General Hawley's speech - Page 3

SilentCacophony · 2003-02-21, 04:33 PM

Zantrais, Japanese didn't surrender after the first bomb? They weren't even given a chance. U.S. just up and dropped a second one. To say ALL of Japan was the enemy is rather prejudice. I guess you feel it was right to stick the japanese in camps over here then, since no one over here trusted them, even if they'd lived here all their lives. Why is N Korea's leader just an old windbag, while Saddam apparantly poses a threat? N. Korea has the capability to strike over here (though I don't feel like going into a lengthy description of missle systems), while Iraq does not. N. Korea has nuclear capability, Iraq does not.

Navaron, Why didn't they take the oil the first time they were there? Well why did they leave Saddam in power the first time they were there? The man they went after survived, and still runs the country. Do you really think the U.S. didn't kill any innocent civilians, the ones you claim are suffering and are fighting for, with all their bombing? By saying the Americans didn't give the Japanese a chance to surrender, how am I misinformed on history? You merely say I am, but you don't show how I am. Do you think you could be anymore vague in your arguments? Saying I aced "fuzzy history" is just an attempt to insult me and score points, it's not making a valid point. Maybe you should go learn how to debate properly before trying to turn this into a school yard insult fight.

Unregistered · 2003-02-21, 05:00 PM

Silent, you might want to research facts.

[8/6/45: An atomic bomb was dropped on the people of Hiroshima.]

8/6/45: Excerpt from public statement by President Truman. This was the first time he publicly gave a reason for using the atomic bomb on Japan:

"The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold.

"If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." (Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945, pg. 197, 199).

[8/8/45: Russia declared war on Japan, effective 8/9/45.]

[8/9/45: An atomic bomb was dropped on the people of Nagasaki.]

8/9/45: Excerpt from public statement by President Truman. This was the second time he had publicly given reasons for using the atomic bomb on Japan:

"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost.

"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.

"We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us." (Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945, pg. 212).

[Even before Hiroshima was a-bombed, hundreds of thousands of civilians had been killed in the conventional bombings of over 60 of Japan's largest cities (Michael Sherry, "The Rise of American Air Power", pg. 314-315, and pg. 413, note 43). Was President Truman unaware that Hiroshima was primarily a city of civilians and that they would be the a-bomb's main victims? Note his reason (8/10/45 below) for halting the atomic bombings.]

8/9/45 Letter to Senator Richard Russell:

[In response to Sen. Russell's wish that Japan be hit with more atomic and conventional bombing:]

"I know that Japan is a terribly cruel and uncivilized nation in warfare but I can't bring myself to believe that, because they are beasts, we should ourselves act in the same manner.

"For myself, I certainly regret the necessity of wiping out whole populations because of the 'pigheadedness' of the leaders of a nation and, for your information, I am not going to do it until it is absolutely necessary...

"My object is to save as many American lives as possible but I also have a humane feeling for the women and children in Japan." (Barton Bernstein, Understanding the Atomic Bomb and the Japanese Surrender: Missed Opportunities, Little-Known Near Disasters, and Modern Memory, Diplomatic History, Spring 1995, material quoted from pg. 267-268).

[8/10/45: Japan makes surrender offer to Allies.]

[8/10/45: Having received reports and photographs of the effects of the Hiroshima bomb, Truman ordered a halt to further atomic bombings. Sec. of Commerce Henry Wallace recorded in his diary on the 10th, "Truman said he had given orders to stop atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like the idea of killing, as he said, 'all those kids'." (John Blum, ed., "The Price of Vision: the Diary of Henry A. Wallace, 1942-1946", pg. 473-474).]

8/10/45 Diary Entry:

"Ate lunch at my desk and discussed the *** offer to surrender which came in a couple of hours earlier. They wanted to make a condition precedent to the surrender. Our terms are 'unconditional'. They wanted to keep the Emperor. We told 'em we'd tell 'em how to keep him, but we'd make the terms."

8/11/45 Letter to Samuel McCrea Cavert, general secretary of the Federal Council of Churches:

[In response to Cavert's request, "Respectfully urge that ample opportunity to be given Japan to reconsider ultimatum before any further devastation by atomic bomb is visited upon her people.":]

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

"When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true." (Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, material quoted from pg. 563).

[8/11/45: U.S. issued counter-surrender offer for Japan to accept.]

