Lest we forget: American atrocities in Hiroshima

[Loki]

On August 6, 1945, the United States of America deliberately killed 200,000 people in a single city in Japan, Hiroshima, by dropping an atom bomb. The US is the only nation to have massacred people by using nuclear weapons. Quite ironic that they are calling for nations like Iran to not have such weapons, since they've been the only ones using it ... with devastating effect.

http://www.en.rian.ru/video/20100806/160097197.html

[The Lawspeaker]

They have killed 200.000 people but saved millions upon millions of Japanese lifes while doing that as Japan was to be invaded in 1946. Estimations of possible victims vary but it would have been likely that all of Japan would have been a "Battle of Berlin" with millions of people charging at the Allies in a national suicide. This could have killed maybe as much as 10 million people and (some estimates) 1 million Allied troops. Killing 200.000 is brutal but a nice clean deal compared to that possible massacre.

Of course they didn't know about radiation (sickness) in those days.

[Loki]

They have killed 200.000 people but saved millions upon millions of Japanese lifes while doing that as Japan was to be invaded in 1946.

Or ... how about just not invading Japan and sign a peace treaty? Peace is not gay, it's cool. :cool:

[The Lawspeaker]

Or ... how about just not invading Japan and sign a peace treaty? Peace is not gay, it's cool. :cool:
Japan attacked the United States on December 7, 1941 and had been behaving aggressively against for instance China since 1931. They had it coming.

[Smaland]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Firebombing_leaflet.jpg

The file containing the above leaflet is named "Firebombing leaflet.jpg"; however, it was dropped on 1 August 1945 on Hiroshima, Nagasaki and 33 other Japanese cities.


This is an English translation of the Japanese text on the reverse of the leaflet: “Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.”

Source: Wikipedia commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Firebombing_leaflet.jpg)

(Smaland now proceeds to his fallout shelter to wait this one out ... :rolleyes:)

[Loki]

They had it coming.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR31NiQOvwZ3XZ-Kao1ZPZY2yy0sAoi3nNaO13WToh7Y-yZ7D0&t=1&usg=__6eNraUKRBOJbfxKur1_SUW8cHxo=

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ-NEPkup4XSA8B3pnvMj5vZVo2L05v4evhjQuX7AitU_LoJdI&t=1&usg=__ow4OJh4LyNzzEbU23hSUhunlqhk=

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQuBiqX7DICy5EiCDbkW1CQ0Wy6sKPdX MzBHlJpUSZLJ7u3_YA&t=1&usg=__8vaE34TDdJ5JZeYze3W23A2EpB0=

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDL76i6JzFmT_v-qFEspJZYqd3RA32ZLH9gjx-RSuZBVhZ8xM&t=1&usg=__dn1JE0qvYUNo75ESv2xcuZqAN7k=

:(:(:(

[The Lawspeaker]

So what did the Japanese do to deserve it?

http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/nanking-massacre-rape-of-nanking-killing-children.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Chinese_civilians_to_be_buried_alive.jpg
Chinese civilians being buried alive..

http://www.adamcarolla.com/ACPBlog/wp-content/gallery/2010-05-20-william-macdonald/11-nanking-massacre.jpg

http://www.warcrimes.info/shop/html/images/specialanalysis/rape_04.jpg
The Japanese stole women and raped them.. had them work as prostitutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women). This includes European (mainly British, Dutch and Australian) women. Dutch women.

http://www.hellfirepass.com/railroad/image_350/death_railway_prisnores_carrying_sleeper.jpg

http://www.bookwormroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Japanese-execution0001-667x1024.jpg


http://www.eenlevenverloren.nl/art/uploads/image/Jappenkamp.jpg

http://hanoiswans.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/pow-rr.jpg

http://markgorman.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/pearl-harbour-1.jpg

[The Lawspeaker]

Can someone put those pictures in Spoiler Tages please ? It doesn't seem to work for me.

[Guapo]

So what did the Japanese do to deserve it?

I could give 2 shits what the Jap and Yank armies did to each other but for fuck sakes, when will man stop killing innocent people and babies because they are the 'enemy'? I sure hope there is some kind of punishment after death.

[Megrez]

I don't really care about the dropping of nuclear devices, but rather about the hypocrisy of the USA bestowing upon themselves the titles of liberators, champions of freedom and peace after this. And gullible people buying it.


America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan.

[Grey]

Regardless of the circumstances, the use of atom bombs in itself disturbs me on an extremely deep level. Then again, how can anyone be expected to break the sword and seal their own fate?

[Psychonaut]

The world learned a valuable lesson that day: sucker punch us as we will revisit that violence back upon you a thousand fold.

[Óttar]

Conventional wisdom tells us the Japanese didn't surrender because their strict honour code didn't want them to lose face. So we made sure they surrendered. There are people in Asia who will kill themselves if they fall down in public, so great is their notion of honour. Even when Japan signed the treaty, they did not directly admit defeat. :coffee:

[Birka]

The fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo actually killed more civilians. It would have been nice to sign a peace treaty with Japan, could you show any evidence that they wanted to do that at that time?

[Electronic God-Man]

Or ... how about just not invading Japan and sign a peace treaty? Peace is not gay, it's cool. :cool:

They refused to sign any peace treaty.

We lost so many lives just trying to invade the little islands of Japan. Invading the main islands would have meant the death of millions of Japanese and American soldiers and civilians...

Japan chose a struggle to the death over peace. Death before dishonor. So be it.

[Debaser11]

Japan attacked the United States on December 7, 1941 and had been behaving aggressively against for instance China since 1931. They had it coming.

I gather from most of your posts that we agree on some important issues, Asega. And I appreciate you defending my country which is not very fashionable these days. But by this logic, I feel like WE had it coming as well. I'm assuming you're familiar with the Monroe Doctrine and how we applied it, no?

