RE: 9/11: 10 years on .....

RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

vincentML -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/13/2011 2:14:47 PM)
quote: Terrorists make no distinction between military, civilian and government. They attack at random and without the purpose of tactical victory. Their goal is to psychologically weaken their percieved enemy or provoke an attack. Your second sentence is just delusional crap that you would be hard pressed to justify if you went back through a history of terroism since antiquity. Terrorism was not invented by the Islamists, yanno. Your first and third sentences, if taken together, give a definition of terror that includes State terrorism, not previously mentioned in this thread i think, and so would include the fire bombing of London, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki in fairly recent history for people of my generation. None of those episodes had tactical purposes, made no distinction between military targets and civilian populations (the Allies tried to claim they carpet bombed Dresden to get at some factories) but were designed to psychologically weaken the enemy. So, to the OP's original question: Terror is a feature of human history since antiquity. Jehovah sanctioned it for the Israelites (kill all the men and take the women as slaves) And it certainly was not his invention. The episodes of terror by small groups and States since have been too numerous to count. Terror will be a human tool in one form or other til the end of history. IMHO

Hillwilliam -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/13/2011 2:21:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MileHighM If they limit their behavior to only Libya, they are freedom fighters. If they go on a genocidal rampage, now that they have the country, they were terrorists masquerading as freedom fighters.... But, had Quadaffi won and survived to have his loyalists write history books, they would just be terrorists.

Moonhead -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/13/2011 2:23:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Your second sentence is just delusional crap that you would be hard pressed to justify if you went back through a history of terroism since antiquity. Terrorism was not invented by the Islamists, yanno. To pick the most obvious example, that would disqualify those noble fenian freedom fighters who spent most of the '70s and '80s blowing shit up in England, wouldn't it?

Edwynn -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/13/2011 3:16:16 PM)
That example being most obvious to you, apparently, in ignorance of the demonstration given. But assuming that it's time for fun here, and heaven only knows what the world will bring us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH_9O3ZCCZI How a 16 yr. old could sing like this is beyond me. Watch out for those Brooklyn girls, all I can tell you.

Edwynn -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/13/2011 3:38:09 PM)
Then again, note the more cautious tone of her 19 yr. old sister in this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YZjYgdAOME (not pictured in the album cover, but the seriously tall one in whatever other group photos she's in) Not actually more cautious, just somewhat more well thought out, shall we say. Sung in a HS gym if you'll notice, as should be the case for episodes such as this. Still pretty good though, even after all that.

MileHighM -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/13/2011 3:53:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Terrorists make no distinction between military, civilian and government. They attack at random and without the purpose of tactical victory. Their goal is to psychologically weaken their percieved enemy or provoke an attack. Your second sentence is just delusional crap that you would be hard pressed to justify if you went back through a history of terroism since antiquity. Terrorism was not invented by the Islamists, yanno. Your first and third sentences, if taken together, give a definition of terror that includes State terrorism, not previously mentioned in this thread i think, and so would include the fire bombing of London, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki in fairly recent history for people of my generation. None of those episodes had tactical purposes, made no distinction between military targets and civilian populations (the Allies tried to claim they carpet bombed Dresden to get at some factories) but were designed to psychologically weaken the enemy. So, to the OP's original question: Terror is a feature of human history since antiquity. Jehovah sanctioned it for the Israelites (kill all the men and take the women as slaves) And it certainly was not his invention. The episodes of terror by small groups and States since have been too numerous to count. Terror will be a human tool in one form or other til the end of history. IMHO I am not saying terrorists cannot be the state....Sure, fire bombing is pretty indiscriminate, and used to create panic, as well as annhilate infrastructure and production. I don't think you can say it was invented by anyone, I agree it has been used by a wide variety of people outside of islam. However, modern terrorism, specifically suicide bombing, is untargeted. What purpose does blowing up a market or a bus accomplish? There is not really a tactical reason for it, and it usually provokes an attack back on you. It is often an attempt to solidify your own weak alliances by getting the enemy to attack you so you can play the good guy. No arguement that it can be state sanctioned. However, there is never a good guy terrorist, no justification....This notion that Al Queda, Hamas, etc. is a noble force for freedom is crap.

