14 more today. 43 US Soldiers killed in Last 10 Days in Iraq

same thing.. Germany's ally attacked us.. and our allies were attacked by Germany..

Iraq nor any of it's ally attacked us or any of our allies..

 

Reread my post - Soviets were a threat to Japan at the end of WWII, shortly thereafter, China became a threat as well (see their intervention in Korea five years after WWII ended). Not too difficult to grasp.

 

I agree with most of Deckard and Real-Egal's responses but wanted to add that I think you are confusing the idea that we are protecting Japan and Germany's democracy with protecting US self-interests. Its a credit to the Japanese and Germans that they developed their post war governments, while their current constitution was imposed on the Japanese its far more to their credit for following it. At the same time though to claim that the US was there to protect their democracies was a stretch because Japan for most of the span after WWII a democracy on paper didn't function much as democracy since it was run by one party rule and the government put up roadblocks to discourage other parties while Germany was left partitioned with the long term basing of US troops both to protect Western Europe from Soviet invasion but also because long term occupation helped in assuaging post war concerns about Germany becoming resurgent again. Further if you want to look at some more Asian examples of US long term military presence in the PhilipinesSouth Korea and Taiwan there were defacto dictatorships up until the late 80's. Dicatorships that largely lasted so long because of US support. Meanwhile in Japan many Japanese have been grumbling that the US imposed constitution is actually a hinderance to Japanese democracy because it removed their own right to have a military except for a quasi defense force.

While Japan and Germany did become democracies I think its very disengenious to claim that long term US military presence was there to protect those democracies when as with Taiwan and SK show we really care more about security interests than democractic ideals.

 

Not disingenuous at all if you put it in context of the Cold War. Do people have more freedom in North Korea or South Korea? Did they have more in East or West Germany? Taiwan or Mao's China? Of course, claims of self interest are infinitely regressive - you can say it to ANY action.

 

You amaze me. Can you just stick to your own point? Your point in the very beginning was that American stayed in Japan after WWII to protect Japanese democracy from threats from Russia and China. After WWII, after 27 million and 30 million lost lives respectively in Russia and China, what exact evidence, history events made you think that they had the interest and capability to threaten Japanese democracy? If Japan wasn't a democratic country before WWII, what's there to be threatened at? If Japan was a democratic country before WWII, nobody threatened that democrcy but themselves invaded other countries. Again, what made you THINK Russia and China were threatening their great democracy? If there wasn't threat, why do you need to protect it? What's the big difference between Japanese governments prior to and after the war, except for American supervision? Then, where is that Holly democracy to be protected or threatened?

South Korean had better lives than North Korean, people in Taiwan had better lives than those in Mao's China. What has that to do with your "Russia and China's threats to Japan's democracy"? Oh, right, they hated their freedom.

If you want to discuss, at least TRY to focus on your own claims, not just spin to different directions randomly.

 

First off, calm down.

Second, to the heart of your position:

The Soviets occupied much of Eastern Europe, for example, which contradicts your opinion about both their ability and interest in expanding. They attacked in Japanese in Manchuria in August of '45. There was bad blood between the Japanese and Russians from the...oh say the Russo-Japanese War in '04 and '05. Its a historical fact that the US stayed engaged in East Asia as a hedge against Soviet expansion. China, you contend, was in no way a threat to anyone but they attacked the UN with more than a million troops. The UN, mind you. One might consider that a threatening country. And we don't even have to get started on China's gripes with the Japanese.

No, its a comparison on the results in places where the country was a US proxy vs a Soviet one. Does that involve more freedom? Well, yeah.

 

Glynch, you are on the ball. I totally agree with you. I certainly am not advocating the Barry Goldwater approach of nuking Indochina. As you know, I am also well aware of the "lives in vain" argument used to prolong Vietnam and I emphatically agree that the "lives in vain" argument and Vietnam in whole was a monumental and tragic blunder for all of us.

