Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about locking their wife and kids in the house and setting it on fire. Would you do that?
Come on don't be silly! So what should we have done djacques? Sit there and let the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor, and just throw up our hands and say "oh well!" As I've said, I'm no advocate for war! Especially with the way the wars are being fought today! I firmly believe we need to mind our own business for a change, and stop trying to shove our policies down the throats of countries that don't want it! But in the case of WWII, the Japanese crossed the line when they bombed Pearl Harbor!
Furthermore, if someone is attempting inflict bodily harm on you or a family member, you mean you're not going to defend yourself using any means necessary? Don't know about you, but if I can defend myself, I'm going to do so, and make sure that I let that person know that they picked the wrong person to mess with!
If Im in a firefight with guys shooting 30 year old ak-47's and nothing else and I have mortors rpg's and a couple of TOW's. Yeah Im going to lay waste. I will not risk one of my troops because its not fair I have better weapons.
This idea that we need to consider the enemy' s feelings when we ask for their surrender is strange and unreasonable.
japan wanted to stay armed and retain a % of their conquests as well as no war crimes charges against them. Not reasonable at all.
The street fight analogy is strong because it accurately reflects the mindset of war.
When you engage in limited warfare as we tend to do these days it becomes long and drawn out, no clear winner and a whole lot of chaos ensues. ROE's- Rules of engagement that favor the enemy?
250 marines died in Lebenon as a result.
Good men died in Somalia as a result.
if we go to war it should be because our nation is threatened. If we commit troops it should be because we need to kick butt. Not to stand around and make good targets.
We are not the worlds police force and the UN is a bad joke.
japan entered into a war with us via sneak attack. A very effective attack that was aimed at crippling our ability to defend ourselves in the pacific. It nearly worked.
People want to believe that if we are nicer than the enemy that they will respond in kind. The japanese saw this as weakness. A commander that would surrender was weak and deserved execution. That is the reality that we faced.
It's not my contention that the United States or any other country should consider the enemy's feelings when in a shooting war--that's not my contention at all (though I know you were responding to some other person who frequents this thread).
It is my contention, however, that the U.S. bombing of Japan in August of 1945 was double-tap (or even triple tap). The war was nearly over. Japan was suing for peace...for a surrender that their military establishment and government could accept. The Japanese, just about defeated, made overtures to the Truman administration for a conditional surrender. Truman rebuffed these conditions. Even before these overtures had been made, however, Truman decided to use "Manhattan" on the Japanese because he thought doing so would make Stalin tremble. He even said this in his diary entry from Potsdam.
On above link, scroll down to the middle of the page and you can find Truman's diary entries that relate to Stalin and use of the atomic bomb.
The U.S. dropped not one, but two atomic weapons on the Japanese people, thus violating international treaties in which the U.S. agreed not to target civilians in wartime. Either the U.S. should have lived up to its principles and the international agreements it made, or the U.S. should not been party to the Geneva and Hague Conventions. But the heart of the matter lies in the U.S. purporting to be some kind of beacon of benevolence to the world while at the same time slaughtering people who belonged to a race considered "inferior" by good ol', blue-blooded, Anglo-Saxon, American stock.
Not only that, but the U.S. spent some large bucks on developing atomic weapons and by god when any nation spends so much on a weapon, it's going to get used in combat. It's rare in human history that a nation or group of people would spend so much time, money, and resources on building a weapon that would never be used in combat.
Further, the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Japan with an intent to gain geopolitical advantage in the postwar world.
These are the main reasons why the U.S. dropped not one, but two atomic weapons on a nearly defeated enemy. The "saving American lives" part was merely a selling point--not the main reason.
These are the points I'm making--I'm not making any silly arguments about how an enemy should be coddled and protected because that's plain ridiculous.
To advance this hackneyed "discussion" along, it'd be best to look at the main points of contention listed in this post (and others) and challenge my claims rather than looking up into the sky and dreaming up this ludicrous assertion that people who hold my view really want the U.S. to go to war with kid gloves. That's a preposterous claim and represents a misunderstanding of the basic arguments made by me and a few others on this thread.
And don't forget...we beat communism without firing a shot.
Excuse me there were Communist Chinese coming over the Yalu river firing at American troops. North Korea was and is a Communist nation. It was Chinese and in some cases Russian pilots in MIG-15's and MIG-17's over the skies in Korea. North Viet Nam was a Communist nation. There were over 50,000 Americans killed during the Korea War and over 55,000 Americans killed during the Viet Nam War. Let's also not forget various CIA and other covert operators whose names that we will never know that died during the Cold War. It does these Americans that gave their lives and their families a great dishonor to say "We beat communism without firing a shot"
Ding ding ding ding ding! You, sir, have won the prize for "getting it"!
Thank you.
So many watch movies. In the movies you have the villian and you have the good guys. Seldom do the movies show the flaws of the good guys.
Politicians dont engage in warfare with any belief that they are wrong on any count. Soldiers are there to die to be used as a tool thats how politicians see us.
Some claim to love the military. Perhaps they do but none feel the pain of those expected to do what is unthinkable to others.
When we go to war its because we have failed to learn from the past, or because someone else has failed to learn from the past. I have made the claim to be a combat vet and its valid. I have seen war up front and close. 4 combat wounds 4 purple hearts. I dont regret the duty. I regret having to be used to make the same mistakes. 1 time just 1 time I want the bodies of our fallen soldiers on display in the house. 1 time I want those elected reps to smell death, to help recover the remains. To hold your best friend as he lay dying. 1 time I want them on the battle field or minutes after and listen to the children who lay dying after being caught in a cross fire or hit by a stray bullet.
