"Atom bomb attacks were inevitable"

[stemik 14]

 Originally Posted By: soubriquet

MrW is right on the mark, soubriquette said more or less the same thing this morning. She's also very happy to see Soka Gakai out.

Soka Gakai?

[bobby12 0]

I actually don't understand what is wrong with what the guy said.

 

On the news they always say he said it was 'inevitable' but they fail to say what is so controversial about that statement. Is it offensive the US? If so how and why do they care? Is it offensive to bomb survivors/relatives? If so how/why etc. It was not made clear, they leave you to fill in the gap yourself.

 

Speaking more generally, I find it quite poor that people cant get beyond the incredibly idealistic and simple-minded level of thinking that 'war is bad - full stop' without seeing the bigger picture.

[soubriquet 0]

My mistake. I thought he was Komei party, the front for Soka Gakai cult. He is actually LDP.

[stemik 14]

 Originally Posted By: soubriquet

My mistake. I thought he was Komei party, the front for Soka Gakai cult. He is actually LDP.

My wife mentioned our neighbours are Soka Gakai...she said kind of cult. I thought just a type of budhism as protestant is a type of Christanity....

Need to know more......

[bushpig 0]

Actually soub, they were forced to formally disassociated themselves from Soka Gakkai some years back now. They still have the following of Soka Gakkai members but no official links or affiliation.

 

Soka Gakkai is a form of Nichiren Buddhism, and so similar to a christian denomination. But some of their practices are a bit extreme, and have been known to persecute former members or perceived enemies. This is what leads them to being labelled a cult by some.

[NoFakie 45]

Bushie

 

I first heard about it from a repeat of the UK documentary series "The World At War". It was made in the 1970s. Its the very famous programme, not just for the footage and interviews but also for the haunting music and Laurence Olivier voiceover. The episode about the Bomb is number 24. A quick look suggests that you can get it on the Pirate Bay.

[bushpig 0]

cheers, will have a look.

[daver 0]

 Originally Posted By: bobby12

Speaking more generally, I find it quite poor that people cant get beyond the incredibly idealistic and simple-minded level of thinking that 'war is bad - full stop' without seeing the bigger picture.

for the simple minded idealogues throughout this forum, please explain the bigger picture.

[samurai 0]

 Originally Posted By: daver

 Originally Posted By: bobby12

Speaking more generally, I find it quite poor that people cant get beyond the incredibly idealistic and simple-minded level of thinking that 'war is bad - full stop' without seeing the bigger picture.

for the simple minded idealogues throughout this forum, please explain the bigger picture.

I don't know what bobby was getting at, nor do I understand his bigger picture, so I'll await the response. (I'm curious too...)

Nonetheless, my interpretation is pretty basic. Threaten anyone, and expect nothing less than your own threat realized upon you, without a complimentary/retaliatory threat. Hold a knife to my throat, and that knife is going into your chest. Sorry we didn't negotiate that. That's just the way it is. You shouldn't have held a knife to my throat.

Japan invaded the US. The US wiped out Japan. What's the debate about inevitability?

"Maybe they'll just leave... if we negotiate..." Is that natural behavior for anyone? anyone?

In years to come we'll all be discussing how dropping a subway-nuke in NYC could have been avoided had "the insurgent" negotiated the US out of Iraq.

Come into my house, put my life in danger, and I'll kill you. WTF is the debate?

Of course it was inevitable, people. And you would do the same thing to protect your own family. And those "insurgents" that deem it necessary will find a way too. The US invaded them. It's inevitable.

It's either fight and conquer, or... keep fighting.

And- daver- what was that email? The "running for office" grandaughter of Tojo?
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070704a4.html

Perhaps I can translate it a bit better. "Our only mistake was not conquering."

If you are going to invade a country, you sure as hell better win. Quickly. Before they kill you.

