Thoughts about democracy...

[nitefyre]

Mind as well combine all the three similar topics into this one:

"Freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power vested in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, when the rule prescribes not, and not to be subject to the inconstant, unknown, arbitrary will of another man."

John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government (1690).

That was written in the 1600's, the Enlightenment to which we have what we do today. The ideals not that of Government, but of the type, and this is why there must be a democracy (preferably) installed:

"The privilege of absurdity; to which no living creature is subject, but man only."

Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan (1651).

Hence I think our ancestors summed this up quite well, 353 years ago.

Kroner>

You fail to list that Japan initiated that war with the US in the Bombing of Pearl Harbour without warning. You fail to list that the US was neutral prior to. You fail to list that Al Qaeda attacked first in Africa, without warning, and again repeatedly on the USS Cole and Sept 11th. You fail to list that the Japanese would've suicide charged American GI's. How can you sympathize with such loonies? Its disgusting. You expect America to waste her soldiers dying on Japan's beaches by these very civilians. There was no doubt that there would've been, most likely millions of American casaulties. Using the atoms was merrited-but thats a different discussion. I don't think you have a concise understanding of how the conditions were, why don't you go and find a primary source of an American GI back there who believed the Atom Bomb was the wrong thing to do. On Sept 11th, we weren't soldiers in that we were willing to come out and die-like the Japanese were. There is no parallel.

[kroner]

Here's what should have happened: (1) demonstration of the atom bombs power to the Japanese before it's use against them (2) an ultimatum issued to the Japanese (3) use of the atom bomb on military targets. None of these things happened. The US instead massacred hundreds of thousands of civilians without warning.

Islamic fundamentalists would argue that the west has been undermining their culture and their sovereignty long before Al Qaeda even existed.
If you look a little deeper you'll see that both the bombing of civilians in WWII and the bombing of civilians by terrorist now are one in the same. You're view point is extremely subjective and I actually don't expect you to see it clearly.
And no, I don't sympathize with terrorists. I think both types of bombings are/were wrong.

[west]

I agree military targets would have been better, and I'm not sure the atom bomb should have been used at all, but the US DID warn Japan...they just didn't believe us. Even after the first bomb, they refused to surrender...there are those that said they brought the 2nd on themselves. Course, to bomb 2 civilian targets with nukes, the US was a bunch of bastards, but it was a dirty war all around and the Japanese had done some pretty awful things as well...not on such a large scale simply because they didn't have the means. If they had you can bet they'd have employed them.

I think war in general sucks, though. So blah.

[nitefyre]

I agree military targets would have been better, and I'm not sure the atom bomb should have been used at all, but the US DID warn Japan...they just didn't believe us. Even after the first bomb, they refused to surrender...there are those that said they brought the 2nd on themselves. Course, to bomb 2 civilian targets with nukes, the US was a bunch of bastards, but it was a dirty war all around and the Japanese had done some pretty awful things as well...not on such a large scale simply because they didn't have the means. If they had you can bet they'd have employed them.

I think war in general sucks, though. So blah.

I agree, and I consider myself to be moderate, with liberal leanings during times of relative peace, with conservative leanings during times of war.

What about the Batan Death march of Philipino's and American's? Where thousands were baynotted, killed, left to starve, get malaria and not be treated as in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

'War's Hell. Peace is worst.'

I think I gave away 2 of the char's I played in my prior post.

I still do not believe that there's a relative parallel between WWII and the War on Terror apart for the fact it can be considered WWIII.

[kroner]

the fact it can be considered WWIII.

yeah, i think you're right on that. it seems like so far it's only the beginning.

[rklenseth]

"The commanders during WW1 who sent millions of people to meaningless deaths where as bad as Stalin. They didn't kill as many people, but they could have if they would have gotten the chance"
How was it meaningless? It was meaningless to send troops into germany and other Nazi occupied countries to repeal the nazi advance and stop the murder of jews? I dont see how that is meaningless and i dont see how that is bad, and what people are you talking about that they killed? Americans killed nazi soliders and their allies what other people are you talking about?

World War I man. WWI was fought for no reason what so ever except that Germany wanted to flex it's military muscle because it felt under appreciated, then there was whole bloody stupid alliance system. All in all it was completely pointless and the governments on all sides can be blamed for the mindless slaughter of several million people as well as the destruction of large parts of Europe. Then there's Versailles, which paved the way for WWII. You can blame it on Hitler or what ever you want, but someone like that could only come to power in the sort of environment created by the tremendous war reparations and other provisions meant to keep Germany down.
Now on to the atomic bombs dropped in Japan. It was indeed the end of the war. Japan was all but defeated. Although it may have been they never would have surrendered, was it justified to kill .2 million people, most of which were civilians? The mere demonstration that such a weapon existed would have been enough to prove to Japan that they would be destroyed if the war continued. Then the obvious target would be military bases... but no, it was two large cities.
Interestingly enough, there's a direct parellel here to terrorism. At this point, the US's military power is so strong that no one can stand up to it with conventional armies. Instead, people who feel that US advancement into their territory and their culture is a threat, use the last effective weapon they have, the killing of civilians in order to weaken US morale. Similarly, the US wanted to stop Japanese advancement and saw it as a threat, so when it felt that conventional armies would nolonger be efficient, they killed large numbers of civilians in order to destroy Japanese morale. Basically the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as the firebombings of German cities are no different from the terrorism that's been going on more recently, except in WWII it was on a much larger scale. Take that as you will to determine what I think of all of those events. Obviously I support American values over those of Nazi Germany more than I support Ilamic fundamentalism over American values so from a practical standpoint I support one over the other, but it's impossible to justify condemning one on principle and supporting the other.

