Atheistforums.com

Noam Chomsky: From Hiroshima to Fukushima, Vietnam to Fallujah, State Power Ignores Its Massive Harm

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/22390 ... ssive-harm (http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/22390-noam-chomsky-from-hiroshima-to-fukushima-vietnam-to-fallujah-state-power-ignores-its-massive-harm)

QuoteAMY GOODMAN: We end our Fukushima anniversary special with the words of world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, MITProfessor Noam Chomsky, who also traveled to Tokyo last week. Noam Chomsky is now 85 years old. He met with survivors from Fukushima, including families who evacuated the area. Their meeting was filmed by the independent online media channel, OurPlanet-TV. This is Professor Chomsky speaking in Japan.

    NOAM CHOMSKY: Particularly horrifying that this is happening in Japan, with its unique, horrendous experiences with the effect of the nuclear explosions, which we don't have to discuss. And, of course, it's particularly horrifying when it's happening to children, who are defenseless and innocent. But, unfortunately, this is what happens all the time. I mean, I had two daughters about—when they were about the age of your daughter, they would come home from school telling us how in school they were taught to hide under desks in case there was a nuclear war. This was right after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the world came very close to nuclear war. And children were very upset. I mean, I knew children who were friends of families who were sure they were never going to survive because the world was going to be destroyed by a nuclear war. But the official line was: "Don't worry; everything is under control." The same was true—again, my daughters, when they were about her age, we stopped feeding them milk, because the scientists, who were concerned, recognized that there was a very high level of strontium-90 in the milk that was coming from atomic explosions the U.S. was carrying out, many open-air explosions. And the government assured everyone that there was no problem, but we just—a lot of people, like us, just stopped feeding the children, gave them only powdered milk, which came from before the explosions.

    It happens all the time. So, right now, for example, in Iraq, there is a city, Fallujah, which was attacked by U.S. forces using weapons that no one understands, but they leave a high level of radiation. And there's studies by Iraqi and American doctors showing a very high level of cancer among children, far higher than before, in the whole neighborhood of Fallujah. But the government denies it. The U.S. government denies it. The Iraqi government doesn't function. The international organizations refuse to look. So it's all being carried out by independent organizations and citizens' groups.

    And this is simply everywhere. I mean, in 1961, the United States began chemical warfare in Vietnam, South Vietnam, chemical warfare to destroy crops and livestock. That went on for seven years. The level of poison—they used the most extreme carcinogen known: dioxin. And this went on for years. There's enormous effects in South Vietnam. There are children today being born in Saigon hospitals, deformed children, and horrible deformations. Government refuses to investigate. They've investigated effects on American soldiers, but not on the South Vietnamese. And there's almost no study of it, except for independent citizens' groups.

It's—can add case after case, but it's a horrifying story, and particularly horrifying for you because you're suffering from it. But that's the way governments operate: They protect themselves from their own citizens. Governments regard their own citizens as their main enemy, and they have to be—protect themselves. That's why you have state secret laws. Citizens are not supposed to know what their government is doing to them.Just to give one final example, when Edward Snowden's revelations appeared, the head of U.S. intelligence, James Clapper, testified before Congress that no telephone communications of Americans are being monitored. It was an outlandish lie. Lying to Congress is a felony; should go to jail for years. Not a word. Governments are supposed to lie to their citizens.

Not that I am expecting some healthy response, I just read this.

Noam Chomsky is a crank.  

QuoteIt happens all the time. So, right now, for example, in Iraq, there is a city, Fallujah, which was attacked by U.S. forces using weapons that no one understands....

Translate this into "...weapons that I, Noam Chomsky don't understand, and I choose to project my ignorance on others."

Quote...but they leave a high level of radiation.

No, they don't.  He is almost certainly referring to depleted uranium kinetic weapons, and they are not highly radioactive at all.  Depleted Uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium, which is itself not very radioactive.  As is so frequently the case, Chomsky is pulling things out of whole cloth.

QuoteAnd there's studies by Iraqi and American doctors showing a very high level of cancer among children, far higher than before, in the whole neighborhood of Fallujah.

I wouldn't take his word for it.

QuoteBut the government denies it. The U.S. government denies it. The Iraqi government doesn't function. The international organizations refuse to look. So it's all being carried out by independent organizations and citizens' groups.

Ah, the classic conspiracy theory.

QuoteThe level of poison—they used the most extreme carcinogen known: dioxin.

No, they didn't.  Using Agent Orange as a defoliant was bad enough without making up stories of what they didn't do.

QuoteThere are children today being born in Saigon hospitals, deformed children, and horrible deformations.

Of course any birth defect is horrible, but they happen naturally everywhere.  The US Military used Agent Orange in the combat areas, which were nowhere near Saigon.  He's not even choosing the right location to establish a threadbare causal link.

Don't be shy Shoe, tell us how you really feel.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I am sick of cock sucking morons like you and them vomiting around 'it's a classic conspiracy theory' AFTER every time some atrocity their government committed surfaces. There is always some crank, some conspiracy theory involved. Go fuck yourself.

Here's something to consider.  It's possible for BOTH a) the US government to have committed atrocities and b) cranks to exaggerate the extent of real ones and/or make up ones that never happened.

Did you check on his claims before becoming emotionally invested in them?

Atrocities aren't a problem with nations they're a problem of people. Every country commits them. It digs to the core problem with humanity. Doesn't make it o.k. but to vilify the U.S. for something everyone is capable of, and does seems petty.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"What's the 'normal' amount of atrocities US is allowed to commit minus the cranks, your majesty?

What exactly is the point of this question?  Who is denying that the US as a nation has committed atrocities, and that a single one is unacceptable?  I have gone to great lengths to educate myself and my kids about the atrocities committed by our nation.  

None of that changes the plain and simple fact that most of the claims Noam Chomsky makes in that quote are false.

QuoteYou know, we wouldn't want to offend you, by stepping on your birth right to slaughter civilians like animals around the world.

How do you leap from my pointing out that the claims Noam Chomsky is making are false to this ^^^?

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"

Quote from: "Moriarty"Atrocities aren't a problem with nations they're a problem of people. Every country commits them. It digs to the core problem with humanity. Doesn't make it o.k. but to vilify the U.S. for something everyone is capable of, and does seems petty.

When US policy spews out any kind of bullshit to jump around the world map to slaughter it is 'defence against a threat', 'intervention for the better', but when it is called for what it is, 'it's petty'. What fucking bullshit. Try something else.

Because atrocities committed in a different country on a false basis are somehow different, or worse than atrocities committed by a nation on its own people. Give me a break and take a different tact yourself. The problem is with humanity, not governments.

P.S. to call Hiroshima and Nagasaki an atrocity is a very debatable issue.

When one considers the amount of American and Japanese lives that would have been lost in an invasion of mainland Japan, along with the amount of land Stalin would have grabbed in an extended war (with his record of purges) a strong statement could be made that it saved millions upon millions of lives.

[youtube:kft5i7om]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0[/youtube:kft5i7om]

I am no fan of Chomsky either, and certainly not a conspiracy theorist. But I was also friends with a Vietnam Vet who was doused by Agent Orange in Vietnam, and subsequently died young from some horrific cancers. To quote:

QuotePrior to the controversy surrounding Agent Orange, there was already a large body of scientific evidence linking 2,4,5-T to serious negative health effects and ecological damage.[13] But in 1969, it was revealed to the public that the 2,4,5-T was contaminated with a dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), and that the TCDD was causing many of the previously unexplained adverse health effects which were correlated with Agent Orange exposure.[14] TCDD has been described as "perhaps the most toxic molecule ever synthesized by man".[15] Internal memoranda revealed that Monsanto (a major manufacturer of 2,4,5-T) had informed the U.S. government in 1952 that its 2,4,5-T was contaminated.[16] In the manufacture of 2,4,5-T, accidental overheating of the reaction mixture easily causes the product to condense into the toxic self-condensation product TCDD. At the time, precautions were not taken against this unintended side reaction, which caused also the Seveso disaster in Italy in 1976.

