A Statement regarding 9.11.01

[Gintaras]

Originally posted by Techno Student Nice talking to ya Gintaras, I have to go to work now.

Most don't think it's nice to talk to me.
I have no problems with.
I'm not a majority, at least not the way majority thinks. I've seen bad and good, I had bad and good friends, I listen to everybody, but make my own decisions- no matter how bad[who doesn't] or good they are.

I was pretty good in school(~30 years ago), incl. history class.

That's all.

[clydefo]

”Where can I read this for myself ?” Web Gecko

Atomic Diplomacy and other writings by Gar Alperovitz lay out the theory so I’m told. He is one of more well-known revisionists, I believe. I confess that I haven’t read much about the subject. bob may be correct in calling it bunk. I don’t know where I stand yet. The revisionist theory seems to me to be a better fit with the geo-political and military realities of the time.
The Soviets had declared war on Japan in August 1945 and had started seizing Japanese islands. They were perceived as a grave post-war threat to the US. The Japanese were viewed by many as being “sub-human” and deserving of retribution. They were out of rice. MacArthur had already adopted the winning strategy of simply bypassing non-strategic islands full of Japanese soldiers and letting them starve. A siege clearly would have been the best tactic. The US Military had engaged in genocide against Native Americans only seven decades earlier and, given the ruthlessness of both sides in WWII, I don’t believe they were concerned about wasting a few hundred thousand Japanese lives in order to make their point to the Soviets.

[LawyerRon]

Quote by Techno Student:
"...you seem to have some sort of idea that America should be fair, or even-handed when dealing with foreign nations. That's just too idealistic for me."

I agree completely, there's this stupid attitude in our media now that we need to be "objective" when looking at our enemies. No we don't. We're at war now and it's us or them.

In WWII we killed over 80,000 civilians when we firebombed Tokyo in 1945. They still wouldn't surrender so it took the two atom bombs to finally convince them. Their entire population (millions of people) was ready to fight any invasion force with sticks, axes, etc, to the death. The U.S. estimated our own casualties would be in excess of 250,000 Americans killed in a mainland invasion. Millions of Japanese would have been killed. Therefore the decision to drop the a-bombs was absolutely the correct one at the time and I'm always amazed at these "revisionists" who want to "re-write history" decades later and pass moral judgment on everybody else by implying we were somehow "immoral" in our actions.

We've got to be ready to do whatever it takes in this war too. There's nothing "fair" about war so don't anyone fool themselves.

[Web Gecko]

Howdy Techno Student

It's good to see your loyalty to your country and people. I was in no way suggesting that we need to be fair with terrorists. People who devalue and disrespect the lives of others by killing them in cold blood deserve what they get.

They should be rooted out and dealt with nomatter where they hide or who harbours them. Those harbouring and/or supporting them should be dealt with no less harshly.

I am a loyal Australian and what we share with your country is a free and peace loving society. If I am called on I will fight for my country and people as well. Australians recognise the debt they owe the US with regard to our past alliances and history. I think this should be apparent from the commitment we have already made to the fight against terrorism.

What I have been trying to express is that as far as conflict goes we still have a lot to learn. In this case action in Afghanistan against the Taliban
was necessary, yes I agree. One of the things we need to consider is the cost of any retaliative action we decide to take. As I have said above, it is difficult to only target the right people. But then taking action which causes the deaths of yet more innocent people is no real solution. Does it really make any difference on what side innocent people are killed ? None of us wants to see our people hurt but then what sense does it make to engender hate in people
who previously bore you no ill will ?

You could ask the question,"If there are 5-10 Taliban/Alkaida collaborators
or whatever in a village of 100 people, do you blow them all up to get the
5-10 bad guys ?". If everyone is collaborating then it may be justifiable
action. If there are say 10 people hiding/supporting them then killing 80 or more people is yet another human tragedy in my book. There are other ways of doing things or as they say, skinning a cat.

Don't get me wrong. I think the USs' approach to this conflict has been very measured and intelligent. I just think that the way we are still doing things are the way they have always been done. For example you could go in on the ground and the bad guys will either fight or run. I don't think the innocents will fight if they are not armed. The US and others obviously have a lot of intel being applied but there will be different approaches we have not yet tried
to sort the good guys from the bad guys.

The Afghans are not that well armed/equipped so I don't think they would pose that great a threat to well equipped allied ground units. We also have air cover which they don't.

