Stranger in a Strange Land - Bakersfield.com

A blog about Business & Finance, News, and Politics.

About FloridaStateGrad

Gender:
male
Member Since:
May 27, 2008
Last Signed In:
November 21, 2008
Profile Views:
433
Blog Views:
3597

Observations On the Presidential Election Outcome
An Election Reflection
Only 2% of Small Businesses would pay more money under Obama's proposed tax plan
For Every Stupid Obama Supporter, There's a Stupid McCain Supporter..
Syndicated Conservative Columnist Says Palin is "Out of Her League"
Have You Received a Free DVD Entitled "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Aginst the West" ??
Obama's Democratic Nomination Acceptance Speech
Bill Clinton's DNC Speech
Observation Regarding Hillary's DNC Speech
Hookah Smoke

Share!

FloridaStateGrad - > Stranger in a Strange Land -> Is the U.S. Ethical When Choosing Military Targets?

Is the U.S. Ethical When Choosing Military Targets?

Another blog post that I've been debating in has brought me back to one of the papers I wrote in college as a requirement in my major. So, the question at hand is whether we've intentionally killed innocent civilians. This paper is only a small example of just how far our military has gone in the past to achieve victory.

The Development and Use of the Incendiary Bomb on Tokyo and Its Ethical Implications

It is early morning in Tokyo, Japan on March 10, 1945. The majority of the inhabitants of the capital city of the Pacific imperial powerhouse are asleep, unaware of the fact that three hundred American B-29 bombers are making their way towards the city. The Japanese citizens are also unaware that these 300 American bombers are carrying a combined payload of 2,000 tons of incendiaries which they plan to drop into the heart of the capital city. Two and a half hours after the first bombs are dropped upon this area which is seven tenth’s the size of Manhattan, 100,000 Japanese lay, “Scorched and boiled and baked to death[1],” as quoted by General Curtis LeMay, commander of the United States Air Force operations in Japan during World War II. There is a controversial question that arises from the ashes of this famous day in history – were U.S. incendiary bombings of civilian targets ethical and justified?

& nbsp; The fire-bombing of Tokyo produced a level of death and destruction unmatched by the nuclear bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. When “Little Boy” fell upon Hiroshima, all ethical questions about the incendiary attacks on Tokyo and the previous German targets such as Dresden seemed to have been forgotten. The idea that there was a weapon, “capable of snuffing out a large city in a flash[2],” superceded the now quickly outdated fire bomb. This paper will outline the initial development and acquirement of incendiary bombs, the decisions to use the bombs first on Germany and then on Tokyo and the ethics and consequences of that decision.

& nbsp; To first explore the use of incendiary bombs, it is essential to look at the original development and acquisition of the weapon by the United States Air Corps. The U.S. military first developed an incendiary bomb using an existing chemical bomb casing which they filled with a chemical mixture originally created by the British. This first incendiary was called the M-47 and weighed 100 pounds. In 1941, the United States once again borrowed from British military technology, only this time, they incorporated the entire bomb, a British Mark II, 4-lb incendiary, modified it to their liking and named it the M-50.

Considering that the first two incendiary bombs in the U.S. military arsenal held different characteristics, it was decided that each would be used for a different purpose. The M-47 would be used against large structure thanks to its heavy weight, while the much lighter M-50 would be used to start fires in smaller, more cheaply made structures. The M-50 would be dropped in bundles of 34 bombs held together by metal bands. The M-50 was designed to create fires that could produce an intense temperature of 2,400 degrees farenheight for ten minutes. These fires were difficult to extinguish.

A third bomb was developed in the later months of 1941 into the early months of 1942, due to a shortage of rubber, which was important to all incendiary bombs, and magnesium, which was a vital component in the manufacture of the M-50 bomb. A team of Chemists working for the National Defense Research Committee at Harvard University discovered a non-rubber based gasoline gel mixture comprised of a combination of naphtenic and palmitic acids that when combined with gasoline, created a perfect incendiary compound. This mixture would become known as Napalm, and would eventually be used in the bombings of Dresden and Tokyo.

& nbsp; During the spring of 1942, extensive testing was done on this new bomb to see how it would react in certain situations. The bomb itself was completely different from the previous two, as it did not explode until 3 to 5 seconds after hitting its final resting spot. When it did explode, it sent a burning gel as far as 100 feet outwards, immediately setting anything combustible into an intense flame. Simulations of residential attics as well as industrial structures, complete with possible equipment such as workbenches were constructed and tested during these experiments[3]. The American Air Force conducted these tests in order to “calculate the results that might be expected in an actual air raid[4],” and therefore conducted more tests on actual structures beginning in April of 1942. This bomb, known also as the tail-ejection bomb, was named the M-56, and later renamed the M-69. After final testing and review of date, the M-69 was commissioned into production.