As far as my opinion on a timeframe, I honestly don't know what to say. In my opinion, Iraq is more of a maze than Vietnam. With Vietnam, the losses were strictly on foreign soil. GWB was doing a good enough of patrolling the skies of Tuscaloosa to where people in the Homeland didn't fear a Vietnamese attack on our soil. With Iraq, we have a very legitimate scare of facing significant peril on our soil because of this. As every day passes, more and more people are hating us, and these are people that have the history, the balls, and the intelligence to hurt us here. It's because of this that I say that we need to finish what we started. In saying this, I also realize that we can't do what I am saying with a volunteer army unless we adopt the Goldwater strategy. When it's all set in done, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

To answer your other question, I would not tell my sons, nephews, or my grandsons (I have two now that are serving age) to go to Iraq. However, God forbid, if we have a draft and my grandsons get drafted, I would tell them to go and serve. Now, America needs every soldier we can get to go and clean up this mess that we have created. It's history revisited. Bush and Rumsfeld are like Johnson and McNamara. As you know, I protested Vietnam like none other and I got thrown in jail a few times too in my zeal for protest. However, when called, I decided to go and serve. It was a personal decision and one with which I have mixed feelings. That being said, I feel that the people of America need my grandsons in Iraq more than the people of America needed me in Vietnam.

 

Well said. And it means even more coming from someone who has actually put on a uniform. This country is indebted to you.

 

I will agree with you that in terms of things like ability to travel and sell goods through most of the Cold war there was more freedom in SK vs NK and Taiwan vs PRC but that still doesn't mean that those countries were democracies or that they US really cared whether they were democracies or not as long as they filled our strategic interest.

Your original point was that we stay in countries to protect there democracies not relative freedoms compared to Communists counterparts. You can call it regressive but I don't see how you can claim democracy as a primary interests when we tolerated, even encouraged, dictatorial regimes.

 

That's new to me, what country exactly did Soviets OCCUPY after WWII? Britain? France? Italy? Spain? Last time I checked DDR was a sovereign country, so was Poland, so was Czech, so was Romania, and so was Bulgary and Hungary. What exact country did they occupy? Red Army attacked Japanese in Manchuria (mind you, Northern China), why? They were part of the ally, they were with the good guys - the Americans. That's a concern for you? Oh, yeah, they had bad blood between them, and Chinese hated the Japanese after 8 years war, so they were all considered a threat. But Americans droped ONLY two atom bombs in the history in Japan, so they were just in deep love, and the Americans were there to protect Japanese democracy. How nice!

5 years later, Chinese attacked "UN" because they were in the same bed with North Korea, when they were almost wiped out, and bombs were near the border. That UN consisted of some 3000 Turkes, and another 5000 Britains? Well, another great "coalition of willing". I asked you to check time, either my English is just too bad to make the 5 years difference clear, or you just spun away again. Then again, 5 years before that happened, great Americans just predicted everything. They knew exactly 5 years later, that North Korean would ambush the Southern, the Americans would help, and before they totally defeated the Northern, chinese would attack "UN". Therefore, Americans considered China a threat, and stayed in Japan to protect their democracy. Oh, wait, didn't the war occur in Korean? Why protect democracy in Japan? Because they had bad blood? China has about 5000 years of history, can you name ONE SINGLE incident in history that Chinese attacked Japan? If you can't, what makes you think for the great Americans 50 years ago, they were sure that Chinese hated Japanese democracy and threatened them? "Back to the Future" was a movie, not reality.

There are people don't know certain period of history, but insist on their own opinions. That's ok, there are ignorant people everywhere, including myself. But if some people know exactly what happened, ignore all the logic and common sense, just spin everything for the sake of their own agendas. I don't know what to make of that. Then again, nothing really new, especially for the past few years.

By the way, since it's a Rockets forum, I would assume we are both Rockets fans. I am not sure whether I can ask for a favour. For you can see the future exactly, would you mind giving us some stock tips?

 

Well, as I said - most of Eastern Europe was 'occupied' by the Soviets. Hungary in '56 and Czechoslovakia in '68 clearly show the Soviets would reoccupy a dissenting countries in the Warsaw Pact for sure.

Sure. The Cold War was already heating up when it became apparent Stalin wasn't going to rollback at the end of the war.

Kublai Khan sent fleets to attack Japan in 1274 and 1281.

Ship it.

 

(source- Thomas J. McCormick, America's Half-Century: U.S. Foreign Policy in the Cold War (1989); Joseph L. Nogee and Robert H. Donaldson, Soviet Foreign Policy since World War II (1988).)

