Michael Moore Dares to Ask: What's So Heroic About Being Shot Down While Bombing Innocent Civilians

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Geezus, your history is even worse then Budski's.

His version of it or his interpretation of it? How do you think he came up with his version any ways?

Please post link to reliable historical evidence.

Oh i will if you start showing some of ours. It's a well known fact ( at least to people who study this sort of thing) that the peace terms agreed to after the dropping of the bombs where basically the same terms they had to agreed to months earlier. The dropping of the demand for the emperor to lose all power for instance were once again dropped after the bombs were dropped.

Wrong. The Japanese put out a communique that was less then clear in its meaning, but was clear in its purpose of not being a final communique. The Japanese knew there was a ticking clock. But like all self-deluding fools, the leadership kept playing for time they didn't have.

Right and i am sure you have a link to support that. I am sure there was in fact a measure of this but the US could have kept up conventional bombardment almost indefinitely without ever having to give the Japanese general the benefit of a ground invasion. Eventually, slowly perhaps, the generals would have figured out that without the Germans to provide the actual attrition battle's the Americans could even lose in a ground invasion.

Again dead wrong. Hirohito was stripped of his godhood and turned into a mere mortal constitutional monarch, identical to Elizabeth II.

You can't strip someone of his godhood and the Americans didn't try; that was the whole point. The Americans originally demanded that the entire position be abolished, as i remember, but in the end settled on the logical ceremonial role that the Japanese were originally 'happy' with.

Crap. Truman knew nothing of the bomb until his sudden promotion. He was extremely reluctant to use it.

I don't think you are aware of the timeline as Roosevelt died in April, a month before 'VE' day and a good long time before 'VJ' day.

Frankly i don't care about his 'reluctance' ( presuming that he was) as it got done and unnecessarily so.

1. Because many people will believe anything if its hinted at darkly enough and often enough.

People are trusting yes and the only cure seems to be to be education.

2. Because many people know their history only from what Hollywood or their grandfather has told them and not from reading books by historians who have read the official papers and talked to the people who were there.

This is true too but i have found that those who havn't read much are just ignorant and don't really talk about it leaving most of the misrepresentations to those who have read the several main stream books that led to current misinformed state.

Cetainly the US and British Commonwealth did not want Japan occupied by all the major powers the way Germany was.

They didn't want it occupied by the Russians as that puts paid to that nice post cold war airbase as well as the 'usage' of 70 million extremely industrious people. God knows how the world would have looked if the USSR had the additional benefit of putting the Japanese society to work for them.

and

Truman knew nothing of the kind. It was Churchill who advised him so stringently to share the knowledge of the existence but not the makings of the bomb with Stalin.

Yup and as we all know the USSR had advisers in Japan ready to observe the explosion and it's effects.

Remember, in 1945 Churchill was voted out of office. At the final "big 3" conference Stalin was the only original there. Truman had succeeded the dead Roosevelt, Atlee had defeated Churchill at election.

Atlee was such a "Cold Warrior" that he gave the designs for the brand new Rolls Royce Nene jet engine to Stalin for free.

Nice fella, yes, but i fail to see what this has to do with that or much anything...

Beware of the logical fallacy: All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs, therefore it is a...cat? Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it.

I can refer you to some links where logic fallacies are listed with descriptions.....

Truman dropped the bomb because Marshall told him invading Japan would make Iwo Jima and Okinawa look like a sandpit fight between four-year olds.

Truman dropped the bomb because someone or some group convinced him that there would have to be a invasion which is just a plain lie. The Japanese would have surrendered with or without the use of atomic weapons and the additional two hundred thousand deaths were most certainly not the first or the foremost consideration in the surrender. As the Japanese immediately discovered those in normal air raid shelters were safe and if everyone where in shelters as per normal air raid the casualties would have been in the thousands not tens of thousands. It is far more likely the the Japanese surrendered because they were fast losing their Manchurian possessions with the threat of a Soviet Invasion suddenly becoming a very real possibility. Since they knew that a few millions more Soviet Casualties wouldn't prevent Stalin from taking Japan him they had very little reason not to accept the new 'reduced' American demands which they had originally agreed to.

The pressure were simply mounting very fast and while the Generals may have believed the Japanese people able to somehow keep America at bay in the short term they understood that the game was up and that they were fast losing what they had left to negotiate with.

The second bomb was dropped because Japan did not surrender, instead they accelerated preparations for defence against seaborne invasion.

