I live in a country that hasn't had any conflict with any other country for hundreds of years and I often wonder what would happen if a country like ours would remove almost their entire military?

I know it's unlikly but hear me out.

If I'm not mistaking, my country's policy is to never start a war, we will only defend ourselves from possible attackers. And noone has ever attacked us, knock on wood.

We also keep such a low profile that if any country would attack us, it would cost them to much so that it wouldn't be of any profit for them.

Would any country even attack us at all? I'm sure that other countries would back us up if that happen! i.e USA which seems to be included in every conflict this world has to offer. No offence!

Can I hear some oppinons?

I would perhaps notice that it is Sweden I'm talking about.

The only reason some one will attack Sweden is to get those "Inga"s - beautiful blondes, Sweden is famous for. As long as the supply is plenty, no one will attck your country. :D

So in my humble opinion, dismantle your military, but keep a paramilitary force for natural disasters and other unforeseen issues. On the otherhand, there is nothing wrong with keeping a military. It teaches self discipline to young people and has some indirect benefits to the society. There is nothing wrong in having a strong defense force until the second coming!

If you would have peace then prepare for war. A roman general is to have said this. There will always be that madman such as Hussain who will believe that it is the way to get what is wanted. Until such attitude is eliminated from the world you will always have need of the military.

Är det en bodensare i farten?
I agree, down with the military! "Ingas"??? Hrmmm.... ;)

The thing with expecting other countries to back you up is that if you don't have an army to back those countries who would back you up then there is a lack of motivation to protect the lazy country.

You see the irony is that people claim to be peaceful and don't want to fight, but when they get into trouble they expect others who don't hold such an ideaology to protect them. So I say keep the army otherwise others won't bother protecting you unless they find it in their best interests.

With the Australian and US defence treaty (ANZUS) which no longer includes New Zealand because they don't let Nuclear powered US warships in there country, the US told Australia to upgrade the technology of our military to keep up with the rest of the world. So we obliged. If we didn't, the US probably wouldn't be bothered with us as they couldn't be bothered with NZ. Australia is even losing interest in an alliance with NZ because they are basically going cheap with their military and demilitarizing. So now we don't give money to any new NZ pensioners who come to Australia to feed off our welfare system. So Australia has to now spend more to make up for NZ's demilitarization, thus the loss of interest in an alliance with NZ.

I hope NZ does not go the route, Cuba went. The best way to arm NZ is to take a chunk out of it or buzz over their land until they either fight or sign peace treaty...I am sure your military planners are working on it....

Posted by kmguru:

I hope NZ does not go the route, Cuba went. What route was that?

Originally posted by Bebelina
Är det en bodensare i farten?

I'm guessing what the sub-titles are, but yes, it would bother me if I was in the same room, and all the way from Sweden? Maybe not, unless it's the Swedish version of the atomic bomb? You know that girls are suppose to smell sweet & us men are supposed to be the pigs?


I agree, down with the military!

What are you going to do then, when Russia gets tired of being a 3rd rate power thats armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons? You know that big boys like to use their big toys! Some day, the people & the politicos there will decide that living under a Red government is better than dying under a democratic poverty.


"Ingas"??? Hrmmm.... ;)

I think the translation is 'blonde, blue eyes & long legs'?

Originally posted by Jez
[B]
I know it's unlikly but hear me out.

[QUOTE]I live in a country that hasn't had any conflict with any other country for hundreds of years and I often wonder what would happen if a country like ours would remove almost their entire military?

<b>And the answer is:</b> Collaborators seldom have problems with conquerers. GEE WHIZ WET (bat)-man1, the NAZIS have promised to leave us alone as long as we don't disagree with their policy of exterminating other human beings.


If I'm not mistaking, my country's policy is to never start a war, we will only defend ourselves from possible attackers. And noone has ever attacked us, knock on wood.

<b>And the 2nd answer is</b>: Name a war, my Swedish friend, that The USA has STARTED!!!!!!!?????


We also keep such a low profile that if any country would attack us, it would cost them to much so that it wouldn't be of any profit for them.

<b>And the 3rd answer is:</b> Why would you try to stop any invader that your ancestors have made a pact with??



Would any country even attack us at all? I'm sure that other countries would back us up if that happen! i.e USA which seems to be included in every conflict this world has to offer. No offence!

<b>And the 4th answer is:</b> Don't be so sure! After all if Sweden doesn't have the decency to defend others who are attacked, what makes the cowards in Sweden so sure that the USA is going to sent American sons (Marine soldiers) to die for a country that hasn't got the decency to involve itself in the defense of freedom-- the world over!!!????


The assumption is liberal to the extreme. The parents of the soldiers, of the United States military, would most certainly not wish to see the sons die for a country that hides away ever-time that a world conflict comes along. You are assuming that the USA is the policemEn OF the WORLD ! ! ! !

NEUTRALITY IS THE SAME AS COLLABORATION

Originally posted by wet1
If you would have peace then prepare for war. A roman general is to have said this. There will always be that madman such as Hussain who will believe that it is the way to get what is wanted. Until such attitude is eliminated from the world you will always have need of the military.