"Cold war" is the term given to the competition, conducted through means short of direct military conflict, between the United States and the Soviet Union since World War II. Its roots go back to the 1890s when, after a century of friendship, Americans and Russians became rivals over the development of Manchuria. Russia, unable to compete industrially, sought to close off and colonize parts of East Asia, while Americans demanded open competition for markets. In 1917, with the Bolsheviks' triumph in Russia, the rivalry turned intensely ideological. The Soviets feared that the United States, as the most powerful capitalist nation, sought to overthrow their communist system. The communists' success in consolidating power, their confiscation of U.S. property, and the possibility that their revolution would spread to Europe, Asia, and perhaps even the Western Hemisphere created deep American fears. Diplomatic relations between the United States and the Soviet Union did not exist between 1917 and 1933. They became allies only after both were attacked by the Axis in 1941.

The alliance was a temporary aberration in the post-1890s relationship. Even during the war the Soviets bitterly disagreed with their American and British partners over military tactics and postwar plans. President Franklin D. Roosevelt feared that Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin might again make a separate settlement with Germany, as indeed the Soviets had in 1918 and 1939. The fear of such a German-Russian deal haunted, and shaped, U.S. policy during and long after the war.

Disagreements over postwar plans first centered on Central and Eastern Europe. Having lost 20 million dead in the war and twice suffered German invasion through Poland in thirty years, Stalin's Soviet Union was determined to use its Red Army to control Poland, dominate the Balkans, and destroy Germany's capacity to start another war. The United States, led after April 1945 by President Harry S. Truman, was equally determined to shape the postwar world according to principles laid down by Roosevelt after 1941: self-determination (in such nations as Poland), equal economic access (as in the Balkans), and a rebuilt capitalist Europe that could again serve as a hub in world affairs. Such a Europe required a healthy Germany at its center. Truman could advance these principles with an economic juggernaut that produced 50 percent of the world's industrial goods and military power that rested on a monopoly of the new atomic bomb. Stalin nevertheless clamped his control over Eastern Europe between 1945 and 1947. Winston Churchill condemned him for cordoning off the new Russian empire with an "iron curtain." When Truman finally refused to give Stalin large amounts of West Germany's industrial plants as war reparations, the dictator first stripped East Germany, which he controlled, and then sealed it off as a communist state.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_017900_coldwar.htm

This stuff is really History 101. NATO and Soviet/Warsaw Pact troops faced each other for decades, prepared for a war they hoped would never come. Thank goodness, it didn't. It took about 2 minutes to find this on the internet. Sorry that it's not more detailed.


Keep D&D Civil!!

 

Thanks for your very detailed reply. I know it's history 101, and I know what is Cold War, heck, I am even about to experience another one again. My question to him was that what exact country did Soviets OCCUPY. Yes, I am full aware that Soviets had political influence and military presense in East European. They "controlled" and "sealed Poland off" as a communist state. Does that qualify as an occupation? Does that mean Americans occupied West European, Japan etc? People don't even admit that they occupied Iraq. What's the difference, if the Americans even did and are doing more? Oh, I see, the key words are not "control" or "seal off", but rather "Communist". How obvious. In the name of democracy, everything is justified. As long as you are against the communist, dictatorship is acceptable. In the name of democracy, occupation is no longer occupation, but rather "liberation". How ironic, Chinese military are called "People's Liberation Army". The original intention was to LIBERATE people in 2/3 of the world suffering under "evil capitalism". From their point of view, any of their actions are justified, right? So, in other words, there is no justification, right or wrong. It all depends on what you claim, and how you spin it, right?

Of course, I still didn't get answer from Haystreet, who claimed Americans stayed in Japan to protect Japanese democracy from Chinese threat. I asked him as a US supported so-called "democratic" government in China at the time, what made him think that US considered it a threat to Japanese democracy. I asked him how could he claim that the Americans knew in the future that Communists would take over China, and fought them in Korea. I also asked him the war was in Korea, how did Americans protect Japanese democracy?

