ErricoMalatesta

Good. Don't occupy land that isn't yours is the moral of the story.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon2/world.html

Brown people are stupid and if you eat their filthy goat meat and drink their rancid tea they will forget all about the thousands of accidental deaths.

'people at the time'- what people? You mean power centers? Yeah if you murder millions of people come out on top of other systems and then tell everyone you had too than sure, 'people at the time' just didn't understand the concept of gross human violence and mass murder. If we can leave the fantasy land for a moment there is a reason why post war most things that both sides could be proven to have done weren't considered crimes while things only the Axis powers had done were some of the greatest crimes going. People understood that firebombing entire cities were massive human rights abuses even if there was no global legislature. Further they dropped two and the internal documents are out there to read so the second half is wrong also. It is funny no matter what part of the political spectrum Americans cannot let go of WW2. All the powerful states of WW2 committed massive war crimes - you just apply scrutiny to everyone but yourself it would seem lawrocket. It is very evident when you dedicate entire posts to postulating absurd stories and implicating me as a shared holder of said ideas. Because some people KNEW how evil Germany was. I thought we couldn't drop the bar further. They knew did they? German-Americans knew Germany was evil? US business knew Germany was evil? A society at the peak of Western intellectual and artistic culture? I am just going to stop here. Thank you. Yet you deny that the end of the war were war crimes? Ok so here is your reasoning laid out... Japan attacked Pearl Harbor so several years later in a defense move we atom bombed and firebombed entire cities. Is that justification? Do you believe that? Does anyone believe that? Before Japan attacked the US and before the US even entered the war the US press was full of stories about how b-52 bombers rolling off assembly lines would be more than capable of reducing Japan's wood cities to ash - by your logic this is a very strong validation for Japanese action... not something I would agree with however.

No.

I'm not kidding you - the fantasy I refer to is in your head which doesn't allow you to conceptualise what people of the period were doing, thinking and believing. I have already given one example that contradicts your recount of history - If "anyone" knew how 'evil' Germany was why were there parties in the streets of NYC the day Germany invaded Poland? To specifically (re-)answer your two questions... 1. I didn't infer this was the fantasy. 2. Germany and Japan were carrying out a brutal war of territorial expansion.

It has nothing to do with my theory it has to do with basic historical facts and you conceptualising a fantasy in your head. YOU painted the picture that Germany and Japan were not only out for "world domination" but that "anyone" (everyone?) knew it. There is no doubt that Germany and Japan were on a path of destruction but I suggest you either leave the thread or leave the childish conceptions of good vs evil at the door. If Germany were pure evil hell bent on "world domination" and everyone knew it why were there massive celebrations in the streets of New York when Poland was invaded.

Your original hypothesis was stupid and what you have said is in no measure a support of the original statement which without clicking back to get a full look was something absurd about never giving Japan back as if we still functioned on 18th century models of warfare. You've shown yourself. You assert that Mussolini (leader of the Partito Nazionale Fascista) was not a fascist. Il Duce was not a fascist. Nor was Emmanuel. You've shown that you clearly don't know what you are talking about. The US destroyed rapidly growing democratic practices and institutions all across Northern Italy, restored many fascist elements of the old society and absolutely none of it relates to Mussolini. Wrong. They were not considered legitimate and this is obvious as most of them were left out of Nuremberg trials.

1. I am not a Marxist 2. Don't hypothesize conspiracies because you have no better points to argue 3. America was attacked - yeah I get it. World domination? Not only is that widely untrue historically but it was not clear to 'anyone' at the time. Maybe it was a passing concern however Hawaii and South East Asia are not mainland USA. I never said Japan was not a liberal democracy and the US role in its establishment as with all its efforts at creating democracy for other nations came with economic strings.

It was a massive human rights abuse so there is really nothing crap about it. It isn't a matter of 'if', it happened and your hypothesis doesn't make sense. The US didn't need to occupy Japan in that manner. Oh really Yeah I am sure that Italy really appreciated it when the US came in at the end of the war and broke up democratic institutions and restored fascist leadership. They didn't have to give it back at all though right? If we go by your standard of conflict resolution and not anything based in reality. We didn't fight back against our pre-emptive attackers. Iraq - and to an extent Afghanistan - became Pearl Harbor and the US was the attacker. Sure it is aggression. I never said any of that. I am saying that fighting back against Japan even with elements of legitimacy says nothing about the US's overall intention for the region. Obviously dropping atom bombs and firebombing chunks of the population is not included in legitimate methods of defense.

