# The Media



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I was reading the latest article over at Daring Fireball, which is called "Hackass". It is written about Leander Kahney, the guy who does most, if not all, of Wired's Apple coverage.

What it basically talks about (besides Mr. Kahney) is the state of journalism these days, and I was wondering what all of your thoughts are on the subject. 

Not so much with Canadian newscasts, but American ones, I find that there is less and less substance in most stories, less effort is put into getting good information, and a lot of journalists are content to find one man or woman with an opinion and present him or her as an "Expert".

Here is the main passage that interested me in the topic:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From DaringFireball:
*
There is a disconcerting trend in the modern media which holds that all opinions are equally valid, and that it is not appropriate for ostensibly unbiased journalists to declare which opinions are right, and which are wrong. It is thanks to this trend that we have CNN presenting Jerry Falwell as an informed expert on global warming, a man who used this opportunity to declare that “global warming is a myth,” that “top scientists” do not believe in it, and at the conclusion, offered this advice: “I urge everyone to go out and buy an SUV today.”

Calling bull**** “bull****” is not bias. It is journalism. 
*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have a look at the article, and post back with your thoughts/opinions.

--PB


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Journalism isn't objective now, and never has been. I think it's our expectation of objectivity that is as much to blame for the "equal time" we see on public media as the media themselves.

When you have a story like Global Warming, where most of the people have made up their own minds on a position, it makes news in general appear more objective if they offer a contrary opinion.

Perhaps the dangerous part is that, armed with the "fairness" of CNN as clearly demonstrated, we actually believe that there could be open debate on any issue we choose.

The media choose what, how and from whom we get our news. There's no need to present two sides if you don't bother to present one. It's far easier to determine a media's bias by noticing what they don't publish. There's no lack of news stories out there; actually there are too many. Media have no choice but to choose one over many others. If all the US TV networks are owned by Entertainment conglomerates and Defence contractors, should I believe they are objective?

Generally we are bound by the prejudices of our own media; the same "facts" aren't even reported the same way here in Canada. Any ehMac reader who reads both French and English could attest to that.

There's not anything "wrong" about taking a positon and supporting it, even if you do own a TV station. It happens all the time. Every time StatsCan releases a document, I read different facts from the report in my local paper, the Globe & Mail and the National Post. They all publish those details that support their position on jobs, family, the economy, whatever, and often ignore the others that may weaken their stand. Read 'em all and you get the big picture.

Our only imperfect recourse is to try and get our news from a variety of sources. The centralization of media is a real concern, as it makes this much more difficult. It remains to be seen exactly how the Internet will affect our ability to inform ourselves; it's still evolving and could probably go either way.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Great thread PB.  I would like to add some thoughts. The problem with journalism is truth and the control of it. There is so little truth in what is being reported in major storys. And when journalists get close to the truth, whether by accedent or not, they get shut down. The story that is. I have no url to add but if we remember the Anthrax situation after 911 some might remember how that story went away once it was reported the strain was traced back to the CIA. There is no freedoms anymore with journalism in the western hemisphere. Asking questions will soon be criminal. Just take a look at the new anti-terrorist laws the U.S. is keen to pass. It goes deeper, and I am not sure taking the time to go into it here really matters. All that matters is there are people like us who ask questions. We are a generation who will challenge the powers that be which is an absolute must!! It is key to the survival of our way of life. I would go deeper but hey, I'm not sure you've seen the revisions to the U.S. patriot act but this thread could end up as evidence.   
Talk to you again some time and happy holidays to all in ehMac land!!!!


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When you have a story like Global Warming, where most of the people have made up their own minds on a position, it makes news in general appear more objective if they offer a contrary opinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello,

I don't think most people have made up their minds, but have had their minds made up by the media. This is partially what Jerry Falwell may have been getting at, although I think he's a bit of a nut.

Most people have their opinions developed by the media outlets that they trust and are comfortable with. Very few individuals do their own research into a topic to further develop a coherent and logial argument in favour (or against) a particular line of thinking.

James


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There has always been a battle in journalism between the "reporting" function which is ideally neutral but in practice rarely so and the "editorial" function which interprets events.
I do like CBC for program like Pros and Kahn and some in the Star where dissenting views are aired.
I think we need both, it's when it slips into 1984 style subtle manipulation towards a hidden goal or mindset that a clear danger to society arises.

I think we all rankle at "editorial" when it takes the guise of reporting and at "reporting:" when it becomes selective to the point of swaying opinion.
Both subverted approaches make the consuming public wary and uncomfortable.
"A group homeless organized by the Coalition for Public Housing blocked the entrance to Queens Park today and the protest devovled into a violent confrontation with police sent to keep the traffic lanes open".......that's a report.

"A ragged and weapon toting gang of homeless ruffians organized by the.........."
You get the idea - editorial under the guise of reporting.
The importance of a free press to a democracy cannot be overstated - it is considered the Fourth Estate for good reason as it wields enormous power in the world ( Watergate  a good example)
Keeping that freedom is difficult - the movie The Insider" laid that out clearly.
Strict division of advertising staff and reporting staff is enforced at large newspapers and magazines to keep bias low.

An interesting phenomena of the internet are the "epinion" sites which give everyone a voice and in which balanced useful articles are rewarded with votes of confidence by the readers.
This was part and parcel of the same "voice of the people" that kept the Russian coupe attempt out in world view and away from "spin". Multiple real time eyewitness accounts provided a better view than any "official source " could or would.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

"The Media" is not a monolithic instrument of the state or capital. It is, howerver, usually a business. And as a business it needs to sell its product. And that product is whatever gets people to tune in.

There is, and can be no such thing as "unbiased" reporting. A reporter knows what his editor will/will not accept, what his/her publisher will/will not tolerate. Hence, we have a "liberal" Toronto Star, and a "conservative" Globe and Mail.

Television reporting requires more flash and less substance. The MTV generation wants cool graphics, but nothing difficult to think about.

That being said, one can be an "educated consumer" of the media. And it usually starts by reading or watching more than one outlet. And by realizing that what you are consuming is a corporate product, not a heck of a lot different than MacDonalds.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Again...I am amazed and impressed by Britnell's reply to this thread. The media is, indeed, a business. It provides interesting and(hopefully) informative news articles in order to get the viewer to stay tuned long enough to watch the commercials (which pay for it all, after all).


Chealion as well...my GOD! Where the heck did you come from??!!? You are far more perceptive than I was at your age. In fact, you are far more perceptive than most of my friends are....at TWICE your age. You are one to watch...for SURE! Outstanding!

As for the rest of the thread, I am with Timmer on this....the media is not one monolithic organ that is controlled by the Government. At least not in this country. Cuba, North Korea and the Old Soviet Union are another thing altogether. In those countries the news is what the high command decides it is.

Here is an example, from my own experience:
While I was in Cuba, the news began reporting the Elian event as a boy who was being held against his will, behind bars, in the USA. During this same period, the hotels stopped the feed from CNN in the hotel rooms. It was replaced by six-hour speeches by Fidel about how poor people didn't exist in Cuba. Anyone who has ever been there knows that EVERYONE in Cuba is poor. So do the Cubans. Virtually everyone who followed this also knows that young Elian was NOT held prisoner in the USA.

But Fidel and his government certainly portrayed him as being a prisoner of the USA.

One more thing here....my girlfriend, who is a Doctor of Medicine in Cuba...was not aware of the AIDS crisis in Africa. She had no knowledge of it at all! 

She challenged me when I told her about it. When I showed her a Time magazine article that was discussing the AIDS problem in Africa she became very defensive. She pointed out that several of her Doctor friends had gone to Africa, and NONE of them had commented on this problem. Therefore, it must be American propaganda. Cuba provides hundreds of Doctors to outside countries, including South Africa, in return for real dollars. And NONE of them knew about this rampant disease. 

That's what happens when the Government controls all of the media in a country.

This is one more reason that I think that people should get their news from a LOT of different sources! 

I heartily agree with everyone here who says "Check out a LOT of other News sorces!" before you make a decision.

It is very unlikely that news from several different countries are controlled from a single source. If they are all in agreement...especially after a certain amount of time has passed...then it's probably real. If not, then ask a LOT of questions. It never hurts to question everything, anyway.

Just my thoughts on this.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Britnell, I am unsure I agree with everything you state. 

"The Media" is not a monolithic instrument of the state or capital. It is, howerver, usually a business. And as a business it needs to sell its product. And that product is whatever gets people to tune in." 

Monolithic, meaning huge instrument of the state or capital, I think it is. Yes you are absolutely right, it's a business as well. We can look at Ted Turner as an excellent example. Keeping in mind what I am saying, it is a tool or as you commented, an instrument. As I stated above, CNN is reporting things about the war overseas that are being reported in order to sway public opinion on the situation. Is that not enough to see it is in fact an instrument of the state? Here's something else to think about. One of the first targets of attack in Afghanistan were their media towers. Rendering anyone in the country unable to communicate anything media wise. Another example, Egyptian news, I have watched a news cast with english sub titles and what is actually said is completely false when compared to the sub titles. (I did not know what was being said, I was with a friend who grew up there and thus a translator.) Someone made that dicision to alter the info. Who? If not high ranking gov officials then who? Maybe I am wrong, perhaps it is the media making these choices but if that is so, I would be lead to think the decision to alter anything from the truth is a direct example of careerism and nothing more. And if that is the case, someone would only act in this regard from pressures to do so from above. Basically, print the truth and your boss receives pressure from someone in office to move you or lose you. 

Awesome thread. Good on ya Posterboy!

Talk to you again.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Wow, this is getting inteesting guys! (like I expect anything else..!)

One thing that just sprung to mind is in with the editorials and actual news in the world, where are the spin doctors?

has anyone here seen the film "Wag The Dog"? This movie is all about the government using a spin doctor to use the media to divert attention from a rewing contriversy in the white house. They go so far as to create a fake war and a fake war hero to go along with it to take the peoples focus off a certain incident with the president and a visitor to the white house (set in the Clinton Administration, or around that time anyway).

So I guess what I am asking is, if even 1/4th of what they did in the movie is possible, how do we know what is even real or not?

--PB


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

'So I guess what I am asking is, if even 1/4th of what they did in the movie is possible, how do we know what is even real or not?"

Great question PB, your answer is in Macnuts post, or some of it. 

"I heartily agree with everyone here who says "Check out a LOT of other News sorces!" before you make a decision."

Keep looking, I don't think all your answers are achievable but it won't take long to see there is certainly enough to start questioning.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Good thoughts all of you! ALWAYS question EVERYTHING you hear. From EVERY source! If you hear the same stuff from several different countries, over a long period of time...then it probably has some validity. If you have a question...and you can afford the trip...then go there for yourself, and see for yourself. It's the only real way to tell. Note here: You WON'T be able to tell what's going on in a country from the safety of a resort. You need to go out and really live with the people of the country to really find out what's actually going on. I sh*t you not!

Cuba is a good example

I have spent some serious time in Cuba. But I have never spent one single day in a Cuban resort. The people you will meet in a resort (especially in Cuba) are hand-picked by the Government and will NOT give you a real idea of how the country works, as a whole.

If any of you are contemplating a trip to Cuba, and want to find out how the country ACTUALLY WORKS, then I suggest that you head out on your own. Canadians are allowed to go places that even Cubans are not allowed to go. There is almost NO crime. The best hotel in each city will cost you no more than twenty or thirty dollars per night. We Canadians are considered priviledged people...especially when compared to Cubans. My girlfriend, who is a Doctor, is not allowed on many beaches and must explain why she is travelling to distant states...unless she is with me! 

Cuba is a real treat for us Canadians.There are some hardships, but visiting is a life-changing experience. Especially if you are a leftist.

If you are a committed socialist then you will find that Cuba is a classic example of what you "don't want to do". Because it ISN'T WORKING!

Go have a look for yourself. But don't go to a Cuban Resort, and then think that you have seen the real Cuba.

Explore the country...talk to the people...then come back here and tell us what you've learned.

It should be quite illuminating!

Just my thoughts on this.....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MacNutt while Cuba may be a large issue in your mind it's not a microcosm for the rest of the planet - there are lots of viewpoints we don't get to seee and we get faor far too much of American views which have an equally distorted view of the world









This is indeed a good thread and Apple is one of the biggest "spin" doctor proponents on the planet. They DON"T like negative publicity and can get as heavy handed as any government - just ask some of the "Rumours" sites.

