|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/08/2006 08:37:51 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
not yet, the US Army is just soo bad at fighting wars that they just can't win, not even against some sheepherders in the desert ;)
maby they should have trained their own soldiers better, instead of training the Iraqis and Afgans ;) |
HA!
First off, not all of Iraq is Desert. Second, The US Army is not fighting "sheepherders." Don't know where you got that infromation...but your mistaken.
As for Training: I don't know what to say. But would you like me to come sit outside YOUR office and tell you that you suck at your job? |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 09:14:42 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by RonB:
Occupation doesn't always mean that people live in fear, as you imply. |
Example please?(from modern history, say 1900 onward) |
Japan, following World War 2. From the Wikipedia:
"Japan continued to experience Westernization in the postwar era, much of which came about during the occupation, when American soldiers were a common sight in many parts of the country. American music and movies became popular, spurring a generation of Japanese artists who built on both Western and Japanese influences."
Unless the Japanese were suffering from what was to later become known as the Stockholm Syndrome, the Japanese did not fear the occupying forces. I don't believe that those in fear would adopt the culture of those who exert control over them with such willingness. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 09:40:19 PM · #53 |
AL-ZARQAWI DEAD!!!!!! So what !!!! There are thousands more who will now want to emulate him.
This so called war on terror has created another generation of pure hatred for the Americans and allies by Islamic Middle Eastern cultures.
This “war on terror” will last decades involving many countries and nations but it
will never have a winner.
There is no justification for this.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 09:43:09 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by amber:
Also consider the mess surrounding Valerie Plame and Wilson, for which Libby is carrying the can at the moment until someone joins up all the dots...Rove has been in front of the Grand Jury what? 5 Times now? |
Innuendo. Libby has only been charged, he has not been found guilty.
As for the number of times Rove has appeared before the Grand Jury...
Vernon Jordan was in front of the Grand Jury 5 times.
Linda Tripp was in front of the Grand Jury 6 times.
Nancy Hernreich was in front of the Grand Jury 6 times.
Edwin Meese was in front of the Grand Jury 6 times.
To the best of my knowledge, none was ever charged with a crime related to their testimony. The number of times one appears in court or before the Grand Jury should NOT be construed as an indictment of their character. They are merely witnesses with information thought to be of relevance to the case being presented to the Grand Jury. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 09:58:35 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
Originally posted by RonB:
There were a number of symptoms at the time that a reasonable person would have interpreted as indicating that Sadaam Hussein WAS harboring weapons of mass destruction, and that he WAS preparing to increase his capibilities related to weapons of mass destruction, and that he WAS prepared to use them.
Hence, the Administration's conclusion that he posed an "imminent" threat. A majority of the US Congress concurred.
So, the Administration was wrong. So, the Congress was wrong. |
the US goverment has been threatening North Korea for many years because they have nukes and are hostile, but the USA hasn't invaded North Korea yet, why ?
because they have no oil, gold or anything else worth taking, but they do have a very hostile communist warmongerer running the country, and he has plenty of nukes to kill every american 10 times, and he has threatened to do that if the Americans don't stop interfering in their buisness.
now THERE is the imminent threat, but the Americans are just too scared to do something about it !
or is it true that they only invade countries that are rich ? |
So what would YOU do about Iraq and North Korea if you were President and Commander in Chief of the armed forces?
You say "now THERE is the imminent threat", but how can we believe that the threat really is imminent? Should we believe just on your say-so?
What evidence do you have to support that claim?
Do YOU have access to the intelligence briefings that are presented to the President each day?
Do YOU know what the latest intelligence reports are concerning the threat from North Korea?
And, if you do, how do you KNOW that it is 100% true?
How many levels of corroboration is enough?
How many contrary opinions are too many?
It seems that you hold impossibly high standards for President Bush, but I wonder - could you survive for even a day without failing to meet those same standards in every action you undertake? |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 10:03:19 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Better yet, how would Americans feel if another country sent its army into the USA, threw down the government and then occupied the country by fighting supporters of the old government? I think Americans would fight the same type of war that was fought in Vietnam and that is currently being fought in Iraq. This all being based on a scenario where a stronger army invaded and decapitated all the US armed forces of course. Americans would no doubt wage guerrilla warfare using similar tactics used in Iraq (probably minus the suicide bombers).