I have big problem with communist propaganda. Often in Chinese BBS, discussing Chinese history or policies, I was called "traitor" and asked to "go back to my American master". I am ok with that, otherwise, Culture Revolution wouldn't be explained. People refuse to think for themselves, just follow strong leaderships, caused all the sad events in history. "Big cleansing" in Soviets, "Culture Revolution" in China, and Nazi Germany, human beings' ego were triggered, given a justified name to release, strong belief or even faith in their leaderships, ended up in millions of lost lives.

I applaud and am amazed that Western countries value human lives. I saw Americans were outraged by footage of dead US soliders, and claimed that shouldn't be on TV. I saw Americans condemn all those communist dictators for violating human rights and international laws. I applaud that. But on the other hand, I also saw Americans quietly support those "democratic" dictators violating same human rights and international laws. That's still ok, not noble, but everyone is selfish, but no one can really blame others acting out of self-interest.

But I am deeply disappointed and troubled to see Americans "whitewash" or simply ignore the impact and the magnitude of Japanese crimes in WWII, especially in Asia, WITHOUT any real self-interest. It took Hitler more than a few years to kill 6 million Jews, and he is nailed on the cross of sin in the history forever. It took only a month for Japanese to kill 300,000 Chinese in Nanjing, including surrendered soldiers, common people, women, elderly, and children. Those commanders are worshiped in the Holly Shrine. Two Japanese commanders had a compitition in Nanjing, to see who can chop more heads with their samuria sword within certain distance. The winner got 106, the loser got 104. Those were heros on the Japanese newspaper headlines. They were welcomed by full street of average Japanese citizens. Japanese troops ambushed Western church supported schools, killed male students, raped female students, and kept some pretty ones for future use. They used knives to open the wombs of pregnant women, took out the unborn babies, and cooked them and ate them. They raped any woman insight, from 8 to 80. Communist propaganda? Maybe. I would suggest some of the people consider that Japanese democracy, spent 1 or 2 minutes on the Internet, read some history books written by those western missionaries experienced those horrors. You can also read those biographies and memos written by those confessing old Japanese soldiers who participate those horrors. One commander wrote, "they gave me a girl, who was really ugly, but I still just raped her and choped her into pieces, that's what everyone was doing." Japanese soliders used Chinese as targets to practice shooting, as mice to experiment and test their biological weapons. Simple killing and raping weren't exciting enough for them, they forced male monks to have sex with female monks, forced fathers to have sex with daughters. Maybe same people who claimed they didn't mind being forced to see strip dances, would claim again not mind being forced to have sex either. The list goes on and on and on, and all those commanders, soliders, criminals ARE worshiped in the Holly Shrine. THAT is the democracy some people here claimed that Americans protected or intended to protect, against a country whose people were killed and raped for 8 years, and mind you, a still US supported "democratic" country. I DO have a problem with that.

 

Aside from the Baltic states, there was Poland, E. Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia (at least). You could probably throw Finland in there as well.

Taking over a country, replacing their government, re-entering that country to enforce your politics on a country - yes that counts as occupation.

Japan, yes. Western Europe, no. We didn't pick the governments for Western Europe and we didn't administer them. When we freed France, for instance, the Free French took over - not us.

There is a right and a wrong for sure. Most actual policy choices are not 100% right or 100% wrong. Supporting dictatorships in the Cold War was wrong because you're supporting oppression of peoples just like your enemy (in this case, communism). But those relationships were part of a larger conflict which in its totality was an imperfect democratic process vs totalitarianism. I don't think you can compare the PLA in the beginning because I don't think the West in general did anything close to a Cultural Revolution, or a Stalin purge, or a Pol Pot. The West has been MORE right than not.

Dude, its been answered. BTW: I did name at least two invasions of Japan by China, so you can recant now.

From my original post I specified the immediate Soviet threat (also you can check out the other thread....mmmm...oh yeah, the atomic bomb thread - where several of the articles mention the Soviet threat to Japan - if you need a source other than me). THEN, FIVE YEARS LATER - as I've said from the beginning - China was a threat. They attacked the UN for crying out loud. You're being ridiculous. How is that a threat to Japan.....well Japan and Korea are REAL close, if you want to look at a map. China, as your rant about Nanking etc proves, has REAL problems with Japan. Why would Japan possibly feel threatened....hmmmmm...