And there should always be a distinction between killing soldiers and killing civilians REGARDLESS of how crazy gung-ho the Japs were. The Germans had a policy of total war but I'd certainly want to spit in the face of any Soviet garbage that killed unarmed women and children.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I gather from most of your posts that we agree on some important issues, Asega. And I appreciate you defending my country which is not very fashionable these days. But by this logic, I feel like WE had it coming as well. I'm assuming you're familiar with the Monroe Doctrine and how we applied it, no?

And there should always be a distinction between killing soldiers and killing civilians REGARDLESS of how crazy gung-ho the Japs were. The Germans had a policy of total war but I'd certainly want to spit in the face of any Soviet garbage that killed unarmed women and children.

Do not be to hasty. WW2 civilian casualties. Honor is in the killing of civilians,so it seems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

[Eldritch]

Regardless of the circumstances, the use of atom bombs in itself disturbs me on an extremely deep level.

An atom bomb is just one very powerful and destructive bomb. If you're on the ground, there's no difference if you're getting an atom bomb or a thousand conventional bombs dropped on you.

As already has been pointed out in this thread, the bombings of Dresden and Tokyo claimed more civilian lives.


The world learned a valuable lesson that day: sucker punch us as we will revisit that violence back upon you a thousand fold.

The difference here is that Pearl Harbor was a military base, and Hiroshima (and Dresden and Tokyo) were just cities with civilians in them. Now, whether anybody cares aboiut the difference or thinks it important is another thing.

[On second thought, what's the status of military personnel if war has not been declared btw? The same as civilians'?]

Saying that using atomic bombs brought the war to an end sooner and therefore saved both American and Japanese lives is probably true. Therefore my feelings about deliberately bombing civilians are not entirely uncomplicated.

[Psychonaut]

The difference here is that Pearl Harbor was a military base, and Hiroshima (and Dresden and Tokyo) were just cities with civilians in them. Now, whether anybody cares aboiut the difference or thinks it important is another thing.

During a state of total war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war) such distinctions become irrelevant. This is not always warranted, but as the culmination of unprovoked hostilities against us on our own soil, it certainly is. It is also the most effective for us way to bring a quick close to a situation that was becoming increasingly costly for our people. That many of their civilians had to die to keep more of our soldiers from dying is, in my eyes, sound reasoning. When you base your military decisions on sissified ethical precepts like sparing civilian casualties, what do you get? You get Iraq, where the civilians become so emboldened that the distinction between soldier and civilian blurs to the point that a true victory is impossible while playing by the "rules." War is not about doing what is best for your enemy; it is about winning with as little cost to you.

[Smaland]

...
"The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan."
...



I don't really care about the dropping of nuclear devices, but rather about the hypocrisy of the USA bestowing upon themselves the titles of liberators, champions of freedom and peace after this. And gullible people buying it.

I've never met an American who was patting himself on the back about being a liberator, or a champion of freedom and peace.

Even so, these are some facts concerning Japan and the nations it once invaded or conquered, from the time of the Pacific War until today:

1) In 1941, Japanese citizens were expected to engage in the idolatrous worship of the emperor, and they were the servants of the militarists. In 1945, we destroyed the power of Japanese militarism, and Japan is the better for it. Today, the Japanese nation has a democracy, and both men and women can vote.

2) Today, Japan is one of the richest countries in the world; the Japanese are much more affluent than they were even before the war with the United States. Yes, they built it on their own. But it was possible because of the postwar political structures set in place by MacArthur, and expanded upon by the Japanese themselves.

3) The various nations invaded or conquered by Japan during the war were set free from Japan at the end of the war.

[Tyrrhenoi]

The Japanese soldiers and civilians were indoctrinated, and told the U.S. was the ultimate satan. They refused to surrender and ware sacred of falling in U.S. hands - by lack of weapons or ammo - they chose to commit suicide. - That's how determined they were - peace was no option!

In this YT clips you will see ''suicide cliff'' on Saipan

J-G7_I4Tm5M

65EShYbK5ww

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Soten
Invading the main islands would have meant the death of millions of Japanese and American soldiers and civilians...

From what I have read the US estimated one million American casualties in invading the Japanese home islands.

People die in war, it is usually a by product of all that running around firing at each other and finding new and interesting ways to make human bodies die quicker. I’m not sure of this mythic time when war was all gentlemanly and women, children and old people didn’t cop a sword edge (or due to technological advancement a bullet). I suppose unless you are of a warrior mentality (yes some people really do like to shoot people and be shot at) it’s generally considered to be unpleasant, though like many unpleasant things it has its benefits (technological advancement for a start, removing the dead wood for new growth, new memes to advance etc), war is, I suspect, a necessary part of existence, I also increasingly suspect that along with people who really can’t resist pressing red buttons and lighting fires the most dangerous are those who really believe we should all just get along and sit around the camp fire, both will lead to stagnation and extinction, the former faster than the latter but still. Of course death, violence, bombs falling are better when they are happening to other people some distance away but that’s a selfish human perspective….

I may see that war serves a valuable evolutionary purpose (evolution may have chosen committee meetings but it didn’t, you work with what you have) but I’m not inclined to take part in one anytime soon.

[Cato]

Who was it that started the dust-up in the first place?

http://www.lchs.museum/ww2/images/roadtowar_newspaper.jpg

Japan's history of international belligerence against other nations goes back to at least the invasions of Korea ordered by Toyotomi Hideyoshi in the late 16th century. The simple matter is is that Japan started a war that it couldn't win and get its ass handed to it in a sack.

Atrocities be damned, no one side in a war can wash its hands of innocent blood. Ask the chaps from the Bataan march or the people of Nanjing about how clean the hands of the Japs were in the war.

[Eldritch]

When you base your military decisions on sissified ethical precepts like sparing civilian casualties, what do you get? You get Iraq, where the civilians become so emboldened that the distinction between soldier and civilian blurs to the point that a true victory is impossible while playing by the "rules."

I'm not sure if those two wars can be compared with each other. Although I admit that I have no idea whatsoever what the US military is trying to achieve in Iraq -- in other words, what a true victory there would be.

[Huzzar]

It was better to nuke Japan and kill just a few thousand than to continue the war and lose more people, probably millions more.