And this:

QuoteAgent Orange released during Operation Ranch Hand contained 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), a dioxin which is linked to increase rates of cancer and birth defects. Dioxin is fat soluble and enters the body through physical contact, inhalation, or ingestion of contaminated food or water. As it is fat soluble, this toxin accumulates in organisms as it moves up the food chain, and carnivores will have higher amounts stored in their bodies than herbivores or plants. When a pregnant mother is exposed to dioxin, the teratogen can enter the embryo via the bloodstream. Dioxin is taken up by the body by attaching to a protein called the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), a transcription factor. The inactive AhR protein is located in the cytoplasm of most cells, and contains a receptor that is capable of interacting with several kinds of ligands. When dioxin binds to AhR, the protein moves to the nucleus, where it influences gene expression. In normal development gene expression timing and levels are tightly controlled; changing those things can result in birth defects.

OK, I'm quote mining, but there is a point. Chomsky, whether you consider him a flake or not, has raised serious concerns. Ask the Laotians opinions on cluster bombs- they are still digging them up and still suffering from deaths and mutilations from them. The US is by no means free of guilt on war crimes. We have done our share. I'm not going to outright dismiss what he is saying even if I don't agree with him politically or philosophically.

And yes, Vietnam is suffering from abnormal rate of birth defects
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/22/3 ... agent.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/22/3514489/4-decades-after-war-ended-agent.html)

QuoteU.S. aid for these people so far has amounted to a pittance. According to the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi, only $11 million of the $61.4 million that Congress has allocated since 2007 – a year after then-President George W. Bush pledged to help clean up contaminated areas – has been earmarked for public health programs in Vietnam.

U.S. officials caution that the money is to help people with disabilities "regardless of cause," and isn't specifically for Agent Orange victims. This semantic sleight of hand outrages many American veterans of the war, who say the United States has a moral obligation to help Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange, just as sick and dying U.S. veterans have received government help for the last two decades.

"There's a hypocrisy there," says Chuck Searcy, who served in Vietnam as an intelligence analyst during the war and has lived in Hanoi since 1998, heading up a project to clear battlefields of unexploded ordnance, which also continues to kill and maim Vietnamese. "It's a glaring disconnect, and it's embarrassing because the whole world can see it."

Believe Chomsky or not, we need to own up to our atrocities and work to solve them.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Oh hello Hydra. Thank you for joining our 'my country doesn't commit atrocities, even it does it is probably cranked up, everyone make 'mistakes', please don't be emotional about it' line. Oh please. We wouldn't want you to feel bad about it for the 30 seconds you can remember it.

:-?  :rolleyes:   And all this hostility simply from me upvoting someone else.  Wow.  Just wow.

These people are very patiently and cordially disagreeing with you and you lash out at them and dishonestly strawman their arguments.  (Which is exactly why I tend to avoid replying to you)  And on top of that, you apparently even have the temerity to repeatedly ascribe to me positions that I do not actually hold, knowing full well the lie of it, which reflects very poorly on you.  If I were you, I'd apologize to everyone here and try to do better next time.

Why shoe? Because people in power commit atrocities? Replacing them would end it? Not a fucking chance, a new group of people would commit atrocities. That is why it is a PEOPLE problem and to think otherwise would make you delusional. It is part of humanity that will likely ALWAYS be there.

I also see you conveniently left out the rest of the argument about the number of American lives that were saved by not having to invade mainland Japan and the quicker end to the war saved a lot of people from Soviet oppression.

You're arguing like a real right wing member now leaving out important parts of an argument. Congratulations.

I'll go further and say that it is a shame the bomb wasn't ready to save lives in Europe before the end of the war.

You misunderstood the use of the word "tact" then. It was not used in reference to emotional status but in terms of a different course or line of argument. Of course I have little doubt you will not admit to it.

And change in leadership doesn't change the fact that atrocities continue to exist.....under ANY flag..........ever. Hence a people problem. And singling out the U.S. is irresponsible at best.

If you can't understand that then your ignorance is your problem, not mine.

You're just so dead set in your thinking that you can't ever imagine circumstances where war is not only necessary but impossible to avoid and things like the bomb, while hideous, did in fact save more lives than it took.

This thread suffers from a distinct lack of supportive evidence and data. If there is in fact "studies by Iraqi and American doctors showing a very high level of cancer among children, far higher than before, in the whole neighborhood of Fallujah", I would like to see those studies and it is something that should be trivial to present.

I am interested in objective data obtained from first-hand reporting parties so that I can form a personal opinion in objective fact, not policial observations done by third party individuals, and attempts to support political opinion by relying on past actions.

Where is the data?

Quote from: "stromboli"OK, I'm quote mining, but there is a point. Chomsky, whether you consider him a flake or not, has raised serious concerns.

The concern over the use of Agent Orange has been well established for decades, so Chomsky raised no concerns.   What he did in this article was to play fast and loose with the facts.

If the US military had done what he claimed the way he claimed it, it would have been orders of magnitude worse that what they actually did.  That doesn't reduce the irresponsibility and stupidity of the US military's use of Agent Orange, but it was nothing like his statement.

QuoteAnd yes, Vietnam is suffering from abnormal rate of birth defects

The article you linked does not support this position.  Unfortunately, even if true it would not be surprising since Vietnamese cities have some of the most polluted air and water in the world.  To date scientific studies investigating a link between Agent Orange exposure and human health effects could best be called inconclusive.

QuoteBelieve Chomsky or not, we need to own up to our atrocities and work to solve them.

I don't think anyone here is disputing this.  The fact is most scientific studies find no link between use of Agent Orange and either an increase in cancer or an increase in birth defects, and it's not for a lack of trying to find one.  The best scientific evidence we have suggests that people would have to be exposed to levels of Agent Orange orders of magnitude greater than typical exposure before onset of heath issues.  This is not a popular statement to make, but that's the science we have before us.  The science could be wrong; it often is when dealing with human health issues.  

If there is reasonable, not perfect but reasonable scientific evidence that people in Vietnam have an increased risk of cancer or birth defects from Agent Orange exposure, then we should offer environmental remediation and compensation as part of normalization efforts.  The US has already agreed to environmental remediation of toxic chemicals at former US bases in Vietnam.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1708051/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1708051/posts)

Some relevant snippets if you don't care to read.

"Admiral William Leahy estimated that there would be more than 250,000 Americans killed or wounded on Kyushu alone"

"General Charles Willoughby, chief of intelligence for General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of the Southwest Pacific, estimated American casualties would be one million men by the fall of 1946. Willoughby's own intelligence staff considered this to be a conservative estimate."

"In retrospect, the 1 million American men who were to be the casualties of the invasion, were instead lucky enough to survive the war."

"Intelligence studies and military estimates made 50 years ago, and not latter-day speculation, clearly indicate that the battle for Japan might well have resulted in the biggest blood-bath in the history of modern warfare."

"Far worse would be what might have happened to Japan as a nation and as a culture. When the invasion came, it would have come after several months of fire bombing all of the remaining Japanese cities. The cost in human life that resulted from the two atomic blasts would be small in comparison to the total number of Japanese lives that would have been lost by this aerial devastation."

"With American forces locked in combat in the south of Japan, little could have prevented the Soviet Union from marching into the northern half of the Japanese home islands. Japan today cold be divided much like Korea and Germany."

"President Truman approved the plans for the invasions July 24. Two days later, the United Nations issued the Potsdam Proclamation, which called upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or face total destruction. Three days later, the Japanese governmental news agency broadcast to the world that Japan would ignore the proclamation and would refuse to surrender. During this same period it was learned -- via monitoring Japanese radio broadcasts -- that Japan had closed all schools and mobilized its schoolchildren, was arming its civilian population and was fortifying caves and building underground defenses."

"What the military leaders did not know was that by the end of July the Japanese had been saving all aircraft, fuel, and pilots in reserve, and had been feverishly building new planes for the decisive battle for their homeland."