I never said tht wet!!!!!1

What I said was that," BuY off all of your enemies that you can, and kill off the rest. Payoff & lie to those who don't have the stomache for war, & devote the military toward the rest that is left!!!!!!!!!." i HATE TO BE MIS-QUOTED!!!!

Originally posted by Bebelina
Är det en bodensare i farten?
I agree, down with the military! "Ingas"??? Hrmmm.... ;)


Shall we disarm & feel good about ourselves until Hussein or China dictates a PEACE PACT TO US?

REALITY is a kick in the cods!!!!

That we (you all & I), can discuss freely anything, is not a result of a countries decision to hide away while wars were fought by other countries previously.

Maybe the USA is being the POLICEMAN -of -the-world today! Did any of you people in the other countries ever consider that we didn't want the job?????]]



The secret to greatness is freedom. Open the doors wide & be great!

Howard,

I've read your posts and I have to agree that we are somewhat weak when it comes to defend others but we have sent piece-preserving soldier to other countries i.e former Jugoslavia and also taken care of people who seek shelter in Sweden.

You have to remember that if we deal with one conflict, there is good chance that three new unexpected conflicts will occur. (like what happened in the beginning of WW1).

If it is cowardly to "look the other way", so be it, but then you have to remember that people like Muhatma Gandhi did the same thing, do you see him as a coward?

Small notice: I have NEVER said that USA has started any war, where did you get that from? I do like USA! I'm not trying to talk shit about them! If it seems like that I apologize. It was not my intention.

Philipinnes, Cuba, Mexico anyone? And of course that glorious ass-whipping at the hands of the Canadians, the War of 1812.

1812... When the Canadians and their royal despots from England attacted the U.S. for what purpose?

<FONT SIZE ="4">A FEW LITTLE MISTAKES.....</FONT SIZE>

YOU HAVE TO BREAK A FEW EGGS TO MAKE AN OMLET!!!
:D :cool: :D KNEW I'D PISS OFF A FEW ON THAT!!!!:D

The War of 1812
Letters from Soldiers of this War

http://www.iaw.on.ca/~jsek/1812maas.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is with great pleasure that I have been able to include a letter that was written by an American soldier who fought during the War of 1812. Of even greater surprise and to my enjoyment, was the realization that this letter was written during the actual Siege of Fort Erie. I intend to supply more information about this timely combatant as the information is made available to me. For now, I thank the current holder of this letter, Robert Maas, who is the writer's great-great-great-grandson, for allowing me to publish it on the Internet.

As you will notice there are portions of the letter marked with "_?_" which indicates an unreadable word or phrase. Hopefully we will be able to fill in these blanks. Any comments you may wish to pass on to Mr. Maas may be done so through me. So for now, seat back and allow yourself to be taken back in time during one the most bloodiest battles of the War of 1812.

Other original letters


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the time I joined the Army till after the Battle of Bridgewater which took place on the 25th day of July 1814, just before the Falls of Niagara and through which I was mysteriously preserved, when to __?__ over nothing but death was inevitable. I will begin by Comm__? narative at that funeral immediately after that battle from what is __?__ in the eastern allies, Supposed to arrive from the __?__ of the particles of fluids and the facility with which they slid over each other it is infered that they have. We proceeded up the river to Fort Erie which is directly __(across?)__ from Buffalo on the Canadian Shore and stand some 20 or 30 rods __?__ the lake which I think __?__ __?__ on the 1st of August this __?__ surrendered to our men on the 3rd of the preceding month, and contained in its enclosure about 1/4 of an acre of ground prepared for a short __?__ with a large stone building two stories high.

Our Army being now considerably reduces and our men somewhat worn down by fatique in consequence of the recent engagement thet had passed through. It was deemed a matter of prudence to leave ourselves effectually by additional fortifications against any sudden attack that might be made on us by the enemy, we accordingly in __?__ ourselves by throwing up a strong breastwork commencing at the fort and moving westward to a considerable distance and terminating at a small inn directly on the margin of the lake and which by the Canadians was called Snake Hill on which we placed a number of __?__.

Townsend Battery after the name of its commander from the fort southward to the lake and threw up another breastwork of equal strength with the former, both of which together with the original fort we fortified with heavy pieces of cannon around the whole of our breastwork on the outside all dug wide and deep ditch and yet again on the outside of that we placed two rows of pickets or combs of trees sharpened at the top ends and laid closely together which would greatly stand the __?__ of the enemy, should there be an attack made upon us. We now viewed ourselves tolerably well secured against any onset that might occur, being well fortified on the east,north and west and having the lake on the south. We had nothing to fear from the quarter as the victorious Lexy? had swept the enemy from its surface the _?__ year.

Having accomplished this ardous labour we continued to make such additional repairs and preparations in the recent Battles of Chippewa and Bridgewater by an additional supply of troops. Troops came on after us and threw up batteries on the bank of the river about a half mile below an encampment. It had now got to be about the 12th day of the month when on __?__ came from the commander of the British army which left it discretionary with our commanding officers to surrender as prisioners of war to his Majesty's forces or run the risk of being taken by storm an given up to the savage fury of their Indian allies without any protection.