8/11/45 Diary Entry:

"We are all on edge waiting for the **** to answer. Have had a hell of a day."

[8/14/45: Japan accepted the counter-surrender terms.]

Zatrais · 2003-02-21, 05:01 PM

The bombs where dropped 3 days apart and japan gave no sign of surrendering after the first one. They had plenty of time.

As for locking up japanese in the US, that wasn't exactly the best thing they did. But they're not IN japan, they where not brainwashed from childhood to worship the emperor as a god so whats your point?

And N.Korea does not have the balistic capabilites to reach the US. What they have is an untested missile system that can have the capability to do so... If you look at rocket history theres never been a rocket on such a scale (intercontinental) that works on the first try... somehow i doubt a regime that can't even keep their elevators working will have a intercontinental rocket... Besides don't you think if the threat was real that the US would focus on Nkorea first? Not to mention the fact that Russia, China and Japan stand ready to invade them...

However, Saddam has biological weapons that can kill thousands ready to be deployed or smuggeled out to be used by terrorists.

btw, why do people need more reasons to remove saddam than the fact that hes a mad dictator whit weapons of mass destruction? hell, he kills people every damn day.

Navaron · 2003-02-21, 05:01 PM

Wow, you haven't been around too long or you wouldn't have challenged me to a factual fight.

"Japanese didn't surrender after the first bomb? They weren't even given a chance. U.S. just up and dropped a second one."

Absolute drivel. This is not only wrong, it's ignorant.

"To say ALL of Japan was the enemy is rather prejudice."

Wrong again, the Japanese people, including women and children had fortified their homes and building, armed themselves and were preparing to wage an house to house campaign.

". Korea has nuclear capability, Iraq does not. "

You'd oughta call the inspectors with that info, cause all of the defecting scientist have said he was months away from having a nuclear weapon. We aren't worried about a missile from Iraq, we are worried about suitcase nukes, like the one's the terrorists he funds and harbors, would like to use so much.

"Why didn't they take the oil the first time they were there? Well why did they leave Saddam in power the first time they were there?"

Even though you won't answer my question, I'll answer yours. A) We weren't after his head. We are after him now because he broke the surrender agreement dozens of times. B) We let him go because he signed a surrender document, that the UN agreed too, and he continues to break his own surrender agreement. Proof you can't trust the Iraqi leadership and that we should/ve kill them.

"Do you really think the U.S. didn't kill any innocent civilians, the ones you claim are suffering and are fighting for, with all their bombing?"

Nope, I'm sure we killed a shitload of the one's he lines his bunkers and barracks with. This is where the phrase lesser of 2 evils comes into play.

"By saying the Americans didn't give the Japanese a chance to surrender, how am I misinformed on history?"

Cause we gave them over 6 chances.

"Maybe you should go learn how to debate properly before trying to turn this into a school yard insult fight."

By "debate properly" I assume you mean make up facts then flame people who don't agree? Nah, I'm pretty sure I got the hang of it my way.

SilentCacophony · 2003-02-21, 05:05 PM

Unregistered, Nanking

http://www.missouri.edu/~jschool/nan...duction_02.htm

That's an interview with a proffessor of history at Washington U (attack his credibility Navaron).

"Yes, many journalists at the time were not reporting as eyewitnesses but, rather, reporting from second-hand, third-hand sources. There could be misinformation, exaggeration, or even a tendency toward wartime propaganda. However, that's not enough to dismiss all of them outright.

For example, Timperley's work, as indicated in his preface to his book, the purpose of his book is not to defame the Japanese people. He gave credit to a Japanese journalist, Matsumoto Shigeharu in Shanghai, for sympathizing with what he was doing. So he made a specific point that there were conscientious Japanese. Not all Japanese were the same.

And what he included in the book were mostly reports from the [International] Committee for the [Nanking] Safety Zone. They are, as far as we know, generally credible reports by a third party even though you can look at specific cases. Specifics, yes, they were not on the spot when the rape was perpetrated. But how many rapes were perpetrated in front of a third party? Very few."

As for burning of buildings:

[b]The scorched-earth policy was a politically strategic decision taken by China and it had enormous costs on the Chinese part. But, on the other hand, in some cases, I'm not talking about this case, but in some military situations, a scorched-earth policy may be the only way to stop the enemy. "

The chinese burned a lot of their own buildings and looted their own stores.

