Is the United States a Police State? (Page 7)

Comrade_
Comrade_: ..if you're not going to research properly on your own post then why should I waste my time to read your endless stuff?
Gracias, I hope you understand why I ignore your postings.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Caveman said: "Fog so you disagree with my statement that the US went into Afghanistan for more than Osama? -Simple Yes or No, no bs-ing. I want you to openly say my statement was false. "

No. Can you not read? The US went to Afghanistan to prevent further terrorist attacks from occurring by destroying the training cells in Afghanistan; and establishing a stable and effective government to replace the Taliban; so as to prevent Afghanistan from falling back into the terrorist hands it was in prior to 9/11. To accomplish this meant far more than taking out Osama bin Laden.

"-Anti-Americanism -"a relentless critical impulse toward American social, economic, and political institutions, traditions, and values."
-nothing what I've said in these forums relate to this."

Is that so? Shall I go through and bring up all the statements you have made that contradict yourself…again??? I can do it with one simple post from you:

Caveman said: "And I will always regard the US as cowards for that, not because it was done in the past, but because of the present and how they make excuses."[1]


Caveman said: "I stand up for what I believe in, and if you have a problem with me questioning and pointing the ills done then maybe you should look deeper at yourself."

I have no problem with you standing up for what you believe in. I do, however; have a problem with the fairy tales you believe in.


Caveman said: "Instead of improving you just want to settle for "good" that is why your politicans can rape you blindly, because you don't question anything they do, you just follow along."

Funny; I have stated many things that need improvement. Unlike you however; when I see something in my political system that needs improvement; I do not run to the internet to complain about it; I bring up my concerns with mr. Kevin Sorensen, my Member of Parliament.

Caveman said: "You like labelling people as racist or Anti-American when their views differ from yours? Pathetic."

Caveman said: "I suggest you take your little ass and shut it because you think you got hugged by some Afghan kid that your life is fulfilled?"

Caveman said: "To me you are a piece of shit and you know nothing of what it is to have a hard life."

Hey, when the shoe fits.


Caveman said: "Am I the one that stood up for justifying the use of Nuclear bombs on Japan?"

No, you are the one who condemned the US for it; calling the entire nation cowards for killing civilians; while defending the Soviet Union for doing it on an even larger and more brutal scale; stating that you respect them; and only them for this contribution.

Caveman said: "I believe it was you who couldn't bring yourself to accept that those bombs were not justifiable."

Shall we go and see how that debate ended caveman? Oh; that's right…with you ignoring it because you could not present rational conclusions as to why it was not justified in the face of overwhelming facts. Even the people of Japan don't blame the US for it; they blame their own government…yet you caveman; insist that the entire world is wrong; and that you are right…even going so far as to say they were cowards for doing it.

Caveman said: "Twist all you want Fog."

May I ask you to explain how using your quotes is twisting? May I ask you to explain how providing links to view what you said is twisting? You are hilarious when you attempt to backtrack your own statements.

Caveman said: "The Soviets contributed a lot to that war, you can't deny that."

Nor am I denying it. In fact; I, along with everyone else you insist this with; have stated the exact opposite.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Caveman said: "But did I sit and justify their wrongs?"

Caveman said (in response to the moral dilemma of using nuclear arms and causing civilian casualties during war): "The only army I will respect is the Soviets and their contribution to WW2. Cowards gets no respect from me."[2]

Caveman said: "And I will always regard the US as cowards for that (bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki), not because it was done in the past, but because of the present and how they make excuses."[1]


Caveman said: "By the way are you confusing the PoW of the Soviets with the Soviet PoW? Tell me your sources, let me check if there's a mixed up. Because the Soviet PoW were the PoW of the Nazis."[3]

…what is yes Alex. I'll take hypocrites for $1000.


Caveman said: "But you can certainly have the conscience to sit and justify 2 nuclear bombs on civilians."

You mean the two nuclear bombs that were dropped over military complexes that the Japanese mixed into civilian dense centres so as to force anyone attacking to inflict high civilian casualties; that ended WWII? Yes; this is far more cowardly than raping 8 year old girls after the war ended huh?

Caveman said: "Orders that was given from the Government, not small soliders venting their frustration at war and doing war crimes but orders given straight from the US Government."

Soviet policy in all of these areas was harsh towards the people under its control, showing strong elements of ethnic cleansing.[4]

Note; POLICY.