Our commander an chief who was General Brown thinking it was proper not to notice of this __?__ immediately returned the messenger without an answer upon this they commenced a heavy cannonading which continued about a day and a half without any _?_ while our men in return gave them as good as thay sent. This cannonading commenced on the 13th day in the morning and continued till noon the next day, which it came to be a temporary __?__ this circumstance produced so small a degree of surprise on _?_ in our minds as we expected nothing but a continuance of their shots and shells till we were completely _?_ to surrender or they had fairly proved that their efforts were unavailing.

We concluded _?_ that in conformity to the message thay had previously sent that their suspension of hostilities for the present were only in order to their consenting and maturing plans of _?_ by which they might more effectively accomplish their grand object as we were fully informed by those afterwards fell into our hands as prisioners and also by a number of deserters. We however on our fort were not idle. Everything was put into the best possible preparations and all stood ready and waiting. Everything now remained still and tanquil till about 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning of the 15th when our camp was alarmed by the firing of musketry by our picket guard #4 which was stationed west of our encampment on the lake shore _?_

It was discovered that a large body of the enemy were advancing and _?_ to get within the encampment by wading through the water around the end of the breastwork which might easily be done as the water is shallow and the bottom is a flat rock which extends to a considerable distance into the lake, their widest design in this undertaking was to throw us in confusion and thereby give easy _?_ to those that might come upon us from other quarters but in this they were badly disappointed for no sooner did they come within the reach of our guns and canisters, when such a destruction fire was opened upon them from Townsends Battery that many poor fellows found a watery grave while the rest retreated with great precipitation.

Agreeable with their plan of attack another strong body came upon the northwestern part of our encampmentand endeavoured to try to gain the inside by leaping the breastwork, but immediately coming in contact with the rows of pickets we had placed and the deep ditch _?_ their _?_ was greatly _?_ while the bellowing thunders of the Townsend bottom moaned down upon them in such a _?_ way, together with the fine of our infantry, as laid them in heaps and _?_the ditch with the mangled bodies of the dead and wounded, by this time another party made an attack upon the east end of our encampment and by means of scaling ladders had gained as entrance into the old fort. There was now work enough to be done the _?_ which the enemy had met with had greatly increased their courage.

The contest was blood and _?_ in the extreme. So that one detachment after another was taken from the left of our regiment to _?_ the _?_ occassioned by our wounded, as the area of the fort was so small but few of our men could be brought into action at once. It was in this contest that poor Abel Sanderson fell victim to fate of was in the act of stepping from the door step of the stone building which stood in the fort, he was shot through the heart by a British soldier and fell dead. I would here stop and notice a circumstance relative to my own preservation which everytime it occurs to my memory raises in my mind a glow of admination at the interposition of that overrulin providence after time, though apparently in a very simple manner turns aside the arrows of death from those earthly existence.

It designs to prolong and which I feel lays me under a debt of gratitude to my _?_ of other officers, which our _?_ only _?_ killed and 50 or 60 wounded. I might then mention in which we found many of those who suffered by the explosion but the relation would be to heart sickening, therefore I forebear. I will now notice the manner in which the enterprise was undertaken and the reward that every brave fellow should receive, who would voluntarily engage in it accordingly to the information we received from those who were taken prisioners and also deserters.

The Commander in Chief of the British Forces made the proposition that every man who would freely offer his services to go and _?_, the strong hold of the yankey's. I should receive as a compensation of his valor, on pint of good Old Jamaican Rum, accordingly 1500 brave men presented themselves, who declared that in honour to their King and in view of the reward to be conferred, they were ready to engage in the undertaking, however hazardous, but the wisdom with which their plan of operations has been concerted and unguarded condition in which they expected to find us at the finest point of attack, left no doubts in their minds that the expedition they were about to engage in could _?_ fail ti success but _?_ for them _?_ and had

Disappointment must have filled the mind of their companions they had left in the camp. When only about 300 men returned to tell the sad tale, that so many of there comrades were left behind and deprived of the privelege of setting down around the flowing _?_ to congradulate each other on the successful issue of their undertaken and to the drinking to the health of their king and country.

I now pass to the 17th day of the month. A day which to me, in which my soul was translated out of the Kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of God's dear son. Is the most memorable period of my life, our cousins Ralph Bingham and Simeom Laitham of Springfield received their death wounds. The British now continued firing and we found it necessary in order to prevent their shots from making our line to throw up some additional works of defense, in doing this, we were under the necessity of going outside the breastwork to get materials and in which _?_ our cousin Bingham and Laitham was employed, while they stood facing each other, from a enemy a cannon shot took off the right leeg of one and the left leg of the other, they both fell together amputation was attended as soon as possible but poor fellows they survived for a short time.

The 17th day now arrived , nothing extraordinary occurred only now and then 18 and 24 lb shot would plow through our encampment and would find a lodging place in the bottom of the lake a chain shot would pop over our heads making a strange kind of dismal music by its revolution. I now come to mention the circumstances of my own catastrophe. For the greater security of our own tents and baggage against the effects of the British balls.