& nbsp; Though the Americans seem to have spent a great deal of time developing an incendiary bombing program, it was the British who first used such aerial attacks in combat. The decision to use incendiary bombs first came from Royal Air Force high command in early 1942. The RAF told its Bomber Command, “It has been decided that the primary objective of your operation should now be focused on the morale of the (German) enemy civil population, and in particular, of the industrial workers.[5]” After bombings of Lubeck and Cologne, the American military attempted to sell the M-69 bomb to the British, but the latter’s testing raised questions on the bomb’s performance on German structures. Despite this setback, Major General William Porter increased production of the M-69 bomb, deducing that even if the bomb would prove unreliable in Germany, it would probably be effective in Japan.

As early as January of 1943, the bombing of Japan was a target of interest for Allied High Command. In meetings with the allied military command and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, President Franklin D. Roosevelt expressed his interest in the potential bombing of Japan. It was believed that by staging bomber raids out of India and targeting Japan, the allied cause would not only benefit from the military success, but these bombing raids could also increase the morale of the Chinese, who had been fighting the Japanese on their home territory for the last decade. After countless hours of research, intelligence specialists selected 199 key Japanese targets, divided among nine economic groups: aircraft, arms and munitions, steel, machine tools, rail transportation, electric power, petroleum, naval bases and shipyards, and ship concentrations[6].

Obtaining help from such civilians as a consultant from J.P. Morgan & Company and professors of economics from Princeton and Harvard Universities, allied command was able to further analyze possible bombing targets in hopes that the final selections would completely devastate the Japanese Economy. Their reports came to the conclusion that using incendiary bombs would render the majority of Japanese workers homeless, for they would not be able to seek cover in the shallow Tokyo subway system. This could then create economic chaos for Japan. Later analyses reports began to favor using the M-69 bomb on Japanese cities. Reports showed that more than ninety percent the structures in Tokyo alone were made of wooden buildings, including factories, warehouses and residences. Allied command considered the cities of Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya and Kobe as legitimate incendiary bombing targets because they housed such a large portion of Japan’s industrial output.

When compared with Germany, Japanese targets were reported as being more flammable. It was also reported that Japan’s war industry was highly concentrated in most major cities, while Germany tended to have industrial complex’s throughout the country. One important piece of information that would later fuel ethical questions about firebombing these targets was that industrial and military targets in these major Japanese cities were often surrounded by residential congestion, and thus more exposed to sweeping fires than in German cities. Even more questionable was the idea that these residential areas would provide “kindling” for the industrial and military targets[7]. The question of using incendiaries would continue to be researched by the allied command, as well as by the Pentagon. Bombing tests were performed time and time again to better understand the capabilities of the weapons, and to plan for the possible use of them. Not only were the bombs being tested, but the B-29, the plane that would ultimately deliver the explosives, was also undergoing testing and production.

On September 4, 1944 the Incendiary Subcommittee, one of those responsible for the final research of the effectiveness of the use of firebombs, completed their study on the “Economic Effects of a Successful Area Attack on Six Japanese Cities.” This report concluded that by bombing all incendiary-vulnerable areas in Tokyo, Kawasaki, Yokohama, Osaka, Kobe and Nagoya, seventy percent of all homes would be destroyed. The report also concluded that damage to the Japanese industrial capacity would remain at a minimum. Instead, the report came to the conclusion that precision bombing would be the most effective weapon against industry. The committee also made it clear that all findings were based upon laboratory testing, and didn’t take into account the many uncertainties and unknowns.

The Committee of Operations Analysis, which oversaw the Incendiary Subcommittee, called in Commander William M. McGovern to give his opinion on the psychological effects on incendiary bombing on Japan – something the Incendiary subcommittee had not touched on. McGovern was a political scientist and war correspondent who concentrated on the Japan. He knew the people and the language, and proved a major asset in the Committee’s research. McGovern believed that rapid and powerful incendiary strikes would indeed demoralize the Japanese, and if effective, could even begin negotiations for surrender. He believed that the Japanese fear of fire would have a major impact on their psyche, and even went so far as to conclude that if the allies were to “knock out Tokyo… the Japanese throughout the country will say, ‘We have been hit.’”[8] He also stated that the Japanese tended to use a lot of written orders and paperwork, and implied that the loss of these records would definitely put a damper on the administrative efforts of the military.

