A News Quiz for our Readers
Dear Readers:
Here’s a little something new that I though was worth a post. We bring you a small news quiz. Please read the excerpt below from this week's news and at the end, pick who you think wrote it by posting a comment:
For some time now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena...Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), the great Messenger of God, but at the same time, have countries attacked. At what price? If prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior?
a. The President of the National Council of Churches in a public letter on the war in Iraq.
b. Former Vice-President Al Gore in a speech to a national convention of Methodist clergy.
c. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran in a letter to President Bush.
d. Republican Representative Henry Brown Jr. of South Carolina in comments directed at President Bush inserted this week into the Congressional record.
e. None of the above.
Here’s a little something new that I though was worth a post. We bring you a small news quiz. Please read the excerpt below from this week's news and at the end, pick who you think wrote it by posting a comment:
For some time now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena...Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), the great Messenger of God, but at the same time, have countries attacked. At what price? If prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior?
a. The President of the National Council of Churches in a public letter on the war in Iraq.
b. Former Vice-President Al Gore in a speech to a national convention of Methodist clergy.
c. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran in a letter to President Bush.
d. Republican Representative Henry Brown Jr. of South Carolina in comments directed at President Bush inserted this week into the Congressional record.
e. None of the above.
posted by The Democracy Center at 4:10 PM
66 Comments:
Jim, it's mother's day in the US and quiet frankly no body cares about any polls. Let's talk about Juan Forero's crappy op-ed on Bolivia (New York Times), instead:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/world/americas/14bolivia.html
Based on other things I have read about the letter, I would say option C.
Absolutely C. One non-Christian calling out another non-Christian.
I read the letter (some of it). The answer is Iran's President Ahmadinejad. You did clear up one thing for me though. In the version I saw, the initials PBUH were always used after the name Jesus Christ, and I couldn't figure out what they stood for.
You know who I bet didn't read the letter, George Bush. At the most he had it read to him, but he probably didn't even sit through that.
Mollie, over at GetReligion, talks about pbuh here.
Interesting, her discussion mentions it being used in connection with the name Muhammad, not Jesus Christ.
I'm tempted to ask ... is it politicall (or socially) acceptable to ask the same about Muslim extremists?
Like. What would Jesus/Muhamed/Buddha think about statements about, say, wiping an entire country off the map.
The answer would be C...
A full text of the letter can be found here, for those interested: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12984.htm
centellas, i would suppose that buddha, jesus, and friends would weigh the historical facts about the recreation of Israel, the violence excercised by Zionists since the late 1800's, and the defacto and continuing genocide of the Palestinian people, and decide to "multi-deity-ally" disarm both Isreal and the extremists.
First, pbuh (peace be upon him) is a blessing applied to all of the great prophets of Islam, including Mohammed, Jesus, and Abraham. Islam recognizes Jesus (and the Immaculate Conception), but denies His divine nature or that God would have a son. The question of whether Mohammed would approve of wiping a country of the map is clearly yes. Mohammed was a religious leader who fled Mecca at risk of his life due to his increasing popularity / success. He was accepted in Medina and rose to be “mayor / king” of the city. He returned to Mecca leading an army. He was known to be extremely merciful in that those who converted to Islam could live. The next 700 years saw extensive Islamic conversion by the sword.
But what would Jesus say / do? The Lord, to my knowledge, did not speak of national conflict. His Father certainly did and His judgment was definitely harsh, particularly with Persia and Babylon (Iran and Iraq). But Jesus spoke more often on a personal level. Turning the other cheek is appropriate to avoid escalation between two men. Still, even that has its limits. The Lord did not say, for instance “if someone gouges out your eye, offer him the other”, or “if someone kills your son, offer him the other” or “if someone blows up your buildings…” Jesus did use parables that showed levels above personal conflict though. The owner of the vineyard offered several second chances to the wicked tenants; even after his servants were mistreated and killed, he still sent his son to reason with them. But when they killed the son, the implications were clear.
My point is that nations cannot be expected to turn the other cheek. When the towers were destroyed in New York, the US could no longer afford to sit back and absorb a first strike, endangering her own people. This is no contradiction of scripture and the President of Iran is misinterpreting a book he does not believe in anyway.
That said, I don’t say that I support the decision to enter Iraq at the time we did. When Nineveh repented after Jonah warned of the consequences, God forgave them and gave them a second chance. If we used this as an example, when we threatened Iraq due to their repeated non-compliance with UN requirements, we should have stepped back when Saddam began to comply. If Saddam again began to renege, unilateral action might then be justified. Nineveh reneged and was eventually destroyed.
Who thrown the first blow, nobody will ever know, maybe it was Cain or Abel; maybe was God against Adam and Eva; the true is, for a Center that is supposedly “working” on human rights and freedom of speech, as stipulated under the UN and your web page. Is very sad to see that you are taking sides towards somebody that has nothing to do rewarding what you supposedly practice just to talk bad about the, actual, US government.
If you only read the section of Ahmadinejad’s you posted, and you know that his Country was several years in War with Iraq and that he openly admitted he wants nuclear weapons to attack Israel, which as fare as I know, is a “Country”; Before writing smart ass quizzes you should ask yourself here that person stands regarding human rights, democracy and freedom of speech and how that behavior compromises your point of view. Which by the way, that, to me, today, is as clear as an Evo Morales speech.
Darrel, Norman is right, Jesus is an important Islamic prophet and PBUH is a common respectful way to refer to prophets by Islamic followers.
Dear Bolivia-Libre,
Do you wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and ask yourself each morning, "How much time can I spend today writing utterly predictable comments on the Democracy Center Blog?"
Are you intellectualy limited to just taking the counter position to everything posted here? Looks to me like this post just put some quote out there with no comment at all.
If The Democracy Center wrote that the Earth was round I have no doubt that you would dismiss that as pro-Evo claptrap and argue that it is flat.
Not so dear mister anonymous,
What is your point?, people should always agree with the democracy center? Whenever you are capable to write any counter position from what I write, with a little of reason, probe or logic, we will discuss it.
By the way, the earth is neither round or flat, it is actually oval, a little compressed towards the Equator.
Definitely the post did not involve any opinion, it just opened a door to see what we came up with. Mister BL is always so emotional!
jim, i mostly agree with your work and opinions. but this is almost an endorsement of the fanatic president of iran. as someone commented earlier, what would jesus and the other great prophets say about wiping israel from the map? what would jesus and the other great prophets say about the senseless killing and maiminig of innocent people in terrorist strikes in support of a fictional war between the west, particularly the u.s., and the islamic fundamentalist followers of osama? the iranian leaders, osama and company, et. al. are islamo-fascists who deserve no measure of compassion. this is not to say i am for wars and military attacks in the middle east, i am not for that. but at some point you also have to drop pacifism and defend your people if they are threatened. the war in iraq was mismanaged, mishandled, but that is no reason to stand idly by while islamo-fascist nuts blow up innocent people all over the place. the iranian president is a islamo-nut of the first order. if you think nuclear weapons are a good idea for such people to have, may you one day see the light.
nothing like a common enemy to really bring people together!