I think it is time for countries like the US and Israel who have the resources
and the balance of power to take the necessary initiatives. But I'm not just talking about retaliatory actions. There is much more that can be done so that we can as you say, practice what we preach. If we are free and peace loving then we need to prove this to the world, not by being soft but by being both
strong and fair. We have to change our attitudes to other nations and peoples
if we are to do this.

No man, woman or nation is an island. We are all dependant on a resource/product which is produced by someone else or which comes from another nation ( e.g. oil ?). We are also all dependant upon the same natural resources
essentially. Mans' activities in every area affect world environment and ecology which in turn has an economic impact. Many of our policies have global impact on other nations/peoples. Our attitudes, policies and life style decisions do not only affect our lives. There is a tangible cost for every decision we make.

I am not criticizing the US. You have a right to feel more for your own people
than for other people. This too is human nature. I am just suggesting that we need to recognise the need to make some allowances ( within reason and where practicable) for other nations and peoples as regards their needs. This is one sure way to demonstrate to other nations the values we hold and that just because we occupy a stronger position in the world we don't just have our own interests at heart.

If we aren't prepared to change, even a little then the world won't change either (people will continue to fear, mistrust and hate). These things contribute to the seeds/roots of terrorism and other human unrest and conflict.

For example in Israel/Palestine there is a need for greater security and control of the movement of people. The Israelis should stop Palestinians from moving into their areas. If they can't live together without killiong each other then they must be physically held apart. The Palestinians are generally
pretty poor people. If they can't travel into Israel to work they will suffer.

So besides dealing out retribution what about dealing out food and other necessities to the innocent Palestinians who are suffering. Whatever we hope to achieve we must do it by example. Not all Palestinians are bad people.
Not all strap on a bomb and go blow up some Israelis. Israel should demonstrate
that they don't hate all Palestinians by helping the good ones. A new approach to conflict could help to generate a little less hate and that would be a start.

I don't pretend to have all the facts. These are very complex situations which have roots far into the past. But you can't tell me there aren't any new approaches which could be tried. We haven't exhausted all our options yet.

Mankind has the opportunity to change course and take a new path. Our attitudes
will very much seal our fate from here on in.

chou for now

The Web Gecko

p.s. As well as collaborating with and contributing to the welfare of other
peoples/nations we need to be strong in how we deal with others. Whether
it is trade, border protection or other issues which affect national
interest. Australia is still dealing with the flow of illegal immigrants
from Indonesian waters.

We need to deal with other nations from a position of strength and on
our terms. The negotiating table is where you consider the terms of the
other party. Australia is a compassionate nation and we act responsibly
when it comes to the needs of any boat people arriving in our waters.

But we have a small population and economy relative to other nations.
Our country is not a free for all and those that arrive illegally
should be sent back to their last port of departure. Genuine refugees
and those in distress are generally accepted. Our bottom line is that we
have to look after the people we already have here. We can only act within
the limits of our resources and of course we are not free of the
constraints of human nature either.

[clydefo]

LawyerRon,

It seems to me that if an island nation is no longer a threat and has been reduced to starvation and fighting with sticks, no military strategist in his right mind would waste any blood on an invasion. Either we used the bomb because we were too impatient to wait for the Japanese to starve, or we wanted to give an object lesson to the Soviet menace. Only the latter reason seems to me to be morally defensible as a matter of national security.

[bob]

The USSR declared war on Japan the day after the first bomb was dropped.
They invaded Manchuria the day the second bomb was dropped.
Manchuria is not an island.
Even with 2 bombs and USSR joining they still did not surrender unconditionally.
We had to spare their emperor.
They were not fighting with sticks they were using Kamikaze planes and
they fought to the last man on Okinawa.

[LawyerRon]

"Either we used the bomb because we were too impatient to wait for the Japanese to starve, or we wanted to give an object lesson to the Soviet menace. Only the latter reason seems to me to be morally defensible as a matter of national security."

It was a combination of both, plus a desire to save American lives. And both were morally defensible. We would have killed at least a million Japanese if the invasion had gone forward but I don't think that swayed our decision.

My point was the "revisionist" aren't the ones that lived through Peal Harbor and make no mistake; in the first few months after Peal, we were not sure we were going to win that war.

[Gintaras]

Make no mistake:

Me(I guess, everyone else too)- give respect the way they are respected.

