Chomsky warns of nuclear war

[peaccenicked]

http://www.iransolidarity.endofempire.org/news.php?page=388

Why is this issue not on everybodies lips and at the top of their aggenda.

[MurderInc]

Why is this issue not on everybodies lips and at the top of their aggenda.

It is not on everyone's lips and agggggendas because it's a load of crap. Iran is run by a bunch of fucking nutcases who will try and blow up Israel and everyone who doesn't agree with their Ninth Century view of the world.

As for the speach by friend Chomsky, being Anti-American on EVERYTHING possible is not necessarily the best way to revolution. The man's nearly become knee-jerk to being agaist America for any reason. It's beginning to bore.

But to the particular:

If the U.S. used a nuclear bomb against another country, it would deserve 100% of the blame for the act.

If Iran used a nuclear bomb against another country, it would deserve 100% of the blame for the act.

Having nuclear weapons to defend against another nuclear power may be horrible in its conception, but it's understandable. Their being used as an agressive first strike weapon is never defendable.

[peaccenicked]

QUOTE
Why is this issue not on everybodies lips and at the top of their aggenda.



It is not on everyone's lips and agggggendas because it's a load of crap. Iran is run by a bunch of fucking nutcases who will try and blow up Israel and everyone who doesn't agree with their Ninth Century view of the world.

This is an example of the villification of Iran that should be condemned by every sane person who actually studies whats going on and does not wish to become a mouthpiece of Bush and Zionism.
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/page/p/...an-Attack-Plans (http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/page/p/The-Threat-from-Iran-Is-to-Israel--Bush-Spins-His-Iran-Attack-Plans)


As for the speach by friend Chomsky, being Anti-American on EVERYTHING possible is not necessarily the best way to revolution. The man's nearly become knee-jerk to being agaist America for any reason. It's beginning to bore.

'Being anti american on everything' is just a Fox news type lie.

Being against US imperialism and its correspondent foriegn policy is the duty of every decent person on this planet.



But to the particular:

If the U.S. used a nuclear bomb against another country, it would deserve 100% of the blame for the act.

If Iran used a nuclear bomb against another country, it would deserve 100% of the blame for the act.

Having nuclear weapons to defend against another nuclear power may be horrible in its conception, but it's understandable. Their being used as an agressive first strike weapon is never defendable

That is basically correct in theory but equating the US with Iran is part of the villification process that no genuine leftist should ever countenance. The US sabre rattling is paticularly heinous considered its aggressive history. Iran has never invaded another country

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...mesg_id=2259339 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2259225&mesg_id=2259339)

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:37 AM

Why is this issue not on everybodies lips and at the top of their aggenda.

It is not on everyone's lips and agggggendas because it's a load of crap. Iran is run by a bunch of fucking nutcases who will try and blow up Israel and everyone who doesn't agree with their Ninth Century view of the world.

As for the speach by friend Chomsky, being Anti-American on EVERYTHING possible is not necessarily the best way to revolution. The man's nearly become knee-jerk to being agaist America for any reason. It's beginning to bore.

But to the particular:

If the U.S. used a nuclear bomb against another country, it would deserve 100% of the blame for the act.

If Iran used a nuclear bomb against another country, it would deserve 100% of the blame for the act.

Having nuclear weapons to defend against another nuclear power may be horrible in its conception, but it's understandable. Their being used as an agressive first strike weapon is never defendable.
There are 10's of thousands of nuclear warheads on this planet, nuclear war always remains a threat. I don't believe its okay to have nuclear weapons in any circumstances. Nuclear weapons are useless. Here in the UK our government is going to replace our aging and murderous trident system. This has been justified by saying that we need them because we don't know what the threat will be in 30years time. We know what the threat to world peace in 30years time is now. Its the UK and its new generation of mega-killing missles. No nuclear weapons for Iran, US, UK, China, France or any other potential mass-murdering bastards.

[KC]

Iran is run by a bunch of fucking nutcases who will try and blow up Israel and everyone who doesn't agree with their Ninth Century view of the world.


Why would they do that? How would that benefit them?



Having nuclear weapons to defend against another nuclear power may be horrible in its conception, but it's understandable.

Do you know what happens when a nuclear weapon is launched? 5000 more are! Know what that means? We DIE

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:37 AM

If the U.S. used a nuclear bomb against another country, it would deserve 100% of the blame for the act.

The US is, so far, the only country which used a nuclear weapon.

American capitalist imperialism has clearly demonstrated to all nations that they will ,sooner or later, get bum rushed by Uncle Sam unless they pack nukes for self defense.

This problem was made in the USA.

Nuclear proliferation and the distinct possibility of Turner Diary style lunatics setting off a dirty bomb or a black market nuke, makes it a near certainty that we will see some form of Nuclear war in our lifetime.

Thats why it is imperative that we fight one final war....The International Class War! :hammer:

[peaccenicked]

I am glad this thread is moving along healthily.

Thats why it is imperative that we fight one final war....The International Class War!

It is certainly my desire to see this potentiality. However, we must take advantage of divisions in the enemy to prevent, at any level this inhuman genocide.

We should note that there those in the military that dont welcome this development and that it was rebellion in the army that largely contributed to ending the Vietnam war.