The second bomb were dropped before the Japanese could have possibly judged the true significance or discussed it at any length . It was a typical terrorist act mean to frighten the enemy into surrender by a sudden terror; it didn't work against the Japanese any more than it worked against anyone else in history. As for the 'preparations' for a defense they had to do something and they were doing their best with the limited means.

Stellar

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Night Watchman
They didn't make the policy. They don't get to choose the actions they take. They are simply doing their jobs and because they do, the citizens of their country can feel safe (except the paranoids who hide under the bed because they see govt conspiracies at every turn.

They CHOOSE to join the armed forces!

These days, when mutually assured destruction means that we'll never have another convential World War, people choose to become soldiers. They know the risks when they sign up and that's their problem. If they're dumb enough to be loaded onto a boat and be lead into a Middle Eastern desert to fight like pawns for bankers and politicians, then remember, it's their choice. I feel absolutely no sympathy for any troops who are deployed overseas. There's nothing heroic in it.

Sensible people would choose to live their lives with their families and stay home with a peaceful life.

I have a few Statements to the above comment and rhetoric of a Pacifist or to any Pacifist…

"A man who has nothing for which he willing to fight; nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety; is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

I’ve fought and continue to fight for your right to be a what ever you are?

Unwilling to fight for your right to be free, walking with the other sheepole to the welfare check line, or your regular job that you think is safe from being downsized do to the Corporate "Rightsizings" of Companies.

What I see in your post is that you had everything given to you and that you've never really had to work for anything. "Thanks Mom and Dad for giving me easy street" College, Partying, and paying for everything for me to make it on my own!

Your post almost made me smile and sick at the same time!

I’ve watched Heroes die for your right to talk and sit behind your keyboard and type your crap to others. Yet I continue to do so. WHY?

For a Long time now I wondered why I served for so many that have no idea what it means to be Free…

At least when I pass from this Earth I will know I served with Honor, Respect and Gratitude for my Country albeit some people that held some kind of hatred for me and those like me. We all will die one day. I will die with HONOR not as a coward... WILL YOU


Semper Fidelis, Latin for Always Faithful... Faithful to God, Country, Family and Corps. IN that Order

VDOG.45 - SSGT USMC-USAF

Originally posted by budski
I have no doubt that you would like to be an isolationist - the only trouble is, it's not the 1920's any more.

This would be a wonderful retort Budski, that is IF I SAID ANYTHING about ISOLATIONISM! Since I didn't and since I know YOU know I didn't

Just why are you saying this???

Please tell me Bud I really want to know what happened or what drug you took to hallucinate my saying such a thing?or can you just admit to this ad-hoc response as being just as Baseless as your thread is towards McCain.

Ya know,, Americans are increasingly indifferent to the classic British posture of leveraging US power, money and blood for global stability. Ironic how pissy THEY get when it is finally done to them.

The US relies on the rest of the world far more than they rely on the US.

No it doesn't and Ill tell you something else, this country has more Natural Gas for natural Gas running autos than all the oil in the ME combined. We have more Coal and shale. If we HAD to you can bet we would be self sustaining nation inside of a few years. Then we have food and if we WE WERE to become isolationist, we would have a LOT more.

We have 30% of the worlds entire GDP. Furthermore, the US is a self sustaining nation, the world is a mere convience to us.

Same for the UK - we are both consumer societies who produce little in comparison to what we consume.

Not if we didn't choose to bud it isn't that we Can't, we just don't because of outsourced cheap labor but like I said, don't put words in my mouth.

It's just rude

Here's the truth - mccain is a bush clone, and voting for him is voting for more of the same.

Wow THAT'S original pfffft what ya read that off a bumper sticker?

No they are NOT the same not even close but it DOES make for a good soundbyte if you're a liberal








[edit on 26-8-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]

reply to post by XIDIXIDIX


I've indulged your ranting for quite some time now, but accusing me of taking drugs because I disagree with you is a step too far.

Kindly refrain from insulting me, just because I don't share your view of US world domination.

reply to post by StellarX


Tell me if you still feel the same way after you watch this

www.pbs.org...

get your facts straight and quit playing arm chair quarterback about a historical event NO ONE can do a damn thing about now anyway. You want to condemn people for the past? Everyone of us on the planet would burn INCLUDING YOU

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by XIDIXIDIX

 

I've indulged your ranting for quite some time now, but accusing me of taking drugs because I disagree with you is a step too far.

Kindly refrain from insulting me, just because I don't share your view of US world domination.

