RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

kittinSol -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/17/2007 8:00:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Why, I bet she probably stays home at night to literally shit on the American flag while masturbating to pictures of Michael Moore! I always knew you were a total fucking asshole caitlyn! [:D] Maybe caitlyn and I have more in common than I thought.

philosophy -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/17/2007 9:25:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level ~~ fast reply ~~ Do the ones remembering the dead due to the two atomic bombings also feel for those that died at Pearl Harbor, or the victims of Nanking? Or don't those offer opportunity to bash America/the West? Do those that remember the dead of Pearl Harbor, not also feel empathy for the civilians of Japan? Or does that not allow for a feeling of pride? FR ...along with regretting the innocent dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, i regret the innocent dead of Pearl Harbour, 9/11, Dresden, London and Shock'n'Awe. Nothing to do with pride, just a sense of humanity. Soldiers ought to shoot other soldiers, not drop bombs on anonymous victims.

samboct -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/20/2007 6:58:18 PM)
Well, for all two of the people that may still be reading this post for its original intent- there's a special on HBO entitled "White Light/Black Rain" which puts a very human face on the suffering we've been discussing from the comfortable vantage point of sitting in front of our monitors. A couple of my own take away points- 1) The special seems to ascribe some unique status to the atomic bomb victims- the firebombing of other cities such as Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo etc wasn't mentioned. However, the radiation damage along with the horrific burns of the survivors have lead to much longer recuperative requirements (and relatively unknown medical treatments) for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors compared to other victims of firebombing attacks. 2) Backing this up is the unfeeling treatment of the Japanese populace towards the survivors of the atomic attacks. One of the interesting points made by the special was that in 1955, a group of 25 Japanese young women were flown to the states for free plastic surgery to help undo some of the scarring and other damage. In contrast in Japan, the survivors are accorded "untouchable" status. 3) The Japanese comment that they will not have suffered in vain if the record of their suffering prevents another atomic attack. One of the parting comments of one of the US observers of the Hiroshima bombing was anybody that says Nuke Iraq, hasn't got a clue what an atomic attack is like. What really worries me though, is the Iraqis seem to have even less of a clue than we do. And if we want to face facts, our invasion of Iraq was about as justified as Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor- but that's a separate thread. Sam

Real0ne -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/20/2007 7:12:17 PM)
Roosevelt put an embargo on japam banning any exports of oil and steel to Japan and i think they were getting over 75%+ of their oil from us. That and they wanted japan to get out if china. Imagine the us losing 75% of its oil in a day. The only thing that could hurt them was our navy, and they neatly stacked at pearl ripe for the picking. We forced their hand.

Marc2b -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/21/2007 6:36:02 AM)
quote: Roosevelt put an embargo on japam banning any exports of oil and steel to Japan and i think they were getting over 75%+ of their oil from us. That and they wanted japan to get out if china. Imagine the us losing 75% of its oil in a day. The only thing that could hurt them was our navy, and they neatly stacked at pearl ripe for the picking. We forced their hand. Oh no... they don’t get off the hook that easy. They wanted that oil and steel for their war machine that was busy raping China. People have demanded sanctions be imposed upon nations for less. Indeed, sanctions have been held up as the civilized alternative to war as a means of "persuasion." From a strategic viewpoint, one could indeed say that we forced their hand but the hand we "forced" was "forced" because it sought war, not peace. From a moralistic viewpoint – no dice. Japan chose war. Japan fired the first shot.

meatcleaver -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/21/2007 6:44:30 AM)
Japan was copying the west. It militarized to guard against themselves becoming a western colony and then to have a supply of raw materials, just like western countries. This decision was taken not long after the USA imposed the unequal treaties, something the Japanese saw as a national humiliation. Where it made the mistake was to treat the people in the lands they liberated from the west, worse than the west treated them.