PBS has been a thorn in the side of a number of governments for providing alternative viewpoints and speak as the voice of many of the NGOs like Doctors without Borders that are having increasingly large and important roles in world conduct.
Reporters do indeed have a number of masters to serve The Insider was fascinating from that standpoint as was the issue with the "moron" comment form the PMO publicist. The media issues in that became a larger story than the actual event.
The internet is a wonderful resource but also needs a good dose of "salt" when digesting it all.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Alright, I'll keep the Cuba part of this short for the sake of everyone beyond MacNutt 

With all due respect to your girlfriend, I have to wonder what's up with her not knowing about the AIDS crisis in Africa. Whenever I'm in Cuba I pick up the daily paper, and when I'm away I read the online texts (not just the International publication, but the national version as well en español). AIDS and Africa have been frequent topics for as long as I can remember. 

One can even do a Google search http://www.google.ca/search?q=Cuba+SIDA+Africa+site%3Awww.granma.cubaweb.cu&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&meta= to see that at least as long as two years ago, Africa and AIDS were getting frequent coverage. Even those who are not great fans of Fidel read the daily newspaper....

Today's edition (Wednesday) has an article on new partnerships between Cuba and Namibia in the areas of Health and Education http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/2002/12/11/nacional/articulo02.html 

In addition, as a doctor she has access to the national medical website Project InfoMed http://www.infomed.sld.cu 

She also has access to InfoMed in the local Node http://www.cmw.sld.cu ("Nodo Finlay"). (The site 'times out" before it loads... there are many such internal Cuban websites which are available only to medical personnel within the country... not uncommon for web-surfers outside Cuba to not have access).

A search of InfoMed's online database lists articles available to Cuban doctors as far back as 1996.

Fidel, as a last note, has also frequently mentioned the AIDS crisis in Africa in his many speeches denouncing the profiteering undertaken by global pharmaceutical companies who refused to sell AIDS drugs 'at cost' to third-world nations.

As for Elián, I was in Cuba at the time, attended the street demonstrations, lived with Cubans who felt extremely upset that the U.S. would keep this boy from his Father. If preventing a child from being with his natural parent, who is known to be a good and caring father, for six months is not "imprisonment", then I would suggest a visit to Webster's. That poor kid was stuck with a bunch of loonies who thought he was the second coming of Christ http://www.flahum.org/forum_feature/images/elian_mural.jpg 

NOW, back to the discussion on the Media...

I spent ten years working as a radio reporter / announcer at the market-leading station in Halifax (CHFX-FM / CHNS-AM). And prior to that, two years working in broadcast at MITV, which was to later become the Global affiliate in Halifax.

Oh yeah... there are manipulations, distortions, omissions, and outright lies put out there on the airwaves for passive audiences to soak up like the couch sponges that we are. I've been censored, criticized, subjected to diatribes from those who felt that the audience had no need to know the other side of the story, because "our side is the right side".

Although he can be long-winded, I suggest those who have not seen or read "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky to check it out. It's a little dated now, but does an excellent job of showing how the populace is conditioned to believe the unbelievable.

My beef, apart from the general lack of depth of our nightly newscasts, is the dearth of good investigative journalism. The Fifth Estate isn't bad (though it's gotten itself in hot water a couple of times for misrepresenting the facts)... in fact, I recall one episode in particular which was beyond excellent. It was the exposé of the first Gulf War. The program broke the story one week before 60 Minutes repeated the same info. There was a Kuwaiti girl, brought before the congressional hearings in the U.S., who claimed to have been a nurse in a Kuwaiti hospital when Iraqi troops burst in, ripped babies from the incubators, put the machinery on trucks, and hightailed it back to Iraq. Tearful, emotional, powerful testimony.

Then we find out the real story.

She was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the U.S. She was not in a hospital working as the equivalent of a "candy striper" at all. She did not witness the incubator theft and baby murder. Amnesty eventually retracted its support for this particular incident. But it was enough... the vote to declare war was held two days later, and the bombing began in earnest.

How could this happen? The Kuwaiti government had hired a NY-based public relations firm to "sell" the war to America... and they certainly got their money's worth. Details: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Nayira-Witness-Incubator-Kuwait6jan92.htm 

And to the original point by PosterBoy about 'experts'.... I watch CNN because they, undoubtedly, have the broadest reach globally right now, and the infrastructure to bring the story to us the fastest. But that's about it. Believability? Please. In the space of a single day, we were subjected to both Falwell's amazingly ignorant rant about global warming and Kissinger's observations on global crises. Any credibility that had ever existed at CNN went out the window on that day.

(Don't even get me started on Kissinger heading up the investigation into 9/11 intelligence failures)

M.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Anyone remember Benito Mussolini? He got his skills from working at a newspaper. He said (paraphrased) Make a story in order to give your points, so turn fiction into reality.

The Media, is biased, but overall a very good source for news. (in Canada)


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Hey Macdoc, how are ya? Good I hope. I always look forward to what you have to say in these threads. 

your quote. "I think we need both, it's when it slips into 1984 style subtle manipulation towards a hidden goal or mindset that a clear danger to society arises."

Do you not think this is happening as we speak today? With the war on terror or the war in Iraq? Most everything on CNN is construed and there to manipulate it's observer.  These storys are there to control a populations opinion on whether to or to not go to war against a country that never once threatened the national security of the USA. They did however threaten their money, which is another thread. This war is a resource war and now is the time to act. Instead of telling the American public they need to invade Iraq in order to control the area and its resources or face the consiquences in the future they are fed lines about Iraqs weapons! What?! Frankly it's no one's business don't you agree? And really I must ask, what other country on earth would comply? No one, not a potential enemy anyway. Could you just see the Chinese (not to imply them as a potential enemy) laughing their butts of if george W asked them for a list of all their stuff. It would never happen. Which reminds me of something I heard on CNN some time ago about China. They stated that the CIA "speculates" China has over 100 nukes pointed at America. That's double what Russia had during the hight of the cold war. Furthermore, on a lighter note, I think it's fair to point out Mr. Bush's popularity is dropping.  So they say  I write that in irony since we are after all talking about the media and I am making reference to them and the info they have given me regarding Bush's popularity. Kinda funny actually. 
Take care


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Another of Chomsky's work that would fit the bill here is Necesary illusions. No doubt long winded, and for the first timer it can be a real mind @#$% if you know what I mean. He can blow your perception of reality out the window in a line or two. 

As for the Cuba thing. Since arriving here you two guys have been like social tour guilds to me. Its great to hear you two chat about it. Like you said earlier Macnutt, staying at the resports will learn you nothing. (something along those lines)









Cubamark, you are not the first I have heard, who has worked in the field, to share the fact that thing get twisted. Good for you. And yeah, Kinssinger, pardon?  My exact sentiments when the news came my way, that followed by a cynical laugh and a "sure, who else?"


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

As a sometimes working journalist, CubaMark and Noah Chomsky do a pretty good job summing up my opinions.

I think the public should look upon the news media, ie newspapers, magazines, radio and TV etc..., as gatekeepers. They offer the convenience of giving consumers news that broadly fits the interest, desires and outlook of their market. Most have broadly defined markets, some finely defined markets. Nonetheless, they filter and form the stories that reach their consumers so that they will appeal to their consumers.

So as others have said already, consumers need to informed from a range of sources if they are to come to a real understanding of an issue. Just watching CNN or reading The Globe and Mail won't do it.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

It's true that the media is a business. But it's no ordinary business.

I don't think anybody ever bought a newspaper to make money, you own newspapers so that you can influence others.

Now, over the long term, things like revenue are important; but publishers have been known to hang on to papers for a very long time after the red ink becomes chronic.

When you hear or read that a media provider is a business like any other, you can be sure it's followed by a proposed merger, or some form of foreign control, or media consolidation. It's an arguement that is only dragged out when they need the public to buy it in order to expand the influence. The most significant thing about consolidation is that it does offer opportunities to make profits, as it's a form of monopoly-building.

Once that deed is done, they go back to the real business of influencing the public.

One newspaper is a sea of red ink; twenty newspapers is means to profits.

Chomsky is probably mandatory for anyone interested in this subject, I recommend Manufacturing Consent. He's written a number of books, but you only need to read one to get the message, unless you are studying the actual events surrounding each book.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"I don't think anybody ever bought a newspaper to make money, you own newspapers so that you can influence others."








ummm Ken Thomson, Conrad Black, William Randolph Hearst and many others made fortunes in the newspaper biz. Influence is an outcome not a initial goal....altho once you are rich enough there are other currencies you deal in.

Newspapers as a business, media as a business are vehicles for the 4th estate to exercise it's role in the social fabric of society.
In many cases there are conflicts between the journalists, owners and even the advertising division who may frown on an investigative report that nails a big advertiser for some nefarious dealings.
There have been a few conflicts in the Mac mags along those lines.

So a journalist may be employed by the media but his responsibility as a journalist should be to the goals of his profession not the enrichment of his boss. If the two conicide fine, if they confict......then he or she has to make a decision.
Same with a doctor in a privately owned hospital.
Then there is reality


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

"I don't think anybody ever bought a newspaper to make money, you own newspapers so that you can influence others." 
ummm Ken Thomson, Conrad Black, William Randolph Hearst and many others made fortunes in the newspaper biz.
AAa you beat me to it macdoc  Conrad Black was the first thing I thought when I read that. Although I know little about the others I think we could easily stop at Mr. Black. Didn't he denounce his Canadian citizenship becuse he didn't like the way Canada does business? I could be way off there. I hope there is something in his biography on that since I have it in my "things to read pile."

As for Chomsky, if anyone is interested in some of his work you should check out his latest. "911". Really really interesting book. A short read as well. 

later


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

There is certainly empire-building in Media. I think it's obvious the motive is profit as well as control. The National Post has yet to make a dime, but as part of a media empire it's acceptable to cross-subsidize your assets.

A single newspaper in most markets in the world, without other media assets or some other business to support it, is usually no way to make money. Most newspapers are started as a labour of love, not for the love of profit.

Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black build empires, and the best way to make money owning newspapers is to own a bunch of them, preferrably with some other media assets. In fact, that's the arguement made when someone wants to buy a money-losing paper; the choice is usually presented as let the big guys get bigger or the paper goes out of business.

If we treat news media as just another 7-11, then there can be no arguement against consolidation. If we believe that a diversity of opinions is critical to a free press in a democratic society, then we must also believe that media outlets are not the same as any other business.

I don't think WallMart could create a war in order to sell more Chinese-made toys, but William Randolf Hearst had no trouble doing so in order to sell more newspapers.

The Spanish-American War


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Wow, enjoying this a lot.

I agree with the entire concept of the media industry being like any other industry in that you need multiple points of view to understand what you are debating on. Communism doesn't work, that has been proven, but its beutiful in theory. Never read Chomsky but with a 2 and half week christmas break I think I have some reading to do 

Thx for the opinions, I find this very enlightening...
and oh yeah, the media is like technology...
Bad in the wrong hands, good in the right hands... Buyer beware (that and I really like the push by the National Post "Perspective is Everything" , cuz it is)


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Some of the people here might want to check out Google's (beta version) News service. It's one of the tabs in the search window, or you could just use the link below.
Most interesting is the links to a number of news sources for each story, many of them foreign news sources.
There is also a specialized news search feature, to get online versions of whatever topical story you want to read about.
Google News


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Google News is a decent source for variety.

But it still falls somewhat short internationally and with alternative sources. Mainstream American, Canadian and British sources dominate the listings.

So I've bookmarked a list of alternative and international sources. I try to hit one or two every week to stretch the mind.

The list includes www.motherjones.com, www.straightgoods.com, www.unwire.org, www.znet.org and www.nationalreview.com (to keep the blood flowing).


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

timmer wrote:
"Frankly it's no one's business [whether Iraq has WMDs]..."

Actually, the UN decided that it was their business to determine whether or not Iraq had WMD after the Gulf War. 

Remember, Iraq is the only nation since 1919 to use WMD (update: I meant chemical weapons) in combat (and has done so on numerous occasions against both its enemies and its people), and Saddam Hussein also supports terrorists. Is it completely inconceivable that if Iraq develops a nuclear program that a nuclear weapon could be detonated in an American (or Canadian or European) country?

Besides, would it be such a bad thing for the people of Iraq if Saddam was removed from office and, say, some sort of democratic government was set up?


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

timmer wrote:
"Frankly it's no one's business [whether Iraq has WMDs]..."

jfpoole wrote. 
Actually, the UN decided that it was their business to determine whether or not Iraq had WMD after the Gulf War. 

Remember, Iraq is the only nation since 1919 to use WMD in combat (and has done so on numerous occasions against both its enemies and its people), and Saddam Hussein also supports terrorists. Is it completely inconceivable that if Iraq develops a nuclear program that a nuclear weapon could be detonated in an American (or Canadian or European) country?

Besides, would it be such a bad thing for the people of Iraq if Saddam was removed from office and, say, some sort of democratic government was set up? 

First off, have you forgotten what happened in Japan durning the second world war!!?? You are kidding right? I must then assume you have also forgotten who it was who dropped those bombs. The USA!

