Democracy Did Hiroshima

[Dushan S]

How has the US tried to destablize the EU, or for that matter the Balkans? I call complete bullshit. How exactly was Germany and the EU planning to "protect" Yugoslavia from itself? Its "great potential" had been sapped by economic collapse (the loss of massive amounts of aid from the Soviet Union, poor administration among other things) which largely created the conditions for the ethnic strife there. Please present concrete evidence of the US destabilizing the Balkans. As far as the EU, efforts at creating an EU military force have been extremely half-hearted, and hardly reflect a genuine desire to break free of reliance on American protection. Actually, it seems as though France in particular is keen on developing forces independent of those of the US mainly for the purpose of African adventurism in its former colonies (GASP!). I would add that Britain, far from being an American tool, has consciously recognized that it is in its own best interests to keep the US close to Europe. The notion that the US "keeps" NATO against Europe's will is pure horse manure my friend. In fact, France left NATO (I think it was in the 70s) and then came back.

If you are calling something bullshit, then maybe your basic knowledge about regional politics should not be made by reading major newspapers and watching CNN. You really really really don't know a shit about balkans if you really beieve in all the crap you have written up there. I was born in that same country named "Yougoslavia" so I think I have witnessed some things from a bit lesser distance than you or your jurnalists.
In short Germany was in close contacts with Ante Markovic, man who was trying to make a financial reform closely before beginning of war here. Their agenda was to keep country in one piece. On the other hand (as it is quite obvious now) all 3 presidents of ex yugoslavian republics were (magicaly) living and working in USA for some time or being in close contacts with state departement, BEFORE they got in position of power. During the war they were in contact on day to day basis secretly, there was a direct phone line between Croatian and Serbian president. All so called "piece plans" that were not in USA interests were sabotaged, as it was important to prolong war and to have finally american troops here. While officialy atacking serbian president, state departement was never ignoring him, kept him in close contact, visiting, calling him to piece agreements etc etc. It is an old trick, as you for instance have with Sadam, that was always american man, they just tricked him at the end. There was NO financial aid from russia here, people had a bit lesser standard than in Western Europe, but way much better than in eastern europe. There was no economical collapse as a cause, because, economical collapse came almost 2 years after war started and only in some of ex yugoslavia republics. Ethnical strife was not natural and did not came as a expression of masses but was iniciated by small group of people that was planning it very carefully, and used right moment and financial and logistical aid from... Guess who? It took some time for war to take over more than one part of ex yougoslavia.
And about "presenting concrete proofs about USA destabilization of regions..." You don't have basic knowledge about stuff happening here, how can I even start? Also if you are not aware of long history of american manipulation and destabilization of regions because of USA interests, than it is no use to talk to you at all. You probably think that Bush is a great guy and that american intervention there is just to help people Iraqui people live better, in democracy? Right?

 

[A Dying Breed]

If you are calling something bullshit, then maybe your basic knowledge about regional politics should not be made by reading major newspapers and watching CNN. You really really really don't know a shit about balkans if you really beieve in all the crap you have written up there. I was born in that same country named "Yougoslavia" so I think I have witnessed some things from a bit lesser distance than you or your jurnalists.
In short Germany was in close contacts with Ante Markovic, man who was trying to make a financial reform closely before beginning of war here. Their agenda was to keep country in one piece. On the other hand (as it is quite obvious now) all 3 presidents of ex yugoslavian republics were (magicaly) living and working in USA for some time or being in close contacts with state departement, BEFORE they got in position of power. During the war they were in contact on day to day basis secretly, there was a direct phone line between Croatian and Serbian president. All so called "piece plans" that were not in USA interests were sabotaged, as it was important to prolong war and to have finally american troops here. While officialy atacking serbian president, state departement was never ignoring him, kept him in close contact, visiting, calling him to piece agreements etc etc. It is an old trick, as you for instance have with Sadam, that was always american man, they just tricked him at the end. There was NO financial aid from russia here, people had a bit lesser standard than in Western Europe, but way much better than in eastern europe. There was no economical collapse as a cause, because, economical collapse came almost 2 years after war started and only in some of ex yugoslavia republics. Ethnical strife was not natural and did not came as a expression of masses but was iniciated by small group of people that was planning it very carefully, and used right moment and financial and logistical aid from... Guess who? It took some time for war to take over more than one part of ex yougoslavia.
And about "presenting concrete proofs about USA destabilization of regions..." You don't have basic knowledge about stuff happening here, how can I even start? Also if you are not aware of long history of american manipulation and destabilization of regions because of USA interests, than it is no use to talk to you at all. You probably think that Bush is a great guy and that american intervention there is just to help people Iraqui people live better, in democracy? Right?