According to historian Jan T. Gross:
"We cannot escape the conclusion: Soviet state security organs tortured their prisoners not only to extract confessions but also to put them to death. Not that the NKVD had sadists in its ranks who had run amok; rather, this was a wide and systematic procedure."[5]

Between *******44, Soviet partisan units conducted raids into Finnish territory and attacked civilian targets such as villages. In November 2006, photographs showing atrocities were declassified by the Finnish authorities. These include images of slain women and children.[4]

Raids are planned at the command level; not the soldiers themselves. These raids provide evidence that it was the Soviet Government's policy to commit acts of crimes against innocent civilians.

After the summer of 1945, Soviet soldiers caught raping civilians were usually punished to some degree, ranging from arrest to execution. The rapes continued, however, until the winter of 1947–48, when Soviet occupation authorities finally confined Soviet troops to strictly guarded posts and camps.[4]

Again; we can see that these figures clearly show the Red Army did not make such actions against their policy until the summer of 1945.

So why then do you condemn the US for their actions against civilians; and not the USSR? Funny, that the German statistics show the US was far kinder in handling civilians than the Soviets.

Caveman said: "And you expect me to think positive on that?"

How can I? I cannot even expect you to think logically on it.

Caveman said: "Like I said, you seem intent on carrying on things from other threads and the topic was the use of nuclear weapons not the Red Army's war crimes."

No, your point was the use of weapons was unjustified because it killed civilians…to which you responded that the US was cowards; and gave you nothing; 'thankfully', then responded in praise of the Soviet Red Army's contribution. Your hypocrisy knows no limits does it caveman? Yet you comment on the bias of others.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Deep said: "wait, the un counld NOT have produced the WMD intel, because i remember that colin powell had to bring it before the un. the un nust have had their own suspicious data related to the ongoing weapons inspections. "

the origin of the intel came from the UN. After the Operation Desert Storm; the UN resolutions stated that the US coalition would withdraw forces from Iraq on two major conditions: Iraq would return all assets of Kuwait to Kuwait; and Hussein would allow weapons inspectors into Iraq. Hussein signed these resolutions; allowing UN inspectors in. Prior to the invasion; Hussein kicked the inspectors out. The UN issued new resolutions that Hussein cooperate with the UN inspectors; and have a completed inspection by 2003. Resolution 1441 mandated that this inspection be complete and Hussein provide his full cooperation with UN inspections. He did not. This was when the speculations of WMD started. The inspectors stated by the date set in the resolution that they had not found anything YET, but needed more time to complete the inspection. Hussein failed to cooperate; and so the US led the invasion. US and British intelligence came out yes; but it was the UN that initiated it all.




[1] http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ForumId=772986&ParentId=1287299&Page=11

[2] http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ForumId=772986&ParentId=1287299&Page=11

[3] http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ForumId=772986&ParentId=1287299&Page=13
12 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: Caveman said: "Fog so you disagree with my statement that the US went into Afghanistan for more than Osama? -Simple Yes or No, no bs-ing. I want you to openly say my statement was false. "

Fog says: No. Can you not read? The US went to Afghanistan to prevent further terrorist attacks from occurring by destroying the training cells in Afghanistan; and establishing a stable and effective government to replace the Taliban; so as to prevent Afghanistan from falling back into the terrorist hands it was in prior to 9/11. To accomplish this meant far more than taking out Osama bin Laden.

-1) Good then shut up if you have nothing to say.

"-Anti-Americanism -"a relentless critical impulse toward American social, economic, and political institutions, traditions, and values."
-nothing what I've said in these forums relate to this."

Is that so? Shall I go through and bring up all the statements you have made that contradict yourself…again??? I can do it with one simple post from you:

Caveman said: "And I will always regard the US as cowards for that, not because it was done in the past, but because of the present and how they make excuses."

-2) You left out the context I said that in, I regard the US as cowards for not only placing 2 nuclear bombs over Japan but for making excuses and trying to justify it in present times, instead of accepting it as an obvious wrong. I stand by my statement but you can pull it out of context if you want. Seems you like pulling at straws in attempt to make me look anti-American.

Caveman said: "You like labelling people as racist or Anti-American when their views differ from yours? Pathetic."
-I await you to prove that I'm racist or Anti-American for pointing the ovious. But continue to hide your insults Fog, wouldn't want you to copy & paste those that you said in other threads.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Deep: "when saddam went awal and started using chamical weapons on his own people"

AWOL: Absent Without Leave.

