Presidential vapor in Hiroshima....

[Loren Pechtel]

So, wait, was the Pearl Harbor attack unwarranted or not?

If it wasn't unwarranted, what warranted it?

If the economic situation did not justify the attack on the base, then why did you bring it up when you did?

It was not the start of aggression between the two nations.

If that is what is meant by unwarranted.

We responded to war with economic measures. Japan responded to those economic measures with war against us.

They're the ones that kept escalating the situation. You just can't accept that America might have been in the right.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In your opinion.

What was the change?

The US dropped more tonnage on Vietnam and Cambodia than it did in WWII.

It was unimaginable savagery. War crimes with few parallels.

Most of that tonnage was dropped on troops hiding in the jungle rather than on cities.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The reason FDR cut off oil and scrap metal sales to Japan was because Japan was waging war in China, an ally of the US.

I am saying that is a naive position.

Japan and the US were two imperial powers that clashed.

Two big dogs that were going to fight because they were both expansionist.

Hawaii was just a part of US imperialism.

You don't seem to understand who was the imperialist.

 

[untermensche]

It was not the start of aggression between the two nations.

If that is what is meant by unwarranted.

We responded to war with economic measures. Japan responded to those economic measures with war against us.

They're the ones that kept escalating the situation. You just can't accept that America might have been in the right.

We didn't respond to war. We responded to Japanese success and growing power.

It threatened our expansionism and growing power.

- - - Updated - - -

I am saying that is a naive position.

Japan and the US were two imperial powers that clashed.

Two big dogs that were going to fight because they were both expansionist.

Hawaii was just a part of US imperialism.

You don't seem to understand who was the imperialist.

The imperial nation that took Hawaii with force was most definitely one of them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Really? What other territories have we secured since Hawaii?

We took a lot of land in Okinawa. The Japanese have wanted us off the island for decades.

Some people want us off. If the government wanted us off we would have left.

 

[untermensche]

What was the change?

The US dropped more tonnage on Vietnam and Cambodia than it did in WWII.

It was unimaginable savagery. War crimes with few parallels.

Most of that tonnage was dropped on troops hiding in the jungle rather than on cities.

Most dropped on civilians. Most dropped in South Vietnam.

Of course hiding. That's what people do when invaded by a stronger nation.

- - - Updated - - -

We took a lot of land in Okinawa. The Japanese have wanted us off the island for decades.

Some people want us off. If the government wanted us off we would have left.

Most people on the island want us off.

They have no means to get rid of us and don't have the power to thrown us off.

That is imperialism.

 

[Tristan Scott]

[

We took a lot of land in Okinawa. The Japanese have wanted us off the island for decades.

Some people want us off. If the government wanted us off we would have left.

Most people on the island want us off.

They have no means to get rid of us and don't have the power to thrown us off.

That is imperialism.

Most people on Okinawa want us off, and have always wanted us off, however Okinawa is part of Japan, and most Japanese want us to remain a military presence. We are bound by treaty to defend Japan. The unfairness is, of course, that most Japanese don't live on Okinawa and don't have to put up with a huge American military presence. But to call our being in Japan to fulfill our treaty obligation Imperialism only shows you don't understand what that word means. If Japan wanted us out, we would leave, just like when Japan wanted Okinawa back we gave it back.

 

[untermensche]

[

We took a lot of land in Okinawa. The Japanese have wanted us off the island for decades.

Some people want us off. If the government wanted us off we would have left.

Most people on the island want us off.

They have no means to get rid of us and don't have the power to thrown us off.

That is imperialism.

Most people on Okinawa want us off, and have always wanted us off, however Okinawa is part of Japan, and most Japanese want us to remain a military presence. We are bound by treaty to defend Japan. The unfairness is, of course, that most Japanese don't live on Okinawa and don't have to put up with a huge American military presence. But to call our being in Japan to fulfill our treaty obligation Imperialism only shows you don't understand what that word means. If Japan wanted us out, we would leave, just like when Japan wanted Okinawa back we gave it back.

How is using trade to leverage the Japanese government to act against the interests of its people not imperialism?

You seem to think imperialists have one tool in their bag and do everything with it. Modern imperialism is all about using trade and bribery and threats and even violence to get governments to act against the interests of their own people.

 

[Tristan Scott]

[

We took a lot of land in Okinawa. The Japanese have wanted us off the island for decades.

Some people want us off. If the government wanted us off we would have left.

Most people on the island want us off.

They have no means to get rid of us and don't have the power to thrown us off.

That is imperialism.