I didn't ask you to give examples of destabilization of regions, I asked specifically for evidence that the US has attempted to destabilize the EU and the Balkans, which you have refused to provide. Now if I've understood this bumbling train wreck of a post, you are claiming that the US engineered the Yugoslav disintegration, and that the leaders responsible were under orders from the US. This is utterly absurd. Show me some evidence, don't give me your copout bullshit about how it isn't worth it because I don't know anything. There is a wealth of academic literature on the Balkans, and nowhere is such an off the wall conspiracy theory seriously considered. The US placed a fucking arms embargo on the place in an effort to keep it together. What US interest was being served by this collapse? If you are unaware of your own country's economic decline in the 80s (maybe collapse is too strong a word) then either you're fucking dense, or you were born in Slovenia. There is no one in academia who disputes this basic fact.

Sometimes when shit goes wrong in the world, the US really isn't responsible. Seriously.

 

[speed]

I didn't ask you to give examples of destabilization of regions, I asked specifically for evidence that the US has attempted to destabilize the EU and the Balkans, which you have refused to provide. Now if I've understood this bumbling train wreck of a post, you are claiming that the US engineered the Yugoslav disintegration, and that the leaders responsible were under orders from the US. This is utterly absurd. Show me some evidence, don't give me your copout bullshit about how it isn't worth it because I don't know anything. There is a wealth of academic literature on the Balkans, and nowhere is such an off the wall conspiracy theory seriously considered. The US placed a fucking arms embargo on the place in an effort to keep it together. What US interest was being served by this collapse? If you are unaware of your own country's economic decline in the 80s (maybe collapse is too strong a word) then either you're fucking dense, or you were born in Slovenia. There is no one in academia who disputes this basic fact.

Sometimes when shit goes wrong in the world, the US really isn't responsible. Seriously.

Well he does live there, so I think he might know whats he's talking about.

 

[speed]

I had quite the robust reply, but then the site got fucked right as I was posting it. So here are the cliff notes.

NATO is good because it provides a structure which grants international legitimacy to its operations, in addition to codifying common defense. On its face this may not seem like much, but politically it is very important. And as far as I know, Russia has never wanted to join NATO.

On the good will and understanding approach to foreign policy. I'm all for adjusting our approach to the Middle East, particularly Israel/Palestine. But I don't see how communication and reason will help us deal with a character like Kim Jong Il. You present a picture of an urgent threat, and as its solution, you seem to suggest extreme timidness, taking great pains not to piss anyone off who might be able to develop WMD. I would argue that this is not feasible or desirable, North Korea being a good example of a situation in which that is the case.

On Africa. If you look at today's African economies, many are still dominated by the export of raw natural resources (minerals, rubber, shit like that) and subsistence farming. This traces back to the colonizers, who set set up economies designed to extract natural resources and do little else, for obvious reasons. Certain raw materials, such as those required by industry, have decreased in value since the 70s and 80s, partially accounting for the decline. I'm sure you realize that in today's global economy, exporting raw goods, subsistence farming, and manufacturing almost nothing is not a recipe for success. Of course, some countries have oil, and they have fared better. As such, my argument is that, while our policy has not been extremely helpful, this is largely based on a lack of potential in the region to begin with.

As far as colonialism being a good thing, I really don't see it. It left these countries uprepared for independence, as you say. It also left a legacy of extreme brutality (the machete dismemberment Norsemaiden likes to point to as evidence of African genetic inferiority), ethnic strife, a tendency towards corruption, nepotism, dictatorship that was inhereted from colonial administrators, and poorly structured economies.

Funny that you mention the intelligent African thing, as it so happens that most of this was presented to me by a Nigerian professor, who is a very intelligent and knowledgable man.