Just a thought. |
I knew you Canadians were up to something.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 10:28:10 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
There were a number of symptoms at the time that a reasonable person would have interpreted as indicating that Sadaam Hussein WAS harboring weapons of mass destruction, and that he WAS preparing to increase his capibilities related to weapons of mass destruction, and that he WAS prepared to use them.
Hence, the Administration's conclusion that he posed an "imminent" threat. A majority of the US Congress concurred.
So, the Administration was wrong. So, the Congress was wrong. |
There was equal or greater "evidence" -- known to the administration at the time -- that these "symproms" were dyspepsia and not appencdicitis. The administration chose which bits to show Congress; thus Congress' decision is irrelevant because it was based on incomplete facts, known to the administration but deliberately withheld from Congress. That's not "wrong" -- that's dishonesty. |
This article from the Knight Ridder News Service sums it up succinctly:
Doubts, Dissent Stripped from Public Version of Iraq Assessment
The public version of the U.S. intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information and doubts about deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's intentions, a review of the document and its once-classified version shows.
As a result, the public was given a far more definitive assessment of Iraq's plans and capabilities than President Bush and other U.S. decision-makers received from their intelligence agencies.
The two documents are replete with differences. For example, the public version declared that "most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program" and says "if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade."
But it fails to mention the dissenting view offered in the top-secret version by the State Department's intelligence arm, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as the INR.
That view said, in part, "The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment."
The alternative view further said "INR is unwilling to ... project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening."
You can read the entire article here.
----------------------------------------------------------------
And here's another article about what Bush knew and when he knew it:
What Bush Was Told About Iraq
The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime" or if he intended to "extract revenge" for such an assault, according to records and sources.
The single dissent in the report again came from State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, which believed that the Iraqi leader was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland even if [his] regime's demise is imminent" as the result of a U.S. invasion.
On at least four earlier occasions, beginning in the spring of 2002, according to the same records and sources, the president was informed during his morning intelligence briefing that U.S. intelligence agencies believed it was unlikely that Saddam was an imminent threat to the United States.
However, in the months leading up to the war, Bush, Cheney, and Cabinet members repeatedly asserted that Saddam was likely to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or to provide such weapons to Al Qaeda or another terrorist group.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 10:43:09 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
There were a number of symptoms at the time that a reasonable person would have interpreted as indicating that Sadaam Hussein WAS harboring weapons of mass destruction, and that he WAS preparing to increase his capibilities related to weapons of mass destruction, and that he WAS prepared to use them.
Hence, the Administration's conclusion that he posed an "imminent" threat. A majority of the US Congress concurred.
So, the Administration was wrong. So, the Congress was wrong. |
There was equal or greater "evidence" -- known to the administration at the time -- that these "symproms" were dyspepsia and not appencdicitis. The administration chose which bits to show Congress; thus Congress' decision is irrelevant because it was based on incomplete facts, known to the administration but deliberately withheld from Congress. That's not "wrong" -- that's dishonesty. |
This article from the Knight Ridder News Service sums it up succinctly:
Doubts, Dissent Stripped from Public Version of Iraq Assessment
The public version of the U.S. intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information and doubts about deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's intentions, a review of the document and its once-classified version shows.
As a result, the public was given a far more definitive assessment of Iraq's plans and capabilities than President Bush and other U.S. decision-makers received from their intelligence agencies.
The two documents are replete with differences. For example, the public version declared that "most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program" and says "if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade."
But it fails to mention the dissenting view offered in the top-secret version by the State Department's intelligence arm, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as the INR.
That view said, in part, "The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment."
The alternative view further said "INR is unwilling to ... project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening."
You can read the entire article here.
----------------------------------------------------------------
And here's another article about what Bush knew and when he knew it:
What Bush Was Told About Iraq
The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime" or if he intended to "extract revenge" for such an assault, according to records and sources.
The single dissent in the report again came from State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, which believed that the Iraqi leader was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland even if [his] regime's demise is imminent" as the result of a U.S. invasion.
On at least four earlier occasions, beginning in the spring of 2002, according to the same records and sources, the president was informed during his morning intelligence briefing that U.S. intelligence agencies believed it was unlikely that Saddam was an imminent threat to the United States.