[Nodens]

An act of war during wartime.

The real atrocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan#Liberalization) was yet to come.

[Cato]

An act of war during wartime.

The real atrocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan) was yet to come.

Better than an occupation by the reds, who finally declared war on Japan on Augustus 8th, a day after the Hiroshima bombing.

[Nodens]

Better than an occupation by the reds, who finally declared war on Japan on Augustus 8th, a day after the Hiroshima bombing.

Western liberalism has proven to be a more virulent destroyer of culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto_Directive) than crude Bolshevism could ever be.

[Peasant]

WZ_X43zcXcU

[Cato]

Western liberalism has proven to be a more virulent destroyer of culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto_Directive) than crude Bolshevism could ever be.

You're mistaking the nationalized Shinto cult of war-era Japan with folk Shintoism, which is like mistaking the moon for the sun. Prior to the end of the war, most of the Shinto shrines were nationalized via a process of governmental oversight and Shinto priests had to have government approval.

ABOLITION OF GOVERNMENTAL SPONSORSHIP, SUPPORT, PERPETUATION, CONTROL AND DISSEMINATION OF STATE SHINTO (KOKKA SHINTO, JINJA SHINTO.

True Shinto, kami-no-michi, the way of the gods/spirits, is nature worship; shrine Shinto was more about the glorification of the emperor (the divinity of the Japanese emperor is no more a required component of Shinto than the divinity of the emperor was in the Religio Romana) and Japanese nationalism than the worship of the kami.

[Nodens]

True Shinto, kami-no-michi, the way of the gods/spirits, is nature worship; shrine Shinto was more about the glorification of the emperor (the divinity of the Japanese emperor is no more a required component of Shinto than the divinity of the emperor was in the Religio Romana) and Japanese nationalism than the worship of the kami.

Since we appear to face a fundamental divergence of worldview, I'll simply say that a society that lacks a center of gravity is not a society, and when that center is occupied by contemporary American ideals of 'Freedom' and 'Democracy', the only possible motion is a spiral into oblivion.

[Psychonaut]

I'm not sure if those two wars can be compared with each other. Although I admit that I have no idea whatsoever what the US military is trying to achieve in Iraq -- in other words, what a true victory there would be.

The only comparison meant was that in the case of Japan, we did what needed to be done—distasteful as it may be—and prevailed. Whereas in Iraq, we haven't the political balls to actually fight an all out war, and are thus doomed to fail. A military victory is a very simple thing, needing only three components: a goal, the means to achieve that goal, and the will to do so at any cost. In Japan, we had all three; in Iraq we have only the second.

[Cato]

Since we appear to face a fundamental divergence of worldview, I'll simply say that a society that lacks a center of gravity is not a society, and when that center is occupied by contemporary American ideals of 'Freedom' and 'Democracy', the only possible motion is a spiral into oblivion.

Such as who? A divine emperor or a god-king who rules via fiat? Monarchy is a thing of the past.

[S]o far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king.
- Thomas Paine, Common Sense

America's ideals simply didn't appear out of thin air, but are the culmination of centuries of custom and law (i.e. the common law), such as the Magna Carta or the domboc of Alfred:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_book

The difference between an Alfred the Great and a Hirohito is obvious; Alfred viewed himself as a man, as servant of his deity (Christ) and the chieftain and leader of his people. Alfred fought in the shieldwall with his thegns against the Danes; Hirohito viewed himself, and was viewed by others, as a living god. To my knowledge, he never lead his fanatical soldiers into battle. The Japanese emperor during WW2 was largely a figurehead of the Japanese warlords like Tojo, an utterly useless ruler save for his ceremonial value as the descendant of Jimmu-tenno (and hence the Shinto sun goddess Amateratsu) and his connections to places like the Ise shrine (or Yasukuni shrine). In this way, Hirohito was as much a thrall of the warlords as any of the captive emperors were during, say, the long Tokugawa shogunate.

[Piparskeggr]

As a side note to the thread...a peek into the thinking of the men of that time?

When my wife and I were at Offutt AFB in Nebraska, USA from late 1986 - early 1992, I worked at a door and window company in the city of Omaha.

The technician in our radio and motor shop (door openers and controls) was a veteran of WW 2, Korea and Viet Nam. Bill enlisted in the US horse cavalry in 1936 at age 24 and retired out of the US Air Force in 1972. Because I was willing to lend him a hand as needed, oftentimes without being asked, he came to trust me and told me a few stories of his service days.

My personal sidearm is the Colt M-1911, which he was issued in 1936, brought out of service (the last year one could buy one's issue sidearm or rifle) and sold to me in 1995 for a pittance; $100 plus a used Commodore-64. He said he could feel himself giving into his age (83 at the time), was fully retiring and moving to Arizona with his wife, to be near his sons and their children.

During the WW 2, Bill was in "Special Services," in both the European and Pacific theaters of war, which role he reprized in Korea and Viet-Nam (albeit less physically than when he was younger).

A few months after D-Day, Bill was transferred to the Army Air Corps, ostensibly to help train their own "special services" folk. By early spring 1945, he had been attached to the security detachment of the 509 Composite Group (the atomic bombers).

Besides "Little Boy" and "Fat Man," Bill says the US had 9 other bombs ready or within days of completion. He was also of the opinion that all but one of 11 devices should have been used to completely lay waste to Japan; the other was for Moscow, which is where he saw the greatest post-war danger.

As you might surmise, his was a personal and permanent hatred of an entire people, based upon the loss of many close friends at the hands of Japanese soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

The last time I spoke with him, upon the 50th Anniversary of VJ-Day (we were both in town for a ceremony at the Strategic Air Command Museum just outside Offutt), he was still desirous of turning the surface of Japan into a plain of fused ceramic.

I hope he found some peace when he passed away in 1998.

[Megrez]

http://www.datejesus.com/american-liberators.jpg

[Fortis in Arduis]

The only comparison meant was that in the case of Japan, we did what needed to be done—distasteful as it may be—and prevailed. Whereas in Iraq, we haven't the political balls to actually fight an all out war, and are thus doomed to fail. A military victory is a very simple thing, needing only three components: a goal, the means to achieve that goal, and the will to do so at any cost. In Japan, we had all three; in Iraq we have only the second.