How has the US tried to destablize the EU, or for that matter the Balkans? I call complete bullshit. How exactly was Germany and the EU planning to "protect" Yugoslavia from itself? Its "great potential" had been sapped by economic collapse (the loss of massive amounts of aid from the Soviet Union, poor administration among other things) which largely created the conditions for the ethnic strife there. Please present concrete evidence of the US destabilizing the Balkans. As far as the EU, efforts at creating an EU military force have been extremely half-hearted, and hardly reflect a genuine desire to break free of reliance on American protection. Actually, it seems as though France in particular is keen on developing forces independent of those of the US mainly for the purpose of African adventurism in its former colonies (GASP!). I would add that Britain, far from being an American tool, has consciously recognized that it is in its own best interests to keep the US close to Europe. The notion that the US "keeps" NATO against Europe's will is pure horse manure my friend. In fact, France left NATO (I think it was in the 70s) and then came back.

First, a few years ago Russia did want to join NATO. Its true. Seriously.

Second, your point about Africa is somewhat well taken, but its a narrow one that still doesnt refute my claim that U.S. policy has been a major major factor in keeping Africa poor. Really, almost the entirety of the literature will tell you the same thing. Why? Because all of those minerals you were talking about used to be owned by the State, until we forced them to privatize. Before tihs was done, this money was not only embezzled, but some if it made its way to education, social services, and jobs in the public sector. Yes, people were better educated, healthier, and there were more jobs--things that are musts to build economies. How are the people supposed to become educated and switch jobs, when there is no education for them--or it costs more than a family can afford?

In addition, tariffs instituted by American and European farmers make it impossible to sell any goods. And really, how else is Africa, a country with no infrastructure before colonialization, no educational tradition, ethnic disputes, etc, suppose to go about building an economy, if its not through farming and raw minerals? What company will want to locate there? How will an African set up an innovative business when he is uneducated, and has no one to employ if he does become educated?

 

[Dushan S]

I didn't ask you to give examples of destabilization of regions, I asked specifically for evidence that the US has attempted to destabilize the EU and the Balkans, which you have refused to provide. Now if I've understood this bumbling train wreck of a post, you are claiming that the US engineered the Yugoslav disintegration, and that the leaders responsible were under orders from the US. This is utterly absurd. Show me some evidence, don't give me your copout bullshit about how it isn't worth it because I don't know anything. There is a wealth of academic literature on the Balkans, and nowhere is such an off the wall conspiracy theory seriously considered. The US placed a fucking arms embargo on the place in an effort to keep it together. What US interest was being served by this collapse? If you are unaware of your own country's economic decline in the 80s (maybe collapse is too strong a word) then either you're fucking dense, or you were born in Slovenia. There is no one in academia who disputes this basic fact.

Sometimes when shit goes wrong in the world, the US really isn't responsible. Seriously.

There are people that are not interested to talk with someone because they always know better. I can argue about situation in middle east because I know some facts you know some facts (although it can be questioned if what media serves us can be taken as a facts), we come to different conclussions and we can talk. But when we are talking about something I know very well, even as a first person witness, and you are stating things that are very obviously wrong, because you don't know enough about subject, how can we argue?
So your two posts have shown that:
- You take what media has said about balkans for granted
- You are rude and intollerant when someone points out that you don't have background knowledge to talk about something.

I had no intentions to backup some of the things I have said because you are ignoring facts that I have already said. They are well known. They were in newspaper in the same vein things you like to beleive in were. They are not good to you because you don't like it. Why should I waste my time prooving anything to someone that believes what he wants to believe?

There is no wall of conspiracy. Conspiracy is not conspiracy if it is something evident as foreign policy. USA was very open in helping separatists in yugoslavia both military and politically. Cia has sent their military instructors to train muslim warriors in bosnia, the same that you are now claiming as terrorists and fight against. USA never did anything against Slobodan Milosevic, they actually helped him, because best way to keep dictator in place is to put pressure on ordinary people, and make them feel like USA nad Europe are against them and Milosevic is protecting them. (That tactics never worked in reality, and it is quite childish beleiving that USA was using them because they wanted to overthrow Milosevic, at the end it was people themselves that stopped his rule). USA were effective in killing their own president, but not able to just shoot Milosevic and get rid of him even if he was often in public?
It is just a matter of common sense.

The US placed a fucking arms embargo on the place in an effort to keep it together.