Deep: "but we needed to keep iraq as an ally because we had let iran get out of control, and feared that if we did not keep iran in check, they would eventually nuke israel and start WWIII"

Which is why we need Pakistan today.

Deep: "the beginning of the 1st persian war was sorta fishy."

Explain how.


Deep: "kuwait, supposedly, was slant drilling into iraqs oil deposits and then exceeding opec agreed export levels- both stealing iraq's oil and reducing the overall market value of oil by exceeded agreed export levels and oversaturating the markets."

Key word, supposedly. Slant Drilling technology was advanced in North America, predominantly within Canada after 1992. In 1990; when Hussein made these allegations; the most advanced slant drilling technology in the world was limited to drilling within a mile from the drill site. There were no drills within the region of Iraqi oil that could have reached said oil wells. These allegations have been proven 100% false.
Another note is that while Saddam Hussein was accusing Kuwait of slant drilling; and thus justifying his action against them to the world; he told the people of Iraq that it was because Kuwait was their 19th province; and it was to unify the glory of Iraq. Why the different reasons? Because his own people saw first had that these 'slant drills' didn't exist. Thew reason for Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was because of Kuwait's demand that Iraq repay them for funding the war against Iran. When Hussein refused to pay back $40 billion to Kuwait; Kuwait dropped their oil price; crushing the Iraqi industry.


Deep: "meh. the 2nd gulf war should have never been; however, he had long been in violation of the 1993 cease fire, and firing on our cease-fire sanctioned squadrons which were enforcing a long term no-fly zone. that would have been suficcient reasons, no need for the wmd allegations"

I agree. It is not a case of taking out Saddam Hussein and establishing democracy in Iraq that was wrong; it was merely the methods used to achieve it. There was no need for a lie that I can see…however I do understand that the growing anti-war sentiment in the US is cause for concern in attempting to intervene anywhere; even if it is for valid reasons. Look at Libya and Afghanistan. You can see how many uneducated morons oppose those based off of internet 'facts'.
12 years ago Report
0
the real slim DEEPy
the real slim DEEPy: afghanistan has 2 paticular advantages. with troops in both iraq and afghanistan, we have iran virtually surrounded. pakistan is essential to supporting/transporting troops in and out of afghanistan, as pakistan lies directly between afghanistan and the persian gulf. the other advantage of afghanistan is that, i believe, afghanistan holds potential for ano il pipleine between iran and russia. i do not think it has ever been constructed, but the soviets have had it planned for 30 years, and the russian invasioan of afghanistan in the 80's was reactionto build the pipepline themselves, after failing to reach an agreement with afghanistan to arrange the pipeline peaceably. so, iraq, for 1-2 reasons, is /are strategic, but so is pakistan, for if pakistan refuses us passage (as allies ARE EXPECTED TO DO) then the afghan troops would be landlocked, and i dont think you can get to afghanistan from turkey, the next closest costal country. we could get to iran thru turkey, and , to my knowledge, turkey is prolly the most westernized of the muslim world- it is a seclar government, for one. still tho, if we lost afghanistan, we could possibly station troops in turkey, but i doubt they will be comfortable with the levels we should, and the turkey/iran border is relatively short and prolly very mountainous. see, we arent invading over oil like the soviets, we are setting ourselves up for preventing WWIII, and the governments of the world arent really goving us any grief, either. truth is, i dont thing pakistan 's president know that usama was there, but i guarantee that many others did. if we would have warned pakistan, word could have reached a simpathizer, who would have warned osama, and then we would have gotten our visas stamped, but failed at the mission.

the iran situation was also encouraged because , immediately after 9/11, saddam heussein got on national TV, and announced that he wished to aid whomever was responsible for the 9/11 attacks (this was within the first 1-3 days afterwards), so soon that we didnt even have a chance to confirm that it was an al-queida initiated attack. thus, the american setiment was set against iraq by an unbelieveable amount due to the the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 incident. and remember, he had been violation of the gulf war ceasefire throughout the clinton year-, but clinton, as good as he was on the economy and deficit, was sort of a puss with sending cruise missles anywhere and everywhere ther was a civil war or such. clinton ordered prolly dozens of missile attacks, but never declared a war or committed ground troops, that i am aware, outside of the black hawk down rescue incident, which was a special ops in the first place.
12 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: I see, you intent to twist words to mean what you wish to show, by pulling things out of context of another thread that was more indept on the discussion on the bombings on Japan than that of the Red Army's crimes.
Pathetic that you now start using 2 nuclear bombs that were to to get ride of "military bases" we know the truth. I'll leave you here with your conscience, you seem to want to prove something.