Military victories seem to be somewhat separate from national victories in 2010.

Yet, we feel beholden to support those military victories, because they are the best hope of national aspiration at this time.

In societies where the military are so far removed from the voting public, we hardly know where to place ourselves, and can only question as to why those who are fortunate to have been granted permission to fight are not given a fairer share of the profits of war.

Why can our politicians not be honest and explain the actual material justifications why our tax money is being spent on these wars for liberal capitalism?

If explained in plain terms, without the political sophistry and pretensions of humanitarianism, most of the voting, tax-paying public would approve and support these endeavours without question.

There are clear goals. Why so much devious obfuscation?

Could it be that the democratisation of militarism would be a greivous threat to the Establishment and would expose their iniquitous agenda?

[Psychonaut]

If explained in plain terms, without the political sophistry and pretensions of humanitarianism, most of the voting, tax-paying public would approve and support these endeavours without question.

:nod:


There are clear goals. Why so much devious obfuscation?

Are there?

Other than keeping us in a perpetual state of "war" which drains our coffers (since we're not taking the wealth of those with whom we fight), I fail to see any definable goal that has persisted since the start of the war. Rather, it seems to be a tenuously defined aim that is ultimately amorphous—shifting rapidly at the behest of our leaders. :shrug:

[Loki]

Once you go Japanese, you never go anywhere else again.

[ironman]

As a side note to the thread...a peek into the thinking of the men of that time?

When my wife and I were at Offutt AFB in Nebraska, USA from late 1986 - early 1992, I worked at a door and window company in the city of Omaha.

The technician in our radio and motor shop (door openers and controls) was a veteran of WW 2, Korea and Viet Nam. Bill enlisted in the US horse cavalry in 1936 at age 24 and retired out of the US Air Force in 1972. Because I was willing to lend him a hand as needed, oftentimes without being asked, he came to trust me and told me a few stories of his service days.

My personal sidearm is the Colt M-1911, which he was issued in 1936, brought out of service (the last year one could buy one's issue sidearm or rifle) and sold to me in 1995 for a pittance; $100 plus a used Commodore-64. He said he could feel himself giving into his age (83 at the time), was fully retiring and moving to Arizona with his wife, to be near his sons and their children.

During the WW 2, Bill was in "Special Services," in both the European and Pacific theaters of war, which role he reprized in Korea and Viet-Nam (albeit less physically than when he was younger).

A few months after D-Day, Bill was transferred to the Army Air Corps, ostensibly to help train their own "special services" folk. By early spring 1945, he had been attached to the security detachment of the 509 Composite Group (the atomic bombers).

Besides "Little Boy" and "Fat Man," Bill says the US had 9 other bombs ready or within days of completion. He was also of the opinion that all but one of 11 devices should have been used to completely lay waste to Japan; the other was for Moscow, which is where he saw the greatest post-war danger.

As you might surmise, his was a personal and permanent hatred of an entire people, based upon the loss of many close friends at the hands of Japanese soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

The last time I spoke with him, upon the 50th Anniversary of VJ-Day (we were both in town for a ceremony at the Strategic Air Command Museum just outside Offutt), he was still desirous of turning the surface of Japan into a plain of fused ceramic.

I hope he found some peace when he passed away in 1998.

My best friend is from Sheffield in South Yorkshire, his grandfather was in the British army, he was captured in Singapore.
Having a beer with Dave and his grandfather in his local working mans club, you learn to adapt to people who just listen to conversation, and talk when only they have something to say.
His grandad was a great mans man sort of fellow, straight to the point, a man that you respect.
Dave was the youngest grandson, he was spoilt and he took advantage of his youth, he continually asked his grandad "what do ya think of bloody japs grandad?"
His grandad always came straight to the point, "inhuman bastards" he would say.
Another thing i respected him for was as Japanese technology entered our shops and homes, i heard he had nothing made in Japan in his house, i would bet my house that when he died he had nothing made in Japan in his house too.

[Bloodeagle]

His grandad always came straight to the point, "inhuman bastards" he would say.
Another thing i respected him for was as Japanese technology entered our shops and homes, i heard he had nothing made in Japan in his house, i would bet my house that when he died he had nothing made in Japan in his house too.

This is a sympathy shared by many of the men of the, "The Greatest Generation", on this side of the pond. :)

[SwordoftheVistula]

http://www.datejesus.com/american-liberators.jpg

That's a pretty sweet mech, but this isn't the Battletech thread

[Megrez]

That's a pretty sweet mech, but this isn't the Battletech thread
:confused:

That's an illustration for the role of the USA as liberators :icon_neutral:

[Svipdag]

Just what was the point of stirring up up these old issues now, Loki ? What the hell were you trying to accomplish ? No atrocities were committed IN Hiroshima. One may argue that the incineration of an entire city and its 200,000 inhabitants is itself an atrocity. It can also be considered a strategic decision to bring the war to an end.

Sign a peace treaty ? Japan was not yet ready to surrender. Japan expected the war to last ten more years and they expected to win by attrition and exhaustion. Aside from unilateral surrender by the United States, no peace treaty would have satisfied Japan.

Signing a peace treaty was not an option. Roosevelt had demanded unconditional surrender, a condition which Japan would not have accepted. Truman's position was not strong enough to permit him to reverse Roosevelt's policy and would not have been supported by Congress, not to mention Churchill and Stalin.

It took the total annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to impress the Japanese High Command with the hopelessness of pursuing the war further.
As I recall them, the Emperor's words in announcing the termination of hostilities to the Japanese people were to the effect that it had been decided that it would not be profitable to pursue the war further.

Having seen the horrors which we inflicted upon the Japanese people by detonating those two nuclear weapons, is it then hypocritical of us to insist that this never happen again ? I think not. But , then, I'm not trying to stir up old hatreds, Loki.