While many of those responsible for the research, development and preparations for the air war on Japan were coming up with more reasons why the allies should use incendiaries, some questioned the ethical implications of such destruction. Raymond H. Ewell, a chemical engineer who was a member of the incendiary research team, run by the National Defense Research Committee, was one who spoke about the possible consequences in use of the incendiary bomb. Ewell issued a memorandum which stated that, “[T]his mode of attack may be the golden opportunity of strategic bombardment in this war – and possibly one of the outstanding opportunities in all history to do the greatest damage to the enemy for a minimum of effort.[9]” He also expressed his opinion that the allies should keep in mind the humanitarian and political effects of such a decision. Ewell discussed something that no other report would touch – the ethical question of morality. Vannevar Bush, a member of the Incendiary Committee, took Ewell’s memorandum to heart and addressed the question of morality – something no report would speak of. Bush also happened to be the chief scientific advisor to President Roosevelt on the development of the atomic bomb. He suggested that “the decision on the humanitarian aspects will have to be made at a high level,” – he was implying that this high level was the Sectary of War and the President[10]

It might be wise to back up for a second and speak a bit about the history of ethical warfare. The first legalities of war were developed in the early Catholic Church, and were known as the Just-War Ethic. During the 17^th and 18^th centuries, international lawyers such as Hugo Grotius and Emerich de Vattel took this ethical tradition and created the first true body of international law[11] This led to multiple international meetings on warfare, including the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. Grotius addressed the issue of non-combatant casualties, believing that attacking innocent civilians was inhumane. The Hague conventions continued upon this ideology, placing constraints on certain methods of warfare.

The 1899 Hague conference declared a 5-year moratorium on “launching of projectiles and/or explosives from the air.[12] During the 1907 Hague convention, however, there was a push for no more limitations upon aerial bombardment, as a number of European powers had developed more advanced air forces. The convention agreed that decisions to use aerial bombardment were still made based upon military worth of the objective. Therefore, the convention did little to protect civilians from unethical terror bombing[13].

While some of the ethics of aerial bombardment were not fully considered, military leaders and tacticians were split on the issue of whether to use precision or incendiary methods to bomb Japan. Brigadier General Haywood Hansell was one of the major supporters of a precision bombing campaign in lieu of the incendiary attacks, and was assigned to command the first major bombings against Japan. Hansell’s bombing strategy proved to be ineffective, as the cloud cover during the daytime was so great that they were forced to bomb by radar. American and Japanese newspapers alike reported on the apparent disaster which General Hansell had created. Since he was seen as and ineffective leader, General Hansell was replaced with General Curtis LeMay, who would ultimately change strategies from daylight precision bombing to nighttime incendiary bombing. After a series of precision bombing failures under his command, LeMay realized that a nighttime air raid would be more successful, as there would be less cloud cover and fewer Japanese anti-aircraft guns to dodge.

Nine days after the incendiary attack had begun on Tokyo, Emperor Hirohito inspected the damage. The destruction was widespread – 16 square miles of the imperial city lay in complete ruin. The Emperor visited two refugee camps and then went back to the Imperial Palace – he had seen enough. Brigadier General Bonner Fellers, aide to General Douglas MacArthur, called the attack on Tokyo, “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of noncombatants in all history.[14]” The heat from the fires spawned by the explosive bombs was so intense that, “in some places canals boiled, metal melted, and buildings and human beings bust spontaneously into flames.[15]” Japanese wounded poured into military hospitals by the thousands. Citizens came to the aid stations with such calamities as mild to severe burns, high fevers, projectile injuries and shock. Twenty five days after the bombings, the final remains of the dead had been removed from the ruins of the city.

The fire bombing of Tokyo and other major Japanese cities was at first seen as military success. R. Sugiyama of the Japanese Naval General Staff said, “..owing to the destruction of large factories and the loss of small factories scattered throughout a city in the way of home industries, the production of parts decreased rapidly and thus hindered the entire war program.[16]” More than 25,000 industrial plants were decimated or badly damaged in the air raid, including most aircraft engine parts manufacturers. More indicative of the demoralizing effect of the incendiary bombings was the fact that many Japanese workers lost their homes, and because of this, failed to report to the war factories. The bombings affected every part of daily civilian life, from depleting medical supplies to destroying stores of food.

According to the U.S. Strategic Bombing survey conducted after the war, “By August 1945 without air attack Japanese war production would have declined below the (wartime high) level of 1944 by 50 percent.[17]” It was also concluded that ninety seven percent of Japan’s military supplies were held underground, and therefore were not destroyed by the incendiary attacks. Studies conducted by the United States after the war also concluded that the bombings were the greatest source of worry and concern for the Japanese people. Japanese morale plummeted, and many were almost certain of defeat and were unwilling to continue the war, as the Americans had hoped for[18]. When all was said in done, over 40 percent of all built up areas in 66 Japanese cities lay in complete ruin.

So the question looms over one’s head: was all of this necessary? Was the use of the M-69 bomb on Tokyo a worthy venture? After careful analysis, it can be concluded that the use of incendiaries on Tokyo, as well as on other Japanese and German cities was not needed to ultimately win World War II. As U.S. military command surveyed the damage caused by the air raids, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told Gen. LeMay that, “If we lose the war, we’ll be tried as war criminals.[19]” Maybe Mr. McNamara had the right convictions, however LeMay did not share his sentiments, considering he ordered more incendiary attacks on other Japanese cities once he learned of his success over Tokyo. The General knew full well the consequences of his actions over Tokyo, and it seems he accepted that fate without much sympathy for the tens of thousands who would die.