World War I came at the result of Prussian-Franco War where Germany defeated France and occupied Paris for many years after. When a peace treaty was finally signed and Germany left France, hard terms of such as we seen put on Germany were placed on France during this time. Soon both sides would go at it again and this time they would drag in their allies resulting in World War I. World War I was fought for greed and revenge on both sides. France and her allies won WWI and they put much of the same crap on Germany that Germany had placed on France at the end of the Prussian-Franco War. And thus once more history repeated itself and resulted in WWII. Obviousely at the end of WWII, we were smart not to make the same mistakes again.

[Pirog]

Brandon Smith>

Not everyone agrees with how the indians were treated, but dont just target that on america, that sort of thing has taken place all over the world, it is how most countries have been made, out with the weak in with the strong.

What do you mean, there actually exist non-rascist people that think the indians were dealt with fairly?
And I didn't make that example to point out that America sucks, I made it to prove the point that the western nations have been equally ruthless to the ones ruled by Stalin, Pol Pot etc.

We did not drop an atom bombs on japan when the war was practically over.

Well, I don't agree with you...as the discussions have turned out so far perhaps we should leave it at that

Supporting armed conflicts around the world resulting with dead on everyside, that means american lives to.

The fact that Americans also died doesn't in any way change the fact that it was horrible decisions...in my view it makes that argument stronger.

How was it meaningless?

By your answer I think you misread it as WW2.
WW1 was utterly pointless, and the commanders kept using medieval tactics against threnches protected by machine guns even if they knew that their troops would be slaughtered far before reaching the enemy.
Those people were very much as horrible as Stalin etc.

WW2 was of course a very justified war for Americas part.

kroner>

Bless you. You restore my hope in the Americans, after talking with hardcore patriots like Nitefyre...

Nitefyre>

What about the Batan Death march of Philipino's and American's? Where thousands were baynotted, killed, left to starve, get malaria and not be treated as in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

But that is just an example of where your logic slips.
Just because we are pointing out that America made many questionable things in for example the war againt Japan, doesn't make us have to feel that Japan was the good side.
It's like your screwed up argument that I supported terrorism and evil in general just because I to some extent understand why the terrorists act like they do.
Bush's statement of "You are either with us or against us" will never work...

[Bran-Muffin]

"What do you mean, there actually exist non-rascist people that think the indians were dealt with fairly?"

I didnt say that at all, im saying that it is how things have happened all over the world when all/most nations were just being settled. But if you want to go that way yes, there are non-rascist people who dont care about how the indians were treated becuase its just how things are. The indians didnt give a shit about the people they ran off the land and most americans back then didnt give a shit about the indians they ran off the land.


"By your answer I think you misread it as WW2.
WW1 was utterly pointless, and the commanders kept using medieval tactics against threnches protected by machine guns even if they knew that their troops would be slaughtered far before reaching the enemy.
Those people were very much as horrible as Stalin etc.

WW2 was of course a very justified war for Americas part. "

Yes i did misread it sorry for the mistake.

About the atom bombs, the war was not almost over when they dropped the bombs. Japan had munition factories outside of the city, even if lesser fire power was used the war would have continued. Japan said they would have fought till the last man. The war was NOT almost over. The bombs were dropped to teach them a lessen and to basically tell them that the war will not continue. Again the war was NOT at an end when they dropped the bombs it was at an end in europe thats it, not where ever japan was still fighting.

[Pirog]

Brandon Smith>

The indians didnt give a shit about the people they ran off the land and most americans back then didnt give a shit about the indians they ran off the land.

But not all nations were formed by people killing off the native people, or driving them away.
You may sit on fact I have never heard of, but I'm pretty sure the indians didn't have any people to force off their lands when they arrived.

There are not many examples of such mindless slaughter of native people as the one made by the Americans against the indians.
Of course we have the European colonialism, and that stands out in many ways as the most horrific era in human history.
Almost every war today is still a direct effect of the colonialism/imperialism.

You must take in consideration that before WW2 it was practically impossible to kill such huge amounts of people...but it's not merely the numbers that make someone bad.

About the situation in Japan and the use of the atom bombs I doubt we will come to an agreement.
American conventional bombers were within range of the Japanese factories and could simply have bombed their capability of producing new war machinery...they wouldn't have lasted long.
And I find the argument that the Japanese didn't even surrender after the first nuclear blast ridculous...in three days time they probably didn't even recover from the shock of seeing a whole city go up in smoke, much less decide on wether they were going to surrender or continue fighting.
USA wanted to send a huge message to the world, "Don't f*ck with us", and they sent that message in a very brutal and cynical way.