WingedMercury -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/13/2011 4:06:27 PM)
Edwynn I don't think your post is a logical response to mine. I have stated a view developed from my observations of US from my visits there and from my reading and TV viewing. It certainly may be wrong. Is there any Pew Research or Gallop Poll relating to this matter that might make me change my point of view? Information such as this would be far more useful than a sarcastic non sequitur, don't you think? Or don't you think?

samboct -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/13/2011 4:57:39 PM)
"fire bombing of London, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki in fairly recent history for people of my generation. None of those episodes had tactical purposes, made no distinction between military targets and civilian populations (the Allies tried to claim they carpet bombed Dresden to get at some factories) but were designed to psychologically weaken the enemy." Poppycock. The German attacks on London targeted the docks, in order to deny commerce. Same as sinking merchant ships on the open ocean. Dresden- the atrocities are largely Nazi propaganda which grossly inflated the death toll, however, Dresden was a rail center and was supporting the retreat on the Eastern front. Our allies, the Russians, requested the attack and we obliged. Hamburg had more casualties than any other German city due to the firestorm that erupted from the attack. Had Harris been able to mount another half dozen raids like that, Germany would have been done- at the estimation of both Goebbels and Speer. People were absolutely devastated by the firestorm. Tokyo? Japanese war production had dispersed, and there were shops turning out components for aircraft, guns, and other weapons amongst apartment flats. Again, a firestorm occurred, along with massive loss of life- conceivably over 100,000. No one knows. The Japanese were apparently made of sterner stuff than the Germans, and there were a number of people who were quite prepared to sacrifice the entire country for some mythical honor. Hence the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We needed to convince the Japanese that we could destroy their cities with minimal loss of American life. There was a great deal of consternation about the casualties that would have resulted from invading Japan. If that's your definition of terrorism, well, it looks a lot like war to me. Sam

Edwynn -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/13/2011 5:23:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WingedMercury Edwynn I don't think your post is a logical response to mine. I have stated a view developed from my observations of US from my visits there and from my reading and TV viewing. It certainly may be wrong. Is there any Pew Research or Gallop Poll relating to this matter that might make me change my point of view? Information such as this would be far more useful than a sarcastic non sequitur, don't you think? Or don't you think? Of course it was not a logical response, but as response to such illogical claptrap as presented in your initial post, what else could one logically expect? If you are in fact seeking information, please allow me to inform you that the first class in statistics teaches us that any polls whatsoever are the rock bottom regarding anything resembling legitimate statistics, which goes further to explain why the media and political types cling to them as if a two-year-old to Mama.

Edwynn -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/13/2011 8:56:52 PM)
~

tweakabelle -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/13/2011 9:26:37 PM)
quote: If you don't understand that- well, no wonder you think a policy of appeasement might work. I don't. Samboct, let's leave the Israeli issue to one side temporarily and focus solely on your advocacy of a military approach to deal with terrorism in the ME. The effects of a military approach can be judged far more clearly from results in other countries in the ME. There's no need for a theoretical discussion here at all. There are two current examples where the solution you're advocating have been attempted - Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's review the outcomes briefly: Iraq: By your own account, this has been a mistaken endeavour since Day 1. A military strategy has resulted in the fracturing of the country, the establishment of an openly pro-Iranian Govt, a near theocracy in the Shia South. After almost a decade of fighting, hundreds of thousands of deaths, and trillions of $, there's no end in sight to daily terrorist acts. The only that unites all political views in Iraq (Kurds excepted) is the demand for the immediate withdrawal of all foreign forces. The military approach won the conventional war yet lost the peace. The most tangible strategic outcome has been the immense strengthening of Iran, and its influence across the region. This is virtually the opposite of the intended outcome. Afghanistan: After 10 years of warfare, the Taliban is stronger than ever, foreign troops are leaving country by country and security situation is going backwards by just about every account I've seen - look at last night's attacks on high-value targets in the middle of Kabul. Pretreaus' influential adviser/analyst David Kilbride attributes this failure to a political failure - the failure to address rampant corruption, having to prop up a sleazy character such as Karzai, coalition with war lords and drug traffickers has meant the organised crime enterprise aka Karzai Govt has little or no influence or support outside Kabul and compromised the few pitiful military successes achieved. You'd need to be brave to feel optimistic about the future here after the withdrawal of foreign troops and air power. In Afghanistan, failure to address the political issues particularly corruption, allied with bad policy choices have effectively torpedoed the fight against the Taliban. Not only has this approach failed in Afghanistan, it has forced the fighting across the border into Pakistan boosting the strength and numbers of the Pakistani Taliban immensely, threatening Pakistan's tenuous internal stability and cohesion, and killing many thousands of Pakistanis in the process. So the score card reads: Military approaches tried twice. Successes: 0 (zero) - Failures: 2. Failed twice for essentially the same reason - failure to deal with the political issues. Nett outcome: in strategic terms, while Al Quada is no longer an influential player, the situation is far more grave than pre-9/11, a military approach has generated seriously negative outcomes. Whatever the theoretical merits of the military approach you advocate, these results confirm that it JUST DOESN'T WORK. Based on the two examples above, it is far more likely that a purely military approach will generate results opposite to those intended. If you wish to defeat terrorism, a purely military strategy is an option you ought not consider at all. It a proven failure.

