Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries

[MidGe]

Just to make things even clearer, Japan government had already accepted the need for surrender, they were in discussions about the terms of such surrender, well before the nuclear attack by the USA. The USA government knew it and acted in haste to ensure they could "test" their weapons of mass destruction, "show" their might, seemingly for a "reasonable" cause.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to make things even clearer, Japan government had already accepted the need for surrender, they were in discussions about the terms of such surrender, well before the nuclear attack by the USA. The USA government knew it and acted in haste to ensure they could "test" their weapons of mass destruction, "show" their might, seemingly for a "reasonable" cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you ever want to get out of whatever world you live in and glimpse reality:
Operation Downfall
Unconditional surrender and the atomic bomb

[MidGe]

John,

Try to do a bit more research, instead of posting propaganda links. There are NO doubts that Japan was in the process of surrendering before Truman made his decision and he knew it. Truman's main concern was Stalin. It may have been a political decision, but it was definitely one of the greatest act of inhumanity, ranking with all monsters, Stalin, Hitler, Pol pot, etc. No need to try to weasel out of it, better to learn from it.

By the way, on another note, in my lifetime, the USA, that country of freedom etc., had a policy of apartheid... In my lifetime...! Not so long ago!

I simply happen to have a memory, a rare commodity, these times, it seems.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

i respect your posts john, however democracy in postwar iraq definitely wasn't the agenda of this administration. in fact democracy in iraq would be painful for US interests. just look around the region about the closest american allies. the last thing US want in the middle east would be a democracy.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

i respect your posts john, however democracy in postwar iraq definitely wasn't the agenda of this administration. in fact democracy in iraq would be painful for US interests. just look around the region about the closest american allies. the last thing US want in the middle east would be a democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it is true that democracies such as seem to be developing in Afghanistan and Iraq, will likely be ultimately contrary to U.S. interests. I think that is pretty clear.

Going back well before the war, though, I seem to recall that the Neo-Con idea was that democracy in the Middle East would be modeled after U.S. democracy; that is, with assurances of full civil rights, freedom of religion, a secular government, etc. And I seem to recall something about the Project For A New American Century suggesting that democracy be spread, and the tacit assumption was that would be in the model of U.S. democracy. Of course, it isn't turning out quite that way. Maybe it wasn't actually in the PNAC, but if not, it was likely in the writings of the prominent Neo-Con theorists, at least. Sorry I can't remember better or be more specific.

I do agree, though, that democracy in the Middle East looks now like it may become the worst of both worlds, the way things are going; and because it will offer inadequate civil rights protections, and because it may well give a green light to both tyranny of the majority and to strong and widespread anti-US sentiments held by many across the Middle East.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]Then Mr Tsuyoshi Hasegawa would be in a distinct minority among historians and analysts.

[ QUOTE ]


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

[/ QUOTE ] Manchuria is the part of China that lies directly across the waters from Japan. Manchuria was forcefully taken from Russia by the Japanese in 1905, during the Russo-Japanese war that ended badly for the Czar's armies. Losing Manchuria meant the loss of a foreign territory that was once deemed necessary for Japan's imperial ambitions; but it was not vital to Japan's existence -- as Okinawa was, for one.

And the timeline is telling:

On Aug. 6, 1945, Hiroshima was bombed. On Aug. 9, in the early hours of midnight, the Soviets broke their neutrality treaty with Japan and started an advance into Manchuria. On the same day, Aug. 9, some hours later, Nagasaki was bombed. The Japanese announced their surrender six days later.

You think that the loss of some colonial land like Manchuria would be considered as more decisive by the Japanese generals than the overwhelming threat posed on the Japanese mainland by the approaching Americans? I'd say that what actually tipped the balance (if it had not already been tipped by the threat of those approaching and already firebombing Americans) was the introduction of weapons of mass destruction into the war and the persuasive demonstration by the American side of their intention to obliterate Japanese cities with 'em.

Mickey Brausch

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say that what actually tipped the balance (if it had not already been tipped by the threat of those approaching and already firebombing Americans) was the introduction of weapons of mass destruction into the war and the persuasive demonstration by the American side of their intention to obliterate Japanese cities with 'em.


[/ QUOTE ]

The finial decision to surrender was made on Aug 13 by the Emperor himself when he requested an imperial rescript be prepared for his reading to the public. He asked that his cabinet respect his decision. Even on Aug 13 the cabinet was still split on whether to surrender - some still wished to fight on, General Anami Korechika being one of them. The Emperor forced the decision and his request was honored. The will to continue fighting was still strong in many leaders and the military. Military officers that took the palace on August 14 in an attempted ‘coup' failed. It is still unclear if General Anami supported this or would have if it were successful. He did not physically participate. General Anami Korechika commint Seppuku on August 15.

The military dominance of the Japanese government ended with its surrender to the Allied Powers. They had essentially 'ruled' Japan since the 1920's following on the heels of the Meiji Restoration and its influence.

The Emperor of Japan was (is) a God.

-Zeno

[JOHNY CA$H]

[ 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 ]

...When you're trying to throw your arms around the world.

[siegfriedandroy]

why can they not be better? how do you define 'better'?

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you believe Turkey would listen? I don't know for sure, but this seems pretty ridiculous.