Bibliography

Dower, John W. War Without Mercy Pantheon Books 1986

Hoyt, Edwin P., Inferno Madison Books 2000

Kerr, E. Bartlett, Flames Over Tokyo Donald I. Fine, Inc, New York 1991

The Japan Times “Great Tokyo Air Raid Was a War Crime”

& nbsp; &n bsp; “Critical War Questions Beg for An Answer”

Overy, Richard Why the Allies Won W. W. Norton & Company 1995

Rizer, Kenneth R. “Bombing Dual-Use Targets: Legal, Ethical and Doctrinal Perspectives,” http://www.airpower.maxwell...

Weinberg, Gerhard L. A World At Arms Cambridge University Press 1994

& nbsp;

[1] The Japan Times

[2] ibid

[3] E. Bartlett Kerr Flames Over Tokyo pg. 14

[4] E. Bartlett Kerr Flames Over Tokyo pg. 15

[5] E. Bartlett Kerr Flames Over Tokyo pg. 17

[6] E. Bartlett Kerr Flames Over Tokyo pg. 22

[7] E. Bartlett Kerr Flames Over Tokyo pg. 42

[8] E. Bartlett Kerr Flames Over Tokyo pg. 82

[9] E. Bartlett Kerr Flames Over Tokyo pg. 84

[10] E. Bartlett Kerr Flames Over Tokyo pg. 88

[11] Kenneth R. Rizer “Bombing Dual-Use Targets: Legal, Ethical, and Doctrinal Perspectives”

[12] Ibid

[13] The Japan Times

[14] ibid

[15] John W. Dower War Without Mercy

[16] E. Bartlett Kerr Flames Over Tokyo pg. 279

[17] Edwin P. Hoyt Inferno pg. 138

[18] E. Bartlett Kerr Flames Over Tokyo pg. 282

[19] The Japan Times

Leave Comment

Subscribe to comments

Posted in these Groups: Military, News
Topics:

posted by FloridaStateGrad on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 05:28 PM
Report a Violation

Viewed 116 times

35 comments from 11 users

posted by jmabbott888 on Aug 7, 2008 at 07:37 PM

During WW2 there were many civillian casualties from both sides. The Germans bombed London & many other cities, the Japannese bombed us in Pearl Harbor, & all of Oahu for that matter, as well as the attrocites in China. We bombed cities all over Europe & the Japanesse Islands.

During 1944 we knew we would have to invade the home islands of Japan, we got as far as Okinawa before we got the bomb dropped & were on our way to the main island. Bombing the cities was 2 fold. First off we needed to take out what infastructure they had left, including factories & homes where small arms were being built. The other reason was to "soften up" the country for a landing. You need to demoralize the enemy to be able to invade, after Okinawa we learned that the Japanesse would not surrender, they would fight to the death. If we had the technology we have now we could have done it differently, but with what we had, we did well. It has been said that dropping the 2 bombs saved many US lives & I have to agree, can you imagine the losses we would have suffered by invading the main Island?

Report Violation

posted by catpaw on Aug 7, 2008 at 11:21 PM

Biological warfare was also considered for the invasion of Japan. Churchill considered using it against Germany. There is a small island near England where the skeletal remains of animals (test subjects) are scattered about today.

The Japenese had but one motive for war. It served the purpose of empire. The Tanaka Memorial says as much. It also states explicitly that war with the United States is enevitable. The warlords of Japan anticipated a war with the US at least 20 years before Pearl Harbor. Japanese politicians and military advisors who advised against a war with the US (Yamamoto was one) were ignored.

I find it interesting that you have no problem moralizing about American actions in WW2 on the one hand; but minimize and mitigate moslem murder cult atrocities with cause and effect excuses and indictments of historical christain sins and European foreign policies of 100 yars ago.

Report Violation

posted by eebeegrad on Aug 8, 2008 at 07:15 AM

I am am a retired disabled U.S. Marine. Here is my tribute to all of those who missed the opportunity to 'attempt 'to spit on my uniform when I came home: ( written by s/sgt Hall USMC}; ignore the little slanders...that come from puny souls...disdain the empty critics...despise their petty goals...for those who know not greatness...for those who scoff at pride...for those who think those foolish...who went and served and died....ignore the little slanders....that come from puny souls....disdain the empty critics...despise their petty souls...for us who served with honor...will choose to serve again....our worth by far surpassed a "milllion little men"......''''''''God bless freedom of speech including "Mine". Your college paper sucks.

Report Violation

posted by catpaw on Aug 8, 2008 at 07:21 AM

I misspelled in my post. My fault for being in a rush and not proof-reading. I'll try to be more attentive.

