Democracy Did Hiroshima
- Thread starter infoterror
- Start date
Demilich
Remember
democracy serves the purpose of allowing those whose ideals tend towards those of the majority to feel secure and comfortable in their beliefs and treat them as fact.
Neith
Little Lady
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,623
- 9,625
- 113
derek
Grey Eminence
Neith said:
The republic gets it about right, give or take. Democracy is an ineffective system, HUGELY ineffective. The most prosperous times of our race have occured when someone able grabs the rest by the neck and drags them up.
War_Blade
Member
the nukes saved millions of lives and if they wern't dropped, a full scale invasion of japan wouold have occured.
derek
Grey Eminence
Sounds like conjecture to me. It is arguable that the Nukes brought the war to a end quicker, but I'm still not sure they should be regarded as positive.
War_Blade
Member
well, yea there are pros and cons as with anything else, but the end result without them would have been a higher megadeth count.
(i have always wanted to use the word megadeth in a sentance without refering to the band, lmao)
(i have always wanted to use the word megadeth in a sentance without refering to the band, lmao)
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
The use of the Abombs in '45 is, realistically speaking, the greatest act of terrorism ever undertaken by mankind.
However, it served it's purpose and, ultimately, saved some lives. The supposed invasion of the mainland would have resulted in an estimated million+ deaths (more than half of which would have been Japanese civilians).
So the decision was easy for the Americans: kill the same number of civilians with ZERO U.S. casualities AND show the Soviets - who had also just declared war on Japan and were poised to 'knock on their back door' (ie: claim land in an eventual victory) - exactly what we had up our sleeve.
However, it served it's purpose and, ultimately, saved some lives. The supposed invasion of the mainland would have resulted in an estimated million+ deaths (more than half of which would have been Japanese civilians).
So the decision was easy for the Americans: kill the same number of civilians with ZERO U.S. casualities AND show the Soviets - who had also just declared war on Japan and were poised to 'knock on their back door' (ie: claim land in an eventual victory) - exactly what we had up our sleeve.
War_Blade said:
Well I don't know if the nukes "might" have saved millions of lives but it did take at least a million of them... I find it funny and ironic that some people can actually think the nukes were a good life saving idea!!! Like if there was no other way then killing masses of civilians.
BTW, If they only wanted to show their power, they could have nuke an Island a few hundred miles of the shores of Japan and say the next time it Japan was going to get it. This would really have avoided millions deaths. The truth of the matter is they just wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor. And 1 nuke just wasn't enough to make them satisfied!
derek said:
And lets not forget the problem we face today: thousands of nukes held by almost a dozen countries; and if there's one accident, what's to prevent a country from firing their nukes in retaliation? Furthermore, so-called rogue-states have developed nukes: N. Korea, Pakistan, soon Iran. In another 50 years, whats to prevent many countries from developing both nukes and the missle technology to deliver them?
derek
Grey Eminence
speed said:
Interestingly, the so called "Rogue States" still spend, COMBINED, 1/5th of what the US military does, annually. Plus, the US has 2000 Nukes more than anyone else. Backed up with the fact that only one nation has ever used a Nuke in warfare - no guesses as to who - I wonder who we really should be worried about.
derek said:
I share your pessimism of American aims and foreign policy. I am afraid of my own country, and ashamed at our misuse of power. Without the cold war and communism as a moral casus belli, we've been exposed for what we are: power mad, capitalists seeking to control the world militarily and economically at the benefit of a few friends, and to the detriment of the rest of the world.
derek
Grey Eminence
It can only get worse when arriving nations such as India and China begin to dominate the world stage more and more. How much more relentless will America get to keep the rich rich?
speed said:
Jesus Christ man. Do you really think it's anywhere near that simple?
By "a few friends" do you mean the whole of Europe? How enthusiastic do you think they are (those in power, not know-nothings writing newspaper editorials) about the US decreasing its military strength? Hint: Europe relies extremely heavily on the US for defense.
Ask some East European leaders (formerly in the Soviet sphere) how out of control and threatening they think the US is, and how angry they are that the US wants to control their economies. I'm sure they're really pissed about that economic growth they've been enjoying. Who do you think deters Russia from re-establishing hegemony over these countries? Not to mention the growth enjoyed in Asia and elsewhere, facilitated by all those evil international financial institutions (the tools of empire!) that we hear so much about.
It is a fact that we (the US and especially Europe) are more secure now, with regard to the threat of inter-state conflict, than we have ever been. US military/economic superiority is the primary reason for the this. Point to the Middle East all you want, but no matter how much Israel trashes Lebanon, you're not going to feel a ripple. When you look at the big picture, this idea of the US as this urgent, out of control threat to global stability becomes utterly ridiculous. The existence of a global hegemon has its pros (significant ones that are often ignored) and cons. Enough of this evil empire doomsday bullshit already.
A Dying Breed said:
Youve oversimplified as well. Look, were not all going to write long essays on everything here when it relates to politics and foreign policy: its a terribly complex web that even our own government doesnt understand.
You do make some valid points--somewhat. U.S. military power has allowed the economic growth of Europe and parts of Asia (quite like the British and their navy before us). And we're safer from any major war like WWII, due to a total imbalance of military power. We did, oversee a very prosperous economy, that is still runing along strongly considering all the problems.
And I find it amusing that you point to Eastern European leaders to prove how much the rest of the world is indebted to America for our military and foreign policy. Surely you've seen recent surveys that show that besides India, the entire world has a very negative impression of American muscular foreign policy, and whats more, something like 85-90% of Europeans think the United States is more dangerous than Al Quaida or Iran. The whole idea here Dying Breed, is the cold war system that the first world profited under for the last 50 years, has come apart at the seams. You need to recognize this fact.
However, due to our policies, I think we're actually not as safe as we were in the cold war. We've spawned generations of terrorists, threatened somewhat backward states who have developed nuclear weapons as deterrents, and left the majority of the population of the world, to abject poverty without so much as a thought. Not to mention the byproducts of American culture and materialism.
Where the U.S. has been able to totally implement our policy (south and central america), those countries were worse off, and today, have all but made a break from the American yoke. Indonesia (once heavily indebted to U.S. foreign policy after the failed communist coup), Africa, and the Middle East all have sufferred due to American foreign policy. What have been our successes? Japan, Western Europe, S. Korea? I agree, they've been quite admirable, but all had rich economic traditions.
You do realize that most of the growth in South Asia has been funded by Chinese companies correct? Eastern Europe's growth is primarily due to Western European investment, and thus is unimportant.
Your example of Eastern Europe is a
derek said:
You're seeing exactly what they'll do (or are doing) with the Iraq war.
Simply stated, we needed (from the perspective of the neo-conservative movement) an absolute presence in the oil-rich gulf. Also, in 10+ years, the Iraqi oil-producing infrastructure will be rebuilt to pre-Gulf War I production levels. The intended goal is for this to be American's trump card.
If a coup ever occurs in Saudi Arabia, and their oil is either remvoed from the market, or sold at unbelievably high prices, we'll have these reserves to balance that with.
No way the U.S. could afford not to possess (even if that possession is through a U.S. friendly puppet-regime) these reserves with India and China's demand for oil growing at the pace it's projected to.
A Dying Breed said:
A lot of this is accurate. Again, we have to maintain hegemony for the current order of things to remain static. One way of doing that is to ensure that neither Russia, China, nor India achieves global supremecy - and the major cog in that wheel is to control energy.
Similar threads
