Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

The goal of the US has never ever ever been to promote democracy anywhere. Usually, our foreign policy is the exact opposite. Eisenhower overthrew the democratic government in guatemala in the fifties. We supported the shah in Iran. We supported Hussein. There are dozens of cases where the US actively supported anti-democratic governments. There are also lots of cases where the US actively opposed democratic governments, like the sandanistas.

This comment is mainly directed towards well-intentioned, but badly ignorant people, like Iron81, who constantly say things like "well, it'd be nice if we could bring democracy to Iraq, but we can't."

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
"well, it'd be nice if we could bring democracy to Iraq, but we can't."

[/ QUOTE ]
What part of this isn't true?

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"well, it'd be nice if we could bring democracy to Iraq, but we can't."

[/ QUOTE ]
What part of this isn't true?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he means the "we could bring" part. Although the statement is technically true, it seems to infer that it we could bring democracy if there wasn't something wrong with the people of Iraq, rather than inferring that we could never bring democracy to them because that's not how democracy works.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

Iron,

It'd be nice if Iraq was democratic. As to whether or not Democracy can be imposed there, I dunno. What's definitely true though is that the US doesn't want Iraq to be a democracy.

If a vote was held in Iraq with the question "Do you want all US troops out?"
and a majority said yes, do you think the US would leave?

No chance.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
the US doesn't want Iraq to be a democracy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who, exactly, do you mean by "the US". Clearly, the entire nation doesn't hold this view.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"well, it'd be nice if we could bring democracy to Iraq, but we can't."

[/ QUOTE ]
What part of this isn't true?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he means the "we could bring" part. Although the statement is technically true, it seems to infer that it we could bring democracy if there wasn't something wrong with the people of Iraq, rather than inferring that we could never bring democracy to them because that's not how democracy works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a sidenote: there doesn't have to be anything wrong with a Middle Eastern people if they aren't culturally amenable to democracy, just as there doesn't have to be anything wrong with the Canadian people if they aren't culturally amenable to Shari'a law. So Iron's statement might indeed suggest that there is some inherent reason the Iraqis won't genuinely adopt democracy, but that is not a disparagement or a suggestion that there is something "wrong" with the Iraqi people, because democratic ideals are simply not seen as a virtue in many parts of the world.

As far as the difficulties of bringing democracy to a country from the outside: it does appear that the Neo-Cons miscalculated slightly [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the difficulties of bringing democracy to a country from the outside: it does appear that the Neo-Cons miscalculated slightly

[/ QUOTE ]

American Neo-cons, liberals, moderates, etc. DO NOT want Iraq to be a democracy. There's no miscalculation on their part.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the US doesn't want Iraq to be a democracy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who, exactly, do you mean by "society". Clearly, the entire population doesn't hold view x, y, z.

[/ QUOTE ]
Careful now...that's the path you're going down and it's not a happy one for the statist... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

Congrats, Snowball, you uncovered the big lie.

You only mention examples of the US overthrowing governments in third world nations. Take a look at post WW2 Italy, Greece and Korea for examples of the US crushing democracy because local workers were winning elections.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"well, it'd be nice if we could bring democracy to Iraq, but we can't."

[/ QUOTE ]
What part of this isn't true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Iraq needs democracy like a fish needs a bicycle.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"well, it'd be nice if we could bring democracy to Iraq, but we can't."

[/ QUOTE ]
What part of this isn't true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Iraq needs democracy like a fish needs a bicycle.

[/ QUOTE ]

like a submarine needs a screen door [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

-----------

in order to define victory, we must define objectives -

our objectives are unrealistic - we must redefine victory next [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

and if they got 50.1 percent approval, that's a mandate - anything less and they ignore the polls -

RB

Have I told you the one about American democracy in Iraq ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Well, it'd be nice if we could bring democracy to Iraq, but we can't."

[/ QUOTE ]
What part of this isn't true?

[/ QUOTE ]

The "well" and the "nice" seem OK, but the rest is good only for a comedy sketch.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

Yeah!

Don't forget that Saddam got 100% of the vote in 2002, and 99.6% in the election prior. How could the US "bring democracy" to a country that is already democratic?

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

In democracy all people should have the equal right to decide how a society is run.