So you lied ON PURPOSE! GREAT! WONDERFUL! I thought I was helping you save face as it makes for the ONLY reasonable excuse to manufacture evidence in the form of an assumed statement I made, one you know full well I didnt! So beig convicted and busted you go reaching for THIS! ha ha ha I don't see you as being that sensitive Budski and since you are reluctant to apologize, you won't get much sympathy in the form of one either. You want make my excuse for you a politically correct issue how very liberal of you and How very dishonest of you Budski!

First! It was NOT an accusation! READ MY POST!

It is a QUESTION and one deserving to be answered as you have done it again in this last post again suggesting things I have never ever said! Just who are you arguing with anyway? I know it sure as hell isn't me because I never said a thing about world domination either! Is this your typical hatred and bigotry of Americans leaking out or what? I suggest you get a handle on it.

You just can't stop can you Budski? If someone doesn't OFFER statements you can attack YOU ASSUME THEY DID! Can you not admit you have a scandalous little bit of a problem with that ? Ill be more than happy to show you the quotes or is it just IMPOSSIBLE for you to be above board and NOT suggest I say things I have NOT?? Where show me WHERE! I SAID anything about world domination! You can not ! So DO NOT tell me I cant say what it is you are and what you are is DISHONEST
.

If their were a softer more cuddly name for it i might use it but their isn't you want to wear the shoe that fits and I'm just pointing out your style.






[edit on 26-8-2008 by XIDIXIDIX]

Originally posted by StellarX
They didn't want it occupied by the Russians as that puts paid to that nice post cold war airbase as well as the 'usage' of 70 million extremely industrious people. God knows how the world would have looked if the USSR had the additional benefit of putting the Japanese society to work for them.

The Russians wanted the entire northern Island of the Japanese homeland for their participation in the War in the Pacific.

You want to know what it would have been like if they got control of it? Just ask anyone that was in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, East Germany, etc. I'm sure they all have a positive view of being occupied by the Soviets.

reply to post by XIDIXIDIX


Your actual text:

Get OVER IT, or better, do us BOTH a favor and have nothing to do with us then. I'd be all for that

Yep, wanting to have nothing to do with your biggest ally is isolationist.

and your drug quote:

Please tell me Bud I really want to know what happened or what drug you took to hallucinate

Back up the empty rhetoric - I have, can you?

US GDP is 30% of the planets?

Maybe the national debt that shrub and co have imposed on you is 30% of the planets.

Mccain is more of the same.

WOOHOO yeah, give the guy a medal for bombing civilians AND for being enough of an incompetent pilot to get shot down and caught doing it

reply to post by VDOG.45


No offense, but who's freedom have you fought for?

Certainly not mine.

I respect the fact that you served your country - but it certainly wasn't for the freedom of anyone here unless you fought in WWII

Originally posted by budski
WOOHOO yeah, give the guy a medal for bombing civilians AND for being enough of an incompetent pilot to get shot down and caught doing it

As people have pointed out, if these were "innocent civilians", how did they shoot him down? The NVA handing out SAMs or something?

He was on an airstrike against a power plant, not a school, hospital or playground.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by jerico65]

a few things here. First off, its surprising to me that people always accuse me of citing propaganda and hollywood, when my info is from RESEARCH and usually HARD TO FIND. Isnt a key aspect of propaganda that you are deluged by it, such as WMD, Iraq supporting al queda, etc? Show me a single hollywood movie that shows our bombing of hiroshima was unnecessary.
Secondly, to Jericho, 1) ask any columbians, venezuelans, panamanians, iraqi's, or persians how it was living under their american installed dictatorships. And 2) If someone was invading america, and bombing say a school or medical building....do you think we would have no weapons or anti aircraft launchers nearby to fend them off, no matter WHERE it might be?

reply to post by XIDIXIDIX

So now I'm an SOB and a liar?

I notice you haven't said anything about the fact that you accused me of taking drugs.

I'm not here for a flame war, which you obviously are - you've done nothing but insult and flame since you started posting in this thread, and are now threatening to troll me?

Really mate, get a grip.

Discuss in a rational manner, or don't discuss.

Simple.

Here's the facts, and here's what the thread is about - McCain bombing civilian targets and then using the fact that he got shot down whilst doing it to further his political agenda.

Think you can do that?

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by budski
WOOHOO yeah, give the guy a medal for bombing civilians AND for being enough of an incompetent pilot to get shot down and caught doing it

As people have pointed out, if these were "innocent civilians", how did they shoot him down? The NVA handing out SAMs or something?

