why do us citizens hate fidel castro, he was a man who fought against a fascist government, significantly raised the living standards of cuba, and made one of the only ecologically sustainable developed countries on the planet.
For every list of positives for ANYBODY there is a list of negatives. Sounds like you haven't looked at those.
I say this as a semi-Fidel fan... the man had some terrible crimes against humanity committed in his name. Was he better than the U.S. backed dictator Batista? Absolutely... and a large part of the suffering of the Cuban people came from America's embargo rather than Castro's policy. But that doesn't absolve him of his crimes.
The US government has been in bed with the Mafia since WW II. Havana gambling was under Mob control before Castro. Castro shut down gambling and organized crime. Of course, this wasn't free. This is why America hated Castro ... because this happened before there was Atlantic City or Indian Casinos ... just Las Vegas existed (and some horse race betting).
Quote from: Shiranu on December 28, 2016, 06:52:22 AM
I say this as a semi-Fidel fan... the man had some terrible crimes against humanity committed in his name. Was he better than the U.S. backed dictator Batista? Absolutely... and a large part of the suffering of the Cuban people came from America's embargo rather than Castro's policy. But that doesn't absolve him of his crimes.
Clarify for me as to why not trading with a country causes that country suffering?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 28, 2016, 07:29:12 AM
Clarify for me as to why not trading with a country causes that country suffering?
https://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maurice-jourdane/effect-of-cuban-embargo_b_7201274.html
It drove the price of necessities up... cut off a huge source of Cuba's foreign aide off... completely ended trade relations with it's biggest trade partner. It would be like China just said one day "We no longer like you so all our trade is now cut off.". The economic effect on the U.S. would be disastrous.
Crashing a countries' economy is a surefire way to cause the suffering of a group of people.
I guess we should have traded with a country that was inimical to our body politic? Japan in 1941, perhaps, or Nazi Germany?
In Mexico, I met a guy from Cuba. He never said specifically whether Castro was good or bad, but all of his stories about the things Castro did were about how he helped "the people." I'll guess he was pro-Castro. Some people liked Castro. In the US we get the impression that everyone hated him. I don't think that's true for all Cubans.
Quote from: SGOS on December 28, 2016, 08:52:04 AM
In Mexico, I met a guy from Cuba. He never said specifically whether Castro was good or bad, but all of his stories about the things Castro did were about how he helped "the people." I'll guess he was pro-Castro. Some people liked Castro. In the US we get the impression that everyone hated him. I don't think that's true for all Cubans.
I don't think he was universally hated or loved, of course. People referred to Joseph Dzugashvili as "The Great Stalin" and appealed to him to "correct the mistake" that sent their family members to the gulags, when he himself signed the orders. Controlling the media had a lot to do with that.
Let's just say that I consider it important for a "President" to have to run for re-election.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 28, 2016, 09:35:19 AM
Let's just say that I consider it important for a "President" to have to run for re-election.
I wasn't really referring to this aspect of cuba
also the united states has no place to argue democracy, we live under a corporate oligarchy that has backed fascist governments.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 28, 2016, 06:49:36 AM
For every list of positives for ANYBODY there is a list of negatives. Sounds like you haven't looked at those.
far more positives then the us and far less negatives
Quote from: Jannabear on December 28, 2016, 09:41:50 AM
far more positives then the us and far less negatives
Your opinion is noted.
Quote from: Jannabear on December 28, 2016, 09:41:28 AM
I wasn't really referring to this aspect of cuba
So...you're asking (in kind of a disingenuous way) what people have against Castro and you don't think it's relevant that he was a dictator for life?
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 28, 2016, 09:45:43 AM
So...you're asking (in kind of a disingenuous way) what people have against Castro and you don't think it's relevant that he was a dictator for life?
corporate oligarchy, dictator trying to fight imperialism
I'm not for a dictatorship of any kind, I'm a libsoc
but come on
there's a clear choice here of which is preferable.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but: You ask why they dislike him. Yet when they give their reason, your counterreasoning seems to be; "you have no valid ground to dislike him because America is worse".
I see a lot of Americans on this site who are capable of questioning the status quo in America and thinking sceptically about their own country. Disliking Castro or another form of government does not mean they accept their own country or government as perfect. It's possible to be dismayed about both. And it's even possible to be dismayed about aspects of both.
The world isn't so black and white. Look close enough and you'll find shit on everything.
And always remember; there's enough hate for everyone to share in this world.
Quote from: Jannabear on December 28, 2016, 09:50:13 AM
corporate oligarchy, dictator trying to fight imperialism
I'm not for a dictatorship of any kind, I'm a libsoc
but come on
there's a clear choice here of which is preferable.
If things were that simplistic we wouldn't even be discussing it.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 28, 2016, 11:21:52 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but: You ask why they dislike him. Yet when they give their reason, your counterreasoning seems to be; "you have no valid ground to dislike him because America is worse".
Pretty much (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes). And obviously, a turd doesn't get any more pleasant after one compares it to another turd.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 28, 2016, 12:05:53 PM
Pretty much (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes). And obviously, a turd doesn't get any more pleasant after one compares it to another turd.
That doesn't make Fidel better by any stretch of the imagination.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 28, 2016, 07:29:12 AM
Clarify for me as to why not trading with a country causes that country suffering?
Name any country that doesn't treat its own people like shit?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 28, 2016, 08:46:15 AM
I guess we should have traded with a country that was inimical to our body politic? Japan in 1941, perhaps, or Nazi Germany?
IBM and GM did ... both before and during WW II ... they were multi-national corporations way back then. IBM provided the tabulating equipment to round up the Jews in Germany. Like Schindler's List, but without any mercy. And the company Brown-Harriman (and Prentice Bush) were in the middle of German business and politics.
Quote from: Baruch on December 28, 2016, 12:34:49 PM
Name any country that doesn't treat its own people like shit?
Lilliput.
Quote from: Baruch on December 28, 2016, 12:38:10 PM
IBM and GM did ... both before and during WW II ... they were multi-national corporations way back then. IBM provided the tabulating equipment to round up the Jews in Germany. Like Schindler's List, but without any mercy. And the company Brown-Harriman (and Prentice Bush) were in the middle of German business and politics.
The US and German companies split up, so the US companies were not doing business with the Nazis.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 28, 2016, 09:00:25 AM
I don't think he was universally hated or loved, of course. People referred to Joseph Dzugashvili as "The Great Stalin" and appealed to him to "correct the mistake" that sent their family members to the gulags, when he himself signed the orders. Controlling the media had a lot to do with that.
The Nazi card is now replaced with the Stalin card (how long until someone compares X to Hitler/Stalin). Everyone is Hitler/Stalin (even if you only got a parking ticket) ... kill you all ;-( George Washington was a traitor, Abraham Lincoln was a war monger (but not a slaver ... wooo was worried for a moment).
Quote from: Jannabear on December 28, 2016, 09:50:13 AM
corporate oligarchy, dictator trying to fight imperialism
I'm not for a dictatorship of any kind, I'm a libsoc
but come on
there's a clear choice here of which is preferable.
All true Americans want a D-R stick up their heinee ...
Quote from: Baruch on December 28, 2016, 12:40:47 PM
The Nazi card is now replaced with the Cheka card. Everyone is Hitler/Stalin (even if you only got a parking ticket) ... kill you all ;-( George Washington was a traitor, Abraham Lincoln was a war monger (but not a slaver ... wooo was worried for a moment).
♫"We represent the Lollipop Guild..."♫
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 28, 2016, 12:39:02 PM
The US and German companies split up, so the US companies were not doing business with the Nazis.
Ah, Christianity then ... the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing ... really, such fantasy.
That is why, Apple can keep billions of profits outside the US ... because it is a US company, only when they feel like it ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on December 28, 2016, 12:43:46 PM
But, you open your coddled egg at the wrong end!
I've always been a Bigendian, unless they're out of power, in which case I'm a Littleendian.
Quote from: Baruch on December 28, 2016, 12:44:35 PM
Ah, Christianity then ... the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing ... really, such fantasy.
That is why, Apple can keep billions of profits outside the US ... because it is a US company, only when they feel like it ;-)
Lovely to be able to believe what you want to believe is believable.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 28, 2016, 12:54:28 PM
I've always been a Bigendian, unless they're out of power, in which case I'm a Littleendian.