However, in the months leading up to the war, Bush, Cheney, and Cabinet members repeatedly asserted that Saddam was likely to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or to provide such weapons to Al Qaeda or another terrorist group. |
Hey Judith,
Stop beating a dead horse. Even if there was incontrovertible proof that Bush intentionally lied to get us to enter the war, and even if he were impeached and removed from office, it doesn't change the fact that American troops are in Iraq right now. So quit the focus on history.
Laboring over what WAS doesn't even BEGIN to address the problem, even though doing so appears to justify an air of superiority.
Tell us what YOU would do about Iraq NOW if you were President?
Or remain silent, and we can all assume that you wouldn't do a single thing different than what Bush is already doing. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 10:44:17 PM · #59 |
| Everybody's yapping away, but I'm the only one who rhymed. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 10:56:35 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Everybody's yapping away, but I'm the only one who rhymed. |
Right you are. So, here's one just for you.
There once was a man from Tranquility
Who had an uncanny ability
He'd post using rhyme,
( three lines at a time! ),
DPC Rants, with civility.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 01:44:21 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by RonB:
Occupation doesn't always mean that people live in fear, as you imply. |
Example please?(from modern history, say 1900 onward) |
Japan, following World War 2. From the Wikipedia:
"Japan continued to experience Westernization in the postwar era, much of which came about during the occupation, when American soldiers were a common sight in many parts of the country. American music and movies became popular, spurring a generation of Japanese artists who built on both Western and Japanese influences."
Unless the Japanese were suffering from what was to later become known as the Stockholm Syndrome, the Japanese did not fear the occupying forces. I don't believe that those in fear would adopt the culture of those who exert control over them with such willingness. |
Even if I were to believe the author(s) of that particular Wikipedia section - that people are welcoming the culture that annihilated two of their cities with weapons yet unseen (that happened, right), it does not qualify as the war occupation. Japan was not invaded during the war, or in military operations, but after signed capitulation, US forces occupied (walked into) Japan without a bullet fired.
If you would agree with me, there is a huge difference between forces *forcing* their way into a country, and an army walking in. They came with a mission to build good relations and reconciliation. Although that was done with Soviet Union and China in mind, (Japan was initially forbidden to have its own army, but that changed in a couple of years) it is still something that we could revisit today as a strategy... |
|
|
|
06/09/2006 01:51:40 AM · #62 |
I guess my only thought here is if this war in iraq was 'illegal' or the movement and imprisonment without charge of militants is illegal then who is there to do anything about it? The highest authority I am aware of is the UN but they showed their power before the invasion of Iraq by being unable to stop it! If WMD's were the reason for the invasion and now that they haven't been found there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. No one is there to slap the so-called coalition of the willing (which my country is involved) on the wrist over anything.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 01:53:47 AM · #63 |
Al-Zarqawi is dead -- Hip Hooray!
Now our problems have all gone away,
And the rest's a slam-dunk,
Well, except for that punk
Named bin Laden -- seems he's here to stay. |
|
|
|
06/09/2006 04:06:59 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Hey Judith,
Stop beating a dead horse. Even if there was incontrovertible proof that Bush intentionally lied to get us to enter the war, and even if he were impeached and removed from office, it doesn't change the fact that American troops are in Iraq right now. So quit the focus on history.
Laboring over what WAS doesn't even BEGIN to address the problem, even though doing so appears to justify an air of superiority.
Tell us what YOU would do about Iraq NOW if you were President?
Or remain silent, and we can all assume that you wouldn't do a single thing different than what Bush is already doing. |
RonB, you are very obviously a strong Bush supporter. Your attitude here "it doesn't matter what we did to get here, only what we do to fix it", is common among the pro-war lobby but overlooks an important point.
As a couple of people have already mentioned, there is no one else to slap the wrist of the US when it does something wrong. Instead, the US claims moral integrity in its actions by virtue of the democratic authority granted to its leaders. An important aspect of a healthy democracy is democratic accountability, and this can only operate in the context of (moderately) informed debate among the democratic population.
Without the introspection in respect of actions past, future actions will lose credibility as their perceived moral integrity disintegrates.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 04:10:45 AM · #65 |
double post
Message edited by author 2006-06-09 05:44:44.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 04:28:11 AM · #66 |
|
|
|
06/09/2006 05:16:23 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by RonB:
So what would YOU do about Iraq and North Korea if you were President and Commander in Chief of the armed forces?
