A kamikazes story

[Saitek]

great post Poseidon. ENjoyed it and nicely argued.

I am not a pacifist, but war is sometimes necessary. I argue that men are not lottery ticket numbers that can be used. They are not robotic instruments that can be lost to gain.

Just because some men will die, does not mean they should be sentenced to death on a one way mission. Let 100 men die in a struggle to bomb and sink a ship. Never let 1 man do the job in a suicide mission. There is no honour, there is nothing right in such a move, whatever the motive. I somehow do admire the bravery and self-sacrifice on the part of these men, despite abhoring what they did or what they were sent to/brainwashed into. They were not terrorist suicide bombers as we know it today, but ordinary men fighting for freedom (as they believed).

I so much agree with Posidon. War is a political game played by governments at the expense of innocent people who are totally uninvolved. There is no winner. Each side loses precious lives and if only men had their heads screwed on straight they could have agreed something at the negotiating table and saved all the blood.

Sometimes war is right, but when it is wrong it is terrible in every sense of the word and a disgrace to a nation beyond proportion.

[denishc]

 Remember this, a war is not won by dying for your country, no matter how horourable.  A war is won by making the other guy die for his country.

[dcunning30]

War is a political game played by governments at the expense of innocent people who are totally uninvolved. There is no winner. Each side loses precious lives and if only men had their heads screwed on straight they could have agreed something at the negotiating table and saved all the blood.

That sounds nice and all.

[Saitek]

It is hard to discuss these things without being too political and trying not to bring in the real world in to this place. The history forum isn't supposed to be a cover name for a Politics forum.

I believe prevention is better than cure. I think there are so many examples of history that show this to be true. The UN is a very good system, although far from perfect, and the IAEA keeps a close check on countries. To take a currenct situation in the news at present, note how countries are not waiting. If only this was done in the second world war.

I can't answer the question really and, because I have already put my self forward for a slap, I can't do anything more than lay hold of my tongue.

[Hagar]

It is hard to discuss these things without being too political and trying not to bring in the real world in to this place. The history forum isn't supposed to be a cover name for a Politics forum.

Sorry Ben but it's not possible to discuss history seriously without the politics. I agree with dcunning & prefer sticking to history, leaving current events out of it.

To take a currenct situation in the news at present, note how countries are not waiting. Soon sanctions will follow. If only this was done in the second world war. If the country in question wants to make the right move - it will obey orders.

Unfortunately this doesn't always work. Economic sanctions by America & Britain led directly to the bitter war against Japan in 1941.

[dcunning30]

It is hard to discuss these things without being too political and trying not to bring in the real world in to this place. The history forum isn't supposed to be a cover name for a Politics forum.

I agree, that why I posted the original statement about keeping our discussion limited to history.  Then you posted your opinions about current events.

The UN is a very good system, although far from perfect, and the IAEA keeps a close check on countries. To take a currenct situation in the news at present, note how countries are not waiting. Soon sanctions will follow.

The UN is ineffictive in preventing conflict.  Historically, the only thing the UN has done was to provide an occupying army after hostilities have dimished, ie: Balkins, Rwanda, Liberia.

And regarding sanctions, so what?  The UN imposed sanctions as a result of 14 resolutions over a period of 17 years on Saddam's Iraq.  They accomplished nothing.  The sanctions were as porous as a sieve.   Do you think anything will be different if the UN imposes sanctions on Iran?

[Scorpiоn]

Plus sanctions mean I can't bring cool Syrian bongos into the US. Those would've been nice.

 Remember this, a war is not won by dying for your country, no matter how horourable.  A war is won by making the other guy die for his country.

Nothing personal against you, but this is just a quote continously ripped from Patton.  I cannot help but think how foolish this quote is.

That sounds nice and all.  And I'm sure just about everyone agrees we should just sit down and discuss our differences and solve everything that way.  But in this real world, how do you hope to accomplish such a thing?

Exactly.  Everyone on Earth isn't the same.  War is unfortunately inevitable.  The only half solution I could possibly come up with is just ignoring it.  Diplomacy often fails, and war should be a last resort, so why can't two countries be allies (for lack of a better word) whilst ignoring the parts they don't like about each other?  It goes without saying this won't always work, even if it were to be used more often.  People always try to make a universal solution; war doesn't always work just as peace and diplomacy don't always work.  Seeing how quickly people like to blow things up (no pun intended) and make issues out of everything, I'm surprised there aren't more wars.

[Saitek]

Sorry Ben but it's not possible to discuss history seriously without the politics. I agree with dcunning & prefer sticking to history, leaving current events out of it.

Unfortunately this doesn't always work. Economic sanctions by America & Britain led directly to the bitter war against Japan in 1941.

Part 1 - I know. I find it difficult trying to comunicate on issues like this without reference to them. History may be 60 years ago, but yesterday is also history. Ok I'm splitting hairs.

Part 2. It was too late then. Japan had already bene in China for years by that time. Slightly exagerating here, but it would be a bit like the UK putting sactions on Nazi Germany. It wouldn't make a scrap of difference.

The UN is ineffictive in preventing conflict.  Historically, the only thing the UN has done was to provide an occupying army after hostilities have dimished, ie: Balkins, Rwanda, Liberia.

And regarding sanctions, so what?  The UN imposed sanctions as a result of 14 resolutions over a period of 17 years on Saddam's Iraq.  They accomplished nothing.  The sanctions were as porous as a sieve.  

The UN is an organisation for war as well as peace. SOmetimes war must happen to prevent greater wars. If only troops had moved in to check Germany when it re-entered the Rhineland.


Sorry for the politics. Hopefully I've said nothing too contraversial.

[Hagar]

Ben. Despite our pleas you seem determined to turn this into a discussion on current affairs. You know very well that is not allowed on this forum. You were one of those responsible for that rule being applied so strictly in the first place. I'm afraid you can't have it both ways & put your point of view without allowing others to reply.

[Saitek]

I know - I'm torn between the two things. But I agree with you there.
Probably best I now delete it.

[Saitek]

Not sure what you mean there Scorp.  ???

Edit: Duh you deleted it.

[Scorpiоn]

It was too late then. Japan had already bene in China for years by that time. Slightly exagerating here, but it would be a bit like the UK putting sactions on Nazi Germany. It wouldn't make a scrap of difference.

Not true.  If the West, and more specifically the US, had not imposed sanctions against Japan's war resources, Japan had little reason to expand the war beyond the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.  Japan's main concern was their resource pool and fighting communism.

If anything Japan wanted to show up the Western powers and prove it was superior, if not their equal.

PS: Sorry, I went to modify it.  Not sure what's unclear.

[Saitek]

So you are saying Japan was not agressive or land grabbing/world denomination - just wanting resources and trying to halt communism?

I'm sorry I disagree if that is so.

Anyway it's bedtime! Nite nite!

[Scorpiоn]

Well, there are two points.

• Their quest for resources encompasses many things: Their version of lebensraum, partyline racism and not surprisingly, politics.
• I try to do history from points of view.  From an American point of view, sure Japan was agressive and grabbing land, but then what would you call the Spanish-American War and the subsequent results with Philippines and Cuba?

[denishc]

[quote]Nothing personal against you, but this is just a quote continously ripped from Patton.