We have to get on the streets in our millions again this time every day till they stop.

[MurderInc]

The US is, so far, the only country which used a nuclear weapon.

I'm sorry to say that I agree with those who believe that if the USA would have launched an invasion of Japan in 1945, if would have cost the lives of tens of thousands of Americans and millions of Japanese. I simply believe Truman was justified. Also, this falls within my argument of a defensive use.




equating the US with Iran is part of the villification process that no genuine leftist should ever countenance

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

That's a good one! Oh, yes, in the name of socialism let us NOT speak honestly about Iran's theocracy, it's president's beliefe that Hitler's murder of 6 million jews never happened, and that Iran is run by the Good Ship Lollypop.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Might I remind the nuclear doomsayers that the USSR is gone.

Also, what the fuck is the reasoning behind a one little pissant country nuking another pissant country starting a worldwide nuclear war? Iran nukes Isreal. US retaliates by nuking Iran. Why the fuck would anyone else get involved? That's just sticking your neck out in the most stupid way imaginable.

I contend that nuclear weapons have been one of the most important reasons we have not seen another world-spanning conflict like WWII since. The risk is just too high.

Fucking CND assholes.

[piet11111]

i agree with chomsky that we need to counter america's militarism but to kiss china's ass to do so is completely nuts.

chomsky is again falling on my respecto-meter.
my favorite counter against america would be france&germany when it comes to handing out support.
but damn why the hell is he considering china ?

[peaccenicked]

Oh, yes, in the name of socialism let us NOT speak honestly about Iran's theocracy, it's president's beliefe that Hitler's murder of 6 million jews never happened, and that Iran is run by the Good Ship Lollypop.


This is great excuse to nuke a country. Get your brain in order.

To say that Horishima bombing was right makes you beyond any reasonable doubt
a nuclear fascist and you should be restricted to OI.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 05:00 PM

Oh, yes, in the name of socialism let us NOT speak honestly about Iran's theocracy, it's president's beliefe that Hitler's murder of 6 million jews never happened, and that Iran is run by the Good Ship Lollypop.


This is great excuse to nuke a country. Get your brain in order.

To say that Horishima bombing was right makes you beyond any reasonable doubt
a nuclear fascist and you should be restricted to OI.
Please provide proof that an occupation of Japan would have been the better choice.

[FinnMacCool]

Nuclear war has always been a threat, regardless of whether the USSR is gone or not. The fact that the US has sold nuclear arms to Israel has upset the balance in the middle east so other countries over there are stocking up on arms as well. The United States government is a hypocrite with foregin policy and that is what is leading us down an inevitable path to either revolution or world destruction.

[peaccenicked]

Please provide proof that an occupation of Japan would have been the better choice.


Japan had already started suing for peace before the bomb was dropped.


Is that enough for you? Perhaps you should join Murderinc in OI

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 05:10 PM

Please provide proof that an occupation of Japan would have been the better choice.


Japan had already started suing for peace before the bomb was dropped.
Evidence?


Is that enough for you? Perhaps you should join Murderinc in OI

Perhaps you should take your revisionist ass the fuck out of here.

[FinnMacCool]

The Japanese were talking about peace amongst themselves but I don't think they were activly seeking it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 05:23 PM
The Japanese were talking about peace amongst themselves but I don't think they were activly seeking it.
I know for sure that the military would hear none of it - they were too entrenched in their warrior culture.

[peaccenicked]

Perhaps you are just too eager to eat US bullshit or swim in it up to your eyeballs.


here is a version of events.
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:uhTAs8...n&ct=clnk&cd=1[ (http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:uhTAs8R4McwJ:members.austarmetro.co m.au/~hubbca/horishima.htm+horishima+suing+peace&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1[)

[Intifada]

Hisroshima (and Nagasaki) quotes (http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm)

[peaccenicked]

Thank you intafada.
Iwas just about to post that.

The use of a nuclear weapons is not legitimate under any circumstance, it is indiscriminate killing.
Even if ones own county is being nuked whats the point of nuking millions of another countries civilians.


This particular subject should not be a matter of debate among leftists, especially when Iran is being threatened with such an attack.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Like I said, the civilian population may well have been ready to surrender, but the military, especially it's more fanatical elements, would hear none of it.

Peaccenicked, I would advise you to stop going to websites that think the Illuminati is behind everything or that Al-Qaeuda is a fake terror org. It's quite obviously rotting your brain. Do you seriously think that the invasion and subsequent occupation of large, crowded island is a better idea than scaring them into immediate surrender?

Think about it. You have an enemy which has fought you tooth and nail every step of the way, and now you're right on their doorstep and you think they'll all just flop on their bellies? The fact is that it took two nuclear explosions to convince the military hierarchy to agree to a surrender.

[MurderInc]

Peacenicked:

I don't know where you get off on your argument that NoXion and I should be banned for what we wrote.

I'll go further in agreeing w/ NoXion that I have no problem w/ Iran joining the nuclear nations. Even though I think they're dangerous people in their leadership.

As mentioned, the USSR had the things, as does the US and China and the UK and Israel, and no one's done anything with them yet.

Am I, therefore, a supporter of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)?

I'm not saying I am. I just don't like all of the scare tactics.


