEANS AND THE BIGGIST HYPOCRISY OF THEM ALL IS WHEN YOU GUYS SAY US TRUE AMERCIANS SURE YOU'S KILLED ALL THEM

so really in hind sight usa is just the pool at the end of the drain pipe from Europe and we all know nothing really nice Nor pure come's out of a drain pipe DOSE IT ???????????????

PEACE OUT

reply to post by coolforschool


Its kind of in the name: Irish Loyalist - Loyal to Ireland. Not the Queen of England

Your confused with "unionist".

reply to post by Sinny


Funny, you compare the U.S. to 1933 Germany, and say that anyone who defends the U.S. has an agenda, but you somehow don't?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Kram09
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.

And all of the POW from the Bataan death march would have died while we waited offshore and the Japanese Armies in Manchuria, SIngapore, various Pacific Islands, Korea, China, and Vietnam would have continued fighting while we waited and a cost of even more lives.

People do not realize that a single fire bombing raid on Tokyo caused more deaths than the atom bomb. It was the one bomb from one plane that pushed them for surrender. Realise also that they did not surrender after the first one, it took the second one that demonstrated our ability to do this again that caused them to surrender. Little did they know that the first two were all we had and did not have the ability to make more for quite a bit after. It was a bluff, because we did not have another to drop on them at the time. They did not call the bluff.

Except that the primary fighting force of the Japanese, the one million-man Kwantung army was completely obliterated by the Russians (who weren't fighting the Germans anymore) in less than two weeks. Yes...there were a lot of Japanese soldiers in Asia...but they were basically completely out of tanks, fuel, bullets, air support, food, grenades, medicine, artillery shells, and everything else that an army needs to actually function. Besides...according the Treaty of Yalta...mopping up the Japanese in Yalta was solely the responsibility of the Russians and they wouldn't have tolerated ANOTHER foreign power landing ground troops there anyways. In short...we couldn't have done anything in Asia if we wanted to unless we were willing to risk war w/ the Russians right away.

As for the POW's from Bataan...the US Army Rangers had already rescued the last 500 living Bataan POW's still in the Philippines in January of 1945. The vast majority of US POW's were already killed by either the Japanese or our own guys. The Japanese relocated the POW's extensively to be used as slave labor and we would quite frequently sink the prison ships (aka "Hell Ships") and kill our own POW's. Sometimes by accident...sometimes intentionally to disrupt the supply lines because losing a couple hundred American POW's was deemed the lesser evil as opposed to opposed to tens of thousands dying in battle from freshly resupplied Japanese troops. In fact...we know for an absolute CERTAINTY that there were a minimum of 23 US POW's in Hiroshima when we nuked it (possibly as many as a few hundred) and the same with Nagasaki.

While I COMPLETELY agree that it would have been wise to use the nuke to save our POW's...we didn't do that either. In fact...we took an INCREDIBLE gamble because we didn't even use it as a negotiating tool. We could have said "Hey...if you guys don't let our guys go right now...we are just going to start vaporizing your cities". Instead...we just nuked away and hoped like hell that the Japanese wouldn't execute our POW's out of sheer spite.

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You mean whilst the Bushes and banking cartel families were financing them... ?

Were they? The Bushes were involved in WWII? Wow, I'd like to see some sort of evidence about that. The Kennedy's did so , that is true. As well did many other Irish. Of course the Irish were neutral because they did not want to bother their Nazi buddies.

Originally posted by coolforschool
No confusion an Irish Loyalist is loyal to the Queen of England.
As for the usa singal handedly beating Hitler i must say it was pure genius to create the Russian winter and convince Hitler he could beat the red army and hold the western front better again creating israel after it was all done and dusted my god you " guyss" really have made the world a better place
oh and lets not forget the genocide of the native amercian people now that was a good one who would of thought germ warfare could be so effective. HOW MANY NATIVE AMERCIAN MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE POSIANED WITH SMALLPOX OR SLAUGHTER BY THE FOUNDERS OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY FOUNDED BY EUROPEANS AND THE BIGGIST HYPOCRISY OF THEM ALL IS WHEN YOU GUYS SAY US TRUE AMERCIANS SURE YOU'S KILLED ALL THEM

so really in hind sight usa is just the pool at the end of the drain pipe from Europe and we all know nothing really nice Nor pure come's out of a drain pipe DOSE IT ???????????????