Yin Yang (who I don't think is connected w/ the Democracy Center) wrote about:
"the violence excercised by Zionists since the late 1800's"
Yes, of course, the Jews are to blame for the Holocaust. I'd forgotten that tired retort.
If you want to argue against Israeli policies, by all means do. They're certainly open to criticism. But "violence exercised by Zionists since the late 1800s"? What violence were Zionists performing in 1880s? Or the 1910s? Or the 1940s? Well, I guess there was the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. But, really. Zionist violence since the late 1800s?! Please. Let's at least stay on topic.
Hey Libre...since you're a bit on the anal side. The earth bulges slightly at the equator and is slightly flattened at the poles. I thought the Calvert School in Zona Sur would have taught you that.
Very accurate post, Anon - BL is most definitely on the anal side - he's an asshole!
(sorry, couldn't resist that one...)
Let's hope he carries on spoiling us with his extarordinary rantings - and to thank him, check this out (no doubt an inspiration) and send it around:
http://www.filmstripinternational.com/
Hey ano, yes, you are absolutely right; I just wanted to know if you will actually care to figure it out and give me the opportunity to show you that I can actually agree with some of the posts Jim’s friends write, no matter who moronic they are. Don’t be mad, my anal foe, I just like to tees the scoria that tries to reduce the freedom off the speech in Bolivia.
Oxo, at least, so fare, I can still be emotional, the MAS regimen at this very moment is moving towards controlling and in the near future eliminating the freedom of the press using several of their ONG. Jim’s organization, by his own posts, is clearly one that is going to be use, at least for the few English speaking readers. I am writing it now so I can tell you; I told you so, before I cannot get access to an internet cafe in the near future.
WOW! Bolivia Libre, I find myself often agreeing with you, and more often being entertained by your comments. In this case, however, I was a bit taken aback. Do you TRULY believe that Evo and MAS will "eliminate" free speech and freedom of the press in Bolivia? What evidence do you have of that?
Also, I am interested in knowing what part of Bolivia you are from. If you talk to someone from Santa Cruz, for instance, would their opinions be significantly different than someone from Cochabamba. Sorry to be overly stereotypical, but I'll like a current regional analysis of Bolivia.
Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but it seems that too often people forget: the government plays a very different role than the individual. And the moral imperatives of government are different than those for individuals.
Christianity has historically recognized this relevant distinction. Unfortunately, contemporary critics of the war too often forget it. It is childish and naive to apply such dictums as, "Turn the other cheek," to foreign policy.
The President of Iran's comments only reveal deep ignorance.
Best,
PR
If Iran had the military capability of the U.S. and George W. Bush was their Islamic President, don't you think Israel would have already been wiped off the face of the earth? Would the government of Iran be in the moral wrong?
centellas you were right, Zionist violence really began in force in the 1930's and 1940's, according to wikipedia.
although zionism did begin in the 1800's. and as with everything, there are different shades of zionism and opposing it does not mean I hate jews. most jews I know are very cool, several are from Israel. and I don't deny the holocaust. by the way, did you know that IBM provided the Nazis with the computing technology to efficiently eliminate them? google it, buddy.
Israel has terrible policies, such as killing unarmed kids. about one every few days since 2000. pretty sick, eh?
Palestinian terrorists kill innocent people, pretty sick, eh?
but my point, which you seemed to have missed, was fairly simple.
on the one hand we have people whose sworn-on paper and in public rhetoric- goal is to eliminate Israel, but they have no plausible chance of doing so.
on the other hand, we have a fifty year long history of abuse, displacement and state terrorism against Palestinians, which- actions speak louder than words- shows us that Israel's goal is to eliminate Palestinian Arabs.
So, don't you think both sides should be disarmed?
First of all, yes, C. I suggest reading the letter: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12984.htm
I don't say you'll come to feel warm and fuzzy about Mr. Ahmadi-Najad. But it does give you insights into the position - or at least the projected position - of a man whom the U.S. must, sooner or later, with diplomacy or with violence, engage.
I believe one main obstacle to peace - with bin Laden, with the Iraqi insurgency, with Iran, etc - is our willingness to think that these people are really as irrational as their most sensational rantings/crimes would suggest, and therefore are not to be considered as potential parties to negotiation.
For some provocative alternative perspectives, check out Martin van Creveld, Israeli military historian. He would argue, for example, that none of the leaders in the Middle East - Saddam included, pre-2003 - is as crazy as we often make them out to be, and that the surest road to peace for Israel and the region (following the US' own past and current policy-guiding logic of mutually assured destruction) would be for Iran and others to get nuclear weapons. They know Israel already has them. I don't happen to agree, but it is sobering to listen to a well-respected hard-line Israeli expert on military history argue his willingness to trust our favorite boogeymen with nukes. (He also argues, by the way, that painful, Vietnam-style withdrawal from Iraq is the US' only option as a result of mistakes we've already made in creating our current mess.)
Second, even while my better instincts tell me not to bother discussing/debating theology in a blog comment thread:
A) There are a lot of Muslim scholars who would vehemently disagree with Norman about what the Prophet Mohammed would say about wiping entire nations off the map. And he did form alliances and live in peace with Jews and Christians without demanding their conversion to Islam. Like most historical figures - particularly religious leaders - I think the truth is elusive and we - particularly those who do not belong to a particular faith - should tread very lightly in asserting what said faith or its leaders do or don't mean. God knows I would hate to have non-Christians decide what my faith means or what Jesus stood for based on the interpretations of Pat Robertson or the KKK or the Catholic Monarchs of Spain.
B) For that matter, I would rather people not take as definitive the theology of Norman, Paschal's Revenge, and Anonymous above. I throw my own dissenting view into the post-modern pot of perspectives, then: Jesus' message was absolutely directed at the state and social conflict. Jesus' nonviolence was preached most specifically as a response to state violence.
The state is a social abstraction that dehumanizes precisely inasmuch as it leads people to accept the anti-ethics outlined above: "Individuals are called not to kill, but states must, and so Jesus logically exempts them." Never mind that states do not ever kill. Individuals do, in the name of the state.
Here is where I think this medium becomes inadequate. I realize I'm begging more questions than I'm addressing. Ecclesiology, eschatology, Christology, exegesis, and other sub-fields come into play. I suppose my purpose here is not so much to persuade my fellow readers to see things my way, but to point out that several of the blanket statements above are, at the very best, hotly debated by experts and lay masses alike. For my part, I vigorously disagree. For further reading, a few starting points include: Walter Wink, John Howard Yoder, Thomas Merton, Daniel Berrigan, Dorothy Day, Stanley Hauerwas, John Dear...