Cowardice is when a man can't debate fair without having to twist words and pull them out of context.

Gracias, continued to be ignored. I'll debate someone who is honest at that.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Caveman wrote: "BTW Fog, it seems you don't even read your own postings:"

I did read them; and thanks for biting. I knew you would.



"On October 22, 1944 Nemmersdorf was the scene of an alleged massacre said to have been perpetrated by the Soviet soldiers against German civilians. Since 1991, when Russian records became newly available, scholars now generally believe that the Nazis exploited the incident for PROPAGANDA, IN AN ATTEMPT TO INCREASE CIVILIAN RESISTANCE TO THE SOVIET ARMY ADVANCE. Some details of atrocities turned out to have occurred elsewhere.[6]"

Does it matter where they occurred? The fact is they did; and thank you for acknowledging this.


Caveman said: "some victims in the photographs were from other East Prussian villages; and the account of barn doors being used for the crucifixion of women did not occur in Nemmersdorf, but elsewhere."

So what you are saying is it did occur? Now; having acknowledged that the Soviets did in fact use brutal means of torture to mass murder civilians; how can you say you respect this when you condemn the US for bombing military complexes in civilian cities? Did the US use such brutal tactics? No. Did the US deliberately and solely target civilians? No…but thanks for showing the hypocrisy and bias in your ideas.


Caveman: "Caveman said: "And I will always regard the US as cowards for that, not because it was done in the past, but because of the present and how they make excuses."

-2) You left out the context I said that in, I regard the US as cowards for not only placing 2 nuclear bombs over Japan but for making excuses and trying to justify it in present times, instead of accepting it as an obvious wrong. I stand by my statement but you can pull it out of context if you want. Seems you like pulling at straws in attempt to make me look anti-American."

So calling the US cowards for their policy of defending the use of nuclear bombs is not a relentless critical impulse toward American social and political institutions; traditions and values? So you admit that you think the US is cowards for their social and political values of using the atomic bombs as a good thing?

Caveman said: "Caveman said: "You like labelling people as racist or Anti-American when their views differ from yours? Pathetic."
-I await you to prove that I'm racist or Anti-American for pointing the ovious. But continue to hide your insults Fog, wouldn't want you to copy & paste those that you said in other threads."

I have never called you a racist; nor mentioned anything of race with you. You have proven yourself to be anti-American in all your attempts to make them out to be cowards for taking action in ending WWII.
12 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: I see no Russians coming in to justify their attack on civilians only one Canadian trying to justify the attacks of 2 nuclear bombs on civilians.

Caveman said: "And I will always regard the US as cowards for that (bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki), not because it was done in the past, but because of the present and how they make excuses."

Good and what was your justification this time? -military bases? Hiroshima was NOT a prime military target. All couldve been prevented. You know this and I know this, everyone is aware of it, but you'd not admit it because it's forbidden to look at the 'negative' right? So, smile and make more justifications and not accept the error.

hmm let me check
12 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: "On October 22, 1944 Nemmersdorf was the scene of an alleged massacre said to have been perpetrated by the Soviet soldiers against German civilians. Since 1991, when Russian records became newly available, scholars now generally believe that the Nazis exploited the incident for PROPAGANDA, IN AN ATTEMPT TO INCREASE CIVILIAN RESISTANCE TO THE SOVIET ARMY ADVANCE. Some details of atrocities turned out to have occurred elsewhere.[6]"

Does it matter where they occurred? The fact is they did; and thank you for acknowledging this.

-If you took the time to read your quoted article then you'd see that it was shown to be propaganda promoted by the Nazis so that civilians will join and resist the Red Army. I saw this in your article, I'm not making this up. Take your time to read your sources before you post them.
12 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: So calling the US cowards for their policy of defending the use of nuclear bombs is not a relentless critical impulse toward American social and political institutions; traditions and values? So you admit that you think the US is cowards for their social and political values of using the atomic bombs as a good thing?

