What do you hate most about your own country?

Post Reply New Topic

Sounds almost autistic - fight or flight being your default, familiar options.

Don't forget the option to die

OK, which two countries are you talking about? I've seen your posts on WP for years, and I don't recall your having ever mentioned either.

Yes, heroically so

If you're really curious send me a PM - it's not a secret, some people here know my history, but I don't like posting in the public forum for privacy reasons.

Saddam was removed on a pack of lies because neocons wanted him gone. He was zero threat to the US. It's not about guessing, you don't just drop nukes on cities on a hunch.

Why is it so difficult for people to admit their government sucked and dropping nukes was wrong. Japan's government sucked but innocent people did not deserve what happened.

The country I was born in, conformity


The country I live in, precious lil "people" talk too much

Well I might. I happen to be timid about such things. From your description of your home country, I would have to say it's either France or Sweden, though.

So what aim of the Neocons was satisfied by Saddam's removal? The (probably predictable) result was a regional power shift in favor of Iran. Is that what they wanted? Why?

GAWD!! !!

I hate it when folks cant argue their own point (even when I don't have a dog in the fight).

BAD ANALOGY.

Both were examples of "regime change" though they didn't call it that in Truman's time, but that's the only similarity.

Both for us today, and for Truman ( and for us to figure out who he himself was thinking about at the time) why make the dumb inaccurate equation of Hirohito to Saddam Hussien? Why not make the more obvious and more accurate analogy to the right person?

Truman, like most folks in the allied nations, assumed that the Emperor of Japan was equivalent to (guess who?). To Adolf Hitler. The guy we were fighting at the same time we were fighting Hirohito.

With all three axis powers nothing less was acceptable to the allies then unconditional surrender and (what we now, in the post W Bush era all call)"regime change". Get rid of Hilter, of Mussolini, and of whoever runs Japan. So Truman equated the Emperor with Hitler and Mussolini. To his credit MacArthur correctly read Japanese culture and knew the emperor was an unchanging sacred cultural institution for the Japanese people seperate from the rest of the state and its ever changing politicians. . So with MacArthur's influence we switched from Truman's assumptions to doing the whole "let them keep their emperor" thing, but "demote their emperor to being a symbolic figurehead, on the model of the King of England" thing . Which turned out to be the right move.



Don't compare Hirohito to Saddam Hussein. it doesn't help your argument. Saddam Hussien was no Thomas Jefferson, but the war we waged to topple him is way too controversial and unpopular today (even among GOP voters) to use as a positive example of anything. Saddam Hussien was not the head of a major power that threatened the world in a war of aggression the way Hitler and the ruling regime of Japan were. We didn't invade Iraq to save our own county the way we needed to fight the Axis. Though Bush tried to SELL us on the notion that it WAS something like that.

Everything is always a lie, isn't it?

I don't care if you believe my argument. What's done is done. Going for the leader in wars is not without precedent, in fact it's pretty common.

^yes, it's called a decapitation strike which is a term i'm very fond of...

it is often missed, that there was a contingent of japanese ultra-militarists in the final days of WWII who planned to place the emperor under house arrest - overthrow him, in effect - destroy the "jewel voice" broadcast recording, the royal communiqué to the japanese populace of the imperial house's intent to surrender (and in fact probably the first time many japanese citizens even heard their sovereign's voice) and continue the japanese war effort even after both atomic bombings.

an effort led by kenji hatanaka who ended up having to kill himself cause he couldn't convince enough officers in the army

just putting that out there. it's not that there was a consensus among the japanese of whether to surrender or not before or after the bombings, if he had his way the allies most likely would have had no choice but to execute "downfall" - whose casualties would have dwarfed those of the bombings

...or nuke a third time?

Years ago, I saw a very good documentary on just that incident on the History Channel... back when the History Channel had real history instead of swamp hillbillies, Ice Road Truckers, and ancient aliens.

High costs of living and housing in large parts of the country--and nothing being done about it.