Sinergy -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/21/2007 8:01:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Japan was copying the west. It militarized to guard against themselves becoming a western colony and then to have a supply of raw materials, just like western countries. This decision was taken not long after the USA imposed the unequal treaties, something the Japanese saw as a national humiliation. Where it made the mistake was to treat the people in the lands they liberated from the west, worse than the west treated them. Yes and no. Japan wanted to establish an Asian empire of their own. The only thing standing in their way was the US Navy. The discussions about the US picking a fight with the US, as well as the military decision to move the carrier fleets out into open ocean while leaving the irrelevant battleships in harbor, in order to convince Japan to attack us matches what I have read on the subject. Had the Japanese not pulled the US into the Second World War, odds are fairly good that they would still have an empire in Asia. Sinergy

Alumbrado -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/21/2007 8:07:45 AM)
Well, lets hope that their current attempt to rebuild the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (and their military might) doesn't lead to any more of Japan's, or anyone else's citizens being remembered like the ones in the OP.

Marc2b -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/21/2007 8:28:48 AM)
quote: Japan was copying the west. It militarized to guard against themselves becoming a western colony and then to have a supply of raw materials, just like western countries. This decision was taken not long after the USA imposed the unequal treaties, something the Japanese saw as a national humiliation. Where it made the mistake was to treat the people in the lands they liberated from the west, worse than the west treated them. Japan was doing what people with power always (with very, very rare exceptions that only serve to prove to rule) do – fuck over others for their own benefit. In this, they were not copying the West. They were simply human beings acting like human beings. They didn’t seek to liberate anybody and to use the word liberate in reference to the lands they conquered is absurd. Japan did not make a "mistake" in treating it’s conquered subjects like conquered subjects – that was policy. It was the choice they made. Japan did indeed seek to modernize because it saw itself, rightly, as weaker to the West and therefore easily bullied. They succeeded in modernizing themselves quite rapidly. But it didn’t stop there, did it? They didn’t say, "we are as strong as you now and must deal with us as equals." They didn’t seek trade on more equitable terms, they sought domination. They sought empire and the phrase "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere," was a euphemism for that empire (although that phrase would seem to indicate that they had learned the art obfuscation from the West quite well). Feeling humiliated about some treaties is no excuse for the brutal war they launched. Using your "logic," we could say that the United States would have been justified in invading Canada because we felt humiliated by the Iranian hostage Crisis and in attacking anyone who refused to sell us the oil we needed to prosecute the invasion. Contrary to what you might think, meatbeater, the West is not the source of all sin in the world – that lies in the human heart. The West’s is most certainly not without sin (our biggest sin is – arguably – being unable to live up to the high standards of morality and behavior we’ve set for ourselves) but the bad behavior of others does not absolve one from their own bad behavior. People can prattle on about sanctions and treaties all they want, the bottom line remains: Japan chose war and Japan fired to first shot.

meatcleaver -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/21/2007 8:41:46 AM)
So the western powers forcing Japan to open its borders was a social service and it had nothing to do with how Japan's view of the world changed from being an isolationist state to one seeing an empire as a way of defending itself from the charitable west. So western powers were just cruising round south east asia civilizing the natives. How foolish of me not to realize that.

Marc2b -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/21/2007 12:32:02 PM)
quote: So the western powers forcing Japan to open its borders was a social service and it had nothing to do with how Japan's view of the world changed from being an isolationist state to one seeing an empire as a way of defending itself from the charitable west. So western powers were just cruising round south east asia civilizing the natives. How foolish of me not to realize that. Your foolishness (at least in this case) resides in two areas. First, your assumption that by pointing out Japan’s sins, I am absolving the West of it’s sins. Take heart, though, you’re not the only one with such ideological blinders on. Secondly, your making excuses for Japan’s reprehensible behavior during World War Two. What part of the following don’t you understand? Japan chose war. Japan fired the first shot. To claim that Japan was only following the example of the big bad West is to deny that they were capable of intellectual thought and moral choice. It is to portray them as less than fully human. It smacks of racism.