The atrocities perpetrated by the Japanese in Manchuria were a foretaste of the horrors of a Japanese-dominated Asia. By preventing this from coming to pass, we WERE, indeed liberators, freeing the peoples of the lands which the Japanese had conquered in World War II from the horrors of permanent Japanese occupation.

This claim, then is neither a pose nor hypocrisy. It is the TRUTH. So, I ask again, WHAT'S YOUR GAME, LOKI ? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TRYING TO DO ?

[Austin]

I'm glad we did. Nukes are best if used!


We saved more Japs than we would have killed by invading had we not used nukes, the argument is mute and naive.

[Loddfafner]

I split off the more general debate about the nature of ethics to its own thread in the philosophy subforum (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18051).

[Piparskeggr]

The ad I see as I read right now is for an MA in Military History from the university I attended for 4 1/2 years and from which my wife graduated...Norwich in Vermont, USA.

It is the US's oldest private military college, having been founded in 1819.

If you sometimes wonder where I got some of my information and attitudes...Norwich.

My professors were (in the main) combat veterans of WW 2, Korea and Viet Nam.

Freshman year, my engineering prof was a man who was in charge of General Patton's combat engineers.

One of my Air Force ROTC instructors was an intelligence analyst aboard the airplane that took pictures of missile sites on Cuba.

Our assistant commandant volunteered for the first US paratroop platoon and was one of the first to jump HALO.

My second commandant was a USMC platoon leader during the Inchon landing during the Korean conflict.

My mentor, as an Air Force "puke," was a Green Beret captain who took a liking to me and got the Air Force to let me be one of his "aggressors" for Army training exercises.

I got to meet (US) Medal of Honor awardees, winners of the Iron Cross, the Legion of Merit...true warriors...historians of note, but little "Name."

I am a better man for having known them, by luck of having attended Norwich.

[Debaser11]

I just also want to add that despite my earlier comments about the U.S. being wrong on this matter, I will not be condescended to by the Japanese about war crimes considering the blood that is on their hands. The same applies to Amerindians, blacks, Chinese, Muslims, or even Jews.

[Óttar]

Hey Eurofags! You don't give a shit about Japs!

True Story. :coffee:

[Murphy]

This is why the sword is vastly superior to the gun or the bomb. War is being dehumanised. It not only robs the beauty and nobility from war but also the purpose.

In the end, what is the difference between dropping an atomic bomb or a thousand smaller bombs?

[Cato]

This is why the sword is vastly superior to the gun or the bomb. War is being dehumanised. It not only robs the beauty and nobility from war but also the purpose.

How exactly is a Roman gladius tearing your ribcage open a thing of beauty? Or a katana taking your head off? Or, can being trampled down by the metal-shod hooves of a cavalry horse also be noble? If ancient-styled warfare was better, why did sword-wielding soldiers often die in droves of tens of thousands?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_arausio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Julu ("200,000 were killed in battle months after this battle, another 200,000+ in Zhang Han's army surrendered and were later buried alive.")




In the end, what is the difference between dropping an atomic bomb or a thousand smaller bombs?

Logistics.

[Eldritch]

This is why the sword is vastly superior to the gun or the bomb. War is being dehumanised. It not only robs the beauty and nobility from war but also the purpose.


Not having taken part in a war myself, it may be somewhat presumptuous of me to point this out, but I suspect that very few people who have seen any actual combat, whether with swords or with bombs, would want to talk about the "beauty" of war.

[The Lawspeaker]

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images-5/dead-civil-war-soldiers.jpg

Only the death have seen the end of war..

I don't think that my grandfather particularly enjoyed his experiences in the East Indies.

[Thraex]

Who cares? Japan won in the end.

Nagasaki:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/91/271843486_228be89b1a.jpg

Detroit:

http://emsnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/detroit-destroyed-neighborhoods.png?w=643&h=806

[Cato]

How exactly is a Roman gladius tearing your ribcage open a thing of beauty? Or a katana taking your head off? Or, can being trampled down by the metal-shod hooves of a cavalry horse also be noble? If ancient-styled warfare was better, why did sword-wielding soldiers often die in droves of tens of thousands?

I'll answer my own question herein and say that, on the physical plane, mankind wields the power of life and death- one of the realms of God Almighty himself.

[Debaser11]

Who cares? Japan won in the end.

Nagasaki:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/91/271843486_228be89b1a.jpg

Detroit:

http://emsnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/detroit-destroyed-neighborhoods.png?w=643&h=806


Oh God...this is such a terrible thought but it came to mind while reading your post. Blacks have destroyed Detroit in ways that even an atom bomb couldn't have.:(

[Cato]

Oh God...this is such a terrible thought but it came to mind while reading your post. Blacks have destroyed Detroit in ways that even an atom bomb couldn't have.:(

Niggers are niggers, what else do you expect from them? Take a look at Lagos or Addis Ababa, or any city where niggers are the majority, and what do you find? Crime, disease, disorder, filth, and waste.

[Debaser11]

Niggers are niggers, what else do you expect from them? Take a look at Lagos or Addis Ababa, or any city where niggers are the majority, and what do you find? Crime, disease, disorder, filth, and waste.

No, I understand. It's just, putting it in terms like that is really bleak. Germany and Japan versus the African continent or even Vietnam measured up against a cesspool like Haiti (which has been free since like...forever) should really make racial IQ naysayers think hard about their "race is only skin deep" religion.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Niggers are niggers, what else do you expect from them? Take a look at Lagos or Addis Ababa, or any city where niggers are the majority, and what do you find? Crime, disease, disorder, filth, and waste.

Yes and we find these problems wheresoever 'Whitey' is as well, albeit to a lesser extent, but with the added multiculturalist nonsense.

Your point was?

[Debaser11]

Yes and we find these problems wheresoever 'Whitey' is as well, albeit to a lesser extent, but with the added multiculturalist nonsense.

Your point was?

I think you touched on his point.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Who cares? Japan won in the end.