Was Hiawatha a big Indian or a little Indian? ;-)
I don't like Castro because he was a dictator for life and wanted to and with full documentation of, the soviets to use the nukes in Cuba when there was a minor threat of invasion, not even counting the blockade. For whatever supposed good he did if you're defending someone that wanted to eradicate your entire nation with nuclear fire and by extension the world since the US would have managed to get a few nukes off, then you really need to get your priorities straight.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 28, 2016, 12:55:05 PM
Lovely to be able to believe what you want to believe is believable.
As any observer of the religious would note, it is easy to convince yourself of something ... but harder to convince others. Overcoming this is called marketing.
Quote from: GrinningYMIR on December 28, 2016, 12:57:38 PM
I don't like Castro because he was a dictator for life and wanted to and with full documentation of, the soviets to use the nukes in Cuba when there was a minor threat of invasion, not even counting the blockade. For whatever supposed good he did if you're defending someone that wanted to eradicate your entire nation with nuclear fire and by extension the world since the US would have managed to get a few nukes off, then you really need to get your priorities straight.
I wish this were true ... Castro and Kruschev overplayed their hand (in response to the failure of Bay of Pigs and the presence of intermediate missiles the US had close to Russia). If a single Marine landed in Cuba, both Castro and Kruschev were going to employ tactical nukes to repel them. And half of the US government was desperate to get rid of the threat of Castro and nearby Soviet military .. enough to invade Cuba with regular military instead of Exiles. This was always plan B.
Half of the US leadership was Dr Strangelove back in those days ... and they still are. Castro was willing to nuke the US, to keep himself in power .. Kruschev not so much ... a quid pro quo was sufficient for the Soviets. But now, with nuclear weapons just a few miles from St Petersburg (in the Baltics) ... we have completely dropped that quid pro quo. We want the Russians dead ... period. This was also after repeated attempts by Kennedy to assassinate Castro. And we also tried to assassinate the President of France (DeGaulle).
Castro controlled no nukes.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 28, 2016, 01:17:35 PM
Castro controlled no nukes.
That's why I said he wanted the soviets to.
Because he's a communist dictator. The US hates communist dictators. The US loves fascist dictators.
Was he better than Batista? Yes.
Was he a great guy? Ask some of the Cubans in Florida who had the flee persecution.
Quote from: Jannabear on December 28, 2016, 06:25:16 AM
why do us citizens hate fidel castro, he was a man who fought against a fascist government, significantly raised the living standards of cuba, and made one of the only ecologically sustainable developed countries on the planet.
My guess would be that America (at least the controlling powers) hate Castro because they can't control him.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 28, 2016, 08:46:15 AM
I guess we should have traded with a country that was inimical to our body politic? Japan in 1941, perhaps, or Nazi Germany?
He asked for our aide before turning to Russia... and that was after he overthrew the American backed dictator who was far worse than him.
He offered peace, and we told him to go fuck himself. That anti- American interest is completely our fault.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 28, 2016, 01:17:35 PM
Castro controlled no nukes.
Correct, the Soviets wouldn't let them. They are not as stupid as Americans (letting Israelis control nukes). Castro asked Kruschev to allow a first strike on the US ... and Kruschev said no. But had the Marines landed, the answer was yes.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 28, 2016, 04:54:10 PM
He asked for our aide before turning to Russia... and that was after he overthrew the American backed dictator who was far worse than him.
He offered peace, and we told him to go fuck himself. That anti- American interest is completely our fault.
Also Vietnam. Castro when young, wanted to be a pro baseball player in the US. Ho Chi Minh admired the US, and wanted our help, but we told him to go fuck himself already in 1945.
Quote from: Baruch on December 28, 2016, 06:57:23 PM
Also Vietnam. Castro when young, wanted to be a pro baseball player in the US. Ho Chi Minh admired the US, and wanted our help, but we told him to go fuck himself already in 1945.
Yeah, we were supposed to go to war with France to allow IndoChina to go free?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 28, 2016, 11:00:43 PM
Yeah, we were supposed to go to war with France to allow IndoChina to go free?
If the US weren't the 4th Reich ... we should have told the French to go lots of places .. and take their cheeses too! There was a problem both before and after WW II, considering the instability of the dying European colonialism. This wouldn't have been a problem (weak European states) if they hadn't tried to commit suicide twice.
Your random word generator needs rebooted.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 29, 2016, 07:41:33 AM
Your random word generator needs rebooted.
Your reading dyslexia is like the Turing Test .. not ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2016, 12:52:52 PM
Your reading dyslexia is like the Turing Test .. not ;-)
Yeah, you're not ready for that test.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 28, 2016, 11:00:43 PM
Yeah, we were supposed to go to war with France to allow IndoChina to go free?
No, but we could have condemned their actions rather than encourage it.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 29, 2016, 04:53:16 PM
No, but we could have condemned their actions rather than encourage it.
Yeah, that's always been very useful.
Indeed it has. Also would have kept us out of Vietnam, which would be alright.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 29, 2016, 05:19:13 PM
Indeed it has. Also would have kept us out of Vietnam, which would be alright.
(http://www.medalsofamerica.com/ItemImages/Large/P865.jpg)
I don't know how my older brother felt about it, or my older cousin ... but I don't think the Vietnam war did them any favors.
That patch is pure Stormfront ... basically the same as a German claiming in 1920 ... that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion cost the German Empire WW I ... and not the stupid Kaiser. In the case of the US, it was the stupid LBJ ... not the student demonstrations.
I am sure you can build an time machine (historians love those) and go back and refight the Vietnam war ... but I won't be going, thanks.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 29, 2016, 06:10:09 PM
(http://www.medalsofamerica.com/ItemImages/Large/P865.jpg)
Hardly. Militarily? Sure... we were beating the Vietcong. But on a political scale (the reason we even have wars) we were losing; Vietnam was tearing our society apart, it was damaging our international reputation and it was something that could have both been avoided by not supporting French interests over our own and also by being an invader of North Vietnam instead of being the protector of South Vietnam. Victory is more than just beating the other guy.
To quote Ho Chi Minh... "Everything depends on the Americans. If they want to make war for 20 years then we shall make war for 20 years. If they want to make peace, we shall make peace and invite them to tea afterwards."
The North Vietnamese asked for our help to unify Vietnam after the French colonized them... left during WW2 and allowed Japan to commit horrible atrocities against the Vietnamese people... then came back and claimed Indochina still belonged to them... and we told them to go fuck themselves. They turned the Communists... wanted a peaceful resolution to the war... and again we told them to go fuck themselves.
I'm sorry... but fighting to protect a French colony, no matter how many "enemies" we managed to kill, cannot be considered a victory. We were fighting to maintain oppression. There is no victory in that. Do you think Vietnam would have been better off as a vassal to the United States and France rather than it's own independent country (which coincidently boasts one of the fastest growing economies in the world )?
Yeah, I miss the '60s too.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 29, 2016, 09:52:02 PM
Hardly. Militarily? Sure... we were beating the Vietcong. But on a political scale (the reason we even have wars) we were losing; Vietnam was tearing our society apart, it was damaging our international reputation and it was something that could have both been avoided by not supporting French interests over our own and also by being an invader of North Vietnam instead of being the protector of South Vietnam. Victory is more than just beating the other guy.
To quote Ho Chi Minh... "Everything depends on the Americans. If they want to make war for 20 years then we shall make war for 20 years. If they want to make peace, we shall make peace and invite them to tea afterwards."
The North Vietnamese asked for our help to unify Vietnam after the French colonized them... left during WW2 and allowed Japan to commit horrible atrocities against the Vietnamese people... then came back and claimed Indochina still belonged to them... and we told them to go fuck themselves. They turned the Communists... wanted a peaceful resolution to the war... and again we told them to go fuck themselves.
I'm sorry... but fighting to protect a French colony, no matter how many "enemies" we managed to kill, cannot be considered a victory. We were fighting to maintain oppression. There is no victory in that.
The only winners of the Vietnam war in this country were the corporations. And the politicians they supported.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 29, 2016, 09:54:58 PM
The only winners of the Vietnam war in this country were the corporations. And the politicians they supported.
I was asked by my mom, after the war was lost in 75 ... what it was all about. I told her about weapons testing and military doctrine testing, on live human beings. She was horrified.
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2016, 09:57:13 PM
I was asked by my mom, after the war was lost in 75 ... what it was all about. I told her about weapons testing and military doctrine testing, on live human beings. She was horrified.
So many ...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 30, 2016, 12:31:34 AM
So many ...
The WW II generation believed the WW II propaganda (and a good thing they did). But after WW II, the government was addicted to war, but not to property destruction ... so the need for the Cold War. And weapons and fighting doctrine should be tested. Immorality is a practical necessity, but the reality of that undermines the propaganda.