"Facing the 14 American divisions landing at Kyushu would be 14 Japanese divisions, 7 independent mixed brigades, 3 tank brigades and thousands of naval troops. On Kyushu the odds would be 3 to 2 in favor of the Japanese, with 790,000 enemy defenders against 550,000 Americans. This time the bulk of the Japanese defenders would not be the poorly trained and ill-equipped labor battalions that the Americans had faced in the earlier campaigns."

"The Japanese defenders would be the hard core of the home army. These troops were well-fed and well equipped. They were familiar with the terrain, had stockpiles of arms and ammunition, and had developed an effective system of transportation and supply almost invisible from the air. Many of these Japanese troops were the elite of the army, and they were swollen with a fanatical fighting spirit."

"Japan's network of beach defenses consisted of offshore mines, thousands of suicide scuba divers attacking landing craft, and mines planted on the beaches. Coming ashore, the American Eastern amphibious assault forces at Miyazaki would face three Japanese divisions, and two others poised for counterattack. Awaiting the Southeastern attack force at Ariake Bay was an entire division and at least one mixed infantry brigade. "

"In addition to the use of poison gas and bacteriological warfare (which the Japanese had experimented with), Japan mobilized its citizenry."

"At the early stage of the invasion, 1,000 Japanese and American soldiers would be dying every hour."

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"The only reason USA nuked Japan is because Japan managed to launch a successful sneak attack on US soil...

You completely ignore context.  WWII was madness on a global scale.  We humans killed well over 60,000,000 of our fellow humans.  More than half of them were noncombatants and a large number of the combatants were killed as prisoners of war.  Add to that the number of people we killed indirectly due to war-related causes - disease, starvation, exposure - and the number of humans killed by fellow humans is as high as 85,000,000.  In that context, the first nation to develop nuclear weapons was guaranteed to use them.

I don't think anyone can seriously argue that if Germany, Japan, USSR, UK, China, or any major combatant in WWII had developed atomic weapons before the USA that they would not have used them.

The record of all combatant's blatant disregard for human life including noncombatants in that war makes this point clear.

Quote from: "aileron"

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"The only reason USA nuked Japan is because Japan managed to launch a successful sneak attack on US soil...

You completely ignore context.  WWII was madness on a global scale.  We humans killed well over 60,000,000 of our fellow humans, more than half of them noncombatants and a large number of killed combatants were killed as prisoners of war.  Add to that the number of people we killed indirectly due to war-related causes - disease, starvation, exposure - and the number of humans killed by fellow humans is as high as 85,000,000.  In that context, the first nation to develop nuclear weapons was guaranteed to use them.

I don't think anyone can seriously argue that if Germany, Japan, USSR, UK, China, or any major combatant in WWII had developed atomic weapons before the USA that they would not have used them.

The record of all combatant's blatant disregard for human life including noncombatants in that war makes this point clear.

In many ways the only atrocity would have been NOT to have used them.

Why? Because you're attacking the U.S. like it is the only one guilty of anything and that it isn't a problem with humanity but a problem with governments. Or in this case one particular government. it's extremely short sighted. All governments do it, all governments will regardless of whichever asshole seizes power. You're also ignoring fact in the relevant case that no matter how bad the bombing of Japan was by going nuclear it saved lives, A LOT of lives.

We know or should know war is about money and power.  The people who sell us war are arguably the worse the world has to offer us including murderers and child molesters and every nation has these kinds of people.  The US is a capitalistic nation, there's no getting around that, but we're hardly alone in that respect. We elect them, but all to often under false premises and they have untold wealth at their disposal to influence voters, politicians and other nations and their populations.
Own up to? What exactly does that mean to a population? Sure, we have people more than willing to admit to atrocities,  but at the same time we have people willfully ignorant along with people with untold weath working hard to mislead people and to rewrite history to suit their needs. More often than not money rules the day and the population is all to willing to turn the blind eye if it means a nice car, cheap gas and the latest gadget. That is part of the human animal and it's hardly anything new.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"

Quote from: "Moriarty"Why? Because you're attacking the U.S. like it is the only one guilty of anything and that it isn't a problem with humanity but a problem with governments. Or in this case one particular government. it's extremely short sighted. All governments do it, all governments will regardless of whichever asshole seizes power. You're also ignoring fact in the relevant case that no matter how bad the bombing of Japan was by going nuclear it saved lives, A LOT of lives.

Oh this is rich. You are throwing me the cheapest strawman ever. 'But why are we talking about US?! Read the thread title. What do you expect me to talk about in a thread titled "From Hiroshima to Fukushima, Vietnam to Fallujah".  Eskimos? Africans? Aliens? Lemurs in Madagascar?

And you have become nauseating with your "nuking Japan saved ' a lot of lives" bullshit. Go puke it to someone else. I'm sick of it. This conversation is over.

Yea being wrong does that to a lot of people. Why don't you post about the atrocities of the Turkish government, there is more than enough there, or are you just more content posting about what the U.S. does?

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Tell me something, when US army bombed a surrendered Berlin and killed massive amount of people, was it trying to save Germans and prevent loss of lives again?

Absolutely not. It is a matter of record that the Allies deliberately wanted to cause as much damage as possible. However what you don't know is the rationale behind. For better or for worse, the thinking at the times was that after WW1, the vast majority of Germans did not believe that Germany had lost the war - they were fed constantly they were winning, and hardly any destruction had taken place on German soil. Hitler was of that opinion, most of the card-carrying nazi members believed so, and so other Germans. So the massive bombing that took place at the end of WW2 was exactly to send the message to the Germans that this time you will know that you have lost the war.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Tell me something, when US army bombed a surrendered Berlin and killed massive amount of people, was it trying to save Germans and prevent loss of lives again?

Absolutely not. It is a matter of record that the Allies deliberately wanted to cause as much damage as possible. However what you don't know is the rationale behind. For better or for worse, the thinking at the times was that after WW1, the vast majority of Germans did not believe that Germany had lost the war - they were fed constantly they were winning, and hardly any destruction had taken place on German soil. Hitler was of that opinion, most of the card-carrying nazi members believed so, and so other Germans. So the massive bombing that took place at the end of WW2 was exactly to send the message to the Germans that this time you will know that you have lost the war.

So true.

Also remember that the Germans themselves did it to the Netherlands and Poland when they didn't surrender fast enough for them but it's all about the U.S. <odd>

Guessing you'll want an apology for Dresden too~

Also remember I'm the least nationalist person  you will ever meet in the U.S. So I don't hold my perspective as some sort of patriot.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Moar, do you even know what is the reason for my reaction to people here in this thread except stromboli?

Because the only thing you people choose to do is to throw the basic propaganda at me.

How do you equate pointing out factual errors with throwing out propaganda?  Is it not enough for you for the US to face up to its real atrocities?  Must it also face up to the imagined ones too?

Quote from: "Hydra009"

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"These people are very patiently and cordially disagreeing with you and you lash out at them and dishonestly strawman their arguments.

No, I won't apologise to anyone who doesn't have the slightest human decency to write a simple thing to own up to something like this, but instead telling me to 'stop being emotional' or 'have some tact' like you or others did.

Again you misrepresent my point and utterly miss it.  A pity, because this could have actually been a learning experience for you.  I can tolerate many things, including your infamous temper, but I cannot tolerate dishonesty.  Say hello to the ignore list, likely forever this time.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Oh so US had the clear and definite information that any of those countries didn't have -or definitely had- any nuclear weapons and so when they built and used the nuclear weapons their only aim was to 'end the war' and and 'saving lives'?

Where exactly did I write anything even remotely close to this?

QuoteTell me something, when US army bombed a surrendered Berlin and killed massive amount of people, was it trying to save Germans and prevent loss of lives again?

What exactly are you referencing?  The US Army stopped bombing Berlin well before its surrender so that they would not bomb the Soviets who were staging for the Battle of Berlin.

If it makes you guys feel better, I've been written off as a US propagandist and ended up on her ignore list for the same reason, disagreeing with opinion and asking for supporting evidence :)

But I think it bears mentioning again.
Where is the data on the assertion in the article?
 If there is in fact "studies by Iraqi and American doctors showing a very high level of cancer among children, far higher than before, in the whole neighborhood of Fallujah", I would like to see those studies and it is something that should be trivial to present.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"However, the explanation you are making here, like the whole picture context aileron offers...

