Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Hotplant

Random Thoughts v.3

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, kipper said:

doesnt syria threaten Isreal too?  If Iran is backing Syria then that has to be true.

And correct me if I am wrong but in WW2 Germany wasnt threatening the USA. Were we supposed to be the world police then too?

I think you are just changing your arguement always to fit each situation. At least in WW2 we didnt know the Germans were killing innocent people with gas. Now if we know Syria is then shouldt we help those people?

WTF??? Stop, please just stop. There is no way you are this stupid, I refuse to believe you are truly that stupid. I will no longer play your childish games. Goodbye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, paplbojo said:

There is a school of thought that says the Japanese would have surrendered before November, before the full scale invasion would have started. That is theory, and while entirely possible, unknowable. A quick search led me to several websites that all concluded: They approached the Soviet Union to begin figuring the most favorable way to surrender, but publicly they restated intentions to fight until the end, rejecting calls for surrender. So they had most certainly not surrendered. Learn your history!

I wonder, IpMan, has America ever done anything right? Ever?

Also, I absolutely would have a problem if the USA dropped nukes on Japan after Japan surrendered, wtf kind of assumption is that to make? If Truman were told that the Japanese just surrendered, and he said, ah fuck it let's do it anyways, I would find that, obviously, abhorrent. Based (among other things) on the above quote from his diary, I cannot fathom that would ever be the case. 

And, I do not believe the USA should be the world's police force. I have been staunchly against us being the world's police force for a long time now. You continue to make wrong assumptions about me. 

I hold a masters in history, it is you who obviously know little, or enough to think you know something which is even worse.

Japan surrendered to the US three times prior to the dropping of the atomics in August 1945. The last time was in July 1945 and the only condition was that they keep their Emperor. The US refused as we DEMANDED and UNCONDITIONAL surrender...Japan refused to allow their Emperor to be humiliated and demanded the terms stay as is. The US then dropped the two devices. Japan again offered the EXACT SAME TERMS as they did in July and REFUSED unconditional surrender. It was at that point that Truman accepted the exact same terms Japan had offered in July.

This is historical fact, look it up. We dropped the bombs for two reasons; one, to show the Soviets at the Potsdam Conference we had nukes thinking it would give us a more favorable position in the carving up of Eastern Europe...it did not, Stalin did not care, and Truman was an unprepared idiot. Two, simple revenge.

To answer your silly question, yes, America has done quite a bit of good, but also a fair share of bad which makes us human, not exceptional, just human...warts and all. Deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, IpMan said:

Japan surrendered to the US three times prior to the dropping of the atomics in August 1945. The last time was in July 1945 and the only condition was that they keep their Emperor. The US refused as we DEMANDED and UNCONDITIONAL surrender...Japan refused to allow their Emperor to be humiliated and demanded the terms stay as is. The US then dropped the two devices. Japan again offered the EXACT SAME TERMS as they did in July and REFUSED unconditional surrender. It was at that point that Truman accepted the exact same terms Japan had offered in July.

That is not strictly correct per the Potsdam Declaration: http://teikoku-denmo.jp/en/history/mujoken.html

However, I understand/acknowledge what you are saying about negotiations behind the scenes to spare the Emperor. Many Americans strongly believed the Emperor should be tried for war crimes and hung if found guilty, but he was never tried and his life was spared. 

By the way, citing you hold a masters in history is a logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

That is not strictly correct per the Potsdam Declaration: http://teikoku-denmo.jp/en/history/mujoken.html

However, I understand/acknowledge what you are saying about negotiations behind the scenes to spare the Emperor. Many Americans strongly believed the Emperor should be tried for war crimes and hung if found guilty, but he was never tried and his life was spared. 

By the way, citing you hold a masters in history is a logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority".

