COMMENTS:
THERE WAS NO WARNING!!! THERE WAS NO FUCKIN WARNING!!!
Are you serious!! The US warned the Japs by saying ''If you dont surrender then face complete and utter destruction'' THAT SOUNDS LIKE A FUCKIN WARNING TO ME!!!
What country are you from? If your from the US, then wouldnt you rather nuke Japan then fucking invade!! Id take 100,000 Jap deaths over ONE American death if it ment WWII was over, AND THERES NO WAY YOU CAN SAY THAT THEY WOULDNT THINK THE SAME THING RIGHT BACK!!!
But do you still think it is the worst thing that mankind has ever done?
The Japanese wanted to surrender but Truman bombed them anyway. Some people don't know the truth of this because it is not widely reported.
My last comment was directed at American_boy
This American boy should be nuked.He makes me sick to my stomach.He should have been beheadead instead of poor Nick Berg.
When I said no warning, I meant that no air raid sirens went off. Dont be such a fuckin cock American boy. Have you no compassion at all. A normal day in war time Hiroshima. Everybody gets up on a beautiful sunny morning going about there every day lives. All of a sudden they all die!! They didnt even know what an atomic bomb was!
In Nagasaki they had warning cos obviously they would have heard about Hiroshima's unbvelievable destruction.
American boy - This is about morals and ethics... Can you not see that it was wrong to do it!? If you cant comprehend why it was sad and wrong then you must be a complete animal.
The explosion was more efficient this way.
Nagasaki was by far the worst crime. Whatever reasons compelled the Hiroshima bombing, the second one should have only been to convince Japan that the US had multiple versions of the bomb and it wasn't just a fluke. They could have bombed a military installation or a desert somewhere. Instead they chose a city of civilians. No excuse.
Powernoize - What?
Mithrandir - Too right!! Sick little puppies. I hope those who were involved in the decision making have nightmares every night.
How did one man get the power to kill 200,000 innocent people and then get praise for it!? 60 yrs on and he still gets praise! What a god dam fucked up world we live in.
according to history books, (which lie according to Tommo) we gave their government fair and square warning that we were going to drop a weapon of terrible destruction on Hiroshima. We did that for THREE days; sending them messages, urging them to surrender or else the the U.S. would use the "weapon of terrible destruction." They refused. So, Truman dropped it. Yes, we killed a lot of people. We then warned them AGAIN that Nagasaki was the next target. they STILL refused. Not until we dropped the second bomb did they finally give up. And lastly, I would like to say that I prefer American lives over Japanese lives. You know that they estimated that 500,000 Americans would've died if we tried to invade Japan? so we spared our soldiers. We could've done something a lot worse; like, bomb Tokyo. that would've COMPLETELY destroyed Japan; their major capital city reduced to rubble. Remember this. THE JAPANESE REFUSED TO SURRENDER.If you think we didn't have compassion for foreign lives; well, their own country didn't even care for their own citizens. That's worse. So we had every justifiable reason to a-bomb them.
Look at the last comment. Isnt it sad that someone can think like this?
'we had every justifiable reason to a-bomb them.'
Thats disgusting. Completely innocent people were wiped out. You are one crazy fuck, brought up in a fucked up country, that got all its technology from the Nazi's!
And again as I've said before, there were no sirens when the B52 came over Hiroshima, the civilians had no warning! The Government may well have had warning, but the people of hiroshima were oblivious! Where is your compassion for their lives? How would you feel if that happened to a major city near you?
You are fucked in the head. You have been brainwashed in to blindly supporting everything your government wants you to believe.
You sound like a complete animal. Has all this evolution gone to waste? You are an ape.
Now let's take your last comment, minus the insults I expected from someone in denial. If the government refused to tell their people to evacuate, that is their own fault. sirens? that would give em' about HOW MANY seconds to get out? very little time, and the a-bomb had an explosion radius of 7 miles and a radiation distance of 50 miles. We gave em a fair and square warning. Of course, in my opinion, a better solution would probably be to test-bomb a deserted island to prove its power to the Japanese gov't, but the Japanese refused to listen to us, period. It was either drop it or lose it. do you think Japan would have hesitated to drop an A-bomb on us? Nope. They would've dropped it RIGHT ON the capital city, and they wouldn't give a crap how many Americans they killed; And they probably wouldn't even tell us, either. so we did everything we could to prevent the droppage, it was japan's own fault for refusing to surrender. Aren't sirens set up in the city b4 hand by JAPANESE OFFICIALS? Aren't they in charge of bomb sirens? How, then are we responsible for siren usage? so, well look at it like this. 1,000,000+ Japanese and Americans dead from an invasion or 250,000+ dead Japanese from the A-bomb. What would you have done? sent soldiers to their deaths, like Iraq?
The US knew that the city had not been evacuated and then bombed it. Whether the Japanese Gov warned its citizens becomes irrelivent. The US willingly destroyed a highly populated city!
I completely aggree that the US should have shown the power of the bomb in a non built up area. Why didn't they? Thats the point!
'do you think Japan would have hesitated to drop an A-bomb on us?'
So you are saying that Japanese people are so evil that they would drop an atomic bomb on an American city? Well doesn't that also mean that the USA were evil for doing that same thing to the Japanese!
Your fear that they might do something makes you want to do it to them! The Japanese did not drop an ABomb on the US! You dropped one on to them! Stop justifying it using your paranoia! Take the blame you coward! It was the US who bombed Japan. They did not have to, but they did!
I dont understand the link to Iraq. Explain
well, HOW ELSe were the people s'posed to know that they were about to get nuked? The US couldn't broadcast it to Hiroshima, it was the duty of their gov't to warn their citizens. That's not irrelevant at all. I'm saying that the Japanese refused to listen to us when we explained how powerful the bomb was; what was the use in showing them? We destroyed a populated city; that is true; im saying that, IF the Japanese HAD an a-bomb, and were debating what to do with it, they would'nt have thought twice before dropping it on our most populated city. the US tried to think of alternatives, but there were none. An invasion was out of the question, seeing as we would lose more lives that way, there was no other solution except to drop a bomb and pressure Japan to surrender by force. Remember, the Japanese abided by the policy of passive resistance, never to get captured or defeated by the enemy, that is why I say they wouldn't hesistate to nuke the hell out of us if they could. we did not want to sail over to Japan and lose half a million soldiers; so, would you prefer 1,000,000 Jps. and Ams. dead, or 500,000 Japanese dead? Would you rather have the japanese die in battle instead? It was the quicker, less-dying way out. we spared our soldiers. And it wasn't all Truman's decision. He went to Congress and they approved it as well. Remember-we HAD to drop it to SOS.
I would prefer 1,000,000 Soldiers dead to 500,000 innocent civilians. Soldiers sign up to fight and to die for their country, it is a decision to put themselves in a dangerous situation.
Again, it doesn't matter that the Japanese were not warned by their governmnet, the US knew the city was fully populated and bombed it anyway. How many times do you want me to say this! You cant wash the blood off your countries hands, the US decided to bomb a fully populated city!
How could the Japanese government have been told that Hiroshima would be bombed when they didn't know it was the target until hours before the bomb was dropped. If weather was bad they were going to move on to another target. Did they give the Japanese a list of possible targets? What a nice Gesture that would have been! I'm sure they didn't give them any warning of which city would be bombed otherwise the B52's would blatently have been shot out of the sky!