Detroit:

http://emsnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/detroit-destroyed-neighborhoods.png?w=643&h=806

Yes, of course there is, I understand, in Detroit, the historical 19th C Bricktown district:

http://www.civicimages.com/im/united_states/michigan/detroit-091.jpg

http://www.motorcityrocks.com/GloriousDetroit/Detroit_Bricktown.jpg

Wherein lies the Wayne County Courthouse, which, of course, bears little relation to JAYNE COUNTY:

JvWHTEHGHCE

JUST HAD TO POP THAT IN THERE.

[Cato]

Yes and we find these problems wheresoever 'Whitey' is as well, albeit to a lesser extent, but with the added multiculturalist nonsense.

Your point was?

http://memegenerator.net/horny-samus/ImageMacro/1160437/horny-samus-Niggers-Suck.jpg

[Thorum]

On August 6, 1945, the United States of America deliberately killed 200,000 people in a single city in Japan, Hiroshima, by dropping an atom bomb. The US is the only nation to have massacred people by using nuclear weapons. Quite ironic that they are calling for nations like Iran to not have such weapons, since they've been the only ones using it ... with devastating effect.

http://www.en.rian.ru/video/20100806/160097197.html

Hmmm, I suspect Loki's motives with this thread. I know he is rational. And skeptical. So, I am unsure of the point. Best to remember this is a statement, not a question from Loki. A 3 minute documentary as evidence of the "atrocity" and from Ria Novosti?

I'll bite. "Deliberately"? Yes. "killed 200,000". No, estimates vary widely with a rough concensus being approximately 90,000. (I would not deny being pleased if the figures were 200,000 or even 500,000). "massacred". Yes, it was a crushing blow to Japan.

Lest we forget, here is another, roughly equivalent atrocity and massacre by the USA against its enemy during WW2. The occasion was the 10 March 1945 firebombing air raid of Tokyo:

"10 March 1945 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo): 334 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy ~267,000 buildings; ~25% of city[2] (Operation Meetinghouse) killing some 100,000."

Again, I would have to admit that if the casualties had been 1 million, I would not have been sad. We went into the war to win, and win we did.

The true shame is that we don't have balls like this anymore...

[Murphy]

Not having taken part in a war myself, it may be somewhat presumptuous of me to point this out, but I suspect that very few people who have seen any actual combat, whether with swords or with bombs, would want to talk about the "beauty" of war.

Oh, do not get me wrong. I don't think there is any beauty in the material ramifications of war.. strewn bodies across the streets etc. But there is beauty in man's will to fight, there is beauty in the emotions people carry into conflict.

[Debaser11]

http://memegenerator.net/horny-samus/ImageMacro/1160437/horny-samus-Niggers-Suck.jpg


Says the caucasian girl? Or is it a Japanese chick with died hair and contact lenses?

[Cato]

Says the caucasian girl? Or is it a Japanese chick with died hair and contact lenses?

Answer in bold. :)

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Yes and we find these problems wheresoever 'Whitey' is as well, albeit to a lesser extent, but with the added multiculturalist nonsense.

Your point was?

'Bred to perfection.' a whitey that is.:D
When they make war, it is to perfection.
When they love ,it is to perfection.
When they hate, it is to perfection.
When they bomb a town,it is in style.

[Bonita]

Not having taken part in a war myself, it may be somewhat presumptuous of me to point this out, but I suspect that very few people who have seen any actual combat, whether with swords or with bombs, would want to talk about the "beauty" of war.

My grandfathers never wanted to talk about the war against the Soviet.

My maternal grandmother told that her husband often had diffuculties in getting sleep and he used to go up and wonder around in the house at nights. And she knew he was thinking about what had happened in the war but he never wanted to say anything about it. Both my grandfathers were more or less marked in a negative way by the war they took part in at a young age.

[Eldritch]

Both my grandfathers were more or less marked in a negative way by the war they took part in at a young age.

Yep. Mine too, both of them. They didn't exactly concern themselves with PTSD back then, but rather told them to STFU and get on with their lives ... :rolleyes2:

[Psychonaut]

Yep. Mine too, both of them. They didn't exactly concern themselves with PTSD back then, but rather told them to STFU and get on with their lives ... :rolleyes2:

Interesting segue...

Why are today's soldiers so much more prone to mental conditions like PTSD, which has caused, in the US, suicides to outnumber combat deaths? To be sure, combat is far less dangerous for the average soldier than it has been at any point in the past. Conditions downrange are far better than ever. Yadda, yadda, yadda. So, what's the beef? Why are so many modern troops succumbing to this kind of—what seems to me—mental weakness? Is it a sign of the times?

[Murphy]

Is it a sign of the times?

Is it possible becuse today, they are soldiers and not warriors? Today, does a soldier in the U.S military really have a cause as it were? Why are they fighting?

[Debaser11]

Quiet suffering was more common is my guess. I don't discount PTSD. I just wish we could call it what it is: shell-shock.

[Psychonaut]

Is it possible becuse today, they are soldiers and not warriors? Today, does a soldier in the U.S military really have a cause as it were? Why are they fighting?

What makes this so different from wars fought by previous generations? WWI was hardly a cause that Joe America had an emotional opinion in favor of.

[Murphy]

What makes this so different from wars fought by previous generations? WWI was hardly a cause that Joe America had an emotional opinion in favor of.

Fair point.

Hm. Is it possible because today, to be a soldier, it is a career? For example, in World War 1, the American soldier, even if he signed up before the war, wasn't looking for a career was he? Most went on, after the war, into fields such as car factories.

Could this contribute to such stress soldiers are under today?

[Psychonaut]

Fair point.

Hm. Is it possible because today, to be a soldier, it is a career? For example, in World War 1, the American soldier, even if he signed up before the war, wasn't looking for a career was he? Most went on, after the war, into fields such as car factories.

Could this contribute to such stress soldiers are under today?

Most soldiers today aren't careerists either. Less than 10% of all military personnel serve more than one term (which generally last around three years). Also, wouldn't being involuntarily compelled to be in the military be more psychologically damaging than the voluntary service that is the case today?