I'm fairly certain you're imagining a picture that is reflected nowhere in my writing here or in my sentiments.  

I do not condone the terror bombing of civilians in WWII, period, full stop nuclear or otherwise.  

The "whole picture" I'm interested in is this:  Condemn the US for acts actually committed,, but don't leap to the conclusion that all such accusations reflect reality.  Most of the ones from Chomsky, as is the norm for him, are either wildly exaggerated or patently false.

I have no problem facing up to atrocities actually committed by this nation, but it's tiresome having to point out all the false accusations being made and there are a lot of them.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"

Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"We know or should know war is about money and power.  The people who sell us war are arguably the worse the world has to offer us including murderers and child molesters and every nation has these kinds of people.  The US is a capitalistic nation, there's no getting around that, but we're hardly alone in that respect. We elect them, but all to often under false premises and they have untold wealth at their disposal to influence voters, politicians and other nations and their populations.
Own up to? What exactly does that mean to a population? Sure, we have people more than willing to admit to atrocities,  but at the same time we have people willfully ignorant along with people with untold weath working hard to mislead people and to rewrite history to suit their needs. More often than not money rules the day and the population is all to willing to turn the blind eye if it means a nice car, cheap gas and the latest gadget. That is part of the human animal and it's hardly anything new.

I am not talking to the American population. I am talking to a bunch of people who have the claim of seeing bullshit, capable of simple reasoning, people who discuss atrocities committed around the world by other nations on a daily basis and EXPECT them to do the same when it came up about their own. Exactly like how I can sit down and talk to my Kurdish, Armenian, Alewit friends about the history and the political bullshit and the reality without confusing them or throwing each other some propaganda bullshit that we have been subjected since our child hood.

It's a rewarding experience. It reminds you that all this bullshit you can't change is aside, you actually belong to some intelligent species.

Shoe dear, I'm not going to pretend to be the enlightened one with vast knowledge of historical events and knowledge of some hidden agendas nobody else is aware of. I'm a fairly simple person. Most people are, but hate to admit it. It takes me awhile to type this crap and I usually lose track of what the hell I'm talking about in the first place.
The simple fact is we're seldom if ever consulted about matters of war and then all to often we're lied to about things skewing our opinions one way or the other and none of us are immune to that.
If you watch enough American TV you might actually believe that the bible is 100% fact and there is indeed a wild man living in the great northwest with a camera crew following him all day. Are you really expecting everyone here to be light years ahead of my own understanding of the world? I have bad news.  Most of them are dopier than me. I don't imagine it's much better anywhere else in the world.  :-$

Looks like I have to do everything around here :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah)
Bottom of the link, under Health

QuoteIn 2010 it was reported that an academic study[37] had shown "a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer." since 2004.[38] In addition, the report said the types of cancer were "similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout", and an 18% fall in the male birth ratio (to 850 per 1000 female births, compared to the usual 1050) was similar to that seen after the Hiroshima bombing.[38]

Citations are available to all. So it looks like there are two presently available sources as far as I can tell.

I only had time to read the first one
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/pdf (http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/pdf)
And I went straight down to the conclusion

QuoteThis study was intended to investigate the accuracy of the various reports which have been emerging from Fallujah regarding perceived increases in birth defects, infant deaths and cancer in the population and to examine samples from the area for the presence of mutagenic substances that may explain any results. We conclude that the results confirm the reported increases in cancer and infant mortality which are alarmingly high. The remarkable reduction in the sex ratio in the cohort born one year after the fighting in 2004 identifies that year as the time of the environmental contamination. In our opinion, the magnitude of these effects make it difficult to question them on the basis of any of the hypothetical shortcomings of the study type which we have considered although these must be borne in mind. However, owing to the various constraints placed by circumstance on the methods employed, we must emphasise that the results of this study should be interpreted with those aspects in mind. Finally, the results reported here do not throw any light upon the identity of the agent(s) causing the increased levels of illness and although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted uranium as one potential relevant exposure, there may be other possibilities and we see the current study as investigating the anecdotal evidence of increases in cancer and infant mortality in Fallujah.

Second link is not an actual scientific study; it is a journalistic article. From it, I cite:

QuoteDr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that "to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened".

It appears that there is an undeniable correlation and I do believe further investigation is warranted. What I am curious to find out what the official reason was given by the US and Iraq government as well as the international organizations as to deny the whole thing.

Quote from: "Shol'va"Looks like I have to do everything around here :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah)
Bottom of the link, under Health

QuoteIn 2010 it was reported that an academic study[37] had shown "a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer." since 2004.[38] In addition, the report said the types of cancer were "similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout", and an 18% fall in the male birth ratio (to 850 per 1000 female births, compared to the usual 1050) was similar to that seen after the Hiroshima bombing.[38]

Citations are available to all. So it looks like there are two presently available sources as far as I can tell.

I only had time to read the first one
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/pdf (http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/pdf)
And I went straight down to the conclusion

QuoteThis study was intended to investigate the accuracy of the various reports which have been emerging from Fallujah regarding perceived increases in birth defects, infant deaths and cancer in the population and to examine samples from the area for the presence of mutagenic substances that may explain any results. We conclude that the results confirm the reported increases in cancer and infant mortality which are alarmingly high. The remarkable reduction in the sex ratio in the cohort born one year after the fighting in 2004 identifies that year as the time of the environmental contamination. In our opinion, the magnitude of these effects make it difficult to question them on the basis of any of the hypothetical shortcomings of the study type which we have considered although these must be borne in mind. However, owing to the various constraints placed by circumstance on the methods employed, we must emphasise that the results of this study should be interpreted with those aspects in mind. Finally, the results reported here do not throw any light upon the identity of the agent(s) causing the increased levels of illness and although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted uranium as one potential relevant exposure, there may be other possibilities and we see the current study as investigating the anecdotal evidence of increases in cancer and infant mortality in Fallujah.

Second link is not an actual scientific study; it is a journalistic article. From it, I cite:

QuoteDr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that "to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened".

It appears that there is an undeniable correlation and I do believe further investigation is warranted. What I am curious to find out what the official reason was given by the US and Iraq government as well as the international organizations as to deny the whole thing.

That's the simple thing here, I never disagreed with what she had said, yet I got attacked. :P I merely pointed out that anyone/nation is capable of it so highlighting potential U.S. "errors in judgement" is relatively hypocritical. Might have just thrown out the term "Great Satan" and be done with it.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Tell me something, when US army bombed a surrendered Berlin and killed massive amount of people, was it trying to save Germans and prevent loss of lives again?

Absolutely not. It is a matter of record that the Allies deliberately wanted to cause as much damage as possible. However what you don't know is the rationale behind. For better or for worse, the thinking at the times was that after WW1, the vast majority of Germans did not believe that Germany had lost the war - they were fed constantly they were winning, and hardly any destruction had taken place on German soil. Hitler was of that opinion, most of the card-carrying nazi members believed so, and so other Germans. So the massive bombing that took place at the end of WW2 was exactly to send the message to the Germans that this time you will know that you have lost the war.

That was sarcasm about referring to some statement made earlier that 'Americans nuked Japan to save Japanese lives.'

However, the explanation you are making here, like the whole picture context aileron offers or the one Moar keeps parroting can't simply be a body of information that was had at the time of war to be used operated under for a goal as a toughtfully carried out military strategy.

Whether that rationale was morally right is a matter of endless debate. But that was the rationale at the times, before the actual decision was made to bomb Germany to smithereens.

QuoteThis is the problem about history of wars in this scale. Most of the information that is seen as a simple direct justification is gathered in years after the war written and speculated with what ifs, compensating - completing set of backward working reasonings filling in between and they become reality with a huge literary body.

Again the rationale was not made years after the bombings were made, but before that. And that's in the public record if you care to inform yourself.

QuoteArguing from the conclusion to justify its means and basically history WWII is the most suitable war to be manipulated, it is the source of most effective major propaganda since it happened. And this is understandable in a political level.