'the US tried to think of alternatives, but there were none.'
Rubbish! Dont be rediculous! There are loads of tother things they could have done! The US decided to drop an A-bomb over everything else. The US wanted the war over quickly, so with complete cowardice they sent a lone bomber to wipe out an entire city.
It seems like every argument you've got for dropping it is linked to your fear of the Japanese. That is the effect of propaganda. This is the only way the government can get its citizens to think that dropping an atomic bomb was a good thing.
You tell me that they would drop one on the US in a second : What makes you think that.... are they as evil as the US?
Finally, the US was scared of getting whipped by the Japanese so it resorted to instantaneous mass murder on a scale more hurrendous than ever before. It was a severe crime against humanity, unforgivable, yet you are trying to justify it! Have some remorse for those who died punk! Why are so many Americans so faithfull to their country. You really have been brainwashed since birth!
What kind of soldier thinks that his cause is not worth dying for so decides to kill cities full of civilians instead? That isn't bravery.
** karma **
by seon on Fri May 14, 04 7:03am
[+]
Japan had to go to war after FDR blockaded their oil.
And as if the American army never committed any atrocities. There are too many to mention. Try the Mexican/American war for a start.
It totaly understandable that something needed to be done, our troops were getting slaughtered in the jungles of Burma and south east Asia, and after seven years something had to be used that could turn the tide. But dropping a bomb, not only once, but twice was not the way to do it. I would have been in favour of it bieng used, as I am sure many poeple living in such troubled times would have. But involving civilians was wrong. I am sure there were miltitary installations that were alternative targets - Military Bases, Fleets out a sea. It seems that as usual America were not really thinking about their actions. At least try scaring the Japs into submission.
Having discussed the war with various people, it has to be said that what a huge proportion of the world experienced for those seven years, I will never understand or comprehend. Its a sad the thing that war on this scale always results in more civilian deaths than military. You have to remember that 300,000 deaths only made up a tiny slice of the 35,000,000 civilian death. Absolutely shocking!
Even though the nature of war today is very different today, it amazes me that 10,000 civilians can die in a war lasting only a couple of months. Even more surprising are the people who seem to ignore the fact and say its the price of a just war. People just sit by an accept it.
Makes you wander what the fucks going on in Afghanistan! We are continually focusing on Iraq when there are still huge problems in Afganistan. That was another illegal US led invasion! You dont invade a country cos some terorist from that nation MAY HAVE had something to do with a terorist attack!
The American empire is shaping up to be a beauty. Just as vicious as the Brits and French abroad, just as facist as Hitlers dream... ahhh what a future awaits us.
Iraq came at the perfect time to stop us thinking about the horrific invasion of Afganistan.
Ya know what, im honestly not even gonna argue with you guys, I could say alot of things about my side of the nuking of Japan, but im not because you guys wouldnt understand and to believe_or_not FUCK YOU, all you guys are just a bunch of pussies OH LETS NOT NUKE JAPAN NO PLEASE THEY CAN KILL AND TORTURE OUR AMERICAN BOYS BUT WE DONT WANNA HURT THEM, shut the fuck up!!!
Fuckin wow man fuckin wow you guys are really somethin... fuckin joke.
American _boy - You said on tommo's other poll, that you thought the use of those atom bombs was the worst thing mankind has ever done. - Do you still think that?
And when exactly were the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima torturing American and British troops?
well said wolf niblet! I dont ever remember hearing how Japanese mothers and children went around torturing Americans.... American soldiers torchering innocent Iraqi's, now thats another matter!! Are you blind American Boy?
American boy - Instead of standing up for why the bombs were dropped, try focussing on what happened after they were dropped! If that kind of destruction was caused naturally in a non war situation to a city (e.g asteroid impact, tsunami, volcanic eruption) everyone would be sympathetic. Would you be sympathetic?
I hope so! You should feel the same way about the people of Hiroshima and nagasaki.
The main difference between the people dying as a result of a natural catastrophe and as a result of an atomic bomb is that someone gave the order for the A-bomb to be dropped!
So -
1) lots of people die (in natural disaster) = Bad
2) Lots of people murdered (by a-bomb) = Even worse
3) A second city is wiped out = Fuckin shamefull!
I know you keep going on about why America had to do it. I dissagree, but lets put that to the side for a second. Can you not see that whatever the reasons were, the dropping of the atomic bomb on to a populated city was horrifically wrong! I thought it was allways wrong to commit mass cold blooded killings!
How on one side of the Argument can you justify this behaviour, then get really upset and emotional bout the two towers being blown up. Stop your whinning, if you think its fine to kill the whole of Hiroshima, then why dont you think its fine that the trade centres went down? It's not about the motives for killing, It's about the fact that it happened! Thats what makes both the twin towers and Hiroshima disgusting!Funny how so many biggoted Americans love to act the victim. You had to act like animals cos you felt threatened by your enemy. In the end you are cowards. Japanese people willing to fight for their countries instead lost their families because of people with attitudes like yours.
The US is the only country evil enough to have used such a disgusting weapon. Not only that, but they used it on a highly populated civilian city!
You make me want to shout at you! Why cant you see the wrong in that!
Yes. Japan launched an unprovoked attack upon the US, bringing the US into WW 2. If the US would have invaded Japan, casualty estimates run as high as 250,000 for US troops, not counting Japanese military AND civilians casualties!!! While the atomic bombs, just as ANY bombs, were an unpleasant way to die, in the long run it saved lives, & brought WW 2 to an end. Six long & costly years of world-wide death & destruction came to an end, thanks to the courageous decision made by President Truman.
The bomb was dropped with a desire to SAVE LIVES.
It is a matter of math. How many Americans lost their lives fighting how many Japanese at Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa. The mathematical formula showed the closer we got to Japan the more we lost.
Next one must calculate how many Japanese military people were still in Japan. Add to that figure the fact that women were being trained to fight. Before you say the women would not fight please remember that many women on Okinawa committed suicide fearing all the stories they were told about what the Americans would do to them if they surrendered. Yes some (how many cannot be known) but some would have fought and that had to be added to the military figure.
In addition one must ask how many Japanese would have died as we invaded the islands of Japan? Every city could have been leveled, every rice paddy, all utilities, sewers, etc. What bullets and bombs didn't kill the diseases that followed would finish. Certainly that figure would have exceeded those that died BY FAR all those that died from the two bombs dropped and the two additional bombs we had ready had the first two bombs not caused a surrender.
After Japanese leaders flatly rejected the Potsdam Declaration, President Truman authorized use of the atomic bomb anytime after August 3, 1945.
A FLAT REFUSAL.
It is not beyond the possibility that 2 million Americans could have been killed had we landed. The Japanese had correctly guessed where we intended to land, and were ready and waiting for us. The casualties would have been high. One American tanker walked around the area he was to have assaulted had we landed. According to him most of the "roads" marked on his map were not roads, but simply foot paths. He felt that tanks would have played a very small part in the fighting. It would have been more fighting against caves, and suicide attacks.
Add to that the possibility of possibly as many as 20 million Japanese men, women and children.
War is horrible, the Atomic Bombs were terrible, but ask yourself this: The Japanese had a secret Atomic Bomb project. Is there any doubt they would have use it if they had succeeded in perfecting the bomb?
Were we justified? Yes because saving lives in a worthy goal. Sadly some had to die that others might live.
eat that, moron.
ah, Tommo was defeated by the French guy above. In your face.
sorry, I've got better things to do with my sunny weekend!