I now come to mention the circumstances if my own catastrophe . For the greater security of our own tents and baggage against the effects of the British balls, we had placed all our movables near the breastwork while in the rear of our tents and in the open range of our enemy's guns our men were under the necessity of lighting up their fires to perform the labour of cooking (cook- Washington C). It had now got to be in the dusk of the evening and it so happened that I was standing at one of the fires which formed a very desirable object for the enemy to aim at, they reasonable supposed that our men would be round the fire in considerable number, a soldier on the opposite side of the fire took up a kettle in which he had been preparing food for his supper, at the same time I lifted one from the side on which I stood in order to set it in the place from where he took his, when just at that moment while my arms were expended in the act of letting down the kettle the enemy let go a 20lb shot which came over the breastwork, struck the ground and as it glanced, struck my right arm in the elbow joint and the left arm just above, for a few seconds I did not know what had taken place, as the wind produced by the ball,blew the ashes into my hair and eyes which prevented me from seeing, and as I experienced not the least pain by the infliction of the wounds. But when I came to see what was done, what my feelings were I leave you to imagine if possible by me they must forever remain under_?_.

O'God I said are both my arms gone. I stopt I could say no more, A thousand thoughts

Americans never like to be reminded of this one. I believe you'll find that the 'War Hawks' of 1810 in Congress urged an expansionist US government, always coveting Canada, to declare war on England. Ten US armies invaded. Ten US armies got an ass-whooping. Washington burned. Haven't tried it again have you?

If we wanted to be a part of an expansionist, neo-Imperialist country run by southern lawyers in love with slavery, we would have mentioned it. We didn't. You tried force. You lost. Let that be a lesson to you.

Read this and I'll begin:

For the Americans, the greatest irritant was Britain's practice of impressment, or the seizure of American seamen for service in the British navy. The British government claimed that it only seized subjects of the Crown who sailed under the American flag to avoid wartime service in their own navy. In fact, the British seized not only their own deserters, but also impressed a sizeable number of United States citizens-estimates suggest 6000 or more.
Public outrage over the issue of impressment grew increasingly vocal after an incident between the American naval frigate Chesapeake and a British vessel, the Leopard. In June 1807 the Leopard approached the Chesapeake only a few miles off the American coast and demanded to search the ship for British deserters. The Chesapeake's commander, James Barron, refused, and the Leopard opened fire. A number of American sailors were killed or wounded during the attack, and the Chesapeake surrendered. The British then sent a party aboard and dragged four crewmen from the vessel. After the incident, Jefferson ordered British warships to leave American waters and demanded an end to the practice of impressment. The British did make some apologies and restitution for the Chesapeake-Leopard incident, but continued to claim the right to seize American ships and inspect them for deserters.

"War of 1812," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

I don't know about you but if someone was grabbing almost 6000 citizens, the size of many towns of the time don't you'd want to go to war?

So we declaired war first, big whoop! War Hawks were right, Britian was sore about losing the Revolution, and this was there chance to regain the colonies. Piriting the seas is reason for war, especially when they claimed the right to seize American ships and saliors.

So who should be blamed for starting the war, the US or Britian?

I feel sorry that the only reply you come up with was to call med dum.... :rolleyes:

And what do you mean with "real pictures"?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bebelina
I feel sorry that the only reply you come up with was to call med dum.... :rolleyes:

I hope that you don't take all this seriously? You know that because the Internet provides a certain amount of anomynity, (a lot if you fake everything!), some people will be a little more outrageous than normal. Also, if you are not aware most people use "nomes de plume or cybernames", not their real names, so that you can put on a new persona, a facade, a mask. This forum has many types of people, remember that the Internet is supposed to be a forum of ideas, etc.., people in the US have our own ideas on how to converse on the Internet, that may not feel right to a Swede or others. Share your thoughts & ideas, don't let people SHOUT to you, you control your responses or whether you even need to.:D

Originally posted by Captain Canada
Americans never like to be reminded of this one. I believe you'll find that the 'War Hawks' of 1810 in Congress urged an expansionist US government, always coveting Canada, to declare war on England. Ten US armies invaded. Ten US armies got an ass-whooping. Washington burned. Haven't tried it again have you?

I guess, if you read Captain Canada's & thecurly1's posts, you'll see that depending on what side of the coin you're looking at, you see something entirely different!;)


If we wanted to be a part of an expansionist, neo-Imperialist country run by southern lawyers in love with slavery, we would have mentioned it. We didn't. You tried force. You lost. Let that be a lesson to you.

Under similar circumstances, Mexico lost. :(

Mexicans weren't as lucky. Nor the Cubans. Nor, of course, the native Americans and Canadians.

That we can still get a debate going over the war of 1812 is quite rediculous. Can't the US allow us our little bit of pride that in the one war we fought with them we won (well, the British really)?

I know how much defeat irks the US, but really, you should be getting used to it by now. And the moral question - Britain is a major culprit, but then the US has more recent, and ongoing, examples.

I can hear the response already. USA, USA, USA!

Do you have any idea how idiotic that chant appears in the 'outside world'?

Britian or the US never won the War of 1812, no one the war. May I once again site Encarta:


The principal gain for the United States was a renewed self-confidence and faith in the ability of its military to defend the nation's freedom and honor. Although neither side came away from the war with a clear-cut victory, the American people saw the War of 1812 as evidence of the success of the democratic experiment. The war ushered in a period of American history that has frequently been called "the era of good feeling," a time when, at least on the surface, most Americans felt unified behind a common purpose. The War of 1812 convinced the country that it could now fend off any foreign threats and that its focus should be on expansion at home.