Sorry so long. In my defense, I've not commented here in quite a while -- I suppose I'm back with a (nonviolent) vengeance.
Religion is the most influencial tool small group of people have (say the state) to control the behavior (ACTIONS) of a majority.
If you want to invade a region for what it can give you (i.e. land and resources), spin it with religion to justify it, you will have a lot of people willing to die for their believes.
You thinks sex anytime is bad, use religion to control it. You think is good, use Taoism, Hinduism (Tantra), etc.
Why do we have so many religions? to control behavior i think, customized to the needs of the few.
Therefore, I wouldn't leave this debate to the experts. We, the non-experts have to be exposed to this. (well, in this blog should be, is the Catholic influence in Bolivia good?).
Religion is so NOT rational. Is full of faith and what we feel about it (believes). So, debating it, will put a little bit of rationalitation in this topic that will always bring steaming hot disputes rather than agreement.
Do it on the internet! ...better than face to face. Latest debate face to face cause a lot of deaths and the splitting of a country (ex-Yugoslavia).
Saludos, Javier F.
This quote is one paragraph out of more than 10 pages of fun. For more entertaining (and scarier) fare you don't have to look far:
* "September 11 was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services--or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess."
* "One of my students told me that during WW II . . . news about the war was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. . . . After the war, they claimed six million Jews had been killed. . . . [Let] us assume these events are true."
Wow, 9/11 was done by Western intelligence services???? Maybe the holocaust did not happen??
read further, and find such anger at Israel for its policies.
So Israel's is unique in its barbarity in the region..Jeez....this is coming from a ruler from one of the most ancient countries in the Middle East -- thats a lot of history there Bubba!! As he speaks, Christians are being slaughtered a couple of countries away from him in Sudan. His neighbors the Armenians could tell him a thing or two about what was done to them by a Muslim nation.
Funny, how he talks about what millions of Muslims and Christians have in common, but omits of course the people, from where these old prophets we both revere came from.
Love the part about how Liberal Democracy has failed. Oh yeah?? How come the descendants of the great Persian and Ottoman Empires are in such a collective mess??? And how come the liberal democracies in the west, however imperfect, are arguably the most advanced societies in the world? Might start looking at how one tradition, painfully and slowly weaned itself off religious intolerance and absolutism, creating the greater personal autonomy and self-rule that enabled great scientific discoveries and creation of vast wealth.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dan,
Outstanding commentary. I stand chastised. Certainly I should not have given the impression that Jesus or any of the prophets would condone what we’ve gotten ourselves into in Iraq. I believe they’d be heartbroken to see our violence and I should have made that clear. I agree that many Muslims would challenge what I wrote about the prophet. I don’t have enough personal experience with Muslims to be judgmental. I admit to having had only passing conversation with a few. Nevertheless, from what I’ve been able to determine in readings, in addition to the Prophet Mohammed’s great devotion to God, he was, in fact, a warrior and was not averse to conversion by the sword. Hatred for and violence against “unbelievers” are advocated in the Hadis. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong.) In Afghanistan, as late as this March, conversion from Islam to Christianity was a capital offense punishable by death. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/21/afghan.christian/) My point was not to speak against Islam though; you’re correct in that my expertise in this area is lacking. Perhaps all I’ve read to date has been is mis-information by groups like “Islam Watch”. The Iranian President's letter was certainly worth the read, but I still skeptical of his intent. He artfully mixes valid challenges with mis-interpretations and mis-direction. My whole point was that the brief portion quoted by Jim at the beginning seemed (seems) hypocritical. That said, hypocritical or not, it is a valid question and I expect the prophets Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) would not judge our behavior favorably. Still, do you think that was really the President of Iran's purpose / focus? [and you're right, blogs don't quite cut it for debating this topic.]
^^ Lets just oversimplify things and break them down..
The Q'uran is the teachings of a great religious man who adapted some of the central tenets of Judaic and Christianity to his own ancient nomadic culture. He was also a statesman and warrior, who fought to unify the Arabic peninsula. Arguably small parts of the teachings might have a militaristic tone to them. It is more Old Testament than New Testament. The context of the Old involves the Judaic tribes fighting neighbors, and celebrates warrior statesmen such as David and Solomon.
Again oversimplifying you can argue that the Gospels, that their messages of love, forgiveness, redemption, and peace, overrode some of the harsher parts of the Old Testament. Yet the New Testament has been cited to do all sorts of nastiness over the past two millenia. --
In medieval Spain there were Catholic Monks who would go up to the Sultan and insult Mohammed so they would be put to death. Their funerals also gave an excuse to do the same sort of thing, and ended up with similar martyrdom.
Sound familiar??? Sounds like suicide missions to me?
We sort of grew out of that, but it still is an ongoing process in the Muslim world.
Very sensible Bolinica! I read this book on Islam and its history by a catholic nun. Now I dont think this is quite impartial, to put it in a way, but it provides a very good argument and many significant facts:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081296618X/qid=1147905950/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-6983463-8062201?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
It's very difficult to disscus subject we dont really know, but one tends to more easily judge the western world's position - or understand it, whatever the case.
that said, I absolutely oppose the American approach and think the events around Iran are most scary espacially because of the american involvement. I find it difficult to understand how you can talk about the terrorist threat without considering the context it takes place in, which absolutely doesnt justify it, but it certainly relates to it.
I was in London when the july bombs took place. One thing that impressed me the most was the reaction of many people I saw that wondered: why us?
I completely recommend the book I mentioned above.
dan, a great message of intelligent compassion, i wish the world had more idealistic people like you. but i am afraid that september 11 did not teach you much -- these people are irrational and crazed. you don't turn the other cheek to mad men who brutally murder and maim thousands of people to make a symbolic protest. and even if it were possible to negotiate with such madmen, is that really a good idea? i suppose chamberlin would be proud of that, but history proves churchill had the better idea. better to fight and destroy intolerant, hate-driven fascism than accomodate it.
here's a good analysis of the iranian president's letter and what bush's response ought to be. read:
http://www.slate.com/id/2141796/
This is clearly written by a Moslem. Since there is only one such person on the list of choices it would be by c. Mahmoud Achmanijedad The reference to Messenger of God and the Prophets is a giveaway.
^^^
15 years ago, the indignant used to get all fuzzy when he was an apologist for Sandinistas, but I am afraid that Christopher Hitchens is now seen as an apostate. He has been written out of the dogmatically correct canon.
When Juan Cole is not feuding with Chris Hitchens, he has some really good blog entries. He has covered Islam and mis-interpretations of it from a serious scholarly POV.
Dear Dan,
I always appreciate your contributions to this mixed bag that is Blog from Bolivia.
But unless I am mistaken, some of your claims are wholly without basis. For instance, I doubt you'll find a single passage of the new testament in which Jesus addresses his message to the State. Don't you rather mean that his message was addressed to individuals and how they should live within their social context?