My ballot question was -
'WHICH IS WORSE? THE FACT THAT THE US DROPPED AN ATOMIC BOMB AN HIROSHIMA, OR THE FACT THAT THEY THEN BOMBED NAGASAKI?
I thought that was simple enough! I am concentrating on the events that occured and not why they happened. I've tried to stress this but you havent payed attention. Your whole last comment bares no relevance to my point. You cannot deny that humans killing each other in this way is pretty sad. I'm sure you wouldn't have wanted to bomb a city if there was no reason (and I'm not saying that there wasn't!). Thats because you know it would be horrific.
I dont aggree with you about the necesity of bombing a populated city but lets forget that and talk about my actual ballot question!
After the first bombing the US then bombed another city. What thoughts does that give you. Surely it provokes more thoughts than just Patriotism. I outlined some of the differences between bombings in the first paragraph. There are a few perspectives you could look at it from, its got it all: Death, Pain, Suffering, Fear, War, Power - Surely something about the bombs being dropped must seem bad or a little unbelievable to you. Why do you have to jump to the defence of your country so immediatly?
So again!!! I am not interested in our difference in opinion about the nesecity of dropping the a-bomb...... but......
Which do you think was worse? The bomb dropped on Hiroshima or the bomb dropped on Nagasaki?
It's wrong to kill civilians in war.
Ahhhhh celui_qui_se_produis and Lord_of_the_flies defeated by a Limey.
HA! you didn't even try and counter celui_QUI_se_produis? that proves that we are right! Anyway, neither are worse because both were necessary. And the past is past and we can't change it, and as long as we stop worrying about what we already did, life will be a lot more peaceful. so shuddap and admit that celui is right!
Lord_of_the_FIies - Hey prick, hows it going? Still being completely ignorant? Read my comment and you will notice I did address the french mans comments and yours. I whipped them both, cos both of you have got the wrong end of the stick. You are one anoying little boy... think I might start calling you piggy
just reading your comments agian. You are both dangerously low on common sense. Read the question then read your reply's! It makes no sense! I'm not going to say this again, so listen carefully!
Think about the bad aspects of dropping a nuclear bomb (got it?), then try and work out whether the first or second one dropped was worse. I would have thought you could understand something as black and white as that, but no!
Please try.... just for me.
Of course your pride will not allow you to admit your huge errors on this ballot, but please try!
huge errors? pathetic. I already explained to your puny little brain that NEITHER were WORSE because BOTH were NECESSARY. Need any more clearance, smart guy? You say there are errors; Yet, you haven't told me or celui what they are. As someone once said; "All is fair and love and war; and this is war!" (im sure you read LOTF, thats how you know bout piggy) but if you truly read the book, then you know I represent the savagery withing each human being, the want to kill, hunt, and murder. Of course, this is not relevant. just informing. Anyway, back to the ballot question. Both bombs were necessary to make the point to the Japanese gov't that challenging us to a war was the biggest mistake they could have made. You say that I jump quickly to the defense of our country; of course! it is because we were right! Death, Pain, Suffering, Fear, War, Power- all these things would've resulted either way no matter what we did. The a-bombs were both necessary. You didn't address any of celui's comments; nothing about how 2 mllion Americans would have died, you didn't contradict the suicide bombers and guerilla fighting, you didn't contradict the fact that we would have destroyed and killed everything anyway. Nope. Looks like you are the ignorant one. Either a 3 million death count or 100,000 death count. Naturally, if you want to save lives, you would've dropped the bomb, as well. Don't let your mind wander; its much too small to be let outside by itself.
LOTF - Really boring now! Why dont you understand what I'm saying? How old are you?
I dont care whether it was necessary or not anymore! I just want you to see the bombs from another angle. Ignore the whole Japan US WW2 thing. Concentrate on the devastation it caused. Sad... isn't it?
Which is more sad? the Destruction at Hiroshima or Nagasaki?
You have continually avoided answering this. I did respond to celui - who also had the complete wrong end of the stick.
Why are you so sure you know what I'm asking! Its a bit wierd really. You're consistantly talking about something I'm not even asking!
If you and celui want to talk about why the US dropped the bomb, write another ballot, stop fucking up this one with your shit!
I believe that both needed to be used. If we dropped a bomb on 50,000 civilians and they STILL didn't surrender, what use is test-dropping one? Neither was worse. They were both necessary, like LOTF said. We needed to do both to convince Japan. Neither was worse because both were the right choice. Neither was worse because both were the right choice.Neither was worse because both were the right choice.Neither was worse because both were the right choice.Neither was worse because both were the right choice.Neither was worse because both were the right choice.Neither was worse because both were the right choice.Neither was worse because both were the right choice.Neither was worse because both were the right choice.Neither was worse because both were the right choice.Neither was worse because both were the right choice.Neither was worse because both were the right choice.Neither was worse because both were the right choice.Neither was worse because both were the right choice.Neither was worse because both were the right choice.Neither was worse because both were the right choice.
I cant believe you still dont get it. I'm not going to spell it out to you anymore!
they were both excellent.
none,payback for pearl Harbor,Batan,rape of China and many more,They were EVIL PIGS,
What about the japanese bombing of Nanking? Or Pearl Harbour? What the japs did to Nanking and other Chinese cities was worse than anything that came back to them!!!!!!!!
the japanise devils deserved all they got, if you knew your history then youd know that the evil japanise savages commited savage acts and if the US hadnt wont the war when the children in those citys grew up they wold be more then happy to commit more of those savage acts. They deserved all that was comming to them so next time you go on about horrific acts remember the savage barbaric and evil crimes those devils did to the poor us solders. Dont get me wrong i dont hate the japanise who live now, i dont blaim them for the crimes of there savage evil barbaric ansestorsd who are rotting in hell but i hate the evil devils who lived back then and did that to the solders. THEY DESERVED EVERTHING! fucking evil savages.
by seon on Sat May 29, 04 12:01am
[+]
The Americans actually had a plan all worked out to invade mainland Japan with a "D-day" type invasion that would include the help of their allies. However, it estimated allied forces death toll was calculated to be around 250,000. Never-the-less the plan was approved. Fortunately the Atom bomb was tested and ready just in time. Only two were built. The Americans asked the Japenese to surrender, telling them if they didn't they (the Americans) would use a powerful weapon of mass destruction upon the Japanese main land. The Japanese were asked (and warned) more than once, but they refused. The first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Keep in mind that the Americans could just as easily of hit Tokyo. Later, the Japanese were told to surrender or they would see more such destruction as Hiroshima, but the Japanese again refused. Thus Nagasaki's bomb. The Americans had no more bombs left, so they were relieved when Japan finally capitulated to the surrender terms of the American Forces. The surrender meant the end of the war and saved millions of lives in the Pacific region, including those of American and allied forces that were prepared to invade Japan by land.
The strategic motivation for urgent development of The Bomb lies elsewhere than Germany. In the film Day After Trinity, narrated by Robert Oppenheimer, he matter-of-factly explains how Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been carefully spared bombing during the war so that they could serve as clean, live-target test sites for the two new types of weapons (U-235 and Plutonium). Following the Hiroshima bombing, the Japanese sent out urgent communiques expressing a desire to discuss surrender these were blocked by U.S. intelligence in order that the second test could be carried out. And as planned, when the medical inspectors descended on the rubble, they knew that all the bizarre injuries and diseases they cataloged could be credited to The Bomb.