Perehaps that's true but irrelevant to this discussion.

QuoteHighly likely the reason was extreme fear. But that's not very fashionable to say, I guess. Forgive my bad Hollywood reference, a 'double tap'.

Fear is a motivation for many of our actions, but not very relevant to this discussion.

Quote from: "Moriarty"That's the simple thing here, I never disagreed with what she had said, yet I got attacked. :P I merely pointed out that anyone/nation is capable of it so highlighting potential U.S. "errors in judgement" is relatively hypocritical. Might have just thrown out the term "Great Satan" and be done with it.

My post was not addressed to anyone specifically, I was attempting to supplement the OP which should have had citations to begin with. Nevertheless, you and I both know it wouldn't be the first time drunkenshoe overreacted and/or misunderstood something :)

We have a saying in my language. When two people tell you that you're drunk, you go to bed.
This roughly translates to if more than one person makes an observation of a particular something, you should take a hint that they may be right.

The term "parroting" presumes talking without knowing, or just accepting what is told to you. Unless hundreds of publications and opinions, even Japanese ones were all fabricated over the course of the last 60 years, it is historical record.

The trick is distingishing fact from opinion. In the course of 60 years a lot of opinion has been tossed about. I'm not making the assumption that anyone here is any better than I am at making those distinctions.

Quote from: "Shol'va"It appears that there is an undeniable correlation...

Correlation?  Between what two things?  

The authors' stated intent was not trying to find a correlation.  They were trying to corroborate anecdotal reports of elevated cancers and birth defects.  Their methodology was, by their own admission, lacking in scientific rigor.  In fact it was much worst than that.  Self-reported surveys, especially when the participants can infer the reasons why they are being surveyed are pretty useless.

Quote...and I do believe further investigation is warranted.

I agree.  These kinds of reports should be investigated.  

QuoteWhat I am curious to find out what the official reason was given by the US and Iraq government as well as the international organizations as to deny the whole thing.

Lots and lots of communities worldwide claim that they have an elevated cancer rate / birth defect rate / morbidity rate from X, Y, and Z causes.  Sometimes they're right; sometimes we can't know for sure; but often times they're just flat-out wrong.  

Until there's reliable evidence of increased cancer rates / birth defect rates / morbidity (there may be, but Noam Chomsky's word for it and a profoundly flawed survey don't establish it), there's nothing to deny.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"

Quote from: "aileron"Most of the ones from Chomsky, as is the norm for him, are either wildly exaggerated or patently false.

Yeah, now you wrote this, I am totally convinced. Because basic intelligence suggests that I should automatically give credit to someone who has been throwing basic American propaganda at me

Pointing out easily verified mistakes in fact is propaganda?  Admitting that the US has committed atrocities and should make restitution is propaganda?  You have a very strange view of what propaganda is.

Quote...instead of someone who has not just studied almost every aspect of what we are talking about here...

Oh, yes... Chomsky really knows what he's talking about when it comes to physics for example, such as when he claims that the weapons used in Fallujah were "highly radioactive".  That's a verifiable fact that is trivial to disprove.  

Quote...considering he turned 85 a few months ago- and lived a difficult life...

Appeal to authority much?

QuoteBut the things he says generally, esp. for USA foreign policy (I don't mean the OP article) must be very alien to any 'patriotic' ears.

Factually inaccurate or wrong is factually inaccurate or wrong.  Genetic fallacy much?

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Perehaps that's true but irrelevant to this discussion.

And if that's 'perhaps true' then how is that irrelevant to this discussion or any discussion about history of some war that could be built some history on it; that was transformed into a collective identity of some nation and the propaganda its policy runs on?

QuoteFear is a motivation for many of our actions, but not very relevant to this discussion.

They are not your actions. They are political decisions made by governments. You or American people had/have no power to shape or change those actions.

Fear is irrelevant to US WWII policy. :lol:

Why am I even having a conversation with you?

You don't have to have any conversation with anyone but your claim that members of this forum are parotting propaganda made up by the US government is nonsense as I have indicated to you that in the case of Germany, the message was clear and the action that followed - bombing just about any German city - was in line with that message. That was no propaganda, just a promise faithfully delivered.

Similarly, in the case of Japan, there was no propaganda. If you do any reasonable estimation, thousands of Americans would have died, and many more times that for Japanese lives. That is simple logic, not propaganda.

Yet, you keep insisting that members of this forum have succombed to American propaganda is not only nonsense but also pathetic.

QuoteThe article you linked does not support this position. Unfortunately, even if true it would not be surprising since Vietnamese cities have some of the most polluted air and water in the world. To date scientific studies investigating a link between Agent Orange exposure and human health effects could best be called inconclusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange)

QuoteThe Vietnam Red Cross reported as many as 3 million Vietnamese people have been affected by Agent Orange, including at least 150,000 children born with birth defects.[68] According to Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 people being killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects.[69] Women had higher rates of miscarriage and stillbirths, as did livestock such as cattle, water buffalo, and pigs.[70] The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to contaminated Agent Orange.[71] The United States government has challenged these figures as being unreliable and unrealistically high.[72][73]
Children in the areas where Agent Orange was used have been affected and have multiple health problems, including cleft palate, mental disabilities, hernias, and extra fingers and toes.[74] In the 1970s, high levels of dioxin were found in the breast milk of South Vietnamese women, and in the blood of U.S. military personnel who had served in Vietnam.[75] The most affected zones are the mountainous area along Truong Son (Long Mountains) and the border between Vietnam and Cambodia. The affected residents are living in substandard conditions with many genetic diseases.[76]
About 28 of the former U.S. military bases in Vietnam where the herbicides were stored and loaded onto airplanes may still have high level of dioxins in the soil, posing a health threat to the surrounding communities. Extensive testing for dioxin contamination has been conducted at the former U.S. airbases in Da Nang, Phu Cat and Bien Hoa. Some of the soil and sediment on the bases have extremely high levels of dioxin requiring remediation. The Da Nang Airbase has dioxin contamination up to 350 times higher than international recommendations for action.[77][78] The contaminated soil and sediment continue to affect the citizens of Vietnam, poisoning their food chain and causing illnesses, serious skin diseases and a variety of cancers in the lungs, larynx, and prostate.[74]

http://www.vva.org/veteran/1207/agent_o ... ature.html (http://www.vva.org/veteran/1207/agent_orange_feature.html)

QuoteSome 2.8 million Americans served in the Vietnam theater of operations. Three-to-six percent of Vietnam veterans' children are born with some kind of birth defect (Emory University School of Medicine reports a 3-4 percent birth-defect rate among the general population). An impressive body of scientific evidence points to increases in birth defects and developmental problems in the children of Vietnam veterans and others exposed to dioxin-like chemicals.

Preponderance of evidence. You may write this off as pollution or whatever, but considering that there is a comparable correlation between both US soldiers children showing birth defects and a high rate of cancers among veterans, and then to say that the same situation in Vietnam is different, does not meet the apparent facts. Regardless of denial by the US, it is a fact Dioxin is found not only on bases but all over the country, and to date the US has first disputed the "findings" of others, and done a paltry job of cleanup at best. Like I said, I'm not a fan of Chomsky either, but there is more than enough reason to believe that Agent Orange is the cause of these birth defects.

I just hope DS doesn't take debate personal or think I don't <3 her~ Debate is good for the soul~

Quote from: "aileron"

Quote from: "Shol'va"It appears that there is an undeniable correlation...

Correlation?  Between what two things?  

Correlation between the reported drastic increase in those issues listed and military action. But it want to underline the fact that I was pointing out they said correlation, NOT causation. Essentially I was pointing out they did not say they found evidence of causation

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I stated that the only reason US nuked Japan is because they managed to launch a sneak attack on US soil and that is the simplest logical truth

This follows after the historical facts already presented by others here. Yes, it was a dick swinging action by US.
*facepalm*

QuoteThis^ is simple, realistic logic. Not "We had to nuke them, because we had to save the world". That is not logic. That is propaganda and it is bullshit.