Report Violation

posted by FloridaStateGrad on Aug 8, 2008 at 08:46 AM

First, I'd like to note that this paper was never really meant to be used in such a debate as we have now, I just thought it appropriate to show that all warring peoples will at times go above and beyond what is seen as acceptable behaviour. I'd also like to add that I could have written endlessly on all of the historical points brought up here by others - but the purpose of the paper was to focus on the Tokyo firebombing only, as I believed it to be the least talked about in historical circles.

My pupose is not to ignore or minimize the evil crimes that Islamic Extremists have done against civilians (or anyone, for that matter). I completely agree with you that these people are indeed misled and evi, and should be treated as criminals. However. my purpose is to show that pointing the finger doesn't always work.

If we look historically at what has happened in the Middle East, there are many cause-and-effect patterns which have molded and shaped the current political and social landscape. Many people tend to look at the agressors as the soul instigators of our current war on terrorism; I look at it a bit different. I see a people who have been pushed, prodded and pressured, and some of these people have boiled over into fanaticism. This doesn't excuse them or their actions, but it gives us a better understanding of the root cause of the problem. Having such knowledge can be beneficial. Unfortunately, I don't think our current administration has really done much to analyze the causes of such hateful thinking, and therefore, we continue to make many grave mistakes that can only make things worse over time.

Report Violation

posted by CatherineBaker on Aug 8, 2008 at 08:58 AM

Great post, FSG. It's looking like the Iraqis want us out of there and are gonna give us a "timetable" whether we like it or not. I think all Americans are hoping for a good outcome in Iraq when our military leaves, but I really think we're going to see another Yugoslavia. I really hope not.

It's funny that the place where we should have stayed (and were needed) was Afghanistan, but we ditched them and now the Taliban is weasling its way back. If we had never gone to Iraq and had instead focused our attention on Afghanistan, I think the entire region (like Pakistan and northern India) would be much more stable now.

Report Violation

posted by TracyAlk on Aug 8, 2008 at 09:03 AM

My grandfather fought in WWII in Europe. He took picture of Berlin after the air strikes and of concentration camp survivors that looked like walking skeletons. My aunts donated some of these pictures to a Holocaust Memorial. All I can say is that war equals death. If there is anyway to avoid military action through diplomatic negotiation, then this should be sought. I am not privy to the military intelligence (or lack thereof at times) in selecting targets and the appropriate force. In modern combat, there are more innocents that die. In wartime, there are far more women and children killed rather than soldiers. It is just the nature of the game.

I don't think the U.S. is unique in causing destruction. Japan was just as guilty in committing atrocities. Every country of power is guilty of killing innocents and targeting civilians. I think we just have a disconnect when looking at the U.S. We love America and we love our freedoms. We like to think of our country as a light amongst the darkness of the rest of the world. But, our senior management make mistakes sometimes...maybe those mistakes are made under duress (not sure). It is important for us to know that our country is not perfect and we have to learn from history. For me, it is the best possible country in comparison with any other in existence.

It is just a shame that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened right when we were winning the war and a solution was in place. This action had very little military purpose for the resolution of the conflict. Perhaps we are now more wise and we haven't used nuclear weapons since.

It is also a shame that we don't utilize direct diplomatic negotiations with our enemy. Perhaps there was a better solution to Iraq rather than invasion. Especially since we still can't find the weapons of mass destruction. It's a shame we can't fight wars like ancient Greece and just stick our leaders and champions against one another. :-)

Report Violation

posted by catpaw on Aug 8, 2008 at 09:10 AM

Well, the difficulty of your topic is how does one discuss the "ethics" of war? Like arguing the ethics of murder or rape. Murdering an elderly person with a terminal illness is not anymore ethical than murdering a child. Some would argue it is. That debate would be an off-topic issue that ignores the crime of murder.

Unprovoked murder of defenseless people is a horrifying crime. Any off-topic argument that would take away from that is not an argument.

Report Violation

posted by FloridaStateGrad on Aug 8, 2008 at 09:13 AM

Thanks Catherine! I agree with you that a timetable for bringing home troops has a good chance of failing. While I am an opponent of going into Iraq in the first place, I do believe that we've already dug our ditch - now we have to fill it. There's no way to tell exactly what amount of time it will really take to mend what has been broken over there. Personally, I think that the best course of action would be for the U.S. to support an indepedant Iraqi Kurdistan, because as soon as we withdraw, I wouldn't be surprised if a war of sucession took place.

I hole-heartedly agree.

Report Violation

posted by FloridaStateGrad on Aug 8, 2008 at 09:19 AM

This action had very little military purpose for the resolution of the conflict. Perhaps we are now more wise and we haven't used nuclear weapons since.

Actually, Tracy, it has been argued by many historians the only way we would have been able to win the war without invading Japan outright was to drop the 2 bombs. An all-out land invasion would have cost an estimated million + lives.