-No calling the people who defend the use of nuclear bombs (such as yourself) as cowards, people who drop 2 nuclear bombs on civilians when the war was close to being won, and NUCLEAR BOMBING was UNNESSARY as being cowards, and I end it there.
Unless you're saying that it is the Social and Political Values of the US to drop NUCLEAR BOMBS on civilians... is it?
12 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: Since you say it is okay that those 2 NUCLEAR bombs were dropped for a good cause. Then you can justify its use today? Whenever there is a war we can just end it by dropping NUCLEAR bombs, right? It was good as you say back then so certainly it is good now? If you can sit and justify it instead of saying it was a wrong..
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Deep: "afghanistan has 2 paticular advantages. with troops in both iraq and afghanistan, we have iran virtually surrounded. pakistan is essential to supporting/transporting troops in and out of afghanistan, as pakistan lies directly between afghanistan and the persian gulf."

Our troops came in from Saudi Arabia; not Pakistan. We can fly troops in; and don't need Pakistan for that. Pakistan however also borders Iran; giving us the ability to place troops in virtually all directions around Iran's borders. This is key to containing them.

Deep: "the other advantage of afghanistan is that, i believe, afghanistan holds potential for ano il pipleine between iran and russia."

The Trans Afghan Pipeline runs from Turkey to Central Asia. It was to give Asian nations a means to access natural gas having been cut off by Iran and Russia. The pipeline is built by the Asian Development bank. We profit nothing from it; other than allowing nations in Central Asia to become independent of Iran and Russia; which were not providing them gas anyways. It serves only to help boost the international economy.


"but the soviets have had it planned for 30 years, and the russian invasioan of afghanistan in the 80's was reactionto build the pipepline themselves, after failing to reach an agreement with afghanistan to arrange the pipeline peaceably."

The Soviets invaded to support the PDPA; communist party that was attempting to control Afghanistan. Afghanistan was more than key to the USSR for several reasons; and one was the ability to reach out and touch the Middle East; India, and even to Africa with ease.

"for if pakistan refuses us passage (as allies ARE EXPECTED TO DO) then the afghan troops would be landlocked,"

Pakistan doesn't give us passage. Like I said our troops were getting to Afghanistan through Saudi Arabia prior to last year. Now we get in through Turkey.

Deep: "and i dont think you can get to afghanistan from turkey"

Yes we can, and do. We fly troops directly into Afghanistan. It is far easier for many; many reasons.

Deep: "see, we arent invading over oil like the soviets, we are setting ourselves up for preventing WWIII,"

Exactly. Glad someone outside the military is capable of seeing this.


Caveman: "I see, you intent to twist words to mean what you wish to show, by pulling things out of context of another thread that was more indept on the discussion on the bombings on Japan than that of the Red Army's crimes."

Yes, so intent was I to twist your words that I even provided the link to the very page in which it was taken. You know if you had a shovel; you could dig that hole even faster caveman.

Caveman: "Cowardice is when a man can't debate fair without having to twist words and pull them out of context."

I agree; hence I provide not only the full quote; but also the link to the page it was taken from. Keep digging caveman.

Caveman: "Gracias, continued to be ignored. I'll debate someone who is honest at that."

Ignoring would require you not to reply genius.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Caveman: "I see no Russians coming in to justify their attack on civilians only one Canadian trying to justify the attacks of 2 nuclear bombs on civilians."

Actually; I only brought them up to show the hypocrisy and bias you preach about others doing; shine in your own words. It was YOU that brought up the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; intent on trying to prove them immoral; not the other way around. Everyone who was involved in that thread saw one person trying to justify calling the US cowards for using it; and not someone justifying using them. Keep digging child….you got a long way to go to get out.

Caveman: "Good and what was your justification this time? -military bases? Hiroshima was NOT a prime military target."

All discussed in detail in the debate you started on it…then conveniently walked away from when your 'facts' ran short of real evidence. If you wish to get humiliated again on the topic of the nuclear bombings; be my guest.

Caveman: "All couldve been prevented."

Like always; caveman fails to provide proof of his ideas he claims are fact.


Caveman: "-If you took the time to read your quoted article then you'd see that it was shown to be propaganda promoted by the Nazis so that civilians will join and resist the Red Army. I saw this in your article, I'm not making this up. Take your time to read your sources before you post them."

If you took the time to stop trying to defend your own bias; you would understand that it really doesn't matter WHERE they occurred; just that they DID occur. Yes; much was twisted by the Nazis for propaganda; by taking events that happened elsewhere and putting them together. The events still happened; and thank you for acknowledging that.

Caveman said: "The only army I will respect is the Soviets and their contribution to WW2."