Having said that, it’s funny to see in some cases how the exporters of democracy have reacted when the people that they have liberated start voting “the wrong way”. They occupy a country and give every man a vote. Now if that vote indicates that the majority indeed wants to live in a communistic/fundamental Islamic/dictatorship, they start saying that the decision is somehow void. Or that it’s against the fundamental values of democracy/human rights etc. and thus has to be disregarded.

Let’s assume that in the next Iraq election a party that wants to turn Iraq into a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state wins 60 % of votes and declares the time of democracy over. I don’t think that the US government would in this case just accept that decision, they would probably rather just keep the nation in the dictatorship of their own armed forces.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
In democracy all people should have the equal right to decide how a society is run.

Having said that, it’s funny to see in some cases how the exporters of democracy have reacted when the people that they have liberated start voting “the wrong way”. They occupy a country and give every man a vote. Now if that vote indicates that the majority indeed wants to live in a communistic/fundamental Islamic/dictatorship, they start saying that the decision is somehow void. Or that it’s against the fundamental values of democracy/human rights etc. and thus has to be disregarded.

Let’s assume that in the next Iraq election a party that wants to turn Iraq into a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state wins 60 % of votes and declares the time of democracy over. I don’t think that the US government would in this case just accept that decision, they would probably rather just keep the nation in the dictatorship of their own armed forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have done a fine job illustrating the inherent problem with pure democracy.

It's also a good example of why a strong Constitution is needed in any country, in order to protect certain rights. Democracy alone does not protect human rights, civil rights or freedoms.

The Neo-Cons should not have tried to install democracy in Iraq (because it will fail). Nor should the Neo-Cons have called what they wished to install, "democracy".

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let’s assume that in the next Iraq election a party that wants to turn Iraq into a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state wins 60 % of votes and declares the time of democracy over.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG. The US would LOVE for Iraq to become an awful dictatorship a la the shah, or the saudi or hashemite monarchy. However, if the iraqis founded a democratic government that wanted to nationalize the oil, or challenged israel at all, then it's gogogo all over again and the government goes BOOM courtesy of the CIA or the marines.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just a sidenote: there doesn't have to be anything wrong with a Middle Eastern people if they aren't culturally amenable to democracy, just as there doesn't have to be anything wrong with the Canadian people if they aren't culturally amenable to Shari'a law.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is apologism, Western guilt and political correctness at its finest.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just a sidenote: there doesn't have to be anything wrong with a Middle Eastern people if they aren't culturally amenable to democracy, just as there doesn't have to be anything wrong with the Canadian people if they aren't culturally amenable to Shari'a law.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is apologism, Western guilt and political correctness at its finest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I follow you; would you elaborate please?

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let’s assume that in the next Iraq election a party that wants to turn Iraq into a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state wins 60 % of votes and declares the time of democracy over.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG. The US would LOVE for Iraq to become an awful dictatorship a la the shah, or the saudi or hashemite monarchy. However, if the iraqis founded a democratic government that wanted to nationalize the oil, or challenged israel at all, then it's gogogo all over again and the government goes BOOM courtesy of the CIA or the marines.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US might be semiOK with dictatorship a la the shah or the saudi (especially since at the moment the things are so messy that they mostly just want a decent way out of there) as long as they could control or work with the dictator. BUT they would not be ok with a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state (a la sadr, Iran, taleban) because they would nationalize the oil and challenge israel.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let’s assume that in the next Iraq election a party that wants to turn Iraq into a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state wins 60 % of votes and declares the time of democracy over.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG. The US would LOVE for Iraq to become an awful dictatorship a la the shah, or the saudi or hashemite monarchy. However, if the iraqis founded a democratic government that wanted to nationalize the oil, or challenged israel at all, then it's gogogo all over again and the government goes BOOM courtesy of the CIA or the marines.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US might be semiOK with dictatorship a la the shah or the saudi (especially since at the moment the things are so messy that they mostly just want a decent way out of there) as long as they could control or work with the dictator. BUT they would not be ok with a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state (a la sadr, Iran, taleban) because they would nationalize the oil and challenge israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and let's not forget stoning or murdering women accused of adultery, imprisoning or executing homosexuals, and denying non-Muslims and women the equality of civil rights held by Muslim males.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]