In fact, Jesus's interactions with Pilate and the centurion (government officials) are conspicuous in that they clearly lack any overtones of political theorizing. Jesus was concerned about hearts, not policies.
Jesus understood that if you put good policies in place, you'll still have corrupt hearts wreaking havoc in the world (and undermining the policies!) On the other hand, if you transform hearts, good policies just follow naturally.
But we've wandered from the central topic of Bolivia...or have we?
Best,
PR
"You don't turn the other cheek to mad men who brutally murder and maim thousands of people to make a symbolic protest."
Reality, how you view Hiroshima and Nagasaki? After the US fire-bombed the living hell out of the wooden cities of Kobe, Toyko, and 65 other Japanese cities?
From Wikipedia...
Curtis LeMay later said: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal."
How do you view the entire Vietnam War? Was it not essentially a symbolic protest against Soviet expansion? Do you really still believe in the Domino Theory?
How do you view multiple assassination attempts on various national leaders, hardly any (I'd say none but that would require too much research at this time) of whom were attacking the U.S. or its allies.
From Wikipedia...
Kuwait, having amassed great wealth, was the first of the Persian Gulf-Arab states to declare independence on June 19, 1961. Iraq challenged this declaration, claiming that Kuwait was part of its territory. It threatened to invade Kuwait, but was deterred by the British, who flew in troops.
....
Hussein's primary justifications included a charge that Kuwaiti territory was in fact an Iraqi province, and that annexation was retaliation for "economic warfare" Kuwait had allegedly waged through slant drilling into oil supplies on Iraqi territories.
....
On August 2, 1990, Saddam invaded and annexed the oil-rich emirate of Kuwait. U.S. President George H. W. Bush responded cautiously for the first several days after the invasion. On the one hand, Kuwait, prior to this point, had been a virulent enemy of Israel and was on friendly terms with the Soviets. On the other hand, Iraq controlled ten percent of the world's crude oil reserves and with the invasion had doubled the percentage.
Maybe Saddam was crazy, but could he really expect a full-scale invasion by the U.S.?
How about the Afghanistan war, again from Wikipedia...
On September 20th 2001, as the U.S. strongly suspected Osama bin Laden and his hosts, the Taliban, were behind the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. made a five point ultimatum to the Taliban: (1) deliver to the US all of the leaders of Al Qaeda; (2) Release all imprisoned foreign nationals; (3) Close immediately every terrorist training camp; (4) Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities; (5) Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection. The Taliban rejected this ultimatum on September 21, 2001, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking Bin Laden to the September 11 attacks.
On September 22, 2001 the United Arab Emirates and later Saudi Arabia withdrew their recognition of the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, leaving neighboring Pakistan as the only remaining country with diplomatic ties. On October 4, 2001 it is believed that the Taliban covertly offered to turn Bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic shar'ia law. Pakistan is believed to have rejected the offer. On October 7, 2001, before the onset of military operations, the Taliban made an open offer to try Bin Laden in Afghanistan in an Islamic court. This counteroffer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient.
Shortly afterward, on October 7, 2001 the United States, aided by the United Kingdom and supported by a coalition of other countries including the NATO alliance, initiated military actions, code named Operation Enduring Freedom, and bombed Taliban and Al Qaeda related camps. On October 14 the Taliban openly counteroffered to hand Bin Laden over to a third country for trial, but only if the Taliban were given evidence of Bin Ladens involvement in 9/11. The U.S. rejected this offer as well and continued with military operations.
The stated intent of military operations was to remove the Taliban from power because of the Taliban's refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his involvement in the September 11 attacks, and disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations.
Keep in mind that at this point Bin Laden did not admit any involvement and the extent of his and al-Qaeda's participation was not at all well understood.
What about the Second Iraq War, again from Wikipedia...
The 2003 invasion of Iraq, termed "Operation Iraqi Freedom" by the US administration, began on March 20. The United States and Britain supplied 98% of the invading forces.
....
Prior to the invasion, the United States' official position was that Iraq illegally possessed "weapons of mass destruction" in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and had to be disarmed by force.
....
The Bush administration failed to get a U.N. endorsement for war against Iraq on March 17, 2003 and began the invasion on March 20, 2003, which is seen by many as a violation of international law, breaking the UN Charter.
....
George W. Bush has since admitted that "much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong".
However, you are right. These people are irrational and crazed. You don't turn the other cheek to mad men who brutally murder and maim thousands of people.
My question for you is, who do you think "these people" are?
paul v.,
my, ohh, my. i thought your odd questioning and offbeat posts was just masking some strange conservative sympathy for the poor gas companies losing their enormous, 80 percent profit margins in bolivia. but you surpised me, you're actually an apologist for al quaeda! good grief, i had no idea that the islamo terrorists were so friendly with gas companies. but now that i think about it, it makes a lot of sense. after all, there countries they have been in bed with gas companies for decades in the middle oil rich east.
to answer your question and rhetorical argument. let me begin by saying, i am not pro-war. who is? nobody wants to go to war. i also am not in support of every us miltaristic adventure throughout history. yes, vietnam was a bad idea and the world would have been better off if the nuclear weapon were never discovered, then detonated. but lets see reality, paul v.
as for the us vs. japan in wwII, what you have is a full out war in which thousands died on both sides, in which a fascist, aggressor japan not only attacked pearl habor and, yes, started a war with the united states, but fascist japan, whose allies were germany and mussolini, invaded, raped and pillaged china and numerous other countries of the far east. so, what it comes down to paul, in a war with an aggressive, unsaintly power like imperial japan is: its either them or us. when you are in a fight, paul, you do what needs to be done to survive and come out on top and minimize the loss of life to those who are fighting with you.
as for the other examples you cite, i agree vietnam was a mistake. yes, the cia has been deplorable with many of its interventions/assasinationsin the past. but as for invading afghanistan after 9/11, come on paul, do you really think bin laden had nothing to do with that terrorist attack? are you in agreement with the loony belief prevalent in the middle east and some quarters of france that the whole thing in new york was a cia/israeli plot to incite a war in the middle east? if so, you and them are complete nut cases, who can not see, reality. do you think the mullahs of afghanistan, who treated women like slave dogs not allowed to let their faces see the light of day, do you think that govt. was not an ally of osama and his terrorist camps/network and was not/would not protecting him? as for the recent adventure in iraq, i too agree that bush rushed to war -- he should have first built a global consensus for any military action through the united nations..but hussein was a bloody dictator and i shed no tears for him.
