Celebrating Hiroshima

The Spanish-American War is up there with with the Mexican-American War in terms of naked man grab*/empire building.

*well that's an awkward typo+autocorrect! :flow2: LAND GRAB! Naked LAND grab!

Discussing anything even remotely related to pacifism seems to degrade people's reading ability. I'm going to work off Asyncritus' post here, since it pinpoints the misreading:

Lanzman named as criteria the fact that seven decades had past, and then explicitly confirmed that because of that, yes, to him the same logic applies to US and Japanese actions in the war. Rick is just pointing out the absurd consequences of such a stance; and the bias by which that absurdity is then only applied selectively.

Probably not given the restrictions in technology at the time.

Without the Japanese military surrendering in totality, which pretty much required the driving home of the fact it was give in or give the neolithic another try, any attempt to control Japan and change its course was going to be an utter bloodbath.

And we did need to change its course, anything else was simply going to lead another war.

Strawmen. I made no statement implying equivalence.

Fighting Japan was legitimate. That doesn't mean that everything done as part of that was automatically okay, or shouldn't be questioned.

You really can be a retard sometimes.
My criticisms are mostly directed at foreign policy, and for specific reasons. They are not based on bigotry. I quite like America.

Well since all most of us have read from you is the negatives what is it about america that you like?

Our hubris?

A lot of the movies, the literature, the TV, the food (despite caloric content), the beautiful landscapes. The space program. The history is interesting.
At a political level, I like the commitment to free speech in particular which is unsurpassed elsewhere.
I've liked the people when I've been there. And there are lots of individual Americans that I've never met who I admire.

Don't forget the California girls.

One can only go on the impression you give, and I am hardly alone in viewing your posts in that respect - and remember that this particular retard (very mature btw) can be easily critical of America when it's due. But I don't feel the need to swipe at America just for the sake of it by grabbing any remote chance I get. I don't think you realise it, but your reactions to America generally suggest those of someone who has long ago lost sight of a sense of objectivity and has developed a subconscious, active disliking.

My criticisms are not "for the sake of it". They are directed at specific US state and government actions. And you are misrepresenting my views in this thread (among others) as has already been explained, so it seems that once again you're putting the chance to ingraciate yourself with erstwhile opponents (look at how neutral you are!) above rational analysis.

Were there more discussion of UK or European politics here, you might find my stance toward UK and European states and governments to be comparable.

Why ever said I was politically neutral? All I have ever claimed is that I was neutral in respect of the situation in Gaza, nothing else. Politically I don't a sign myself to left, right or centre because I think such stances are foolish. I take each situation on it's own merits. You have mentioned this supposed attempt to ingratiate myself with others on a number of occasions now, inevitably when I disagree with you on something, which is petty and childish, and it stark contrast to the many pos reps you give me when I am frequently disagreeing with the view of the people you are busy telling me I am kissing the arses of. So grow the fuck up and accept that maybe you're neither right on every nor giving off an impression of objectivity.

What's most interesting is that through all your whining, personal swipes and "poor misunderstood me" schtick, you haven't once actually responded to my substantive post in this thread. That's very telling.

I used to disagree with the characterization of the US bombing campaigns as terror bombing - each target was an industrial city of some kind. But more recent reading has shown that our leaders at the time did think that demoralizing the civilian population would turn them against their leaders. It turned out, generally, rather to steel the populations to endure out of rage. But it can be characterized as terror bombing. Bombing on that scale was a new thing in WWII. Nobody had leveled a whole city until Guernica. Most military planners thought it was the way to go. That no nation would willingly endure such a beating. In that, at least, they turned out to be wrong.

But it took a long time to learn that, and decades for the technology of precision guided munitions to give us another way.

So what does....

"If you make negative moral judgements about the actions of Imperial Japan, yet adopt a patronising attitude toward those who do the same regarding the action of the US in the same war, then you are inconsistent."

...mean then? "Do the same" suggests equivalence to me. Or are you claiming that "do the same" actually "do something different that I consider bad"?

I love the smell of a meltdown in the morning.

Who will be the next John Castle?

I did respond, to point out that the entire post was based on a misrepresentation.
Given this bandwagon jumping, your repeated talk about how ones utterances should be calculated in order to effect a given "impression" on ones opponents (to hell with facts), and your all but confirming it with this "neither left, right or centre" stance, I think it's more than justified to say that you're trying to be aggressively neutral overall.

"The same", to those who can read, is a reference to a negative moral judgement that one might make with respect to the US actions, not a declaration that the misdeeds of the US were qualitatively or quantitatively the same.

Thus: "If you make negative moral judgements about the actions of Imperial Japan, yet adopt a patronising attitude toward those who make negative moral judgements regarding the action of the US in the same war, then you are inconsistent."

I'm against war in the vast majority of cases, and I set the threshold at which it is justified to be very high, but World War II was one of the cases where that threshold was met. Now, get off the bandwagon.

California girls are so overrated.

The Spanish American War? Ok, now I know for sure you know absolutely nothing about history. I weep for the children you make dumber.

They make and distribute some really awesome sake too.

Really? Neither Cuba or the Philippines are controlled by the U.S. today and have not been for decades. The U.S. almost immediately began to prepare them for independence in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War.

And were or were not Americans outraged at how the Spanish were treating the Cubans prior to the U.S. declaring war?

You realise Spain never actually attacked any of our ships when we declared war on them?

I had to look to make sure this wasn't a NotDayton post. But nope, this is classic you.

I like the midwest farmer's daughters better.

Would you have preferred another D-day type of campaign rather than the a bomb being dropped?

You have got to be fucking with me. American's didn't give two shits about the Cubans prior to the declaration of war, or the plight of the Philipino. The war started because the US government smelled death on the Spanish Empire, and wanted it's overseas possessions, namely Cuba and the Philippines. They knew the Spanish couldn't possibly resist us on the seas; the US possessing a number of modern Battleships and Armoured Cruisers, while the Spanish could only field a single, quasi-modern Battleship and a collection of highly flammable, ill-maintained Armoured and Protected Cruisers. Spain also couldn't resist us on land, as well; even with the advantage of having Mauser rifles issued to it's infantry, instead of the slow firing Krag and Model 1873 Springfield(single shot, black powder) issued to US troops at the time. The US troops were fresh, and full of piss and vinegar, while Spanish troops were garrison troops, full of tropical disease and surrounded by hostile locals everywhere. The US government saw an opportunity to gain a good amount of colonial territory with which to kickstart a nascent "Empire" at very little cost, considering the weakened, rotten state of Spain and her military at this time. The explosion of the Maine provided the perfect pretext; a mysterious spontaneous detonation of her main battery magazine, destroying the ship and killing a great many of her crew. Although the true cause of the explosion was most likely a fire in the coal bunker, directly adjacent to the powder magazine, and not a Spanish mine, the ability to make that determination didn't exist at the time. A mine placed under the hull by Spanish agents seemed like a perfectly legitimate explanation, to anyone who can't tell the difference between an internal and external conflagration(i.e. 99% of the US population). With the Hearst newspapers whipping up war fever at home, blaming the Spanish for the Maine's destruction, the ball began to roll. Read more books, Dayton.

Excellent summary.

Remember that scene in Citizen Kane where, Kane says, "You provide the local color, I'll provide the war."? Would you believe William Randolf Hearst is thought to have said something shockingly similar?