"War of 1812," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

We've defeated Britian in every war and tied you guys in the War of 1812.

P.S. Looks like we may have to go back to Iraq, there's a link in World Affairs & Politics.

OK, I think we could agree that Canada won the battle. Remembing that wars are made up of battles.

I had never heard of the war of 1812 until I had just read it. Is this taught in US schools. I know that Japan doesn't teach their school children about Japans role in WWII. The government even checks each text book before allowing that text book be taught at schools.

I was taught about the War of 1812, in eighth grade American History. Though it wasn't a lengthy chapter, there was no victor it just explained what happened, and a little about the Battle of New Orleanes.

No one won the war, Britian, US, or Canada. Nobody lost or gained anything from it, other than lives.

Are you sure that Japan doesn't teach it's children about WWII? I think they'd have to, it's such a big part of history, their's and the world's.

Are you sure that Japan doesn't teach it's children about WWII? I think they'd have to, it's such a big part of history, their's and the world's.

Yep, one of my old teachers is married to a japanese women and he told us that. Also, did you know that if you are half Japanese you can't attend their public schools. A friend of out familys' son's children had to come back to Australia so as their children could receive an education. And they have the decency to make out that we are racist. You will always find that the UN is more stricter with the US, Australia and the UK in regard to human rights. But will let others off the hook.

I hope you are missinformed but you probably aren't.

Thats not good for the Japaneese or anyone else.

Jez,

I’ve thought of this many times over the years but have never voiced my opinions.

My reasoning relies on being able to offer such a valuable service that no one would take the risk of destroying it.

For example: If the USA completely switched all its considerable funding to medical research and offered the rest of the world the most advanced medical services and cures ever imagined, would anyone risk destroying or being barred from receiving such a service?

Cris

This is a utopian dream.

Do you think the people of the United States, when sitting at home really care about people in other countries? Most of them don't. If there was a magic pill that made everyone super healthy and could be produced for a reasonable cost then the drug companies would control it, not the government.

What would the reaction be to give this to the people of Iraq, Lybia, or even the Chinese. Who are practically enemies of the US. That would only further the political power of the parties in place, because there would be no reason to lash out against human conditions in these countries.

Humans are greedy, they will kill, rape, and pillage if it means gathering more citizens, wealth, and land.

The reason we never had a MAJOR war after 1945 is because nuclear weapons made sure that no first world country would fight against another because each would be annihalated.

Nuclear bombs and a military make for peace believe it or not.

Pity,

One day I hope mankind will rise above the petty squables that currently infect the world.

Think of the billions that are spent on armament and how much good could be done with the money and the lack of distraction.

Sigh! I offer no apologies for dreaming in that direction.

Cris

Why should you? Nice dream!

To put it simply in the US a few billion dollars is a drop in the pot compared to what the entire country spends on programs.

Yes you are right curly, americans are incredibly inneficient nd wasteful.

That too may one day change. Necessity is the mother of invention. While as of yet Americans do not see the need of conservation there are signs that it's head is beginning to pick up and look around.

A long way to go yet though.

Every journey starts with a single step.

This country accels at burning away money on stupid shit, and we're still richer than everyone else.

Didn't it seem a bit odd when they were talking about a one TRILLION dollar tax cut.

I mean a billion dollars is a lot to me, and a TRILLION is mind boggiling. Its hilarious when we can give more money back to our people, than the GDP of most of the world's countries.

THINK ABOUT IT.

Originally posted by wet1
Every journey starts with a single step.
My favorite Chinese quote; "A journey of a thousand miles, begins with one step"

Unfortunately, this step needs about a billion people to start thinking that way. You would think that after thousands of years and millions of lives lost, people would say,"ENOUGH!!!"
I think that people are smart enough to figure out that wars don't solve anything, that they just create new sets of victims with a past history and vengeance on their minds!!!
That's why, at least for the foreseeable future, we need a strong & technologically modern military.

I agree with Wet1 - to have peace you must be prepared for war. Without an incumbent military force - anarchy reigns. Take my own country for example - England. A Part of the United Kingdom which is in turn, part of the British Isles. What do you think would have happened to us if we did not have a military force to counter terrorism? Don't give me that political arguement spread about the USA about us "occupying" Ulster either. Ulster is as much a part of the United Kingdom as England - and they voted by over 90% in 1972 to remain that way. The Loyalist element of Northern Ireland were causing trouble with the Nationalist element so the British Army went in to protect the Nationalists (yes really!!!) Then the Nationalist's (PIRA which was almost extinct) took it as an excuse to turn on the soldiers. Little boys with big guns is how I describe the gunmen. Make Peace not War - But be ready for war! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The Roman who said if you want to make peace be ready for war would have definetly known what he was talking about.

Even in the mordern day we have this with Nuclear missiles. If you want peace we won't use our missiles. But if you do something to us, we are more than ready.

Red Devil, what is Ulster?