He was on an airstrike against a power plant, not a school, hospital or playground.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by jerico65]

A airstrike against civilian infrastructure like powerplants,basic medicine factories,water purification cneters etc., is against geneva conventions , and thereby , McCain is officially committed a war crime in Vietnam ,

must say McCain was lucky that his captors did not shoot him dead

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by StellarX
They didn't want it occupied by the Russians as that puts paid to that nice post cold war airbase as well as the 'usage' of 70 million extremely industrious people. God knows how the world would have looked if the USSR had the additional benefit of putting the Japanese society to work for them.

The Russians wanted the entire northern Island of the Japanese homeland for their participation in the War in the Pacific.

You want to know what it would have been like if they got control of it? Just ask anyone that was in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, East Germany, etc. I'm sure they all have a positive view of being occupied by the Soviets.

why not ask the vietnamese,native indians , iraqis etc , how they feel after being killed maimed,raped etc .. by the genocidal american empire

Originally posted by manson_322
A airstrike against civilian infrastructure like powerplants,basic medicine factories,water purification cneters etc., is against geneva conventions , and thereby , McCain is officially committed a war crime in Vietnam ,

must say McCain was lucky that his captors did not shoot him dead

sorry, that's not right. A power plant is a legit target.

Military Targets
The LOAC governs the conduct of aerial warfare. The principle of military necessity limits aerial attacks to lawful military targets. Military targets are those that by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to an enemy’s military capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military objectives.

Targeting Objects. The LOAC specifically describes objects that shall not be the targets of a direct attack. Reflecting the rule that military operations must be directed at military objectives, objects normally dedicated to peaceful purposes enjoy a general immunity from direct attack. Specific protection applies to medical units or establishments; transports of wounded and sick personnel; military and civilian hospital ships; safety zones established under the Geneva Conventions; and religious, cultural, and charitable buildings, monuments, and POW camps. However, if these objects are used for military purposes, they lose their immunity. If these protected objects are located near lawful military objectives (which LOAC prohibits), they may suffer collateral damage when the nearby military objectives are lawfully engaged.

usmilitary.about.com...

reply to post by jerico65


Isn't that the US military rules of engagement?

If so, then I for one take it with a pinch of salt - we all know that during vietnam (and after) evidence has been manufactured to justify an attack.

I'll stick to the geneva convention thanks

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

There is a certain level of civility and decorum that is expected of each and every member. Please refrain from making personal attacks against fellow members.

From this point forth, stick to the topic at hand. In this case, "Michael Moore Dares to Ask: What's so Heroic About Being Shot Down While Bombing Innocent Civilians."

anyone who takes part in an illegal war of aggression is a war criminal. Its silly to sit here and debate about wether his target at the time was justified or not, as ANY vietnamese target was just us attempting to keep them from gaining their own independence, an independence that japan gave them when they conquered indochina and dissolved the "treaties" binding vietnam to the french... treaties formed and imposed by force i might add. There was no civil war in vietnam originally and the whole country was united in their rejoicing for their independence, but due to our gaurantees to france that we would honor all their prior claims after the war, we took the side of the french imperialists over that of the rightful natives (something we have quite a history of doing). This despite the fact that the vietnamese originally modelled their declaration of independence AND their constitution directly off of ours, and continually begged us for help in gaining their self determination. We massacred roughly 2 million of them, completely destroyed their country by dropping 2x as many bombs on vietnam as all sides of WWII dropped combined, and raping torturing and murdering their civilians, north and south vietnamese. Any one who took part in this, and who continues to hold hatred for these "gooks" (mccains own words) who were rightfully fighting for their independence in the only way they could (which proved effective) has no moral compass to be the leader of my country. I understand the idea that he may have been "scarred by his horrible experiences there" boo, hoo. Im sure everything he went through wasnt nearly the pain that the mother of one family he bombed may have felt seeing her husband and children going up in flames. And wether its an irrational hate he still bears due to his "terrible" treatment, i dont want a president who is unable to honestly face and resolve his own moral dilemmas and mistakes, and take responsibility for his horrible hand in how his fate turned out.
And to those apologists claiming that our bombing of cambodias plane of jars was just americans jettisoning unused bombs for ease of landing.....come on, we killed 500000 of them too, and paved the way for Pol Pot to come into power. Dont try to paint it as an accident.

Originally posted by budski
Isn't that the US military rules of engagement?

If so, then I for one take it with a pinch of salt - we all know that during vietnam (and after) evidence has been manufactured to justify an attack.

I'll stick to the geneva convention thanks

It sure is! And guess what? It's based on the Geneva Convention.