I only mentioned the degree because someone claimed I did not know history, after they themselves made erroneous assumptions regarding historical events. But you are right Steve, I should not have mentioned it (see below as I too am an example). Also, the Potsdam Declaration was rather obtuse to English speakers much less the Japanese. The Declaration clearly stated unconditional surrender of all armed forces and the prosecution of all responsible for the war. Any reasonable person would interpret that to mean they wanted the Emperor's head on a platter and that is exactly what Truman and his cabinet wanted as well. The declaration was very clear in that intent. Japan only surrendered after written guarantee was given by the Allied Powers that the Emperor would remain and not be prosecuted or held in any manner whatsoever and would remain as head of state.

Human pride is always the precursor to failure or disaster. The US should have accepted the condition to retain the Emperor from the get go. Several American generals and experts believed only the Emperor could facilitate any workable transition from surrender to reconstruction and the fact that the higher ups ignored this advice simply out of pride was a grave mistake. Of course the fact that after the surrender it was the Emperor who was instrumental in a successful American occupation just showed how wrong the higher ups were from the very beginning. 

Edited by IpMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IpMan said:

I only mentioned the degree because someone claimed I did not know history, after they themselves made erroneous assumptions regarding historical events.

That's fair, and you should take pride in having earned it. I think everyone involved in the discussion today has either learned something new, delved into the topic or reflected upon their own beliefs. Exchanges such as this are what makes this online forum more than merely entertaining. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, paplbojo said:

I wonder, Strider, do you think that the USA should involve itself in any humanitarian crises around the world? I ask honestly, and of course there is not really a right or wrong answer. As I noted just above I do not think we should be the world's police. That said, I have changed over time to be more willing to step in, when there is both a humanitarian crisis and it would be of some benefit for the USA to intervene. Never putting our soldiers in harms way, but perhaps airstrikes as was the case in Syria. Few and far between, but if, with relatively little risk, we can help to put an end to a government attacking its citizens via chemical warfare for instance, I feel like it is worth considering. Of course there are crises like this happening all over the world all the time.

In this case, it is not really a case of Syria only threatens Syria, as Syria is really a proxy for Russia and Iran. Israel and Saudi Arabia seem more than willing to take lead.

I think the first step to ending our reign as world police would be to fully pull out of the UN. We started down that path by recently pulling $300mm from them. Gotta love it.

My response to IpMan was for the first part of his post, not the Syria part.

I've already discussed at length my position on U.S. intervention and don't feel like rehashing it over and over. In short, there is no one-size fits all panacea. Each situation is different. Some I feel require our help. Others are best left for sovereign nations to figure out for themselves.

I do know that Syria is one of those countries that has been a mess since I can remember. Go back and look at the news in the 1970s. Syria was on the front page then, too. The more things change the more they stay the same in some places.

The barbaric tribalism in the Middle East will always be a stumbling block to peace in the region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truman made probably the single most difficult decision any President EVER has had to make. He was told the cost to the US of the war continuing against an enemy that had sworn to bitterly fight to the last. The cost in the lives of US Servicemen which is his first responsibility to consider. Drop the bombs, the war concludes much quicker but at a horrible humanitarian cost. Don't drop it, war goes on maybe a year or more, unknown horrors and possibly unforeseen developments arise and fuck everything up.

He, like now, like always, had a system of advisers and processes that ensured this decision was taken seriously with the best advice and intelligence that the US system of Government has to offer. Not perfect, but this is one of the better resilient democracies we have for the separation of powers and need to agree with many people the course of action when that course is so serious. Not one idiot making decisions, a cabinet, advisors, joint chiefs, intelligence, all at the table all trying to figure out what's best. Not all democrats think one thing so all Republicans automagically oppose it. Exactly what you need when it's the most serious of all decisions. Government working the way it was designed.

I won't second guess him. He did what he thought was BEST. People who think different need to be careful to explain why and respect that at the end of the day, HE was the man in the hot seat, not them. HE did not have hindsight. He bore that personal responsibility. History has HIS name next to that decision.