In democracy all people should have the equal right to decide how a society is run.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an impossibility in democracy (at least in any of its current forms) as the act of governing takes the decisions out of individuals hands and puts them in the hands aof a few people who make decisions for all.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just a sidenote: there doesn't have to be anything wrong with a Middle Eastern people if they aren't culturally amenable to democracy, just as there doesn't have to be anything wrong with the Canadian people if they aren't culturally amenable to Shari'a law.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is apologism, Western guilt and political correctness at its finest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I follow you; would you elaborate please?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I mean is if you live in country where the government respects all people's rights, and not just those of bearded devout males, provides due process of law, etc., etc.,

Then you should be able to say that your government is better than the other's. Western government is better than what they are serving in the Middle East, and the Middle East would be better off in the long run if they had Western governments. Saying different is just trying to be apologistic & PC. It's also cowardly, because the governments in the Middle East, and now Africa, are what is causing terrorism as we have it today.

Don't get me wrong, America has screwed up in Iraq. But Gearge Bush was right when he said it wasn't going to be easy. Where he screwed up was that he tried to take the easier route anyways because of the upcoming re-election campaign.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. The only thing that makes government "good"--note not better or worse--is the consent of every individual. If all of group A consents to a "Western" type government, but then all of group B consents to a different government, both are equal. One is not better or worse than the other.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. The only thing that makes government "good"--note not better or worse--is the consent of every individual. If all of group A consents to a "Western" type government, but then all of group B consents to a different government, both are equal. One is not better or worse than the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Using your example, what percentage of people consent to the governments presently existing in the middle east? And a government that condones stoning women for adultery, or other forms of honor killings, is worse than one that doesn't. Governments that have separation of church and state are better than ones that don't. Western democracy is better than totalitarian dictators that murder to stay in power. Please argue differently, so that you can return the favor and allow me to read "the dumbest thing I ever read."

Oh, and btw, you are being a PC-apologist as well.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just a sidenote: there doesn't have to be anything wrong with a Middle Eastern people if they aren't culturally amenable to democracy, just as there doesn't have to be anything wrong with the Canadian people if they aren't culturally amenable to Shari'a law.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is apologism, Western guilt and political correctness at its finest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I follow you; would you elaborate please?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I mean is if you live in country where the government respects all people's rights , and not just those of bearded devout males, provides due process of law, etc., etc.,

[/ QUOTE ]
Just a nitpick, this certainly isn't something inheritant in democracy.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
Using your example, what percentage of people consent to the governments presently existing in the middle east? And a government that condones stoning women for adultery, or other forms of honor killings, is worse than one that doesn't. Governments that have separation of church and state are better than ones that don't. Western democracy is better than totalitarian dictators that murder to stay in power. Please argue differently, so that you can return the favor and allow me to read "the dumbest thing I ever read."

Oh, and btw, you are being a PC-apologist as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, did I say that people consented to the present governments in the Middle East? Nope, doesn't look like I did. All I said was no government is inherently better than any other and, in fact, cannot be since governments cannot be "better" than another, or can't you read?

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let’s assume that in the next Iraq election a party that wants to turn Iraq into a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state wins 60 % of votes and declares the time of democracy over.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG. The US would LOVE for Iraq to become an awful dictatorship a la the shah, or the saudi or hashemite monarchy. However, if the iraqis founded a democratic government that wanted to nationalize the oil, or challenged israel at all, then it's gogogo all over again and the government goes BOOM courtesy of the CIA or the marines.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US might be semiOK with dictatorship a la the shah or the saudi (especially since at the moment the things are so messy that they mostly just want a decent way out of there) as long as they could control or work with the dictator. BUT they would not be ok with a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state (a la sadr, Iran, taleban) because they would nationalize the oil and challenge israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and let's not forget stoning or murdering women accused of adultery, imprisoning or executing homosexuals, and denying non-Muslims and women the equality of civil rights held by Muslim males.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right of course.

But i believe that for the current administration of US those are all at best secondary objectives.

BTW all of those things are horrible of course, but it's a slippery slope when a white man goes into different countries telling how people there should run their lives.

Obviously i would like to see a chance in the things that you listed, but beond that should we even try to actively chance their societies? We can of course tell them that we see democracy as a best way to interact in society, but if they want to live in a dictatorchip should'nt we just let them?

This whole "export of democracy" allways brings imperialism and crusades into my mind (Bush W, even actually used that word in one of his speaches).