Unprovoked murder of defenseless people is a horrifying crime. Any off-topic argument that would take away from that is not an argument.

Catpaw, while I can see where you might think that 9/11 was unprovoked murder, I see it a bit differently. I think that America's actions in the Middle East over the past 60 years has had a direct influence on the surge of Islamic Terrorism.

For example - the Iranian revolution of 1979 was a direct result of U.S. backing of the Shah of Iran, who knowingly to all squandered money on U.S. military technology to build the largest standing army in the region. The U.S. intentionally backed this, as it was grooming Iran to be it's "point man" for Democracy in the Middle East, and knew that the more powerful Iran's army, the more powerful U.S. influence would be over the entire region. So while the U.S. played Iran for it's own interests, the people of that country suffered and starved.

Every action equals reaction.

Report Violation

posted by catpaw on Aug 8, 2008 at 09:45 AM

Excuse me, 9/11 was unprovoked murder. Calling it anything else is an illogical premise.

I have heard it said that logic cannot be applied to an illogical situation. Unprovoked murder of defenseless people is illogical. You are trying to find sensible motive for an illogical act. It does not exist. Your arguments do not jibe with the reasons bin ladin gave for 9/11. My recollection is not so forgetful or selective that I have forgotten bin ladin lied about having anything to do with 9/11. It was not until US troops in Afghanistan discovered the tape that proved otherwise. As far as known, bin ladin took offense to US troops being in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm. He has never given a specific reason for 9/11. Iran was never mentioned.

You are so desperate to justify unprovoked murder of defenseless people you are citing reasons the moslem murder cult hasn't come up with.

Report Violation

posted by AudreyB on Aug 8, 2008 at 09:52 AM

FSG

Killing innocent civilians in a sneak attack because you don't like their government's policies towards your own country is murder.

Just like December 7, 1941 was murder.

Report Violation

posted by FloridaStateGrad on Aug 8, 2008 at 09:59 AM

catpaw:

I know that Bin Laden and Iran are two separate issues - I used the Iranian example to prove the point that the U.S. (just like every other country) oftentimes suffers the consequences of their actions when they meddle in the politics and affairs of another country. As you know, 9/11 was not the only terrorist attack against us or other Western countries, and Arabs are not the only Muslim terrorists out there.

As it pertains to Bin Ladin, you are correct - his claim for beginning Al Qaeda was that he did take offense to U.S. troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia. Bin Ladin is a fanatic who has played upon the many U.S. blunders in the Middle East to gain his followers and support. I don't for one minute justify his actions - but I pose the question - if the U.S. had acted differently in the Middle East, is it possible that such organizations as Al Qaeda could have never existed? Is it possible that had we not put our greedy hands into the oil pots of the Middle East, we might have never need be concerned about Arabs flying planes into our buildings?

I'm not trying to desperately justify anything - I'm trying to find a solution to the problem. So many people are quick to jump to conclusions and assume that they've done nothing wrong, and in doing so, make the situation worse.

t's my generation that's over in the Middle East right now - I care deeply for their safety and security.

Report Violation

posted by FloridaStateGrad on Aug 8, 2008 at 10:04 AM

Killing innocent civilians in a sneak attack because you don't like their government's policies towards your own country is murder.

Audrey - after re-reading my previous post that I believe you were speaking of, I realize that I wasn't totally clear.

I believe that 9/11 was murder. However, I do not think it was unprovoked. That doesn't mean I justify it - it only means that I am looking to find out how we can prevent such a heinous crime in the future. I don't think going around the world guns ablaze is going to solve this issue. Yes, we should hold every terrorist accountable for their actions of murder and destruction. At the same time, we must figure out why people are turning to such criminal acts. What makes them tick? Why do they feel the way they do? How can we help resolve this situation so that all human beings are happy, healthy and safe?

Report Violation

posted by AudreyB on Aug 8, 2008 at 10:12 AM

But FSG

The people who were murdered in 9/11 were not the people who provoked it. You don't mean to justify it because there is no rational justification.

There are avenues for nations to utilize if they feel they are being unfairly treated by another nation. And I agree with you that it's in our best interest to formulate a better policy with Muslim countries. On the other hand, where is their responsibility in opening the doors of communication with us.

The lines of communication and understanding is a two way street.

You may roll your eyes now.

Report Violation

posted by FloridaStateGrad on Aug 8, 2008 at 10:34 AM

Audrey - why would I roll my eyes? You're right, the people who were murdered in 9/11 didn't provoke attack; then again, the many people who've been murdered directly or indirectly through U.S. policies normally didn't provoke attack either. To go against what I just said, two wrongs do not make a right, and 9/11 is not justified. I completely agree with you.