Now, back to Japan:

In all fairness, I don't have any proof for the follwing, it is a beliefe:

Japan was negotiating with the U.S. State Dept. over the oil embargo and China 15 minutes before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The level of trust they deserved was NIL.

The Japanese in the 1930s and 40s were THE most racist nation on earth. I believe that if the U.S. Army would have invaded, the average Japanese would have fought the US Army with pitchforks and shovels.

The invasion would have been greater and longer than the 7 year one imposed by the treaty.

I have no proof for this, only an understanding of history.

Supporting Truman's deicsion is not equal to fighting for capitalism, what I think to be the reason for board restriction.

So, I'm a socialist who:

1) can accept fighting and death to achieve and end, and

2) is not anti-American for the mere exercise of being anti-American.

[peaccenicked]

That really sounds far too nicey, nice pro US.
You are pobably right about the website but I merely used it as an alternative reading of events. This is helpful.

"The Potsdam Proclamation

On the evening of July 26, 1945 in San Francisco (which in Tokyo was the morning of July 27) a message from the Allies now commonly known as the Potsdam Proclamation was broadcast in Japanese. The broadcast was relayed to the Japanese government on the morning of the 27th (Pacific War Research Society, The Day Man Lost, pg. 211-212).

The proclamation demanded "the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces" (U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the U.S., The Conference of Berlin (Potsdam), vol. 2, pg. 1474-1476). It made no mention of Japan's central surrender consideration: the retention of the Emperor's position (Butow, pg. 138-139). What made this crucial was that the Japanese believed their Emperor to be a god, the heart of the Japanese people and culture (Pacific War Research Society, Japan's Longest Day, pg. 20). The absence of any assurance regarding the Emperor's fate became Japan's chief objection to the Potsdam Proclamation (Pacific War Research Society, The Day Man Lost, pg. 212-214). In addition, the proclamation made statements that, to the Japanese, could appear threatening to the Emperor: "There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest" and "stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals" (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1474-1476).

This play against the Emperor was intended to keep Japan in the War.

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You are pobably right about the website but I merely used it as an alternative reading of events. This is helpful.

When critiqueing the British Monarchy, is it really necessary to refer to a website which claims that Queen Elizabeth II is secretly a space reptilian in disguise?


This play against the Emperor was intended to keep Japan in the War.

A society which considers it's Emperor a deity does not sound like the kind which would surrender at all. Even today the Japanese have an extremely prideful culture.


Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want.

I'd put you on the same level as the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Not as batshit insane as the space lizards/illuminati/rothschilds people but still wacko.

[peaccenicked]

I find it still a little incredible, immunity for the emperor from prosecution,was a card that might have avoided a nuclear strike. I dont think there was any great reluctance on behalf of the US military machine, not to display the awesome power of a nuclear weapon.

[IronColumn]

First, Ahmadinejad doesn't control the armed forces, so he has considerably less power than one would be tempted to think from the picture painted by the U.S. Media.

The Iranian people and probably a fair amount of their generals are not insane, and this vilification that they are all "crazed" is a constant theme used by Americans to justify their completely unconscionable policies towards their enemies. We see this with Al-Qaeda:they are simply belligerent crazies who hate our freedoms. Surely, they couldn't be opposed to any of our foreign policies, such as our control of pretty much all of the Middle East (Think about it, we have leaders friendly to American interests/business in every state in the Middle East, save for the former Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Palestine, all of whom we try to attack). The iranians are not insane, and they would not launch a nuclear attack with maybe a few nuclear weapons when Israel alone could completely kill everyone in their country.

Furthermore, the timeline for the nukes in Iran is a decade away(at best), and right now we can only accuse them of trying to acquire nuclear weapons (the evidence of which is dubious at best check out the IAEA's reports). The facts left out of all this: Isreal is armed with nuclear weapons and possesses an army much stronger than that of Iran. The U.S. has invaded two countries surrounding Iran (Afghanistan and Iraq) and is controlled by incredibly aggressive imperialists. Of course Iran is scared-but somehow the U.S. media paints this picture that this third world nation that spends a hundredth of what we do on war industries is a threat to us. Just like they did with Saddam, just like with the Taliban, and it's been completely untrue either time.

As for Japan, an interesting thing to note is that we let them keep their emperor after the war. Why not allow the enemy to surrender before A bombs when you grant them the one concession they demanded afterwards? The Japanese had been talking peace for quite some time, and with Soviet Russia threatening them from the West and America from the East, they would have had to give up. Again, the usual trick is to dehumanize the enemy and make them seem fanatical. Then you can firebomb Tokyo, drop atom bombs, and still have salt in the wound raids after the A bombs (there were air bombings after the 2 A-bombs), then present yourself as a gentle giant who was forced to do this. In fact, the treatment of the Japanese people was criminal, and it should firmly erase any notions about Americna benevolence or good intentions in WW2. America was engaged in an imperial war and we didn't give two shits about any civilian population, including our own.

Get the U.S. out of the middle east! That's Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Bahrain, Israel and Palestine. Cut off funding the repressive police states that give us good oil prices and treat their own people and other people like dirt. That's how you would fight Al-Qaeda (as if the U.S. government cared).