samboct -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/14/2011 6:27:39 AM)
Hi Tweak I'll agree to moving off the Israeli tangent. But since when did I support a military, i.e. large scale invasion of either Iraq or Afghanistan? I've been against the Iraq invasion from the get go knowing that the claims of chem/bio weapons were pure fantasy. Afghanistan has been a sinkhole for any country that tries to do anything to improve the place. Seems to me that you have me mixed up with somebody else, although even your own post acknowledges that I was against the Iraq war. However, let's look at your claim that the military invention solves nothing- and let's use WWI and WWII as an example. In WWI, the Allies defeated the Central Powers, led by Germany. Did they nation build? Not well, although the claims of the onerous nature of the Versailles treaty were greatly exaggerated. But Wilson's 14 points were ignored in favor of a certain amount of revenge. In WWII, even though Morgenthau wanted to turn Germany back to an agrarian economy, he was over ruled, and Truman, initially grudgingly, and then with enthusiasm to deal with the Reds, decided to nation build- made sure that people weren't starving, and helped rebuild the place. MacArthur, that sanctimonious, conceited jerk, managed to do a good job on Japan as well, really surprising in my book. The net result- we've had allies since, not enemies. I think it was Clemenceau who said that "War is an extension of politics." Leaving aside the moral issue of invading Iraq (potentially justifiable in the 90s, but with no justification from 9/11), the Bush administration utterly failed at nation building. It's arguable that given the nonsense spouted as to why we invaded the country, that was a foregone conclusion, but the thought process of the cowboy diplomacy of this administration did not extend beyond the metaphorical holstering of the six-gun. While in Europe post WWII, there had been at least some planning for the peace at conferences like Yalta, the nation building requirements caught us flat footed. However, Truman rose to the occasion. Bush didn't. Afghanistan-I have no clue as to what to do with the place, but it seems to me that dealing with countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan is just a lose/lose situation. Yet Pakistan is a member of the nuclear club, and if we don't engage in some fashion, there may be mushroom clouds over cities in India- which would be really, really lousy. No easy answers to this one. The problem with economic sanctions on Afghanistan- hell, as our troops have observed- let's bomb the place back to the stone age- oops, it's already there. From my perspective, there's the military goal, and then the political goal of nation building. They're actually separate actions, so don't blame the failures of nation building on the military goals. It may be wise to not invade a country if you're going to get stuck with an impossible nation building task, but I'm not so sure the removal of strong men followed by chaos is such a terrible outcome, although that's a separate debate....However, if you hogtie the military, then you run the risk of some guy like Hitler running amok and enslaving people. In short, we do need a military- we just have to be far more cautious in its use. Our US military is too large- something our founding fathers warned us against, because it encourages us to get into unwinnable wars with the idea that we still can take care of something important. I think how we've handled Libya is a much better demonstration of the utility of military intervention. Had their been a home grown revolt against Saddam, the limited support, i.e. air cover, would have been my vote there as well. Sam