Please don't make me think that you are not able to comprehand basic stuff. Embargo is there to put pressure on one side, embargo was issued only on one of the Ex republics, and it was not soon after the war has started. Embargo has nothing to do with "keeping it together", if you don't know what embargo is, go check it again.

What US interest was being served by this collapse? If you are unaware of your own country's economic decline in the 80s (maybe collapse is too strong a word) then either you're fucking dense, or you were born in Slovenia.

Slovenia was part of my country, it IS country I was born in, and was mostly sharing way of life and standard. Standard of life was Higher in 1990 than in early 80's, actually highest ever. Slovenia has kept high standard because there was no war, embargos etc there, and that part of country was well developed. (and every country has more and less developed regions) If you don't know enough about things you are talking about, just don't. Financial decline was result of war, embargo, and terrible pollitical situation, and it was different in different Ex Yugoslavia republics. You were even talking about help from Russia. In reality Soviet Union has never paid money they owned to Yugoslav companies, for a lot of big building projects they did there. They partially paid in goods. Yugoslavia was in debts to MMF, not russia (I am not sure if it is MMF in english, international monetary funds) so maybe in long terms, it would make some problems, but as was seen later, a lot of those debts has been dismissed anyway.

There is no one in academia who disputes this basic fact.

Internet is great. You can say anything and then back it up with something like that, as if you are personally part of "academia", and written a dozen of books on subject. And as if all books on this subject share the same views, and in turn must be truthfull 100%

 

[Dushan S]

First, a few years ago Russia did want to join NATO. Its true. Seriously.

Second, your point about Africa is somewhat well taken, but its a narrow one that still doesnt refute my claim that U.S. policy has been a major major factor in keeping Africa poor. Really, almost the entirety of the literature will tell you the same thing. Why? Because all of those minerals you were talking about used to be owned by the State, until we forced them to privatize. Before tihs was done, this money was not only embezzled, but some if it made its way to education, social services, and jobs in the public sector. Yes, people were better educated, healthier, and there were more jobs--things that are musts to build economies. How are the people supposed to become educated and switch jobs, when there is no education for them--or it costs more than a family can afford?

In addition, tariffs instituted by American and European farmers make it impossible to sell any goods. And really, how else is Africa, a country with no infrastructure before colonialization, no educational tradition, ethnic disputes, etc, suppose to go about building an economy, if its not through farming and raw minerals? What company will want to locate there? How will an African set up an innovative business when he is uneducated, and has no one to employ if he does become educated?

Btw (maybe just a bit off topic) , have you seen "Darwins Nightmare" documentary? If not be sure to check it, you may find it interesting.

 

[speed]

Btw (maybe just a bit off topic) , have you seen "Darwins Nightmare" documentary? If not be sure to check it, you may find it interesting.

I've never seen it actually. But Ill look into it.

And on to the other posts: I always assumed the Soviet Union and the old Yugoslavia, never had very close relations. Did these relations improve after the breakup of both Yugoslavia and the USSR? I know the Russians were keen on at least diplomatically backing Milosevic.

 

[Dushan S]

I've never seen it actually. But Ill look into it.

And on to the other posts: I always assumed the Soviet Union and the old Yugoslavia, never had very close relations. Did these relations improve after the breakup of both Yugoslavia and the USSR? I know the Russians were keen on at least diplomatically backing Milosevic.

Be sure to check the movie.
http://www.darwinsnightmare.com/

It shows typical mechanisms of exploatation west is using in Africa at the same time working constantly on destabilisation of region for bigger profit... And at the same time it is very emotional and touching movie.

Ex Yougoslavia has had good business relationship with Soviet Union, but was pollitically different. It was a time of cold war and Yougoslavia was "In between", communist but not as much as other countries of easter europe, and never part of Warshaw Pact, and at the same time Yougoslavia was in close contact in every way with western Europe and USA, and it was even offered to be a part of European Union, at the time it was more a monetary, merchant organization, but Josip Broz (president, but in reality soft dictator) refused and kept this game of balancing between sides, partly because that would mean starting financial reforms in country at the time when things were going smoothly and he was already old. While Milosevis was in charge here, Soviet union was backing up Serbia, a bit... Not because they really wanted to help Milosevic, but because of putting their finger in eye to USA, and showing their teeth a bit. In practice, they have not helped Milosevic much, and it was mosly left on words. After Milosevic has gone, relationships have gone colder, especially because new goverments have leaned towards working to join European Union and to improving relationships with USA, although it is going very slow because of number of reasons and different interests of big powers that meets here. Actually they don't have clearly defined policy towards Serbia in this moment, financially , bussiness and economy cooperatin and exchange is relatively small right now. As you probably know Russia is currently backing up all regimes that are not pro western oriented, as it was case in Ukraina and Belorusia. Ex Yougoslavia republics are way less important to them it seems.