but more than the specific disagreements we have about past history -- do you think there is a moral equivalence between, say, the us responding to japanese aggression and attacks on its home country, or the us invading iraq to liberate them for a dictatorship and eliminate their threat of developing wmd, and that of the osama terrorists who blow up innocent people in subways stations, airplanes and skyscrapers just to make some vague point that the west is evil and should stay out of islamic land so they can create a mullah-fascist world in which only their extreme islamism is allowed? much like pearl harbor, the us also did not start this idiotic fight. these people represent a hate-inspired fascism that kills, enslaves and rapes its own citizens and others and many, many muslims also want to rid themselves of it. i have to laugh at the hypocrisy of people like you who would denounce their way of thinking in the uinted states and bolivia but fervently defend it when the us and others fight it to defend themselves and at the same time rid the world of an ideology just as creepy and evil as that of hitler and his aryan superiority fantasies. do you think there is a moral equivelance between the us seeking to make peace between israel and palestineans and reduce the chance of a nuclear detonation on millions of innocent people and that of iran's president and iran's mullahs who want to eliminate israel from the map and who daily spread ignorant lies about jews in their media and speeches so that the arab world today is filled with prejudice toward jews founded in lies. should we trust them, clearly sympathetic to the islamo fascist terrorists, with the nuclear bomb? is it even a good idea to build a nuclear power plant in a country that a) has more than enough energy already to meet its needs, its one of the world's most oil rich nations, and b) is the site of frequent, devastating earthquakes which will turn a "peaceful" nuclear power plant into a massive radiocative bomb killing and making gravely ill millions of its own people just so they can stand up to the great satan and scare those so-called evil jews?
come on, paul. stop applying double standards -- stop defending extreme islamic fascists who have nothing to offer the world but hate, violence and pain.
Wow, Paul, is that really you?!? I usually find myself agreeing with your posts. Do you really want an answer to all of those questions? Any one could be turned into a month long debate. Realizing that I’ve got no chance at swaying an opinion obviously held so strongly as yours, I’ve still got to comment on this. My basic premise – none of what you address convinces me we should have acted any differently in regards to the murderous Afghanistan regime or to Bin Laden; not for revenge, but for prevention’s sake. While I don’t defend the entry into Iraq at the particular time we entered, I believe it was inevitably required at some point, perhaps much, much earlier.
Some background, I’ve got 22 years military experience… take it for what it’s worth. I’ve studied the conflicts you address in detail and participated in desert Shield / Storm. Concerning WWII, to point out the obvious, the Japanese attacked us. The island hopping campaign to defeat the Japanese was long and bloody with Japanese soldiers demonstrating a willingness to fight to the last man on territory a long way from home. The assault on the Japanese homeland would have cost possibly hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides. The Japanese were warned that we would drop a bomb capable of destroying a city and were called on to surrender. They were called on again before the second bomb fell and no response was received. A third bomb was neither available nor necessary. Since then, since the long term results of this weapon have become known, it has not been used again. There was no easy end to the Pacific campaign, but if the U.S. did not drop the bomb(s), you would be complaining about our even bloodier end to the Pacific campaign.
Not many defend U.S. policy in Vietnam and it would take too long to debate it here, but yes, I do believe in the Domino theory (Cuba – Venezuela – Bolivia – Peru?). Concerning your list of alleged assassination attempts… please back it up with more than rumor.
On to current events... So Afghanistan said there was no evidence in their possession linking Bin Laden to the September 11 attacks. I think they may have been trying to fool us. The Taliban offered to try him in an Islamic court. And we didn’t jump on that opportunity?!?! The Taliban then offered to turn him over if they were given evidence. Paul, you have got to be kidding!!! Go ahead and say we should have stayed out of Iraq, but come on! Bin Laden masterminded these murderous attacks and was aided by the Taliban and the then terrorist state of Afghanistan. I’m sorry, but it really is not advisable to do that to the US. Bin Laden, the Taliban, Afghanistan placed themselves in the position they found themselves in.
Now, as I said, I served in Desert Shield / Storm. I saw what Saddam did to the Kuwaitis and to their land. I saw the bodies left rotting; I saw the sky blackened by oil fires. I saw the vindictive and irrational destruction and I saw the Kuwaitis come out of hiding, starved and begging for food. While I disagree with the timing of the second Gulf War, while I might accept some claims about US culpability in supporting Hussein during the Iran – Iraq wars, I don’t accept any defense of Saddam. As far as the UN, Iraq was in long standing violation of a number of UN sanctions put in place to halt the 2001 war. These sanctions specifically authorized the use of force in the event of non-compliance. That the previous administration took such a soft stance on Iraq was regrettable. That the US withdrew support earlier to those who voiced opposition to Saddam is indefensible. That we went in when Saddam was giving every indication of cooperating was poor judgment. That we based our arguments on WMD and then gave him months to get rid of any evidence was foolhardy. That the prisoners were abused was immoral and stupid. But that Saddam was removed from power… no apologies there.
wow, is right.
so the pro-gas company axis is really an odd alliance between a corporate lawyer in miami worried about his clients, an al queda apologist, and a member of the united states army in bolivia to, no doubt, "protect american [fortune 500] interests"?!?
What about Pachamama?
Answer is C. Aside from the religious lessons, has anyone stopped to think about the implications of the letter? The letter trespasses religion and moves into symbolism. Every educated citizen of the world knows about the human rights infringements carried on by Ahmadi-Najad, everybody knows about the abuses on women rights, and the poor state of their jails. Ahmadi-Najad is aware of this, however this is much more than a hypocritical letter telling off another bad leader.
The image that the Iranian leader is no different to the representative of liberal values, freedom, free markets, economic progress is extremely powerful. Ahmadi-Najad clearly depicts a leader that is unwilling to progress, and much rather move back in time and stagnate in a sort of medieval time(at least in terms of political and social values) and he portrays Bush in the exact same way. He diffused the line that separated him and Bush, by narrating several half truths that by many are conceived as ultimate truths. He subtly sends out the message that he is no different to Bush, who controls a nation with fear and constantly embraces powerful religious symbolism and whose policies are full of contradictions. I do not know if this was done purposely, but I am sure Ahmadi-Najad knows who he is, and how he is seen among the democracies of the world.
As you can see, symbolism is extremely powerful and doesn’t necessarily need to be religious, in fact it is probably most influential if it leaves religion aside, for its spectrum of influence becomes wider. Perfect example is Morales, who is now controlling this country on the basis of powerful national symbolisms: presidential act in Tiwanacu, Dia del Mar, and 1ro de Mayo, which culminated with the image of the army “gaining back and protecting our natural resources” (now the people must love the army, not feel it should be dismantle), Hydrocarbons were a paternalistic GIFT given to the people of Bolivia by the EXECUTIVE government. Genius. Has the legislative branch become completely redundant and useless even though he controls the majority of both houses?