[RebelDog]

NoXion, would you have sanctioned the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq in 2003 to force Saddam Hussein to surrender and save the lives of invading US/UK troops?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 21 2006, 09:45 AM
NoXion, would you have sanctioned the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq in 2003 to force Saddam Hussein to surrender and save the lives of invading US/UK troops?
No I wouldn't. But that's apples and oranges since the US only got involved in WWII when they got attacked themselves, whereas Gulf War 2 was a war started on false premises.

It's called not being an absolutist.

[Connolly]

First, Ahmadinejad doesn't control the armed forces, so he has considerably less power than one would be tempted to think from the picture painted by the U.S. Media.

The Iranian people and probably a fair amount of their generals are not insane, and this vilification that they are all "crazed" is a constant theme used by Americans to justify their completely unconscionable policies towards their enemies. We see this with Al-Qaeda:they are simply belligerent crazies who hate our freedoms. Surely, they couldn't be opposed to any of our foreign policies, such as our control of pretty much all of the Middle East (Think about it, we have leaders friendly to American interests/business in every state in the Middle East, save for the former Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Palestine, all of whom we try to attack). The iranians are not insane, and they would not launch a nuclear attack with maybe a few nuclear weapons when Israel alone could completely kill everyone in their country.

Furthermore, the timeline for the nukes in Iran is a decade away(at best), and right now we can only accuse them of trying to acquire nuclear weapons (the evidence of which is dubious at best check out the IAEA's reports). The facts left out of all this: Isreal is armed with nuclear weapons and possesses an army much stronger than that of Iran. The U.S. has invaded two countries surrounding Iran (Afghanistan and Iraq) and is controlled by incredibly aggressive imperialists. Of course Iran is scared-but somehow the U.S. media paints this picture that this third world nation that spends a hundredth of what we do on war industries is a threat to us. Just like they did with Saddam, just like with the Taliban, and it's been completely untrue either time.

As for Japan, an interesting thing to note is that we let them keep their emperor after the war. Why not allow the enemy to surrender before A bombs when you grant them the one concession they demanded afterwards? The Japanese had been talking peace for quite some time, and with Soviet Russia threatening them from the West and America from the East, they would have had to give up. Again, the usual trick is to dehumanize the enemy and make them seem fanatical. Then you can firebomb Tokyo, drop atom bombs, and still have salt in the wound raids after the A bombs (there were air bombings after the 2 A-bombs), then present yourself as a gentle giant who was forced to do this. In fact, the treatment of the Japanese people was criminal, and it should firmly erase any notions about Americna benevolence or good intentions in WW2. America was engaged in an imperial war and we didn't give two shits about any civilian population, including our own.

Get the U.S. out of the middle east! That's Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Bahrain, Israel and Palestine. Cut off funding the repressive police states that give us good oil prices and treat their own people and other people like dirt. That's how you would fight Al-Qaeda (as if the U.S. government cared).

Thats an excellent combination of points :D And I would support this position.

Its completely stupid to believe Irans leaders as a bunch of crazed lunatics.

They might speak of "wiping Israel off the map", but Bush and Blair speak of "democracy". What the leaders speak of openly isnt necessarily whats going on behind closed doors.

For all we know, they could be just talking oil prices - masked by WMDs and religious threats.

Just look at the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, this was a very complex economic scenario - simplified and falsely portrayed by the media as some madmans geopolitical persuit.

The true nature of this conflict is economic. No doubt.

And I dont think the inner circle of Iran and the United States (and Israel for that matter) are stupid enough to even seriously contemplate using Nuclear weapons.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by NoXion+May 21 2006, 02:00 PM--> (NoXion @ May 21 2006, 02:00 PM)
The [email protected] 21 2006, 09:45 AM
NoXion, would you have sanctioned the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq in 2003 to force Saddam Hussein to surrender and save the lives of invading US/UK troops?
No I wouldn't. But that's apples and oranges since the US only got involved in WWII when they got attacked themselves, whereas Gulf War 2 was a war started on false premises.

It's called not being an absolutist. [/b]
I expected you would say that, so I now ask the question; would you support the use of nuclear/WMD by Iraq to defend itself from invasion by an enemy acting in contradiction of international law?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, because it would be harmful for Iraq in the short term (They would get a similar response from the US and that would be completely suicidal)

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 09:29 PM
No, because it would be harmful for Iraq in the short term (They would get a similar response from the US and that would be completely suicidal)
So I'm guessing the only justification for the use of nuclear weapons (in your opinion) is by a super-power, at the end of a war, against innocent non-combatants, in a country that is is all but utterly defeated and already trying to secure peace. I'm glad you were not in the whitehouse/kremlin at the time of the Cuban missle crisis.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So I'm guessing the only justification for the use of nuclear weapons (in your opinion) is by a super-power, at the end of a war, against innocent non-combatants, in a country that is is all but utterly defeated and already trying to secure peace. I'm glad you were not in the whitehouse/kremlin at the time of the Cuban missle crisis.

Quit strawmanning. Firstly, the Japanese had not entered into talks with the US before the decision was made and even if they had the US had no reason to believe them in the face of fanatical resistance by the imperial Japanese army (who wouldn't have surrendered if the US had gone on with an invasion and subsequent occupation without a formal surrender - see Iraq for a contemporary example of what happens when you do that), secondly Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets since Nagasaki was one of Japan's major ports, and Hiroshima served as one of the Japanese army's base of operations, and third your idiotic comparisons of the Iraq war and Cuban Missile Crisis both ignore historical circumstances and assume to read my mind.