Second, if I could use a thought from Bill Hicks and his work. If the UN wants to know what kind of weapons Iraq has I am sure the US could supply them with reciepts for all their (Iraqs) purchases. 

As for the people of Iraq, none of us are remotely qualified to comment on what they might be thinking.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jfpoole:
Remember, Iraq is the only nation since 1919 to use WMD in combat<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and where does the USA's use of nukes in WWII fall into this equation?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>, and Saddam Hussein also supports terrorists. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As does the USA. Remember the Contras in Nicaragua? Those America-lovin' "freedom fighters" who attacked rural health clinics and schools? Or how about the fact that terrorists who have killed Cubans walk the streets of Miami? Orlando Bosch is perhaps the most notorious (see http://cuban-exile.com/doc_051-075/doc0057.htm ). and then there is this stellar example: http://www.antiterroristas.cu/index.php?tpl=noticia/anew&noticiaid=372&noticiafecha=2002-10-13&PHPSESSID=e5c6c9ef08c2645f1762c112ccad0505 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Besides, would it be such a bad thing for the people of Iraq if Saddam was removed from office and, say, some sort of democratic government was set up?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reports which have been in the major dailies over the past couple of months indicate that the U.S. is contingentcy-planning for perhaps years of military occupation before an 'acceptable" government can be installed.... and it won't be as easy as Afghanistan. 

Kharzai, the western-appointed leader of Afghanistan, is the former representative of an international oil company (UNOCAL):

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In 1995, Kissinger showed up for the signing ceremony in New York that sealed Unocal's agreement to build a $2 billion, 1,000-mile pipeline from the gas fields of Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan. The torturous negotiations leading to that aborted deal -- including Kissinger's cameo -- are fully described in Chapter 12 of "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil & Fundamentalism in Central Asia," by Ahmed Rashid, an authoritative journalist who now works for the Wall Street Journal. Unocal eventually withdrew from Turkmenistan, amid charges of bribery and influence-peddling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.salon.com/politics/conason/2002/12/03/bush/ 

The odds of a "democratic" government emerging are far lower on the likelihood scale than yet another puppet government of the west which will guarantee access to oil reserves on demand, wide open markets for U.S. goods, and detrimental foreign investment policies. Why would Iraq be any different than any other example in the history of U.S. state overthrows?

Whoops... kinda got off the media track...



M


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

timmer wrote:
"First off, have you forgotten what happened in Japan durning the second world war!!?? You are kidding right? I must then assume you have also forgotten who it was who dropped those bombs. The USA!"

I recall Japan launching a sneak attack on the US, then four years of war culminating in the US dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. Were it not for these bombs, the US would have had to invade Japan itself, at an enormous cost of life, both for the US and Japan.

I also remember that after World War II the US spent an enormous amount of money rebuilding Japan (and Europe, for that matter) and reshaping it to become one of the most powerful economies today.

"If the UN wants to know what kind of weapons Iraq has I am sure the US could supply them with reciepts for all their (Iraqs) purchases."

Alas, most of Iraqs recent purchases seem to have gone through France and Germany.

"As for the people of Iraq, none of us are remotely qualified to comment on what they might be thinking."

I'm sure they're happy. I mean, wouldn't you be happy if you lived in a nation where arbitrary arrests and torture were the norm? Where elections were conducted with numbered ballots? Where there is no such thing as free speech?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

CubaMark wrote:
"...and where does the USA's use of nukes in WWII fall into this equation?"

Gah, my mistake. I meant to say chemical weapons. That's what I get for posting to ehMac when at work.

"Reports which have been in the major dailies over the past couple of months indicate that the U.S. is contingentcy-planning for perhaps years of military occupation before an 'acceptable" government can be installed.... and it won't be as easy as Afghanistan."

Right, and the US occupied Europe and Japan after World War II. Both seemed to have turned out fairly well, don't you think?

Oh, what are you referring to as "not being as easy as Afghanistan"? The war, or the following occupation?

"Kharzai, the western-appointed leader of Afghanistan, is the former representative of an international oil company (UNOCAL)"

Are you sure you're not confusing Hamid Karzai and Zalmay Khalilzad? Karzai is the head of the interm government in Afghanistan, while Khalilzad is the envoy to Afghanistan from the US. Khalilzad worked for UNOCAL, not Karzai. Khalilzad has also done other things beside work for UNOCAL, too, which seem to suggest he understands the region very well (source).


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

As always Cubamark your fantastically on track. I am glad you mentioned South America. AND the Kissinger stuff!!! Outstanding.

jfpoole
you qoute
"I recall Japan launching a sneak attack on the US, then four years of war culminating in the US dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. Were it not for these bombs, the US would have had to invade Japan itself, at an enormous cost of life, both for the US and Japan.

Yes but it's still the use of WMD. 

I also remember that after World War II the US spent an enormous amount of money rebuilding Japan (and Europe, for that matter) and reshaping it to become one of the most powerful economies today."

Your right, but it doesn't justify it.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

timmer wrote:
"Yes but it's still the use of WMD." 
"Your right, but it doesn't justify it."

Justify what? The use of a nuclear bomb? Would it have been better to prolong the war and have more people die as a result?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Are you sure you're not confusing Hamid Karzai and Zalmay Khalilzad? Karzai is the head of the interm government in Afghanistan, while Khalilzad is the envoy to Afghanistan from the US. Khalilzad worked for UNOCAL, not Karzai.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm... a broader search will reveal that Khalilzad is referred to as an "aide" to UNOCAL, while Kharzai is cited widely as being a "consultant" to UNOCAL.  If these are both accurate, then that's a double-whammy for big oil interests in the new Afghani administration...

M.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

CubaMark wrote:
"Hmm... a broader search will reveal that Khalilzad is referred to as an "aide" to UNOCAL, while Kharzai is cited widely as being a "consultant" to UNOCAL. If these are both accurate, then that's a double-whammy for big oil interests in the new Afghani administration..."

Okay, so let's say that both were on the payroll of UNOCAL in some form or another (as consultants or aides or whatnot). Let's also say that the war in Afghanistan was about oil and not getting rid of a terrorist threat.

If that was the reason for going to war in Afghanistan, then it was a rather silly one.

The gas and oil that was to go through the pipelines in Afghanistan is now distributed through other routes. Also, markets in Pakistan and India now meet their oil demand from other sources. Add on the fact that there's no infrastructure to speak of in Afghanistan right now and that things are still unstable politically, I can't imagine that there are any companies chomping at the bit to build pipelines through Afghanistan.

Still, even if oil was a factor for waging war in Afghanistan, wouldn't you say the fact that the Taliban is no longer in control of Afghanistan is a good thing?


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by timmer:
*timmer wrote:
Would it have been better to prolong the war and have more people die as a result?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello,

I'm afraid to say that it is not possible to be sure that this would have been the result if the 'bomb' had not been used. Maybe some pyschic would know, but I doubt anyone else does.

James


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

james_squared wrote:
"I'm afraid to say that it is not possible to be sure that this would have been the result if the 'bomb' had not been used. Maybe some pyschic would know, but I doubt anyone else does."

Indeed, but as gordguide wrote:
"Japan had over 1 million troops in reserve for the Battle Of Japan. Reasonable estimates at the time suggested the war could go on for 2 or more years. Casualties (on both sides) in the millions was expected. If this new, secret "super bomb" could end the war in weeks instead of years, I find it hard to believe ANY nation would hesitate to use it. Let's not forget that for the most part, those in the know weren't even sure it would work."

I know that if I were in the position where the options were end the war in a couple of weeks vs. fighting a war that could drag on for a few more years, I'd take the option of ending it quickly, especially if it meant that far fewer of my countrymen would die as a result.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"I'm afraid to say that it is not possible to be sure that this would have been the result if the 'bomb' had not been used. Maybe some pyschic would know, but I doubt anyone else does."

No it is not ABSOLUTELY possible to say the outcome but the very fact it took TWO bombs should tell you something.
The Japanese resistance across the Pacific was increasingly fanatical as the Allies approached the home islands of Japan.
The emperor was considered a god and it was an honour to die for the country.
It took a wake up call of nuclear proportions and even then it was no easy thing.
Do your reading. Oppenheimer and Einstein were horrified by the creature the birthed but no one questions that the use of it shortened the war dramatically and saved many many lives on both sides despite the horrific cost to two cities.
The Japanese war party was firmly in power - it took the Emperor to pull out. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/Dip/Crane.html 
"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is indeed incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects; or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers. "

Despite the hundreds of thousands already killed it took the bomb to get the Japanese to contemplate the consequences of continued fighting.

The decision was not taken lightly http://www.odci.gov/csi/monograph/4253605299/csi9810001.html#rtoc9 

Look at the situation, the lead up to it, the horrendous casualties already suffered on both sides....can you honestly convince yourself that the use of the bomb did not save countless lives on both sides and perhaps years more warfare.  
Can you say YOU would have committed hundreds of thousands of Allied troops to a bloody invasion when you had an alternative? Could you sleep at night after the mother of a boy killed on the beaches asked you "why ".......when you had an alternative.
Given Truman's magnificent performance in rebuilding Europe and Japan after the war can you really question his motive in ordering the use of the bomb. The US unleashed the atomic pandora with immense regret and little or no choice.


----------



## 8thDegreeSavage (Dec 3, 2002)

I can say that the US knew all about Pearl harbor and let the attack happen there in order to use Nuclear weapons on innocent civilians. The admiral of the Japanese Navy sent a communique to the US military declaring he planned to attack Pearl Harbor a full two weeks before the attacks happened....the US let there own people die..in order to use the A bomb.

I can also say that i feel the attacks on hiroshima and Nagasaki were two of the biggest acts of terrorisum in the last century.

It is no different than the attacks on the WTC in my eyes.

I dont care how people justify it by saying that it helped shorten the war, thats a cop out. What the US did was horrible and no one should ever forget it. 


Some reading material.

http://www.americanstateterrorism.com/usgenocide/HiroshimaNagasaki.html 

From York University.
http://www.math.yorku.ca/sfp/sfp.ex.html 
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0806-01.htm 
http://www.oneworld.org/news/world/bloomfield.html


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Gordguild said
"Now, since "the bomb", there are no excuses, for America or anyone else. Had the cold war evolved without any nuclear attacks, it may well have ended with a massive one. We all owe the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a great deal; they saved humanity with their own, innocent lives."
Well said gordguild!! I went back to get more of what you said and didn't know what to take first. Your perception and knowledge here is on the button. 

jfpoole
"I clearly remember Dick Chaney stating on TV that this war was crucial to securing the last of the worlds resources."

You're going to have to come up with a citation (and a good one at that) for this.

What are you talking about? Really now? You quote me then you ask for one? This does not make sense. 

As far as the quote, I am not sure how I could top that level of honesty from anyone in office today with another quote. And I stated earlier I would do what I can to get you something. And yes, a pipeline is completely necesary to get oil out of the Caspian sea area. Tazikstan and Kasikstan (spelling







)

James, please use quotes from the right people. Thank you. That was originally said by jfpoole.

macdoc said. 
Look at the situation, the lead up to it, the horrendous casualties already suffered on both sides....can you honestly convince yourself that the use of the bomb did not save countless lives on both sides and perhaps years more warfare

makes you think. Good perspective. Thank you. 

A good night to all!!


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

8thdegreesavage. 

your post was not there when I first came back. Many people feel like you do and know this though their own research. Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the British informed the US as well. Prime Minister Chamberland informed the U.S. 
A great read on this is "Day of deceit." I will try and find you an auther if your interested. 

Have a great night.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

8thDegreeSavage wrote:
"I can say that the US knew all about Pearl harbor and let the attack happen there in order to use Nuclear weapons on innocent civilians."

*tweeeeet*

50 yard penalty from the previous spot for a blatantly absurd statement and attempted trolling. Loss of down.

"[Hiroshima and Nagasaki are] no different than the attacks on the WTC in my eyes."

Er, I would've thought that in your eyes H&N would've been much worse than WTC simply due to the numbers involved.

"I dont care how people justify it by saying that it helped shorten the war, thats a cop out. What the US did was horrible and no one should ever forget it."

Well, what would you have done?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

timmer wrote:
"What are you talking about? Really now? You quote me then you ask for one? This does not make sense."

Man, and I thought UseNet quoting was bad.

You (timmer) wrote in an earlier post:
"I clearly remember Dick Chaney stating on TV that this war was crucial to securing the last of the worlds resources."