His genius, allows the complete manipulation of a country that has become overwhelmed by his power and the images portrayed to them daily, that their minds slowly veer towards his goals. His constant governmental campaigns invade the media with half truths, which have dangerously distorted the truths and values by which a nation should be founded. For example, the half truth that the press lies and that the state control media will be the only one telling the truth. It seems to be an absolute truth, which he juxtaposes with the idea that only those who are defending him and portraying his ideas are telling the truth. The clever use of the inflicted guilt upon everyone who did not publicly fought the discrimination that was ingrained in this country for so long. (Forget about all those low profile people indigenous or not indigenous who have silently helped improved the lives of many Bolivians). The speech has turned completely ethnic, mainly representing the Aymara population. What about all the other cultures that makeup Bolivia’s diverse demography. Moreover, he forgets that there are many middle class and poor non-indigenous Bolivians that have suffered from many kinds of discriminations. Why hasn't he embraced the speech that we are all human beings and equal?? Why is he building a country upon ethnic differentiaton?
First, a minor detail: I am Dan Moriarty. I posted the longer "Dan" post above, but not the shorter one (although I do appreciate the line about one non-Christian calling out another non-Christian!).
Next: I don't see Paul V's comments above constituting Al Qaeda apologetics. Everyone will have their own way of telling the story of the use of mass violence by the US and its adversaries over the last 70 years, but I think Paul V's version of events looks fairly accurate. That is not the same as saying he highlights and omits the same accuracies that others might highlight and omit. In many ways, to write is to edit, and to edit is to editorialize. I suppose anyone who is offended by the implications of Paul V's comments may augment his timeline with whatever other elements of this history they feel lends sympathy to his or her take on things. In fact, though, it appears to me that he is calling into question the extent to which the U.S. gave peace a chance in Afghanistan. That's a far cry from being an Al Qaeda apologist.
One thing I think some people tend to confuse is the notion of rationality/sanity with that of goodness. When I speak of negotiation, I am not implying that we can all be pals. Our options are not limited to hugs and kisses on the one hand, and warfare on the other. Sooner or later, warfare itself usually amounts to a way of strengthening one's hand in negotiating with the enemy (in addition to excercising a form of self-defense). Wars are often ended through negotiation. To say that we can negotiate with Iran or Al Qaeda or the Iraq insurgency is not to make a judgement on their goodness. Negotiation presumes conflict - even between core values and claims. We do not have to change our moral appraisal of Osama, Saddam, or Ahmadi-Najad in order to see them as potential parties to a nonviolent conflict at the negotiating table. I do not think Ahmadi-Najad's ultimate purpose is to preach peace or teach us about Jeus, but I do think his purposes are discernable and constitute claims that could be included in a dialogue.
I mentioned some of this stuff (re: Qaeda and Iraq) last fall here: http://danmoriarty.blogspot.com/2005/09/you-can-call-me-al.html
It is ironic to me that just-warriors and hawks so often accuse those of us with more pacifistic tendencies of being naive. If I believed that peace in Northern Ireland, for example, depended upon the blossoming of a friendship between Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley, I would either despair completely, or support a return to violence on the part of the IRA. And can I assume that those who wish to paint all of these Middle-Eastern nemeses as unreasonable kooks then also believe that the U.S. currently assesses Kim Jong Il to be considerably MORE reasonable? After all, I don't think Bush or any of us would so easily dismiss an 8-page letter from him.
To offer three more examples of not-naive people facing the likes of Hitler and Islamist terrorists, I refer people to the cases of the the Danes in WWII (neither Chamberlain or Churchill -- see: http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/); Dom Christian of Tibhirine, Algeria (see: http://www.holyname.org.nz/cdc.html); and Tom Fox, recently killed in Iraq, who - contrary to much critical commentary in the media - knew exactly what he was getting into when he joined the Iraq Peace Team (see: http://danmoriarty.blogspot.com/2006/03/tom-fox-martyr-and-hero-you-may-have.html).
Ultimately, too, conflict transformation (which is a more accurate description of what is needed than is "conflict resolution") often must include negotiation between elites, but must also include a more vertically integrated process of reconciliation. I don't ever expect to respect bin Laden or Ahmadi-Najad, but I think they are both more consistent, predictable, and rational than they are given credit for, and that treating their claims more seriously might be a key step toward establishing a more critical process of reconciliation with their constituencies.
And back to Jesus. Jesus addressed the state through the individual and the community. Walter Wink and John Howard Yoder are two excellent sources on this. One example popularly employed by Wink: As part of a policy meant to avoid unnecessary provocation of revolutionary sentiment among the conquered, the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus allowed Roman soldiers to press subjects into service, carrying the soldier's gear, for up to a mile, but forbade forcing service beyond a mile. "Go the extra mile," then, was Jesus' call. We often interpret this as a call to simple submission or even good-natured servile hustle. But what it was was a way of unveiling and challenging, nonviolently, the abuse of the state. Do not refuse to comply with this unfair demand, but rather, insist on going an extra mile, thereby exposing the oppressive nature of the demand and exposing the soldier to punishment by the hand of his own authorities. There are other examples.
We do not know to what extent the first Christians were pacifists in their interpersonal relationships. But it was certainly clear to the early Christian communities that non-participation in military violence was part of Jesus' mandate. For over three centuries, Christians were conscientious objectors, even as they endured the most barbaric (state-sponsored) terrorism. It was only when Constantine converted, put crosses on his soldiers' shields, and theologians who assumed a God-guided role for the Church in the world began formulating ways of justifying what they assumed must be God's will - namely Christendom as protected by armies - that we see the introduction of the idea of Just War.
And even Just War as developed in the Christian tradition dictates strict limits not only on the causes for which war can be fought (jus ad bellum), but also on the ways in which it may be waged (jus in bello). There are many ways to rationalize the use of firebombing and atomic bombs in WWII, but they were not acceptable according to Just War theory. In fact, Just War theory, properly understood, should not really be used to label a given war "just" or "unjust" (WWII would not qualify, then, as just), but rather to guide conduct all along the way, before and during a war. I do not believe, given the nature of modern war, that any war - particularly fought by nuclear powers - can ever anymore meet the criteria of Just War.
Finally, to the extent that we (here) are engaging in dialogue between Christians and non-Christians, I believe that is significant. I believe that a Christian pacifist's reason for not engaging in war is not strictly logical in the common secular sense. The cross, to a large extent, turns the logic of power and even self-defense on its head. Some (perhaps Javier F.) would argue that this is the problem with religion - that it is "faith not reason." I submit that they misunderstand both, but that's for another blog. I just feel it is worth acknowledging that, while I believe their are strong practical arguments against war and for nonviolence, my position as a Christian is not ultimately guided by what is most "effective." The monks of Tibhirine are a good example.
Phew. Another long post, I know.
Paul V., either a libertarian or a real old school paleo-conservative.
As to Dan, you can not with absolute certainty claim that early Christians were conscientious objectors. There was not one "church" the first 100 years of the religion. Early Christians in the Holy Land, and among other Jewish communties were mostly a Jewish sect. It is very likely that some of them fought the Romans and fled Jerusalem after the burning of the temple. And then you have gentiles who converted, whose doctrines were later seen as heretical. They could have served in their militaries as well.
--------------
Paul V.