... because this follows from a string of unsupported assertions. I realize this'll never get through since I'm on her ignore list, nevertheless I will call out said unsupported assertions for the audience

QuoteI mean, I had two daughters about—when they were about the age of your daughter, they would come home from school telling us how in school they were taught to hide under desks in case there was a nuclear war.

Chomsky, you're an idiot. You know very well that the desk maneuver was to protect the children from flying glass, not to protect them from all aspects of a nuclear blast. This is why I don't respect you even a little bit.

Quote from: "stromboli"Preponderance of evidence.

Wikipedia and an article on VVA aren't exactly what I look for in terms of scientific evidence.  

QuoteYou may write this off as pollution or whatever, but considering that there is a comparable correlation between both US soldiers children showing birth defects...

The scientific papers I read refer to "weak statistical associations."  I've not seen one with a stronger association.  That means a relative risk of 0.2 to 0.5.  Scientific standards consider a relative risk less than 3.0 suspect.  The scientific standard is to ignore statistical associations between 0.2 and 2.0 because they are so easily caused by statistical noise.  So a weak statistical association doesn't even raise 1/4 of the way to the level that science considers all too easily statistical noise.  It's a nice way of saying we don't know.

This doesn't mean Agent Orange exposure isn't still causing health problems.  What it means is that for now science can't confirm that it's probable.  

What I will say is this:  There's a clear disparity between how American and Vietnamese exposed to Agent Orange have been treated.  Even though science can't confirm if there's a risk of long-term health effects, the US government provides coverage for certain health issues that could possibly be from Agent Orange exposure.  Of course, they will only do this for Americans who were exposed, not Vietnamese who were exposed.

Shoe, already knowing what kind of work you do, and now adding in the obvious that you have special talent for fiction........have you ever considered writing!?

 =D>  :lol:  :-k  :oops:  I kid, I kid.

In the documentary The Fog of War, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara recalls General Curtis LeMay, who relayed the Presidential order to drop nuclear bombs on Japan,said:
"If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

Losers are war criminals; winners are righteous victors.

QuoteBut what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

Having enough guns left to back up your opinion that what you did isn't immoral.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 12, 2014, 08:14:38 PM
The fairy tale of justification of nuking Japan is something belongs to the post war period and it is a fucking propaganda served by arguments created backwards from the conclusion at hand. Do you understand this right? The series of justification made later. Filled in the blanks.

Sorry but that's absolutely wrong. Just take the landing in Normandy (D-Day), the US lost 29,000 men in a matter of just a few days. Compare that to the 4,000+ casualties in the Iraq War that lasted 7 years to get a grip of that reality. Take into consideration that during the invasion at Normandy, Germany was also occupied in fighting two fronts - on the West, the Allies; on the East, Russia which was moving in quite fast - an invasion of Japan would be met with a full force of the Japanese army. Factor in the fanaticism of the Japanese soldiers - Kamikaze came decades before the jihadist suicide bombers, and what you have there is a recipe for a huge number of deaths on both sides.

Now, lets take a different scenario: suppose that the US had no nukes and had to invade Japan with foot soldiers. What do you think would have happened? Take the invasion at Normandy and what took place to move from Normandy to Berlin and apply the same scenario for the US invading Japan at any point and march all the way to Tokyo: every bridge would have to be fought over, ditto for every street of every town along the way, notwithstanding the massive aerial bombings that would have taken place a la Dresden. This would have taken weeks if not months, and the killing would have been horrendous. If you think that the number of casualties would have been lowered than what actually happened then think again.

The fire bombing of Tokyo in March 1945 killed more people than either atomic bomb. The invasion of Kyushu was planned with the expectation of facing ~500,000 Japanese troops. There were actually around 750,000. The Japanese military was conscripting EVERYBODY between 13 and 65 into "Volunteer Fighting Units. The fighting in China and elsewhere went on unabated. Truman's job was to end the war as fast a possible and he used everything in the box to do it.

People forget that we didn't know much about the full effects of the bombs back then. Gen. Marshall was to be given control of eight atomic bombs to be used during the invasion, and the plan was to march the troops through "ground zero" thirty minutes after the drop when they were used. Those are Allied troops, and many of them would have died. So if you hear someone tell you we used the bombs because of the "force multiplier" effect of radiation you can safely ignore them.

"everything must be put to fire and sword; men, women and children and old men must be slaughtered and not a tree or house be left standing."
Kaiser Wilhelm, on his duty to end WW1 as quickly as possible.This policy of indiscriminate murder to shorten the war was considered to be a crime. In the Pacific war under our consideration, if there was anything approaching what is indicated in the above quote from the German Emperor, it is the decision coming from the Allied powers to use the bomb. Future generations will judge this dire decision... If any indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and property is still illegal in warfare, then, in the Pacific War, this decision to use the atom bomb is the only near approach to the directives of the German Emperor during the first World War and of the Nazi leaders during the second World War. On 11 August 1945, the Japanese government filed an official protest over the atomic bombing to the U.S. State Department through the Swiss Legation in Tokyo, observing:"Combatant and noncombatant men and women, old and young, are massacred without discrimination by the atmospheric pressure of the explosion, as well as by the radiating heat which result therefrom. Consequently there is involved a bomb having the most cruel effects humanity has ever known ... The bombs in question, used by the Americans, by their cruelty and by their terrorizing effects, surpass by far gas or any other arm, the use of which is prohibited. Japanese protests against U.S. desecration of international principles of war paired the use of the atomic bomb with the earlier firebombing, which massacred old people, women and children, destroying and burning down Shinto and Buddhist temples, schools, hospitals, living quarters, etc... They now use this new bomb, having an uncontrollable and cruel effect much greater than any other arms or projectiles ever used to date. This constitutes a new crime against humanity and civilization."

It's a pity Japan was engaged in indiscriminate murder well before the US got into the war.

All countries are. That's what makes it so sad, that people are easy to point out the horrors the losers commit without realising that all sides are equally terrible at everything they do.
You either accept that horrors are a part of a life and stop bashing on the losers, or you condemn all forms of war and "peace through superior firepower"

Or you remain a hypocrite who says that "war is horrible, but thank god for the us military trying to put an end to it". That's also a common option.

Quote from: Plu on March 13, 2014, 11:39:43 AM
Or you remain a hypocrite who says that "war is horrible, but thank god for the us military trying to put an end to it". That's also a common option.

Cute. I think the 170,000 Allied POWs who were slated for execution when the first invasion forces landed on Kyushu appreciated that the Allies didn't hold back when it came to forcing an end to the war.

Of course. The winners are always happy that it ended and the losers are generally dead so they can't really complain. I'm sure that while the 170,000 allies are happy, the dead japanese civilians were less amused. But hey, we don't hear them complain.

When you take the outsider perspective, it's shit all around.

But there would have been a lot more dead Japanese had an invasion taken place. I've seen more than a few interviews of Japanese, who while not happy about the bomb, understood their nation was never going to surrender otherwise~

You typed all that, which I didn't even read because I probably wouldn't like what it said btw, for something I clearly said I was joking about? Relax my friend.

Quote from: Moriarty on March 13, 2014, 11:47:53 AM
But there would have been a lot more dead Japanese had an invasion taken place. I've seen more than a few interviews of Japanese, who while not happy about the bomb, understood their nation was never going to surrender otherwise~

I like to ask people who don't like the way the war ended to say how they would have ended it. The Japanese have estimated that 5-20,000,000 people would have died if the full invasion scenario had been played out.

Quote from: Plu on March 13, 2014, 11:45:36 AM
Of course. The winners are always happy that it ended and the losers are generally dead so they can't really complain. I'm sure that while the 170,000 allies are happy, the dead japanese civilians were less amused. But hey, we don't hear them complain.

When you take the outsider perspective, it's shit all around.

I've studied this matter since 1965. Still waiting for a better end to the war.

I doubt there is a better end available once you're knee deep in the shit. That's why I'd rather call out people who think there are good reasons to start a war instead. There still seem to be far too many people who are far too eager to start this shit. And that includes all people who disagree with the idea that all sides involved in a war are responsible for the horrors that it creates, because that's the only way I see that will make people realise that it's a bad idea to start with them.