Caveman said: "-No calling the people who defend the use of nuclear bombs (such as yourself) as cowards, people who drop 2 nuclear bombs on civilians when the war was close to being won, and NUCLEAR BOMBING was UNNESSARY as being cowards, and I end it there."

Caveman said: "Yes, I said hate, and it is a fitting word because it's something I don't forgive when Westerners use excuses for Hiroshima and say bs as "Well, they deserve it because look at what they did to Pearl Habour" crap like that as if the Japanese are not humans too. If you had a conversation with a Patriotic fanatic about Hiroshima these are the things you'll see them saying. That is why I ask to not go on that subject."[1]

Go ahead and check the debate for yourself. You will note that nowhere had anyone commented on the US use of nuclear bombs prior to caveman's assumption that because we are westerners; we would feel this way. In his stereotype that patriots all feel this way; he essentially stated that the patriotic US citizens are 'cowards'…
I rest my case.


Caveman said: "Since you say it is okay that those 2 NUCLEAR bombs were dropped for a good cause. Then you can justify its use today?"

Only in the same way that one can justify exploration of the Spanish merchants (ie Christopher Columbus) in current times. This is NOT 1945 caveman….you hold grudges worse than teenage girls.


Caveman said: "Whenever there is a war we can just end it by dropping NUCLEAR bombs, right?"

The question isn't whether they will end the war; it is whether it is too excessive. Your lack of ability to apply logics is concerning. It isn't hard to understand the difference between a world in which no one had the ability to combat the US nuclear arm; to a modern day; in which half the world is armed heavily enough to obliterate it.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Caveman said" It was good as you say back then so certainly it is good now?"

Are you implying that no changes have been made since 1945? Are you seriously so ignorant as to assume that warfare does not evolve? You are so blinded by your narrow-mindedness that you cannot even understand how illogical and foolish your posts are….unbelievable.


[1] http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ForumId=772986&ParentId=1287299&Page=10
12 years ago Report
0
the real slim DEEPy
the real slim DEEPy: ok, i just realized- when i made that statement about "look to the influences/benefactors of/from the versaii treaty and the other treaties which ended the world wars and created large areas- at time, hemispheres, i think my point was lost, cause everyone got caught up on the alleged puppetmaster countries and the blair intelligence issue. uuh, my point is that the treaties and aggrememts mandated "spheres of influence", which placed the soviets in charge of maintaining peace in "eastern bloc" nations, while the allies were to police weatern europe. it was this agreement between ussr and the allies which created, you might say "international policing zones".

so who dictated the arrangement, who benefitted? well, russia deff benefitted, for it was given a monopoly over eastern europe, and prevented involvement from the allies- while the allies didnt want any jusisdictions, they just didnt want the soviets to have it all, so they divided it. the allied jusisdictions was supposed to be policed by the western allies, but, was later shifted to the us and nato- britain bailed) remember when I SAID that most of our peacetime troops are based on vestigial defensive positions frorm the cold war, whom are simply complementing nato forces. the us forces and the nato forces share jurisdiction.

the ussr had sole jurisdiction over its zone, and it eventually incorporated all nations wthin its influence into the union.

if nato wanted us to leave, we would prolly have little problem. they want us there, it seems.

so russia nearly doubles its union, and the us gets suckered into providing a relatively large peace keeping force distributed throughout weatern europe, was forced to build large military bases, since the cold war was a threat even before the end of WWII. invasion of poland) was seperated from germany, exhonerated from responsibility from the war (even tho their citizens voted to unify with germany in the perperations to invade poland).

it is silly to just ask "is us a police state", for it shows an igmorance in the world wars.

the meaning of a police state is an opressive nation, which closely regulates economic, social and political issues, and which concentrates power fairly equally between the cantral executive oficerand the legislature.
12 years ago Report
0
the real slim DEEPy
the real slim DEEPy: wait a minute? the war was nearly won??? really?? did you know, it took us 6 years for japan to agree to a final peace treaty whth the other parties of the war.

truman was very troubled about the nuclear option. the day of the completion of the 2 bombs, truman was troubled so much over using them that he didnt sleep all night, not going to bed until FINALLY deciding that it would "save" civillian lives. we were under the opinion that the japanese thought of their emoproer as god and would fight off invasion forces with pitchforks and machettes. every man woman and child was prepared to line toe coasts, armed with farm equiptment if we were to invade the mainland.

back then, there was nothing wrong wih killing civillians durning war. "all is fair in love and war". the us regretted that decision so much that in the post war era we created the international war laws of the geneva convention, shich is the law today used to prosecute the nedless murder of civillians as a war crime.
12 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: "the us regretted that decision" Not everyone in the US (and out of the US) regret the decision, there are some, example FogofWar who will not accept that it was a grave error, instead he'll continue to make excuses.