On the trials and executions:

"Of course some of them were innocent at least, according to the evidence presented. Some of the materials were not available.

If we look at the trial in Nanjing, how many of those battle records were presented? Almost none. Diaries? Almost none. Even those incriminating evidence was not available. So there were severe limitations in those two trails. "

YELLOW RIVER

You said so yourself "the Chinese Nationalists blew up the flood dykes of the Yellow River.......The Chinese Nationalists blamed this atrocity on the Japanese. "

Sounds like the Chinese did that one to me.

HONG KONG ATROCITIES

So you agree with bombing a country because they're ALL bad, but you don't agree with attacking soldiers, wounded or not? Don't try to over do it on how bad it was either. Americans were known for cutting off the heads of Vietnamese. Richard Marcinko, founder of SEAL Team 6, even spoke in one of his novels (Green Team) of how he once raided a vietnamese village and cut off all the soldiers heads. He then sat them in a circle, placed their heads in their laps and placed a candle in the gaping neck hole. He also spoke of booby trapping bodies, so that if anyone came to move them and bury them, they'd become another statistic themselves.

TWO GRAVES

Prisoners of war cost money to support, and it would be difficult to guard that many prisoners. Not saying it was right, but I can see them doing it. Yet again, at least they were military, and not innocent civilians like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Phillipines

Don't have time to read up on this, but I probably will later.

So I guess you're saying America has never done things like this. Well I already mentioned the confessions of Richard Marcinko in Vietnam, well have you ever heard of the village of My Lai? Didn't think so. As many as 500 innocents were slaughtered by americans. Old men, women, AND children. Why? Cause they were bored and restless. Here, have some reading.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...Myl_intro.html

Navaron · 2003-02-21, 05:11 PM

You know you're right, we're heartless baby killing bastards. SO instead of protecting ourselves and our families we'll just sit back and be murdered. I mean, we have killed other innocent people, wtf are we to do anything ever again. I give up, you're just dead set in your little world full of fake facts and marshmallow clouds where everyone but the US has the best of intentions.

SilentCacophony · 2003-02-21, 05:11 PM

Whoah whoah whoah, so first it's anthrax and biological weapons, and now all of a sudden Saddam has nuke's in suitcases? Funny, I haven't even heard Bush say anything like that.

Hmmm, so Saddam now puts innocent people in his bunkers, and that makes them fair game for American's to hit? rigggghhhhtttt.....

ABRAXAAS · 2003-02-21, 05:13 PM

Sweet jesus im gettin tired of these threads . There are no bad guys in war, there are no good guys in war there are just people doing what they beleive is the best for there people .

Wether someone thinks its write or wrong its irelavent .

Navaron · 2003-02-21, 05:13 PM

"a sudden Saddam has nuke's in suitcases"

You read the world news too often?

Obviously you do, you're apparently perfect and all knowing.

Sputty · 2003-02-21, 05:14 PM

There were some things down by the allies but Japan was sadistic, mass murders and graves for soldiers and civilians in WWII. BTW, the Nuclear bombs were necessary..Would you rather millions die in mass bombing campaigns and huge ground attack? Japan was a barbaric empire, simply that. Trying to compare US and other allie problems and then trying to justify how Japan killed prisoners is pretty odd.

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
Hmmm, so Saddam now puts innocent people in his bunkers, and that makes them fair game for American's to hit? rigggghhhhtttt.....

No, but unluckily certain targets are nexessary and he's hoping we think like you do. Hmmm..WWII all over again perhaps? Peace at any price?

Hamma · 2003-02-21, 05:15 PM

I <u>still</u> hate these threads.

ABRAXAAS · 2003-02-21, 05:16 PM

Yep , and hurry up and go pick my sig already

Sputty · 2003-02-21, 05:18 PM

Yeah, but they give us something to talk about other than sex...and snipers

ABRAXAAS · 2003-02-21, 05:19 PM

You really dont need more than sex and snipers

Unregistered · 2003-02-21, 05:20 PM

We are not talking about Viet Nam, or the actions of U.S. soldiers in that war, because you will not hear me saying that American Soldiers did not comit War Crimes durring that war.

We are talking about Japan durring WWII, please try and stay on the subject.

Yellow River - was definatly an Atrocity commited by China. I'm still looking for the U.S. fualt in that one.

Your professors opinion hold no water when compared to Eyewitness accounts, and therefore should not be brought into a conversation based on facts.