[Nodens]

Perhaps the Therapeutic State had rendered many less able to independently cope with psychological stress?

[Murphy]

Most soldiers today aren't careerists either. Less than 10% of all military personnel serve more than one term (which generally last around three years). Also, wouldn't being involuntarily compelled to be in the military be more psychologically damaging than the voluntary service that is the case today?

That was my second strike :P.

Perhaps it goes back to my original post in this thread. The dehumanising of war? The lack of a face in battles? It's really so.. imporsonal. Bombs dropping from the skies or blowing up from under foot are quite different to two knights clashing swords in the middle of a maelstrom.

[Eldritch]

Interesting segue...

Why are today's soldiers so much more prone to mental conditions like PTSD, which has caused, in the US, suicides to outnumber combat deaths? To be sure, combat is far less dangerous for the average soldier than it has been at any point in the past. Conditions downrange are far better than ever. Yadda, yadda, yadda. So, what's the beef? Why are so many modern troops succumbing to this kind of—what seems to me—mental weakness? Is it a sign of the times?

Hmmm, my guess would be that the cause is a combination of today's increasingly fragmented society with no sense of community, values, spirituality or even basic human decency; and a sense many youngters ("cough cough" :oldman: ) have today that life is simply something that happens to them as they drift along, and they can simply sit down and play victim if everything isn't arranged for them to their liking.

Not that some kind of mental assessment isn't necessary for troops who've seen combat -- like Vonnita pointed out, neglecting it can reflect negatively to the rest of the individual's life. And let's not forget that massive national traumas are passed down generations, as well. They don't simply vanish over time.

[Thorum]

My gut feeling is that patriotism these days sounds so "quaint" and outdated. Mix that with the ambiguous nature of "todays" wars and there you are...

I must say though, as a soldier during the late 80's/early 1990's, I felt a strong feeling of patriotism and was prepared to wipe my ass with a couple Korans (Desert Storm)...and would have been proud to do it.

Problem: Saudi Arabia was our ally. So you can see what I mean by "ambiguous".

[Loki]

Whatever was the cause for making war on Iraq? Still haven't figured that one out - it was all based on lies that Saddam had WMD's. If US soldiers were all motivated to fight on that basis, they must mostly be idiots. But no, they were just following commands.

[Psychonaut]

That was my second strike :P.

Perhaps it goes back to my original post in this thread. The dehumanising of war? The lack of a face in battles? It's really so.. imporsonal. Bombs dropping from the skies or blowing up from under foot are quite different to two knights clashing swords in the middle of a maelstrom.

Three strikes, bro.

Deaths inflicted by our soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have weighed much more heavily one the side of small arms fire within the context of a city block, neighborhood or house—which is much more "up close and personal" than the firebombing, artillery and tank battles that defined the Second World War. Also, the Army was forced to completely retool its hand to hand combat program due to a rapid increase in the amount of hand to hand combat that was taking place in Iraq.


Hmmm, my guess would be that the cause is a combination of today's increasingly fragmented society with no sense of community, values, spirituality or even basic human decency; and a sense many youngters ("cough cough" :oldman: ) have today that life is simply something that happens to them as they drift along, and they can simply sit down and play victim if everything isn't arranged for them to their liking..

I was thinking it was something along these lines as well. The days of taking your licks like a man and forging ahead through adversity are rapidly vanishing.

[Thorum]

Whatever was the cause for making war on Iraq? Still haven't figured that one out - it was all based on lies that Saddam had WMD's. If US soldiers were all motivated to fight on that basis, they must mostly be idiots. But no, they were just following commands.

You know what this thread just reminded me of? My thoughts on 9/12/2001.

"We should immediately drop nuclear bombs across Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran..." I felt it then, and still feel the same now. Who the f*ck cares what anyone thinks? Who cares? Beat your enemy first, clean up the mess last.

Who the f*ck cares. Sadly, this won't happen and we are sloshing down the drain of Islamization and immigration overload...

[Murphy]

Three strikes, bro.

Good thing this isn't baseball then :D!

Perhaps it is because prior to the 20th century, many who went to war were accustomed to it? Were raised to expect it, and had come from generations upon generations of fighting men? But then, there came a time when children, boy-children, were not raised to expect to have to go and fight? They became.. sensitised to it? And then war began to be turned on by the general public. Such as Vietnam?

Or perhaps PTSD isn't more common today than it was in ages gone.. we simply are able to measure it now due to a great increase in statistics and communications etc.?

[Loki]

You know what this thread just reminded me of? My thoughts on 9/12/2001.

"We should immediately drop nuclear bombs across Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran..." I felt it then, and still feel the same now. Who the f*ck cares what anyone thinks? Who cares? Beat your enemy first, clean up the mess last.

Who the f*ck cares. Sadly, this won't happen and we are sloshing down the drain of Islamization and immigration overload...

Well ironically, there is more immigration (refugees) from Iraq to the US because of the war - so this makes absolutely no sense. Bomb those countries and they'll come in droves to the West to find refuge from the conflict the US created/exacerbated. That's what's been happening.

[Debaser11]

The war was a mistake. But it's ashame how in the U.S. (and I dare say the U.K.) national sentiment is so self-flagellating. We don't all get behind causes anymore like in the olden days.

[Thorum]

Well ironically, there is more immigration (refugees) from Iraq to the US because of the war - so this makes absolutely no sense. Bomb those countries and they'll come in droves to the West to find refuge from the conflict the US created/exacerbated. That's what's been happening.

I wasn't defending the war, I was saying what we should have done...No conflict, no drawn out war, just 30 or 40 nuclear bombs.

I don't think there would be any more immigration than we have now...

And the best part? No more Mecca.

[Loki]

I wasn't defending the war, I was saying what we should have done...No conflict, no drawn out war, just 30 or 40 nuclear bombs.

I don't think there would be any more immigration than we have now...

And the best part? No more Mecca.

That's a nice fantasy, but it ain't gonna happen in 2010.

[Psychonaut]

They became.. sensitised to it?