You say "now THERE is the imminent threat", but how can we believe that the threat really is imminent? Should we believe just on your say-so?
What evidence do you have to support that claim?
Do YOU have access to the intelligence briefings that are presented to the President each day?
Do YOU know what the latest intelligence reports are concerning the threat from North Korea?
And, if you do, how do you KNOW that it is 100% true?
How many levels of corroboration is enough?
How many contrary opinions are too many?
It seems that you hold impossibly high standards for President Bush, but I wonder - could you survive for even a day without failing to meet those same standards in every action you undertake? |
since you asked..
If I were the president of the USA I would comply with the ruling of the UN, where the War agains Iraq was NOT supported, and the USA went to war against the will of the UN and NATO.
If I were the president I would call back ALL US troop around the world, cut down on military cost by 60% and use the money to help my own country and stop interfering with other countries, unless hte UN and NATO decide that some action is needed, and then only follow their leed.
what the US army is doing all over the world is not helping world peace, you invade a free country agains the will of the world, kill innocent civilians, found a new goverment in the country to your liking, and then when the goverment wants you to leave, you just kill one of it's leader to have him replaced with someone that wants you to stay.
this is not helping anyone, and it makes the people of the world hate americans more than Iraqis.
just like the newest example, the USA doesn´t want Iran to produce Nuclear energy by them selfs, they threatened Iran with airstrikes and all kinds of financial threats, and even threatend to invade Iran.
Iran is a peacful country, they have no reason to go to war with anyone, they burn coal and oil to produce energy, and they wanted to build a nuclear powerplant to cut down on pollution.
the Iran nation is NOT a part of ANY international treaties or contracts that allow the USA or UN to interfere in domestic matters, they have the same rights to build nuclear powerplants as the USA does, it's only because they are muslims and they have oil that the USA wants to invade and get control over Iran like they are trying in Iraq with appauling results.
about the threats form North Korea, it's something we see on the news every month, and has been so for years, maybe they don't show it on American TV because it doesn't show the USA as the hero, but the looser, and you don't like to be a looser.
and the briefings the president gets is NOT the truth, he only hears what the military wants him to hear.
your presidend is dummer than a used diaper, he couldn't even make a desicion on whether to lift the toilet seat or not when taking a dump, let alone make a desicion regarding national security, he just listens to what he's told and thinks he's making a decision based on that, but the desicion has already been made for him, he just has to repeat the words to make it official.
I don't hold high standars for your president, if he could just make it through one day without making an ass of him self would be a great start, but to think he could rule a country... I don't think anyone has that high hopes for that dimwit ;)
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 05:58:06 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
Originally posted by RonB:
So what would YOU do about Iraq and North Korea if you were President and Commander in Chief of the armed forces?
You say "now THERE is the imminent threat", but how can we believe that the threat really is imminent? Should we believe just on your say-so?
What evidence do you have to support that claim?
Do YOU have access to the intelligence briefings that are presented to the President each day?
Do YOU know what the latest intelligence reports are concerning the threat from North Korea?
And, if you do, how do you KNOW that it is 100% true?
How many levels of corroboration is enough?
How many contrary opinions are too many?
It seems that you hold impossibly high standards for President Bush, but I wonder - could you survive for even a day without failing to meet those same standards in every action you undertake? |
since you asked..
If I were the president of the USA I would comply with the ruling of the UN, where the War agains Iraq was NOT supported, and the USA went to war against the will of the UN and NATO.
If I were the president I would call back ALL US troop around the world, cut down on military cost by 60% and use the money to help my own country and stop interfering with other countries, unless hte UN and NATO decide that some action is needed, and then only follow their leed.
what the US army is doing all over the world is not helping world peace, you invade a free country agains the will of the world, kill innocent civilians, found a new goverment in the country to your liking, and then when the goverment wants you to leave, you just kill one of it's leader to have him replaced with someone that wants you to stay.
this is not helping anyone, and it makes the people of the world hate americans more than Iraqis.
just like the newest example, the USA doesn´t want Iran to produce Nuclear energy by them selfs, they threatened Iran with airstrikes and all kinds of financial threats, and even threatend to invade Iran.