Really though, the debate is pointless unless you can come up with evidence that Japan would have suffered less casualties and regained it's autonomy sooner if a conventional invasion had gone ahead.

[peaccenicked]

secondly Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets

You describe whole cities as miltary targets. That is thhe toughts of a nuclear fascist.

No nukes ever.


This site has become overun by right wingers.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You describe whole cities as miltary targets. That is thhe toughts of a nuclear fascist.

Your attempts to paint me as some sort of monster are truly pathetic. I can't help it that war is fucking nasty and that one can't simply wave a magic anti-nuclear wand to make it all go away. You live in la-la land.


No nukes ever.

These are the thoughts of an absolutist.


This site has become overun by right wingers.

If having a firm grip on reality means being right-wing, then yes.

[MurderInc]

peaccenicked:

There are many people in many governments throughout the world who are obsessed by ONE specific issue, will not care about any others.

These individuals always come off as morons.

We got plenty in America:

If you don't believe in school prayer, you're anti-religious.

If you are against abortion, you hate all rights of women.

If you are against affirmative action you're a racist.

If you don't believe in the end of ALL nuclear bombs you are a war monger.

If you support the UN you are a pinko left wing nut.


On and on.

No complexity.

You know, peaccenicked, there are websites dedicated to NO NUKES point of view.

I'm very new here but understand this place to be in support of Revolutionary means to achieve the ends of socialism.

I never viewed it as an anti war page.

In fact, many here believe that socialism is ONLY possible though war.

There are probably a great many people here who would trade the detination of a nuclear bomb in, let's say Spain, for, the next day, world-wide socialism.

I do not advocate this, I'm merely stating that perhaps, peaccenicked, you are in the wrong place.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 02:00 PM
the US only got involved in WWII when they got attacked themselves, whereas Gulf War 2 was a war started on false premises.
World War Two was started on false premises as well. The US intentionally provoked Japan into attacking because the government knew the US public would not support a war except in self-defense. The main proof of this is the McCollum Memo (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/McCollum/). It argues that it was in the US national interests to enter the war, rather than latter, and near the end states:

" It is not believed that in the present state of
political opinion the United States government is capable of
declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely
possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the
Japanese to modify their attitude. Therefore, the following
course of action is suggested:

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of
British bases in the Pacific, particularly
Singapore.
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of
base facilities and acquisition of supplies
in the Dutch East Indies.
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government
of Chiang-Kai-Shek.
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to
the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in
the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese
demands for undue economic concessions,
particularly oil.
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan,
in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed
by the British Empire.

10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an
overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully
prepared to accept the threat of war."

All of those recommendations were undertaken and had the hoped for effect of getting Japan to attack the US. Pearl Harbor was not some aggressive attack out of the blue, but something the US hoped to provoke Japan into doing, so it could justify joining the war. See Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnet for a more detailed justification of this claim. Note that Stinnet thinks the US's deception on this issue was justified, so he cant' be dismissed as pushing some ideological agenda.

Even if the Japanese were unwilling to surrender neither nukes nor a conventional invasion was necessary. Japan is dependant on foreign resources, a blockade would ruin its economy and, given enough time, force it to surrender.

Japan was willing to surrender, it just wasn't willing to offer an unconditional surrender. Their condition was that their emperor be allowed to remain emperor, even if only as a figurehead. The US ended up doing that anyway, so the bomb was unnecessary. See http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm for quotes from senior military and political leaders who support this point. That's your proof: conventional invasion was unnecessary because Japan was willing to surrender, as they all testify. To claim that the Japanese military ("especially it's more fanatical elements") "were too entrenched in their warrior culture" to surrender without the use of nuclear weapons is just racist claptrap. They aren't crazed fanatical idiots who will never surrender no matter what, if their emperor ordered it (which he was willing to do) then they would have obeyed orders. The fact that their emperor claimed to be a deity doesn't mean they were unwilling to surrender; they did in fact surrender, under the same terms they were willing to accept before being nuked. The real purpose of nuking Japan was to intimidate the soviet union and give the US an edge in the US-Soviet cold war expected to start after the war.

Some of Murder Inc's statements display a worse racism. First there's the notion that the Japanese couldn't be trusted, thereby implying that we should ignore their desire to surrender and nuke them anyway. Aside from being racist ("can't trust those non-whites"), if the Japanese decided to reneg on their surrender or it was just a fake out or something you could just nuke them after that became clear. You should at least give peace a chance, not just automatically go nuking. The notion of average Japanese fighting the US with "with pitchforks and shovels" neglects the existance of Japan's socialist, anarchist & labor movements. Portraying the Japanese as all a bunch of mindless fanatical drones was central to the racist anti-Japanese propaganda of the US and elements of it are being repeated in this thread. Japan's socialist & anarchist movements disprove that notion. The whole purpose of Japanese fascism was to suppress the Japanese left, were Japanese really as fanatical and loyal as US propaganda made them out to be there would have been no need for it. Nor was Japan the most racist country in the world during the 30s & 40s. Stereotyping Japanese as all a bunch of racists is also a componet of liberal racism. In terms of policies and the beliefs of its leadership, Germany was by far the most racist country in the 30s & 40s. The US (which still practiced segregation at the time) was at least as racist as Japan during the same time period.