Edwynn -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/14/2011 7:44:07 AM)
It wasn't Clemenceau, but Clausewitz, and the actual quote is "War is the continuation of policy by other means." Clemenceau is the guy that France sent to the table because he was so ancient as to have actually been around for the Franco-Prussian war in 1870, and still quite obviously very ticked off at the outcome there, 48 years worth of revenge in the waiting. So yeah, to the extent that the hyperinflation of 1922 is still alluded to in every economics class and France's subsequent comical occupation of the Ruhr district, such explication of conditions as could be termed "greatly exaggerated," well, yeah. Sure. Not that there's anything original about that particular apologia. John Maynard Keynes estimated that it would take until 1988 to pay up. Germany in fact made the last payment in 2010. The reason that no one is foolish enough to demand payment from GB or the US is that, if damages were to be assessed accordingly, final payment might only come about some many years after the sun has extinguished.

Moonhead -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/14/2011 7:49:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct "fire bombing of London, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki in fairly recent history for people of my generation. None of those episodes had tactical purposes, made no distinction between military targets and civilian populations (the Allies tried to claim they carpet bombed Dresden to get at some factories) but were designed to psychologically weaken the enemy." Poppycock. The German attacks on London targeted the docks, in order to deny commerce. Same as sinking merchant ships on the open ocean. Dresden- the atrocities are largely Nazi propaganda which grossly inflated the death toll, however, Dresden was a rail center and was supporting the retreat on the Eastern front. Our allies, the Russians, requested the attack and we obliged. Hamburg had more casualties than any other German city due to the firestorm that erupted from the attack. Had Harris been able to mount another half dozen raids like that, Germany would have been done- at the estimation of both Goebbels and Speer. People were absolutely devastated by the firestorm. Tokyo? Japanese war production had dispersed, and there were shops turning out components for aircraft, guns, and other weapons amongst apartment flats. Again, a firestorm occurred, along with massive loss of life- conceivably over 100,000. No one knows. The Japanese were apparently made of sterner stuff than the Germans, and there were a number of people who were quite prepared to sacrifice the entire country for some mythical honor. Hence the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We needed to convince the Japanese that we could destroy their cities with minimal loss of American life. There was a great deal of consternation about the casualties that would have resulted from invading Japan. If that's your definition of terrorism, well, it looks a lot like war to me. Sam Particularly as it was uniformed armed forces of a nation that had declared war on the victims doing all that.

mnottertail -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/14/2011 8:02:17 AM)
Is this a thread about Alvin Lee and Ten Years After? It sort of amazes me how I walk away to real life for a day, and now we are talking about Vom Krieg. Jomini

Edwynn -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/14/2011 9:20:05 AM)
Not sure if they were ever named "Alvin Lee and Ten Years After," probably my slip-up there. It's not like he was Dianna Ross or anything. I sure as heck wish that I could go on a two day hike and come back to a world absent vom Krieg ( -> von dem Krieg -> "of the war").

vincentML -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/14/2011 9:31:10 AM)
quote: Poppycock. The German attacks on London targeted the docks, in order to deny commerce. Same as sinking merchant ships on the open ocean. Dresden- the atrocities are largely Nazi propaganda which grossly inflated the death toll, however, Dresden was a rail center and was supporting the retreat on the Eastern front. Our allies, the Russians, requested the attack and we obliged. Poppycrap! The fire bombing of Dresden occurred in Feb 13, 1945. The German army was routed by then. According to the Wiki article 40% of the munitions were incendiaries. You need incendiaries to destroy a rail center? You believe that shit? The Germans also used incendiaries on London and Coventry. Additionally, bombing of that era was highly inaccurate and known to be so. Furthermore, Hitler had neither the means nor desire to send troops onto British soil. I refer you to the recent publication Fateful Choices by the authoritative historian Ian Kershaw as support for that statement and for Hitler's purpose in attacking Russia to isolate Britain before the U.S. entered the war. As to your point that the attrocities were largely Nazi propaganda: was that the well-oiled propaganda machine of 1945? [8\|] quote: Tokyo? Japanese war production had dispersed, and there were shops turning out components for aircraft, guns, and other weapons amongst apartment flats. Again, a firestorm occurred, along with massive loss of life- conceivably over 100,000. No one knows. The most destructive raid on Tokyo occurred on the night of 9th March 1945. Japan was practically defenseless by then. Several months before the surrender. War production in apartment flats! Really? You believe anything then. quote: Hence the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We needed to convince the Japanese that we could destroy their cities with minimal loss of American life. There was a great deal of consternation about the casualties that would have resulted from invading Japan. You made my point exactly. We firebombed civilian populations in order to demoralise them. There were other options than Nuclear devastation, such as a sea blockade. Japan was and is notoriously dependent upon foreign oil. We are burdened by the shame of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One has to be asleep not to recognise that terrorism has been an accepted part of State warfare. Well, some choose the propaganda they wish and blind themselves to other possibilties.