 

[A Dying Breed]

Well he does live there, so I think he might know whats he's talking about.

There are people in America who think the CIA carried out 9/11. I think we have a few on this board actually.

I had no intentions to backup some of the things I have said because you are ignoring facts that I have already said. They are well known. They were in newspaper in the same vein things you like to beleive in were. They are not good to you because you don't like it. Why should I waste my time prooving anything to someone that believes what he wants to believe?

Your "facts" are a mixture of realities taken out of context and conjecture. It's amazing that you have time to tell me what a rude, ignorant moron I am in this big useless post, but apparently can't be bothered to cough up a link or a source that supports your main claim. The fact that you live in the country does not mean that you are automatically an authority on it any more than myself or speed are authorities on America.

Slovenia was part of my country, it IS country I was born in

Damn I'm good

Internet is great. You can say anything and then back it up with something like that, as if you are personally part of "academia", and written a dozen of books on subject. And as if all books on this subject share the same views, and in turn must be truthfull 100%

You see, this actually makes it easy for you, because all you have to do is cough up one single source to prove me wrong. If you can find such a source, I'll be open to it, honestly.

First, a few years ago Russia did want to join NATO. Its true. Seriously.

Maybe Russia did want to join NATO, I'll check it out. It doesn't really change much anyhow.

Second, your point about Africa is somewhat well taken, but its a narrow one that still doesnt refute my claim that U.S. policy has been a major major factor in keeping Africa poor. Really, almost the entirety of the literature will tell you the same thing. Why? Because all of those minerals you were talking about used to be owned by the State, until we forced them to privatize. Before tihs was done, this money was not only embezzled, but some if it made its way to education, social services, and jobs in the public sector. Yes, people were better educated, healthier, and there were more jobs--things that are musts to build economies. How are the people supposed to become educated and switch jobs, when there is no education for them--or it costs more than a family can afford?

In addition, tariffs instituted by American and European farmers make it impossible to sell any goods. And really, how else is Africa, a country with no infrastructure before colonialization, no educational tradition, ethnic disputes, etc, suppose to go about building an economy, if its not through farming and raw minerals? What company will want to locate there? How will an African set up an innovative business when he is uneducated, and has no one to employ if he does become educated?

I don't disagree with any of this. However I don't agree that simply by keeping their mineral industries nationalized, African countries would be able to overcome all these structural obstacles. There are examples of countries such as Tunisia (I think) that adopted a more socialist approach, guarded their industries, and still failed and/or were outperformed by those who adopted more of the free market approach. I'd advise you to take a look at the NEPAD document, which is a comprehensive policy plan devised by several African heads of state. http://www.nepad.org/2005/files/inbrief.php If you examine the details of the document, you'll see that what this whole thing really depends on is foreign capital. Foreign companies don't want to go there. How is nationalizing mineral industry in iteself going to solve this problem? It's not like Africa was thriving before the structural adjustment programs showed up. That's really all I'm trying to say.

 

[infoterror]

Ex Yougoslavia has had good business relationship with Soviet Union, but was pollitically different.

Ah, a Slav.

This explains your rabid political bias.

 

[speed]

There are people in America who think the CIA carried out 9/11. I think we have a few on this board actually.



Your "facts" are a mixture of realities taken out of context and conjecture. It's amazing that you have time to tell me what a rude, ignorant moron I am in this big useless post, but apparently can't be bothered to cough up a link or a source that supports your main claim. The fact that you live in the country does not mean that you are automatically an authority on it any more than myself or speed are authorities on America.



Damn I'm good



You see, this actually makes it easy for you, because all you have to do is cough up one single source to prove me wrong. If you can find such a source, I'll be open to it, honestly.