[MurderInc]

The notion of average Japanese fighting the US with "with pitchforks and shovels" neglects the existance of Japan's socialist, anarchist & labor movements. Portraying the Japanese as all a bunch of mindless fanatical drones was central to the racist anti-Japanese propaganda of the US and elements of it are being repeated in this thread. Japan's socialist & anarchist movements disprove that notion.

You don't know squat about Japanese psychology of the 1930s and 40s.

There was no socialism to speak of in Japan at that time, becuase Japan was essentially the reflection of the emporer and one's superiors. PURE AND SIMPLE.

They were not mindless drones, merely THE most racist and obedient society around at the time.

When it comes to ending that war, I say drop 5 bombs. If that bothers anyone, tough.

One of the things I have joined this board for is the admission by so many that to achieve an end, BLOOD WILL BE SPILLED. A LOT OF IT!

If this bothers you, vote the Green Party and leave the Revolution to those who will pick up a gun.

I'll be one of them.

[Leo]

You don't know squat about Japanese psychology of the 1930s and 40s.

There was no socialism to speak of in Japan at that time, becuase Japan was essentially the reflection of the emporer and one's superiors. PURE AND SIMPLE.

They were not mindless drones, merely THE most racist and obedient society around at the time.

When it comes to ending that war, I say drop 5 bombs. If that bothers anyone, tough.


Not that I don't agree with you regarding the situation in Japan in thirties, but I don't think you actually see the whole picture. As racist and obedient as they are, Japan was in fact not as racist or obedient as Nazi Germany. In Germany, warmongrels had managed to take power even after Hitler's death, in Japan emperor was ready to surrender if his position was to be recognized. People who wanted peace were in majority. The question is, why did they not drop those bombs to Germany. Was it because Germans were white and in fact racially close to Americans, or was it US trying to score the first goal of the cold war against the USSR. I think it was both.


One of the things I have joined this board for is the admission by so many that to achieve an end, BLOOD WILL BE SPILLED. A LOT OF IT!

If this bothers you, vote the Green Party and leave the Revolution to those who will pick up a gun.

I'll be one of them.

I admire the enthusiasm here, there is no question about that...

But masses are the only group that is able to cause great amounts of damage without firearms. It is enough for them to start the mass uprising. Everything becomes a weapon at that point. (Not that they can actually find guns for everybody.) Even the most arrogant pacifist would probably try to use whatever weapons he or she gets.

If you really want to pick up a gun, you gotta know how and when to do it, and it won't make a difference if you pick your gun right at the time of the uprising.

[RebelDog]

The mear existance of nuclear weapons is a inhumane and criminal act. The use of existing stockpiles is breaking international law, the building of new weapons is breaking international law and threatening to use them is breaking international law. So what are they for if you can't use them?

I could never bring myself to support the existance of nuclear weapons ever, never mind their use. I remember growing up in the 80's and being genuinely scared about the threat of nuclear war. I also remember my primary school lacking in equipment, maybe it would have been better off, had we not bought polaris missles from the US.

Socialism is the language of priorities, is it not? What are our priorities? What do we argue for? Can you buy a copy of the newspaper in which the headline announces the UK has decided to buy a new generation of weapons to replace Trident at a cost of billions up front and billions each year, then turn the page and find your local A&E is to close for lack of funds. What do we argue for as socialists? The social redistribution of our country's resources, not their wasteful squandering on useless, murderous nuclear missles. Right now Trident cost £1-5billion a year, all in. Trident keeps food from little mouths.

The neo-cons in the US are already talking about using nuclear weapons on a 'strategic' basis in the future. The 'new star wars' programme is predicted to be the largest industrial project ever at a cost beyond our imagination. The weapons industry in the US knows that some of this cash will come from existing social spending. New star wars is not to defend against terrorism, aliens or incoming missles. It is to benefit the spread of capitalist globalisation in stopping hinderance to its plans. Lets crush their plans.

These maniacs have to be stopped. The disgusting threats to use nuclear weapons should be acted on. Before the Iraq war then UK defence secretary Geoff Hoon threatened their use, which is illegal. He should be rotting in prison right now. If you protest against the internationally illegal Trident at Faslane in Scotland its you that will go to jail.

Yes we will likely have to spill blood when the revolution comes. That is a little different than ordering a submarine, untouchable by those it aims is missles against, to launch its 16 missles and kill anything up to 50million people. When the revolution comes will we not be fighting those behind nuclear weapons?

I once heard someone who was furiously opposed to the existance of nuclear weapons give a speech. He said that once we have our socialist society we will of course get rid of nuclear weapons and spend the money on health, schools and pensions etc. But he said we socialists are fair people and we believe in the right to free speach and to campaign on what you wish. Those who are for nuclear weapons will have the right to campaign for their return. We won't stop them shaking their collection tins and getting signatures for their petitions. I wonder how much they would get.