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just a sidenote: there doesn't have to be anything wrong with a Middle Eastern people if they aren't culturally amenable to democracy, just as there doesn't have to be anything wrong with the Canadian people if they aren't culturally amenable to Shari'a law.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is apologism, Western guilt and political correctness at its finest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I follow you; would you elaborate please?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I mean is if you live in country where the government respects all people's rights, and not just those of bearded devout males, provides due process of law, etc., etc.,

Then you should be able to say that your government is better than the other's. Western government is better than what they are serving in the Middle East, and the Middle East would be better off in the long run if they had Western governments. Saying different is just trying to be apologistic & PC. It's also cowardly, because the governments in the Middle East, and now Africa, are what is causing terrorism as we have it today.

Don't get me wrong, America has screwed up in Iraq. But Gearge Bush was right when he said it wasn't going to be easy. Where he screwed up was that he tried to take the easier route anyways because of the upcoming re-election campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, and I don't have any problem with saying that Wester-stylen governments are better than Middle Eastern-style and/or Shari'a governments.

I think we are talking past each other here, because what I was trying to point out is that it is a mistaken and often hidden presumption on the part of Westerners who think that there must be something "wrong" with people in the Middle East if those people are not amenable to Western-style democracy. Iron81 made a comment and another poster semed to think it might imply that he thought there was something "wrong" with Middle Easterners or with Iraqis. But saying that large groups of Middle Easterners will not take to Western-style democracy, does not imply that there is anything "wrong" with those people; it's just stating a likely fact.

The truth is, they were raised in a culture that is so very different than ours, that it would be the exception rather than the rule to find Middle Easterners (except Israelis) who really believe in and would support Western-style government. It's not an insult at all to state or imply such, and it doesn't mean there is anything "wrong" with those people. This is a whole different matter than whether or not Western-style governments are better than Middle Eastern-style governments (and I think Western-style governments are definitely better and can be stated as such without apology).

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let’s assume that in the next Iraq election a party that wants to turn Iraq into a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state wins 60 % of votes and declares the time of democracy over.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG. The US would LOVE for Iraq to become an awful dictatorship a la the shah, or the saudi or hashemite monarchy. However, if the iraqis founded a democratic government that wanted to nationalize the oil, or challenged israel at all, then it's gogogo all over again and the government goes BOOM courtesy of the CIA or the marines.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US might be semiOK with dictatorship a la the shah or the saudi (especially since at the moment the things are so messy that they mostly just want a decent way out of there) as long as they could control or work with the dictator. BUT they would not be ok with a fundamentalist islamic taleban style state (a la sadr, Iran, taleban) because they would nationalize the oil and challenge israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and let's not forget stoning or murdering women accused of adultery, imprisoning or executing homosexuals, and denying non-Muslims and women the equality of civil rights held by Muslim males.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right of course.

But i believe that for the current administration of US those are all at best secondary objectives.

BTW all of those things are horrible of course, but it's a slippery slope when a white man goes into different countries telling how people there should run their lives.

Obviously i would like to see a chance in the things that you listed, but beond that should we even try to actively chance their societies? We can of course tell them that we see democracy as a best way to interact in society, but if they want to live in a dictatorchip should'nt we just let them?

This whole "export of democracy" allways brings imperialism and crusades into my mind (Bush W, even actually used that word in one of his speaches).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that those are secondary motivations or objectives for the Bush administration. I just didn't want it to be left out since I think it is important to keep in mind what Shari'a governments are really like.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]

I agree that those are secondary motivations or objectives for the Bush administration. I just didn't want it to be left out since I think it is important to keep in mind what Shari'a governments are really like.


[/ QUOTE ]

They are not secondary objectives for bush, or anyone else in DC. Politicians absolutely do not care about this stuff. Prove me wrong. Show me a case where the US did anything substantial solely for the purpose of improving human rights elsewhere. There is NO precedent. The government doesn't work like this. It never has and never will. The state simply does not embody humanitarian or altruistic values.

We could send a friendly letter to turkey to tell them to stop jailing publishers all the time and they would probably listen. However, we won't even do that.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

John you should pick up a copy of deterring democracy by Noam Chomsky. It will help disabuse you of your beliefs about the good intentions of US foreign policy.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
John you should pick up a copy of deterring democracy by Noam Chomsky. It will help disabuse you of your beliefs about the good intentions of US foreign policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll look into it if iI can get it cheap [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] or maybe I'll see if the local library has it - I like to go to the library about once a month and browse and read a bit.

