Senate Majority Leader: I wish the segregationist had won!

[Sava]

Yeah, Byrd is definitely a pud in the Democratic party... I don't know where the whole "respected statemen" thing comes from. And for pete's sake, he's from West Virginia... look at a map of average income, and ethnic diversity... West Virginia is po' white trash... Half of the people watch Jerry Springer Show in their trailers and the other half are on the Jerry Springer Show

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Sava
Half of the people watch Jerry Springer Show in their trailers and the other half are on the Jerry Springer Show

Hit the wrong button.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Or better yet, we shouldn't have put an embargo on various resources in the first place, hence, no war.

America's oil embargo on Japan helped lead to WWII, and it certainly spurred on Japanese colonialism. It didn't stop them.

[David Floyd]

No, I'm not talking about the Japanese starting a war. I'm talking about them starting one by attacking the US. I don't give a diddly**** what they do - if they don't attack the US, it isn't our business.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Joseph
Hit the wrong button.

Bah, don't worry, just joking around with stereotypes.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Sorry, this is blatantly false. The war crime WAS in not only dropping the atomic bombs, but firebombing and indiscriminately bombing German and Japanese cities. Targetting civilians, which was done on many occasions, is ALWAYS wrong.

Whether or not the Japanese would have surrendered is irrelevant. Whether or not they would have forced their civilians to commit suicide is irrelevant. We are responsible for our own actions, and no one else's. If Japan behaved immorally, we can't control that, but we can damn well control our own actions.

Further, it is also irrelevant if we would have invaded Japan (which was scheduled in Operations Olympic and Coronet). First of all, that would have been our choice, we by no means had to. Second of all, I would rather see US soldiers die in combat than see the US intentionally kill innocent civilians. Finally, an invasion of Japan would have been morally equivalent to murder, anyway, in that the US would have been forcing conscripts to their death, but that's the same as any war.

Point being, the atomic and firebombings were wrong, no questions asked.

Sorry honey but "irrelevant" is not synonymous with "any fact I feel like ignoring for being inconvenient with my ideological stance"

Who you'd rather see die is irrelevant. That's philosophical posturing, not hard reality on the ground. The Japanese attacked the US, and simply letting them rebuild and keep fighthing for decades because you're too much a coward or too much into your ideological games to take the war to the enemy doesn't mean that hundreds of thousands on both sides should be condemned to die by a prolongation of the war.

Do you honest to God believe in that little fairy tale world of yours that if you went to the Japanese and said: "Hey, Mr. Tojo, we haven't got the balls to take the war to you, because a civilian might get hurt, and thatth jutht tho wrong, ya know? So we're not gonna attack you, or mess with your production, and if you ever get tired of attacking us, well, that would be just peachy?"

Do you think that would have an effect? How about in the real world?

I like your attitude though - Gee, let's not do anything immoral. We started all with that nasty embargo. "If you're butchering millions in China, and want to buy our oil, of course we'll sell it to you - anything for a buck, and it would be immoral to inconvenience you."

[Sava]

Well said, MtG.

[David Floyd]

Sorry honey but "irrelevant" is not synonymous with "any fact I feel like ignoring for being inconvenient with my ideological stance"

Don't be condescending.

Who you'd rather see die is irrelevant. That's philosophical posturing, not hard reality on the ground.

Philosophy is extremely important to the debate, because right and wrong can be derived through philosophic discussions and logic. Right and wrong are ALWAYS relevant. Therefore, "philosophic posturing" may be irrelevant to YOU, but it's extremely important to the topic.

The Japanese attacked the US, and simply letting them rebuild and keep fighthing for decades because you're too much a coward or too much into your ideological games to take the war to the enemy

How are they going to rebuild? US submarines effectively cut Japan off from all foreign trade and imports. Should I pull out some sources on the state of the Japanese merchant marine in 1945?

Or perhaps you'd like sources on the effectiveness of the US submarine campaign.