And, on the other end of the spectrum are those who don't believe it's actually sunny outside. The government could be faking a sun to confuse us.
Especially during Daylight Savings Time. ;)
World War II was a heady affair, well by the Allies, anyway, but ever since then, wars deadly and savage as they might be, haven't accomplished much. But in spite of all the wars that have been fought but not won since then, the US seems to be living as though we are still the nation that wins the fights we pick. We go into them with flags flying and yelling, "Remember WWII!"
But for the last 60 years, every attempt to recapture the old vim, vigor, and days of glory turns out to be a humiliating disgrace. It must be the fault of the young, starting with the lily livered young of my youth. We just don't have enough respect for our leaders. We let them down, and they have turned against us and now devote their time to feathering their pockets at a corporate buffet.
And speaking of Vietnam, when I graduated high school I just wanted to experience the rest of my life, preferably with all my arms and legs. Is that too much to ask? So we all put up a big stink about it. We began the great American protest, and while we were protesting being used as cannon fodder, women and minorities hijacked our protest and started protesting for their right to be treated equally. Of all the gall! Women were yelling about equality, and blacks were sick of riding in the back of the bus. And now we were looking like fools, just another group of protesters whining about getting shot to bits in a jungle.
But we didn't want to look like a bunch of babies so we joined together with the women, the minorities, and anyone else with an axe to grind and decided to chill out by smoking pot. By today's standards it was second rate pot, but we smoked it in mixed groups and would all sit around saying things like, "Man, I'm like.. really wasted." Back then you could buy a lid for $10. No one knew how much a lid weighed. The dealers would just put it in a baggie so it was about 20% full and roll it up to about the size of a double wide stogy.
I have no idea how you buy pot today. Does it even come in lids? How much does it cost? Whatever. You could smoke a lid in a week, and never once end up on the floor feeling like you had been decapitated (we had to use LSD for that). But there was a bright side to everyone "dropping out." Some college kids would buy pot by the kilo, and sell it off at a profit. These kids later became respected members of the merchant class, selling dry goods or owing convince stores selling munchies to the next generation of pot smoking youth. No one had ever heard of a kilo, let alone how much pot was in a kilo, but it's as close as America ever came to adopting the metric system.
But we at least ended war for good. Well, almost. Then everyone started snorting coke, and then everyone wanted to go to war again, and it was once more off to the races. We invaded Afghanistan, partly because it was the hideout of bin Laden, but probably because that's where the really good drugs came from. Then in a drug induced frenzy, we decided to invade Iraq, because... well, just because. Thank God for drugs.
We screwed Russia during WWII, Russia in turn hated us for it and became our enemy, then in the '50s as a political move communism in general started being associated with the devil and God was added to our money and pledge. It was purely a political pandering move to gain popularity by demonizing a common enemy. From that point anyone associated with Russia was the devil, and Cuba was the closest devil we had.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 30, 2016, 12:03:52 PM
DAFUQ?
I think he was implying, we delayed the Normandy invasion deliberately. I see that we delayed it for good reasons. Of course the Soviet Union and the Republic of China did most of the fighting and dying in WW II. But you can't stop American ignorance.
Quote from: Baruch on December 30, 2016, 01:21:43 PM
I think he was implying, we delayed the Normandy invasion deliberately. I see that we delayed it for good reasons. Of course the Soviet Union and the Republic of China did most of the fighting and dying in WW II. But you can't stop American ignorance.
Well, I'm an American and I'm not ignorant of the facts. Most of the ships used in the Normandy landing didn't exist in June of 1943.
Quote from: SGOS on December 30, 2016, 08:34:42 AMWorld War II was a heady affair, well by the Allies, anyway, but ever since then, wars deadly and savage as they might be, haven't accomplished much. But in spite of all the wars that have been fought but not won since then, the US seems to be living as though we are still the nation that wins the fights we pick. We go into them with flags flying and yelling, "Remember WWII!"
But for the last 60 years, every attempt to recapture the old vim, vigor, and days of glory turns out to be a humiliating disgrace. It must be the fault of the young, starting with the lily livered young of my youth. We just don't have enough respect for our leaders. We let them down, and they have turned against us and now devote their time to feathering their pockets at a corporate buffet.
Are you saying that the US hasn't had any military victories since WWII? That in the past 60 years, everything has been "a humiliating disgrace"?
Don't get me wrong, I can understand and agree to some extent with a critical assessment of US foreign policy - there's plenty of disgusting and horrendously awful stuff to pick from - but I think you're exaggerating its flaws by heavily implying that every military action since WWII has been a failure.
The Korean War, while inconclusive, at least repelled the North Korean invasion of South Korea and ensured the continued existence of South Korea, albeit next to a dangerously unstable pariah state. The war was needlessly bloody (peace talks could've prevented a lot of deaths on both sides) and the propaganda surrounding it - the Domino theory - was bullshit, but the US did achieve some of its goals there.
The US got involved in Bosnia and Kosovo and helped put an end to those wars and its associated genocide. Many of those responsible were tried in international courts.
The US got involved when Kuwait was invaded by Iraqi forces. The US helped ensure the continued existence of Kuwait by expelling those invaders.
Even Operation Enduring Occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq - which practically everyone except John Bolton agrees was a disaster - even that achieved its military goals of deposing the Taliban and the Baath Party. It's the "nation-building" part that failed.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 30, 2016, 01:37:56 PM
I think you're exaggerating its flaws by heavily implying that every military action since WWII has been a failure.
Yes, I tend to exaggerate, often because I have a good time doing it. Sure there have been a couple of bright spots in US Military interventions, but I think you were searching pretty hard for them.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 30, 2016, 01:37:56 PM
The Korean War, while inconclusive, at least repelled the North Korean invasion of South Korea and ensured the continued existence of South Korea, albeit next to a dangerously unstable pariah state. The war was needlessly bloody (peace talks could've prevented a lot of deaths on both sides) and the propaganda surrounding it - the Domino theory - was bullshit, but the US did achieve some of its goals there.
This may hold up. I don't know enough about the Korean War to contest this one, and I don't know what specific goals you refer to. But from what you are saying, it sounds like the bloody conflict could have been prevented. How is having a war a success if it could have been prevented?
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 30, 2016, 01:37:56 PM
The US got involved in Bosnia and Kosovo and helped put an end to those wars and its associated genocide. Many of those responsible were tried in international courts.
This conflict did cross my mind when I posted. I wasn't sure about how much of our involvement had a positive effect, but I was on a roll, so I ignored it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 30, 2016, 01:37:56 PM
The US got involved when Kuwait was invaded by Iraqi forces. The US helped ensure the continued existence of Kuwait by expelling those invaders.
Yes, we drove Iraq out, and that was great, but our biggest mistake was giving Iraq permission to invade Kuwait in the first place. That war could have been avoided had we not told Saddam we were not interested in his disputes with his neighbors. He asked our ambassador for clarification about this specific issue twice from what I recall, and was assured we would not get involved. As I understand, he looked at the ambassador like he couldn't believe what he just heard, and asked a second time.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 30, 2016, 01:37:56 PM
Even Operation Enduring Occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq - which practically everyone except John Bolton agrees was a disaster - even that achieved its military goals of deposing the Taliban and the Baath Party. It's the "nation-building" part that failed.
Afghanistan, maybe, but I recall the goal was to kill bin Laden. Enduring Occupation is not a success in my mind, until it ends "enduring." Saying we are achieving military goals by not leaving, doesn't do much for me.
But I strongly disagree with you on Iraq. It sounds like you are saying we accomplished a goal or two. But when Saddam skeedaddled out of town, and GW landed on an aircraft carrier under a banner "Mission Accomplished," I almost shit my pants laughing.
First, whatever happened to "Freeing the Iraqi People?" That was the number one headline propaganda for the invasion, and that was nowhere near accomplished, and it's hard to make a case that the Iraqi people are free today.
Second, Bush advisors, specifically New American Century, wanted to rebuild a western style Democracy in Iraq (actually they didn't specify Iraq, just anyplace in the Mideast), and had been pressing for it for 20 years before Bush. That was the end goal, at least for the guys that were actually running the oval office, and whatever kind of democracy we can call what exists there today, the outcome looks like a disaster to me.
However, while I blame the US for the mess in Iraq today, I still allow for the possibility (perhaps a 30% chance) that without our involvement, Iraq might still be as bad as it is today. But I doubt it. Perhaps ISIS would have invaded Iraq anyway. I can't say for sure that this would not have happened. But I can say for sure that I didn't believe the power vacuum we were creating had better than a 50-50 chance of a positive outcome.