Quote from: Plu on March 13, 2014, 11:57:41 AM
I doubt there is a better end available once you're knee deep in the shit. That's why I'd rather call out people who think there are good reasons to start a war instead. There still seem to be far too many people who are far too eager to start this shit. And that includes all people who disagree with the idea that all sides involved in a war are responsible for the horrors that it creates, because that's the only way I see that will make people realise that it's a bad idea to start with them.

I strongly agree with that. Too many dead people no matter how it ends.

Quote from: Plu on March 13, 2014, 11:57:41 AM
I doubt there is a better end available once you're knee deep in the shit. That's why I'd rather call out people who think there are good reasons to start a war instead. There still seem to be far too many people who are far too eager to start this shit. And that includes all people who disagree with the idea that all sides involved in a war are responsible for the horrors that it creates, because that's the only way I see that will make people realise that it's a bad idea to start with them.

In case you don't know, it was England and France that declared war on Germany in Sept 1939. Are you suggesting that this shouldn't have been done, and leave Hitler to continue on his path of annexing neighboring states?

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 13, 2014, 11:36:58 AM
It's a pity Japan was engaged in indiscriminate murder well before the US got into the war.

Exactly. Let's turn the focus a bit on Japan. Had they stayed the fuck home, none of this would have happened. This is just me talking, but if I were the emperor and cared about my people more than honor, after the first bomb went off I would have said "yep, that's it. Let's fucking surrender and stop fighting this war". To me, their complaint about the use of the bomb amounts to "America is not fighting fair, we want them to come by ground so that their soldiers can meet their doom at the hands of our schoolchildren, women and elderly; their honor demands of them that they die for their country." How do you issue that complaint with a straight face when, according to what I have read, they were arming their entire country in preparation for an iminent invasion.
My point is there's plenty of blame to go all around and it is very easy for anyone with an internet connection to point fingers. Either way, what happened in WW2 is a red herring to the subject at hand.

I am reminded of a scene towards the end of the Band of Brothers series where one of the characters, a US soldier, yells at the surrendering German army "what the fuck are we doing all the way here?!?"

Shoe, I'm always trying to think of things to refute you (other than TWD), but it usually comes down to the fact I usually agree with you,  but do you HAVE TO make me feel guilty for being alive? :o

It's hard deciding where to start, isn't it ;)
The problem comes from the overly simplistic view "for or against". If an objection is raised to any point at all, you're part of the problem. If you agree to all of it only then are you one of the good folks.
Politics is simply too much of a gray area, too much bullshit to go all around, and carries just enough ambiguity to justify just about any argument that it is generally not worth making enemies and holding grudges over over. Some people are awfully quick to label others based on one or another topic and dehumanize them to the point that the whole of their persona is reduced to political views.
Sounds strangely familiar to what theists do when discussing religion, isn't it?
Unfortunately any and all of us here are completely and utterly powerless to change the past.

George Carlin was absolutely brilliant.
Did you guys know he narrated the kids show Thomas and Friends? Hard to picture that, isn't it?

I must be a little stupid, because I don't see the historical revisionism in this thread you mentioned. Wiki, that's their problem. 

Governments have had LOTS of practice at lying to people. It's not exactly a new idea. As much as I would like my government to be honest and tell us the whole truth and nothing but is really naive. The one truth is that they all lie about a very long laundry list of shit all the time. 

Quote from: Gawdzilla SamaI must be a little stupid, because I don't see the historical revisionism in this thread you mentioned. Wiki, that's their problem.

Same here. My reaction so far reading this thread has been one of, "Oh dear, Shoe has a bee up her ass again." I don't actually read anything she says when she flies off the handle like this. I just grab some popcorn and amuse myself reading the responses.

The beginning and ending of WWII are my primary areas of interest. Have been since 1965.

Really? you're admitting to being that shallow?  Hmmm.. I agree with that last post mainly because it's true. But hey, maybe our government really is 100% benevolence based. ::)

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheistReally? you're admitting to being that shallow?  Hmmm.. I agree with that last post mainly because it's true. But hey, maybe our government really is 100% benevolence based. 

I beg your pardon? 

Actually Shoe historical revisionism is a departure of normally accepted history, what you're attempting to do in this thread.

The standard historical model has been, since nearly the end of the war if not before, that the U.S. was the primary reason Germany was defeated and that an invasion of Japan would have been a needless blood bath that the A-Bombs avoided. While at the same time limiting the land grab of the Soviet Union who had promised the U.S. to enter the war against Japan as soon as the war in Europe were finished, which it did invading Manchuria, China just afterwards.

30-40 years later, historical revisionists came around and said: "Oh, the U.S. only dropped the bomb to show the Russians they had it and to scare them and not grab the entirety of Europe/Middle East, because they knew the U.S.S.R. had won the war on their own."

And you're own, apparently unique twist that I had never heard before "They only dropped the A-Bomb for revenge of Pearl Harbor.".

That, my friend, is historical revisionism.

QuoteThe standard historical model has been, since nearly the end of the war if not before, that the U.S. was the primary reason Germany was defeated and that an invasion of Japan would have been a needless blood bath that the A-Bombs avoided.

Are you sure that's the standard historical model and not the american standard historical model?

Because I'm pretty sure I was taught in school that it was a combined effort of a whole lot of Allied countries, including Russia, working together and that none of them would have been able to win this war on their own.

Quote from: MoriartyActually Shoe historical revisionism is a departure of normally accepted history, what you're attempting to do in this thread.

The standard historical model has been, since nearly the end of the war if not before, that the U.S. was the primary reason Germany was defeated and that an invasion of Japan would have been a needless blood bath that the A-Bombs avoided. While at the same time limiting the land grab of the Soviet Union who had promised the U.S. to enter the war against Japan as soon as the war in Europe were finished, which it did invading Manchuria, China just afterwards.

30-40 years later, historical revisionists came around and said: "Oh, the U.S. only dropped the bomb to show the Russians they had it and to scare them and not grab the entirety of Europe/Middle East, because they knew the U.S.S.R. had won the war on their own."

And you're own, apparently unique twist that I had never heard before "They only dropped the A-Bomb for revenge of Pearl Harbor.".

That, my friend, is historical revisionism.

The bolded parts are revisionism.
The first part is your own opinion which contradicts even the pure statistics of WW2 let alone commonly accepted historical fact.

US military deaths: 416,800. Total: 418,500.
USSR military deaths: 8,700,000 to 13,850,000. Total Deaths: 21,800,000 to 28,000,000

The USA played a hugely important role in defeating the Wermacht, but to say that they were the primary reason they were defeated is simply incorrect.

Quote from: SilentFutility on March 15, 2014, 05:41:20 AM




The USA played a hugely important role in defeating the Wermacht, but to say that they were the primary reason they were defeated is simply incorrect.

Indeed, the turning point was at Stalingrad, when Russia inflicted Hitler his first major defeat. After that, it was downhill for Germany. If anything, Russia was the main actor, led secondly by the Allies.

Quote from: josephpalazzoQuote from: SilentFutility on Today at 04:41:20 AM



The USA played a hugely important role in defeating the Wermacht, but to say that they were the primary reason they were defeated is simply incorrect.
Indeed, the turning point was at Stalingrad, when Russia inflicted Hitler his first major defeat. After that, it was downhill for Germany. If anything, Russia was the main actor, led secondly by the Allies.

True, but it didn't stop Stalin from demanding a Second Front in Europe as early as 1942. (This was conveniently forgotten after the war in the USSR.)

From Hiroshima to Fukushima, Vietnam to Fallujah, Ancient Greece to WW2, Native American Wars, Socrates and everything in between.

Quote from: drunkenshoey? you're admitting to beiWe're Quoteng that shallow?  Hmmm.. just knew itagree with that last post mainly because it's true. But hey, maybe our government really is 100% benevolence based. Quote from: AllPurposeAtheOf course it is. You have my word for it. 