I don't respect people who approve killing other people- no matter on what "brainwashed" side they are

What the hell: Just read Ron's sig and I hope everyone understands everything


It's not about how much $ or £ or ¥ you make, it's not about that you have to go and to take IT from someone else.

It's all about that someone tell you and you believe IT. It's usually called- BRAINWASHING

I live in different world(I think, you think, she/he thinks), but I hope, one day people could understand this.
Otherwise, People(you, me , she/he) are not better than animals in some african sahara.
I mean this no matter how much $$$, but how you think

[clydefo]

bob,
Please don't confuse me with the facts.

LawyerRon,
The main thing that causes me to doubt the standard history is the improbability of an invasion, as I see it. Imagine that the Soviets had not been a threat, and/or we did not have the bomb; with Japan already "in the bottle" I just can't envision an invasion. MacArthur seemed to commit troops only against strategically important islands. He could have just kicked back with his corncob pipe and waited them out.

Are "revisionists" so generally reviled because a few of them are flakes or is it that so many apple carts can be upset by a new telling of the story. As documents are unclassified and the FOIA is utilized, wartime propaganda can be refuted. As they say, "the first casualty of war is Truth."

[bob]

Opps must clarify some facts. They fought to the last man in Iwo Jima and jumped off cliffs on Okinawa rather than surrender. We lost 6800 Marines on Iwo Jima and it was a small desert island.

The planned offensive was going to be Kyushu. At that point in time the Japan empire was still extended well beyond Japan.

What is this idea about waiting. We would have continued to bomb Japan and continued to be attacked by Kamikaze's. They even sent balloons with fire bombs to the US. They were working on biological payloads involving disease carrying fleas.

Should we have just waited?

[pcoopers]

One little bit of info I've picked up from all the documentaries:

The body bag boys all through the Pacific campaign, had to plan ahead to have enough body bags on hand for each battle. It would be detrimental to morale to have too many, but a logistical disaster, not to mention a health problem to have to few. Those boys, like everyone else, got to be pretty damn good at their jobs. The margin of error worked out to be something less than 10%.

For the invasion of Japan, those men said, and I believe, there would have been near 1/4 million body bags needed, that's not even touching wounded.

Another piece of info: There were an ungodly number of purple heart medals prepared for the japanese invasion. Purple hearts that were not used, and were subsequently issued to Korea wounded, Vietnam wounded, and every other action we have been engaged in. Know what? There is still a mountain of Purple Hearts unused in warehouses around this country.

I don't know where Clydefo got his info regarding the planned invasion, Perhaps he discounts the potency of a divine emporer, or supposes that no other people than Americans are capaable of genuine heroism.

In comparison, Normandy was a walk in the park, and Normandy was really close to hell. Given a choice, I'd rather walk up Iwo Jima, and God knows that was next door to hell.

[bob]

pcoopers, my post refers to events in 1945

[pcoopers]

You ask "Are revisionists so reviled"

I say yes. I'm 45 yrs old. My daddy came home from Guadalcanal, in pieces. An uncle walked into Trblinka. I have talked to many others, some kin, others not kin to me. I have also read voraciously all my life, and from all that, I have a good idea what happened in WWII.

Does that mean we were the "good guy" all the time? Of course not. I never heard anyone say that the US was 100% right, and clean, and blame free throughout the war. There are questions about Pearl Harbor that have never been adequately
answered. If we cracked the code a week ahead of time, why wasn't Pearl on at least level 2 alert, why were they surprised? We dropped the ball, of course.

Right and wrong aside, getting the facts straight is important because:

THEY WHO WON'T LEARN THE LESSONS OF HISTORY, ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT THE MISTAKES OF THEIR FATHERS!

Have you never wondered, Just how did Hitler gain power? Or just how was it that the German people followed the Gestapo into the policy of Genocide? The answers are there, still. You should go look, before they burn the last of the books. It is important to look soon, because in small, incremental steps, the USA is following in their footsteps. Someday, you, or perhaps your grandchildren will wonder how we arrived at the place we will be then. I can tell you, as can many a tyrant.

Don't ask the revisionists. They are the ones who want to see the US turned into a police state. Communism has blinded us to all other perils for so long, we have forgotten there are other perils. Get the facts, and think for yourself.

[pcoopers]

I was referring to planning for invasion, is why I said 1944.

I double checked VJ day, it was August 6 '45, so '44 was a little off, even so.