I also wonder about what seems to me to be continuing destabilization of the Mideast. I wonder if we had anything to do with that. I don't know. I just wonder about it.
Quote from: SGOS on December 30, 2016, 02:47:09 PMYes, I tend to exaggerate, often because I have a good time doing it.
Well, okay. With that admission, I can let it slide. There's no point in arguing against a position that doesn't exist.
Quote from: SGOS on December 30, 2016, 02:47:09 PM
Yes, I tend to exaggerate, often because I have a good time doing it.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/families-hypocrite-hypocritical-exaggerates-exaggerations-exaggerated-mfln6105_low.jpg)
I'll agree with you on Kosovo (though that was an international initiative and not an American)... but I don't think I can agree with Korea. Ours (and the South Korean's) desire to go all the way to the Chinese border is what got China involved in the war; particularly MacArthur's rhetoric and leading a full scale invasion into the North. China (understandably) did not like the idea of the U.S. military sitting on it's door step and retaliated. If it wasn't for our desire to have an "absolute" victory... Korea likely would not be in the situation it is today. The North Koreans were broken and on the edge of collapse... sitting it out and letting them starve or surrender would have had more-or-less the same effect and likely would have kept China out of it.
Which once again goes to the globalization I mentioned earlier... the world has changed to the point where wars are won at the diplomacy table and not on the battlefield. Unfortunately we haven't seemed to learn that yet (and I would include WW2 in that list of failed wars simply because it was the diplomatic actions of France after WW1 that created the situation).
,
After a war starts ... then win it. But the only way to really win, is to not start any wars to begin with. And that usually requires diplomacy. Failed diplomacy leads to wars ... so how is that winning? Or is winning, just Americans, and not other people, feeling temporarily good about themselves?
Quote from: Shiranu on December 30, 2016, 06:44:50 PMI'll agree with you on Kosovo (though that was an international initiative and not an American)
I am aware of that. Hence my "US helped" wording. If I had instead said that it was US-led or unilateral US action rather than a NATO action, then a correction would be warranted.
Quote... but I don't think I can agree with Korea. Ours (and the South Korean's) desire to go all the way to the Chinese border is what got China involved in the war; particularly MacArthur's rhetoric and leading a full scale invasion into the North. China (understandably) did not like the idea of the U.S. military sitting on it's door step and retaliated. If it wasn't for our desire to have an "absolute" victory... Korea likely would not be in the situation it is today. The North Koreans were broken and on the edge of collapse... sitting it out and letting them starve or surrender would have had more-or-less the same effect and likely would have kept China out of it.
I completely agree with all of that and at least some of that should've been obvious from my statement that the war was needlessly bloody - the US invasion of North Korea and Chinese intervention was what I was referring to.
I don't get why people disagree with me by saying stuff I completely agree with. It doesn't look like we disagree at all.
Earlier I was arguing that US military actions accomplished a lot of its goals and gave specific examples. The counterargument? Not everything was a bed of roses. Well, no kidding. But it doesn't refute the claim - it just talks past my argument without actually addressing it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 30, 2016, 09:03:16 PM
Earlier I was arguing that US military actions accomplished a lot of its goals and gave specific examples. The counterargument? Not everything was a bed of roses. Well, no kidding. But it doesn't refute the claim - it just talks past my argument without actually addressing it.
Here's my analysis:
-----------------
I made a claim.
You refuted it and made additional claims.
I conceded, but disputed some of your additional claims.
-----------------
Are you implying I committed a foul or failed to address your issue?
But more importantly to me (really, this is my biggest concern). Did I do any of those things in a way that you found disparaging or offensive? I need to know that more than anything.
Quote from: SGOS on December 31, 2016, 09:17:37 AM
Here's my analysis:
-----------------
I made a claim.
You refuted it and made additional claims.
I conceded, but disputed some of your additional claims.
-----------------
Are you implying I committed a foul or failed to address your issue?
But more importantly to me (really, this is my biggest concern). Did I do any of those things in a way that you found disparaging or offensive? I need to know that more than anything.
I thought your response #66 was very mature and responsible. You either love the US or hate it ... and love/hate is irrational, it isn't logical. Lovers of course, can't tolerate any skepticism toward their beloved.
Quote from: Baruch on December 31, 2016, 09:33:59 AM
I thought your response #66 was very mature and responsible. You either love the US or hate it ... and love/hate is irrational, it isn't logical. Lovers of course, can't tolerate any skepticism toward their beloved.
This is the problem with the way history is taught in this country now. It is written by people who only love it. It would be much more responsible to write about facts--good and bad (yes, depends upon your point of view or bias) and let the student supply the commentary; after they are taught what critical thinking is. No country is all anything; they all have done horrid things and good/great things. This country is no different; but the poster child of doing the most horrid things one can think, and acting in the most selfless of manners. I guess that makes us a country of humans. But in order to correct mistakes or poor ways of acting, it has to be acknowledged as such. As it is, millions upon millions still think George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and did not lie about it.
Love and Hate are two sides of the same coin. I both love and hate the US. I choose ideologically to lean toward cautious optimism and positive outcomes. I feel the same way, though less strong, for all other countries. I neither hated nor feared the USSR during the Cold War. I respected them I believe that the US and Nato has lost respect for Russia since the fall of the USSR. This is a very bad attitude. Russians have been US allies, and will be again. They are no more or less demons than we are. I hope that the new administration, and Congress ... respects Russia ... and every other country no matter how small. We need to end the real world version of America Hell Yeah. We are not the world's moralist nor its policemen.
Quote from: Baruch on December 31, 2016, 11:26:21 AM
Love and Hate are two sides of the same coin. I both love and hate the US. I choose ideologically to lean toward cautious optimism and positive outcomes. I feel the same way, though less strong, for all other countries. I neither hated nor feared the USSR during the Cold War. I respected them I believe that the US and Nato has lost respect for Russia since the fall of the USSR. This is a very bad attitude. Russians have been US allies, and will be again. They are no more or less demons than we are. I hope that the new administration, and Congress ... respects Russia ... and every other country no matter how small. We need to end the real world version of America Hell Yeah. We are not the world's moralist nor its policemen.
Yeah, this!^
It would be really nice if we could whittle down the number of countries we have out troops in--over 150 is a bit much. I love and hate my country. I see it's clay feet; and those should be acknowledged so that (no, not do it again) we can recognize when my country is doing it again. Maybe then we could stop some of it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 31, 2016, 11:58:08 AM
Yeah, this!^
It would be really nice if we could whittle down the number of countries we have out troops in--over 150 is a bit much. I love and hate my country. I see it's clay feet; and those should be acknowledged so that (no, not do it again) we can recognize when my country is doing it again. Maybe then we could stop some of it.
Yes, we are way too aggressive for our own good. If you don't recognize the warts, you won't put on any wart remover. Jingos and warmongers aren't patriots, they are psychopaths.
The US today may be the Great Britain of 1930..
Quote from: Baruch on December 30, 2016, 08:44:05 PM
After a war starts ... then win it. But the only way to really win, is to not start any wars to begin with. And that usually requires diplomacy. Failed diplomacy leads to wars ... so how is that winning? Or is winning, just Americans, and not other people, feeling temporarily good about themselves?
I consider wars to be less-than-zero sum games, since even the winners are often greatly damaged in the process of winning, or dealing with the post-war peace.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 03, 2017, 04:26:50 PM
I consider wars to be less-than-zero sum games, since even the winners are often greatly damaged in the process of winning, or dealing with the post-war peace.
WWII worked out rather well for the US... Not saying it was in any way good overall, but your less-than-zero sum arguments fails there.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 04, 2017, 11:42:05 PM
WWII worked out rather well for the US... Not saying it was in any way good overall, but your less-than-zero sum arguments fails there.
Why not?
Quote from: Cavebear on January 04, 2017, 11:42:05 PM
WWII worked out rather well for the US... Not saying it was in any way good overall, but your less-than-zero sum arguments fails there.
Different times. Hitler with nukes, wouldn't have worked out so well.
Quote from: Baruch on January 05, 2017, 07:27:53 AM
Different times. Hitler with nukes, wouldn't have worked out so well.
And, as I have asked the anti-nuke folks more than once, would the Japanese have hesitated to use a nuke on Pearl Harbor in 1941? Midget subs penetrated the harbor during the actual attack. Snuggle up next to Battleship Row and
BANZAI!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 05, 2017, 07:30:13 AM
And, as I have asked the anti-nuke folks more than once, would the Japanese have hesitated to use a nuke on Pearl Harbor in 1941? Midget subs penetrated the harbor during the actual attack. Snuggle up next to Battleship Row and BANZAI!!!!!!!!!!
