America: are we too arrogant?

[ledhed]

A nucular bomb is just a big kick ass bomb to end all bombs. its not the same to destroy a city by firebombing it ? Remember back then it was an atomic bomb not the hydrogen or nutron monsters we have today.We can end all existance on the earth is the best reason not to use them. not that it causes to many casualties.

 

[Arwin]

A nucular bomb is just a big kick ass bomb to end all bombs. its not the same to destroy a city by firebombing it ? Remember back then it was an atomic bomb not the hydrogen or nutron monsters we have today.We can end all existance on the earth is the best reason not to use them. not that it causes to many casualties.

If there wasn't the radiation sickness, cancer and long lasting radioactivity afterwards, then yes the difference would have been small. Also, too many casualties and all existance on earth seem to be the same for you, if you think about it.

 

[Carl.]

A nucular bomb is just a big kick ass bomb to end all bombs. its not the same to destroy a city by firebombing it ? Remember back then it was an atomic bomb not the hydrogen or nutron monsters we have today.We can end all existance on the earth is the best reason not to use them. not that it causes to many casualties.

As Arwin said, it would be excatly the same, except for the radiations. Both, especially on civil targets, would be viewed as unacceptable today from any country. The case of Dresden is in the same league, without a nuclear weapon.

 

[Carl.]

OK, so if someone is being irritating towards you, that gives you the right to act irritating back? But, if we attack someone, after they attacked us, we are no longer in the right? Your beginning to look hypercritical.

Did you meant hypocritical? Good parallel. So a discussion on the internet should be governed by the same rules an international conflict is? I apologize for the millions of casualties in brain cells due to my previous posts.

It sure does look that way!

....Ah.

Lucky me. Kim Jung II just call me to postpone our golf game to next month, because Castro cancelled at the last minute. Yay! BBQ for me!

If you can't accept this truth, then that's just your problem.

You're right, It's my problem if I can't accept what you called truth.

Looks I'm not the only one with that problem:


"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

A lot of prominent figures felt the same way at the time. Although I consider your opinion on the matter, I'll never hold it as a truth, as you do.

 

[///M-Spec]

This is a side thread, so I'll sum it up in a nutshell. It is easy for us, 50+ years later, to condemn US usage of atomic weapons on Japan. The world is a signifigantly different place in terms of attitude towards civilian deaths, to say the least.

Put it in perspective: the US had been dragged into a horrendous war it had little interest in joining by a Japanese sneak attack. The assult on Nazi fortress Europe was long, bitter and costly. The Pacific campaign showed over and over again that attacking Japan directly would be just as grave an undertaking.

Most importantly, the attitude towards civilian casualties was much different back then --not just by the US, but by the entire world. Let's not forget Japan's occupation of Manchuria and their brutal, inhuman treatment of the Chinese, particularly in Nanking, where over one hundred thousand people were estimated to be murdered. Japan was hardly a helpless, innocent victim in WWII.

No, two wrongs do not make a right. But wars are almost never fought for righteous causes. Hiroshima was both an act of expidiency and, in my honest opinion, an act of revenge as well.

EDIT: Changed my mind on the last point.

M

 

[Duke]

I'll second what ///M said above. The Japanese had made it incredibly costly for both sides as the US worked its way through the Pacific islands. Near-defeated or not, they were fighting hysterically to slow the progress and showing no signs that invading the home island would be any different. 14-year-old kamikaze pilots, trained to take off but not to land? Aircraft designed to be built as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible, with a service life of only one mission? That's not the act of a country trying to surrender while saving face.

To whoever mentioned Dresden above: look into the "Moonlight Sonata" - the night of 14 November 1940.

 

[Carl.]

To whoever mentioned Dresden above: look into the "Moonlight Sonata" - the night of 14 November 1940.

The attack on Coventry was awful, as most of Hitler's tactics. But they got severely punished for it, while whoever made the unnecessary decision to raze Dresden for revenge got away with it because he was on the winning side. Would it be justified for us to put millions of Germans in death camps to avenge the holocaust?

Germany and Japan did apologize and pay for their mistakes. But we never had to, we usually prefer to dodge the question when it rises by making it look right in comparison of what our ennemy did.