So in truth, The Bomb was not developed in response to a comparable threat, but rather, quite simply, for the enhanced geopolitical advantage which it afforded. The urgency, as well, did not arise from a threat, but rather from a desire to carry out the tests while there was still an enemy the weapons could be deployed against. The bombings, too, were carried out for reasons other than those found in naive historical accounts.
The official party line that those particular bombings were necessary to shorten the war does not stand up to analysis. It ignores the fact that the first bomb already cracked Japanese resolve, and that a military target could have been attacked first, with escalation to a city left as an option. On the other hand, the bombings as carried out did accomplish two other objectives: they allowed the effects on people and buildings to be observed (of both weapon types), and they demonstrated to the Russians and allies alike that the U.S. had the stomach to use these new weapons in anger against civilians.
These objectives related to the postwar geopolitical situation not to the defeat of Japan. When the cover-story smokescreens have been all cleared away, it becomes apparent that the Manhattan Project taken in its entirety, including the two tests was designed to give the U.S. a strong postwar geopolitical advantage: the possession of an unmatched, proven weapon of mass destruction, and a world which knew the U.S. would use the weapon if deemed necessary.
"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. . . .
"Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there." - William E. Dodd, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, 1937.(1)
You can believe what ever you wish to believe.
I dont like believe anything
I just go with the evidence
Jinn , I think you have a serious problem but you can live in your world of fantasy.It wont make any difference in the end.NWO is going to be destroyed despite what people want to fabricate about the nature of the world they live in
the Japanese were provoked into attacking America at Pearl Harbor. The majority of Americans, and even service men, were unaware of what was going on behind the scenes, but not all were. FDR had been charged in public with agitating for war since 1939. FDR had to push the Japanese into attacking the United States because the overwhelming majority of Americans opposed getting involved in the war and Japan itself had no intentions of attacking the United States, their interest was Asia. Without FDR's antagonisms towards the Japanese, Congress and the American people never would have allowed FDR to declare war on Japan or Germany; FDR knew this, and he also knew how important it really was that America join in the war against fascism and imperialism.
The most direct evidence of antagonisms toward Japan is the McCollum Memo written October 7th 1940 (declassified in 1994) that was given to FDR as well as the actions that were later taken by the administration.
Of critical importance in this memo is the portion that reads:
9. It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the Japanese to modify their attitude. Therefore, the following course of action is suggested:
A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek.
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.
10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war.
H. McCollum
On November 26, 1941 Secretary of State Hull presented "peace terms" to the Japanese. The terms presented by Hull were such that in order for Japan to agree to them they would have had to withdraw from China, and essentially end all hostilities, something that the administration knew was not going to happen. Hull's oral presentation to the Japanese follows:
"The representatives of the Government of the United States and of the Government of Japan have been carrying on during the past several months informal and exploratory conversations for the purpose of arriving at a settlement if possible of questions relating to the entire Pacific area based upon the principles of peace, law and order and fair dealing among nations.
These principles include the principle of inviolability of territorial integrity and sovereignty of each and all nations; the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries; the principle of equality, including equality of commercial opportunity and treatment; and the principle of reliance upon international cooperation and conciliation for the prevention and pacific settlement of controversies and for improvement of international conditions by peaceful methods and processes.
It is believed that in our discussions some progress has been made in reference to the general principles which constitute the basis of a peaceful settlement covering the entire Pacific area.
Recently the Japanese Ambassador has stated that the Japanese Government is desirous of continuing the conversations directed toward a comprehensive and peaceful settlement of the Pacific area; that it would be helpful toward creating an atmosphere favorable to the successful outcome of the conversations if a temporary modus vivendi could be agreed upon to be in effect while the conversations looking to peaceful settlement in the Pacific were continuing.
On November 20 the Japanese Ambassador communicated to the Secretary of State proposals in regard to temporary measure to be taken respectively by the Government of Japan and by the Government of the United States, which measures are understood to have been designed to accomplish the purposes above indicated.
The Government of the United States most earnestly desires to contribute to the promotion and maintenance of peace and stability in the Pacific area, and to afford every opportunity for the continuance of discussion with the Japanese Government directed toward working out a broad-gauge program of peace throughout the Pacific area.
The proposals which were presented by the Japanese Ambassador on November 20 contain some features which, in the opinion of this Government, conflict with the fundamental principles which form a part of the general settlement under consideration and to which each Government has declared that it is committed. The Government of the United States believes that the adoption of such proposals would not be likely to contribute to the ultimate objectives of ensuring peace under law, order and justice in the Pacific area, and it suggests that further effort be made to resolve our divergences of view in regard to the practical application of the fundamental principles already mentioned.
With this object in view the Government of the United States offers for the consideration of the Japanese Government a plan of a broad but simple settlement covering the entire Pacific area as one practical exemplification of a program which this Government envisages as something to be worked out during our further conversations.
The plan therein suggested represents an effort to bridge the gap between our draft of June 21, 1941 and the Japanese draft of September 25 by making a new approach to the essential problems underlying a comprehensive Pacific settlement. This plan contains provisions dealing with the practical application of the fundamental principles which we have agreed in our conversations constitute the only sound basis for worthwhile international relations. We hope that in this way progress toward reaching a meeting of minds between our two Governments may be expedited."
FDR did intentionally see that important intelligence information was kept from commanders. This was done so that the commanders would not defy orders and take actions that may have prevented an attack on American forces. He was trying to provoke an attack, but he intended to notify American forces if he gained knowledge of an impending attack. I believe that the intent was actually to provoke an attack at sea in the hopes of a small-scale exchange that would be enough to incite Americans to war. When knowledge of a possible attack was known to FDR he did attempt to warn the forces at Pearl Harbor, but a breakdown in communications led to the disaster that we know today. It was obviously not to the advantage of the American position to have such a large portion of the fleet destroyed, this was an accidental result of the actions of FDR. Yes conflict was being provoked, but the attack was much more than anyone had bargained for.
What is most important about the Pearl Harbor incident is understanding why FDR resorted to such measures in the first place to get into war.
Congress was not letting FDR get into the war in Europe or the Pacific. This is partly because many of the members of Congress were backed by wealthy Americans who were working with the fascist powers of Europe. America had significant financial ties to the fascist powers at the time of WWII, and the European fascists were backed by private Americans as an anti-Communist force. In addition to these facts the general American population was ill informed about what was going on in Europe and a significant anti-war movement had taken hold in America because America had just come off of a 30 year imperialist military streak that had given Americans negative feelings about American military actions.
American businessmen had been supplying the fascist powers with oil and FDR was finally advised to embargo the trade of oil to the Axis powers in order to help instigate them into declaring war on America as well.
In March of 1941 FDR said to Winston Churchill: "I may never declare war; I may make war. If I were to ask Congress to declare war they might argue about it for three months."
On September 11, 1941 fascist sympathizer and famous American pilot Charles Lindbergh of the "America First Committee" proclaimed :"If any one of these groups--the British, the Jewish, or the administration--stops agitating for war, I believe there will be little danger of our involvement."