Further, these "ideological games" are not games at all. They deal with condemning the intentional targeting of civilians as a means to an end. This is what the US condemns on a regular basis today. If you want to argue that might makes right, go right ahead, but don't try and tell me that right and wrong are meaningless.

doesn't mean that hundreds of thousands on both sides should be condemned to die by a prolongation of the war.

Hundreds of thousands? Where'd you get that number from? Your ass?

That many people might die if Olympic and Coronet went off, but why should we invade Japan?

Do you honest to God believe in that little fairy tale world of yours that if you went to the Japanese and said: "Hey, Mr. Tojo, we haven't got the balls to take the war to you, because a civilian might get hurt, and thatth jutht tho wrong, ya know? So we're not gonna attack you, or mess with your production, and if you ever get tired of attacking us, well, that would be just peachy?"

I frankly don't care what Mr. Tojo thinks. I can't control his actions - only my own. If he behaves immorally, so be it, that isn't my fault. If I behave immorally, that is my responsibility. Therefore, I should not behave immorally.

Remember, further, that by 1945, Japan did not have anything left with which to attack. Their heaviest seaworthy ship, after Okinawa, was a heavy cruiser. They had virtually no destroyers or ASW craft, no merchant marine, and for sure no aircraft carriers. They had kamikazes, but those could only be used against major fleet targets close to the Japanese mainland.

Seal off Japan with submarines, let food and medicine through for humanitarian reasons - starving civilians is still immoral, after all - but other than that, they're not going to be attacking ****.

Not the most efficient solution, I grant you - but efficient does not necessarily equate with right or just.

I like your attitude though - Gee, let's not do anything immoral. We started all with that nasty embargo. "If you're butchering millions in China, and want to buy our oil, of course we'll sell it to you - anything for a buck, and it would be immoral to inconvenience you."

That should be up to individual corporations. If the US government is giving assistance to these oil companies, and if there is a contract clause saying the US can decide who the companies can and can't sell to, that's one thing. But in any case, the US should not prevent Japan from buying oil from elsewhere.

And that ignores the fact that the US government shouldn't be taking such hostile actions against a foreign nation. Yes, Japan shouldn't be killing people in China, but then again, the US shouldn't have possessions in the Pacific such as the Philippines, Guam, and Hawaii, nor should the US be in Puerto Rico, nor should the US be occupying the Panama Canal Zone, etc., etc., etc. So start condemning the US for imperialism before you start worrying about what other people are doing.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by David Floyd


As Boris pointed out, their opinion is not particularly relevant to the overall topic. Naturally they're going to support dropping the atomic bomb - it meant they didn't have to invade Japan.

Further, whether or not Japan would have surrendered is also irrelevant. Surrender or not, intentionally bombing civilians is WRONG. What, invading Japan would have cost a lot of lives? Well, then, let's not invade Japan! Or better yet, we shouldn't have put an embargo on various resources in the first place, hence, no war. Or even better than that, we should never have acquired Guam, the Philippines, Hawaii, etc., in imperialistic actions. That would have solved the problem right there - no major US presence in the Pacific, no war with Japan.

David if you are going to fight a war, you have to fight to win.
Look at N. Korea, we did not fight to win so now they are sending missiles to every Tom **** and Harry who can paid for them, And one day those missile or parts from one of those missile may land on one of our bases or here.

Vietnam, we did not win so now the whole country is Communist.

Iraq, we did not Finnish it so now some young ladies and men may have to died to Finnish it. That part I don't like.
After WW I we came home and tried to stay out of Europe and the Pacific and it did not work. Remember they came to us and drop bombs on us first and then Hitler declare war on us before we declare war on him.
OBL came to us. How many times so far? 5 times? We had to do something or he would kept coming and American will died each time.
Like it or not, we cannot hide behind two oceans anymore.
Do I trust this Goverment to tell me the truth NO or any other Gov.
David I'm no longer Irish, English or American Native, I'm American and I will fight to defend this country if necessary. Oh and not for the Gov. but for the country.

[David Floyd]

David if you are going to fight a war, you have to fight to win.