I was actually standing up for your post. Hey wait! We're pure as the driven on snow? I just knew it! If i wasnt so damned tired from insomnia id read thst whole post. :o

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 15, 2014, 09:31:02 AM

Quote from: josephpalazzoQuote from: SilentFutility on Today at 04:41:20 AM



The USA played a hugely important role in defeating the Wermacht, but to say that they were the primary reason they were defeated is simply incorrect.
Indeed, the turning point was at Stalingrad, when Russia inflicted Hitler his first major defeat. After that, it was downhill for Germany. If anything, Russia was the main actor, led secondly by the Allies.

True, but it didn't stop Stalin from demanding a Second Front in Europe as early as 1942. (This was conveniently forgotten after the war in the USSR.)

There's no denying that Russia got a lot of help. And it was unfortunate that as a communist regime, it turned hostile towards the West at the end of WW2, a needless Cold War that lasted for another 45 years.

Quote from: josephpalazzoQuote from: SilentFutility on Today at 05:41:20 AM



The USA played a hugely important role in defeating the Wermacht, but to say that they were the primary reason they were defeated is simply incorrect.
Indeed, the turning point was at Stalingrad, when Russia inflicted Hitler his first major defeat. After that, it was downhill for Germany. If anything, Russia was the main actor, led secondly by the Allies.

From a pure military point of view absolutely. What I learned in school and even university is that the Soviets would have been incapable of defending themselves, let alone push back without massive material support from the U.S.


Aircraft 14,795
Tanks 7,056
Jeeps 51,503
Trucks 375,883
Motorcycles 35,170
Tractors 8,071
Guns 8,218
Machine guns 131,633
Explosives 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars 11,155
Locomotives 1,981
Cargo ships 90
Submarine hunters 105
Torpedo boats 197
Ship engines 7,784
Food supplies 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons
Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals 842,000 tons
Cotton 106,893,000 tons
Leather 49,860 tons
Tires 3,786,000
Army boots 15,417,001 pairs

QuoteAw, I know I am asking for too much from your mind which is not equipped to perceive anything different than the common generic American bullshit that has been filled in. But see, there you go. You are standing against like a good American and WATCHING everything around you like a MOVIE.  Make some more popcorn. You'll need a lot.

I have a Masters in History, specializing in WWII. I would also invite you to visit my archival site, Hyperwa (http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar)r. You'll find >200 gigabytes of material on WWII there, collected over twenty years of work. 

Quote from: drunkenshoeAw, I know I am asking for too much from your mind which is not equipped to perceive anything different than the common generic American bullshit that has been filled in.

Oh don't get me wrong, Shoe, I'm probably the most anti-American person on the forum. I've just learned from the past that you will yell at me whether I agree with you or not, like you're going to after I make this post. So instead, I just embrace the entertainment value. ;D

Sorry. I blame Obamacare. 

All I'm really saying DS, is that if you really wanted to point out a U.S. atrocity, you would be better served pointing out what it did AFTER WWII. It helped to completely drive a wedge between it and the U.S.S.R., and take advantage of the fact that the rest of the worlds nations and their economies had been destroyed, and jumped all over it to try to dominate the world for the next 60+ years. That was the atrocity committed.

Quote from: drunkenshoeHijiri,
No, I'm not going to yell at you if you agree with me or not. (Yes, I know I did that before.) And I don't agree that anything I am saying here is 'anti-American' either. On the contrary. Do you really think that anyone who is really this immersed with some country's culture, spending this amount of time with its people is against it? LOL.
I don't want anyone to be anti-American, I want people to extract fairy tale from reality. In case people didn't notice, this is the main theme of our little community.

On that we can agree.

Quote from: drunkenshoeQuote from: MoriartyAll I'm really saying DS, is that if you really wanted to point out a U.S. atrocity, you would be better served pointing out what it did AFTER WWII. It helped to completely drive a wedge between it and the U.S.S.R., and take advantage of the fact that the rest of the worlds nations and their economies had been destroyed, and jumped all over it to try to dominate the world for the next 60+ years. That was the atrocity committed.Translation: "Shoe, I think there is a possibility that you might be saying something more than just 'blaming' some country for atrocities, but I cannot bother to work my mind into it, it needs time and work, it's exhausting, frankly, I don't care because I love living in this world. See you in the chat room. Moar x."

If that is how you translate things, you should look for a new profession~

The double-quotes on this new forum really need some work. -.-

Quote from: Hijiri ByakurenThe double-quotes on this new forum really need some work. -.-

Yep. 

Indeed

 And you can only quote one post? Or am I missing something? 

Quote from: Gawdzilla SamaAnd you can only quote one post? Or am I missing something? 

You can quote multiple... but they appear as a single quote.  I'm gonna work on breaking them up.

There's a mod out there that allows you to quote highlighted text if you guys want that one

okay so I added the quoting mod... but it doesn't play well with the full editor.  I'll have to find a way around it.

With this mod all you have to do is highlight the text that you want to quote... should fill in the rest for you.

Dank ewe.

Quote from: Moriarty on March 15, 2014, 10:20:36 AM
From a pure military point of view absolutely. What I learned in school and even university is that the Soviets would have been incapable of defending themselves, let alone push back without massive material support from the U.S.


Aircraft 14,795
Tanks 7,056
Jeeps 51,503
Trucks 375,883
Motorcycles 35,170
Tractors 8,071
Guns 8,218
Machine guns 131,633
Explosives 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued $10,910,000
Railroad freight cars 11,155
Locomotives 1,981
Cargo ships 90
Submarine hunters 105
Torpedo boats 197
Ship engines 7,784
Food supplies 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons
Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals 842,000 tons
Cotton 106,893,000 tons
Leather 49,860 tons
Tires 3,786,000
Army boots 15,417,001 pairs

Yes...the USA helped a LOT, and the allies all won WW2 together, and without any of the major allies the war would likely have been lost.
You are further proving my point.

I'm NOT saying the US didn't have a pivotal role in WW2, they had a vital role. I'm saying the balance of power was so delicate and WW2 was so closely tipped in the favour of the allies that to claim any of them as the primary winner is simply wrong.

I agree, SilentFutility. The reason the US had fewer causalities than the other major powers was because that's how we worked it. Blood-and-Guts Patton said he'd sooner expend a million shells than one soldier. It is interesting that the major power with the second shortest combat time, the USSR, also had one of the highest casualty rates.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 16, 2014, 02:18:56 PM
I agree, SilentFutility. The reason the US had fewer causalities than the other major powers was because that's how we worked it. Blood-and-Guts Patton said he'd sooner expend a million shells than one soldier. It is interesting that the major power with the second shortest combat time, the USSR, also had one of the highest casualty rates.

The Germans invaded soviet territory and many russians fought to the death rather than surrendering, with the Red Army very much in disarray in the period following the initial invasion. In protracted sieges/battles like Stalingrad starvation and exposure also killed many, which didn't happen nearly as much on the western front.
Also their tactics in many cases were the polar opposite of those you just mentioned, and in fact they still utilised very outdated infantry and cavalry charges in some cases which, as I'm sure you can imagine, incurred huge amounts of casualties.

Yep, 850,000 civilians reported dead or missiong at Leningrad alone.

There was also an order from Hitler that any Russian who was a card-carrying communist, or worked for the government had to be shot on site - no mercy, no trial. It was brutal, and most historians have wondered how German officers, many among had university education, could have carried such a horrendous order.

I'm guessing something along the lines of "you can either stand on the side of the guys holding the guns or on the side of the guys staring down the guns, take your pick" would do the trick quite well.

It was the same in the Japanese lines, through their fighting ranks there were soldiers unwilling to go to the lengths that their leadership demanded of their dedication/honor/whatever. It's true because I saw it in a movie named Letters from Iwo Jima!

Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 17, 2014, 05:50:12 PM
There was also an order from Hitler that any Russian who was a card-carrying communist, or worked for the government had to be shot on site - no mercy, no trial. It was brutal, and most historians have wondered how German officers, many among had university education, could have carried such a horrendous order.

They had sworn an oath to obey Hitler. It was extremely difficult to break that oath.