uhm, timber, you do know a thing or two about how to read people, don't you? i kept mine eagle eye on the a2k threads a bit before i was brave enough to step in... there's no turning back now, where would i turn to anyway, there is no better civilized conversation-oriented web out there.
Walter wrote:
"Have a look at reality, especially when quoting history (e.g., when you start counting all the wars, the US was involved, then please all!). And don't insult an US-ally like Emperor Hirohito as monster - that could weaken your "chain of proves"!
This from Google on Emperor Hirohito
Hirohito, the Emperor of Japan, was revered as both god and father of the Japanese people. Japanese Emperors exercised varying amounts of direct control on political affairs and it is difficult to assess the Emperor's share in the responsibility for the war. He presided over all cabinet meetings, but according to the traditional form of government he did not utter a word at these sessions and merely gave his approval to all decisions. On one occasion he shocked his ministers by demanding an explanation of their aggressive policy in negotiating with the Americans in October 1941.
During his early successful stage in the war Hirohito was kept in the background by Prime Minister Tojo, although Japanese Admirals and Generals kept him informed and up-to-date on all important developments. Tojo submitted all new policies to the Emperor for his assent, but the defeat at Midway was kept a secret from him for a few days. After Midway Hirohito became much more involved and probed his ministers about the reversals and growing losses - he had to approve withdrawal from Guadalcanal and Buna.
All orders were issued in Hirohito's name and it was fear for the Emperor's status after the surrender which prolonged the fighting. Many Japanese would rather fight to their death in a totally hopeless situation than allow even the possibility of a threat to the Emperor's position. The Allies declared at the Casablanca Conference that they would settle for nothing short of unconditional surrender. This was reiterated more ambigously in the Potsdam Proclomation. In August 1945 Hirohito used his influence to help the peace movement and although the Potsdam Proclamation did not guarantee his lawful status, Hirohito said that it had to be accepted. On 15 August 1945 he announced the formal surrender to the Japanese people in a recorded message on the radio. This was the first time in history that an Emperor addressed his people directly.
Even though the Emperor told MacArthur that he was responsible for the war, MacArthur realized that he could not reconstruct Japan or maintain its political stability without the Emperor. Hirohito was not tried for war crimes, but he was required on 1 January 1946 to issue a 'non-divinity proclamation ' prepared by the Allies.
Walter:
The way I read this is MacArthur realized that Hirohito was essential to his military rule of Japan other wise Hirohito would have been tried for war crimes even though he was deliberately kept uninformed until after the fact. He was in fact responsible for the war so how does that make him an ally? As for whether or not he was a monster or not ask the few survivors of the Bataan death march. The responsibility was ultimately his.
Regarding my reference to monsters there is nothing that implies I should limit the list of monsters to wars that the US fought in. I could not possibly list all the monsters that human nature has spawned.
dagmar, I agree with you about the civilized forum that this is.
I enjoy it greatly, even though it does get heated from time to time ;-) nothin wrong about arguing, as long as arguments are used, though.
Its On
SITUATION REPORTS - March 20 2003
0244 GMT - Heavy bursts of anti-aircraft and tracer fire continue over Baghdad.
0240 GMT - An MSNBC correspondent has reported scattered anti-aircraft fire on the eastern edge of Baghdad, following a siren like that sounded before air raids during the Gulf War. There has been no attack, but the correspondent said the siren could be a pre-warning.
0227 GMT - Baghdad's 14-channel, state-controlled satellite television service has been
suspended. Iraq earlier announced it was cutting off telephone service. The Iraqi News Agency Web site is offline, but the Internet apparently is not yet entirely suspended in Iraq.
0225 GMT - Sources in Baghdad report that people attempting to leave the city through Deyala governate, to the northeast, are being turned back at the borders of Baghdad city. Rumors are circulating in Baghdad that the city will soon be closed to all traffic, in or out.
0205 GMT - Iraq News Agency's Web site is down.
0116 GMT - The official text of U.S. President George W. Bush's letter to Congress notifiying the legislature that he is prepared to take military action in Iraq has been distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State.
0110 GMT - Citing CBS News, Ha'aretz News Flash has stated that U.S.-led forces will launch an attack on Iraq in 24 to 48 hours.
Bush to address Nation @ 10:15 EST
Kara wrote:
"perception, this angry statement is incomprehensible to me. Surely you do not think that any poster here wishes anything but safety for our soldiers? If you are saying that, you are being rash and inflammatory, indeed. Nor is it possible that you believe that anyone here wants our invasion of Iraq to "fail," whatever that means. No matter from which beliefs the posters come, no person here, from all I have read, wants anything other than zero loss of life, be it Iraqis or US or Brit soldiers".