The fact is that Charles Lindbergh and many other Americans sympathized with the Germans prior to the American entry into the war. In a speech in 1940 Lindbergh stated:
"There is a proverb in China which says that "when the rich become too rich, and the poor too poor, something happens." This applies to nations as well as to men. When I saw the wealth of the British Empire, I felt that the rich had become too rich. When I saw the poverty of Central Europe, I felt that the poor had become too poor. That something would happen was blazoned even on the skies of Europe by mounting thousands of fighting aircraft."
He was effectively expressing the opinion, which was shared by other Americans, that the British had it coming to them and thus America should just stay out. Lindbergh, like Henry Ford and other prominent Americans, had also been awarded a medal of recognition from the Nazis. However, he was correct in stating that FDR was maneuvering for war. Lindbergh and others opposed American aid to Britain and the Soviet-Union with slogans and propaganda like those seen above.
In 1944 British Cabinet Minister Sir Oliver Lyttelton noted that: "Japan was provoked into attacking the Americans at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty on history ever to say that America was forced into the war. Everyone knows where American sympathies were. It is incorrect to say that America was ever truly neutral even before America came into the war on a fighting basis."
Even after the attack on Pearl Harbor some American isolationists maintained that the US should have done more to "appease" Japan. Just after the Pearl Harbor attack Senator Vandenberg wrote that the United States would have had to yield "relatively little" to pacify Japan. Of Japan he said that "we may have driven her needlessly into hostilities through our dogmatic diplomatic attitudes." "We asked for it, and we got it."
So yes, in the American climate at the time FDR knew that it would not be possible for him to get America to enter the war unless America itself was attacked. He also knew what was at stake and felt that a sacrifice would have to be made, but that unless a sacrifice was made the results could be horrific. FDR wanted to declare war, and rightfully so. The real problem was all of the people who opposed war in the first place.
Though FDR declined to peruse the approach of Japanese appeasement, which was favored by the majority, FDR's primarily objective was still the war in Europe, however the Pacific contained critical shipping routes that the Japanese were securing to support the Axis powers of Europe. FDR knew that if these supply routs could be cut Britain and the Soviet Union would fare much better in the war.
Hitler also did not want to declare war on America however, but when war broke out between Japan and the United States, Japan forced Hitler to declare war on America because of the alliance between Japan and Germany.
Ever since World War II Americans have generally believed, because that is what they were told to believe, that America was just peacefully minding its own business when Japan, for no reason at all other than their own aggression, came out of nowhere to attack America. In other words, that America was an "innocent victim". This is not the case, though. The Japanese were being provoked and baited by the FDR administration because even though FDR knew it was essential to enter the war against the fascists, the political opposition was too strong. There were supporters of the fascist actively working in the US to keep America out of the war.
It was a war. You do what is needed to win. PERIOD.
Exactly.And its still going and itll never end until its ended and were going to do whatever is necessary to annihilate every nationalist military industrial state on Earth
lol BMG, like ppl are going to read all that crap. Seriously, what are you on ?
Subversion, its an article.A lot of people here read em
You are free not to
And you are free to be wrong if you happen to believe the propaganda version of the war
Have a moderately satisfactory day ;o)
You know bigmonkeynuts, I don't know why I just didn't read your user page before. With the Nick Berg thing, I actually thought your belief in your theory was sincere. But now that I take a look at all the lies and propaganda garbage you spew, I see your real agenda is loud and clear. Virtually everything you rant and rave about is aimed at trash talking the United States of America. I no longer see your opinion and views as coming from any sincerity, concern or sensitivity for world events. I read most of your comments and all I see is hate and spitefulness for America and Americans. But I shouldn't be surprised. I spent eight years living in Australia, and although most people there were kind to me and I made plenty of friends, I also discovered that many "white" Australians if not most, are among the most bigoted people I have ever known. Their racist attitudes toward non-whites, especially "Abos" was appalling. The way the men there treat and talk about women is a disgrace. Discrimination there is rampant.
But I noticed a funny thing about Australians with their poor opinions of Americans. Aussies like to personify everything American and act American. They even like to play all American sports to the extent that they formed pro-leagues for baseball, basketball, "gridiron" and ice hockey. They dress like Americans, and use American slang. They love and imitate American TV, film and celebrities, music and rock stars etc.. Australians have actually become a mirror image of American culture and even American politics. But the irony is they believe they are better! In fact Australians have the same "we are better than everybody" attitude that they accuse the "yanks" of. Today, Australians have done such a good job of behaving like Americans that Islamic terrorists have made them their new target for hate.
But anyway, I see you have an obsession of hate toward America. So now when I read your Nick Berg crap I know you don't really believe Americans are behind his death. You simply found another story and excuse to build on another opportunity to do more America bashing.
** karma **
Also jinn.You'll have to point out to me ,WHAT THEORY?Everyone here keeps saying theory.The US ? Why not Britain then? Because this Is a war being run by the US,If this was the turn of the century itd be Britain running the show.
And as stated before.He may already have been dead.Its other people on the net looking carefully at whether the US did it.
Hey guest, you can cut the crap.That wont work witth me.You shits on all sides are the same
You can also be specific jinnabout what point Ive posted that is propaganda.Ive spent all this ime debunking it.Refute anything you wish and show me where the propaganda is
Bigmonkeynuts you said "I'm not Australian" but you say on your user page that you from Austrialia??? If you claim you are not Australian and that you have "no contact or anything to do with Austrailia", then why say you are from there?
And just what is your agenda, is it to "SMASH CIVILIZATION"?
When registering it said to put a country.If that is not necessary Ill remove it
Dont know how you are defining "agenda" there
or if the emphasis is on the "Smash civilisation "part.It basically means so called "civilisation" is about to destroy itself.Partly because of its exploitative, traumatic and inherent nature but also because it is imposed by brutal force on unwilling conscripts all over the planet.It is the definition of Hell on earth.The conscripts,the Earth itself and civilisation itself will destroy "civilisation".
Bigmonkeynuts, now that I have learned more about your mind set, I certainly have no desire or interest to argue with someone with your type of thinking, which is "history is recorded wrong and I'm going to prove it" As a result, I'm sure in your mind and with your arrogance you will claim you are victorious. Be my guest. In my opinion our warped sense of the facts of the events of this world are so much branded into your mind, that you wouldn't know nor accept a verified fact or truth (that opposes your opinion) if it was presented to you.
And if I say an Eskimo reached the top of Mt. Everest 100 years before Hilary did, I would need to present the undisputable facts (not conjecture!) to back up my claim, or I will simply look like a fool. It has been recorded that Hilary was the first and that is how we know about it. If you wish to claim history books are wrong and that your version is the "real" truth and version, then you must prove it without the conjecture. I don't need to disprove or refute that nonsense.
"When registering it said to put a country.If that is not necessary Ill remove it"
I see. So you simply decided to lie, or deceive, or mislead readers???
I still dont know what you are talking about .
Lets get this straight.What you are telling me is that General Smedley -Butler, higham etc are full of baloney.That the memos dont exist? (look at them on the internet for yourself)That the ambassadors, politicians , industrialists i am quoting are full of crap?
Show me jinn if you can , where i have stated an opinion.I have tried hard to avoid that and am presenting the words themselves and documents themselves.I have not stated conjecture or opinions and have said so when I am
What is my mindset? I meet people all the time from every background civilised or otherwise who can see its stating the obvious.
I have no particular mindset.You ve invented that somehow
Jinn, i just read your next one.Its obvious by your post you are quite deluded.I have stated straight forward things,YOU can verify them.There is no such thing as history as you define it.Other people have read the articles , like the Gulf war one and can see for themselves.You are the one who isnt and cant refute it.