vincentML -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/14/2011 9:36:40 AM)
quote: No arguement that it can be state sanctioned. However, there is never a good guy terrorist, no justification....This notion that Al Queda, Hamas, etc. is a noble force for freedom is crap. Depends on whose uniformed military boots and equipment are in whose country, don't it?

samboct -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/14/2011 10:14:36 AM)
"Poppycrap! The fire bombing of Dresden occurred in Feb 13, 1945. The German army was routed by then. According to the Wiki article 40% of the munitions were incendiaries. You need incendiaries to destroy a rail center? You believe that shit? The Germans also used incendiaries on London and Coventry. Additionally, bombing of that era was highly inaccurate and known to be so. Furthermore, Hitler had neither the means nor desire to send troops onto British soil. I refer you to the recent publication Fateful Choices by the authoritative historian Ian Kershaw as support for that statement and for Hitler's purpose in attacking Russia to isolate Britain before the U.S. entered the war. As to your point that the attrocities were largely Nazi propaganda: was that the well-oiled propaganda machine of 1945? " Well, then Wiki has mislead you. On the fire bombing of Dresden, my source is Dresden, by Frederick Taylor who dismisses the claims of the Nazis in terms of casualties and points out that they were much lower, probably on the order of 20,000 individuals. And yes, the Nazis had a wonderful propaganda machine- even in Feb. 1945. In terms of the ratio of incendiaries to high explosive...The US raids on Schweinfurt, the ball bearing factories, as well as aircraft production, showed that although buildings could be destroyed by blast, the production machinery they housed was quite resilient. Buildings were cheap- precision machinery is not. However, what was also learned was that precision machinery withstood fire poorly, even if it didn't melt, the heat would warp critical components and it became useless. Thus, most attacks incorporated a mixture of incendiaries and high explosive. In terms of the accuracy of the bombing...over the years, there had been great stride in improving bombing accuracy at night through the use of electronic devices such as oboe, gee and H2S. The Germans had an early lead- witness the accurate bombing of Coventry in 1940 (41?) using Knickebein IIRC. "The most destructive raid on Tokyo occurred on the night of 9th March 1945. Japan was practically defenseless by then. Several months before the surrender. War production in apartment flats! Really? You believe anything then." I'll cite Martin Caiden in the "The Night Tokyo Died". Feel free to read up about how Japan had dispersed its weapons production because their factories were turned to rubble. Engine manufacture suffered catastrophically, both in numbers and quality. Also feel free to read about how kamikaze craft were designed to be simple so that components could be manufactured in small shops. See R.J. Francillon, Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War. "You made my point exactly. We firebombed civilian populations in order to demoralise them. There were other options than Nuclear devastation, such as a sea blockade. Japan was and is notoriously dependent upon foreign oil. We are burdened by the shame of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Hiroshima was the city which housed Etajima, the Japanese equivalent of Annapolis. Seems to me that a training school for the military counts as a reasonable target. Also, see my comments on dispersed production above- essentially any city becomes a target due to weapons manufacture. We were finally able to apply the theories of Douhet espoused in the 30s. His theories where wars would be won by attacking population centers till they cried uncle were the justification of building up the bomber fleets in the 30s and 40s in Germany, the UK, the USSR, and the US. So the populations of these countries supported this buildup with their tax dollars. Seems to me that the idea of bombing cities was tacitly accepted. It got a lot more acceptable after the phony war ended, and Germany began bombing London- although the English had also launched some desultory attacks on Germany -often with leaflets- very deadly- you could die laughing reading them- there was a reason they were classified. In terms of your proposed sea blockade of Japan. We had done so and quite successfully. Most of Japan's shipping had been sunk- 2/3rds by US submarines, both merchant ships and navy. What the U-boats tried to do to England, our sub fleet succeeded with Japan. The country was starving and supine, however, some of their leaders, such as Admiral Ohnishi, who took over the air fleets of Japan in the final months, thought that surrender was unthinkable and begged the Prince of Japan to continue fighting, even though the military situation was utterly hopeless. Japan had no navy, no fuel, few trained pilots, and even fewer aircraft while the Sea of Japan was an American lake. What the hell do you do with people like this? And he was a revered guy in Japan... I'm sorry, I don't think the US takes any of the blame for using nuclear weapons to end that war. The Japanese had no military options nearly a year before- they should have surrendered. We didn't stop them from doing so- that was their own hubris. Nor were the nuclear weapons really all that different than conventional weapons in terms of effects- most people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died from fire, not from fall out. What nuclear weapons showed was that it was now easy to put Douhet's theories into practice- that cities could be readily destroyed from the air with no practical defense. Conventional bombing was supposed to do that, but it largely failed. The technology caught up in a decade. Oh yeah, you can also read H.G. Wells- the Shape of Things to Come or sit through the not very good movie. Sam