PEACE OUT

No one said single handedly, but you must remember the concept of lend lease where the Soviets were given supplies that they needed and would have lost without? Soviet industry was destroyed, they would not have existed as a fighting force without American help. Neither would have the Brits. I guess history is not your strong suite, is it?

Originally posted by Antonio1
reply to post by Sinny

 

Funny, you compare the U.S. to 1933 Germany, and say that anyone who defends the U.S. has an agenda, but you somehow don't?

No, but she love the IRA. I guess knee cappings and bombings are cool when she agrees with it.

Bradley Manning has exceeded the 4 months/120 days legal limit for imprisonment under provisions of

-Rule for Court-Martial (R.C.M.) 707

-Article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (10 U.S.C. § 810)

The US Military uses laws when it sees fit

Under military law his detention is illegal, any court martial judge who goes against the above limit is a clear case of corrupted integrity.

reply to post by Sinny


Charles Lindbergh, who argued against going to war with Germany, said: "We Americans are a primitive people. ...Americans seem to have little respect for the law or the rights of others."

On 9/11/1941 Lindbergh made his final speech in Des Moines:

Announcing that it was time to "name names," Lindbergh decided to identify what he saw as the pressure groups pushing the U.S. into war against Germany. "The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt Administration." Of the Jews, he went on to say, "Instead of agitating for war, Jews in this country should be opposing it in every way, for they will be the first to feel its consequences. Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government." The speech was met with outrage from numerous quarters. Lindbergh was denounced as an anti-Semite.

www.pbs.org...

Okay, so he was right and Jews felt the consequences, nevertheless he was practically driven out of the country for saying it. And 70 years later americans would still rather be called hypocrites or war mongers or just about any other foul name you can think of than anti-semite.

We're still primitive with little respect for the rights of others and not much in the way of common sense. Heck, we don't have much respect for our own rights when someone starts slinging around harsh words to get us fired up and into a killing frenzy.

i DONT WANT TO SEEM INSULTING BUT YOUR THOUGHTS ON IRISH LOYALIST IS IM AFFRAID IDIOTIC IRISH LOYALIST ARE PARAMILITRYS LOYAL TO THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND UNIONIST ARE POLITICIANS LOYAL TO THE QUEEN ALL CONSIDER THEM SELFS BRITISH TRUST ME I KNOW AND IF YOU DONT BELEAVE ME DO YOUR SELF A FAVOUR GOOGLE IRISH LOYALIST PARAMILITRYS AND SEE WHAT FLAG THEY SAIL UNDER I FORGIVE YOUR IGNORANCE IT IS CONFUSING

Tell me why can you not compare two countrys that comite genocide is one people less important than another so the crime of genocide is only a crime if you commit it on a certain race of people genocide the common denomanator usa has that in common with the nazi's weapons of mass destrution the usa has use'd them just like emm emmm i dont know i suppose the usa is on its own with that one

Originally posted by coolforschool
i DONT WANT TO SEEM INSULTING BUT YOUR THOUGHTS ON IRISH LOYALIST IS IM AFFRAID IDIOTIC IRISH LOYALIST ARE PARAMILITRYS LOYAL TO THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND UNIONIST ARE POLITICIANS LOYAL TO THE QUEEN ALL CONSIDER THEM SELFS BRITISH TRUST ME I KNOW AND IF YOU DONT BELEAVE ME DO YOUR SELF A FAVOUR GOOGLE IRISH LOYALIST PARAMILITRYS AND SEE WHAT FLAG THEY SAIL UNDER I FORGIVE YOUR IGNORANCE IT IS CONFUSING

Tell me why can you not compare two countrys that comite genocide is one people less important than another so the crime of genocide is only a crime if you commit it on a certain race of people genocide the common denomanator usa has that in common with the nazi's weapons of mass destrution the usa has use'd them just like emm emmm i dont know i suppose the usa is on its own with that one

Sane people use punctuation...just saying.