Your last comment was quite bizarre.You have to put a country down so i put one.Youve refuted absolutely not a single straightforward reference and it is very clear what your agenda is
In fact you sound as deluded as stranger
To make it clear.I only quote the industrialists , politicians ,government archives employees, bankers , generals etc.THEY will tell you jinn, that official mainstream versions are bullshit.Your argument is with them NOT me
You believe and imply that schools are misleading and teaching twists of truths and disinformation etc. How do you determine that the the information you find is really the honest truth and not just lies and deception for people like you. When and what do you use to determine or accept as the truth when you hear it or read about it in books, internet web sites etc. How do you know when a web site isn't distorting the information it posts? Do you only use your bias views to select information that suits your needs? If you report information from others how can you be certain it isn't lies, or that they aren't telling the facts? If you claim powerful leaders and governments can conspire, cover-up, deceive, mislead or lie, then who is to say the people whose reports or memos you like to read aren't doing the same for there own motives, reasons or causes?
There you go again.Telling me Im biased, etc If I knew to what you refer. If you have a problem with the gulf war article or some other or that the quotes werent really made etc. or the signed documents that are publically available blabla ,or the transactions.I have no idea to what you referring
If something is obviously a conspiracy theory(nothing on ww2 or the others involves that) then I would do what anyone does.You research it.But a lot of stuff is not even being covered up.Its common knowledge.many in government know perfectly well the public version of events is swill
"Its common knowledge.many in government know perfectly well the public version of events is swill"
Is that so, who are they?
And how do you know they havn't been misled themselves? They could be mistaken too, or recieved incorrect information or distorted facts. When does the real truth become the real truth?
Right ,Correct,Exactly.
Thats why you only can go by that which can be clearly proven.Like if you were too take it to court.There is no way of knowing how much stuff really goes on.But the stuff that is clear,Ie discrepancies with accounts that make the official IMPOSSIBLE Like if someone tells you I just robbed a bank in Idaho but Im in fact here typing..The documents of transactions that are verifiable , video or audio footage. witness acounts or who end up warned or dead,,whatever you think is admissable in court or whatever. politicians , bankers testifying etc.Whatever you think
recent history provides the best examples due to the investigative technology involved.Anyone can now see for themselves for instance what really happened with yugoslavia recently.The propaganda compared with what was really happening.Too many people now know and the internet is the perfect way to get the truth to as many as possible
Jinn the kafir - you have no fucking clue about Australia or Australians as is pretty bloody obvious by the oppinions you expressed above. by Guest_172fb on May 31, 2004
That's right, they are my opinions. But opinions based on first hand experience and not heresay. For example, regarding the gridiron, I attended a game. I was invited to the game by local Austrailians. Thousands of Australians were attending the game as excited fans. My hosts were proud to point out a few local Australians playing in the match. You only touched on gridrion, calling those (Americans) that play it "wankers". Hmmm. What of the other sports to make your objection?
As for mimicing the Yanks, that's how I saw it while there. Aussies love to adopt American styles, from fast food to funky fashions, Everywhere I looked, I saw that many of the kids were dressed in the attire of their favorite American sports teams, hats, jerseys etc. Seldom did I see the local Aussie teams worn. This gear is not cheap for their parents to purchase, but of course the kids want it. Hell, I even saw an aboriginie kid wearing a Michael Jordan (Chicago Bulls) hat and Jersey. American fast food sales in Australia is virtually a phenomenon. A Macdonalds can be spotted on practically every street. Even your national sport's "footy" teams are sponsored by Burger King (Hungry Jacks).
When I was last in Australia the telivision programming I saw was very American. I saw very little progamming from the UK, but I did watch CNN as many Aussies do. The local produced stuff I saw was all knock-offs of American style shows, including police dramas. And "Australias Funniest Home Videos", how original!
I must say, I found Melbourne to be more "Oz" like, but Sydney was as American as you can get, as was Brisbane. But it was while I was in Melbourne that I kept reading in the paper how Australians were fed up with the influx of Asian immigrants and the fact that "surfers paradise" (the Gold Coast) was being bought up by the Japanese. Howard's government was talking about puting controls on property purchases by Japanese in that region. I also read many reports about the beatings and abuse by local Australians on minority races. "The problem was growing and becoming worrysome" said local police.
As far as I'm concerned, and from what I personally saw and experienced, Australia is obsessed with American culture to the point that its towns and cities are over saturated with it.
You yourself said "homeboy wannabes". Can slang lingo be any more American than that? Thank you for supporting my observations.
As for immigration, Australians tend to over use the "per capita" statistics, but how can they not, the population base is so much thinner than the US. There is plenty of room in Australia for immigration...but whether or not Aussies are laying out the welcome mat is another story.
guestdec44
Thats been covered.scroll up
The fact that they learned fuck all and invaded Iraq with a smile on their faces.
fuck you, man! because the japs wouldn't have hesitated to do the same to the US or England for that matter.
the big difference between the US and its enemies is that we feel bad when we have to do damage to our enemies, whereas our enemies never gave a fuck about us or about hurting us.
so... fuck you because of your snide and insipid post, suggesting that the US are murderers... YOU are the real murderer.
man... all you US haters are just full of shit. YOU will be the ones who are raped and oppresed by the strong one. this website is full of so many fucking idiots.
To all you conspiracy theorist idiots out there: Japan was not on the verge of surrender prior to the bombinb of hiroshima. It is either dishonesty or ignorance on your part to claim that, probably both. If they were, don't you think they would have surrendered immediately after hiroshima? Of course, but they didn't. It took another city to convince the emperor to give up, and even then a large number of his generals still wanted to fight, they attempted a coup to prevent the surrender. Yeah, sounds like the actions of people who were desperate to end the war. Get a fucking clue, buy a history book, or at the very least don't contaminate the rest of the world with your ignorance and keep your traps shut.
herzog
Thats called a rant
The facts have been stated above in an article
Go ahead and refute and see if you can do it in proper fashion
Everyone here regards what you say as flag waving and we arent actually interested.Take a drink first
It's pretty funny when you think about it.
You haven't stated any 'facts' that support your theory for me to refute. All you have is conjecture, long on theory light on reality.
Herzog
I know of no conspiracy theory.What you read in history books is the baseless conspiracy theory which has been refuted
Saying japan attacked an innocent america with no provocation is an outrageous lie and a pathetic conspiracy theory.The documents are US signed docos and direct quotes.Sorry
Movies like The Great Escape(which was also untrue) are great for propaganda purposes.Remember the shit and tripe doled out about the Indians.
Desperate patriots will believe whatever they need to
Hmmm, well the only thing I can say is that they started it and we finished it, they shouldn't of bombed Pearl Harbor.
Its not finished azazel
And they didnt start it
Actually monkey the conspiracy theory was that the japanese were on the verge of surrender prior to the destruction of hiroshima. And that we only dropped the bomb to see what would happen if it were used on a population center. Which really has nothing to do with pearl harbor. Now I'm sure you're of the opinion that the US deserved to be bombed at pearl harbor, but that has nothing to do with this thread and the topic at hand (hiroshima).
So to recap, the japanese were not prepared to surrender before hiroshima, they weren't even going to surrender afterwards. It took another city and the prospect of every japanese city being destroyed to force them to call it quits. This is not opinion, it's fact.