Fine. By that argument, nothing Nazi Germany or Japan did during war time was wrong, and none of them should have been tried for it afterwards. Right?

Look at N. Korea, we did not fight to win so now they are sending missiles to every Tom **** and Harry who can paid for them, And one day those missile or parts from one of those missile may land on one of our bases or here.

We shouldn't have been in Korea from the beginning.

Vietnam, we did not win so now the whole country is Communist.

Not only should we not have been there, but if the situation had been put to a vote by all Vietnamese, I'm fairly certain they would have voted for the communist government of Ho Chi Minh, who, after all, was something of a national hero, rather than the dictatorship brought about by US puppets.

Iraq, we did not Finnish it so now some young ladies and men may have to died to Finnish it. That part I don't like.

Shouldn't have been there to begin with, either.

After WW I we came home and tried to stay out of Europe and the Pacific and it did not work. Remember they came to us and drop bombs on us first and then Hitler declare war on us before we declare war on him.

WW1 - yet another war we should have stayed out of. And funny thing, that probably would have averted WW2, assuming non-intervention would have brought about either a mutual peace or a German victory, which I think likely.

Further, we were fighting an undeclared war against Germany before they did anything to us, so I don't want to hear anything about them declaring war first. They had every right to - we were going after their submarines.

OBL came to us. How many times so far? 5 times? We had to do something or he would kept coming and American will died each time.

I have no problem going after OBL, as long as we do it by cooperating with local authorities and not just bombing people willy-nilly in the name of "anti-terrorism".

Like it or not, we cannot hide behind two oceans anymore.

It isn't hiding, it's simply staying in our part of the world.

And it isn't even that - I'm firmly in favor of trade globalization, free trade, and all that.

David I'm no longer Irish, English or American Native, I'm American and I will fight to defend this country if necessary. Oh and not for the Gov. but for the country.

That's nice, but you should really know that well over 90% of the conflicts we have been involved in have had nothing to do with defending this country. Humorously enough, often times they had to do with defending the GOVERNMENT of this country, or at least defending their policies.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Fine. By that argument, nothing Nazi Germany or Japan did during war time was wrong, and none of them should have been tried for it afterwards. Right?

So how were the rape of Nanjing or the holocaust related to warfighting?

No Germans were prosecuted for bombing London - they were prosecuted for real war crimes.

[David Floyd]

So how were the rape of Nanjing or the holocaust related to warfighting?

I'm sure the Japanese or the Nazis could have justified it. You know, sort of how we justified firebombing cities for the sole purpose of hurting civilian morale and killing as many people as possible.

No Germans were prosecuted for bombing London - they were prosecuted for real war crimes.

Real war crimes as defined by the victors. There is just as strong an argument for the intentional fire bombing of major population centers being war crimes as there is for gassing POWs.

Further, the Holocaust had nothing to do with war crimes - it was certainly murder, and certainly wrong, and I don't mean to imply otherwise. But a war crime would imply a war, committed in wartime, against a state with which you are at war.

So really, punishing Germans for the Holocaust was punishing them for something totally unrelated to war crimes.

Why, then, were Americans involved with the Philippine Insurrection, for example, not punished? And why did we not take the opportunity to condemn what was done to the Native Americans? And why did we not condemn - or even try - the British and Soviets and Dutch and Belgians and everything else for numerous things done under their (mis)rule?

All I'm arguing for, at this point, is a little consistency.

But in any case, let's look at someone who WAS convicted at Nuremburg. Admiral Doenitz.

He successfully convinced the tribunal that he was unaware of the Holocaust. His charge? Plotting aggressive war. That sounds like a bull**** charge to me. I'm very certain that Doenitz did not start WW2. He was not even an admiral until 1939.

Of course, he DID organize and launch a highly effective submarine campaign. Maybe that's what "plotting aggressive war" means. So here we have an example of someone who was convicted of nothing more than what should be, by your own definition, a valid action during wartime.