How about we demand that 5% of our elected reps must assume a position on the front line.... How many wars would we enter then???
I want to retch every time I see a politician talk about how we won.
Who is we????? They were not there.
Do I sound bitter? No Im not. I am proud of my service and every scar tells a story. In my house is a wall dedicated to my friends who fell and they are honored.
Vietnam did we learn nothing????
Iraq- Did we learn nothing???
Afghanistan-?????
Somalia-????
now Libya
Thank you.
So many watch movies. In the movies you have the villian and you have the good guys. Seldom do the movies show the flaws of the good guys.
Politicians dont engage in warfare with any belief that they are wrong on any count. Soldiers are there to die to be used as a tool thats how politicians see us.
Some claim to love the military. Perhaps they do but none feel the pain of those expected to do what is unthinkable to others.
When we go to war its because we have failed to learn from the past, or because someone else has failed to learn from the past. I have made the claim to be a combat vet and its valid. I have seen war up front and close. 4 combat wounds 4 purple hearts. I dont regret the duty. I regret having to be used to make the same mistakes. 1 time just 1 time I want the bodies of our fallen soldiers on display in the house. 1 time I want those elected reps to smell death, to help recover the remains. To hold your best friend as he lay dying. 1 time I want them on the battle field or minutes after and listen to the children who lay dying after being caught in a cross fire or hit by a stray bullet.
How about we demand that 5% of our elected reps must assume a position on the front line.... How many wars would we enter then???
I want to retch every time I see a politician talk about how we won.
Who is we????? They were not there.
Do I sound bitter? No Im not. I am proud of my service and every scar tells a story. In my house is a wall dedicated to my friends who fell and they are honored.
Vietnam did we learn nothing????
Iraq- Did we learn nothing???
Afghanistan-?????
Somalia-????
now Libya
God Bless You For Your Service!
And I agree with your statement about letting our politicians see for themselves first hand how bad war can be.
BTW - I believe ALL military attacks on civilian targets from the destruction of ancient cities to the bombing of Japan to be morally bankrupt and an admission of military weakness. I believe the soldiers should fight soldiers and the civilians pay taxes to the winners. The looting and raping of conquered cities in days gone past and the merciless bombardment in the current era is simply gross criminality.
Tinman - I understand and agree with you. I think we lost something when the Kings, Dukes and Earls could stay behind instead of leading the charge. I got out of 'Nam without any physical wounds but I learned some things I wish I had not.
BTW - I believe ALL military attacks on civilian targets from the destruction of ancient cities to the bombing of Japan to be morally bankrupt and an admission of military weakness. I believe the soldiers should fight soldiers and the civilians pay taxes to the winners. The looting and raping of conquered cities in days gone past and the merciless bombardment in the current era is simply gross criminality.
Tinman - I understand and agree with you. I think we lost something when the Kings, Dukes and Earls could stay behind instead of leading the charge. I got out of 'Nam without any physical wounds but I learned some things I wish I had not.
Aint that the truth brother. Your vets had it the worst I think. No clear ROE's. battles fought in half measures and 0 support from home. What a goat screw they gave you to deal with.
Aint that the truth brother. Your vets had it the worst I think. No clear ROE's. battles fought in half measures and 0 support from home. What a goat screw they gave you to deal with.
No clear ROE's meant that it was a slaughter--a bloodbath for all involved. No clear ROE's meant certain destruction of a country the U.S. created by drawing lines on a map, and it meant a near genocide of the Vietnamese people. No clear ROE's meant that many U.S. troops shot first and often because after all, the ROE's were unclear and commanders in the field could and did interpret them as they wished.
Historian Bernd Greiner examines in his recent book, War Without Fronts: The USA in Vietnam how no clear ROE's during the Vietnam conflict resulted in much more bloodshed and death occured in an asymmetrical war. His overarching thesis reiterates what you and others have stated about politicians in regard to the Vietnam war. Here's a review of the book:
I don't think it's silly at all. I want you either to explain what's wrong with the analogy--since you endorsed the "streetfight" analogy--or else answer the question.
Quote:
So what should we have done djacques?
Stayed out of the war. ****, we should've stayed out of Hawaii and the Phillipines to begin with; that would've been sufficient. But even if we were stealing colonies in Japan's backyard, we didn't have to intentionally provoke a war.
Quote:
Furthermore, if someone is attempting inflict bodily harm on you or a family member, you mean you're not going to defend yourself using any means necessary? Don't know about you, but if I can defend myself, I'm going to do so, and make sure that I let that person know that they picked the wrong person to mess with!
You didn't answer my question. Would you rather take a blow without responding, or burn the man's wife and children alive, if for whatever reason you thought that was the choice? Don't make it more complicated than it is, and don't pretend there are different rules for countries than for you and me. If that's actually what you believe, we have no common ground of discussion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what should we have done djacques? Sit there and let the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor, and just throw up our hands and say "oh well!" 
As I've said, I'm no advocate for war! Especially with the way the wars are being fought today! I firmly believe we need to mind our own business for a change, and stop trying to shove our policies down the throats of countries that don't want it! But in the case of WWII, the Japanese crossed the line when they bombed Pearl Harbor! 