Japan wasn't going to surrender. Look at it thru the American's eyes. You have just seen a every person on the Islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa fight to the last man. The Japaness sent the biggest battleship with enough fuel to bach it delf on the shore of another island to be a fixed fort. There was only two places on japan that you could of landed and the Japs knew where they were and the Americans knew that. The estimates of lose of life from an invasion was 350,000 to 1 million solidears just on the allies side. The Japs would of never surrender because they believed in the Bishito code which states that it is better to die in battle than surrender.
Morals and ethics Tommo, get a grip. Japan did some off the worse autoricites of the war but there over shadowed by Germany. Japan raped china's women, should no emotion to the P.O.W's. I strongly suggest to have your facts backd up before you start talking junk about Hiroshima and Nagsaki.
Oh wait i'm not done, Ther was a warning to Japan to surrender and they ignored it, that little Bishito code.
After the first bombing the Americans again said surrender but how did the japs say no, they believed that Hiroshima was a weather accident. And for more information in one night of bombing in Tokyo inceniarey bombs (I butchered that word) or bombs whose purpose is to start fires. Killed more civilains than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
Of and a little more why not, japan actually put kamikazee boats on all the possible landing points filled with exposives and enought gas to make a one trip run. That was found out after the war.
How do you say it, i kicked the crap out of you argrument.
you sure did, doen. Nice job.
Thanks Lord of the Flies, come on some one try to disprove these facts, you can't. Tommo where is your voice?
I wish we would have dropped those bombs sooner! Say on December 6th 1941. Leave it to the LIMEYS to take the side of the JAPS! DO you cunts remember fire-bombing Dresden to the ground when the war was over, just for retribution? BOO-FUCKING-HOO for the japs and germans! Kill 'em all let God sort 'em out!
There are two aspects to it then
First was the US intent and second , whether it was seen as necessary in regards to Japan not surrendering
having established that the US started and provoked the war and that the US has been quoted as saying that thet had every intention of dropping those bombs regardless of the state of the war (those are direct quotes) the only issue
(which is irrelevant ) is whether the Japs signaled surrender.
The japs, being that they were the ones under attack have every right not to surrender.
So the only thing is what the source of info is that claims the Japanese did surrender(which i am checking now)
"having established that the US started and provoked the war"
Ok, thanks for saving me some time. Having established that you're clearly insane and I can stop trying to reason with you.
"Ok, thanks for saving me some time. Having established that you're clearly insane and I can stop trying to reason with you."
Excuse me? your point was about the japanese NOT surrendering, which I am I going to confirm to see if their is evidence
either way
"Now I'm sure you're of the opinion that the US deserved to be bombed at pearl harbor"
The point is not "deserved".The US provoked the war itself.That has been established by direct quotes, signed US documents , legitimate recorded history (not the propaganda version).It is there above further up the comment box.
The fact of the details of the war is totally relevant to the question
(apart from the fact its what people have been discussing)
Japan were correct in invading the aggressors
To be correct Japan invaded China and small nations to fuel it's need for Natural Resources, oil iron ore and so forth. The United States didn't approve and decided to put sanctions on Japan for there wars in Asia. It is kinda of a double negative Japan needed to attack because it was being starved by the sanctions however the wouldn't have sanctions if they didn't invade other countries.
islam hater the great.
If we stepped into a cage you wouldnt last 5 seconds.
Go away little boy
Doen
Noone is saying japan arent assholes but the documents and quotes in a post above make it clear the US were the aggressors manipulating politics to get japan to invade.The final button that was pushed was the mccollum memo among other things
bigmonkeynuts I read what you said about Australians and fuck you! your the asshole Australias one of the greatist countries in this world and I'm damn proud to call myself an Australian, your a moron. Plus islam hater is right.
by seon on Thu Jun 03, 04 8:16pm
[+]
Just at the web site www.threeworldwars.com very interesting site, however if Japan wasn't in a war mode than how could of attack America. It's very obvious that wouldn't of been an agressor if a country wasn't being hostile. What is neglected in the site is the Washington Treaty that caused an extreme jealously because it required the japs to have 1/2 the number of warships as the Americans and the British. It also doesn't make any mention to the Yamamote calss of Battleship, the largest ever built there plans were made in the 30's and only had one purpose to destroy the American battle ship fleet. Both sides had some brown on there noses.
But both sides knew that a war was going to happen, look at the build up of the military on both sides before the war.
Ok seon
I will correct my thoughts.Thank you BIG BROTHER,I will not violate the thought code again.Feel free to report me so I can be punished
Urban colonial 'australia ' is one of the worst shitholes on earth with probably the most brain dead panty waste, authoritarian nanny states on earth.
The observation of arseholes is specific.EVERY place has fantastic people and EVERY place has its conformist "system" mutants. "australia" as you call it(i prefer the alternative names given for it) is an illegal fascist industrial military occupation, a Kafkaesque Penal Colony in the extreme and I expect people like you and me to join together and DO SOMETHING about it.It also has one of the great ANTI-colonial traditions and I expect all good australians to uphold the proud aussie tradition of flag burning.It also has one of the biggest revolutionary populations as evidenced by the "alternative" population.in fact i notice all those Big Brother contestants are all very ' alternative ' looking so I hope that is a reflection that things are going back to how they were in the 70s.THATS when it was a very cool place.I lived through it
VIVA LA REVOLUCION !!
How about a pint..
HEY Bigmonkeyfucktard, your little sissy leader (Howard) was in Washington today to kiss my Presidents ass and shine his shoes and take MORE marching orders! beeeotch! hahaha
yeh he gives him sum serious anal attention
Maybe theyll give each other a new strain of virus that'll actually wipe the mangebrain infested leprechauns out.
America_Worlds_Ruler I aggree all howdie seems to be doing is following america, first iraq and now banning gay marriages oh and i would never dream of burning my countries flag but this has nothing to do with the ballot topic so I'll end this ballot post by saying that none of the cities were worse, the japanise deserved noth and brought both onto themselves.
by seon on Fri Jun 04, 04 12:42am
[+]
Nice nutshell Seon
But smoke that flag , boy
Most certainly Doen
It took quite a long time and provacation to get Japan to respond.They knew they did not have the equipment to win a war in that way but were given no choice.
But a war was inevitable due to both sides imperialistic and industrial agendas.If Japan had the bomb it would have been like Russia and the US.
All governments are operated by freaks who should be in a rubber room
I'll agree to the rubber room.
Japan was plannign for a war with America for a long time before America showed any interest with Japan. Japan started the planning when they left the League of Nations and attacked china in 1931 or 1933 not sure which year it is.
It's 1933. And that is way before any American action.
Sure Doen ,I agree with that
That is only in terms of Japan.
The plans of global Hegemony by the US were in place well before ww 2.And ,as was planned , the Japan scenario was used to its full advantage by going into every country they could as is happening right now .
So the U.S> was imperilistic with the start of the McKinley administration. You were in the Spainish-American war, in the Philipines and guam. However After world war 1 the United States and President Calvin Coolidge went in a state of itionasalists(I butchered that word) or we cut off most contact with the ouside world, we didn't join the League of Nations and we pulled out of affairs that acroos the world to avoide being pulled into any wars.