This may be a piece of the puzzle. I've long noted that it does not feel like we're at war. There is no overriding sense of national psychic fatigue that ought to accompany something as existentially threatening as war. Rather, we have "wars" that are small enough to pose no real threat to the non-military inhabitants of the US, but are serious enough that they occupy the bulk of our military resources. Both the populace and the military have come to accept this as a matter of course—that perpetual war is normal. This can't be a healthy psychic environment from which to recruit soldiers. If they go in expecting war to be just another everyday job and are then shocked to find that it both exceeds (in its remoteness from the ordinary) and falls short (in it's boringness) of their expectations, this could cause the dissonance that leads to things like suicide rising.


And then war began to be turned on by the general public. Such as Vietnam?

This is key too. Since Vietnam soldiers have been completely and utterly betrayed by the traitorous public. A man fighting for his nation is bound to have internal strife from large sectors of his nation wishing death upon him.


Or perhaps PTSD isn't more common today than it was in ages gone.. we simply are able to measure it now due to a great increase in statistics and communications etc.?

Well, suicide rates have been tracked for at least fifty years and they are clearly spiking now.

[Murphy]

And JP finally hits the ball :D!

[Sol Invictus]

Who the f*ck cares. Sadly, this won't happen and we are sloshing down the drain of Islamization and immigration overload...

It's the people who let them in here who are the problem, both Republican and Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. All of them are in agreement that Muslims have a right to live here and they are the ones bringing them in. Talk to them about our immigration issues, and how they let 9/11 happen (at the very least) instead of buying into their divide and conquer strategy. Try and see the bigger picture and follow the money trail because the buck don't stop at Muslims.

In regards to 9/11, read the Project for a New American Century document. That is the Pearl Harbour they needed.

[Debaser11]

Yep. It's not the point of this thread, but at least the Japs have a country. :(

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Is it possible becuse today, they are soldiers and not warriors? Today, does a soldier in the U.S military really have a cause as it were? Why are they fighting?
Could be

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1277933/1-7-UK-soldiers-use-alcohol-blot-Iraq-Afghan-war-horrors.html

[Lulletje Rozewater]

For example, is the progress in medicine a true progress? In appearance,it is, for I see that when a child suffers from diphtheria, right drugs andproper medical treatment are readily available. This is progress. Butsome people like Alexis Carl who measure these things with thecriterion of humanity, believe that medicine is gradually weakeninghuman species. They say: In the past, human beings had resistanceagainst diseases; the weak were destroyed and the strong remained alive,and this made successive generations stronger and resistant to diseases,and also prevented the unnecessary increase of population.
But now,medicine is artificially preserving weak persons who otherwise wouldhave perished and were really condemned to death by nature. Therefore, the successive generations are not fit to survive, and so everygeneration becomes weaker than its predecessor.
A child born in theseventh month of pregnancy is by the law of nature condemned todeath; but now medicine, with its progress and means, preserves thisbaby.
But what will become of the next generation? Moreover, there isthe question of over-population.
It happens that those who are fitterfor the improvement of the human race are destroyed and those whoare not competent to bring about this improvement somehow manageto survive.

[SwordoftheVistula]

In addition to the other factors, I wonder if it has something to do with most people no longer living on farms, not as many kids going out hunting, and low child mortality rates? In past times, people would have encountered death on a much more regular basis while growing up.

[Bloodeagle]

Is it possible becuse today, they are soldiers and not warriors? Today, does a soldier in the U.S military really have a cause as it were? Why are they fighting?
People have been coerced and lied to since the beginning of time to raise arms against their brothers for no other reason than to satisfy their rulers wishes.
What makes a U.S. soldier any different than a catholic warrior from northern Europe striking out towards the holy land in defense of a faith that was given to him at the end of a sword?
We have no draft in this country.
All of our soldiers are volunteers!
How dare you call my countries fighting men and women mere soldiers and not warriors! :mad:

[Psychonaut]

How dare you call my countries fighting men and women mere soldiers and not warriors! :mad:

I actually tend to agree. The vast majority of our armed forces are combat support (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_support) (like me) and combat service support (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_service_support). If you call those of us who, by and large, do not run around shooting people warriors, doesn't that denigrate the term when you apply it to true warriors like Army Special Forces or Navy SEALs guys? I mean, calling all the chicks and pudgy World of Warcraft dorks I worked with at my last unit warriors kind of strips the meaning from the word. We did our jobs exceptionally well, and those jobs were of critical importance, but we had no chance of ever seeing combat.

[Murphy]

It was a poor choice of words on my part. I do not doubt the bravery of men and women in the U.S armed forces. What I believe I was trying to get is the difference in the philosophy of being a soldier.

[Sol Invictus]

It was a poor choice of words on my part. I do not doubt the bravery of men and women in the U.S armed forces. What I believe I was trying to get is the difference in the philosophy of being a soldier.

Theres something very spiritual that strikes me when I think of what a warrior is, but not necessarily in the religious sense. A warrior fights for personal glory for his people and his tribe and often does it out of necessity or honour, rather a soldier does what he is paid to do regardless of what it is. He is detached from bias, and he no longer belongs to himself but rather to the whole. He is a number, and not an individual. There's something more cold, and calculating when I think of the word soldier. The lowly infantryman is expendable asset regardless of his name and background. Whereas a warrior is not the case.

[Svipdag]

Could it be because we're fighting in undeclared wars that don't serve our national interests in any way against people who haven't attacked us militarily.

At one time, the exclusive power of Congress to declare war was still acknowledged. Presidents didn't make war on anyone it pleased them to, like European kings and princes.

Even the unnecessary Spanish-American War and our equally unnecessary participation in a squabble between the crowned heads of Europe because a ship carrying munitions, on which Americans had been warned not to travel, was sunk, had to be declared by Congress.

It is hard to make a plausible case for the notion that meddling in the internal affairs of VietNam, Iraq, or Afghanistan was or is done to defend our freedoms and the American Way of Life. Maybe THAT'S why it doesn't feel as if we were at war.