Pacifists are not unbiased observers. The Japanese Empire intended to release a radiological bomb (isotope bomb) over San Francisco ... Aug 1945. It was stopped because the Nazi submarine bringing the necessary supplies from Germany was intercepted and sunk by the US. Japan was not only developing biological weapons in Korea (and testing it on humans) but also had as many wonder weapons on the black board as the Germans had, including a parallel nuclear program with the assistance of Germany (which had its own nuclear program). If Hitler had delayed starting the war, so that his technology was even better, he would have won. The Allies were still asleep at the wheel, and could have been encouraged to continue asleep, if he had stayed out of Poland. Neville Chamberlain would have had more "peace in our time".
Any suggestion, that world war is necessary to stimulate the economy ... is a crime of the worst sort. Yes, labor costs would go up, and wages would go up ... if there were billions fewer people. Labor got a bigger part of the economic benefits, because of the Black Death. But I don't consider that pro-economy. Besides we can't exist without slave labor.
And another Baruch DAFUQ moment.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 05, 2017, 11:02:04 AM
And another Baruch DAFUQ moment.
A lot of people still think that without WW II, FDR wouldn't have had any effective way to end the Great Depression. We have the Axis to think for our temporary prosperity (until 1971 anyway). 66 million lives ended prematurely was a small price to pay ;-((
All we can really say there is that FDR hadn't come up with a way to end it, mostly because the whole world, effectively, was also in the same fix. I smile a bit when someone castigates the President for not doing something nobody else could do.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 04, 2017, 11:42:05 PM
WWII worked out rather well for the US... Not saying it was in any way good overall, but your less-than-zero sum arguments fails there.
Perhaps, which is why I waffled by using the word "often."
Part of the reason the U.S. did so well after that insanity is that most of the world's manufacturing capabilities were lost, leaving the U.S. as almost the sole nation able to make things the world needed, with something like (I think) 50% of the capacity of the world. Hence the Golden Age we went through after the war. Those were not normal times, however, and now we're going back to being just one more manufacturing nation, as we were before the war.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 05, 2017, 07:30:13 AM
And, as I have asked the anti-nuke folks more than once, would the Japanese have hesitated to use a nuke on Pearl Harbor in 1941? Midget subs penetrated the harbor during the actual attack. Snuggle up next to Battleship Row and BANZAI!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not sure how that is relevant to nuking a country that was about to surrender, but alright.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 05, 2017, 04:02:58 PM
Perhaps, which is why I waffled by using the word "often."
Part of the reason the U.S. did so well after that insanity is that most of the world's manufacturing capabilities were lost, leaving the U.S. as almost the sole nation able to make things the world needed, with something like (I think) 50% of the capacity of the world. Hence the Golden Age we went through after the war. Those were not normal times, however, and now we're going back to being just one more manufacturing nation, as we were before the war.
The worlds Greatest Generation, I have often wondered, should have been called the worlds Luckiest Generation.
No, going off to war, and all the average Joe's that died, were not lucky. The world was in genuine danger; and our country was as well. But in the end, we built stuff at an unbelievable pace and volume. The Chinese and Russians died at an unbelievable pace and volume. And the rest of most of the world beat the shit out of each other. The two large oceans kept us safe. We were not only left standing, we were growing. And yes, that generation did a hell of a job! But I don't see any other generation that would have done less. That generation was severely pushed and pushed back. What I'm trying to say, is that the circumstance they found themselves in was extraordinary and so was their response; I think any other generation would have responded extraordinarily as well.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 05, 2017, 04:58:29 PM
I'm not sure how that is relevant to nuking a country that was about to surrender, but alright.
How do we know they were about to surrender???
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 05, 2017, 05:01:39 PM
How do we know they were about to surrender???
Because that's what they said? The military had basically been reduced to non-existence. Tokyo was being absolutely leveled by firebombings (arguably even more inhumane than the nukes we dropped... in two days of bombing in early March over 100.000 people were killed in Tokyo). The Soviets had begun invading Japanese Manchuria. We had intercepted transmissions for months before the bombs between officials in the government who wanted to find a peaceful ending without being absolutely fucked over. The U.S. media was instructed by the government not to release documents that showed the Japanese were looking for a peaceful resolution... and finally the General of War had drafted a surrender statement before the bombing that was almost identical in what we demanded after the bombing.
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply not justifiable.
But to actually say a little bit more about comparing the two... you're (not you Mike) are telling me there is a moral equivalence between nuking the major naval fleet of your enemy at the beginning of a war to destroy your enemies' military capabilities... and nuking civilians at the butt-end of a war you have already won?
I'm guessing the people you ask that to don't have a good answer... they just probably don't have one because it's such a pointless question.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 05, 2017, 05:01:39 PM
How do we know they were about to surrender???
If you know the facts from the Japanese side, the idea that they were about to surrender ... is not factual. They were ready to surrender, as soon as the Allies declared them the winner (like keep all their stolen shit in China etc). Frankly I wish we had let the Soviets occupy all of Korea and Japan, and rape every Japanese woman ... so that by now, their half Russian offspring (Russian-Asian no Amerasian this time) would have never invented Anime and Manga ;-) /sarc I like the Japanese too Shiranu ... but not if I were alive in 1945. My mother still hates them, forever.
On that basis, Hitler was ready to make terms, if we left him in power, and betrayed Stalin. The anti-Hitler military plotters believed that was the case, provided they eliminated Hitler and put a nicer German in charge, like Rommel. Again, let the Germans keep Poland, France etc. The same kind of surrender monkey crap the world did in 1918 ... when we should have done scorched Earth to Germany instead of having an Armistice. This is what FDR insisted on vs Churchill. Stalin agreed with FDR. Don't have an armistice with the Axis ... kill it dead, including German generals who didn't do enough to assassinate Hitler ... in the 1930s.
So yes, lets have an armistice again, and go fight the same war over again every 20 years (enough for the youth to recover) ... because war is profitable for all sides, provided that we only kill young men, and solve the unemployment problem that way ... and don't blow up too much shit that the upper classes have. The point wasn't finding a peaceful resolution. That ship already sailed or not at Pearl Harbor. Peace negotiation was fine, up until 1939. It is not wrong to kill people, provided you kill the right ones. Pacifists should be dropped without parachutes over enemy territory.
As it is, it was a very nearly losing thing for the Allies. The Axis weren't dummies, just impatient and overly aggressive. Similarly the Cuban Missile Crisis came within minutes of blowing up (if Castro had the launch codes, or that Russian submarine captain hadn't kept his cool under extreme provocation). Peace isn't the issue ... if you want peace, you can get it, but only by exterminating the human race. That is too high a price.
I was reading this week about the Heroes of the Telemark, how the failed efforts of British Engineering Commandos, and successful efforts by Norwegian partisans, slowed down the German nuclear program. When I read about what the Gestapo did to Norwegian resistors, I just want to go punch a pacifist in the face (many Norwegians were pacifists, and thus collaborators in their own occupation). If Sweden had declared war on Germany, and freed Norway and Denmark, this would have made life very hard for the Germans, instead they helped supply steel to the Germans, so much that one old guy I knew, who was in the US fleet in the Atlantic, told me at one point the US was on the verge of bombing Stockholm. So much for quislings.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 05, 2017, 04:58:29 PM
I'm not sure how that is relevant to nuking a country that was about to surrender, but alright.
"About to surrender"? Not until the last second was that sure. Gen. Anami, the War Minister was telling the nation "We will chew grass and eat dirt!" and "One hundred million dead for the Emperor!" (Japan had seventy million, so the Allies would have to provide the other thirty million. The
second bomb convinced Anami to switch to the "end it, damnit!" side. Even then hard cord militarists were frantically searching the Imperial Palace for the recordings of the Voice of the Crane, hoping to find and destroy them. "About to surrender"...
Quote from: Shiranu on January 05, 2017, 06:34:53 PM
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply not justifiable.
Crap.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 05, 2017, 06:34:53 PM
Because that's what they said? The military had basically been reduced to non-existence. Tokyo was being absolutely leveled by firebombings (arguably even more inhumane than the nukes we dropped... in two days of bombing in early March over 100.000 people were killed in Tokyo). The Soviets had begun invading Japanese Manchuria. We had intercepted transmissions for months before the bombs between officials in the government who wanted to find a peaceful ending without being absolutely fucked over. The U.S. media was instructed by the government not to release documents that showed the Japanese were looking for a peaceful resolution... and finally the General of War had drafted a surrender statement before the bombing that was almost identical in what we demanded after the bombing.