WWII --FDR - after Truman, and Churchill, were forced to make some horrible decisions, involving loss of life. They needed those Soviet divisions and Stalin, both to defeat Hitler, and then to have the USSR enter the war against Japan.
The Western allies launched what was an innefectual campaign in Italy, sold out Polish nationalists, and gave the Soviets the right to take Berlin, just to keep Stalin in the fold. All three events cost hundred of thousands - possibly millions of lives. And there were more examples of that.
Churchill allowed Coventry to be destroyed, in order to not compromise the breaking of the codes.
If the allies, had to make decisions costing their own countrymen to defeat the axis. And they also did things, which cost civilians in Axis countries an enormous toll.
But there was reasons to do the actions involved.
At the very least the bombing campaign over Germany destroyed a good part of her trasnportation capabilities, and she was not able to effectively supply her troops in the field. It also kept the Luftwaffe occupied in a defensive mode, and they were not able to do much in both the western and eastern fronts.
As far as the atomic bomb. The closer the allies got to the home islands, the more vicious the resistance. Iwo Jima and Okinawa were two of the bloodiest battles in all the war, Japanese soldiers fought to the death. And you also had the Kamikazes -- who were effective as a weapon, and affected allied morale to the point where news of them was censored at the time. The allies also saw Japanese civilians involved in the fighting, and committing suicide instead of giving themselves up.
The Japanese in the islands, were preparing a home militia, had a numerous island, still had weapons of war, and were preparing their beaches for an invasion.
Based on that information, the allies could reasonably estimate that the Japanese would fight ferociously in the case of an invasion, and that the human cost to the allies alone, could be potentially hundreds of thousands of soldiers killed. The battle for Berlin alone had caused hundreds of thousands of dead, and who knows what the price would be for all parties in volved in a frontal assault on the Japanese islands.
Civilian deaths alone would be staggering.
Consider this.
From Wikipedia...
On August 8 [1945], two days after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the Soviet Union, having renounced its nonaggression pact with Japan, attacked the Japanese in Manchuria, fulfilling its Yalta pledge to attack the Japanese within three months after the end of the war in Europe. The attack was made by three Soviet army groups. In less than two weeks the Japanese army in Manchuria consisting of over a million men had been destroyed by the Soviets. The Red Army moved into North Korea on August 18. Korea was subsequently divided at the 38th parallel into Soviet and U.S. zones.
On June 22 [1945], Hirohito broke tradition once again to speak to his ministers, saying "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts be made to implement them." The attempt to negotiate a peace via the Soviet Union came to nothing: the Allies were determined not to settle for anything short of unconditional surrender, and as late as July 1945 the Japanese government was not prepared to consider that option: they insisted on at least one condition, a guarantee of the emperor's continuing position in Japanese society.
Oh my God, let Hirohito remain Emperor of Japan? Oh, the inhumanity!
On August 15, 1945, following the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the entry of the Soviet Union into the war against Japan, Hirohito, after more hesitation, abandoned the condition of preserving his own position and finally made the radio broadcast announcing the unconditional surrender of Japan's military forces (known as Gyokuon-hōsō). The broadcast exhorted the Japanese to "accept the unacceptable" in surrender; It was the first time the public had ever heard the Emperor's voice. He was purposely vague, as the Emperor of Japan cannot be seen as a human saying "We surrender to the Americans"; He had to be seen as the godly leader of Japan so when he said "accept the unacceptable" most people sitting by the radio didn't know what he meant.
Japan was toast, and they knew it. Japan would have surrendered without firebombing Tokyo or dropping atomic bombs on Nagasaki. Why not invite the Japanese to some innocent test on an uninhabited island? Or at least some less populated place closer to Toyko. Why needlessly kill 100,000 civilians? Only 400,000 Americans were killed in the entire war, the Soviets killed 1,000,000 Japanese in two weeks. But at least they were soldiers. I'm not convinced that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been necessary to end the war, whether Japanese civilians were slaughtered or not. Perhaps the Japanese had it coming to them, since apparently they killed 17,530,000 civilians in China during the Second Sino-Japanese War. Perhaps it was difficult for the Japanese to distinguish between a Chinese soldier and a Chinese civilian, and the Chinese were fighting amongst themselves at the time as well.
Because of the sheer number of deaths caused by the Japanese military during the 1930s and 1940s, the killings are often compared to the contemporaneous suffering imposed by Nazi Germany during 1933–45. The historian Chalmers Johnson has written that:
It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians [i.e. Soviet citizens]; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers — and, in the case of the Japanese, as [forced] prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4 % chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30 %.
R. J. Rummel, a political scientist at the University of Hawaii, states that between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military "murdered between three million and 10 million people."
In China alone, during 1937–45, there are said to have been 8.4 million "non-military casualties", not including civilians killed accidentally during battle. (See Chinese Casualties in the Sino-Japanese War.) The most infamous incident during this period was the Nanjing Massacre of 1937-38, when, according to the findings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the Japanese Army massacred more than 100,000 civilians.
In short, the Japanese may have had it coming to them. But I find it difficult to understand the US penchant for leading the charge.
"I'm not convinced that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been necessary to end the war..."
That's the thing about war... nothing is certain. It’s all vague. Incredibly violent action is necessary. The President probably wasn't certain either, but he had to weigh the potential consequences of making the wrong choice. They considered a test drop, but he had only two weapons with various unknowns. A test drop might have worked... but might not have. In spite of what you’ve seen in the movies, I’ve never met a warrior that lusts for battle. But once in the battle, he wants to end it as quickly and decisively as possible putting his own men at minimum risk. It would have been criminally irresponsible for the President to chance having to invade the mainland.
There are good reasons to avoid starting a war. Once started, they escalate and they are by nature brutal. (BTW, how do you go about inviting your hated enemy to a test drop?)
Japan was toast, and they knew it. Japan would have surrendered without firebombing Tokyo or dropping atomic bombs on Nagasaki. Why not invite the Japanese to some innocent test on an uninhabited island? Or at least some less populated place closer to Toyko. Why needlessly kill 100,000 civilians? Only 400,000 Americans were killed in the entire war, the Soviets killed 1,000,000 Japanese in two weeks. But at least they were soldiers. I'm not convinced that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been necessary to end the war, whether Japanese civilians were slaughtered or not.
How do you define toast???
The numbers you cited, about the Japanese slaughter indicate why it was necessary to demand unconditional surrender of Japan.
From the perspective of both FDR and Truman the decision to invade the islands made sense, because the Japanese were not going to surrender that easily.
That Hirohito quote, is followed by the item about his voice being heard for the first time by the Japanese when he called for surrender. How was the US supposed to know what the Emperor happened to say in July in a a closed cabinet meeting???