Iran is a peacful country, they have no reason to go to war with anyone, they burn coal and oil to produce energy, and they wanted to build a nuclear powerplant to cut down on pollution.
the Iran nation is NOT a part of ANY international treaties or contracts that allow the USA or UN to interfere in domestic matters, they have the same rights to build nuclear powerplants as the USA does, it's only because they are muslims and they have oil that the USA wants to invade and get control over Iran like they are trying in Iraq with appauling results.
about the threats form North Korea, it's something we see on the news every month, and has been so for years, maybe they don't show it on American TV because it doesn't show the USA as the hero, but the looser, and you don't like to be a looser.
and the briefings the president gets is NOT the truth, he only hears what the military wants him to hear.
your presidend is dummer than a used diaper, he couldn't even make a desicion on whether to lift the toilet seat or not when taking a dump, let alone make a desicion regarding national security, he just listens to what he's told and thinks he's making a decision based on that, but the desicion has already been made for him, he just has to repeat the words to make it official.
I don't hold high standars for your president, if he could just make it through one day without making an ass of him self would be a great start, but to think he could rule a country... I don't think anyone has that high hopes for that dimwit ;) |
Interesting.........
In reality as seen from the outside looking in, the American President is a puppet, always has been always will be. The nation is run by individuals of vast wealth who control US foreign policy, it is something the rest of the world accepts
The real culprits are those that control the media and have so much control over the population. They use patriotism to disguise the truth so anyone who dares to ask questions are seen as traitors.
I only hope the American people wake up and decide to clean up there own backyard before they decide to invade other countries in the name of “freedom” this was wrong and should never happen again.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 06:01:10 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
Iran is a peacful country, they have no reason to go to war with anyone, they burn coal and oil to produce energy, and they wanted to build a nuclear powerplant to cut down on pollution.
|
Dan,
You have a very odd view of the world. I hope that you recognise that your views are as extreme as those of RonB, but from the opposite perspective.
I disagree with a number of your points, but will respond to just one.
Ever since Khomeini cut off all diplomatic relations and declared Israel as an "enemy of Islam" there have been huge tensions between the states. Iran's current president Ahmadinejad has made threats about wiping Israel off the map (and the Israeli PM has reciprocated).
It is highly likely that Iran is enriching plutonium for military purposes, and the situation needs to be dealt with politically. The issue is how to deal with it: by tactical strikes, by wholesale invasion, or by negotiation and agreement. Luckily, negotiation is being given a chance this time and appears to be paying off.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 09:24:25 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
No, I;m talking about occupation, where you have foreign troops marching in the streets of US cities, when people live in fear etc. |
Originally posted by RonB:
Occupation doesn't always mean that people live in fear, as you imply. |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Example please?(from modern history, say 1900 onward) |
Originally posted by RonB:
Japan, following World War 2. From the Wikipedia:
"Japan continued to experience Westernization in the postwar era, much of which came about during the occupation, when American soldiers were a common sight in many parts of the country. American music and movies became popular, spurring a generation of Japanese artists who built on both Western and Japanese influences."
Unless the Japanese were suffering from what was to later become known as the Stockholm Syndrome, the Japanese did not fear the occupying forces. I don't believe that those in fear would adopt the culture of those who exert control over them with such willingness. |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Even if I were to believe the author(s) of that particular Wikipedia section - that people are welcoming the culture that annihilated two of their cities with weapons yet unseen (that happened, right), it does not qualify as the war occupation. Japan was not invaded during the war, or in military operations, but after signed capitulation, US forces occupied (walked into) Japan without a bullet fired. |
Calvin-Ball. You are now trying to change the rules because you don't like the fact that I proved that the implication of your original post was invalid.
I believe that the American occupation of Japan fully qualifies as "occupation, where you have foreign troops marching in the streets" yet did not result in a time "when people live in fear, etc.".
Trying to wiggle out now by saying that the Japanese occupation doesn't qualify since it wasn't a "WAR" occupation, only reveals the weakness of your original statement.
But just to show that I am up to the challenges imposed by Calvin-Ball:
Germany, invaded by Russian and American troops at the Elbe river near Torgau, Germany, in April, 1945. It was a military operation. Bullets were fired. Hitler did not capitulate. Occupation followed. It was not a time "when people live in fear".