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply not justifiable.
But to actually say a little bit more about comparing the two... you're (not you Mike) are telling me there is a moral equivalence between nuking the major naval fleet of your enemy at the beginning of a war to destroy your enemies' military capabilities... and nuking civilians at the butt-end of a war you have already won?
I'm guessing the people you ask that to don't have a good answer... they just probably don't have one because it's such a pointless question.
History in hindsight is usually easier than history right now. I would have hated to have been Truman at this period. I have a feeling he would be damned if he did and damned if he didn't. I too, decry the fire bombing of many axis cities; but I also realize war is not nice, nor is it really just. I think I would have come down on the side that Truman did. If people were to die--and they would--then make it them and not us. I do not doubt the estimates of over a million dead and wounded if we had had to invade. As for morals, it is hard to find them in war. But the Japanese were exceptionally cruel on whom they conquered or were trying to conquer. They did not do anything to mainland USA only because they couldn't. They tried in sending over fire bomb balloons that were mainly a failure, except in Oregon. If they could, they would have set all the US on fire. And what they did to China and the other Asian nations they did get to is unspeakable. On one hand it is tragic the Japanese leadership did not do what was best for their people; but they didn't. I don't lose any sleep over using the two bombs.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 05, 2017, 07:18:22 PM
"About to surrender"? Not until the last second was that sure. Gen. Anami, the War Minister was telling the nation "We will chew grass and eat dirt!" and "One hundred million dead for the Emperor!" (Japan had seventy million, so the Allies would have to provide the other thirty million. The second bomb convinced Anami to switch to the "end it, damnit!" side. Even then hard cord militarists were frantically searching the Imperial Palace for the recordings of the Voice of the Crane, hoping to find and destroy them. "About to surrender"...
And what army do you propose the non- surrendering Japan would have thrown at us? The utterly untrained peasants who were starving or burning? Or maybe the occupiers of China now being decimated by the Soviets.
What pile of ruble would they have made the sufficient supplies of weapons in? Where would they have gotten the iron to make the machinery capable of posing a threat to us?
The Japanese were done for and they knew it. You don't think the Japanese were the first people to ever tell their people the war is going swell, while plotting an end to it behind their back, do you?
Anti-nuke feeling is partly White hate. If Black homies in the lower E Side had used nukes on Brooklyn, then it would have been cool.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 05, 2017, 07:34:36 PM
And what army do you propose the non- surrendering Japan would have thrown at us? The utterly untrained peasants who were starving or burning? Or maybe the occupiers of China now being decimated by the Soviets.
What pile of ruble would they have made the sufficient supplies of weapons in? Where would they have gotten the iron to make the machinery capable of posing a threat to us?
The Japanese were done for and they knew it. You don't think the Japanese were the first people to ever tell their people the war is going swell, while plotting an end to it behind their back, do you?
Okinawa ... oh uneducated one.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 05, 2017, 07:33:05 PM
History in hindsight is usually easier than history right now. I would have hated to have been Truman at this period. I have a feeling he would be damned if he did and damned if he didn't. I too, decry the fire bombing of many axis cities; but I also realize war is not nice, nor is it really just. I think I would have come down on the side that Truman did. If people were to die--and they would--then make it them and not us. I do not doubt the estimates of over a million dead and wounded if we had had to invade. As for morals, it is hard to find them in war. But the Japanese were exceptionally cruel on whom they conquered or were trying to conquer. They did not do anything to mainland USA only because they couldn't. They tried in sending over fire bomb balloons that were mainly a failure, except in Oregon. If they could, they would have set all the US on fire. And what they did to China and the other Asian nations they did get to is unspeakable. On one hand it is tragic the Japanese leadership did not do what was best for their people; but they didn't. I don't lose any sleep over using the two bombs.
"They did terrible things, so we did them as well." is hardly a convincing argument. It's eerily similar to what the villains always seem to say.
I'm sorry, but justifying immoral actions is what the immoral do. It's one thing to admit it was wrong and regret it, another to say it was wrong BUT...
Quote from: Shiranu on January 05, 2017, 07:37:22 PM
"They did terrible things, so we did them as well." is hardly a convincing argument. It's eerily similar to what the villains always seem to say.
I'm sorry, but justifying immoral actions is what the immoral do. It's one thing to admit it was wrong and regret it, another to say it was wrong BUT...
The Allies were villains. Why are you against our villains, and for their villains?
Quote from: Shiranu on January 05, 2017, 07:34:36 PM
And what army do you propose the non- surrendering Japan would have thrown at us? The utterly untrained peasants who were starving or burning? Or maybe the occupiers of China now being decimated by the Soviets.
What pile of ruble would they have made the sufficient supplies of weapons in? Where would they have gotten the iron to make the machinery capable of posing a threat to us?
The Japanese were done for and they knew it. You don't think the Japanese were the first people to ever tell their people the war is going swell, while plotting an end to it behind their back, do you?
I don't see it as quite that simple. Just because the peasants had no modern weapons, they could still fight with knives, shovels, etc. And the sick fact is that I think they would have. It's hard to remember that the people of Japan were religiously fanatical to their emperor. They would do what they thought that god wanted them to do. In Okinawa, women, with their children, threw themselves over cliffs into the rocks and sea below to keep from being captured by the Americans. Invading the homeland would have produced a fevered pitch of fanatical religious fervor. Their way of viewing the world was not our way; nor was their idea of personal behavior with honor, the same as ours. They would have felt the only thing they could do would be to fight and die for god.
Quote from: Baruch on January 05, 2017, 07:35:59 PM
Okinawa ... oh uneducated one.
130.000 entrenched soldiers with limited mobility and no naval capabilities. Mainland America was shaking in its boots.
What actual, immediate threat did Japan pose and what means to produce an actual threat did they possess?
Knives and stones, while scary as an individual, do not so much frighten someone in an American cruiser or bomber.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 05, 2017, 07:49:05 PM
130.000 entrenched soldiers with limited mobility and no naval capabilities. Mainland America was shaking in its boots.
What actual, immediate threat did Japan pose and what means to produce an actual threat did they possess?
Knives and stones, while scary as an individual, do not so much frighten someone in an American cruiser or bomber.
I like how you never surrender, Shiranu ... very Japanese of you ;-))
Quote from: Shiranu on January 05, 2017, 07:37:22 PM
"They did terrible things, so we did them as well." is hardly a convincing argument. It's eerily similar to what the villains always seem to say.
I'm sorry, but justifying immoral actions is what the immoral do. It's one thing to admit it was wrong and regret it, another to say it was wrong BUT...
It is easy to pronounce what is moral and what is not. As has been discussed on this forum many times, what is 'morality' and who gets to define it. Is it moral or immoral to defend yourself? From my point of view no war is moral or just. But when you find yourself in a war, then the view of what is moral and what is not shifts. Personally, don't kill is one of my morals. But I would do so in self defense if I needed to. I can only imagine what I'd do in a foxhole in WWII--or Nam. I would consider it moral to protect myself and my buddies in any fashion I had to. I may regret it later, but that would be later and not now. Our nation had been attacked. The Japanese were cruel beyond belief to the Chinese and others. We had no crystal ball; what other weapons did they possess? We did not have TV cameras all over the world and this war was fought in a deep fog of war. We could surmise that they were on the verge of surrender; but what if we were wrong? I don't see Truman really having much choice. And I think the Japanese need to accept blame for the use of the bombs, as well as us. Do I regret they were used? Yes. Do I understand why they were used? Yes.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 05, 2017, 07:34:36 PM
And what army do you propose the non- surrendering Japan would have thrown at us? The utterly untrained peasants who were starving or burning? Or maybe the occupiers of China now being decimated by the Soviets.
The entire population of male Japanese between 15 and 60 were declared combatants, same as the females between 14 and 45. They would have been sent into battle as bullet sponges with the professional soldiers behind them.
Quote
What pile of ruble would they have made the sufficient supplies of weapons in? Where would they have gotten the iron to make the machinery capable of posing a threat to us?
The Japanese had saved 10,000 suicide craft for the invasion. Do you think they didn't see it coming and were stupidly expending their material that would be needed to defend their homeland? They weren't idiots.
Quote
The Japanese were done for and they knew it. You don't think the Japanese were the first people to ever tell their people the war is going swell, while plotting an end to it behind their back, do you?