All I asked in reaction to this quote was some sort of citation; a video would be wonderful.

timmer wrote:
"And yes, a pipeline is completely necesary to get oil out of the Caspian sea area. Tazikstan and Kasikstan"

You only need a pipeline from Tajikistan and Kazakhstan through Afghanistan to Pakistan if you want the oil to end up in Pakistan (or ports on the Indian Ocean). Right now, oil from these two nations that would have flowed through the proposed Afghanistan pipeline is now flowing through a Russian pipeline system to a port in the Black Sea. Thus, there is no *need* for a pipeline through Afghanistan.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"I can say that the US knew all about Pearl harbor and let the attack happen there in order to use Nuclear weapons on innocent civilians."
Indeed you can SAY it but then it certainly proclaims that your level of foolishness is only exceeded by your lack of knowledge of how and WHEN the atomic bomb was developed.  

You can also SAY the moon is made of green cheese but it makes it neither a true statement nor a useful theory.









Einstein on the other hand had a useful theory.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I don't think this is the exact reference you wanted, but the sentiment is there...

http://www.counterpunch.org/monbiot2.html 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Afghanistan has some oil and gas of its own, but not enough to qualify as a major strategic concern. Its northern neighbours, by contrast, contain reserves which could be critical to future global supply. In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

M


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

While I don't condone the use of nuclear weapons, the situation during summer 1945 is in no way similar to today.

When the Russians moved to take Berlin, the battle cost a half million Soviet casualties (wounded & killed). Those are major losses, folks.

The world was in the midst of a 6 year war, where innovative weapons and tactics had subjected military and in particular civilians to an unprecedented number of new, terrifying weapons. The nuke was both untested (they knew it "should" work, but think "version beta 0.1") and represented what the enemy was known to have at least some idea about; there was no way to say for sure that the allies wouldn't find themselves under nuclear attack if they hesitated.

Japan had over 1 million troops in reserve for the Battle Of Japan. Reasonable estimates at the time suggested the war could go on for 2 or more years. Casualties (on both sides) in the millions was expected. If this new, secret "super bomb" could end the war in weeks instead of years, I find it hard to believe ANY nation would hesitate to use it. Let's not forget that for the most part, those in the know weren't even sure it would work.

Almost entirely because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there are no nuclear non-believers today. The National Enquirer can publish stories that the moon landings were faked and get a bunch of people to believe it. Not so with nukes.

Had America not used "the bomb", somebody else would have, by accident if not on purpose. The Japanese themselves understand this more than anybody.

Now, since "the bomb", there are no excuses, for America or anyone else. Had the cold war evolved without any nuclear attacks, it may well have ended with a massive one. We all owe the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a great deal; they saved humanity with their own, innocent lives.

Gas was well known during WWII and neither side used it militarily, no matter how desperate the situation. Saddam pretty much sealed his fate when he demonstrated by using a banned chemical weapon both during the Iran-Iraq war and after the Gulf War against Kurdish civilians, that he had no use for the conventions that even Nuclear powers felt compelled to honour.

So, although it's quite correct to compare the US's use of WMD to Saddam's; the comparison doesn't equate the two on any meaningful level.

The most troubling thing about the current situation in Iraq is the US has proved itself completely incapeable of dealing with what happens next. Afganistan is a mess; last week the US Air Force had to call out B-52 strikes when warring factions caught US troops in the crossfire ("stay tuned for absolutely no news at 11"). Somalia is perhaps the most dangerous, unlawful place on earth. Exactly what should we expect from a Saddam-less Iraq, and where is our assurance anything resembling a stable government has any chance of emerging under US leadership? The track record is worrisome indeed.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

timmer wrote:
"Yes but it's still the use of WMD." 
"Your right, but it doesn't justify it."

Justify what? The use of a nuclear bomb? Would it have been better to prolong the war and have more people die as a result? 

This is becoming redundant rather quickly. You started this string with stating Iraq was the only nation to use WMD since 1919, and I stated a fact that proved that wrong. And now we are way off topic and not learning anything any longer. Never mind prolonging the war and the point your trying to make here, this is not what was being shared amongst one another in the first place. Whether prolonging the war is relevent or not is for another thread, you said, Iraq was the last to use WMD in 1919, I reminded you of WWII. That is it. 

Okay, lets move on now. 
more of your words. 
"Okay, so let's say that both were on the payroll of UNOCAL in some form or another (as consultants or aides or whatnot). Let's also say that the war in Afghanistan was about oil and not getting rid of a terrorist threat.

I clearly remember Dick Chaney stating on TV that this war was crucial to securing the last of the worlds resources. (I will do what I can to find you something on this) With this said, what more do you need to know regarding what this war is about. 

yourt quote, 
If that was the reason for going to war in Afghanistan, then it was a rather silly one.

Its not a silly one, its a real one and it's the back bone of everything on earth right now, oil my friend, pretrolium based products. If you control the oil you control the money which means you control the world. 

your quote,
The gas and oil that was to go through the pipelines in Afghanistan is now distributed through other routes. Also, markets in Pakistan and India now meet their oil demand from other sources. Add on the fact that there's no infrastructure to speak of in Afghanistan right now and that things are still unstable politically, I can't imagine that there are any companies chomping at the bit to build pipelines through Afghanistan.


I can fully imagine companys chomping at the bit to build this pipeline! I can also imagine just how "American" those companys would be. 


your quote
Still, even if oil was a factor for waging war in Afghanistan, wouldn't you say the fact that the Taliban is no longer in control of Afghanistan is a good thing?"

What did it matter who controlled Afghanistan three years ago? Did you care that theTaliban was control?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

timmer wrote:
"This is becoming redundant rather quickly. You started this string with stating Iraq was the only nation to use WMD since 1919,"

Right, and I've acknowledge that as a mistake; I meant chemical weapons.

"I clearly remember Dick Chaney stating on TV that this war was crucial to securing the last of the worlds resources."

You're going to have to come up with a citation (and a good one at that) for this.

"Its not a silly one, its a real one and it's the back bone of everything on earth right now, oil my friend, pretrolium based products. If you control the oil you control the money which means you control the world."

Afghanistan *has* no oil reserves to speak of, though. Afghanistan's only connection to oil is that people wanted to build a pipeline through it back in the mid-1990s. Since they couldn't then, they've already gone ahead and found other ways to get their oil and gas to market (often in markets where demand has increased unexpectedly, like Russia). Hence it makes no sense to build a pipeline through Afghanistan now.

"I can fully imagine companys chomping at the bit to build this pipeline! I can also imagine just how "American" those companys would be."

Um, why? There's no REASON to build the pipeline now. Do you know of oil reserves that no one else does?

"What did it matter who controlled Afghanistan three years ago?"

I'd say it mattered a great deal to those who lived in Afghanistan at the time. I mean, I'd imagine anyone who lived under a government that routinely tortured and killed thousands of its citizens would rather have a different government. I'd imagine the women of Afghanistan are thankful that their lot in life has improved; they're attending school now (among other things), which is something they couldn't do when the Taliban was in control.

"Did you care that the Taliban was control?"

I did, actually, although for different reasons.


----------



## 8thDegreeSavage (Dec 3, 2002)

So i get accused of trolling due to my opinion? I dont understand.
Its macdocs opinion that the use of the bomb saved countless lives in the war, he is entitled to that opinion, but when i have the point of view that the US used the attack on Pearl harbor as a goahead to use the bomb its trolling? Please spare me.

When i stated that the attacks on WTD and Pearl harbour are the same in my eyes...its the act..not the death toll...which in the case of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is horrendous. In both cases the forces which set out to destroy as much as possible in order to achieve a givin result. In both cases it was to dismantle the morale of the target countries.

Dont get on your high horses and start calling me a troll because i have an opinion different from yours, that is silly.

While i dont agree with Macdocs statement..i didnt turn to trying to belittle him for stating how he felt.

While i understand my first statement was a bit harsh...i see it as reality. The US CHOSE to use the bomb....they didnt HAVE TO, nor did they HAVE to drop it on cites full of innocent people. Justifying the use of Nuclear weapons is just plain ignorant in my eyes. It was never necessary. 

But im not going to call you stupid for feeling how you feel, thats just childish.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Jfpoole, I am not enjoying this any longer. It is now just banter that no one is getting anything from. 

AS for the Citation, you clearly misused the word, A citation is a quote, I gave it to you originally, read the post. Then you asked for a citation! When it was proof of the original citation you wanted, which if you read the post you will see I offered. Haven't had time to find one for you because I am to busy clearing up the use of a word. 
Furthermore, Cubamark has dug up a great url which talks about the Caspian, the pipeline etc. Thanks cubamark. You solved a problem for me. I have this info on tape and at this moment, no way of getting anything up to digital not to mention the shear size of the file.
 

hope all are well, whereever we are?


----------



## 8thDegreeSavage (Dec 3, 2002)

Here is something for the left of us im usre ill get racked over the proverbial coals but oh well here goes.

Dear Canada,
We know you are sick of Americana. We know you grew up with everything from The Fonz to the word “couch” rammed down your throat and you see the American flag as a giant sports icon for jocks - but you’re wrong. The average American has nothing to do with your plight. If you trace the blame for their foreign policy, for example, you end up going past Americans, through most of their elected representatitves, through the CIA, and into the lap of a small cabal of corporate-connected leaders who have little regard for the democratic principles most Americans think their country stands for. As world-renowned Mr. Nice Guy, Dalai Lama recently said following 9-11, "As far as domestic policy is concerned, they think democracy, democracy, democracy," he said. "But American foreign policy is not much concerned for democratic principles." When fundamentalists and moderates alike talk about “evil America” they are talking about a handful of corporate-influenced crimes most Americans know nothing about. And the reason your average American doesn’t know anything about it is that they’re working too hard. 

When we see the American flag we see construction workers and waitresses busting their asses and going into debt trying to make things better for their families. They get home too tired to read the paper and get their world news from late-night comedians. 

Before September 11th the deal was this: The American people agreed to work their asses off and not ask questions about what the government was up to as long as the government promised to continue to provide the American way of life. As Ollie North put it, “the American people don’t want to know.” Then on September 11th, everything changed. A group of lunatics had been using foreign policy blunders abroad to vilify America and start a war. All Americans became victims of wrongdoings that none of them had anything to do with and the American way of life had become threatened. 

For the first time in decades the American people want to know what’s been going on behind their backs and the answers are not pretty.


Philippines
The 1899 Filipino-American War is one of those nasty little conflicts that you won’t find a lot about in your high school history textbook. Call it the first Vietnam. During the 1898 Spanish-American War, the US help the Filipinos gain independence from Spain. Then they declare the country an American colony. A brutal war follows. Many of the scorched-earth tactics used in Vietnam are first used here. More than 100 000 Filipinos die. A large anti-imperialism movement starts in the US. “We do not intend to free, but subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem,” wrote early celebrity activist Mark Twain. In 1945, the Americans come back to the Philippines. Even though they have a common enemy – Japan – America fights leftist forces known as Huks. The US defeat the Huks, and install a series of puppet presidents, culminating in the absurdly corrupt Ferdinand Marcos. He and his high-heel-obsessed wife bilk the poverty-ridden country dry for three decades, until retiring comfortably in Hawaii. 


Iran
1953 - The CIA’s first big takedown. The democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh had to go. He was talking crazy talk, like nationalizing Iran’s oil. A CIA-sponsored coup kills him and restores the Shah to absolute power that begins 25 years of repression and torture. Iran’s oil is returned to its rightful owners, the Americans and British. This, of course, sets the stage for a radical Islamic revolution in 1979, when the Ayatollah Khomeini takes over, holds Americans hostage, burns many American flags, and pisses off ******** across America.

Guatemala
1953 - Jacobo Arbenz also had to go. The progressive democratically elected president is also talking that crazy talk - you know, land reform, civil liberties, nationalizing the Washington-connected United Fruit Company. The CIA organizes a massive disinformation campaign and coup. Next up: 40 years of bad, bad things you don’t even want to think about – American-trained death squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions. Victims: 100 000.

Middle East
In the 50s, the Eisenhower Doctrine stated the United States “is prepared to use armed forces to assist” any Middle East country “requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism.” In other words, no one is allowed to **** around in the Middle East or its oil fields except the United States. The US tries to overthrow the Syrian government (twice), lands 14 000 troops in Lebanon, and conspires to overthrow and assassinate Arab nationalist Nasser in Egypt. US supports Israel with billions of dollars of aid, despite its harsh treatment of Palestinians and massacres in Lebanon.

Indonesia
1957 - President Sukarno is another troublemaker. He takes back Indonesian companies from their former colonial master, the Dutch. He takes a trip to Moscow. He refuses to crack down on communists. The CIA launches a disinformation campaign, tries to blackmail him with a fake sex film, plots his assassination, and hooks up with dissident military officers to start a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno, unlike many on the Agency’s hit list, somehow survives. 1965 - Sukarno is finally overthrown by General Suharto. The US helps him track down anyone suspected of being communist. The New York Times calls what follows “one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history.” Up to one million die.