 

[Duke]

No, it wouldn't. But people need to learn that the tactics they use first are likely to be used back at them.

 

[Carl.]

But people need to learn that the tactics they use first are likely to be used back at them.

Of course. But when these tactics involves high civilian casualties such as this, It's up to us to find smarter ways to counter-attack. That's a lot easier said then done though, but that's where we should aim. (Using guided missiles instead of razing a town is a pretty good step forward in that direction)

 

[Danoff]

This is definitely the proper way for this discussion to proceed. As a trial of the US over the last hundred years.


... that wasn't sarcastic. The question of whether and why people perceive the US as being arrogant is best explained through the perceived history of US warfare and foreign diplomacy.

This whole discussion has uncovered the ugly fact that the world's problem with the US doesn't stem from Iraq but from generations of people b*tching about how the US should have done this or should have done that.

All I can say is that it's easy to play armchair quarterback, but if you look at our goals (and I believe this is what O'Reily was saying) we're all about freedom (including having done what it took to protect us and the rest of the world from Russian oppression).

 

[ledhed]

Look at it another way. For years the rest of the world was and still is in danger of extinction if the super power(s) determine its time to let loose with the big guns. i grew up with the threat of nuclear attack from missles sent by the russians , in school we where told to duck and cover in our defense drills...we used to say duck and kiss our ass good bye drills, but we knew even if we became shadows on the concrete what was left would fire back and destroy the bad guys...and possibly end the human race, isn't that a sick way to grow up ? Now imagine yourself living in Europe ground zero between two giants with the destruction of everything in there controll..I would tend to be a bit distrustfull of the motives behind anything they did ..after all they only hold my life and future in there hands ..and wtf ? I can't even vote for them ! Its no wonder Europe takes a dim view of war of any kind , they grew up thinking that any conflict, no matter how small can end there existance. Its a hard habit to break that self indulging feeling of survival.
When you realize that the US spends now as much as all of the countries in the world combined on its defense budget and can end a war against a country that had at the time the worlds 8th or so largest army in two weeks with 350,000 troops ( air force , navy allied armys andsupport personel) I guesss you can understand that the rest of the world might want to be shure we are acting with alot of restraint , after all with history the way it is, alot of people will start to wonder who's next? What happens if a mad man is in charge of that scary bunch ? Think about it.

 

[Danoff]

That's the beauty of the US! The president isn't the supreme dictator of our country and doesn't (can't) act without support. The rest of the beauty of our country is that we have a little thing called freedom of the press (which none of our neighboring countries seem to understand). The result is that the press in America has the ability to show us everything that our government doesn't want us to see, and since we have the ability to vote, we can act on that information.


So the world need not fear because the US will not end up on a murderous rampage.

I guess that's what people are afraid is happening in Iraq, but those people are being supremely paranoid since there are lots of reasons why our conflict with Iraq is legitimate. I have floated many of those reasons around here and nobody has poked holes in them.

 

[Solid Lifters]

.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

A lot of prominent figures felt the same way at the time. Although I consider your opinion on the matter, I'll never hold it as a truth, as you do.

Japan did not surrender. They issued conditions for a surrender, but it wasn't one. Eisenhower said. "Let them talk." Others said no. We wanted, and needed, an unconditional surrender, and we weren't willing to talk to the Japanese, other than an unconditional surrender. After the Japanese stated they wouldn't unconditionally surrender, we bombed them. It was the correct move. So, Eisenhower didn't agree. Who cares? As for "a lot of prominent figures," who were they? Did their opinions really matter? No, they didn't then, and they don't now. They started this war, and we were going to end it correctly. Allowing for a conditional surrender would have been a huge mistake. Look how well the surrender of the Iraq forces during the Gulf War went for the world! Imagine what nightmare the Japanese conditional surrender would have been like. We needed to bomb the Japanese with nuclear bombs, and that is the truth. So, you don't like the shocking effectiveness of the weapon? Too bad.

 

[Pistachio]

That's the beauty of the US! The president isn't the supreme dictator of our country and doesn't (can't) act without support. The rest of the beauty of our country is that we have a little thing called freedom of the press (which none of our neighboring countries seem to understand). The result is that the press in America has the ability to show us everything that our government doesn't want us to see, and since we have the ability to vote, we can act on that information."