[gerard 6]

 Originally Posted By: daver

 Originally Posted By: bobby12

Speaking more generally, I find it quite poor that people cant get beyond the incredibly idealistic and simple-minded level of thinking that 'war is bad - full stop' without seeing the bigger picture.

for the simple minded idealogues throughout this forum, please explain the bigger picture.

hmm..... Going back to my eikaiwa days, I've noticed the 'war is bad' mantra here, along with 'Bush is bad' (which is because 'war is bad'). I agree.... but issues like whether or not there should be troops in Afghanistan, or weather there should be US soldiers in Okinawa are complicated, right? A lot of middle-aged housewife types who study eikawa as their 'window to the world' seem to have stubborn and simplistic black and white views about things. I used to try to avoid politics in the English classroom, but American friends of mine used to take a lot of flack because 'war is bad'. Meanwhile, the peace and prosperity that some parts of Asia enjoy has been due in no small part the U.S. military presence and nuclear deterrents.

I'm guessing that's what Bobby 12 was getting at, though he could just be a war-mongering sadist!

[samurai 0]

 Originally Posted By: samurai

 Originally Posted By: daver

 Originally Posted By: bobby12

Speaking more generally, I find it quite poor that people cant get beyond the incredibly idealistic and simple-minded level of thinking that 'war is bad - full stop' without seeing the bigger picture.

for the simple minded idealogues throughout this forum, please explain the bigger picture.

I don't know what bobby was getting at, nor do I understand his bigger picture, so I'll await the response. (I'm curious too...)

It's either fight and conquer, or... keep fighting.

And- daver- what was that email? The "running for office" grandaughter of Tojo?
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070704a4.html

Perhaps I can translate it a bit better. "Our only mistake was not conquering."

If you are going to invade a country, you sure as hell better win. Quickly. Before they kill you.

by the way, I took Tojo's words WAY OUT OF CONTEXT.

read the article...

[Oyuki kigan 0]

war is almost always avoidable. And consitering the kind of damage it does, it should not even be an option.

 

But i do distinguish between Aggressors and defenders. Of course a county, like a person, has the right to defend oneself from attack. But at the same time, there are more ways of defense than just killing someone.

 

Anyone who studies the 'Martial' arts here should know this. Someone who learns how to defend themselves well has the ability to do so without neccassarily killing the opponent. I beleive the same can be applied to countries.

 

Of course, this takes a long time to learn, but consitering the alternative, in this age of nucleat and chemical weaponry, is there an excuse not to?

 

Besides, its usually a small elite that drags a country to war, even if the people are peace-loving folk (which they usually are).

Bush, Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin are all but examples of the same principle.

[soubriquet 0]

War between nations is the failure of diplomacy. Bush, Blair and Howard are guilty. Unforgivable.

[bushpig 0]

No, Howard is guilty of being Bushes but-boy!

[Oyuki kigan 0]

In an age of computer literacy and spell-check, i request that people do not read my drivel

[keba 0]

Bush is just guilty of being a moronic, gullible, easily-led puppet of the hawks in his administration. I doubt he has any understanding of international politics beyond what he sees on Fox News. Cheney and former Secretary Rumsfeld are guilty.

[keba 0]

Blair and Howard are guilty, of being shameless a***-lickers.

[soubriquet 0]

Bush might be Cheney's and Rumsfeld's puppet, but he's the "Head". Bush, Blair and Howard are all lieing turds as far as I'm concerned. They have made the world a more dangerous place.

 

Soubriquette has some good friends in northern Pakistan. We can't go there now for fear of being killed.

 

Thanks bstards.

[gerard 6]

We always hear about Blair being Bush's poddle, Howard being his butt-toy (whatever that is), Koizumi being his pet. I think that's giving Bush WAY to much credit. These world leaders are looking after their OWN interests -- they've bet on the U.S. winning the 'war' and want a share of the loot. They want secure oil and a strong economy, better terms of trade, a permanent seat in the UN security council..... I don't think that Bush is the master of puppets that people make him out to be.

[keba 0]

Yes, they have their own (or even their country's) best interests at heart, but the means by which they achieve that is, as you point out, to side with the US and bend over for them. The credit goes not to Bush, but to his administation.