Alumbrado -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/22/2007 1:32:53 PM)
Bingo

thompsonx -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/22/2007 8:28:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Japan chose war. Japan fired the first shot. Marc2b: So you do not feel that the American General Clair Chenault and the AVG flying American airplanes with American military pilots and American military ground crews killing Japs was firing the first shot? thompson

thompsonx -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/22/2007 8:45:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Why, I bet she probably stays home at night to literally shit on the American flag while masturbating to pictures of Michael Moore! Marc2b: That just is not true. It is my picture and not Michael Moore's. thompson

Marc2b -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/22/2007 10:19:58 PM)
quote: So you do not feel that the American General Clair Chenault and the AVG flying American airplanes with American military pilots and American military ground crews killing Japs was firing the first shot? No. Since Japan had already chosen war and invaded China. Not to mention Russia, Korea, and Manchuria. Face the facts: Japan was not an innocent in World War Two.

meatcleaver -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/23/2007 12:59:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: So you do not feel that the American General Clair Chenault and the AVG flying American airplanes with American military pilots and American military ground crews killing Japs was firing the first shot? No. Since Japan had already chosen war and invaded China. Not to mention Russia, Korea, and Manchuria. Face the facts: Japan was not an innocent in World War Two. Now I get it, the US really was engaging in social work, as was all the other western powers in South East Asia. The USA was a colonial power in South East Asia. This attitude of our empire is good, theirs is bad doesn't wash. No one said Japan was an innocent in WWII, you are putting words into people's mouths. It was pointed out that western powers were in South East Asia exploiting the locals for their materials which the Japanese were copying.

thompsonx -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/23/2007 6:39:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: So you do not feel that the American General Clair Chenault and the AVG flying American airplanes with American military pilots and American military ground crews killing Japs was firing the first shot? No. Since Japan had already chosen war and invaded China. Not to mention Russia, Korea, and Manchuria. Face the facts: Japan was not an innocent in World War Two. Marc2b: Manchuria is China. That China and Japan were having a war is their business and not ours. You were speaking of Japan firing the first shot (Pearl Harbor) and thus starting a war with the U.S. The facts are that the U.S. fired the first shot at Japan by sending General Chenault and the AVG to make war against Japan. That Japan took so long to retaliate indicates an enormous amount of restraint on their part. Please do not misunderstand me here...there are no good guys or bad guys here just a bunch of money(power) hungry assholes. thompson

Alumbrado -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/23/2007 6:41:39 AM)
[sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif]

samboct -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/23/2007 7:04:41 AM)
ROFLMAO Thompson Check your facts buddy. The Flying Tigers were active for 6 months- Dec. 20, 1941-June 1942 before being disbanded. They did NOT engage the Japanese till after Pearl Harbor. Note that Chennault was in China for several years prior as an advisor to Chancre Jack, and his tactics enabled the Chinese air force to defend against some of the predations of the Japanese, but these pilots were not the American Volunteer Group (AVG- and Volunteer my ass- they were very well paid mercenaries.) although I think there were some Americans involved- and Chennault may have done some shooting too. I must admit, I've never heard this particular excuse before- it's pretty funny. Sam