The real planning probably only started about Feb of '45.

[bob]

Kyushu was planned for November 1945.
The planning for Japan's defeat started December 7, 1941. (if not before )
Enough on dates anyways. As long as someone does not try to revise them

[clydefo]

"Should we have just waited?" -bob

I know it's un-American to suggest anything other than instant gratification, but yes, we should have. Siege is the best of all military strategies, IMO. It minimizes loss of resources, your own and those of the enemy, which you will ultimately capture. It just takes patience.

With total air and naval superiority, and continued bombing, it's hard to imagine the kamikaze attacks could have gone on very long.
Balloon and flea tactics just go to illustrate that they were at the end of their rope. Japan was essentially one large, isolated concentration camp.

"I don't know where Clydefo got his info regarding the planned invasion, Perhaps he discounts the potency of a divine emporer, or supposes that no other people than Americans are capaable of genuine heroism." -pcoopers

I get all the best stuff from the PCMechanic forums. I don't think anyone doubts that the Japanese would have resisted an invasion heroically, even fanatically. All the more reason to isolate them and wait them out.

"Don't ask the revisionists. They are the ones who want to see the US turned into a police state." -pcoopers

Are we talking about the same thing? I'm referring to historians who attempt to offer a more accurate account of past events as more facts come to light. Like the folks waiting for Bush to stop resisting the release of documents pertaining to the Iran-Contra conspiracy. BTW, would someone please tell me the reason that RR fired Oliver North?

[Web Gecko]

The following quote from PCOOPERS post above pretty much says it for me :

Right and wrong aside, getting the facts straight is important because:

THEY WHO WON'T LEARN THE LESSONS OF HISTORY, ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT THE MISTAKES OF THEIR FATHERS!

I remember a few years ago seeing someone wearing a T-Shirt that stated
"Attitude is Everything !". As far as human affairs are concerned our thoughts
and attitudes make the world we know. Facts are important but it is what we get
from them that is significant.

Just like with science, technology and computers we usually seek to expand our horizons via new solutions, products and approaches. I am a firm believer that for every goal there is a better, more efficient way to reach the targetted objective. Maybe clydefo (correct me if I'm wrong) is suggesting that a siege may have been a more efficient solution in terms of conservation of human life.

Thanks to the discussions of the folks above I have a better insight into that history (still sketchy for someone born in 1961). Some of the ghastly reality of those nukes that were dropped were of people with burning, melting bodies
throwing themselves into water only to die in agony without any relief. Hopefully they died fast. The firebombing sounds no less gruesome.

Change is something we tend to resist vehemently. I am not in a position to
make moral judgements about the actions of others, especially regarding events
that took place before I was even a twinkle in anyones' eye.

As far as I can see we still refuse to learn the lessons history teaches us.
The human tradgedy goes on. What those people in the WTC towers (and firefighters, police etc., on the ground) and Pentagon must have experienced
was truly horrific. Like those heroic phone calls from those lucky enough to have the opportunity to make them, "Hello, I love you, Goodbye !" knowing death was seconds away. No words can adequately cover this and the loss that follows.

Facts are important but what we do with them is more important. Crazy murderers acted and innocent people got in the way. Now we must act and more innocent people are getting in the way. This is the ongoing tradgedy that our attitudes are sucking us into. In a war yes, it's kill or be killed, us or them.

Do we know who our enemies are this time ? Next time they could be relatives of more innocents who were killed. When we move from Afghsanistan to our next target will the expediency of us and them be acceptable when more innocents
get in the way ? Where does this end ? It doesn't and history proves that reprisal leads to counter reprisal and so on round the vicous circle. No I am not suggesting that we don't act just that reprisal is not our only option.

We are being sucked back into the whirlpool of past mistakes and we can't even see it. I remember reading somewhere about a past conflict, "Winning the hearts and minds of the people". Apart from necessary action we should also be focussing on how we can bring as many who could become our enemies in future
round to our side.

With some thought and forsight and a little creativity/planning there are people with the resources (and talent) who will be able to make the necessary changes. We should use every tool available to us not just military action.

We should never abandon our objectivity. Without it how will we be able to reason and plan our next move ? This is not relative to combatants in the field but to the planners.

Whether we accept the responsibility for change or not the future may literally be in our hands right now.