Most people on Okinawa want us off, and have always wanted us off, however Okinawa is part of Japan, and most Japanese want us to remain a military presence. We are bound by treaty to defend Japan. The unfairness is, of course, that most Japanese don't live on Okinawa and don't have to put up with a huge American military presence. But to call our being in Japan to fulfill our treaty obligation Imperialism only shows you don't understand what that word means. If Japan wanted us out, we would leave, just like when Japan wanted Okinawa back we gave it back.

How is using trade to leverage the Japanese government to act against the interests of its people not imperialism?

You seem to think imperialists have one tool in their bag and do everything with it. Modern imperialism is all about using trade and bribery and threats and even violence to get governments to act against the interests of their own people.

Yeah, I get that, and if you were to refer to the scores of countries around the world that we have screwed over for our own economic interests you'd get no argument from me, but not Japan, our dealings with them, economic and including our protection of them from many of their historic regional enemies has worked out very well for them.

 

[barbos]

If Japan wanted us out, we would leave, just like when Japan wanted Okinawa back we gave it back.

Lucky Japan, Cuba is not so lucky.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What was the change?

The US dropped more tonnage on Vietnam and Cambodia than it did in WWII.

It was unimaginable savagery. War crimes with few parallels.

Most of that tonnage was dropped on troops hiding in the jungle rather than on cities.

There were also lots of villages and small communities in the jungle.
To them friendly napalm was not that friendly.

 

[untermensche]

[

We took a lot of land in Okinawa. The Japanese have wanted us off the island for decades.

Some people want us off. If the government wanted us off we would have left.

Most people on the island want us off.

They have no means to get rid of us and don't have the power to thrown us off.

That is imperialism.

Most people on Okinawa want us off, and have always wanted us off, however Okinawa is part of Japan, and most Japanese want us to remain a military presence. We are bound by treaty to defend Japan. The unfairness is, of course, that most Japanese don't live on Okinawa and don't have to put up with a huge American military presence. But to call our being in Japan to fulfill our treaty obligation Imperialism only shows you don't understand what that word means. If Japan wanted us out, we would leave, just like when Japan wanted Okinawa back we gave it back.

How is using trade to leverage the Japanese government to act against the interests of its people not imperialism?

You seem to think imperialists have one tool in their bag and do everything with it. Modern imperialism is all about using trade and bribery and threats and even violence to get governments to act against the interests of their own people.

Yeah, I get that, and if you were to refer to the scores of countries around the world that we have screwed over for our own economic interests you'd get no argument from me, but not Japan, our dealings with them, economic and including our protection of them from many of their historic regional enemies has worked out very well for them.

That is always what the imperialist says.

They say that they are improving the lot of the Chinese peasant with their exploitation of their labor towards goals not of the peasants choosing or for the benefit of Chinese society in general.

The people of Okinawa are not being helped because Japanese businessmen on the mainland are doing well.

 

[coloradoatheist]

[

We took a lot of land in Okinawa. The Japanese have wanted us off the island for decades.

Some people want us off. If the government wanted us off we would have left.

Most people on the island want us off.

They have no means to get rid of us and don't have the power to thrown us off.

That is imperialism.

Most people on Okinawa want us off, and have always wanted us off, however Okinawa is part of Japan, and most Japanese want us to remain a military presence. We are bound by treaty to defend Japan. The unfairness is, of course, that most Japanese don't live on Okinawa and don't have to put up with a huge American military presence. But to call our being in Japan to fulfill our treaty obligation Imperialism only shows you don't understand what that word means. If Japan wanted us out, we would leave, just like when Japan wanted Okinawa back we gave it back.

How is using trade to leverage the Japanese government to act against the interests of its people not imperialism?

You seem to think imperialists have one tool in their bag and do everything with it. Modern imperialism is all about using trade and bribery and threats and even violence to get governments to act against the interests of their own people.

Yeah, I get that, and if you were to refer to the scores of countries around the world that we have screwed over for our own economic interests you'd get no argument from me, but not Japan, our dealings with them, economic and including our protection of them from many of their historic regional enemies has worked out very well for them.

That is always what the imperialist says.

They say that they are improving the lot of the Chinese peasant with their exploitation of their labor towards goals not of the peasants choosing or for the benefit of Chinese society in general.

The people of Okinawa are not being helped because Japanese businessmen on the mainland are doing well.

Just wanted to make sure. Were you in favor of the south seceding?


It does sound like we'll slowly move off of Okinawa.

So it looks like US imperialism got us a few Pacific Islands. Hawaii is nice, the rest we can give back.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What didn't change was the post war mindset.

The idea that the US would set the order to the greatest extent possible.

That was Vietnam.

The US was going to determine the kind of economy and government the people of Vietnam had, at least by that time what South Vietnam would have.

And this post-war mindset begins with the dropping of the bombs on Japan to show the world we would not hesitate to use them under some circumstances.