vincentML -> RE: 9/11: 10 years on ..... (9/14/2011 2:11:20 PM)
quote: Hiroshima was the city which housed Etajima, the Japanese equivalent of Annapolis. Seems to me that a training school for the military counts as a reasonable target. Boggles the mind how easily you dispense with the lives of 100,000 plus people and their unborn generations with such a flimsy excuse as the city housed a military training school at the end of the war. Oh, and it is okay because the people died of fire and not nuclear burns, as if that made a difference. It is clear from everything you wrote you will seek out any excuse and swallow any morsal of propaganda to justify massive attacks upon civilian population centers. You contradict your previous assertion that we nuked those cities "to show em." Either they were significant military targets or we committed acts of terror to instill fear and sap civilian morale. Obviously, you use the former argument to obfuscate the reality of the war crimes committed against innocent civilians. Shameful. quote: His theories where wars would be won by attacking population centers till they cried uncle Nonsense! London was bombed for more than 70 consecutive nights. How did that work out for Hitler? quote: In terms of your proposed sea blockade of Japan. We had done so and quite successfully. Most of Japan's shipping had been sunk- 2/3rds by US submarines, both merchant ships and navy. What the U-boats tried to do to England, our sub fleet succeeded with Japan. The country was starving and supine, however, some of their leaders, such as Admiral Ohnishi, who took over the air fleets of Japan in the final months, thought that surrender was unthinkable and begged the Prince of Japan to continue fighting, even though the military situation was utterly hopeless. Japan had no navy, no fuel, few trained pilots, and even fewer aircraft while the Sea of Japan was an American lake. What the hell do you do with people like this? And he was a revered guy in Japan... Firstly, Hirohito was Emperor, not Prince. Not a small point because he was revered as divine. Secondly, your description of their military condition makes my point. They had no means to fight on. Thirdly, what could we have done? Two things: we could have waited them out and we could have reduced our demand for unconditional surrender, which we eventually did by agreeing to continued recognition of the monarchy. Why we chose not to? Because Russia was about to declare war on Japan and we did not wish to share with them the Pacific Sphere of Influence. quote: I'm sorry, I don't think the US takes any of the blame for using nuclear weapons to end that war. The Japanese had no military options nearly a year before- they should have surrendered. We didn't stop them from doing so- that was their own hubris. Oh, naughty, naughty! So we spanked them with our nukes. [8\|] Apologies to tweakabelle if i strayed too far from her OP. Sorry.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.589844E-02