There are several books that study the actual facts of the matter, I can list them for you if you want to catch up with the reality of the situation.
I support the nukes. Horrible weapons I wish had never been invented. But good for ending the war with the maximum amount of lives. Its all well and good to assume that the Japanese were ready to surrender (or commit suicide as the Okinawans were demonstrating) but what, a million US deaths were expected for the Japanese land invasion? Many many more millions of Japanese were to die, 400000 needless deaths, but better than tens of millions of needless deaths
be a conscientious objector, do that and I respect you and your opinion on it. I agree with the "damned if you do, damned if you don't statement" and I truly sympathize with Truman, what was going through his mind was two horrible decisions. And he picked the one that felt right to him, killing 400000 so 10 million could live.
QuoteThe Japanese had saved 10,000 suicide craft for the invasion. Do you think they didn't see it coming and were stupidly expending their material that would be needed to defend their homeland? They weren't idiots.
And how would these craft reach mainland America? Or even Hawai'i for that matter?
Where would the aircraft launch from? What boats they had... how would they sneak past the entire American navy?
You are yet again talking about Japan which is irrelevant. The Japanese had no way to threaten America's holdings, only defend against our aggression. When that becomes the case we simply cannot pretend taking the most extreme measure is justified and moral.
QuoteThere are several books that study the actual facts of the matter, I can list them for you if you want to catch up with the reality of the situation.
I certainly wouldn't mind reading them. But from what you are implying... the Japanese did not pose a threat to mainland America. The Japanese government knew this as well and was torn between peace and war. We just had to sit back and let them ask for peace or tear themselves apart. At least if that happened the blood would be on their hands and not ours.
QuoteIt is easy to pronounce what is moral and what is not. As has been discussed on this forum many times, what is 'morality' and who gets to define it. Is it moral or immoral to defend yourself?
If it is... then the Japanese were in the moral right and we were in the wrong as the aggressor... particularly the aggressor attacking a target already decimated and whom the Soviets were assfucking in Mainland Asia.
Also... I find it interesting that yall apparently think I am arguing against using the nukes. I'm not. I am arguing against the idea we needed to invade mainland Japan at all when their supplies had been obliterated. So what if the Okinawans wanted to fight to the last man? If they cannot pose a threat to our interests further than 15 miles off their own shores... who gives a shit if it was 130 thousand or 130 million?
Without carriers... no navy... no factories and no supplies... the Japanese were a dead ship floating in the Pacific. We had intelligence that they were looking for a peaceful solution that we intentionally hid from our own populace. It would be one thing if we didn't know. It would even be one thing if we knew and were honest about it. But when the military and the politicians lied through their teeth that there was no peace until we proved we could murder every last one of them... I simply cannot support that.
That is not "the inevitable evil of war"... that is just cold blooded murder. There is no strategy or reason to it other than for our own ideal vengeance. Well... perhaps there was a bit of strategy in that it let us try out our new toy on living test subjects.
Quote from: GrinningYMIR on January 05, 2017, 08:08:27 PM
And he picked the one that felt right to him, killing 400000 so 10 million could live.
Only if you support the idea that invasion was the only possible way to end the war. I don't buy that. Strip them of their holdings on the mainland... destroy their infrastructure (preferably by more humane means than firebombing) and very small supplies... and let them surrender or tear themselves apart and clean up then.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 05, 2017, 08:34:05 PM
Only if you support the idea that invasion was the only possible way to end the war. I don't buy that. Strip them of their holdings on the mainland... destroy their infrastructure (preferably by more humane means than firebombing) and very small supplies... and let them surrender or tear themselves apart and clean up then.
their infrastructure was gone, their holdings in Asia served really only to divert resources away from the American campaign seeing as how they couldn't move the troops there anymore, they were already surviving off of food no American would eat.
Nah, it was the only way, nukes or invasion. they had no intention of surrendering, you can think otherwise if you want, but blood was going to flow one way or another, only was it a river or an ocean.
Quotetheir infrastructure was gone, their holdings in Asia served really only to divert resources away from the American campaign seeing as how they couldn't move the troops there anymore, they were already surviving off of food no American would eat.
So what threat did they pose to us?
QuoteNah, it was the only way, nukes or invasion. they had no intention of surrendering, you can think otherwise if you want, but blood was going to flow one way or another, only was it a river or an ocean.
You just contradicted what you said a sentence earlier. They had no means to shed blood. That river or ocean would only be shed if we sat foot on their land. If they wanted to sit on their island and starve to the very last person while we sat back and made sure they posed no threat... then that was their choice. Let that blood be on their hands and not ours. But I can and will think otherwise because their government was fractured and falling apart. We could afford to sit there until the end of days if we wanted to. Hungry people will eventually sell their god for food for their plate and the Japanese people would eventually sell their divine ruler for a day without a family member starving to death. But the point is that was their choice to make... not ours.
And ultimately I am not interested in changing the past because that will never happen. But neither the general American and certainly not the Japanese people (with a 17% approval rating of the nukes today) think it was the right thing to do... and so our language should shift from justifying it to admitting it was wrong.
There is no shame in admitting you fucked up... only in refusing to admit your fuck up was wrong.
I see we have a "Okay, Americans aren't dying so who cares who else is" fan here.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 05, 2017, 08:34:05 PM
Only if you support the idea that invasion was the only possible way to end the war. I don't buy that. Strip them of their holdings on the mainland... destroy their infrastructure (preferably by more humane means than firebombing) and very small supplies... and let them surrender or tear themselves apart and clean up then.
Japan still occupied Korea and most of China with enormous armies. Stalin was ready to role. We could have stood back, and let Stalin occupy all of W Europe ... and occupy all of E Asia. We acted in a way that allowed us to occupy all of Japan, and half of Korea. We also gave the Chinese Republic a chance against Mao (but they still failed). If Stalin had fought his way across China, the Chinese Republic would have had no chance at all. Are you saying that you are basically an Isolationist? Let all the brown people fight it out, with America nobly standing aside like Gandhi?
Basically these kinds of discussions are ... I want a time machine, go back in time and replace the President, or the King, or the Emperor ... and show that I am a better autocrat than the historical one. Alternative history buffs like this too, like the Confederacy winning the Civil War ... well that would have worked out well ;-(
"admitting it was wrong" ... King George commenting on the American Revolution. See countless other examples. Ape men are wrong, get over it. And forget about morality ... ape men don't have it.
POV ... if Japan was my enemy, as it once was ... then I get to kill Japan. See Soviet Union during the Cold War. If Japan is on the ropes, then it is even better to kill Japan ... are you expecting a Marquis of Queensbury fight? Wars are won by being unfair, immoral, yet smart. Being vicious like the Axis is counter productive. Fortunately it was unnecessary to kill Japan, by killing all of the Japanese. That is what the nukes provided (given that they did surrender). If they still hadn't surrendered, then the use of only two would have been a failure. Plans were, to produce one nuke a month and keep nuking Japan until it did surrender, or they were all dead. Some at the time disliked this, Jewish scientists for example, because they had a vested interest in nuking Germany until all the Germans were dead ... but Stalin prevented this from being necessary. Germans should be thankful to Stalin ... that and in his area of occupation, while many Germans were viciously raped and killed, he didn't kill all of them.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 06, 2017, 05:53:00 AM
I see we have a "Okay, Americans aren't dying so who cares who else is" fan here.
Even though the Chinese Republic was originally allied with Hitler, as soon as he switched to Japan, the US provided Flying Tigers without declaration of war against Japan ... because it isn't right to not care about other people's wars, because that disinterest has a way of coming back and biting you. We gave plenty of opportunity to Japan, to back down, before Pearl Harbor. They declined to listen.
Americans also volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War against Hitler, and in England during the Blitz against Hitler ... both before Pearl Harbor.
Quote from: Baruch on January 06, 2017, 06:13:19 AM
Even though the Chinese Republic was originally allied with Hitler, as soon as he switched to Japan, the US provided Flying Tigers without declaration of war against Japan ... because it isn't right to not care about other people's wars, because that disinterest has a way of coming back and biting you. We gave plenty of opportunity to Japan, to back down, before Pearl Harbor. They declined to listen.
Americans also volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War against Hitler, and in England during the Blitz against Hitler ... both before Pearl Harbor.
Exactly. The mission Truman had to stop the war, which would stop the killing. To end the war the Japanese militarist had to be made to understand they were in a no-win situation and that
Yamato* was in danger.