Maybe Russia did want to join NATO, I'll check it out. It doesn't really change much anyhow.



I don't disagree with any of this. However I don't agree that simply by keeping their mineral industries nationalized, African countries would be able to overcome all these structural obstacles. There are examples of countries such as Tunisia (I think) that adopted a more socialist approach, guarded their industries, and still failed and/or were outperformed by those who adopted more of the free market approach. I'd advise you to take a look at the NEPAD document, which is a comprehensive policy plan devised by several African heads of state. http://www.nepad.org/2005/files/inbrief.php If you examine the details of the document, you'll see that what this whole thing really depends on is foreign capital. Foreign companies don't want to go there. How is nationalizing mineral industry in iteself going to solve this problem? It's not like Africa was thriving before the structural adjustment programs showed up. That's really all I'm trying to say.

That is well-reasoned criticism of the problem. however, as Ive stated before, why would free trade--and forced free trade at that--ever benefit a country that only has minerals and farm goods to trade back (and especially if their farm goods wont turn a profit on the world market due to tariffs, and their minerals are owned by a few select private individuals or firms)? If cheap high quality foreign products flood the market, why or how would any domestic industry ever spring up? And if no industry springs up, there's no multiplier effect that produces service and financial etc jobs. Thus the problem. You know, there hasnt been one instance that I know of, where a country has become a economic power without first imposing strict tariffs on almost all foreign goods. Even the United States was essentially closed off from trade for quite a long time. I think a country needs a good period of time to grow its domestic industry, before it can compete on the world market (and even then, there are problems; look at Brazil's failed attempt to not only grow a car industry, but computers and electronics as well). Hell, the policy of Greenspan was to promote huge multinational companies that could become as big as sovereign countrys, or as I think he called them: islands, that could weather any economic storm, plus would be big enough to compete with anyone on the world market.

And attracting FDI is another big problem for Africa. FDI goes to countries with an educated workforce, a cheap but hardworking workforce, and to countries without terrible amounts of corruption, bureacracy, and favorable labor laws. Two of my old classmates from grad school were African; one from Ghana, one from Cameroon, and the one actually worked as part of the diplomatic team in NY for a number of years for Cameroon (smart guy, London School of Econ undergrad degree). And I think we;ve covered just about everything they would talk about. But corruption is what rankles them most.

 

[Dushan S]

Ah, a Slav.

This explains your rabid political bias.

Ah, it is excpected that someone like you will think that ethnicity has anything to do with way anyone thinks and sees the world. It is so much easier to have little premade boxes you can use to classify everyone. And I live in Vojvodina that is highly multhi-ethnic, and my both parents are from Croatia, so you can't be sure that I am slav because I live here at all, and it does not matter.

Your "facts" are a mixture of realities taken out of context and conjecture. It's amazing that you have time to tell me what a rude, ignorant moron I am in this big useless post, but apparently can't be bothered to cough up a link or a source that supports your main claim. The fact that you live in the country does not mean that you are automatically an authority on it any more than myself or speed are authorities on America.

Bla bla. When argument starts, there are two people coming with their different ideas and informations. With different realities. You came with a lot of incorrect data about Yougoslavia as I have already pointed out. But you are ignoring it and pushing that "I am not prooving anything", even if you obviously don't know nough about history of balkans. You are not prooving anything, actually you appear like your main source of informations about foreign countries are CNN TV news. Why is anything you say set in stone so that I am only one having to proove anything? I may just the same claim that you are completely wrong, and that you should proove your points.
Finally, "prooving" can be unusble, because historical data in some cases is highly biased. I have seen a dozen of books and on line material about Balkans that is simply nonsense based on propaganda. Authors are writing based on what western media wanted reality to be at that moment. Actually I think 95% of people worldwide have no idea what actually has happened here. And I am last one to be biased, having a lot of friends of different faith and nationality living in ex yougoslavian republics.
So I am not loosing anything in leaving this conversation because I still have knowledge about some things you were talking about and you don't. It is you that is left with wrong informations, but as far as I see, "satisfaction" to be one that is "right" in internet argument is more important to you than knowledge itself. Like this is some kind of game you desparately have to win.

So have a nice day. No proofs, everything you said is right, I am a victim o hallucinations, you can feel proud. Cheers and enjoy yourself!

