quote:

One may argue that keeping Iraqi civilian casualties out of public view is a clever tactic to ensure public support for the war does not descend any more than it already has. But IMO a problematic result is that it makes it easier for us to forget that this is a WAR on another people's country. THEIR houses, schools, parks, hospitals, offices bombed; THEIR husbands, sons, brothers, wives, sisters, daughters kidnapped or tortured or raped or maimed or killed.

quote:

As for not leaving, I hardly think that averting a bloodbath is the major reason the current Republican administration wishes to prolong our occupation of Iraq, regardless of what the public is told or wishes to accept as truth. Strategic interests play a role here, a greater one than any humanitarian concern towards those who might die if we leave (not to mention the lack of humanitarian concern displayed towards some Iraqi civilians by some US military personnel, as evidenced by circulated photographs a few years ago. Fortunately, there are enough in the military who found the Abu Gharib episode abhorrent - but the damage is done, as is the damage in the form of deaths caused by the US invasion and occupation).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

As for not leaving, I hardly think that averting a bloodbath is the major reason the current Republican administration wishes to prolong our occupation of Iraq, regardless of what the public is told or wishes to accept as truth. Strategic interests play a role here, a greater one than any humanitarian concern towards those who might die if we leave (not to mention the lack of humanitarian concern displayed towards some Iraqi civilians by some US military personnel, as evidenced by circulated photographs a few years ago. Fortunately, there are enough in the military who found the Abu Gharib episode abhorrent - but the damage is done, as is the damage in the form of deaths caused by the US invasion and occupation).

One can believe that, but the reality is that when it is discussed, invariably the question of 'should we stay or go' comes down to whether our leaving will precipitate violence on the scale not yet seen there.

quote:

The participants of these forums are so predictable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

The participants of these forums are so predictable.

Yes Rich, you are.

quote:

As I said: Americans seem not to care about war dead if the dead aren't ours. Only now when things have gone very badly in Iraq and that now there is a call for an American withdrawal does the issue of civilian lives and suffering come to the forefront; it wasn't there when things seemed to be going well at first - and whether we stay or not, civilian suffering will continue, as it has over the past 5 years, on scales beyond the repression exercised by the Baaths.

Furthermore, when those Baaths were our boys in the 1980s, civilian suffering in their country hardly seemed an issue to Americans, especially since that was when Saddam Hussein was actually doing evil things, the end of which some say Iraq is better off now.

And it's strange that oftentimes, those who talk about any advantages to civilian life in Iraq brought by the US presence say little if anything about how the US presence has also resulted in or brought about a lot of suffering.

I do find caring about foreign civilian lives only when politically expedient or convenient to be quite reprehensible.

quote:

We didn't know how far they were going; they probably didn't either.

quote:

As I said: Americans seem not to care about war dead if the dead aren't ours. Only now when things have gone very badly in Iraq and that now there is a call for an American withdrawal does the issue of civilian lives and suffering come to the forefront; it wasn't there when things seemed to be going well at first - and whether we stay or not, civilian suffering will continue, as it has over the past 5 years, on scales beyond the repression exercised by the Baaths.
Furthermore, when those Baaths were our boys in the 1980s, civilian suffering in their country hardly seemed an issue to Americans, especially since that was when Saddam Hussein was actually doing evil things, the end of which some say Iraq is better off now.

quote:


And it's strange that oftentimes, those who talk about any advantages to civilian life in Iraq brought by the US presence say little if anything about how the US presence has also resulted in or brought about a lot of suffering.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
So until you have a specific, well documented basis for your claims, I would say you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

quote:

And again we agree to disagree. Enjoy today's sunshine in Lake Wobegon. (I hope it's not raining)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

And again we agree to disagree. Enjoy today's sunshine in Lake Wobegon. (I hope it's not raining)

It's beautiful and sunny and all it's citizens are generously thinking about the fate of civilians everywhere.

quote:

Actually they weren't going anywhere because they had no oil. They had no access to any either since the British and Americans guaranteed the safety of the Dutch colonial possessions in that area of the world and had placed an embargo on Japan. As their offensive in China stalled because of lack of oil their solution was rather unique and borderline stupid:

They would attack America at Pearl Harbor to destroy our fleet and simultaneously destroy the British in and around Singapore. They would also put pressure on Australia and try to get rid of it to so there would be no good staging area for the Anglo-American forces. After achieving a perimeter of the Aleutians to Hawaii to Australia and back up to the border of India they would use their fleet to form an elastic defense against the American navy. Having achieved this they would have full access to the oil from the Dutch Pacific colonies with which they would finish the war in China and hope to negotiate a settlement with the Anglo-Americans or by mobilizing all of the resources of the "Greater East Asia Prosperity Sphere" hold off the western allies. The plan was, um, bold. Yamamoto was the only one realistic about it when he said that "the first 6 months to a year I will run rampant and invincible everywhere I go but should the conflict last more than 2 years there is no hope for success".

Ironically though Japan was the only axis nation that actually entered the war with grand plans of expansion. Germany honestly expected to get the Polish corridor in a swift local conflict. The greatest jape of the second world war was when Hitler after hearing that England would support Poland turned to Ribbentrop and said "What now?"

Anyway enough of that. Where is the talk about Somalia in here? :P

quote:

ITS, not "it's."

quote:

Great! A city's population loves civilians' fates! Too bad it's only a fictional city.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcp

I don't know why there is an obsession of arguing about what Japan actually was all about; I merely implied their global interests. We didn't know when and if they would run out of oil at the time. By harping on Japan's real plans, Is anyone suggesting from their comments that Japan shouldn't have been treated as a significant threat to the world?
this is rhetorical, i know your answer.
But some here seem to be trying to pick apart something with hindsight knowledge and a refusal of the fact that Japan was linked with Germany/italy/et al through the axis. Someone could argue that Germany didn't have full designs on the whole world; they may have had no interest in Alaska. So Japan for all practicle purposes was part of an expansion worthy of a global expansion consideration and be complicit in a world war.

quote:

I only mentioned Japan's plans because it's generally just laziness that says Japan was on a quest to conqueror the world...

quote:

Their link to Germany doesn't mean they had the exact agenda, not more than our link to Stalin was meant to start the Cold War and give much of Europe over to people who weren't any better than the Nazis...

quote:


ORIGINAL: mcp
that may be; or some just may not know; but regardless, the Japanese from the American perspective were out of bounds and offensive.

quote:

Yes, you threw this analogy in before. It breaks down in a critical area though. Russia's role in WW2 was a common defence with the allies. Stalin was the equivalent of an axe murderer who helps out the good guys save starving kids. We didn't ally with Stalin to support his agressive intentions or support Soviet-style nationalism; but rather we needed Russia to beat back a more pressing threat.

quote:

Japan on the other hand joined with the 'offensive' side of WW2, which overall had 'global' intents.

quote:

I am sorry I am biased on which side was defensively postured and which was agressively so. On the other hand, no I'm not sorry.

quote:

I believe that was that Japanese's thoughts regarding the United States and its actions of cutting off raw materials...

quote:

It's ok... I am just biased on what really happened...

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:


ORIGINAL: mcp

Russia could have just as easy been allied with Hitler and it was known by many that Soviet-style nationalism was a bigger long term threat than Hitler and especially Japan...