The US had experience with this before, b4 Pearl Harbor, FDR held off serious sanctions while negotiating in hopes that more moderate elements in the Japanese gov't would be strengethened and would cut an acceptable deal. Instead the faction around the Army hardliners, took full control, continued their pillage of China, entered Indochina, and strenthened the Axis allaince, as well as negotiating the pact w/Stalin - then did Pearl Harbor.
During the war, the hardliners logically kept the upper hand. Logical, it was in war.
Getting Stalin to agree to war against Japan, was essential in getting Roosevelt to agree with Churchill on a defeat Germany-first policy. And while they may or not be involved in the invasion of the home islands, they were going to fight the millions of Japanese troops in Asia.
But that alone, even with submarine warfare and bombing, was not going to
cause the collapse of Japan. Did not cause the surrender of England.
When it comes down to it, you need to put boots in the ground.
Our impression, based on years of jungle-hopping campaigns was that soldiers and civilians were going to fight to the death.
What should they have done, continued submarine warfare, bombing and starve them into submission???? Millions of civilians could have died. Slaughter in the mainland would have continued.
Launching something with the awesome power of the a-bomb was horrible, but it might have saved millions of lifes. Leaders must make horrible decisions like that.
Leave it to the pacifist to bring this up, but I think at the time, the decision to use the bomb had as much to do with intelligence which was telling the US (accurately, not like in Iraq) that Germany, Russia, and Japan were rapidly approaching having their own atomic bombs. It was similar knowledge years earlier in the process that lead Einstein to write his famous letter to FDR.
This doesn't lead directly to any conclusions about the current situation with Iran, but it is interesting to look at the role deterence and the arms race played in nuclear international relations right from the start, and then consider the current, post-Cold War dynamics at play with the "Axis of Evil."
I won't argue that dropping the bombs probably did, in the end, save lives.
From Wikipedia...
Historian Victor Davis Hanson points to the increased Japanese resistance, futile though it was in retrospect, as it became more and more obvious that the result of the war could not be overturned by the Axis powers. The Battle of Okinawa showed this determination to fight on at all costs. More than 120,000 Japanese and 18,000 American troops were killed in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific theater, just 8 weeks before Japan's final surrender. In fact, more civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa than did in the initial blast of the atomic bombings.
In the summer of 1945, U.S. military planners projected 20,000–110,000 combat deaths from the initial November 1945 invasion [of Kyushu], with about three to four times that number wounded. (Total U.S. combat deaths on all fronts in World War II in nearly four years of war were 292,000.) However, these estimates were done using intelligence that grossly underestimated Japanese strength being gathered for the battle of Kyushu in numbers of soldiers and kamikazes.
However, our own commanders later claimed the atomic bombs were unnecessary.
Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
Some have claimed that the Japanese were already essentially defeated, and therefore use of the bombs was unnecessary. General Dwight D. Eisenhower so advised the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, in July of 1945. The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that he felt that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials); Major General Curtis LeMay; and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.
This doesn't mean Gen. LeMay was against using atomic bombs.
Precise figures are not available but the firebombing and nuclear bombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March 1945 and the Japanese surrender in August 1945, may have killed more than one million Japanese civilians. Official estimates from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey put the figures at 330,000 people killed, 476,000 injured, 8.5 million people made homeless and 2.5 million buildings destroyed. Nearly half the built-up areas of sixty-four cities were totally destroyed.
"There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn't bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders." The New York Times reported at the time, "Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, commander of the B-29's of the entire Marianas area, declared that if the war is shortened by a single day the attack will have served its purpose."
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
Others contend that Japan had been trying to surrender for at least two months, but the U.S. refused by insisting on an unconditional surrender. In fact, while several diplomats favored surrender, the leaders of the Japanese military were committed to fighting a "decisive battle" on Kyushu, hoping that they could negotiate better terms for an armistice afterward—all of which the Americans knew from reading decrypted Japanese communications.
There is also some question as to how much Truman knew about the initial bombing. In his diary, he states that he told Sec. of War Stimson "to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target, not men, women, and children", and that they were in accord that "the target will be a purely military one". Immediately after the bombing, Truman gave a speech stating, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians," seemingly not realizing that Hiroshima was a major city.
Regardless...
The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective due to the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was chosen due to its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction due to its being surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect".
The above seems to be confounded by the military-only issue, because Kokura was the primary target for the H-bomb, not Nagasaki.
Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson struck Kyoto from the list because of its cultural significance, over the objections of Gen. Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project. According to Professor Edwin O. Reischauer, Stimson "had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier."
--------
Another criticism is that the U.S. should have waited a short time to gauge the effect of the Soviet Union's entry into the war. The U.S. knew, as Japan did not, that the Soviet Union had agreed to declare war on Japan three months after V-E Day; such an attack was indeed launched on August 8, 1945.
As it happened, Japan's decision to surrender was made before the scale of the Soviet attack on Manchuria, Sakhalin Island, and the Kuril Islands was known, but had the war continued, the Soviets would have been able to invade Hokkaido well before the Allied invasion of Kyushu.
Jim, when I first read your little news quiz I thought it was kind of a knock-off post, not much meat to it, but it got people going, maybe even more than the bicycle thing.
I too, thought Dan's comment from the middle of the week was magnificent. I wish I could have commented on it in a more timely manner, but I only get to blog on Sundays. Many of the comments were very good. I even found myself admiring a comment from B.Nica. Also, I strongly agree with Paul V. and very much so with Dan's elaboration on those statements.
To the other side, mostly on the other side, I must come out against the use or misuse of emotionally charged language. To call someone a killer, or a murderer, or a monster only shuts down thinking, only darkens a conversation, rather than aiding the search for your own, and others' perspectives.
Archlord Gold
cheap Archlord Gold
buy Archlord Gold
cheap wow power leveling
cheap Warcraft power leveling
World of warcraft Power Level
World of warcraft PowerLevel
World of warcraft Power Leveling
World of warcraft PowerLeveling
Warcraft Power Level
Warcraft PowerLevel
Warcraft Power Leveling
Warcraft PowerLeveling
wow power level
wow powerlevel
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
runescape power leveling
rs2 power leveling
runescape powerleveling
runescape power level
runescape money
runescape gold
buy runescape gold
buy runescape money
runescape items
runescape accounts
buy runescape accounts
buy runescape items
cheap runescape money
cheap runescape gold
runescape gp
dofus kamas
buy dofus kamas
Guild Wars Gold
buy Guild Wars Gold
GW Gold
rs2 money
rs2 gold
rs2 items
rs2 accounts
buy runescape money
buy rs2 money
buy rs2 gold
runescape Guide
rs2 Guide
rs2 accounts
buy rs2 accounts
runescape accounts
buy runescape accounts
陈楚生
http://www.vgoldseller.com
http://www.vgoldsupply.com
http://www.runescape4money.net
http://www.buylotrogold.org
www.runescapemoney-runescapegold.cn
www.runescape2vip.cn
www.runescape2store.com
www.rs2-accounts.com
www.buydofuskamas.com