Originally posted by Deadwood
I know that Japan doesn't teach their school children about Japans role in WWII. The government even checks each text book before allowing that text book be taught at schools.

By the time all the people responsible for all the war crimes are dead, modern Japan will only think of itself as a victim. Yes, the atomic bomb should not have been dropped on populated cities, maybe warn people to evacuate because of a planned firestorm bombing?
But the Japanese did unspeakable things to war prisoners, enemy civilians like the Filipinos, Chinese and Koreans. What the Nazis did, the Japanese duplicated. I think they are raising a generation of deniers, they have no memory, so they have deniability.
Even 'X-files' did an episode on Japanese doctors that escaped the war trials.

Yes, the atomic bomb should not have been dropped on populated cities, maybe warn people to evacuate because of a planned firestorm bombing?

I think that people could easily say this in hind sight, however, I'm not sure if you were alive back then(I wasn't) but I think that if they didn't put it over a populated city people would have thought them stupid.

Basically because the situation was very desperate. Time is the live of allied soldiers and civilians.

You want to have the greatest effect on the Japanese government. To end the war and save the lives and suffering of your own side. What the Japanese did to allied soldiers and civilians and what they were going to do you wouldn't really think twice about killing people with no heart and no remorse as they obviously show many of their school children even today.

They might say sorry, but those who don't learn about the past are damned to repeat so the saying goes.

I think you are right in saying they will think themselves a victim. I couldn't believe in grade seven in primary school when we were learning about WWII, it was all about feeling sorry for the poor Japanese. I couldn't believe it, I felt like saying that if we didn't do what was neccessary we wouldn't be here today. Our grade made 1000 cranes(origami) and put it up on remembarence day) Rememberance day is a day to remember all Australian soldiers who fought died, suffered in our history. I couldn't stand seeing us forget our Australian soldiers and concentrate on the poor Japanese. But I didn't contribrute any Cranes to the thousand, I did make one but skrunched it up and threw it away in front of everyone for which I am happy.

Two great uncles of mine were killed in a prison camp in which only 2-6 Australian survived because they were lucky to run away without getting caught. My Grandfather on my mums side became an alcoholic and made family life devastating of which she won't even talk about.

In conclusion, the atom bomb saved more lives then what it killed.

Somewhere I read that it was estimated that there would have been over 2 million casualties if we had invaded Japan. It was a tough nut to crack no matter how we looked at it. With long supply lines stretched thin to try and keep the war machine in beans, bullets, and troops. It was also complicated by Japan recognising this and taking the islands in between us that could have been used as supply depots. This was part of the reason behind the attack on Pearl Harbor. If they could have softened Hawaii enough to take it then we would not have had any way to get to Japan to threaten it. As it was they did significant damage to the Naval arm of the US. Even more worrisome was that Japan looked upon its emperor as a god. It was honorable to fight to the death with no question of surrender to defend him. As such it makes for a religous war. No one fights harder than he who fights to defend home and belief. While dropping the bombs was a decision that was agonized over before commiting to the deed it was indeed a life saver. It was thought that we needed to show Japan in such a ultimate way that there could be no chance to win. When it was shown that we could literally take out a city with one hit then another one to follow only then did the emperor consider what was in the best interests of his country.

Litterally ten minutes ago I was reading a book called Downfall about this subject. Strange.

If anyone want's to say otherwise, I'm ready to back my oppinion.

Let's just say Japan would have ended up like Germany after the war, Northern Japan would have been Communist and Southern Japan democratic.

Not pretty.

Japan was ready to surrender. Conditionally. The country was determined to hang on to its Emperor, but the US demanded unconditional surrender. Eventually, after Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan surrendered, keeping its Emperor.

Truman was determined to use the bomb as a display of US power. It was not necessary to win the war, or keep Japan free from division. But then a lot of the killing that goes on in war is unnecessary, and more people died in one conventional bombing raid of Tokyo than the atomic attacks. Perhaps the use of the bomb helped in one sense - it fully demonstarted the horror (and at the time unknown side-effects of radiation poisoning) of the weapon perhaps saving the world from a worse fate in the 1950s or 60s.

Bullshit.

The Japanseese plan, "Ketso-Go" was preparing the southern island for attack. A million Japs, suicide planes, manned torpedios, and even women and children were being trained to kill AMERICANS.

The casulties would have been nearly a million, and the war wouldn't have ended until the end of '46, with the Russians.

If we didn't invade, the island would have starved itself because of a blockade/bombardment policy which was popular with Nimitz, and Marshall. The others though the invasion, Operation OLYMPIC, and followed by CORONET on the Tokyo Plane a month later.

All of these facts can be found inside the book "Downfall", by Richard B. Frank.

We saved American and Japaneese lives by dropping the bombs.

You back the classic view, I back the revisionists.

I don't think it was necessary to drop the bomb to force a surrender. The US could have told Japan of the weapon, demonstrated it on a non-populated target, mentioned the fact that Rusia was about to join the war and told them that the US was prepared to let Japan keep its Emperor.

I doubt Truman quite knew the significance of what he was doing. To him it was just another weapon. I don't think he was necessarily right or wrong to use the A bomb, just that it was unnecessary, as the US strategic bombing survey report in 1946 later concluded.

