• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Glen beck nailing it with syria

Ok..we're getting there.
You do approve of nuking civilians. Calling them "military targets", though puts you right up there with saddam, assad, bin laden..etc...

At least we're clear now.
Could have saved a lot of wasted time if you'd just said so the first time.

That's totally full of ****.

Gratz.
 
You have to stay with the class if you are going to join in the discussion...


ah, so someone already pointed that out? sorry. Thread was kind of tedious for a few pages so I skipped them. My bad.
 
Oh, the Cannibal is the top candidate to replace Assad? Well ****, this changes everything.



So your alternative is to wipe out both sides? I'm personally in favor of allowing the Syrian people to determine their own system of governance, with discourse preferably free of gunfire aimed at peaceful demonstrators.

yeah, I think I made it clear that I do not think we should go into syria. However, I do like to recognize other ideas. It is something that happens when you actually listen to what others say.
 
How familiar are you with war? I'd say "not very." Doing horrendous, unspeakable things to dead men (and alive, for that matter) is part of the ballgame.

If the fact that he ate the internal organs of his enemies and had it videotaped for propaganda purposes throughout the country (and the world) seems horrendous to you? You ought to read about what we did to the American Indians, what they did to us; you might also talk to some Viet Nam vets to learn what we honorable Americans did to the Vietnamese. And how they paid us back.

It's part of war.

That is the point i am making. people are being presented with the wrong idea. To go that step further which lots of people do not want to do those are the images of war and what it brings about and just trying to say peace and democracy happens while showing people nothing takes away the horror they should see for themselves when they support warmongers. Because you are absolutely correct that there are troops on our side doing the exact same thing.
 
ah, so someone already pointed that out? sorry. Thread was kind of tedious for a few pages so I skipped them. My bad.
No...the citation for the May incident was by request as we were discussing how this was the second incident and the first got no play.
 
No...the citation for the May incident was by request as we were discussing how this was the second incident and the first got no play.

It wasnt the first incident, it's one of several going back to December. In spite of what you believe a number of
chemical incidents have got no "play" (whatever that means, the media reports are there) because the West has actually been retiscient to act in Syria.
 
It wasnt the first incident, it's one of several going back to December. In spite of what you believe a number of
chemical incidents have got no "play" (whatever that means, the media reports are there) because the West has actually been retiscient to act in Syria.
IS it because the west has no interest or because of who has actually been perpetrating the act(s). BTW...can you cite the other instances of chemical attacks?
 
Plus know they tell you that it is not known who ordered the gas attack.

I think this is media wars. We only get to read what they want us to hear. If Puttin's media RT wins then we get opinions that favor non intervention which then favors his policies and his benefits there. If on the other hand Obama's media wins the ME, allies, and USA convince the majority to have more favorable opinions towards intervention.

What I do not like about politics is that it is usually not a made up act. People really die and are killed so as to pave the way for the media from different sides to present them for the opinion of their people. If not fought though, the next thing you'll hear, is connections between the gas bomb and USA. Either the gas being of USA origin, a low ranking USA citizen, military, weapon seller sold it to rebels themselves, or a higher ranking one. If the media is not fought then it may come to stronger connections between gas and USA, namely, that the USA itself blew the gas on civilians just to pave the way with media for that intervention.

We just consume what they give us. A lot may be happening prior to various media that may take lives. Sometimes lives taken for nothing too. For it is not likely that there will be intervention to Syria at this time neither.
 
japan was defeated..they had no air force, no army, no navy, no oil and none of the essential resources to build weapons or maintain any hostilities.... and theyare isolated and live on an island. They weren't going anywhere..and they had offered to surrender previously with the only stipulation that they retain the emperor.

They also wanted to keep control of their possessions in Korea and Manchuria, if I'm not mistaken. Their racist, supremacist, fascist, and borderline genocidal control of these possessions. Obviously the Allies could not let that happen.
 
They also wanted to keep control of their possessions in Korea and Manchuria, if I'm not mistaken. Their racist, supremacist, fascist, and borderline genocidal control of these possessions. Obviously the Allies could not let that happen.

Was Hiroshima Necessary?

Apart from the moral questions involved, were the atomic bombings militarily necessary? By any rational yardstick, they were not. Japan already had been defeated militarily by June 1945. Almost nothing was left of the once mighty Imperial Navy, and Japan's air force had been all but totally destroyed. Against only token opposition, American war planes ranged at will over the country, and US bombers rained down devastation on her cities, steadily reducing them to rubble.

What was left of Japan's factories and workshops struggled fitfully to turn out weapons and other goods from inadequate raw materials. (Oil supplies had not been available since April.) By July about a quarter of all the houses in Japan had been destroyed, and her transportation system was near collapse. Food had become so scarce that most Japanese were subsisting on a sub-starvation diet.

On the night of March 9-10, 1945, a wave of 300 American bombers struck Tokyo, killing 100,000 people. Dropping nearly 1,700 tons of bombs, the war planes ravaged much of the capital city, completely burning out 16 square miles and destroying a quarter of a million structures. A million residents were left homeless.

On May 23, eleven weeks later, came the greatest air raid of the Pacific War, when 520 giant B-29 "Superfortress" bombers unleashed 4,500 tons of incendiary bombs on the heart of the already battered Japanese capital. Generating gale-force winds, the exploding incendiaries obliterated Tokyo's commercial center and railway yards, and consumed the Ginza entertainment district. Two days later, on May 25, a second strike of 502 "Superfortress" planes roared low over Tokyo, raining down some 4,000 tons of explosives. Together these two B-29 raids destroyed 56 square miles of the Japanese capital.

Even before the Hiroshima attack, American air force General Curtis LeMay boasted that American bombers were "driving them [Japanese] back to the stone age." Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: "It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." This was confirmed by former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye, who said: "Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s."


Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them.

American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that the country's leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible. Details of these efforts were known from decoded secret communications between the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo and Japanese diplomats abroad.

In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:

Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China's] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union ...

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

A Secret Memorandum

It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
Surrender of designated war criminals.

Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader [1968], pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958):

The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.



etc...etc...etc....
 
Back
Top Bottom