As for Assad, in a way, big deal he used chemical weapons to kill 1000 or so people - in the context of - he has killed how many hundred thousand with non-chemical ordinance? so we are talking 0.1% dies from chemical weapons, but the 99.9% he smashes with artillery, bombs, missiles, tanks etc. is fine???? Why is that? And if ANY use of chemical weapons is "crossing the line", when can I expect the Saud's and Israel to be struck? White phosphor HAS been used in combat and there WERE civilian casualties in Yemen and the Palestinian territories. So I look forward to those tomahawks. Oh that's right, we side with the Saudsi's for their oil. They treat women no different to cattle or property, they throw gays off roofs, but hey, a better friend in the ME you won't find, oh, except for Israel of course.

Its also a bit strange he had nothing to gain from that 1 barrel bomb and Mattis testified (last week?) to congress there is still no proof Assad used a chemical weapon. They (Assad forces) were closing out the city, rebels were fucked. why risk it? Why give the west a window to intervene? I am not saying it is fake, I don't know, but I don't think the US Administration knows either. In that respect Russia talking about how dangerous strikes are without proof should be considered. It may be soon Russia uses a similar bullshit scenario - which they manufacture, and leverage it in Ukraine, Georgia, elsewhere. "We are acting exactly as the US did".

Military actions resulting from events that may not be as reported - hmmmm aren't they also known as false flags?

The whole mess highlights the many hypocritical realities in this world. The geo-political shitshow that no one is outside of or above. We all created this shit (we = 19th, 20th and 21st century world powers and empires who were all self serving and barely had a concept of a "greater good")

And by no means do I mean to take the piss out of the US. I think the world does need the US at the top. I don't think enough people appreciate that enough, and IF it changes, oh, how people will remember better days so longingly.... And I fear it is changing. Liberty and personal individual freedom within a free market capitalist based society with controls where needed and a social net that gives everyone a chance to go further/be better is the best this species has done. It's not perfect, but give me that over more authoritarian systems ANY day.

But to be the beacon to the world, the US has to be better than it is. Not talking about Trump, its more than that, more the way it is fracturing and everything is devolving into tribal shit. There is no foundation of truth as a starting point in media. No central ground. No reasonable debate (well, not much). All out on the fringes. The two tribes. And who benefits from this "divide and conquer"? Maybe the wealth gap can explain that but I'm rambling too much....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IpMan said:

Japan surrendered to the US three times prior to the dropping of the atomics in August 1945. The last time was in July 1945 and the only condition was that they keep their Emperor. The US refused as we DEMANDED and UNCONDITIONAL surrender...Japan refused to allow their Emperor to be humiliated and demanded the terms stay as is. The US then dropped the two devices. Japan again offered the EXACT SAME TERMS as they did in July and REFUSED unconditional surrender. It was at that point that Truman accepted the exact same terms Japan had offered in July.

Wow, I did not know that. I still don't second guess Truman and Co. because I was not there at that time. I can see why there was initially a "no! - you surrender means you SURRENDER". And I understand the change of heart. He just wiped out hundreds of thousands of civilians, probably seemed a little bit less important to get the Emperor then. I cannot begin to imagine the job Truman had at that time. Imagine getting up to go to work, and THAT was what you were dealing with. jeeeeeeeeeeeez.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SteveAJones said:

That's fair, and you should take pride in having earned it. I think everyone involved in the discussion today has either learned something new, delved into the topic or reflected upon their own beliefs. Exchanges such as this are what makes this online forum more than merely entertaining. 

Good post Mr Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rm2551 said:

Truman made probably the single most difficult decision any President EVER has had to make. He was told the cost to the US of the war continuing against an enemy that had sworn to bitterly fight to the last. The cost in the lives of US Servicemen which is his first responsibility to consider. Drop the bombs, the war concludes much quicker but at a horrible humanitarian cost. Don't drop it, war goes on maybe a year or more, unknown horrors and possibly unforeseen developments arise and fuck everything up.