Bad idea, we had two bombs. Most of the top brass were scared that the TWO BOMBS wouldn't be enough to make them surrendure and we'd have to invade anyway. Alright we test a bomb over Japan, or an island in the Pacific.

First, how do we know that the Jap's wouldn't think of this as some cleaver American trick. Remember no one had known what an A-bomb would look like or how much it could destroy. The Japanesse were really victory crazed.

Second, the bomb is demostrated and know we have just one A-bomb. With only one bomb, what city do we drop it on to make an impression? Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, or Kobe would have been too small to make the Jap's surrendure. That leaves one city: Tokyo. Bad idea, because if we nuke Tokyo, the Japs will go communist during the joint occupation.

Third, the bombs had never been used. (They would have never been held back, unless the Japaneese had ALREADY surrendured. Remember we were still at war until the peace treaty was signed abord the Missouri.) We invade, and get a lot of casulties, approximatley a quarter million wounded, and three-quarters of a million dead. That's on Kyshu alone. Image invading Honshu. The Japaneese, a conservative estimate at best, puts their casulties in excess of three million.

Let's remember with such a deadlock, don't you think they or even we'd start using poision gas to break the stalemate? More dead bodies. One or two more years of war. And then the Russians come from the North. The Japan archipelago is split into an American Zone, and a Soviet Zone. We have forty plus years of division, and reunification just twelve years ago.

All of those problems, just because we didn't drop two bombs.

Well...

Eisenhower

'The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing ... I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon,..'

Admiral Leahy

'It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan ... The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender..'

General MacArthur

'My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender'

General Curtis LeMay

The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war


History isn't about right and wrong, true and false. It's about opinions, perspective and, to some extent, reasoned analysis of the data. But data is never reliable, thoughts can never be told, and perspective warps truth - if such a thing is possible in the field of history.

You've read a book on Japan and the end of the war and agree with its cpnclusions. But there's always more to read. You've formed an opinion based on some knowledge, but don't assume it's the only answer. I'm not suggesting you change you're position, but remember that for every historical book, there's a counter. Truman's diaries, declassified state department documents and subsequent accounts from those involved offer contrasting evidence. The point is, there can never be a true account - history is about the accumulation of people's actions and intentions, and people may follow the same policy for different reasons. The 'why' is never answerable except when applied to an individual, and no matter how much data we assemble, we can never know this.

OK guys, now we find out if the US means business?!? It's too bad that for some people the only answer is violence!?! As a superpower, we may start doing stuff just like the Israelis, undercover guards on all flights. Maybe start with no carry-on luggage, etc. I heard that the weapons used were easily passed. I have a conspiracy-buff friend that is sure that the US has a DNA sniffing satellite( he says some guy he knows was killed after they developed the technology, I find it hard to believe, no evidence of its use earlier against Osama bin Laden), well if its true now is the time to use it!?! Let's see what happens now?!? :confused:

The tragedy in New York and elsewhere yesterday has answered the original question quite adequately I think. Now America and her allies - go get the bastards..............

Originally posted by HOWARDSTERN

<b>And the 2nd answer is</b>: Name a war, my Swedish friend, that The USA has STARTED!!!!!!!?????


<b>And the 4th answer is:</b> Don't be so sure! After all if Sweden doesn't have the decency to defend others who are attacked, what makes the cowards in Sweden so sure that the USA is going to sent American sons (Marine soldiers) to die for a country that hasn't got the decency to involve itself in the defense of freedom-- the world over!!!????


The assumption is liberal to the extreme. The parents of the soldiers, of the United States military, would most certainly not wish to see the sons die for a country that hides away ever-time that a world conflict comes along. You are assuming that the USA is the policemEn OF the WORLD ! ! ! !


First I must restate that I love my country (USA), but I don't love it's leaders. And yes, I vote, but so far it's always been based on voting for the "lesser evil". I have yet to vote for a choice I actually like.

Now, as for the US starting wars. Yes. Not in the way nazi germany started WWII. In fact, I don't even think it's been wars that we were involved in (with the exceptions of the crap we pulled to put the borders where they are now), but we like to keep weak countries in turmoil by financing, supplying and training their rebelious citizens. So if we specifically make it possible, in my opinion we started it.

And this stuff about getting involved in world conflicts in the name of decency is rediculous. It's in the name of money. Since when has the US shown it holds decency above the sacred "green back". Of course the US would help defend Sweden, we have very strong financial ties to them. Hell, Desert storm was a perfect example, fighting for freedom my ass, fighting for oil. I won't even go into the lies we told the Iraqi people to get there help only to leave in the same mess they were in already.

Our government is not the "knight in shining armor" you seem to think it is.

Originally posted by HOWARDSTERN
That we (you all & I), can discuss freely anything, is not a result of a countries decision to hide away while wars were fought by other countries previously.

Maybe the USA is being the POLICEMAN -of -the-world today! Did any of you people in the other countries ever consider that we didn't want the job?????]]



The secret to greatness is freedom. Open the doors wide & be great!

Well we WERE widely criticized in the beginning of WWII for not getting involved.

And while we may not have wanted to be world's police at first, I believe that desire has changed.