Not sure who has whitewashed 'Nanking' etc. You can't point out anywhere that I've done that. That Japan did heinous things in WWII, however, does not in any way determine whether China is a threat, or anything else about China. If you want to say Japan sucks, go ahead. That doesn't have anything to do with me, although I reserve the right to give you my opinion .

 

Let's cut right through the chase here. It's obvious enough to me, in the very beginning, real_egal objected to your blank statement that U.S. stayed in Japan to foster your version of "democracy" after the WWII ended in 1945 because of the perceived threat from China. Let's not forget who was in charge in China at that time. For crying out loud, it was the Nationalist Party of General Chiang Kai-shek, a U.S. ally! In everybody's mind, CCP's army stood no chance against KMT's military forces, which, heavily equipped with U.S. weaponry, outnumbered PLA by 10:1.

This is what you said (in post# 66):

Now unless you are a future teller, how obvious is it that in 1945 (yes, you implied) the Chinese were a threat to U.S., its surrogates Japan, Germany, Korea, and their "Democracy"?

 

To real_egal, it's quite natural for you to bring up the atrocity committed by the Japanese against the Chinese whenever WWII, Japan and China are in the same sentence. I clearly understand your sentiment, but please try not to let that get the best of you. When you see "calm understatements" like this

and this

you should understand how fruitless it is to argue with those whose deeply rooted biased views on China trump anything else.

 

I don't buy the China angle, we were allies with Chiang Kai-shek. We occupied Japan to establish a rational government out of the militaristic fuedal system that existed during the war. We preserved the Emperor because it was expedient and save American lives. He was never a real force in Japanese policy but served as a symbol of the people much like the English monarchy. It was much easier to get the Japanese people to accept the new government with his tacit approval. We would have never received their cooperation if we had hanged him as a war criminal.

 

Of course you don't buy China's angle. 30 Millions lives wasn't "right" enough to outweigh American interest, to save lives. Of course, save American lives, 30 million of chinese low lives, who cares. You really don't need to buy that. In Nazi Germany, they fought for Hitler, they greeted him instead of God when they met each other. In Japan, those soldiers shout "Long Live the Emperor" and committed those suiside bombing from airplanes. He was never a real force? Because of lacking of natural resources, Japanese politices carried through generations had one simple thing in mind - to occupy China. The emperor set examples for saving every penny, to get modernized weapony from Western countries, of course they were just getting prepared to protect their democracy from Chinese threat. Yeah, he was just a symbol, didn't really do anything. He was forced to receive those worships, and glories for leading the whole country to occupy china. He was forced to give out national award to those killers full of blood in hands, well, only of those Chinese low lives.

How did you know that Germany wouldn't rallied up that the Ally didn't forgive Hitler? How did you know that Japanese would have fought till the last citizen if the Emperor hadn't been forgiven? If the Emperor had such power control over his people, how come he was only a symbol? If he didn't do anything to start the war, how did anybody dare to start it disobeying his great willing? Let's just assume, if 1% of those 30 million lost lives were Jews, if 300,000 Jews were killed by a country, do any American dare to advocate in the main stream media that the Emperor of that country was just a symbol, not a war criminal? Would somebody come out and say that worshiping those Nazi commanders along with other soldiers in the Holly Shrine is no big deal? I doubt it. Of course, Chinese are not Jew, not even 1%. Why? Because China is ruled by a communist party, whatever they suffered, even before the communist party, tough ****, they somehow deserved that. Killers? As long as you are allied with "Right" people, who stand for "Democracy", you have your free pass. A woman was raped, is the real threat? Why because she had REAL PROBLEM with the person who committed crime and unpunished. A person committed the crime should be protected, why? because he is with the right side now, and feels the threat from the victim. Of course, you don't buy the China angel. Why would you? Why should you?

 

I'm still not sure what your problem is. Look at my first post. I point out the threats in the region China and the Soviet Union - to Japan and Korea. There isn't anything incorrect about that when, as I've continued to repeat, you put it in a five year time frame (end of WWII - 1945 - Soviets a threat to Japan - five years later - China a threat to SK, and from then on a threat to Japan).

You response just proves my point. Chinese have serious problems with Japan. China and Japan are competing powers in the same region. Its not a bias against China, its just the facts.

 

The casualty numbers this past week made the Big Three National News programs so don't blame Glynch for being the messanger.