I'm not saying that American policy is based on altruism, but rather that I think this particular administration genuinely thought they could bring "democracy" to Iraq and from there to the Middle East, and that that would be a good thing as well as a good long-term strategic move (of course they miscalculated). I also think that it was somewhat down the list as far as their priorities went.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'll look into it if iI can get it cheap or maybe I'll see if the local library has it - I like to go to the library about once a month and browse and read a bit.


[/ QUOTE ]

$2.85

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'll look into it if iI can get it cheap or maybe I'll see if the local library has it - I like to go to the library about once a month and browse and read a bit.


[/ QUOTE ]

$2.85

[/ QUOTE ]
$0.00

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
The goal of the US has never ever ever been to promote democracy anywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]


The US has a goal? Elaborate plz. What is it? What is it not? How do you now?


For example: I'm pretty sure the goal of the US is to engage in foreign wars. How do I know? Well, it does it ALL THE TIME. So it has to be built/evolved in-to it's design and purpose.
http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/american-wars.html

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, America has screwed up in Iraq. But Gearge Bush was right when he said it wasn't going to be easy. Where he screwed up was that he tried to take the easier route anyways because of the upcoming re-election campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably close, but I think the biggest mistake was not acknowledging up-front that this could take 10+ years. The entire dynamic of that situation would be different if our attitude was; "we'll be there until it's fixed". The mentality of "we're not leaving until we win," has a tendency to resolve things, both there and at home in our decision to go in the first place.

But it's that resolve going in that was a little weak or ill-defined. I think the real checkmate move at the end of WWII with Japan, wasn't so much dropping the two bombs. I think it had more to do with the U.S. telling them we wouldn't accept anything but unconditional surrender. They basically had a choice: surrender to the U.S. or we're going to support a Russian invasion, and then you can surrender to them. Pick your posion, but we're going to win. Period.

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]

But it's that resolve going in that was a little weak or ill-defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

dude you sound like Curtis Lemay
fo rizzle

Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But it's that resolve going in that was a little weak or ill-defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

dude you sound like Curtis Lemay
fo rizzle

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't see any difference between saying, "we're going to win no matter what" versus, "we'll try hard for awhile?"

Spare ribbing
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the real checkmate move at the end of WWII with Japan, wasn't so much dropping the two bombs. I think it had more to do with the U.S. telling them we wouldn't accept anything but unconditional surrender. They basically had a choice: surrender to the U.S. or we're going to support a Russian invasion, and then you can surrender to them. Pick your posion, but we're going to win. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]The Japanese, in World War II, were NOT more afraid of the Soviets than they were of the Americans. The Japanese had little to contest with against the Soviets, while they were engaged in an imperial fight with the United States to the death (death for one imperium out of the two) for the Pacific and East Asia. And FWIW the Japanese had already, and soundly, defeated the Russians, in a relatively recent war.

What convinced the Japanese to surrender was the atomic bomb; it was NOT the Allied demand for unconditional surrender. This demand, almost always, strengthens the resolve of the enemy. The side that receives such "terms" will fight harder because its alternative is to "depend on the kindness of strangers".

Mickey Brausch

Re: Spare ribbing
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the real checkmate move at the end of WWII with Japan, wasn't so much dropping the two bombs. I think it had more to do with the U.S. telling them we wouldn't accept anything but unconditional surrender. They basically had a choice: surrender to the U.S. or we're going to support a Russian invasion, and then you can surrender to them. Pick your posion, but we're going to win. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]The Japanese, in World War II, were NOT more afraid of the Soviets than they were of the Americans. The Japanese had little to contest with against the Soviets, while they were engaged in an imperial fight with the United States to the death (death for one imperium out of the two) for the Pacific and East Asia. And FWIW the Japanese had already, and soundly, defeated the Russians, in a relatively recent war.

What convinced the Japanese to surrender was the atomic bomb; it was NOT the Allied demand for unconditional surrender. This demand, almost always, strengthens the resolve of the enemy. The side that receives such "terms" will fight harder because its alternative is to "depend on the kindness of strangers".

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this.

<font color="brown">Operation August Storm , along with the two atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined to break the Japanese political deadlock and force Japan's surrender; they made it clear that Japan had no hope of holding out, even in the Home Islands.
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Stalin's August 8 declaration of war that forced the Japanese message of surrender on August 15, 1945.</font>

Then we can't forget about the China.