Don't let your patriotrism get in the way of reason. We have a lot of the freedoms we have because our founding fathers realized that some day the patriotic thing to do would be to wage revolutionary war. I love this country for it's ideals, but we as a people rarely hold true to those ideals, and our government does so a lot less often.

I don't condone the attack on NYC, but I think it would be wise for us to consider what exactly it is our government is doing that causes people in other countries to hate us so much.

And the 2nd answer is: Name a war, my Swedish friend, that The USA has STARTED!!!!!!!?????

The American War of Independence?

Originally posted by Captain Canada
Americans never like to be reminded of this one. I believe you'll find that the 'War Hawks' of 1810 in Congress urged an expansionist US government, always coveting Canada, to declare war on England. Ten US armies invaded. Ten US armies got an ass-whooping. Washington burned. Haven't tried it again have you?

If we wanted to be a part of an expansionist, neo-Imperialist country run by southern lawyers in love with slavery, we would have mentioned it. We didn't. You tried force. You lost. Let that be a lesson to you.


I'm sure it WAS a lesson at the time, Captain Canada, but You're naive if you think in this day and age the US couldn't roll right over Canada if we so chose. Maybe not if Canada could get enough allies involved in time, which may or may not be possible.

I personally like Canada and can't forsee us coming to blows in the near future, but come on.

The thing that scares me the most about this is that the US really could give the entire world a whole lot of problems. This has the potential to make the entire world suffer greatly.

We can have our little patriotic arguments about who can kick who's ass all day, but all we'll end up accomplishing is sounding like a couple of kids in a school yard. I'm sorry I even commented.

Originally posted by Randolfo


By the time all the people responsible for all the war crimes are dead, modern Japan will only think of itself as a victim. Yes, the atomic bomb should not have been dropped on populated cities, maybe warn people to evacuate because of a planned firestorm bombing?
But the Japanese did unspeakable things to war prisoners, enemy civilians like the Filipinos, Chinese and Koreans. What the Nazis did, the Japanese duplicated. I think they are raising a generation of deniers, they have no memory, so they have deniability.
Even 'X-files' did an episode on Japanese doctors that escaped the war trials.

We did tell the Japanese government about the bombs and how devastating they would be.

In fact, the people who built it were against using it once they did a test explosion. It was much bigger than they expected it to be. Unfortunately, the political machine felt they HAD to drop it because they had spent so much money developing it.

Let's just hope that that's the last time anyone will be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons. If we can have that, then I'm just fine with any number of generations of deniers in any country.

Originally posted by Red Devil
And the 2nd answer is: Name a war, my Swedish friend, that The USA has STARTED!!!!!!!?????

The American War of Independence?


I'm not sure I understand why this is for me.

Also, I'm American. Not that I'd have a problem with being swedish if I was, but I'm not.

I was replying to a sentence contained within one of your mails!! Admittedly a bit tongue in cheek!! By the Way, all of us on this side of the Atlantic are with you...................

Originally posted by Red Devil
I was replying to a sentence contained within one of your mails!! Admittedly a bit tongue in cheek!! By the Way, all of us on this side of the Atlantic are with you...................

I didn't even notice that that was a direct quote that I had ALSO quoted. Yeah, I'm real f**kin' sharp today.

USA all the way!

Nicely put Charon, wherever you are. However, I do not think we are "fighting" each other; more in the way of a slightly heated discussion. The American nation know just how close Britain is to them, in particular in times of adversity. Canada is just as close and always will be so; possibly a few French Canadians may argue that point but nevertheless, the three of us are very close and hopefully always will remain so. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Charon
I think its not too good for Canada, americans and british people here to be fighting aginst each other.
You're right, because in the end, those that hate the US, hate our allies too! We're all next on the target list.


They have been good friends for a long time and i think if anyone wnts to hate, then the terrorists should be ones that we would hate the most, not each other.
Ditto!!!


I think america is the only reason why we are able to talk about this things on the net right now. Because america has ity's constitution that says we can have freedom of speech! and they fight for it always.
There's a tradition here, where anyone can say just about anything. Only rules are safety, slander, libel (in writing) & some national security issues(but why can we get the plans for building atomic weapons, but can't find out who killed JFK, if UFO's are real, etc...?).


all the countries have histories that there not proud of. america had its dark shamed times to in the past.
No one has clean hands.


But AMERICA is always a betiful light for freedom and I wish i lived there and i would like to join the army and fight against the terrorists. If world war 3 is to happen, i will fight with the america.
Thanks, but I think that war will come to all of us; either by design, mistake or air currents.


My pain is for the poor people in newyork.
Us too in California!!! They're doing blood drives, donations, marches, candlelight, memorials, prayer services & there are flags everywhere here in Fresno


plese dont fight each other unles its to hate the terrorist killer in newyork.
Yes, it's time to think, time to.....????

Nicely put, Charon.

I get so fired up about not liking my government I sometimes forget that we Americans really do love freedom. I like that I can speak out against my government of I so chose, even if I do have to be careful about what I say, where I say it and who I say it to.

I don't think we should hate the terrorists, though. Hate only breeds more hate. It would be nice if we could be the ones that break the cycle. It would surprise me, but there's always hope. At least until there's no more hope ~:^).