We can sit here and formulate what-if's all day (I know I've been doing it)... but in the end, what is the ultimate goal we would like to accomplish? Sometimes we must reflect back on ourselves and make changes, even if the other side seems unwilling to budge. I think that if we as a Nation can do such a thing, we will only help our cause of promoting democracy.

Report Violation

posted by jfrancais on Aug 8, 2008 at 10:58 AM

Hey FSG. I like the idea of an independent Kurdistan but such a proposition would need the support of Syria and Turkey (of course, Iraq). How would such an idea be successful while ensuring stability within those countries with their Kurdish populations?

Report Violation

posted by NancyII on Aug 8, 2008 at 11:05 AM

Tracy..we were NOT winning the war when the decision to drob A-Bombs was made.

Report Violation

posted by gaslight on Aug 8, 2008 at 11:59 AM

As I recall, Germany's firebombing of London was the "teacher" of the destructive power of firebombing.

America's observations of Germany's use of this weapon was the motivation behind developing it. Germany was way ahead of the Allies in their inventions for destroying things.

Interesting paper, Florida.

Report Violation

posted by catpaw on Aug 8, 2008 at 12:15 PM

moslems in camel land cannot relate to democracy as we think of it. To them democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. Their middle ages superstition does not accommodate democracy anymore than any other organized religion. Religious doctrine is not something normally debated and voted on. The "modern" democracies over there are not a democracy in the sense Americans understand it.

After the fall of Russian communism, there were (and probably still are) russians who nostalgically recall Stalin as a man "who knew how to run a country." Westerners shouldn't be surprised there are no street protests of Putin overstepping his bounds as an elected president. Moslems are not the only culture in the world who equate dictatorial powers to law and order.

Nothing erodes a democracy as corruption and prevailing abject poverty. Mexico and Iraq has plenty of both. The US cannot save these people from themselves anymore than we can educate ignorant people who don't want to learn.

Report Violation

posted by TracyAlk on Aug 8, 2008 at 02:06 PM

NancyII, there is a long standing debate about the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I love Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

I believe that it was a really immoral act. You should check out the comments from Dwight Eisenhower on this link.

Report Violation

posted by FloridaStateGrad on Aug 8, 2008 at 02:58 PM

Actually, it might even need the support of Iran (God forbid). I think the only way we can achieve an independant Kurdistan without having to press on Turkey, Syria or Iran is to only grant Kurdish lands which already exist in Iraq. The problem is that much of the Kurdish region of Iraq are known to be rich in oil...

America's observations of Germany's use of this weapon was the motivation behind developing it. Germany was way ahead of the Allies in their inventions for destroying things.

Of course, Germany outwardly didn't care who they killed.

Interesting paper, Florida.

Thanks.

There are plenty of people in the Middle East who actually are pushing for democracy - go to such places as Jordan, and you'll see a lot more western influences than not. Also, I wrote a blog on here a few weeks back about the current political contrasts in Iran - there's a growing movement of individuals, politicians and government officials who are pressing for less theocracy and more democracy. You're right, no Middle East country is as democratic as we'd like them to be, but then again, our own country isn't a true democracy either.

I think to presume that Muslims can never fully accept democracy is a bit unrealistic. Then again, I don't think it can happen overnight, either.

We haven't seen street protests against Putin because he has a strong arm and would erradicate anyone leading such a movement. People don't respect him - they fear him.

Well said. Democracy must come from within.

Report Violation

posted by jfrancais on Aug 8, 2008 at 03:10 PM

By giving autonomy or sovereignty to Iraqi Kurdistan will only fuel the notion of autonomy in those other countries as well. The Kurds in Iraq have social, cultural, and even national ties to Kurds throughout the region. This is a cause for concern of bordering nations.

Report Violation

posted by FloridaStateGrad on Aug 8, 2008 at 03:14 PM

What if an incentive were offered to allow Kurds from the surrounding regions to immigrate to Iraqi Kurdistan?

Honestly, I think no matter what happens, the Iraqi Kurds are going to fight for their own indepedence. For the first time in 2 millenium they actually have a good chance of finally getting on their feet.

Report Violation

posted by jfrancais on Aug 8, 2008 at 09:54 PM

I think that's a good idea. They already immigrate, marry, and trade back and forth. I don't see the Kurds fighting. I truly see them using the current process of negotiations and legislation. They've accomplished so much in such a short time since the US arrived and stabilized the region, relatively speaking. They have more autonomy now than they did under Saddam and are a part of the political process.