Freedom of press and performance of the press are two different things. While the Press is not restricted in the US by official means, such as attacks or governmental censorship. Despite this the way in which the US market of ideas works means that media is severely biased towards corporate interests.

The major sources of information in the US, the mass media, are all part of buisnesses which are then owned by conglomerates. The major media sources in the US, being companies must maintain economic viability. The need to generate revenue is the key flaw of the system.
It's only natural that the product (the media report/article) should reflect the interests, views and values of the the creator (the company), the buyer (the advertisers who buy advertisement opportunities) and the audience, with a bias towards more wealthy audiences which increases advertising rates.
This is only a very simple description of how the US media works, for a much more indepth and quite frankly devestating critique of US media read Necessary Illusions by Noam Chomsky. In fact read anything by Noam Chomsky.

"So the world need not fear because the US will not end up on a murderous rampage."
Unfortunately the war in Iraq is not the first illegal action the US has taken, and is hardly what i would call the start of a murderous rampage.

"I guess that's what people are afraid is happening in Iraq, but those people are being supremely paranoid since there are lots of reasons why our conflict with Iraq is legitimate. I have floated many of those reasons around here and nobody has poked holes in them.

The conflict is far from legitimate. The UN did not sanction the conflict hence it is illegitimate.
Even if the government had a fantastic reason to go, suppose there WERE WMD's, and the US had credible evidence, it would still be illegitimate.
Besides, i find it very ironic that the US government should call on Saddam to be "brought to justice" for his crimes which are:
Gassing Kurds
Iran-Iraq war
Earlier attempts of developing nuclear weapons
Invading Kuwait

when he had whole hearted US support for the first three crimes (which where his worse by far). In fact US officials called Saddam Hussein and General Suharto of Indonesia "our kind of guy" on multiple occasions.

Gassing of the Kurds was done with US weapons and support, and Kurdish genocide is being commited right now by much loved US ally Turkey, much like Saddam was.
Iran-Iraq war was also supported if not spurred on by the US, a war in which 1 million people died. As most would know the US has no love for the Iranian government, the reason dating back to 1951 when the CIA overthrew the democraticaly elected nationalist government and replaced it with the king, who was later overthrown in a popular revolution much to the dismay of the US to whom the king was a puppet.

 

[Pistachio]

This is definitely the proper way for this discussion to proceed. As a trial of the US over the last hundred years.


... that wasn't sarcastic. The question of whether and why people perceive the US as being arrogant is best explained through the perceived history of US warfare and foreign diplomacy.

This whole discussion has uncovered the ugly fact that the world's problem with the US doesn't stem from Iraq but from generations of people b*tching about how the US should have done this or should have done that.

All I can say is that it's easy to play armchair quarterback, but if you look at our goals (and I believe this is what O'Reily was saying) we're all about freedom (including having done what it took to protect us and the rest of the world from Russian oppression).

You started out well but you completely disagree with the last two paragraphs.

It doesn't stem from people "b*itching about how the US should have done this or should have donethat.". It comes from over 50 years of overthrowing governments, enstating puppet regimes, supporting cold blooded killers and militant economics. And also i doubt very much US goals are "all about freedom" and i don't see how they cared about Russian opression. I would love to go into more depth but i realy have to do a Law report. Maybe later.

 

[K_Speed]

Well ok, I think this has to do with arrogancy.
Yesterday I read in a Magazine called 'Focus' (magazine that talks about the happenings on earth, like politics, war etc etc.).
So it had a graph showing the oil Usage per in every country.
6th is Italy with 1,9 Million Barrels of Oil/Day
5th is France with 2,1 Million Barrels of Oil/Day
4th is Canada with 2,2 Million Barrels of Oil/Day
3rd is Germany with 2,6 Million Barrels of Oil/Day
2nd is Japan with 5,4 Million Barrels of Oil/Day
And 1st, you all know (makes me think why Bush went to war....) is USA with 20,0 Million Barrels of OIL/DAY

The fact that Japan has a popu. of 130 Million and the US 290 Million is correct. But if you would double the population of Japan and get 260 Million people and compare with 290 with the US, then the US still uses double of what Japan would use.