He, like now, like always, had a system of advisers and processes that ensured this decision was taken seriously with the best advice and intelligence that the US system of Government has to offer. Not perfect, but this is one of the better resilient democracies we have for the separation of powers and need to agree with many people the course of action when that course is so serious. Not one idiot making decisions, a cabinet, advisors, joint chiefs, intelligence, all at the table all trying to figure out what's best. Not all democrats think one thing so all Republicans automagically oppose it. Exactly what you need when it's the most serious of all decisions. Government working the way it was designed.

I won't second guess him. He did what he thought was BEST. People who think different need to be careful to explain why and respect that at the end of the day, HE was the man in the hot seat, not them. HE did not have hindsight. He bore that personal responsibility. History has HIS name next to that decision.

As for Assad, in a way, big deal he used chemical weapons to kill 1000 or so people - in the context of - he has killed how many hundred thousand with non-chemical ordinance? so we are talking 0.1% dies from chemical weapons, but the 99.9% he smashes with artillery, bombs, missiles, tanks etc. is fine???? Why is that? And if ANY use of chemical weapons is "crossing the line", when can I expect the Saud's and Israel to be struck? White phosphor HAS been used in combat and there WERE civilian casualties in Yemen and the Palestinian territories. So I look forward to those tomahawks. Oh that's right, we side with the Saudsi's for their oil. They treat women no different to cattle or property, they throw gays off roofs, but hey, a better friend in the ME you won't find, oh, except for Israel of course.

Its also a bit strange he had nothing to gain from that 1 barrel bomb and Mattis testified (last week?) to congress there is still no proof Assad used a chemical weapon. They (Assad forces) were closing out the city, rebels were fucked. why risk it? Why give the west a window to intervene? I am not saying it is fake, I don't know, but I don't think the US Administration knows either. In that respect Russia talking about how dangerous strikes are without proof should be considered. It may be soon Russia uses a similar bullshit scenario - which they manufacture, and leverage it in Ukraine, Georgia, elsewhere. "We are acting exactly as the US did".

Military actions resulting from events that may not be as reported - hmmmm aren't they also known as false flags?

The whole mess highlights the many hypocritical realities in this world. The geo-political shitshow that no one is outside of or above. We all created this shit (we = 19th, 20th and 21st century world powers and empires who were all self serving and barely had a concept of a "greater good")

And by no means do I mean to take the piss out of the US. I think the world does need the US at the top. I don't think enough people appreciate that enough, and IF it changes, oh, how people will remember better days so longingly.... And I fear it is changing. Liberty and personal individual freedom within a free market capitalist based society with controls where needed and a social net that gives everyone a chance to go further/be better is the best this species has done. It's not perfect, but give me that over more authoritarian systems ANY day.

But to be the beacon to the world, the US has to be better than it is. Not talking about Trump, its more than that, more the way it is fracturing and everything is devolving into tribal shit. There is no foundation of truth as a starting point in media. No central ground. No reasonable debate (well, not much). All out on the fringes. The two tribes. And who benefits from this "divide and conquer"? Maybe the wealth gap can explain that but I'm rambling too much....

Ramble on, son...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there ANYTHING this man can't play????  Sorry if it's been posted before.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, IpMan said:

The US should have accepted the condition to retain the Emperor from the get go. Several American generals and experts believed only the Emperor could facilitate any workable transition from surrender to reconstruction and the fact that the higher ups ignored this advice simply out of pride was a grave mistake. Of course the fact that after the surrender it was the Emperor who was instrumental in a successful American occupation just showed how wrong the higher ups were from the very beginning. 