Vietnam
After watching the French get their asses kicked halfway to Montparnasse, the US gets embroiled in a civil war pitting communist nationalist forces against a corrupt, pro-west government. In 1961, the first young American men start arriving home in body bags. Before it’s over, more than one million Vietnamese and 50,000 Americans will die, Jimi Hendrix will play Woodstock, the Beatles will form and break up, and the American psyche will be radically transformed. In 1973, the US finally admits defeat, forever dooming it to need to overcome the “Vietnam Syndrome” (see Rambo).

Cambodia
1969 - Nixon and Kissinger begin their secret “carpet bombings” of Cambodia. They say it is to kill Viet Cong hiding out in the Cambodian jungle. Hundreds of thousands of Cambodian civilians die. 1970 - Washington finally helps overthrow troublesome Prince Sihanouk in a coup. The US enlists the genocidal maniac Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge to help fight the Viet Cong. Five years later, Pol Pot takes over, declares “Year Zero,” kills anyone with an education, or even wearing glasses, and sends everyone to the countryside to work in agricultural labor camps. More than two million die in his “killing fields” (see The Killing Fields).

The Congo/Zaire
1960 - Patrice Lumumba becomes the Congo’s first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But the Belgians don’t quite leave. They keep their hands on the vast mineral wealth in the Katanga province, where the Americans also have a piece of the action. Lumumba is defiant, calling for the Congo’s economic and political liberation. In other words, he is doomed. In January 1961, he is assassinated with help from the CIA, under orders from Eisenhower himself. His body is chopped up into little pieces and burned in acid. Mobutu Sese Seko takes over, changes the name to Zaire, and begins one of the most corrupt and bloody dictatorships in modern times. Even his CIA handlers are amazed at his cruelty. Thirty years later, despite its rich natural resources, the people of the Congo are still dirt-poor, Mobutu is a multibillionaire, and the country is in chaos. In 1997, Mobutu is overthrown, and retires to the Cote d’Azur. The country slides into a civil war that has killed more than one million.

Cuba
1959 - When Fidel Castro rolls into Havana New Years Day he isn’t a commie – he is a nationalist and an opportunist. But he did take over Cuba’s national industries. And that, as we’ve learned, is something the US doesn’t look kindly on. The Americans begin a comically disastrous campaign to oust Castro. They help launch a full-scale invasion at the Bay of Pigs and are crushed. They launch gunboat attacks, bombings, biological warfare. New evidence has just come out that the CIA even considered committing terrorist acts and then blaming them on Cuba as a pretext to invade again. They try to send Castro exploding cigars. Spray poison on his beard. The US issues sanctions and a trade embargo that, more than anything, ensures Castro remains in power.

Chile
1973 - Salvador Allende was a “dangerous” man. He was popular, democratically elected, and a leftist. Against the objections of many inside the US State Department, the CIA, pushed by Kissinger, helps the military overthrow the government. Allende is killed. General Pinochet closes off the country to the outside world. Tanks roll in, soldiers round up students, stadiums turn into execution fields, the country is gripped by fear. For two decades, Pinochet rules with a brutal hand, and thousands of students, union organizers and other bad apples are “disappeared” (see the movie Missing).

East Timor
December 1975 - Indonesia invades the small island of East Timor, which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal left. The day before, US President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger were in Indonesia meeting with Indonesian President Suharto. Amnesty International estimates that by 1989, Indonesian troops had killed 200 000 people out of a population of between 600 000 and 700 000. The US supplies Indonesia with aid, guns, and training throughout.

Nicaragua
1978 - the leftist Sandinistas overthrow the US-backed Somoza dictatorship. Reagan becomes obsessed with taking out the Cuba-and-Soviet-friendly government, enlisting an army of mercenaries, drug dealers and ex-Somoza National Guardsmen. The Contras attack schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, and bombing. When Congress cuts off funds, Reagan’s “freedom fighters” are financed by CIA drug-dealing and secret arms sales to Iran in what comes to be known as the Iran-Contra Affair.

El Salvador
During El Salvador’s bloody civil war (1980-92), the US funds, trains, and secretly fights alongside a military that operates less like a traditional army than a loose confederation of homicidal fraternities. By the end of the war, 75 000 Salvadorans are dead.


Panama
During the 80s, Manny Noriega was George Bush’s homeboy. On the CIA payroll, he helped the US run drugs, launder money and ship arms to its operations in Nicaragua and El Salvador. But ol’ Pineapple Face became a problem. Turned out he was helping Castro, laundering money for Pablo Escobar, and talking smack about US imperialism. Plus he knew way too much about the whole Iran-Contra scandal. Dude had to go. In December 1989, Bush sends in the Green Berets to arrest him for drug dealing. A whole Panama City barrio is leveled. The official body count is 500-something, others say 3 000. Noriega sits in a Florida jail feeling confused.

Iraq
In the 80s, Saddam Hussein is America’s ally. The US sends him weapons and money as he fights a seemingly endless war against Iran, murders his political opponents, and gasses the Kurds. In 1991, Saddam is pissed off at neighboring Kuwait (a country invented by Britain) for undercutting the price of oil. He invades. The US forms an international coalition to “liberate” Kuwait. Saddam sends an army of barefoot conscripts. For more than 40 days and nights, 177 million pounds of bombs fall on Iraq – the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world. The US uses cancer-causing depleted uranium weapons; they bury soldiers alive; they bomb retreating troops and civilians. At the war’s end, the US turns its back on the Kurds and other anti-Saddam forces (see Three Kings). While Saddam remains in power, US sanctions and continued bombing keep food, medicine, and clean water from everyday Iraqis. According to the UN, over one million Iraqis have died, half of them children. 

Afghanistan
Beginning in the 1970s, the US pours billions of dollars into overthrowing a pro-Soviet government. The CIA funds, trains, and arms a guerrilla army of Islamic extremists known as the Mujahideen. The Soviets are driven out, in their version of Vietnam. More than a million Afghan are dead, three million disabled, and five million made refugees. The country slides into civil war in which an even more radical group of Pakistan-educated students and uneducated hillbillies known as the Taliban take over. The country becomes a heaven for anti-American terrorists groups and women-haters. Lies flourish. While outwardly criticizing the Taliban, behind the scenes the CIA and American oil companies jockey for leverage to build a pipeline across the country. 

Yugoslavia
1999 - After the Serbs start “ethnic cleansing” Albanians in the Yugoslavian province of Kosovo, the US and NATO launch 70 days of air strikes against Serbia. Thousands of Serbs are killed. The ethnic Albanian KLA guerrilla army, a drug-dealing group of thugs who were first accused of ethnic cleansing Serbs by The New York Times back in 1982, start an open season on Serbs living in Kosovo. The bombs stop, and Serb demagogue Slobodan Milosevic is driven from power by a popular movement.

Colombia
2001- Colombia’s three-decade-old civil war is still going strong, despite, or one might say, as a result of $1.4 billion of US military aid. The country is a chaotic death trap. Marxist rebels hold large portions of the country; American mercenaries and defense department front companies like DynCorp are covertly helping the inept Colombian military; right-wing paramilitaries are massacring civilians; and everyone has their hands in the super-lucrative drug trade. Most people don’t know that American forces have been around for while. In the early 90s, a secret group code-named Centra Spike launch a covert operation to take out Pablo Escobar, a major cocaine lord who made the fatal mistake of giving money to the poor and talking **** about American imperialism. The Colombian government and the secret American unit go into business with Escobar’s rival the Cali Cartel. Escobar is finally killed. The Cali Cartel’s power is solidified and the flow of cocaine into the US only increases. 


Sources/ Suggested reading:
The Trial of Henry Kissinger -Christopher Hitchens, Verso, 2001.
Panama Deception -documentary film. Winner 1992 Academy Award for Best Documentary. Director: Barbara Trent. 
Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire -Chalmers Johnson, Henry Holt, 2000
Weakness and Deceit: U.S. policy and El Salvador -Raymond Bonner, Times Books, New York, 1984
The War Conspiracy: The Secret Road to the Second Indochina War -Peter Dale Scott, Bobbs Merrill, New York and Indianapolis, 1972. 
Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies and the CIA in Central America -Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall. University of California Press, 1991.
Coming to Jakarta: A Poem About Terror -Peter Dale Scott, New Directions, New York, 1989.
East Timor: Genocide in Paradise -Matthew Jardine, Common Courage Press, 1999.
Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World’s Greatest Outlaw -Mark Bowden.
Atlantic Monthly Press, 2001. 
Between Despair and Hope: Windows on My Middle East Journey 1967-1992 Margarita Skinner, UNICEF Health Coordinator in Baghdad from 1991-1992, The Radcliffe Press, London and New York, 1998.
UNICEF Report August 1999: Iraq surveys show “humanitarian emergency” http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm 


lots of stuff to mull over....and yeah alot of it is real lefty perspective, but its all truth.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

timmer wrote:
"AS for the Citation, you clearly misused the word, A citation is a quote, I gave it to you originally, read the post. Then you asked for a citation! When it was proof of the original citation you wanted, which if you read the post you will see I offered."

My apologies for misusing the word.

timmer wrote:
"Haven't had time to find one for you because I am to busy clearing up the use of a word. Furthermore, Cubamark has dug up a great url which talks about the Caspian, the pipeline etc." 

Right, and it's a a different quote than the one you mentioned, and it's from four years ago (around the time the pipeline plans for Afghanistan got shelved). 

I would still appreciate a source for your original Cheney quote, though.


----------



## 8thDegreeSavage (Dec 3, 2002)

Here is a great source of info on the War for Oil in Afghanistan.

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/q.html 

It is by Peter Dale Scott author of "The War Conspiracey" a book suppressed by the CIA which goes into detail on the massive Indo-Chine oil deposits which had a role in the Vietnam War.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Whats trolling? Someone fill me in. 100 posts and I am still learing about this. 
 

8thdegree wrote
While i understand my first statement was a bit harsh...i see it as reality. The US CHOSE to use the bomb....they didnt HAVE TO, nor did they HAVE to drop it on cites full of innocent people. Justifying the use of Nuclear weapons is just plain ignorant in my eyes. It was never necessary. 

Your not harsh, after what we have seen in the last 2 years alone on this planet, that is far from harsh. Not for the realists anyway.

I agree with your line that it was never necesary. Since there really is no secret to what and why the US needed to be in the war. Ask anyone from that time, and I have, about the situation. those who were there, not our history books, real people. They will tell you the truth of this matter. It was Europes problem in the eyes of the American public, SO getting back to media control you can clearly see how the media was used to form a public opinion. The US gov realised by 1941 they were loosing way more money then they were making by simply not being involved completely. They needed to sway public opinion. The attack on Pearl Harbour did that immediately. Although I agree with MAcdoc here, they didn't get into this war to just use the bomb 8thdegree, they got in it to make money and a lot of it. The bomb was a quick way out, not to mention a message to the rest of the world. On that day the US became a superpower by simpley having the biggest weapon. Your right, all of you, it was used to aviod more US losses along side of the fact that VE day, (thats Victory Europe) had passed. Our war was over. Our grandparents were home getting married and such. As a matter of fact my grandfather was under orders to finish his wedding, have a few weeks to himself and report to Yarmoth (spelling) Nova Scotia where the RCA would commence battle in the war in the pacific theatre. The US strongly persued the RCA after seeing what they had done in Europe. Very impressive when you consider conditions and equipment. Truely amazing when you think about it. 

So thankfully this does somehow come back to the media.







We all seemed to get off on our own threads there. 
www.gnn.com check it out, like 8th degree shared in earlier posts. Tones of info here. www.truthout.org. I have not spent as much time here but read a few threads ect. Use your search, there is so much on this thanks to the internet. We don't and shouldn't count on the media for anything anymore. IMO anyone who is trusting of what CNN has to say I wonder if your really interested in what is going on here in our life times. More then ever we need to be sharing/passing on info to one another. This thread was becoming a disapointment for a moment. To me jfpoole it sounds like you just want to argue. If that is so, I am left with saying nothing. If I am wrong, teach me something. 

Hope all have a rockin day


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

8thDegreeSavage wrote:
"Dont get on your high horses and start calling me a troll because i have an opinion different from yours, that is silly."

Actually, I got on my high horse when you stated that the US let the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor because the US wanted to use a nuclear bomb on the Japanese.

That's simply absurd.


----------



## 8thDegreeSavage (Dec 3, 2002)

And thats your opinion.....it isnt fact.


Troll = someone who posts nonsensical arguements in order to garner mass responses, in other words someone who posts things on forums to make others mad.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

timmer wrote:
"Whats trolling?"
Troll, as defined by the Jargon File.

timmer wrote:
"jfpoole it sounds like you just want to argue. If that is so, I am left with saying nothing. If I am wrong, teach me something."