The Web Gecko

p.s. Human society and activity is based on change which is actually
necessary to our welfare and vitality. I am for ongoing change including
our attitudes. It is time for us to stop compiling lists of statistics
and to start finding solutions that make these lists obsolete.

[pcoopers]

Attitudes do change.

25 years ago, I volunteered for every assignment I could, mostly Med and Mideast.
I figured then, if Armageddon was coming, I wanted a front row seat at the battle of all battles. Win or lose, even if I couldn't stick around to see it through,
it would be a sight to see.

Today, I anxiously watch the news. I fear the possibility that these are the opening shots in the next "100 year war". Yes, Armageddon would be a sight to see, but I'd rather not my sons have to see it.

Worst of all, I don't want them approaching me in the afterlife, and gloating that they saw what I missed. That would really suck!

The real point is, today I understand, somebody's son dies in every battle.

[Hosie]

I have a question for Gintaras...have you ever thought why we are supporting the northern alliance? 1. It is their country, they are citizens of afganistan and should be given the chance to try to right the wrongs that other members of their country have done. 2. It saves US lives, every member of the northern alliance that fights against the taliban is one less american soldier that has to put his life on the line for YOU. 3. The members of the northern alliance know how to fight the battles they are fighting, they know the enemy better, they know the terrain better. My question is this, if you do not approve of the US supporting the NA, would you take up arms and go after the taliban? Like it or not they, like all the brave US soldier over there are fighting and dying for us.

Gintaras wrote:
Peace can be achieved non-violent way.
Want explanation?
Depends what you choose- try from this:

1)I'm a native Lithuanian and Lithuania gained Independence in 1990. It was a cost[to gain an Independence] of 13 people crushed to death under Soviet Army tanks in a capitol Vilnius near TV Tower]. No one responded to violence with violence-no further violence, no more tears.

2)Chechnya wants an Independence from Russia. I think, I don't need here much explanation about what happens when you respond to violence with violence.
Isn't 1000's[or even 10,000's of] of dead from either side enough any explanation?

Now, my question, which option[1) or 2)] you would choose?








The Jews in WWII did not have an army, they did not fight back against the Germans, and they were killed by the millions. Non-violence does not promote non-violence

[Gintaras]

have you ever thought why we are supporting the northern alliance? 1. It is their country, they are citizens of afganistan and should be given the chance to try to right the wrongs that other members of their country have done.

Have you ever thought why we helped Bin Laden to fight against the very same NA 20 years ago?

3. The members of the northern alliance know how to fight the battles they are fighting, they know the enemy better, they know the terrain better. My question is this, if you do not approve of the US supporting the NA

My answer:

by PCOOPERS : Right and wrong aside, getting the facts straight is important because: THEY WHO WON'T LEARN THE LESSONS OF HISTORY, ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT THE MISTAKES OF THEIR FATHERS!

Non-violence does not promote non-violence

Disagree partially, depends on some factors.
But then what? Violence promote non-violence?

I really like last Web Gecko post.

[Hosie]

just one correction... we were not helping Bin Laden to Fight the NA..we were helping Afganistan fight for their freedom from an invading country, RUSSIA.

[Techno Student]

I agree, Very Well stated.

[alan]

As fas as Japan was concerned, my research showed that estimates of US military casualties were anywhere from 500,000 to 1,000,000. This accounts for all causes (combat, accidents, booby traps, etc.) related to the final 2 invasion of Kyushu and the mainland Japan. It was suggested that if each Japanese soldier killed just 1 US Marine we'd hit our 1 million mark. It was also estimated that the amount of pre-invasion bombardment campaign would have killed just as many Japanese as our 2 A-bombs. We would have continued to firebomb cities until the entire island was ash. The A-bombs just did it a lot quicker.
Plus, as someone stated, it was not just a demonstration to the Japanese but for anyone else who was watching . By dropping the A-bombs we still killed the same number of Japanese as we would have in the invasion, we spared 1,000,000 US Marines, and showed the Russian not to mess with us.

[freptide]

interesting>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agentsmiley/message/1733

[kraken]

I have a recurring dream

I look into the sky at my happiest time in life and I see a point of darkness.

The darkness grows and I see the missile coming into range, It grows larger in the sky. As I look into it and see the dot become a shape I wake up. In my dream the missile exploded and I was nothing nomore, I just never realised it or saw it (I just wake up).

I do not want death to rain on my head, It must be stopped before it leaves the ground.