The people did regard the emperor as a God, but did you know Deep that they were pushing for a treaty that will safe guard the emperor seeing they knew that defeat was imminent with the Soviets joining the war on the allies' side. But was there any negotiations? And you know what the funny thing is? That the US left the emperor at the thrown in the end as a political head.
How far we've come from that war? The obvious is those bombs were used as test. A man in modern times can sit and not see that from himself, instead he can make more excuses for a wrong done to civilians.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Deep: "it was this agreement between ussr and the allies which created, you might say "international policing zones"."

And we are still working to figure out what policing zones are still our responsibility. People are often to apt the think politics doesn't involve international affairs…but oh how it does. One move across the world can have dire consequences back home. We must maintain our influences and protect our interests. There is no doubt that the world was divided into policing zones; but now that NATO is the only real force left in which was designed for such a role; responsibility is falling on us to deal with these issues.

Deep: "remember when I SAID that most of our peacetime troops are based on vestigial defensive positions frorm the cold war, whom are simply complementing nato forces. the us forces and the nato forces share jurisdiction."

To a degree yes. The US is NATO; so we share jurisdictions. We even have troops from several other nations stationed in NATO countries; including the US. One of the men who was on my para course is stationed in the US.

Deep: "wait a minute? the war was nearly won??? really?? did you know, it took us 6 years for japan to agree to a final peace treaty whth the other parties of the war."

Caveman refuses to accept the physical evidence that disproves his ignorant idea that the war was almost won. He refuses to accept Japan's unwillingness to give up; and he also refuses to accept the fact that Japanese submarines carrying aircraft were in range to strike US cities; including Washington D.C. He also refuses to accept the battle of Iwo Jima and Okinawa; as well as the fire bombings of Tokyo.

Caveman: ""the us regretted that decision" Not everyone in the US (and out of the US) regret the decision, there are some, example FogofWar who will not accept that it was a grave error, instead he'll continue to make excuses."

Not all decisions are simple to make caveman; and when you are dealing with something as grave as war; not all decisions are polite and avoid death. You are lucky that you do not have to understand this.


Caveman: "The people did regard the emperor as a God, but did you know Deep that they were pushing for a treaty that will safe guard the emperor seeing they knew that defeat was imminent with the Soviets joining the war on the allies' side."

The irony is in your lack of sources. Did you also know that the Japanese continued to fight; even after the Soviet's declared war on Japan. Clearly the USSR joining was not a factor in ending the war now was it? It is also ironic that this happened AFTER the first bomb struck Hiroshima.[1] Japan was not ready to surrender. You ignore reality. The emperor did not alone decide the fate of Japan; he needed approval from the Supreme Council for the Direction of War; which refused to surrender.


Caveman: "But was there any negotiations?"

YES! The Potsdam declaration was given to Japan well before the bombing of Hiroshima; which stated that Japan's refusal to surrender; and continued resistance would result in "Prompt and Utter Destruction."

…while you bring up the 'negotiations' with the USSR; it is ironic that despite the USSR signing a friendship pact with China; the enemy of Japan, and the initial reason the Pacific war began in the first place; on 11 February; Japan still refused to surrender. Japan knew the consequences of their actions; and they still continued to resist. This is why the people of Japan blamed their own government; not the US, for the bombings.

Caveman: "And you know what the funny thing is? That the US left the emperor at the thrown in the end as a political head."

Because they felt sorry for having nuked their asses into submission. The US demonstrated mercy; and you condemn them for this; while your entire argument is based on the principle of the US' actions being merciless.
12 years ago Report
0
FogofWar
FogofWar: Caveman: "instead he can make more excuses for a wrong done to civilians."

…unlike the millions of civilians that were needlessly murdered at the hands of your 'respected' Soviet Union right?

[1]http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001288.html
12 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: Yet you come and justify it, and call me anti-American because like others I can see the error in using 2 Nuclear bombs on civilians. But you continue only for argument sake. I never once justified any army's wrong doing.