I've been stating my opinion and trying my best to back them up with facts. I've also been asking questions to both you and 8thDegreeSavage, trying to understand where you're getting your information and how you've come about your viewpoint. Unfortunately, most seem to go unanswered.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

8thDegreeSavage wrote:
"And thats your opinion.....it isnt fact."

To what are you referring to?


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

now that I understand trolling I think you were trolling jfpoole. 

you can refer to the entire thread for your proof.  

8thdegree, I look forward to looking into some of the offering you left in your source list. Great post.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

timmer wrote:
"now that I understand trolling I think you were trolling jfpoole."

How do you figure? Stating facts counts as trolling while utterly absurd statements doesn't?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

8thDegreeSavage wrote:
In the 80s, Saddam Hussein is America’s ally. The US sends him weapons and money as he fights a seemingly endless war against Iran, murders his political opponents, and gasses the Kurds. In 1991, Saddam is pissed off at neighboring Kuwait (a country invented by Britain) for undercutting the price of oil. He invades. The US forms an international coalition to “liberate” Kuwait. Saddam sends an army of barefoot conscripts. For more than 40 days and nights, 177 million pounds of bombs fall on Iraq – the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world. 

"The US uses cancer-causing depleted uranium weapons"

Too bad depleted uranium (i.e., U238) doesn't actually cause cancer (but the various chemical weapons used by Saddam do). (source).


Yugoslavia
"After the Serbs start “ethnic cleansing” Albanians in the Yugoslavian province of Kosovo, the US and NATO launch 70 days of air strikes against Serbia. Thousands of Serbs are killed. The ethnic Albanian KLA guerrilla army, a drug-dealing group of thugs who were first accused of ethnic cleansing Serbs by The New York Times back in 1982, start an open season on Serbs living in Kosovo. The bombs stop, and Serb demagogue Slobodan Milosevic is driven from power by a popular movement."

How is this a problem?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Wow!!...I'm away for a week and this innocent thread gets really _serious_! On a subject that I have studied in some depth, to say the least.

On Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The USA wasn't even contemplating the possibility of a nuclear weapon when Pearl Harbour was attacked by the Japanese. There is some validity (but only a little bit of it) to the theory that Franklin Delano Roosevelt actually _knew_ that a Japanese surprise attack on Pearl was imminent....and allowed it to happen in order to force the USA into a World War that it had previously avoided. (one that the US was making BIG BUCKS off of...but was not yet involved in) We will probably never know the truth...but it is an intriguing posssibility. Motive and opportunity were there...but it's on somewhat shaky ground at this point. Most courts in any land would declare a miss-trial or an accqittal on this point due to the lack of real hard evidence.

As to the question about why the USA used the atomic bomb on two Japanese cities....it is pretty clear to all who were alive at the time, both in Japan and the rest of the world.

It HAD to be done. It saved _millions_ of lives on _both_ sides of the conflict!

Japan was shattered and failing. It's cities were burning, it's factories were blasted to rubble, electrical power was off most of the time, food was scarce and the whole country was on the brink of total collapse.

But they had a "living God" in charge of the land (Hirohito) and the country had not been invaded or occupied for two thousand years. That was one of the reasons that their young pilots were flying their planes into American aircraft carriers ....using their own bodies as weapons. Doing so without question. Hoping against all hope to turn the tide of the battle....and the war.

The Japanese High Command, in the final days, had issued hand grenades to every woman and child in Japan (by this time it was mostly women and children who were still at home....everyone else was at war) and had told them to "take an American soldier with you when you go". They knew an invasion was coming and intended to make it a very costly one for the invaders.

It was a countrywide suicide pact, and virtually ALL of the remaining Japanese were ready to do it. To save the homeland. Or, at least, to cost the enemy so dearly that they would give up and go home. Or....at the very least...respect Japan so much that history would remember them forever. The were NOT pushovers. Not by a long shot. Never have been...never WILL be. These people were...and are.. _seriously_ dedicated!

The very first nuclear bomb was greeted by incredulity....how could one single airplane wreak this kind of destruction?? The Japanese High Command issued statements to the public that it was a freak weapon (they thought it was a "fuel-air bomb") and that the USA did not have the capability....or the will...to do it again. The home troops were rallied and no surrender was contemplated. Besides...Hiroshima was just an urban city of no real military importance that had been flattened. If the US were really serious, then why had they not targetted an industrial area? It was obviously just a bluff.... 

Then the second one hit Nagasaki. THAT city _was_ a major industrial center. Scary stuff. How many more of these bombs did the Americans actually _have_? Two more...FIVE more...a DOZEN more??!!??

This shook them to the core! They were quite ready to do battle right down to the last man, woman or child....but this was a threat that they couldn't fight! One single aircraft at high altitude, devastating an an entire CITY!! How the HELL could one fight THIS!!??!

Obviously this could not go on very long!! They would run out of cities in short order!

The Japanese High Comand, nevertheless, still wanted to continue. They were ready to sacrafice every living Japanese citizen...regardless of age or gender...rather than surrender to a foreign enemy. It was Emperor Hirohito...their "living God" who demanded an end to it all. Hiriohito actually gave up his god-like status in order to make this happen....and save his country. He abdicated his exhalted position in life...became a real human being....and ordered the Generals to give up.

Even then, it took the sudden assasinations of several of the more hawkish Generals before a surrender was agreed to by all. The Americans demanded....and got....an unconditional surrender. On the decks of the Battleship Missouri, what was left of the Japanese High Command signed the terms of surrender to the Americans, and the war was OVER!!


The nuclear weapons that were dropped on Japan in 1945 were a deciding factor in this early surrender. Without them, there would have been a bloody house-by-house fight and millions would have died. The Japanese...as a seperate race...may well have been wiped out. A whole generation of Americans, British, and Canadians (my Dad among them) would have been absoloutely devastated as well.

Still think that the US used nuclear weapons on Japan without just cause? Then think about this.....

In my lifetime, well into the sixties and seventies, we were still discovering Japanese soldiers on isolated Pacific islands. They were still armed and ready to fight anyone who set foot on these tiny bits of land. They were still...after almost a quarter of a century...ready to fight and die for their homeland. Even though they had not heard from their commanders in a generation!!

Does this tell you anything about the mindset of the Japanese at this period in time?

Do you STILL think that they were "about to surrender" in 1945?

Think again.

Nuclear weapons....as horrible as they were and are...SAVED millions of lives in WW2. No question about it at all. Two cities gone, and a whole nation saved from total destruction. Not to mention all of the Allied soldiers who DIDN'T die in the resulting invasion.

A carefully calculated gamble by a new President (Truman) that paid off...Big Time!

Still have any questions as to why the US used the Bomb on Japan TWICE during the last war?

Then ask the Japanese. They know why. And they will yell you, without hesitation. Believe me!

Interestingly....the Americans marched into and occupied this shattered, broken country and, instead of raping and pillaging (as previous conquering nations have done all down through history) they set up a democratic system of self-government, cleaned up the mess, and offered to buy anything the Japanese could sell to them. They gave them "most favored Nation" trading status.

The shocked Japanese responded to this by producing an unprecedented flow of consumer goods and watched ,in awe, as their country recovered and prospered.

Within less than a decade, they were back on their feet....and the Americans had stepped away, to let them manage their own affairs. Within two decades, they were leading the world in manufacturing and ten years later we ALL realised that "the Best Stuff Comes From Japan".

These days, Japan has an economy second in size only to the USA . When, in history, has a conquered Nation ever acheieved this? Especially one that was flattened by bombing and then nuked and invaded?

NEVER!!

(interestingly...Germany, a nation that was also flattened by bombing and occupied by the USA...is the THIRD largest economy in the world. And there are NO US soldiers on streetcorners in EITHER country. Despite the fact that both were conquered by the USA in WW2.

Does this tell you anything?

Do you now see why the US HAD to use nukes against Japan?

Do you also see why the current struggle in Afghanistan, and the upcoming ones in Iraq and Iran will turn out to be beneficial for all involved over the long run? Do you suppose that North Korea wil also benefit greatly from the upcoming attention of the US? Certainly South Korea has!

In short....the USA steps in late in most conflicts....they then wield great and decisive power.....and, after they have conquered a nation, they inflict democracy and prosperity upon them. As a student of history....I can't remember any other time when any other conquereing nation did this. 

Grieve not for the countries that the US focusses on and battles against right now, for they shall be fabulously wealthy and totally free in the future. Beyond anything they have experienced in the past.

History tells us that this is so. 

Just wait and see.......


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

macnutt, some points about the bomb, the Japanese had been willing to surrender for a few months before the bomb, but the Americans, in the Potsdam Conference (Or was it Yalta...) agreed that it would be unconditional surrender. The Japanese only wanted the Americans not to touch their emperor, and when they took control of Japan, they didn't touch the emperor...

Another case for dropping the bomb on Nagasaki is between Aug 6 and Aug 10, Uncle Joe Stalin was invading Manchuria, and the US were the only ones with the bomb (The USSR would not get it until 1949, after they buy one of the scientists who later gets executed for treason in the States). Some people believe this was a partial scare tactic to Stalin, to show they did have more bombs, and also during the Berlin Airlift. Why didn't Stalin shoot any of the planes down if he wanted to keep Berlin so bad? I think it probably had something to do with the B-29s stationed around West Germany with rumored atomic bombs loaded and ready...

Truman had an estimate given to him that it would take 1 million solidiers in casualties alone if they wished to invade Japan. So you can argue that the bomb, no matter how horrible and how it surged the world into such fear in the Cold War had its good points like any piece of technology.

Its obvious the States make mistakes, but they have done things for their reasons, in hindsight it may be stupid, but the decisions are made to improve the States power, influence etc. It is sad that things like supporting Pol Pot and Vietnam have happened, but we must remember the US did not bad with Japan after WW2... If we want someone to move in and bring peace and skip the pillaging and raping, move in the UN (UN troops that massacred people in Somalia are not a valid argument against that as the malaria medicene they were taking had not been tested and gave them extreme homicidal urges... I read an excerpt of one of the journals... *scary*)
8thDegreeSavage, VERY good points, and they are all true, while we can say they made a really stupid mistake in retrospect, lets hope they don't do that any more often...
The American ideas, especially at home of peace, prosperity and free will are what the US wants to bring, and that I personally find a good idea, but when they add in political muck and crazier people to take over, it becomes a problem. The UN was made, I think we need to use it more often to stop the extreme actions of genocide, killing and the extortion of people for a single leader or a corrupt economy. (Well that is us to a small extent







but I refer to stopping the "Killing Fields" and the things Milosovich had done.)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

One clarification, and then I'll get back to the Media part of this thread.

I've seen it posted a few times over a couple of threads that Arbenz (Guatemala) "nationalized the United Fruit Company". Actually, the Guatemalan government nationalized only unused and nearly-useless land which the UFC had never made use of:



> Using the Agrarian Reform Act Arbenz government declares that 209,842 acres of uncultivated lands of United Fruit should be expropriated and distributed to landless peasants. The Guatemalan government promises the company an indemnification of $627,572 in governmental bonds. The value of this indemnification was based on the company's declared tax value of the land.
> 
> http://www.unitedfruit.org/chronology.html
> 
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

8thDegreeSavage ....it's not your right to your own opinion that's being belittled - you are entitled to that but if you base that opinion on historical inaccuracy then you look foolish.

The BOMB did not exist, even in anyone's concept, when Pearl Harbor was attacked.

The Manhattan project was the greatest effort the US ever undertook and not even vive-president Truman knew of it's development and no one - not even it's developers knew whether it would work until they set it off the first time.

So saying that letting Pearl Harbor happen in order to use a weapon that didn't exist at the time does not reflect very well on your historical knowledge and hence on your opinions.

MacNutt and I disagree on interpretations and certainly history and the recording of it has been twisted to various ends. - the most notorious being the Winston's Churhill's massive History of WWII which covered up the existence of Magic and Enigma until the 1980s and which prompted Orwell to write 1984.

Cuba Mark also points out correctly that the media and "facts" can be suspect. Indeed there is nothing wrong with taking "facts" with a grain of salt.
But to swallow "conspiracy" theories wholesale and distort something like the development of atomic theory and weapons which is very well documented ( as well as the fear that that the Germans might get there first and the sabotage of the Norwegian heavy water plant ) to support "American the bad guys" doesn't convince anyone and makes you look foolish.
"Informed and backed up "opinion" as in the case of Macnutt's and Cubamark's wonderfully informative arguments get respect and applause. I don't agree with either all the time but I'm always informed.  
'Uninformed opinion" on the other hand also gets what it deserves.