To be honest Franklin Roosevelt wasn't concerned with Asia until he had the Economy under control and that didn't happen until I believe the worst year was 1931 so you know we weren't at the table looking for a war with Japan for more than 10 years so to say that we were out to get Japan for a while isn't really true.
i try to focus solely on this
"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not
behind the scenes." --Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli of England, in 1844.
"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - Woodrow Wilson
"The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise their power from behind the
scenes."-- Justice Felix Frankfurter, U.S. Supreme Court.
"The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls
its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation."-- Mayor (1918-1925) John F. Hylan of New York.
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."-- U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House.
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, then it will lose it's freedom; and the irony of it is
that if it is comfort and security that it values, it will lose that too.Unknown Americans must decide :
Are we to be governed by Americans or by an International organization ? I, for one, owe no
alliegence to the United Nations nor will I give it any. I obey only the U.S. Constitution. You had
better think about this issue, for if the U.N. can violate the Sovereignty of Haiti, Iraq and other
countries, it can violate ours...The United States may not be the top dog 15 years from now. U.N.
security council resolutions, backed by say chinese soldiers, could be aimed at us."-Charley
Reese-Orlando Sentinel
Guest_0edfa - urrr the holocaust was pretty bad too. But the point of this ballot was to see if any Americans could see that killing 200,000 innocent people was a sad and regretable thing. Unfortunatly this was not the outcome, showing that there's no reason why they wouldn't do it again. The US the ultimate Terorist nation. HAs the whole world up for ransom. The only nation shamless enough to consistantly support mass genocide and show no regret for the pain and suffering caused.
Give me as much shit as you want after this comment. It'l be the same brainwashed unempathic drivle I've come to expect from this site!
Time out TOMMO, ofcourse it is regretable that we had to use the Nukes, but for once come down of that illusion of moral high ground that you sit atop of and realize that it was the best way and the way that saved the most lives. Now as for the willingness to use weapons of Mass Destruction dosen't it speak volumes that when we were given the chance to Nuke other countries we haven't.
It's quite obvious that your unwilling to look at my side of the argrument but i looked at yourside and it still doosen't make sense.
doen5167 - You get off your high horse! This ballot isn't about what you keep trying to talk about. Why should I listen to you when you so readily ignore the purpose of the ballot. What do you mean my argument ddoesn't make sense. My argument is.... its sad that 200,000 people died in such a horrific way. Bit thick if you cant decifer the meaning behind that!
So/ Which is worse. The fact that the US went through with this unforgivable mass murder - or - the fact that they then after having seen the destruction and death caused, went on to bomb Nagasaki?
You opened yourself to the attack when you said that. To be completly honest I never claimed moral high ground. I just believe that given the alternatives that the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the right descison.
but it was horific and it was mass murder..... right?
Just like the raping of Nan King by the Japs?
Or did you forget about that?
but it was horific and it was mass murder..... right?
Doen - but it was horific and it was mass murder..... right?
www.geocities.com/Pentagon/ 6315/ pearl.html
'... everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States..." ARMY BOARD, 1944
President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders. FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war.
FDR blinded the commanders at Pearl Harbor and set them up by -
1. denying intelligence to Hawaii (HI)
2. on Nov 27, misleading the commanders into thinking negotiations with Japan were continuing to prevent them from realizing the war was on
3. having false information sent to HI about the location of the Japanese carrier fleet.
11 February 1941 - FDR proposed sacrificing 6 cruisers and 2 carriers at Manila to get into war. Navy Chief Stark objected: "I have previously opposed this and you have concurred as to its unwisdom. Particularly do I recall your remark in a previous conference when Mr. Hull suggested (more forces to Manila) and the question arose as to getting them out and your 100% reply, from my standpoint, was that you might not mind losing one or two cruisers, but that you did not want to take a chance on losing 5 or 6." (Charles Beard PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT AND THE COMING OF WAR 1941, p 424)
* March 1941 - FDR sold munitions and convoyed them to belligerents in Europe -- both acts of war and both violations of international law -- the Lend-Lease Act.
23 Jun 1941 - Advisor Harold Ickes wrote FDR a memo the day after Germany invaded the Soviet Union, "There might develop from the embargoing of oil to Japan such a situation as would make it not only possible but easy to get into this war in an effective way. And if we should thus indirectly be brought in, we would avoid the criticism that we had gone in as an ally of communistic Russia." FDR was pleased with Admiral Richmond Turner's report read July 22: "It is generally believed that shutting off the American supply of petroleum will lead promptly to the invasion of Netherland East Indies...it seems certain she would also include military action against the Philippine Islands, which would immediately involve us in a Pacific war." On July 24 FDR told the Volunteer Participation Committee, "If we had cut off the oil off, they probably would have gone down to the Dutch East Indies a year ago, and you would have had war." The next day FDR froze all Japanese assets in US cutting off their main supply of oil and forcing them into war with the US. Intelligence information was withheld from Hawaii from this point forward.
In 1979 the NSA released 2,413 JN-25 orders of the 26,581 intercepted by US between Sept 1 and Dec 4, 1941. The NSA says "We know now that they contained important details concerning the existence, organization, objective, and even the whereabouts of the Pearl Harbor Strike Force." (Parker p 21) Of the over thousand radio messages sent by Tokyo to the attack fleet, only 20 are in the National Archives. All messages to the attack fleet were sent several times, at least one message was sent every odd hour of the day and each had a special serial number. Starting in early November 1941 when the attack fleet assembled and started receiving radio messages, OP-20-G stayed open 24 hours a day and the "First Team" of codebreakers worked on JN-25. In November and early December 1941, OP-20-G spent 85 percent of its effort reading Japanese Navy traffic, 12 percent on Japanese diplomatic traffic and 3 percent on German naval codes. FDR was personally briefed twice a day on JN-25 traffic by his aide, Captain John Beardell, and demanded to see the original raw messages in English. The US Government refuses to identify or declassify any pre-Dec 7, 1941 decrypts of JN-25 on the basis of national security, a half-century after the war.
HITLER WOULD NOT DECLARE WAR IF U.S. UNBEATABLE
1. OBJECTIVE: War with Germany. How do you bait Hitler to declare war on you? You don't get it by looking unbeatable!
2. Direct provocation in Atlantic had failed - Hitler didn't bite.
3. FDR knew from magic that if Japan attacked, Germany would declare war.
4. Therefore: the problem was how to maneuver Japan into firing the first shot or make the first overt act.
5. Japan must succeed or Hitler would renege.
CHURCHILL wrote FDR KNEW. Did FDR know that Pearl Harbor was a Japanese target? Answer: FDR planned Pearl Harbor to be their target. He ordered the ships in and the carriers out. Co-conspirator Churchill wrote about the Pearl Harbor attack that FDR and his top advisers "knew the full and immediate purpose of their enemy." (GRAND ALLIANCE p 603) Churchill's entire discussion of Pearl Harbor was a justification of treason, e.g.: "A Japanese attack upon the U.S. was a vast simplification of (FDR's and advisors') problems and their duty. How can we wonder that they regarded the actual form of the attack, or even its scale, as incomparably less important than the fact that the whole American nation would be united...?'
J. Edgar Hoover told his friends in early 1942 that FDR had known about the Pearl Harbor plan since the early fall. It was totally in character for FDR to concoct such a plan. Not only had the US Senate already censured FDR for utterly lacking moral perspective, but as Walter Lippmann wrote: "his purposes are not simple and his methods are not direct.'
WARNINGS
The list is endless
by |