It is an insult to those of us who think war is not an answer to imply that we have wished a disastrous end for this action of "your" country. You are setting up straw men composed of treason and treachery and then knocking them down.
Tartarin wrote this on page 64 this thread----
And yes, I want America to "fail." In my view, the greatest success would be for us to stop all preemptive aggression initiated by the US -- outlaw it -- and stop behaving as though we could eliminate all risk by dominating the rest of the world. I'd follow that by making a real effort to praise others before we praise ourselves, to repair our relationships with others, and to make sure we have done everything we can to improve the lives of those who are suffering before we even consider actions which have the potential of creating more suffering. So yes, I want America the bully to fail, by noon today, if possible. And then I want those who seem unable to recognize shades of gray to at least give up the argument that what I have just said here means I want Saddam to "succeed" or I'm drooling over the possibility of piles of body bags. Don't forget this: the body bags are being shipped out and filled by an administration many of us tried very hard to keep out of office.
Kara I don't want you to stop posting but you did say if I found one poster quilty of saying they wanted the US to "FAIL" then is this proof enough?
perception, i still believe this is now between you and those you address personally. the war is on, can we focus on that?
Perception,
He is clearly saying "failure" meaning stopping the war before it starts - not meaning he hopes our military is vanquished. I think that's an important distinction... especially if you're bringing someone's loyalty into question. Tell me, exactly what is your point?
SITUATION REPORTS - March 20 2003
0317 GMT - A message was just read on Iraqi state radio. The statement by Uday Hussein stated, "God protect us. God protect Saddam Hussein."
It seems the explosions in Baghdad were a "Target of Opportunity". Large explosions have been reported in both No Fly Zones, and in the vicinity of Iraq's Gulf Coast. The nature and locations reported lead me to conclude "Battlefield Prepping" is going on. There is no report of movement of large ground units. There are reports of defections to the Kurds and in Southern Iraq's Kuwaiti border.
It appears a more massive attack is to follow on shortly. So will lots of rumors.
snood wrote:Perception,
He is clearly saying "failure" meaning stopping the war before it starts - not meaning he hopes our military is vanquished. I think that's an important distinction...
It's just a distinction that doesn't agree with what Tartarin (she, by the way) wrote.
Again...
Tartarin wrote:I want withdrawal of our troops, first. Since that doesn't seem to be about to happen, my reason dictates that mush Bush fail in this attack...
Now unless you are suggesting that Tartarin specifically--and without actually writing so herself--is hoping that somehow war can be stopped before it starts without withdrawing our troops. How exactly would that work?
No, personally I have some respect for Tartarin for being honest here. I don't think she wishes any US soldiers harm in the specific, but nor does she think success in this war will send the right message to Bush. (At least that is what I took away from her comments. Tartarin, please correct me if I am wrong!) In which case her point of view obligates her to be willing to accept casualties among US soldiers just as my point of view obligates me to be willing to accept caualties among Iraqi civilians. I do not wish any Iraqi civilians harm, but neither does the reality that some will come to harm mean I think we should not prosecute this war.
listening to NPR..... it's all postulation.
I've been away for two days and won't have time to catch up on the many pages of posts.
Can someone let me know whether Boutros Ghali's statement made it into this discussion?
I suppose I ought to inform some of you here that, even with this war begun, my personal principles refuse limitation on criticism of this operation and its perpetrators. I wish harm to come to none in uniform nor to civilians. I do however, wish serious political harm on the president and specific members of the team around him.
Shock and Awe? Maybe they were trying to clear the cities before the attack? A psyche out?
littlek, it seems the baghdad deal wasn't part of "The Plan" ... a target presented itself and it was engaged. There has been significant Air-to-Ground action elsewhere, but the Baghdad thing was a sudden move. As yet, there is no mention of what the target of opportunity was. It could have been a missile, it could have been a "Highly Placed Member of The Regime". It might have been successful, it might not have been. Nobody's talking, other than that Saddam would of course be among the shortlist of possible targets.
The Main Attack is yet to come. If it is needed.
The latest update is that no more updates may be expected from The Whitehouse for the remainder of the evening.
Wouldn't that be sweet if they got SH at the get-go?
SITUATION REPORTS - March 20 2003
0317 GMT - A message was just read on Iraqi state radio. The statement by Uday Hussein stated, "God protect us. God protect Saddam Hussein."
0323 GMT - Pentagon sources say that the strike involving F-117 fighters was aimed at a site where Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi leaders were believed to have been staying.
COMBAT REPORTS - March 20 2003
0404 GMT - An MSNBC report states that Saddam Hussein has been confirmed as the target of the early coalition airstrikes against Baghdad.
Intruiging, huh? Dare we hope?