----------



## 8thDegreeSavage (Dec 3, 2002)

I guess i was refering to using the attacks on PEarl harbor by the media at that time in the US to allow for such an attack to not be shunned by the american people. My bad on the historical timeline, but at the same time i feel it was an act of terrorisum....ther may be people who feel it was necessary...but I will never be one of those people.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> MacNutt and I disagree on interpretations and certainly history and the recording of it has been twisted to various ends. - the most notorious being the Winston's Churhill's massive History of WWII which covered up the existence of Magic and Enigma until the 1980s and which prompted Orwell to write 1984. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know of enigma, what's Magic? (sorry bout this sidenote)


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Chealion wrote:
"I know of enigma, what's Magic? (sorry bout this sidenote)"

Magic was the designation given to decoded Japanese messages. Sort of like Ultra, but for the Pacific theatre.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes Magic, Enigma and Ultra plus a few others were part of the "most important secret of the war"...many innocents died keeping it  
The best book I've read on it is "Bodyguard of Lies" - absolutely fascinating.
And this is right on topic as the book explains how the media was manipulated to keep the secret and provide "disinformation"..to an amazing degree to the enemy.
So much disinformation was disseminated that when a real set of the Overlord ( D-day) plans washed ashore attached to an officer the Germans thought it was another ruse to divert troops from Calais where even days after D-Day German elite troops were held because they were certain Patton had the main invasion waiting in Britain







They were convinced Normandy was a diversion. The Allies invented entire divisions and armies, placed events for these forces in newspapers and local broadcasts all to reinforce the illusion of a million man army still in the South of Britain.
What was really there?? Balloon tanks, empty tents - a false million man army....wow. Now that's deception. And the Allies on both sides of the Atlantic manipulated the media to their own purpose. Untruths, half truths - covering up the Manhattan project's purpose so not even the vice-president knew what was going on. 
So if they could do that - then everything is suspect. Right on topic.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Thanks for clearing that up for me!
Unfortunatly the media does get manipulated, but sometimes its needed (the million man army so the Germans did not know we were coming)...


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by timmer:

Remember, Iraq is the only nation since 1919 to use WMD in combat (and has done so on numerous occasions against both its enemies and its people), and Saddam Hussein also supports terrorists. Is it completely inconceivable that if Iraq develops a nuclear program that a nuclear weapon could be detonated in an American (or Canadian or European) country?[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm, have you been smoking some mind altering substances? The US used NUCLEAR weapons twice. The USA is the ONLY country to have ever used nukes, and the US is the ONLY country to have recently stated that it would contemplate the use of Nukes as a FIRST STRIKE weapon.

Secondly, the US has used a variety of CBW agents in Vietnam.

Thirdly, Iraq's WMD programme is only possible with the assistance of the US industrial-military complex. Even after Iraq gassed the Kurds, the US continued to provide "dual use" products and technology.

Fourthly, the US is the largest user of landmines and cluster bombs, which continue to kill and maim civilians for decades after the conflict has ended and the US has pulled out.


The U.S. is not wearing a "white hat" by any stretch. The US does not export democracy. The US does not look after the interests of "the little guy". The US looks after the interests of the US. Full stop. End of story.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jfpoole:
*timmer wrote:
"Yes but it's still the use of WMD." 
"Your right, but it doesn't justify it."

Justify what? The use of a nuclear bomb? Would it have been better to prolong the war and have more people die as a result?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm always suprised at how people rush to the defence of the US with the arguement that the US would have to invade Japan in order to have the war brought to an end.

Japan is an island, with SFA in terms of energy reserves. A naval blockade of Japan would have caused the island to freeze in the dark, and would have prevented fishermen from putting out to sea. No fish, no food. No war.

Japan was probably bombed, not as an instrument of war, but of foreign policy. A warning to the Soviet Union to keep out of the Pacific, and to keep a "valued ally" from entering the war to keep the Soviets from claiming war booty.

IMHO


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

And once more we return you to Gord in the Newsroom...


Just remember, the "media" tells you what to think about, but not what to think.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Chealion....the entire quote from Churchill is this 
"Once you tell a lie, you need to create a whole bodyguard of lies to protect it,"

what is hilarious is that the quote itself has been changed to
"Sometimes the truth is so precious it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies."
So much for accurate quotes in history.
And for being on topic http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0210/021007b.htm 
This discussion of Churchill's quote starts out an open letter in October 2002 about government lying about the upcoming Iraq combat!!!  

Britnell: Interesting point I can't recall ever reading about that aspect but I think Japan still held extensive resources on the mainland and was still relatively heavily armed - certainly for defensive purposes. Japan also ( even to this day) maintains a self sufficiency in food production ( amazing given only some 4% of the land is arable in a conventional sense )
Unlike stopping short of Bhagdad, there was likely no stomach for for anything other than total surrender for both Germany and Japan. I mean to go from a full out war footing to waht could be a decade long blockade and with no resolution to the conflict strikes me as not something the Allied peoples would have tolerated. Also millions might have died of exposure and deprivation..mind you only on one side.  
But there would be no government change or reconstruction. I wonder what the Japanese kids learn in their history classes??


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"John Ford Goes to War" is a true documentary of the director's effort during the war AND AN EXAMINATION OF HOW MUCH WAS SCRIPTED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT"








Coming up in the next while - should be interesting.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Interesting replies from all of you! I really like hearing all of the different viewpoints, especially the ones that have been formed several decades after the conflict has ended. It's interesting to see the spin that has been put on this whole conflict.

Well...I've got news for you naysayers out there.....

Anything less than a sudden devastating new weapon (like the nuclear bomb) and the Japanese would have continued on for several years...perhaps even several decades, like the Koreans have done. The Japanese, after all, are ethnic Koreans (they wiped out the Annu....who originally occupied those islands) The Japanese are NOT know for giving up. Even when the odds are totally against them!!

This is FACT...like it or not.

And, despite all of the terrible conspiracy theories, you just have to note this:

Whenever the Americans conquer a nation, they inflict democracy and prosperity upon their former enemy. Within a few short decades, the people of these nations are enjoying a much better status and lifestyle than they had previous to the conflict. This is FACT. Check it, if you don't believe me. It's all there if you care to look.

I can think of NOT ONE SINGLE CASE of the US being attacked by an enemy, then conquering them, and then holding them at gunpoint for several decades afterward and sacking the land. Stealing everything they have of value and leaving them in total poverty. Not even ONE!!

This is unprecedented in human history.

Name one single major world power who HASN'T done this in the past. I invite you to enlighten me.

The USA is a singular entity. Unlike Rome, Britain or Carthage, ALL of their citizens have a guaranteed voice and all of them provide some sort of input to their Government, on a daily basis. What's more....their former enemies always seem to end up being the biggest economies on the planet. Free and democratic and wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. Self-governed too. 

Tough thing, battling the Americans. Seems like the very best thing you could do is to LOSE to them. Then you WIN. Big time! You get everything you never had before they invaded...plus a lot MORE!

Not only that...but they leave you on your own...let you elect your own people to run the show. The only time they seem to step in is when you start killing each other or want to abandon free democracy. And they wil buy anything you make! "Most Preferred Nation" status with the USA is a path to pure gold and a much higher standard of living. History records this as being fact....and I have SEEN it! Check it for yourself!

Gee....do you suppose we could get the US to invade Canada? Then, perhaps, we could really have the democracy that we all want, but is denied to us by the Liberals. Just imagine what Canada would be like if we had a day-to-day-democracy like the US?!? Instead of an institutionalised dictatorship with one day of true democracy every four years or so? A REAL Senate that could challenge the elected Government and impeach(and REMOVE) a corrupt or incompetent leader?

WOW...what a change that would be!!!


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Gee....do you suppose we could get the US to invade Canada? ..."

What, AGAIN?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MacNutt...sigh - at least we've got him coming around acknowledging diversity in viewpoints  

"Whenever the Americans conquer a nation, they inflict democracy and prosperity "
umm you might get an earful from several aboriginal Nations in the US that would beg to differ and the Mexicans who owned most of the western side of the continent would also have a few choice words to add. The imported nations of slaves still have yet to get to full status in reality . It only took a civil war and the civil rights agony to at least get that progress started.
The US did not "conquer" Japan and Germany - the Allies did and the US demonstrated no more wisdom at Versaille in WWI ( altho they were a monor power then ) than the Europeans - so it took a second world war to wise up for all of them. Truman indeed was brilliant and a stateman to fund the reconstruction of Europe and Japan.

But it's not unique... Rome conquered and brought civilization and left their vassal states in far better order, with roads, safety and new found wealth in trade. And they had a thousand year reign - not the 50 years the US has been a world power. Roman landholders also had direct say in their government until the republic died and a declining succession of Emperors and religious intolerance destroyed the Pax Romana leading to .....surprise...the Dark Ages. Seems things were better with even a crippled and corrupt Rome at the helm.
As to Britain in the Imperial Age - the sun indeed never set upon the British Empire and the Victorian Age was one of the the most peaceful the world has ever known. British traditons and democratic institutions, it's civil service were foundations for many countries including the US which only rebelled against corrupt and unfair taxation.
As for "globalization" of trade and "countries are far better off" - monoculture agriculture and resource stripping have devasted many emerging nations. There is good reason why many informed and compassionate citizens around the world and in the US itself don't think to highly of the "Golden Arches road to riches".
As for free speech, ask those killed at Kent State, or at the Chicago Democratic convention - or even recenlty the brutality in Seattle how they view things.  

As I've said before, the US is verging on a police state and 9/11 has just given a free hand to the repressive tendancies that are present in the rather violent and extremely fractured and divided current US.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Uh-huh. What freaks me out is that in the 21st century, the manipulation by the mass media by the State and / or military is conducted so openly, and yet no-one seems to really care:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/16/international/16MILI.html 

Wanna bet this gem goes unreported in Canadian newspapers?

M.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mark, the link goes to the Times login screen - got another link? or post the article.
I have a feeling that many people "know" that they cannot believe everything they read or see but many not motivated enough to search out alternatives.
PBS is always under heat from one faction or another for not toeing the line in reporting. I think the political voices that might protest are in a bit of both dismay and disarray.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Seems to me that "bad things happen" when power is concentrated. That's the redeeming feature of democracy. The problem is that democracy can also be subverted through corruption of the very tools upon which it relies. A free press is held up as a watchdog for the citizen but so much of our press is non-objective. Maybe even that is OK because we aren't so stupid as to believe everything we read, especially if there are different viewpoints being expressed. Still, perusal of this thread makes you think that there are parallel universes. The multiplicity of interpretation, retro-justification and speculation reveal how important accuracy in history is.

As a non-historian, it seems to me that truly accurate history is impossible. You can't see what people were thinking. You can't determine the objectivity of every source. You can't even be sure that your summation is more accurate than someone elses is. We all have opinions and we all have our own ideas of history. We also know that history can be changed (or can be wrong from the get go). 

Yet, if we do not work to find the truth and understand why certain things happened we will be blind in going forth. We have to diligently protect against re-invention of history, seek the truth and label propaganda. Above all, question everything. The press provides the aperitif. A good press leaves you to do the thinking.

Way back in the thread, Chealion quoted the catch-phrase "Perspective is everything". It's from the Globe and Mail, not the National Post. I find this by-line ironic. It should be "Perspectives are everything". There should be no one-stop shopping for news. Triangulate the truth!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Sorry, MacDoc... Just realized, you have to be subscribed to the NYTimes site in order to read that... hang on a minute...

(Apologies for the length)

Pentagon Debates Propaganda Push in Allied Nations

By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 — The Defense Department is considering issuing a secret directive to the American military to conduct covert operations aimed at influencing public opinion and policy makers in friendly and neutral countries, senior Pentagon and administration officials say.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has not yet decided on the proposal, which has ignited a fierce battle throughout the Bush administration over whether the military should carry out secret propaganda missions in friendly nations like Germany, where many of the Sept. 11 hijackers congregated, or Pakistan, still considered a haven for Al Qaeda's militants.

Such a program, for example, could include efforts to discredit and undermine the influence of mosques and religious schools that have become breeding grounds for Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism across the Middle East, Asia and Europe. It might even include setting up schools with secret American financing to teach a moderate Islamic position laced with sympathetic depictions of how the religion is practiced in America, officials said.

Many administration officials agree that the government's broad strategy to counter terrorism must include vigorous and creative propaganda to change the negative view of America held in many countries.

The fight, one Pentagon official said, is over "the strategic communications for our nation, the message we want to send for long-term influence, and how we do it."

As a military officer put it: "We have the assets and the capabilities and the training to go into friendly and neutral nations to influence public opinion. We could do it and get away with it. That doesn't mean we should."