Sure Japan initiated a war. That doesn't mean the US didn't instantly recognise the implications if they were to relinquish control of Asia. Yes we all remember the win... and massive human rights crimes. Your last sentence is exactly what I said. What is different?

I'm not convinced that they couldn't take care of themselves and sort things out. You must have a really strong sense of the innate goodness of man. I don't share that view. I believe that in the absence of a stable government and, in particular, lacking a robust legal system, society would more closely resemble a Mad Max movie than anything we would consider democracy. Well history books are against you on this one.

Absolutely. That's why we shouldn't be trying to do it. Just to play devil's advocate, didn't we terrorize, occupy, and then help build democracy in Japan in the aftermath of WWII? Again we have this word democracy with it's two sneaky meanings - A traditional definition and in this case 'the center of an Asian system which we can dominate' definition. So... You claim that modern day Japan is not a democracy? I am saying that the US fought the war in the Pacific to ensure that Japan would not become the center of a rising Asian economic system that it would dominate. The US were perfectly fine to let this happen, which it did, under their control and if you look at the post war period that's exactly what happened. You don't need to micro manage the political sphere to retain hegemony over the economic sphere.

A lot of people cry about the character yet few bother arguing with the truisms.

Absolutely. That's why we shouldn't be trying to do it. Just to play devil's advocate, didn't we terrorize, occupy, and then help build democracy in Japan in the aftermath of WWII? Again we have this word democracy with it's two sneaky meanings - A traditional definition and in this case 'the center of an Asian system which we can dominate' definition.

Its funny how the fucking idiots who are unable to look more than one generation into the past in regards to what constitutes legitimate reparations/apologies/etc are the same fucking idiots who are the first to quote a declaration on a piece of paper from a long time ago when any other issue comes up.

Is this a thread where we share links that we assume only idiots would ever read/use/purchase? http://www.foxnews.com/

I guess I am a moron for considering nation-building to be an objective. Why is the US trying to build a democracy in Iraq? For window dressing? You can't build democracy in a country you terrorise and then occupy. The US is trying to build a system which will inherently benefit them - they call it democracy just like the last 10 times they've tried t. The invasion of Iraq was undertaken with the accepted expectation that it would increase the likelyhood of terrorism. The US is fine with 'security of the region' under dictators. "Democracy tends to be unpredictable. Conducting foreign investment is most profitable under a strong authoritarian regime." Like Iraq the first time around. You forgot to add - 'in name only'. Certainly seems that way.

In what context? Flanders fields? You cannot see the irony in planning for future war at a place that commemorates one of the most pointless wars from the start of last century? Maybe its better to laugh than cry? Do you want to tone down the attitude cry baby?

I enjoy the effort and style of your posts nerdgirl but alas I can offer no more than the following... I hope Kissinger suffers a long, drawn out and horrible death.

What was the conclusion? Once the invisibility suits and microwave beams are perfected regular people are f*ed? Was there any discussion on militarising space?

That I am judgmental by nation? Sure I am guilty but we should keep in mind that some of my mentors, friends and heroes are American... admittedly not the dumb variety. I am not here to convert I am just here to as it states "Lay down sarcasm or facts". Cuba is certainly not a model for anything and I don't know what I have done to give the impression I would like it there, however, Cuba is probably the most terrorised Island of the 20th century thanks of course to the US.

So it is more or less hovering at the same level as all the other polls over the last two decades that asked the same thing... which incidentally is one index of the American population being way to the left of powerful opinion. There is still hope

The domestic population pay for the short comings of private and state power? I have not seen that before as a fundamentally recurring element of the last century or so. ... Good luck to all the people trying to do things about it.

I actually think that the US has often intervened for those sorts of reasons Yeah I'm sure there is a massive list