[MurderInc]

Dissenter,

You may wish to fight the Leninists before fighting the capitalists. Everyone of them throughout the world COULD NEVER GIVE UP THE WEAPONS. Amazing!

We'll see.


Leo:

I don't know whether the bombs were around in May '45. They were dropped in August. You tell me. But in the summer they were no longer necessary to defeat Hitler.

Japan was different. Have you ever considered that Japan didn't surrender after Hiroshima. That kinda takes the wind out of "Japan would have surrendered anyways", don't it?

It took a second bomb to bring them to heel.

One of the main problems with a lot of thinking around here is the immediate willingness to blame America for everything in the world, from Krakatoa errupting to the final episode of Sienfeld. Equally present is the inability to praise America for its achievements, in many things from Civil Rights to the formation of the United Nations.

But as I wrote, I have no problem with spilling blood to achieve socialism. Thomas Jefferson supported the idea of revolution every generation. I'm with him on that. Ooops, there goes another American with one of the board's ideals.

[Leo]

I don't know whether the bombs were around in May '45. They were dropped in August. You tell me. But in the summer they were no longer necessary to defeat Hitler.

There wasn't a world of difference between May 45 and August 45. They didn't know much about the bomb they had in May and they didn't know much about it in August but they had the bomb.


I don't know whether the bombs were around in May '45. They were dropped in August. You tell me. But in the summer they were no longer necessary to defeat Hitler.

Japan was different. Have you ever considered that Japan didn't surrender after Hiroshima. That kinda takes the wind out of "Japan would have surrendered anyways", don't it?

It took a second bomb to bring them to heel.


Here's another way to look at it: if Japan really wanted to fight, they still could have. Fire bombings had killed (at that instance) much more than the atomic bomb and nuclear bombs were dropped intentionally on places where civilians lived. The fact that they surrendered after the second bomb means that they would have surrendered after the first one. It takes some time to understand what was going on in there, and there are only few days between two bombs.

Now, why was the second bomb thrown? Was it because it was a different type of a bomb? Was it because it was a different bomb? Because it was a nuclear experiement? Maybe we will know for sure someday.


One of the main problems with a lot of thinking around here is the immediate willingness to blame America for everything in the world, from Krakatoa errupting to the final episode of Sienfeld. Equally present is the inability to praise America for its achievements, in many things from Civil Rights to the formation of the United Nations.

But as I wrote, I have no problem with spilling blood to achieve socialism. Thomas Jefferson supported the idea of revolution every generation. I'm with him on that. Ooops, there goes another American with one of the board's ideals.

There is no unequal treatment here. US governments usually get most of the blame because it seems as the 'head' but in fact, the nature of every state is the same. A state never does anything good because it is good. There has to be a profit they are going to get from what they do. Always.

[Dreckt]

There has to be a profit they are going to get from what they do. Always.

That is an interesting point. Japan and Korea could function as a so-called "first warning" should the Soviet Union try to attack the US - plus they could use both of those countries to spy on the Soviets. Maybe they planned for this during the final months of WW2?

[Leo]

Japan and Korea could function as a so-called "first warning" should the Soviet Union try to attack the US - plus they could use both of those countries to spy on the Soviets. Maybe they planned for this during the final months of WW2?

Well, Soviet Union attacking US or US attacking Soviet Union was out of question for both sides. They viewed each other as ideologically dangerous rivals and bombing of Japan was probably another move in the chess board because Soviets were going to declare war on Japan according to a treaty they made in about a month.

[peaccenicked]

I declare this as an objective socialist principle, and class war principle.
The working class has absolutely no use for a nuclear weapon.

We are not in the business of destroying our planet, and anyone with an iota of genuine international working class solidarity would not for a moment see this option as viable.

No amount of right wing humbug can change this.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 05:53 AM
I declare this as an objective socialist principle, and class war principle.
The working class has absolutely no use for a nuclear weapon.

We are not in the business of destroying our planet, and anyone with an iota of genuine international working class solidarity would not for a moment see this option as viable.

No ammount of right wing humbug can change this.
Here, here. Nuclear weapons are a criminal affront to the human race. Someday people will look back and say "those people were mad, whilst half the planet starved they built weapons capable of wiping out entire cities. Some of them even claimed they built them for peace"

You couldn't make it up! The insanity of capitalism.

[peaccenicked]

This article is floating round leftish websites at the moment. antiwar.com, spinwatch and www.iransolidarity.endofempire.org to name a few.

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9029

[redstar2000]

Lots of uninformed "history" in this thread.

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki)

If it is thought somehow "legitimate" to bomb civilians from the air with conventional explosives, the objections of those who oppose nuclear bombs "as a matter of moral principle" don't seem very convincing.

Terrorism from the air against cities is either acceptable or unacceptable...regardless of the weapons used.

Consider that this is a problem that we might confront some 50 to 100 years in the future. A well-armed and highly militarized capitalist nation-state seeks to overturn our revolution. Is our possession of a nuclear deterrent "legitimate"? Can we "allow ourselves" to use it?

How about "tactical" nuclear weapons against concentrations of enemy troops or ships?

If I were Iranian or a patriotic citizen of some other country threatened with invasion, I would favor the "tactical nuke" approach.