The dropping of those bombs very well may have prevented a much larger conflict with a lot more atomic weapons. We showed the world what could be done and it frightened the Soviets into not invading Western Europe. It sucks, but those deaths may have spared tens of millions down the road.

 

[barbos]

What didn't change was the post war mindset.

The idea that the US would set the order to the greatest extent possible.

That was Vietnam.

The US was going to determine the kind of economy and government the people of Vietnam had, at least by that time what South Vietnam would have.

And this post-war mindset begins with the dropping of the bombs on Japan to show the world we would not hesitate to use them under some circumstances.

The dropping of those bombs very well may have prevented a much larger conflict with a lot more atomic weapons. We showed the world what could be done and it frightened the Soviets into not invading Western Europe. It sucks, but those deaths may have spared tens of millions down the road.

And Russia's successful test of the bomb scared US into not starting a war with Stalin.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The dropping of those bombs very well may have prevented a much larger conflict with a lot more atomic weapons. We showed the world what could be done and it frightened the Soviets into not invading Western Europe. It sucks, but those deaths may have spared tens of millions down the road.

And Russia's successful test of the bomb scared US into not starting a war with Stalin.

Interesting, see it was the Soviets that advanced and conquered portions of Europe, not the United States. France and Belgium didn't become part of the US.

Let's be serious, the idea of invading the Soviet Union would have been nuts and an absolute last case scenario. It is one thing to bomb Russia. It is another thing to try and occupy that... in the winter.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What didn't change was the post war mindset.

The idea that the US would set the order to the greatest extent possible.

That was Vietnam.

The US was going to determine the kind of economy and government the people of Vietnam had, at least by that time what South Vietnam would have.

And this post-war mindset begins with the dropping of the bombs on Japan to show the world we would not hesitate to use them under some circumstances.

The dropping of those bombs very well may have prevented a much larger conflict with a lot more atomic weapons. We showed the world what could be done and it frightened the Soviets into not invading Western Europe. It sucks, but those deaths may have spared tens of millions down the road.

This is really taken from the old propagated drivel-speak at the time and since then American foreign policy has gone down every since. As history shows the Japanese wanted to explore peace. We know nowadays that it is sensible to have a ceasefire to then discuss terms of surrender. Japan was blockaded, the allies controlled the sea and air and Russia was preparing for a mass invasion of its colonies in Manchuria. This farce could provide good material for a Monty Python type sketch.

While not ruling out any possibilities of a Soviet attack at the time, Churchill actually proposed a surprise attack on the Soviets in Germany to impose the will of the allies. The second was a defence plan in case the Soviets tried to invade after the American withdrawal from Europe. Of course Russia never invaded and Churchill loved his gin.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The dropping of those bombs very well may have prevented a much larger conflict with a lot more atomic weapons. We showed the world what could be done and it frightened the Soviets into not invading Western Europe. It sucks, but those deaths may have spared tens of millions down the road.

This is really taken from the old propagated drivel-speak at the time and since then American foreign policy has gone down every since. As history shows the Japanese wanted to explore peace.

Yes, but I believe we didn't want the Emperor to remain. In addition, you didn't address the key issue regarding how the atomic weapons and their real world effect could not be denied and the threat of nuclear war may have been reduced. What happened to the Japanese would be the same thing that would have happened to the French, British, and Russians.

 

[untermensche]

What didn't change was the post war mindset.

The idea that the US would set the order to the greatest extent possible.

That was Vietnam.

The US was going to determine the kind of economy and government the people of Vietnam had, at least by that time what South Vietnam would have.

And this post-war mindset begins with the dropping of the bombs on Japan to show the world we would not hesitate to use them under some circumstances.

The dropping of those bombs very well may have prevented a much larger conflict with a lot more atomic weapons. We showed the world what could be done and it frightened the Soviets into not invading Western Europe. It sucks, but those deaths may have spared tens of millions down the road.

And it also might have stopped Martians from invading.

Just as likely and just as much of a logical connection.

The US is a violent aggressive imperialist nation. It is what it does. It is why it is so wealthy.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The dropping of those bombs very well may have prevented a much larger conflict with a lot more atomic weapons. We showed the world what could be done and it frightened the Soviets into not invading Western Europe. It sucks, but those deaths may have spared tens of millions down the road.

And it also might have stopped Martians from invading.

Just as likely and just as much of a logical connection.

The US is a violent aggressive imperialist nation. It is what it does. It is why it is so wealthy.

Huh? That isn't logical. The dropping of a massive bomb that can destroy a city does prevent a large scale war, we've had skirmishes since.

No. It is not why the US is wealthy. The defense of Vietnam was costly.