But maybe you'll see one day that, the Political leaders were not stupid, they knew what they were doing and there was no use for those bombs. If you can continue to disagree that what was done is acceptable, then that's your decision and your belief, not mine. If you want to call me Anti-American over that, then so be it call me anti-american or anti-whatever.
I think for myself.
12 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: The USSR did not join the allies until during the time of the bombings, Japan was still hoping to have the USSR's support. A well defeated dead army of Japan that supported their Emperor and believed in honour. The US demanded not negotiated.

You should read up more on the war and the timelines and you'd understand perhaps my disagreement to join you in praising the 2 nuclear bombs as necessary and right.
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .

Davidk says: Jiminy Crickets! This tread has gotten outta control! The tread topic 18 pages ago was “Is the US a police state?” I believe Caveman without realizing it brought it back on topic a little with his last paragraph.



Caveman said:

The people did regard the emperor as a God, but did you know Deep that they were pushing for a treaty that will safe guard the emperor seeing they knew that defeat was imminent with the Soviets joining the war on the allies' side. But was there any negotiations? And you know what the funny thing is? That the US left the emperor at the thrown in the end as a political head. How far we've come from that war? The obvious is those bombs were used as test. A man in modern times can sit and not see that from himself, instead he can make more excuses for a wrong done to civilians.


David responds:

What Caveman fails to realize, Japan in the 1940’s was not a country controlled by ‘politicians’ but by the ‘Japanese military complex’ almost exclusively, a real police state. The militaries matra was of Bushido or the ‘the way of the warrior’

During pre-World War II and World War II Shōwa Japan, bushido was pressed into use for militarism.
David Powers, "Japan: No Surrender in World War Two"

To present war as purifying, and death a duty.
(John W. Dower, War Without Mercy: Race & Power in the Pacific War p1 ISBN *******0030-X)

This was presented as revitalizing traditional values and "transcending the modern.”
(Richard Overy, Why the Allies Won p 6 ISBN *******3925-0)


Bushido would provide a spiritual shield to let soldiers fight to the end.
(Edwin P. Hoyt, Japan's War, p 334 ISBN *******0612-5)


As the war turned, the spirit of bushido was invoked to urge that all depended on the firm and united soul of the nation.
(John Toland, The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire *******45 p 444 Random House New York 1970)


When the Battle of Attu was lost, attempts were made to make the more than two thousand Japanese deaths an inspirational epic for the fighting spirit of the nation.
(John Toland, The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire *******45 p 539 Random House New York 1970)


Arguments that the plans for the Battle of Leyte Gulf, involving all Japanese ships, would expose Japan to serious danger if they failed, were countered with the plea that the Navy be permitted to "bloom as flowers of death [kamikaze].
(Edwin P. Hoyt, Japan's War, p 356 ISBN *******0612-5)


Such attacks were acclaimed as the true spirit of bushido.
"No Surrender: Background History"
(Edwin P. Hoyt, Japan's War, p 360 ISBN *******0612-5)



No matter what the Japanese civilian political complex was trying to do with so called ‘negotiations’ to the contary, Japan was completely controlled by the ‘military’ and the military had absolutely no plans or even a single remote thought of surrender.

Surrender to the Japanese military, because of their devotion to ‘Bushido’was worse than anything thinkable. The Japanese were absolutely ‘brutal’ to their captives due to the fact that they had zero respect for soldiers that surrendered. The Bataan Death March was just one of the many massacres that the Japanese military imposed on captives because of the zero respect that they for those who surrendered.

.
12 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: .


During the McArthur campaign as he hop scotched across the Pacific towards Japan, how many Japanese soldiers surrendered? Not many, almost zero. Why? Because of their belief in Bushido.

Death was preferable to the Japanese military as proven over and over and over during the years that the US and other countries fought the Japanese Empire. Many felt that the Japanese military would force suicide on major Japanese population centers if they felt the homeland was falling into American hands.


The journals of General Douglas McArthur regarding the planned invasion of Japan are extensive. Once the President of the United States read these journals (which you can find online and which I have posted before on other threads) will show exactly what the US military would have to encounter, endure, and the casualty figures which would be caused not only to American forces, but to the Japanese military and civilian populations. These casualty figures were estimated in the 10's of millions of lives lost.


Surrender??? The Japanese military which was in complete control of Japan, it just was not an option.

Since surrender was not an option to those in control of Japan, the invasion of the Japanese mainland was inevitable.

Caveman thinks it was cowards who decided to use nuclear bombs. Perhaps he should consider other responsible possibilities.

.
12 years ago Report
0