 

[infoterror]

Ah, it is excpected that someone like you will think that ethnicity has anything to do with way anyone thinks and sees the world. It is so much easier to have little premade boxes you can use to classify everyone.

You haven't commented on whether or not those boxes are correct. You seem to be trying to put me in a box as well, so I'm not that impressed with your "alternative."

 

[infoterror]

I'm tired of hearing this copout shit from people on this board. I guess we might as well just throw history, political science, and similar academic disciplines out the window. After all, everyone's opinion is equal (depending on where you live), history is just people's opinions, and this being the case, all argumentation is essentially equivalent to banging one's head against a brick wall.

I find this quite philosophically relevant.

If every opinion is "true" or "true analogue," e.g. can be respected as an opinion and thus as quasi-truth, there is no room for debate.

"Proof" might be difficult but "reality" in an objective sense is unquestionably out there.

But we cannot perceive it equally. Tho thad!

 

[speed]

I find this quite philosophically relevant.

If every opinion is "true" or "true analogue," e.g. can be respected as an opinion and thus as quasi-truth, there is no room for debate.

"Proof" might be difficult but "reality" in an objective sense is unquestionably out there.

But we cannot perceive it equally. Tho thad!

Ah postmodernism!

 

[troopsofdoom]

The world is lucky the US got the bomb first. The Japs and Germans would have nuked everyone.

 

[Norsemaiden]

The world is lucky the US got the bomb first. The Japs and Germans would have nuked everyone.

Germany would not have nuked anyone. An indication of this is the fact that, having suffered badly in a poison gas attack during WWI, Hitler was firmly opposed to the use of poison gas, considering it too horrific. He chose not to break with the Geneva Protocol of 1925 in which major nations outlawed its use.

There was virtually no tactical justification for the US to nuke Japan. The war was already as good as over, with Germany having surrendered 3 months earlier. Japan was looking for diplomatic ways out of the war, seeking Russia's help to negotiate peace, weeks before the Hiroshima attack. Before resorting to nuclear attack, the US could yet have tried: offering the retention of the Emperor, whom the Japanese were concerned about as they regarded him as a God (as it was they still retained the Emperor afterwards anyway), or a threatened invasion by Russia.

~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER
"...in [July] 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. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"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. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

There are further quotes from similarly important men on the above link.

 

[SoundMaster]

There was virtually no tactical justification for the US to nuke Japan. The war was already as good as over, with Germany having surrendered 3 months earlier. Japan was looking for diplomatic ways out of the war, seeking Russia's help to negotiate peace, weeks before the Hiroshima attack. Before resorting to nuclear attack, the US could yet have tried: offering the retention of the Emperor, whom the Japanese were concerned about as they regarded him as a God (as it was they still retained the Emperor afterwards anyway), or a threatened invasion by Russia.


.

True, indeed.
Ultimately, the desire to show the Soviets what America had "up its sleave" was a major contributing factor in the decision to use the two a-bombs.

 

[troopsofdoom]

Germany would not have nuked anyone. An indication of this is the fact that, having suffered badly in a poison gas attack during WWI, Hitler was firmly opposed to the use of poison gas, considering it too horrific. He chose not to break with the Geneva Protocol of 1925 in which major nations outlawed its use.

There was virtually no tactical justification for the US to nuke Japan. The war was already as good as over, with Germany having surrendered 3 months earlier. Japan was looking for diplomatic ways out of the war, seeking Russia's help to negotiate peace, weeks before the Hiroshima attack. Before resorting to nuclear attack, the US could yet have tried: offering the retention of the Emperor, whom the Japanese were concerned about as they regarded him as a God (as it was they still retained the Emperor afterwards anyway), or a threatened invasion by Russia.



http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

There are further quotes from similarly important men on the above link.

Germany had plenty of plans to use nuclear weapons but guess what they didn't have one yet. Hitler wanted to nuke NYC they were developing a one way long range bomber just for this purpose.If we didn't Nuke japan the war would have dragged on with huge numbers U.S. casualties. Go ask the soldiers that were there and see if they thought the war was as good as over. Who are we suppose to look out for I thought it was a war?

 

[troopsofdoom]

The reason the germans quit useing chem weapons is because they are a terrible weapon to use in combat not because he was concerned with peoples lives.