I wonder what were gonna do. Look at China, its gonna be the strongest country in the world, and we all know that, and it has a population of 1,2 Billion, :S , nough said abou that!

 

[Carl.]

As for "a lot of prominent figures," who were they?

Among others, in America...

DWIGHT EISENHOWER
ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
HERBERT HOOVER
GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
GENERAL CARL "TOOEY" SPAATZ (In charge of Air Force operations in the Pacific)
ALBERT EINSTEIN
LEO SZILARD (The first scientist to conceive of how an atomic bomb might be made - 1933)
...

Did their opinions really matter? No, they didn't then, and they don't now.

You decide. Quotes here

If it is an acceptable, reasonable and efficient solution to end a conflict, I'd like you to explain why it wasn't used since then.

 

[TheCracker]

Its no wonder Europe takes a dim view of war of any kind, they grew up thinking that any conflict, no matter how small can end there existance. Its a hard habit to break that self indulging feeling of survival.

Us Europeans have lived with war, whether between countries, religions or wars against terrorism, within our own continent, for hundreds if not thousands of years. There is war in Europe as we speak. The reason we Europeans 'take a dim view' of war, doesn't stem from the threat of anihiliation from Superpowers, it comes from having to live with the consequences on a day to day basis.

Its a shame it took something like 9/11 for a majority of the American nation to experiance a similar feeling to this. Its a greater shame that an idiot like Bush let his 'puppeteers' force him into a war that has so far killed as many US service men and women as the 9/11 attacks killed innocent citizens.

 

[Danoff]

Its a greater shame that an idiot like Bush let his 'puppeteers' force him into a war that has so far killed as many US service men and women as the 9/11 attacks killed innocent citizens.

It's only a shame if it doesn't make the US safer.

And 1st, you all know (makes me think why Bush went to war....) is USA with 20,0 Million Barrels of OIL/DAY

... and your point is?

It doesn't stem from people "b*itching about how the US should have done this or should have donethat.".

You start out saying that it's not so, but then you prove yourself wrong...

It comes from over 50 years of overthrowing governments, enstating puppet regimes, supporting cold blooded killers and militant economics.

...like I said. We were (and are) willing to do what it takes to preserve freedom.

And also i doubt very much US goals are "all about freedom" and i don't see how they cared about Russian opression. I would love to go into more depth but i realy have to do a Law report. Maybe later.

Don't see how we cared about Russian oppression?

That was the whole point of the cold war.

The major sources of information in the US, the mass media, are all part of buisnesses which are then owned by conglomerates. The major media sources in the US, being companies must maintain economic viability. The need to generate revenue is the key flaw of the system.
It's only natural that the product (the media report/article) should reflect the interests, views and values of the the creator (the company), the buyer (the advertisers who buy advertisement opportunities) and the audience, with a bias towards more wealthy audiences which increases advertising rates.
This is only a very simple description of how the US media works, for a much more indepth and quite frankly devestating critique of US media read Necessary Illusions by Noam Chomsky. In fact read anything by Noam Chomsky.

People have a thirst for knowledge. That's why the need to make a profit is exactly what drives media to deliver the facts. When another news program shows up with more of the story, people change the channel on the old program.

 

[vladimir]

solid lifters,


but why did the US government suddenly agreed to the conditions of the japanese surrender after they had dropped the bomb!?



danoff,


the majority of people does not have a thirst for knowledge but rather a thirst for scandals.

 

[Danoff]

the majority of people does not have a thirst for knowledge but rather a thirst for scandals.

Human beings have a thirst for knowledge. That's why the computer you're typing on exists.

 

[Duke]

but why did the US government suddenly agreed to the conditions of the japanese surrender after they had dropped the bomb!?

They didn't! What happened was that the Japanese suddenly gave up on any conditions for surrender after we dropped the bomb.

 

[vladimir]

Human beings have a thirst for knowledge. That's why the computer you're typing on exists.

a few, including you, me and most others here, but the vast majority of people does not have that thirst. otherwise the tabloids would not be read by millions whereas the serious newspapers are only read by thousands...