 

Bush isn't the Master of Puppets. He is just a figurehead, like the Queen. Except she doesn't make any pretense that she's really in control. Some press conferences, you can even see the strings attached to Bush's arms, and with the right kind of eyes, you can see someone's hand up his a***, opening and closing his mouth. On the puppeteer's days off, you can tell, because all that comes out of his mouth is unintelligible gibberish.

 

They have made the world a more dangerous place, but it wasn't perfect before that.

[Rag-Doll 0]

>Besides, its usually a small elite that drags a country to war, even if the people are peace-loving folk (which they usually are).

 

Except you need the people to be willing to fight so while the leaders are guilty of instigating the war, every person to heads off to "do their duty" or applauds at the rallies or re-elects the leaders or acquiesces to the policies are equally guilty. Peaceful popular action is an effective means of removing criminal governments - with a few notable exceptions!

 

>Bush, Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin are all but examples of the same principle.

 

To group Bush with these guys is simply absurd. It demeans the 10s of millions that died as a result of the polices and actions of the other three. Recent military adventurism on the part of the US has on occasion brought substantial benefits - Kosovo and Afghanistan. Iraq could have been another example but is a disaster due to the largely under appreciated deep seated sectarian animosity that existed in Iraq but was suppressed by Saddam’s regime. A failure of US policy, intelligence and a lack of understanding of a complex region doesn't come anywhere close to the industrialized murder organized on an international scale perpetrated by Hitler and Stalin. Anyone who suggests that Guantanamo Bay is akin to the Russian Gulags is guilty of the worst kind of hyperbole, by way of example, the conditions Australian David Hicks is now living under in an Adelaide prison are worse than those he was living under in Guantanamo Bay – oh the humanity! For all that Bush is a terrible president who is responsible for 10s of thousands of deaths (not only war related, but also those arising from changes in US international aid and support for UN initiatives), there is a world of difference between what Bush is doing and the millions of ordinary people who were worked to death in the Russia gulags or who died in the German gas chambers.

 

The whole Iraq oil thing is also pretty stupid. If America wanted the oil all they had to do was buy it. They buy it from other, equally unpleasent regimes. Iraq now has an oil issue simply because an Iraq that descends into a protracted civil war won't be exporting any oil. It is an issue now, it wasn't 3 years ago.

 

Ger - I'm with you. Supporters of the US action were looking out for their own country's interests. Australia seems to play this game well in that we seem to provide the absolute minimum number of troops and equipment - tokenism at its best.

[soubriquet 0]

The ultimate stupidity was to remove a regime and have no plan to replace it.

 

What kind of vacuum do these people live in? How is it possible to be "leader" of your country without a clue about government?

[Rag-Doll 0]

>The ultimate stupidity was to remove a regime and have no plan to replace it.

 

But they did. The plan was to have elections and have something like Turkey up and running - the elections were very well supported. Iraq, after years of draconian and secular government by the Baathist party looked to be ripe for setting up a rational system of government. But I agree, the plan was the bastard child of gross stupidity and crass arogance - the contrived WMD rational and the provocative nature of the action and the enormous cultural differences meant that the US was always going to lose the propaganda war. And now the place is a mess and would be even worse if the US were to leave. This is stupidity of the highest order, but doesn't make Bush a modern day Stalin or Hitler.

[soubriquet 0]

I'm not comparing Bush with Stalin or Hitler. He is stupid rather than evil. Cheney and Rumsfeld are the culprits. Neither were elected, but they ran the USA. Mother of democracy, f*** you.

[Oyuki kigan 0]

Rag-doll,

 

i agree with what you say.

 

I'm not saying that the Bush regime has massacared as many people or commited equal atrocities (although they have commited a fair amount, no doubt).

 

I was just saying that the methods involved in 'dragging the masses to war' were similar. Claim that we are under attack, that the enemy is evil, and that pacifist actions endanger the country.