From this article
"...the Germans, like the Japanese, were weary of war and welcomed the chance to build a new society; and the German civil bureaucracy remained largely intact with a tradition of liberal, democratic government on which to build. As in Japan, there was no armed resistance, no assassinations or reprisals against collaborators, and no centers of terrorism in neighboring states." |
|
|
|
06/09/2006 09:35:08 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Al-Zarqawi is dead -- Hip Hooray!
Now our problems have all gone away,
And the rest's a slam-dunk,
Well, except for that punk
Named bin Laden -- seems he's here to stay. |
Bin Laden is quite a Land Rover,
taunting us over and over.
Sez my crystal ball,
"if we catch him at all,
I predict it will be in October."
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 09:42:58 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by srdanz:
No, I;m talking about occupation, where you have foreign troops marching in the streets of US cities, when people live in fear etc. |
Originally posted by RonB:
Occupation doesn't always mean that people live in fear, as you imply. |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Example please?(from modern history, say 1900 onward) |
Originally posted by RonB:
Japan, following World War 2. From the Wikipedia:
"Japan continued to experience Westernization in the postwar era, much of which came about during the occupation, when American soldiers were a common sight in many parts of the country. American music and movies became popular, spurring a generation of Japanese artists who built on both Western and Japanese influences."
Unless the Japanese were suffering from what was to later become known as the Stockholm Syndrome, the Japanese did not fear the occupying forces. I don't believe that those in fear would adopt the culture of those who exert control over them with such willingness. |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Even if I were to believe the author(s) of that particular Wikipedia section - that people are welcoming the culture that annihilated two of their cities with weapons yet unseen (that happened, right), it does not qualify as the war occupation. Japan was not invaded during the war, or in military operations, but after signed capitulation, US forces occupied (walked into) Japan without a bullet fired. |
Calvin-Ball. You are now trying to change the rules because you don't like the fact that I proved that the implication of your original post was invalid.
I believe that the American occupation of Japan fully qualifies as "occupation, where you have foreign troops marching in the streets" yet did not result in a time "when people live in fear, etc.".
Trying to wiggle out now by saying that the Japanese occupation doesn't qualify since it wasn't a "WAR" occupation, only reveals the weakness of your original statement.
But just to show that I am up to the challenges imposed by Calvin-Ball:
Germany, invaded by Russian and American troops at the Elbe river near Torgau, Germany, in April, 1945. It was a military operation. Bullets were fired. Hitler did not capitulate. Occupation followed. It was not a time "when people live in fear".
From this article
"...the Germans, like the Japanese, were weary of war and welcomed the chance to build a new society; and the German civil bureaucracy remained largely intact with a tradition of liberal, democratic government on which to build. As in Japan, there was no armed resistance, no assassinations or reprisals against collaborators, and no centers of terrorism in neighboring states." |
Your argument falls flat!! In both cases you have used, it was after a surrender their has been no surrender in Iraq.
The German and Japanese people were defeated after a long war. Many in Iraq still see themselves at war with an army that as occupied their country.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 10:04:59 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
RonB, you are very obviously a strong Bush supporter. Your attitude here "it doesn't matter what we did to get here, only what we do to fix it", is common among the pro-war lobby but overlooks an important point.
As a couple of people have already mentioned, there is no one else to slap the wrist of the US when it does something wrong. Instead, the US claims moral integrity in its actions by virtue of the democratic authority granted to its leaders. An important aspect of a healthy democracy is democratic accountability, and this can only operate in the context of (moderately) informed debate among the democratic population.
Without the introspection in respect of actions past, future actions will lose credibility as their perceived moral integrity disintegrates. |
I don't believe that "it doesn't matter what we did to get here". It does. I am among those who insist that our government thouroughly review how intelligence was gathered, how it was interpreted, how it was presented, if and how it was manipulated, etc. and how we are to prevent similar situations in the future. For example, you know that I do not take statements made in these fora at face value. I do my own research to validate or refute charges made. Granted, you will most often NOT see me post if the charge is true, but you WILL see me post if I find that the charge is false, or unfounded. Using that same "standard" I fully expect that our Congressmen would not take the Administration's word at face value, but would conduct independent research to either validate or refute the statements being made. They failed, and failed miserably in their responsibility to do just that. So yes, it does matter.