They didn't! What happened was that the Japanese suddenly gave up on any conditions for surrender after we dropped the bomb.

no they did not. they wanted to keep their emperor and they were allowed to keep him after the bomb was dropped. that made them surrender.

 

[Danoff]

a few, including you, me and most others here, but the vast majority of people does not have that thirst. otherwise the tabloids would not be read by millions whereas the serious newspapers are only read by thousands...

You're a little confused on this issue. Thirst for knowledge is a basic human triat. It's why we go investigating when we see a light or hear a noise. It's why we try to figure out how our gadgets work, and why we learn about cars, drugs, music, planets and rocket engines.

 

[Solid Lifters]

If it is an acceptable, reasonable and efficient solution to end a conflict, I'd like you to explain why it wasn't used since then.

There have been no opportunities to use it, that's why. All the "wars" that have happened since then have been to protect a country and its people.

 

[vladimir]

You're a little confused on this issue. Thirst for knowledge is a basic human triat. It's why we go investigating when we see a light or hear a noise. It's why we try to figure out how our gadgets work, and why we learn about cars, drugs, music, planets and rocket engines.

sorry, but you just talked about why the human thirst for knowledge makes the media investigate facts, it wasn't about gadgets and drugs. but that is only true for a minority of people who read the serious newspapers and watch the serious programmes.
but as a matter of fact, the top selling tabloids and the most seen programmes make stories up, enhance news and twist the truth quite a lot.
that leads us to the conclusion that the majority has definatly no thirst for knowledge but scandals. and that thirst hardly makes the mass media investigate facts but rather makes them invent facts. the outcome of this is misinformation.


furthermore, i want to say something about the drugs, because this is another good example; as a matter of fact, alcohol is far more dangerous than marihuana. they are both drugs, they both cause illness if misused, they can both cause addiction, but there is one difference: you can die of alcohol if you drink way too much, but you cannot die of marihuana even if you smoke a ton (of course you can die under the influence of both if you still drive a car or fall from a bridge or have some other nasty accident)...
that is the fact. so why does the majority of knowledge thirsty people still believe alcohol is good and marihuana is bad? why is marihuana illegal and alcohol legal and not the other way round?
it does not make sense...

most people still prefer to believe anything instead of knowing something and if they find something that does not fit into their believe, they will even refuse to trust it.

just because people have to push every button they come across does, even if they are warned not to, does not make them thirsty for facts.
people are happy as long as they can press buttons or grab things, but when something involves thinking, most people give up. and facts are boring, people want entertainment.

 

[Danoff]

sorry, but you just talked about why the human thirst for knowledge makes the media investigate facts, it wasn't about gadgets and drugs.

You're still confused.

just because people have to push every button they come across does even if they are warned not to does not make them thirsty for facts.

...actually...

It's not like people push the buttons they come across compulsively. They want to know what it does and how it works.

 

[vladimir]

You're still confused.

i'd say you don't understand.

...actually...

It's not like people push the buttons they come across compulsively. They want to know what it does and how it works.

so how come that people still give up on sight of the slightest problems with any kind of technology? people want technology to work, they don't want to know how, as long as it works. most people don't even know how the car they drive works or a how their pc works. then they fill their diesel up with ordinary gas or wonder why their printer does not work when they have not installed the drivers for it.
how often have i solved pc problems via ICQ in a matter of seconds just because someone didn't even tried to start a program twice when it refused to work once. and then i have that mate who told me about his new car he just bought, he said it had rear wheel drive...but fiat bravas don't have rear wheel drive, they are all front wheel drive...

people definatly don't want to know how something works as long as it does work, and when it once does not work they call someone who they think knows how it works and let him fix it.
people only want to know how something works when they are really interested in something or when its spectacular or funny.

and why do you only pic those two sentences out of my post and reply on them instead of trying to answer the questions that i have asked?

 

[Solid Fro]

and why do you only pic those two sentences out of my post and reply on them instead of trying to answer the questions that i have asked?

Because no one wants to read boring rhetoric.

Speaking of vladimir being confused, I'm confused on how this thread went from wrongfully bashing America to solving computer problems.

 

[rjensen11]

Well, I read for about 1 minute, then tried looking for somebody that quoted me. Why didn't anyone quote me?