It's a "tough call"...but the ruthless insatiability of imperialist countries like the United States does not leave people with many options.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[peaccenicked]

Thanks for the history lesson Redstar, it probably wont go down well in some circles.

If it is thought somehow "legitimate" to bomb civilians from the air with conventional explosives, the objections of those who oppose nuclear bombs "as a matter of moral principle" don't seem very convincing


That is correct.


If I were Iranian or a patriotic citizen of some other country threatened with invasion, I would favor the "tactical nuke" approach.


The trouble with tactical nukes is that they are even more indiscriminate than our present day "smart bombs".

The US as well does not discriminate between soldiers and civilians, consider Falujah.

Are you saying that they do? I might call that immoral if pushed to it.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:19 AM
Lots of uninformed "history" in this thread.

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki)

If it is thought somehow "legitimate" to bomb civilians from the air with conventional explosives, the objections of those who oppose nuclear bombs "as a matter of moral principle" don't seem very convincing.

Terrorism from the air against cities is either acceptable or unacceptable...regardless of the weapons used.

Consider that this is a problem that we might confront some 50 to 100 years in the future. A well-armed and highly militarized capitalist nation-state seeks to overturn our revolution. Is our possession of a nuclear deterrent "legitimate"? Can we "allow ourselves" to use it?

How about "tactical" nuclear weapons against concentrations of enemy troops or ships?

If I were Iranian or a patriotic citizen of some other country threatened with invasion, I would favor the "tactical nuke" approach.

It's a "tough call"...but the ruthless insatiability of imperialist countries like the United States does not leave people with many options.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Of course the bombing of civilians in any respect is unacceptable, whether that be by conventional or nuclear bombs. I think you'll find that the 'CND arseholes' to quote another forum member (I am a CND arsehole, by the way) were the core of the anti-war movement that protested against the Iraq war here in the UK.

An estimated 100,000 people lost their lives in the Tokyo fire bombing of March 10th 1945. Hiroshima had 70-80,000 instant deaths and countless more through the years due to the effects of radiation. The conventional bombing campaign against Japan was indeed murderous and was carried out with little enemy opposition and a (compared to the European bombing campaign) negligible loss of aircraft. I am equally oppossed to the 'conventional' bombing of civilians as nuclear bombing. The priority, for me is to get rid of nuclear weapons first. Nuclear weapons are in a certain league of their own when it comes to quick, brutal mass-murder. Give the order to one of the British trident submarines to fire its missles and in a hour from now more people than died in WW2 will be dead. 16 missles, each with multi-warheads capable of hitting seperate targets, dozens of cities. Having such destructive potential only encourages other countries to try to aquire the same. Nuclear weapons are the imperialists doomsday threat, not the peacemakers tool.

I am well aware that nuclear disarmament will almost certainly only take place when capitalism is gone. Maybe the end of capitalism, nuclear disarmament and the extinction of the human race will happen on the same night.

I argue with people that a communist world will contain no nuclear weapons, why would it? I argue that a communist world will have no poverty, I campaign against its existance in this one. Why should any communist argue that nuclear weapons are exceptable in a capitalist one? The more weapons there are in this world the more the poor suffer, whether it be through the divertion of resources or the use of the weapons on them.

I don't think there will ever be another communist block. The next time communism gets going it will be on the global scale at which capitalism increasing opperates now. The world will revolt as one as capitalism decays globally, uniformly. If we ever aquire nuclear weapons or they are used in the future in any circumstance by anyone, then I think the whole human project is over. Never mind the capitalist one or communist one. I have always held my opposition to nuclear weapons as part of my ideology as I do the killing of anyone for greed.

[peaccenicked]

Congratulations, Dissenter.



But notice how cowardly the neocons masked as leftwingers dominate this bb. are with their lack of usual nonsense

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:37 AM

Why is this issue not on everybodies lips and at the top of their aggenda.

It is not on everyone's lips and agggggendas because it's a load of crap. Iran is run by a bunch of fucking nutcases who will try and blow up Israel and everyone who doesn't agree with their Ninth Century view of the world.

As for the speach by friend Chomsky, being Anti-American on EVERYTHING possible is not necessarily the best way to revolution. The man's nearly become knee-jerk to being agaist America for any reason. It's beginning to bore.

But to the particular:

If the U.S. used a nuclear bomb against another country, it would deserve 100% of the blame for the act.

If Iran used a nuclear bomb against another country, it would deserve 100% of the blame for the act.

Having nuclear weapons to defend against another nuclear power may be horrible in its conception, but it's understandable. Their being used as an agressive first strike weapon is never defendable.
Is Iran full of nutcases, at least the government is. All this hoopla about Iran attacking Israel or Iran launching a pre-emptive strike against Israel is merely the stuff of fantasies. Let's look at the facts:
1. There is no strong evidence to suggest that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, there isn't really any evidence at all to support this claim, except for the rantings of neo-con hardliners and other ignorant individuals.

2. There is only one country in the middle east that has a pre-emptive strike/first strike doctrine and actively uses it, Israel.

3. As Chomsky points out, the biggest threat to nuclear war comes from the US, who is constantly upgrading and further developing more and more devastating weapons, both non-nuclear and nuclear.

[peaccenicked]

Some more on the threat to Iran from a former bush administrator. I know its nuts but so is Bush. http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=538598