Or, we can look at Alfred Jodl. Convicted of, primarily, "promoting forced labor". Excuse me? If he was guilty of promoting forced labor, than so was anyone in any other country in any way involved with setting up conscription. You may agree or disagree that conscription is wrong, but I find it hard to believe one can disagree that conscription meets the definition of forced labor.

Or take Erich Raeder. Strongly implicated in German U-Boat activity, and, again, "promoting aggressive war". Or, in other words, conducting an effective naval campaign. Again, another conviction for an action that, according to you, is apparently within the bounds of acceptable warfare.

Another example: Constantin von Neurath. What the hell did this guy do? Well, apparently, this guy *knew* that Hitler was gonna conduct an aggressive war! Not that he conducted an aggressive war, he just *knew* about one. Gosh, that sounds like a major war crime to me

The point is, many Germans were prosecuted for "war crimes" that were pretty ridiculous, or "war crimes" that we ourselves committed, but, when we did them, were perfectly acceptable, according to you, naturally.

Riiiight.

[MichaeltheGreat]

A lot of people involved in the war crimes tribunals found Dönitz's situation to be marginal with respect to the types of crimes charged.

The "aggressive war" bit was more about initiating unrestricted submarine warfare in violation of pre-war international conventions.

The holocaust clearly was a war crime, in that it wasn't a strictly domestic issue involving genocide against German citizens - the holocaust charges involved things such as treatment of civilians in lands conquered by the Germans (occupation power obligations under international law), murder of POW's, and many other issues - the Germans didn't separate it out, they lumped the victims all together, so the war crimes tribunals felt no need to make an arbitrary distinction or to try to specifically enumerate victims. It was clearly war related conduct in the majority of victim's cases, though.

The rape of Nanjing and the holocaust both occurred with respect to non-resisting conquered populations.

The US in its bombing, did attempt (quite properly) to break the will to fight of the civilian populace, who directly employed in war production. Unlike the present, when weapons systems have extremely long lead time and require a great deal of capital and specialized expertise (why most nations don't have domestic arms industries), weapons and war materiel production in WW2 could be very decentralized.

Destruction of that productive capacity was essential to an early end to the war.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Jodl was convicted wrt use of slave labor, including forced prostitution, unrestricted killing of laborers failing to meet work output, and systematic maltreatment including malnutrition, (which made many laborers unable to work, and thus recipients of nazi bullets - not many of them starved to death.

Forced labor of civilians (if you count Russian POWs, you can add about 3 million to the toll) resulted in hundreds of thousands being killed. The right of governments to conscript has been in existence for hundreds of years, so you can argue it until you're blue in the face, but it is a recognized and accepted practice - slave labor until death is not.

[Chris 62]

I see you couldn't raise the bar Boris, you STILL don't understand that congress acts as a court in an impeachment proceding, and they did convict him.

Sorry Mike, your wrong here.

Someday Dear Boris, when you grow up a bit, you might find that trying to insult people, and holding your breath and stomping your foot (your posting equivelent is pages of "NO, I'M RIGHT, {Insert childish insult}") will never convince anyone of your postion.
I know it makes you feel good to hurt others with insults, I don't like to, you bring it out in me, but that is my failing, and I try to address it.
That's the difference between us, it's called maturity, and I fervently hope you will someday understand that your childishness just makes people uncomfortable.

Also, you don't own a thread Boris, anybody can post in it.

Clinton was guilty, but escaped through the Denocrats voting in mass in the senate not to impeach, then they marched to the white house and applauded him.
They are STILL paying for it.

All your rants will never change that, nor will your pedantic swipes at Lott, dinosaur he may be, he still actually said NOTHING wrong.

I'm sure you will post some childish comment in rebuttal, and it's a shame, because you sometimes show glimmers of intelligence, then you drown it in childishness.

But I still hope you will improve, but then, I'm an opptomist, I even think Floyd can be salvaged.
I await your next insult, I know it's coming, so fire away, and I will again be disapointed in the human condition, but will still have hope for you.