However, I believe that America can multi-task. That is, work on taking the steps necessary to avoid mistakes in the future, AND taking steps to address the problems of the present.
You speak of democratic accountability, and you are correct. But there IS a way to "slap the wrist" of the U.S. It's called the ballot. But it should NOT be used to vote for the one who will promise you the most return from the treasury. It should be used to vote OUT those who have failed in their responsibility to uphold what you call "moral integrity" either by commission or by omission. That is, either by pandering their vote to maintain their position or power, or by failing to vote first for what's right, then for what's best for the country, then for what's best for their state, and then for what's best for their people - in that order. Or in failing to perform due dilligence in order to insure that they vote with full knowledge of all aspects of the issues before them.
If our "leaders" do not demonstrate moral integrity, our country does suffer. That's why we should kick out those who do not demonstrate it. When I was a resident of Connecticut, I supported Joe Lieberman, a Democrat. I still support him, though, since I live in Florida, I cannot vote for him. He is, to me, a man of moral integrity. I do not agree with his position on every issue, but I respect him as a man, and as a Senator. It's not about party affiliation, it's about integrity. |
|
|
|
06/09/2006 10:23:45 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Dan,
You have a very odd view of the world. I hope that you recognise that your views are as extreme as those of RonB, but from the opposite perspective.
I disagree with a number of your points, but will respond to just one.
Ever since Khomeini cut off all diplomatic relations and declared Israel as an "enemy of Islam" there have been huge tensions between the states. Iran's current president Ahmadinejad has made threats about wiping Israel off the map (and the Israeli PM has reciprocated).
It is highly likely that Iran is enriching plutonium for military purposes, and the situation needs to be dealt with politically. The issue is how to deal with it: by tactical strikes, by wholesale invasion, or by negotiation and agreement. Luckily, negotiation is being given a chance this time and appears to be paying off. |
so what if Iran is enriching plutonium for military purposes, that is their right as a free country, what makes it ok for the USA to enrich plutonium for military purposes and not Iran ?
and please don't say that the USA is a responsible country or something like that...
the USA is the ONLY country in the world that has used nukes, and therefore should be the only country excluded from owning nukes.
and the USA are responsible for over 80% of all wars fought after WW2, and the only country that goes half way around the world to invade another country, all other invasions have been by neighbouring counries fighting over land that both claim and stuff like that.
therefore the USA should NOT be a part of the negotiation with Iran and should NOT interfere in ANY dispute over nuclear energy anywhere in the world.
you just havn't shown the maturity and responsibility regarding nuclear energy and military control that you can be trusted with such a delicate procedure ad the negotiation with Iran is.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 10:30:35 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Calvin-Ball. You are now trying to change the rules because you don't like the fact that I proved that the implication of your original post was invalid.
I believe that the American occupation of Japan fully qualifies as "occupation, where you have foreign troops marching in the streets" yet did not result in a time "when people live in fear, etc.". |
OK, you dragged this too far from the original assertion I made, which is a kudos to your rhetorical skills. After all, for this discussion it is inconsequential whether there was a country that was occupied and people have liked it - as winners write history books and Wikipedia articles. I am sure that American Horse would disagree that the natives in this country have welcomed the culture and even given up their land to the pilgrims because they loved them so much. But we do not teach occupation here, we teach about one nation... but enough about this.
Back to my original proposition that, I believe, cannot be challenged: Americans have never suffered from an occupation on their own territory the way other countries did, both during WWI and WWII, and during this war. My country has (both world wars, which I read about in the history books) and more recently in the Balkan wars (which I've experienced firsthand). And, trust me, no CNN or FOX or NPR or IRNA or BBC or younameit cannot influence the way people think about the occupying force. It can only be changed later, by rewriting history.
Not asking any questions, not sure if this discussion is even going in any productive direction, or if it is different from any other thread on one extreme vs another. It is a good reading, though, that serves as a reminder and as a cold shower to all that (like I believed one day) most people are centrists, and that there are a few isolated on the far-left and far-right. Many paid with their lives for believing in ratio. Most survivors joined either of the extremes, depending on their personal experience and moral maturity.
Peace be with you all. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 05:27:07 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 05:27:07 AM EDT.
|