Ipman,  What if Germany had said they would surrender only if Hitler was allowed to stay in power?  Do you think that would have been acceptable? Japan started the war and there were many people all over asia killed by Japan.  Japan risked total destruction in the name of their leader from the start, so why would at the end it be any different for Japan than it was for Germany? Think about that, the pride in Japan was larger a atomic bomb. I think history showed that they forced the outcome by their pride not the other way around.  If a cop has to shoot a criminal it isn't because the cop refused to understand the criminal it is because the criminal refused to understand the cop's demands. One side is right and the other is wrong. Japan attacked us and then refused to surrender the were wrong, we were not.  Right vs wrong, you have to pick a side.

Its like that in Syria right now. We dont need to care why the syrian king does what he does, we have a good reason to stop him from doing it.  I was watching the news and I really liked the way the English explained why they didnt need the United Nations to act in Syria. The British said there was enough evidence that a limited military strike was worth it to help save innocent lives. I think that is how to say it and even Trump could have just said it that way and that is the best explanation.

Ipman, you should listen to Steve Jones because he has this one right and he lives in Japan and he loves the Japanese people so I dont think would say what he said without considering what he said.  Ipman you dont know everything, you should listen a little more sometimes with all due respect.

Kip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What if Germany had said they would surrender only if Hitler was allowed to stay in power?  Do you think that would have been acceptable? 

Bad apples and bad oranges,....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...the atomic bombs killed roughly the same number of Japanese in each city as the Japanese killed in Nanking alone.  I don't lose sleep over the decision to drop 'em!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kipper said:

What if Germany had said they would surrender only if Hitler was allowed to stay in power?  Do you think that would have been acceptable? Japan started the war and there were many people all over asia killed by Japan.  Japan risked total destruction in the name of their leader from the start, so why would at the end it be any different for Japan than it was for Germany?

A fair question perhaps, but to me the answer is clearly no. If you are at all familiar with Adolf Hitler's rise to power, it was Hitler who sought to consolidate his power at every opportunity, going so far as to seize absolute power after Hindenburg died by declaring himself jointly president, chancellor and head of the army.  

Emperor Hirohito, though powerful and indeed considered divine by the Japanese people, shared power, if you will, with military and political leaders. This diffusion of responsibility was sufficient to spare his life. It is important to note although Japan's postwar constitution preserved the monarchy it defined the emperor as a mere symbol of the state. All political power went to elected representatives. Hirohito is a very interesting historical figure. Many books both for and against have been written about him.  

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/1432802/Hirohito-wanted-to-admit-his-war-shame.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, IpMan said:

WTF??? Stop, please just stop. There is no way you are this stupid, I refuse to believe you are truly that stupid. I will no longer play your childish games. Goodbye.

I know, right...ain't he a riot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kipper said:

Ipman,  What if Germany had said they would surrender only if Hitler was allowed to stay in power?  Do you think that would have been acceptable? Japan started the war and there were many people all over asia killed by Japan.  Japan risked total destruction in the name of their leader from the start, so why would at the end it be any different for Japan than it was for Germany? Think about that, the pride in Japan was larger a atomic bomb. I think history showed that they forced the outcome by their pride not the other way around.  If a cop has to shoot a criminal it isn't because the cop refused to understand the criminal it is because the criminal refused to understand the cop's demands. One side is right and the other is wrong. Japan attacked us and then refused to surrender the were wrong, we were not.  Right vs wrong, you have to pick a side.

Its like that in Syria right now. We dont need to care why the syrian king does what he does, we have a good reason to stop him from doing it.  I was watching the news and I really liked the way the English explained why they didnt need the United Nations to act in Syria. The British said there was enough evidence that a limited military strike was worth it to help save innocent lives. I think that is how to say it and even Trump could have just said it that way and that is the best explanation.

Ipman, you should listen to Steve Jones because he has this one right and he lives in Japan and he loves the Japanese people so I dont think would say what he said without considering what he said.  Ipman you dont know everything, you should listen a little more sometimes with all due respect.