It is not the first time that the debate over how the United States should marshal its forces to win the hearts and minds of the world has raised difficult and potentially embarrassing questions at the Pentagon. A nonclandestine parallel effort at the State Department, which refers to its role as public diplomacy, has not met with so much resistance.

In February, Mr. Rumsfeld had to disband the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence, ending a short-lived plan to provide news items, and possibly false ones, to foreign journalists to influence public sentiment abroad. Senior Pentagon officials say Mr. Rumsfeld is deeply frustrated that the United States government has no coherent plan for molding public opinion worldwide in favor of America in its global campaign against terrorism and militancy.

Many administration officials agree that there is a role for the military in carrying out what it calls information operations against adversaries, especially before and during war, as well as routine public relations work in friendly nations like Colombia, the Philippines or Bosnia, whose governments have welcomed American troops.

In hostile countries like Iraq, such missions are permitted under policy and typically would include broadcasting from airborne radio stations or dropping leaflets like those the military has printed to undermine morale among Iraqi soldiers. In future wars, they might include technical attacks to disable computer networks, both military and civilian.

But the idea of ordering the military to take psychological aim at allies has divided the Pentagon — with civilians and uniformed officers on both sides of the debate.

Some are troubled by suggestions that the military might pay journalists to write stories favorable to American policies or hire outside contractors without obvious ties to the Pentagon to organize rallies in support of American policies.

The current battlefield for these issues involves amendments to a classified Department of Defense directive, titled "3600.1: Information Operations," which would enshrine an overarching Pentagon policy for years to come.

Current policy holds that aggressive information tactics are "to affect adversary decision makers" — not those of friendly or even neutral nations. But proposed revisions to the directive, as quoted by senior officials, would not make adversaries the only targets for carrying out military information operations — abbreviated as "I.O." in the document, which is written in the dense jargon typical of military doctrine.

"In peacetime, I.O. supports national objectives primarily by influencing foreign perceptions and decision-making," the proposal states. "In crises short of hostilities, I.O. can be used as a flexible deterrent option to communicate national interest and demonstrate resolve. In conflict, I.O. can be applied to achieve physical and psychological results in support of military objectives."


Although the defense secretary is among those pushing to come up with a bolder strategy for getting out the American message, he has not yet decided whether the military should take on those responsibilities, the officials said.

There is little dispute over such battlefield tactics as destroying an enemy's radio and television stations. All is considered fair in that kind of war.

But several senior military officers, some of whom have recently left service, expressed dismay at the concept of assigning the military to wage covert propaganda campaigns in friendly or neutral countries. "Running ops against your allies doesn't work very well," Adm. Dennis C. Blair, a retired commander of American forces in the Pacific, advised Pentagon officials as they began re-examining the classified directive over the summer. "I've seen it tried a few times, and it generally is not very effective."

Those in favor of assigning the military an expanded role argue that no other department is stepping up to the task of countering propaganda from terrorists, who hold no taboo against deception.

They also contend that the Pentagon has the best technological tools for the job, especially in the areas of satellite communications and computer warfare, and that the American military has important interests to protect in some countries, including those where ties with the government are stronger than the affections of the population.

For example, as anti-American sentiment has risen this year in South Korea, intensified recently by the deaths of two schoolgirls who were crushed by an American armored vehicle, some Pentagon officials were prompted to consider ways of influencing Korean public opinion outside of traditional public affairs or community outreach programs, one military official said. No detailed plan has yet emerged.

Those who oppose the military's taking on the job of managing perceptions of America in allied states say it more naturally falls to diplomats and civilians, or even uniformed public affairs specialists. They say that secret operations, if deemed warranted by the president, should be carried out by American intelligence agencies.

In addition, they say, the Pentagon's job of explaining itself through public affairs officers could be tainted by any link to covert information missions. "These allied nations would absolutely object to having the American military attempt to secretly affect communications to their populations," said one State Department official with a long career in overseas public affairs.

Even so, this official conceded: "The State Department can't do it. We're not arranged to do it, and we don't have the money. And U.S.I.A. is broken." He was referring to the United States Information Agency, which was absorbed into the State Department.

One effort to reshape the nation's ability to get its message out was a proposal by Representative Henry J. Hyde, an Illinois Republican who is chairman of the House International Relations Committee. Mr. Hyde is pushing for $255 million to bolster the State Department's public diplomacy effort and reorganize international broadcasting activities.

"If we are to be successful in our broader foreign policy goals," Mr. Hyde said in a statement, "America's effort to engage the peoples of the world must assume a more prominent place in the planning and execution of our foreign policy."

---
(FAIR USE NOTICE: This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml) 

(Anybody have a standard "fair use" disclaimer applicable to Canadian copyright law?)

M


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

People please, if your going to use quotes from others you should read the thread itself clearly. 

Britnel, you wrote. 
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by timmer:

Remember, Iraq is the only nation since 1919 to use WMD in combat (and has done so on numerous occasions against both its enemies and its people), and Saddam Hussein also supports terrorists. Is it completely inconceivable that if Iraq develops a nuclear program that a nuclear weapon could be detonated in an American (or Canadian or European) country?[/QB]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ummm, have you been smoking some mind altering substances? The US used NUCLEAR weapons twice. The USA is the ONLY country to have ever used nukes, and the US is the ONLY country to have recently stated that it would contemplate the use of Nukes as a FIRST STRIKE weapon.
end quote

I did not write the above mentioned quote.  I was quoting jfpoole, and the smoking something line, well lets just say even if I had I would never have posted that in the first place.









Have a nice day all.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I think that we have to look at the context here, people. Yes the US used nukes....they used them to END a horrible war and save millions of lives. The people that they used the nukes on are now the second largest economy in the world, and have a standard of living that is second to none. They also currently enjoy the longest life-span of any of the "westernised nations". Countless millions of them would have died during any sort of house-by-house invasion of Japan. So would a vast number of our own soldiers. 

THAT could, quite easily, have changed our current reality. Especially for the Japanese. Ask yourself if they could have possibly accomplished all that they have without four fifths of the males from several generations. You could concieveably add about a third of the females (of all ages) to that equation, as well....because EVERYBODY who remained at home in Japan just before the end of the war (when an invasion was imminent) was issued a grenade and told to "take an American soldier with you when you go".

Makes you think a bit, eh?

When Saddam uses weapons of mass destruction, I seriously doubt that the long-term end result will be a former enemy that, twenty or thirty years later, is enjoying the very best of the fruits of our modern world. Or has the longest life-span on earth. Or is considered one of the richest nations on the planet.

To say the least.  

Same goes if the Russians, Chinese or any of the other countries who currently have weapons of mass destruction deployed them against one of their many enemies. I really don't think that any of these recently nuked (or gassed, or whatever) former enemies would end up living far better lives than they had before the event. Nor could we expect the vanquished enemy to end up being self-governed. 

We need to look at all of these events in an historical context....if not, then we are just making value decisions based on incomplete, or bad, data. No validity in that at all.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

"... The Bush Administration published a new strategy document hinting that it might use *nuclear weapons* if it's troops or allies were attacked by non-conventional weapons. ..."

The World This Week p6 The Economist December 14 2002
Bold text in original


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I hope that Saddam reads that article, and I hope that it gives him pause. I also hope that every other one of the rogue states in this world reads it and believes it. 

If so....then I am quite certain that it will have served it's purpose. Just as SDI did.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"I hope that Saddam reads that article, and I hope that it gives him pause"








Your kidding right....you really think that much of anything gives Saddam pause...did you read that anecdote about him torturing street dogs as a kid in the Bush Brothers thread .... that usually indicates a psychopath.....almost nothing gives that category of person pause.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Not sure whether to post this here or in the Bush Brothers thread. It is regarding the power of the president, in this case Truman, and the dropping of the atomic bomb. Against the wishes of his military advisors, he had a secret communique sent, via the Swiss, to the government of Japan telling them that they had a weapon of "extreme destructive power" and were prepared to use it against Japan. The reply that was received was translated as meaning "an absolute refusal". However, a British linguist later uncovered this communique and realized that the actual term in Japanese language meant "to be considered further". Thus, while I personally feel that Truman would have ordered the two atomic bombs to be dropped (in that they only have the two) as a way of avoiding a full force attack on the mainland of Japan, he gave the order on false information. From his comments about this decision, he was greatly influenced by the toll that the US Marines had suffered at Iwo Jima. He contended that if the Japanese forces would fight for a fairly barren atoll in the Pacific, then they would be fighting hand to hand combat with children and old women should they ever invade Japan. 

Re the "Bush Brothers" concept, I sincerely feel that the current Pres. Bush is attempting to erase from memory the fact that his father did not rid the world of Hussain during the Gulf war. I am amazed at the number of people that said that Bush should have "taken him out" when he had the chance, totally unaware that the US never really knew exactly where Hussain was (since he moved around each day), and thus never really had the chance to "take him out".

Has anyone other than me (a baby boomer pacifist who was brought up on the TV westerns and cop shows) noticed the number of references to terms that were used in these TV shows to describe how the US will "get" Hussain? Personally, I hope that SH rots in hell for what he has done to his own people, but it scares me when the president of the US starts to sound like Marshall Dillon on Gunsmoke or Elliot Ness on the Untouchables.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Toland's book "Rising Sun" about the war in the Pacific basically concludes the war may never have happened had the US used translators that knew high diplomatic Japanese.
Instead the translators were from the lower classes of Japanese society and given the immense gulf between the two that is completely reflected in the language ( male and female Japanese speakers have substantial differences in their speech even now I understand).
Japan was really no more or less imperialistic than any other power at that time - it just came a bit late to the table - the US Britain, France, Spain etc had done their expansion earlier but Japan was closed until I thik 1856 when trade was opened ( are you listening Macnutt)  
at the point of a cannon on a US warship commanded by Perry.
It's likely that if the true communication contents were known a stand off could have been reached avoiding war. Instead the belligerence level was raised and here is Japan with only a few weeks of oil reserves left.
Had they followed their plan of crippling the US fleet, seizing the oil the US denied them and then pursuing a diplomatic peace the major war in the Pacific also likely would have been avoided and the world demographics very different.
Instead, the immensity of the victory gave the Japanese war party a reason to think they could actually defeat the US and establish an enomous "sphere of influence" in the far east including the holdings of European powers like Hong Kong.
Only Yamamoto, the leader of the Pearl Harbor attack , who had been educated in the US, knew the folly.
Japanese weapons were wonderfully built and strong BUT were all hand built - even the battleships...hard to beleive but true.
ANY losses would be impossible to replace in the time frame of a war. He knew that, he also knew the same was not true for the US.
A quick strike and then sue for peace would work and might even have kept the US out of Europe as there was a lot of resistance to the war in the US altho FDR wanted in......the country was divided.
On such interpretations and misunderstandings hangs a different world


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I concur, Macdoc. But sometimes these things have a momentum of their own that even a great man like Yamamoto couldn't alter. The warlords that controlled Japan were spoiling for a fight and, yes indeed, they thought that they could carve out a nice chunk of the Pacific as their sphere of influence. The Japanese had surprised even themselves by defeating the Russian Pacific fleet in 1904 with a few of their "hand-built" warships. They caught everyone off guard with that little performance and, thirty-five years later, they were totally ready for a fight. 

Yes their stuff was mostly hand-built....but they had a LOT of willing hands. And as long as they could hang onto Manchuria et al, then they wouldn't be short of raw materials as well.

At this point I should note that macdoc commented on the fact that an American warship opened up the closed Japanese society in the late 1800's "at cannon point". Interestingly, he has stated many times here that "America has only been a Superpower for fifty years or so". I guess that projecting deadly force thousands of miles across the sea...or beating down a colonial power like Spain...or sending gunboats up the Yang Tse river in the 1800's to help quell the boxer rebellion doesn't really count.

Anyway...back to the thread. Despite any confusions between "diplomatic Japanese" and it's more common counterpart, it's pretty obvious what was going on internally in Tokyo just after the first nuclear weapon was dropped. There was a huge rift between the more hawkish members of the High Commad and the ones who wanted to end the conflict. The Emperor came down on the side of the doves and a few quick assasinations were in order before the surrender could proceed. Mostly they wanted something other than unconditional surrender, and the US wouldn't accept anything less. 

While all this was going on, the States dropped the second one. That sealed the deal and brought even the disbelievers onside. It stopped the fighting cold in it's tracks.

Without the second bomb, the Japanese High Command would not have been convinced to drop it and give up. They might have argued sucessfully with the rest that a "conditional surrender" (you know, like the one that Saddam signed in 1991) was the only way to go.

This would have left the Japanese military in place and let them keep their weapons. I wonder how long an American occupation would have gone unchallenged under that particular scenario? You don't suppose that we would have been back in there fighting again after a decade or so? 

Just like Iraq.


----------