Report Violation

posted by eebeegrad on Aug 9, 2008 at 05:58 AM

FSG: Sorry about the sucker punch. Let me tell you why I think your College paper sucks. First, youhave been misdirected by these Liberal College Profs who try to fill the heads of students that the Idiots in Washington are the constant problem for our World. That is so far from the truth. World problems are as old as Cain and Able............................Your paper is 60 years late. During the firebombing of Japan my oldest brother and I spent our days pulling a little red wagon around the neighborhood picking utensils that we took to the recycle center to help the war effort. Almost every house we passed by had either a bluestar or goldstar card. Some had several. My grandmas house had four. Noone had a daddy, husband, or son at home. They were all off to War including my father. Now the Idiots in Washington nor the Idiots in the press had any affect on how the war was to go. It was the Blue and Gold star Moms and kids without daddys that directed the direction of the War. Kamakazi was a serious word then and turned many stars to gold. Look around you FSG and see the real world. It is the elementrys like you and I that vote out the Idiots like Bush and Change the remote on our TV. In other words this land is ours and we still control it. Washington DC is a means to an end. ( after the war ,General Mcarther was a very kind occupation director of Japan and wrote their new Constitution that stands today as an excellant document)

Report Violation

posted by ChicaEscuela on Aug 9, 2008 at 06:28 AM

Too bad your hated "liberal college profs" didn't fill your head with spelling skills. McArthur, excellent.

Where the hell did you graduate? Belridge?

I know your kind. If you don't want to believe something, just cover your ears and chant "liberal liberal liberal."

Report Violation

posted by FloridaStateGrad on Aug 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM

First, youhave been misdirected by these Liberal College Profs who try to fill the heads of students that the Idiots in Washington are the constant problem for our World.

Funny.. this entire paper is based off of research of a number of cited sources which aren't biased.

That is so far from the truth. World problems are as old as Cain and Able............................Your paper is 60 years late.

My paper is a historical analysis, nothing more.

During the firebombing of Japan my oldest brother and I spent our days pulling a little red wagon around the neighborhood picking utensils that we took to the recycle center to help the war effort. Almost every house we passed by had either a bluestar or goldstar card. Some had several. My grandmas house had four. Noone had a daddy, husband, or son at home. They were all off to War including my father.

And while you were picking up cans and utensils, my Grandfather was landing on the beaches of Normandy. While you were recycling these metal objects, my Grandfather was freezing his ass off in Bastogne as Germans bombed the crap out of his foxhole. Cut the crap - I know all about the sacrifices that everyone made during WWII, and I'm in no way diminishing the role of the common soldier on the battlefield. People like you are so quick to judge when someone actually has something against the government that you automatically assume we're anti troops.

Kamakazi was a serious word then and turned many stars to gold. Look around you FSG and see the real world.

Kamikazi attacks accounted for at most 4,900 U.S. deaths, or around 1% of total U.S. deaths during the war. In fact, Kamikazi attacks were only used as a last resort once Japan realized defeat.

It is the elementrys like you and I that vote out the Idiots like Bush and Change the remote on our TV. In other words this land is ours and we still control it. Washington DC is a means to an end.

Ack.. can't change out of bold.. anyway.. I still don't see how you've proved that my paper sucks. I think your attitude sucks, personally. It sounds to me like you're unwilling to accept reality.

Report Violation

posted by jfrancais on Aug 9, 2008 at 12:08 PM

Good paper and good critical analysis, FSG.

Spam code: epulp

Report Violation

posted by jfrancais on Aug 9, 2008 at 12:12 PM

Your paper is 60 years late.

What? Should he have wrote the paper as the war was happening? It's a critical analysis paper not a manifesto for military or foreign policy.

Report Violation

posted by eebeegrad on Aug 9, 2008 at 12:45 PM

Your debate club trophies are turning green. I do not use spell check. What you see is what you get. Belridge is not a bad place. Been there done that. Too much experience for you to digest.

Report Violation

posted by ChicaEscuela on Aug 9, 2008 at 12:49 PM

If you had half the brains you claim, you wouldn't NEED spell-check. That's the point.

Especially coming from someone who went to school during the supposedly good ole days when "God was allowed."

Report Violation

posted by FloridaStateGrad on Aug 9, 2008 at 01:00 PM

eebeegrad - do yourself a favor and quit trying so hard. It's rather apparent that you're all washed up. Go back to your friends in Bridge club/

Report Violation

posted by eebeegrad on Aug 10, 2008 at 10:19 AM

Oh nooo, FSG!......Bridge club is so boreing even at my age. It was so much more fun to pester you. Your posts were so professional and thought producing that I wanted to needle you a little. I think your blogs are great and I really agree with much of what you say. But golly now, I am all hurt. Thought we could have been a team. Even took out adoption papers. Hope I can get a refund. ..............FSG would it be ok if I can read your posts once in a while? I promise not to comment or poke at you?? ..........thanks I knew you would.

Report Violation

posted by FloridaStateGrad on Aug 10, 2008 at 12:39 PM

eebeegrad - I have nothing wrong with a healthy debate, just don't ever come to false assumptions about me, because I will call you out.

Report Violation

(You need to be signed in to leave a comment)

BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:

Loading Stories

Share!

BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:

Advertisement