Kip

With all due respect, please stop replying to my posts. As I said, I am done with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thought: Not long ago Starbucks forced it's employees to write social justice messages on it's cups, then ceased to do so when enough customers complained about it. Now Starbucks finds itself the target of a boycott by the same people it pandered to with the social justice cups! I've got an idea for Starbucks, and that is support your employees who enforce YOUR policies on loitering (not fire them), get back to basics and stay the fuck out of social justice causes. Your a coffee shop, an overpriced one at that, not a workshop to explore & address social problems.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

A fair question perhaps, but to me the answer is clearly no. If you are at all familiar with Adolf Hitler's rise to power, it was Hitler who sought to consolidate his power at every opportunity, going so far as to seize absolute power after Hindenburg died by declaring himself jointly president, chancellor and head of the army.  

Emperor Hirohito, though powerful and indeed considered divine by the Japanese people, shared power, if you will, with military and political leaders. This diffusion of responsibility was sufficient to spare his life. It is important to note although Japan's postwar constitution preserved the monarchy it defined the emperor as a mere symbol of the state. All political power went to elected representatives. Hirohito is a very interesting historical figure. Many books both for and against have been written about him.  

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/1432802/Hirohito-wanted-to-admit-his-war-shame.html

I need to look more into the history because it is very interesting.  I was thinking that in the west we probably didn't understand the Japanese very well. On one hand I can see where they were probably watching how European nations were making colonies in China and other places and didn't want that to happen to them and feared what the US would do as we became more powerful. But the way their government worked it was a wrong way they were looking at the USA. It is too bad it took a war for the USA and Japan to become good friends because they really are a remarkable people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IpMan said:

With all due respect, please stop replying to my posts. As I said, I am done with you.

Ipman, you need to take a deep breath. Why do you get so frustrated if I dont agree with everything you say? I agree with many things you post and think you are a smart person that many of us learn from. I just dont think you have all the anwers to everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kipper said:

Ipman, you need to take a deep breath. Why do you get so frustrated if I dont agree with everything you say? I agree with many things you post and think you are a smart person that many of us learn from. I just dont think you have all the anwers to everything.

Because your head is shaped like a knob ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kipper said:

 I was thinking that in the west we probably didn't understand the Japanese very well. On one hand I can see where they were probably watching how European nations were making colonies in China and other places and didn't want that to happen to them and feared what the US would do as we became more powerful. But the way their government worked it was a wrong way they were looking at the USA. It is too bad it took a war for the USA and Japan to become good friends because they really are a remarkable people.

The United States didn't understand Japanese Americans, let alone the Japanese.

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/japanese-american-relocation

They wanted to dominate the Pacific region. They figured if they kicked our ass at Pearl Harbor we'd cry Uncle, tuck tail and run. Big mistake!

 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SteveAJones said:

The United States didn't understand Japanese Americans, let alone the Japanese.

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/japanese-american-relocation

They wanted to dominate the Pacific region. They figured if they kicked our ass at Pearl Harbor we'd cry Uncle, tuck tail and run. Big mistake!

 

  

 

On July 4th, 2013  one of the last survivors of the raid Edward Saylor was in a parade here in town and a B-25 flew over. Wasn't expecting that, but I had my little recorder on me and here I got the plane making two passes.

https://freesound.org/people/tubbers/sounds/221899/

Edited by redrum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

The United States didn't understand Japanese Americans, let alone the Japanese.

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/japanese-american-relocation

They wanted to dominate the Pacific region. They figured if they kicked our ass at Pearl Harbor we'd cry Uncle, tuck tail and run. Big mistake!

 

  

 

Those are great videos Steve. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@rm2551Awesome post! 

 

On a separate note...

A nice "Random Thought" is that as the rich are getting richer, we should take some comfort in knowing the poor are getting richer!

IMG_20180417_015510.jpg.f2fb79d7ed2dc5dfb2d5e1409c71c9b7.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×