thompsonx -> RE: Remembrance: Hiroshima and Nagasaki (8/23/2007 8:19:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct ROFLMAO Thompson Check your facts buddy. The Flying Tigers were active for 6 months- Dec. 20, 1941-June 1942 before being disbanded. The AVG which was part of CAMCO (Central Aircraft Manufacturing Company) changed its name to the "Flying Tigers" in December of 1941. Did you think an organization of this size materialized overnight in China? They did NOT engage the Japanese till after Pearl Harbor. Note that Chennault was in China for several years prior as an advisor to Chancre Jack, and his tactics enabled the Chinese air force to defend against some of the predations of the Japanese, but these pilots were not the American Volunteer Group (AVG- and Volunteer my ass- they were very well paid mercenaries.) although I think there were some Americans involved- and Chennault may have done some shooting too. The AVG was all American till "Herman the German" (Gerhard Neuman) went to work for them in 1940 I believe. In the winter of 1940-1941, Pawley became involved in the recruitment and supplying of the 1st American Volunteer Group, later known as the Flying Tigers. AVG pilots were released from U.S. military service to serve as "instructors" for the Chinese; their employer of record was CAMCO, which also set up a factory at Mingaladon airport outside Rangoon to assemble the 100 Curtiss P-40 fighters sold to China to equip the AVG. From offices in Rangoon and New York City, CAMCO also provided housekeeping and record-keeping services for the AVG until its disbandment in July 1942. Please note the dates on this document. Recruiting the AVG A tip of the virtual hat to Alan Armstrong, who forwarded these memos from the U.S. Navy files. "Inter-Continent" was the Pawley family holding company; it often served as a front for Central Aircraft Manufacturing Company (CAMCO) which was owned in large part by the Chinese. I have highlighted a phrase that suggests that Secretary Knox, at least, intended the AVGs to return to U.S. service eventually. Procurement of Personnel for China DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY Office of the Secretary Washington CONFIDENTIAL February 1, 1941 SUBJECT: Procurement of Personnel for China 1. Mr. Pawley and Colonel Chennault called today and informed me that an agreement had been reached between Curtiss, Inter-Continent and the Chinese for the servicing of 100 P-40's for China. It is also agreed that Inter-Continent will handle the procurement of American personnel. 2. Personnel requirements are: 100 pilots 150 enlisted ground crew. They emphasized the need for experienced personnel and the only feasible solution appears to be Reserve officers and enlisted men. They are ready to send [their?] people, Pawley, Leighton and Chennault, at once to the Air Stations, both Army and Navy, to find volunteers. They realize the necessity for keeping things quiet and will take due precautions. 3. The followign will be required: (a) Approval by War and Navy Departments of resignations of Reserve personnel without detriment to their future status in the service, in order to accept employment with the Central Aircraft Corporation. Note: BuNav is ready to do this, but it will have to be taken up with the Army, and I understand that General Arnold has not yet been informed by Secretary Stimson. I suggest that you personally take this up with Secretary Stimson, and also with Admiral Towers, who is not very enthusiastic about the idea, I believe. (b) Deferment of draft through Mr. [illegible], inasmuch as these people will all be subject to draft as soon as released from Reserve status. (c) Passports to be cleared by State Department, the applicants requesting passports to China for employment with Central Aircraft Corporation. Note: I have taken this up with the State Department and they are willing to issue the passports to individuals as bona fide employees of Central Aircraft. (d) Pawley, Leighton and Chennault should have letters from someone in the War and Navy Departments, either the Secretarys or Chiefs of Personnel, authorizing them to visit the various Air Stations. (e) It was pointed out to me that this considerable organization would hardly be worth sounding out and estabishing unless there were an excellent prospect for further rlease of planes to carry on the work. They will have to start more or less from scratch in [illegible] and work their way in against probable opposition. /s/ [illegible] Introducing the recruiters April 14, 1941 MEMORANDUM FOR Command Officer, Naval Air Station, Jacksonville 1. This letter introduces Mr. C. L. Chennault, who has the permission of the Navy Department to visit your station. 2. He will explain the purpose of his visit. FRANK K. BEATTY Captain, U.S. Navy Aide to the Secretary [Identical letters went to the Navy Air Stations at Opa Locka and Pensacola, Norfolk, and San Diego. Capt. Beatty used the same phrasing in letters introducing Rutledge Irvine of CAMCO to the air stations at Norfolk, Pensacola, Opa Locka, and Jacksonville, and Corpus Christi, and to the Marine Barracks at Quantico. Perhaps because of resistance to these early visits, he was more emphatic when it came to Pearl Harbor:] August 4, 1941 MEMORANDUM FOR Captain James M. Shoemaker, USN, Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Air Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 1. This letter introduces Lt. C. B. Adair, who has the permission of the Navy Department to visit your station. He will explain the purpose of his visit. 2. It has been the policy of our Government for some time to facilitate the hiring by the Chinese Government of pilots and mechanics from our Services. The above-mentioned officer is a representative of the Intercontinent Company, which company is doing the hiring for the Chinese Government. The cooperation of the Commanding Officer is requested in permitting this representativde to interview pilots on your Station, to see if they are interested in being hired by the Intercontinent Company for service in China. FRANK K. BEATTY Captain, U.S. Navy Aide to the Secretary (By direction) I must admit, I've never heard this particular excuse before- it's pretty funny. I do not believe I said it was an excuse for anything...simply a statement of fact. Sam

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 [9] 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875