"Yamato", the spirit or essence of Japan, the "soul" of the nation.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 06, 2017, 06:17:30 AM
Exactly. The mission Truman had to stop the war, which would stop the killing. To end the war the Japanese militarist had to be made to understand they were in a no-win situation and that Yamato* was in danger.
"Yamato", the spirit or essence of Japan, the "soul" of the nation.
Surrender was primarily a Shinto problem ... do they keep the Emperor? We let it be unclear how that would work out, but at least didn't say at the get go, that the Emperor had to go. McArthur decided that on the spot, as the American vice-roy in occupied Japan. Fortunately the Japanese Emperor was a more reasonable man (in defeat) than his generals and admirals, who were suicidal fanatics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNli51tGCPA
Not all of the military were die-hard fanatics. I think it was Yonai that first broke with the "no surrender" faction. Of course the Navy was more pragmatic about the post war than the Army. At any rate, the fact that the Liaison Conference couldn't come up with a unified position, for the first time ever, meant that the Cabinet had to go to the Imperial Conference and say they needed a decision from Showa*. This meant the Emperor made the call, and that call was final, insofar as the Cabinet was concerned.
*"Showa", or "Peace", was the name Hirohito chose as the formal name for his era. I'm always reminded of "Peace", the killer, from the movie "Wizards". Same leopard, but new spots!
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 06, 2017, 06:36:33 AM
Not all of the military were die-hard fanatics. I think it was Yonai that first broke with the "no surrender" faction. Of course the Navy was more pragmatic about the post war than the Army. At any rate, the fact that the Liaison Conference couldn't come up with a unified position, for the first time ever, meant that the Cabinet had to go to the Imperial Conference and say they needed a decision from Showa*. This meant the Emperor made the call, and that call was final, insofar as the Cabinet was concerned.
*"Showa", or "Peace", was the name Hirohito chose as the formal name for his era. I'm always reminded of "Peace", the killer, from the movie "Wizards". Same leopard, but new spots!
Yes, the Emperor was both the captive and the final authority ... giving him plausible deniability. Prior to the war, and during, Hirohito was a war criminal, because the buck stops with him. He carried a terrible responsibility, and didn't handle it as smartly as a marine biologist (his education) should have. The Navy was more defeated than the Army ... and they hated each other (to our advantage. Had the war continued, Stalin would have had to defeat the Japanese Army in China and Korea, and he would have.
The Emperor was also the only authority that could have said "Stop!" and made it stick. He was just the Japanese version of Operation Paperclip.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 06, 2017, 06:50:33 AM
The Emperor was also the only authority that could have said "Stop!" and made it stick. He was just the Japanese version of Operation Paperclip.
Not the only part of Japanese Paperclip .... we got their nuclear and biological stuff and people hiding in Korea. That was the reason why we occupied S Korea originally. Like in Germany, most Japanese war criminals preferred the US to the Soviets.
Quote from: Baruch on January 06, 2017, 06:54:36 AM
Not the only part of Japanese Paperclip .... we got their nuclear and biological stuff and people hiding in Korea. That was the reason why we occupied S Korea originally. Like in Germany, most Japanese war criminals preferred the US to the Soviets.
We got what Unit 731 didn't destroy, yeah. But getting the Japanese to "go quietly" by just not saying what would happen to the Emperor (our version of
mokusatsu) was worth it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 06, 2017, 06:58:51 AM
We got what Unit 731 didn't destroy, yeah. But getting the Japanese to "go quietly" by just not saying what would happen to the Emperor (our version of mokusatsu) was worth it.
I think we didn't want to concede up front, that we would keep the Emperor, gave us an additional hostage during the early occupation. Also if surrender is unconditional, we don't have to listen to endless additional demands, like Japan getting to keep Manchuria and Korea.
Quote from: Baruch on January 06, 2017, 07:04:21 AM
I think we didn't want to concede up front, that we would keep the Emperor, gave us an additional hostage during the early occupation. Also if surrender is unconditional, we don't have to listen to endless additional demands, like Japan getting to keep Manchuria and Korea.
The British-US discussion of this matter is informative. Got it somewhere in that maze of bookcases behind me.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 06, 2017, 05:53:00 AM
I see we have a "Okay, Americans aren't dying so who cares who else is" fan here.
So let me get this straight... committing various war crimes against them and encouraging it =/= who cares? But saying we shouldn't be the one's doing the killing = who cares?
Man dat logic doe.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 06, 2017, 08:34:39 AM
So let me get this straight... committing various war crimes against them and encouraging it =/= who cares? But saying we shouldn't be the one's doing the killing = who cares?
Man dat logic doe.
You are desperate, why not just walk away.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 06, 2017, 08:37:09 AM
You are desperate, why not just walk away.
So you are going to stick to your guns that actively killing people =/= who cares? ... but that letting them take their lives into their own hands = who cares?
Nice.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 06, 2017, 08:56:58 AM
So you are going to stick to your guns that actively killing people =/= who cares? ... but that letting them take their lives into their own hands = who cares?
Nice.
I don't know what the fuck your strawman is saying.
Again though... all I really ask is that America admit they made the wrong choice. We have never apologized for the war crimes we committed in Japan (and other countries)... how many of the "evil" countries have beaten us at that? How many of the "evil" countries continue to say that their war crimes were justified... find reason after reason while it made sense.
Again... I don't want some time machine to change what happened... I want Americans to be honest about what happened like most other countries do. We learn from our mistakes from acknowledging them and not from denying their was any alternative and that we were right to make it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 06, 2017, 09:16:14 AM
I don't know what the fuck your strawman is saying.
*sigh* I'll break it down for you...
-You implied that letting the Japanese government tear itself apart... sitting back and letting them either ask for peace or not... meant it was just more "It's other people dying so who cares"?
-Your argument so far has been that directly invading them or committing war crimes against them was justified because they were evil too or there was no alternative.
-Both of those are based on the idea of "It was other people dying so who cares?"
-Implying that they deserved to be nuked is logically a stronger case of "who cares about them" than saying "it is up to them to ask for peace or not."
-Therefor when you accused me of "not caring about 'others' dying" you have no moral high ground to make that claim from.
Yep, strawman. Bye.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 06, 2017, 09:24:33 AM
Yep, strawman. Bye.
QuoteI see we have a "Okay, Americans aren't dying so who cares who else is" fan here.
Good. Leave as someone who talks shit then runs away when he is called on it. Won't be missing much.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 06, 2017, 09:36:49 AM
Good. Leave as someone who talks shit then runs away when he is called on it. Won't be missing much.
We didn't make the wrong choice
We made the wrong choice according to you.
You are not the moral compass for all of our country or the western world. Neither are we.
And I most of the Americans don't support an alternative, mode japnsese do, obviously.
You don't like nukes, that's good. Don't speak for the other 99.999 percent, becuase with my interactions, the overwhelming majority of people that cared about WW2, of which there isn't many which is sad becuase it's history. Said droppingg the nukes was the best and in some cases only option.
Hindsight is 20/20
Retrofitting today's morals on yesterdays decision makers requires some knowledge of why they made the choices they did. Sadly, too many people just blather. To Truman and his advisors the atomic bombs were just big incendiaries. The cities chosen for the attacks were military HQs for their prefects and had large numbers of troops in them. The Japanese made them legitimate military targets.
And it's humorous that people are calling the bombs "war crimes" when it was not against the laws of war to use a weapon that hadn't been invented yet. Hiney sight is 2/2.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 06, 2017, 09:17:25 AM
Again though... all I really ask is that America admit they made the wrong choice. We have never apologized for the war crimes we committed in Japan (and other countries)... how many of the "evil" countries have beaten us at that? How many of the "evil" countries continue to say that their war crimes were justified... find reason after reason while it made sense.
Again... I don't want some time machine to change what happened... I want Americans to be honest about what happened like most other countries do. We learn from our mistakes from acknowledging them and not from denying their was any alternative and that we were right to make it.
If you have followed what I have written about US foreign policy in the past, you would realize that I do not rubber stamp our policy in the least. We have, as a country, done evil in my eyes. And way too often. But in this case it seems to me you are using the 'time machine' thinking here, in that you are looking at Truman's choice with today's eyes. I think he really was in a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. He chose to come down on the Japanese with an untried weapon of such power that it was not really conceivable to him at the time just how powerful and world changing it was. He did know how the Japanese military and civilians acted in war and how, even near surrender was still very dangerous. In the world of sports, it is an axiom that went you have your opponent down, go for the kill. I have seen many times when that was not followed and the nearly defeated opponent got up off the matt and found new life and won or almost won the game. I think Truman felt he was faced with this situation--how to defeat the Japanese so they knew they were defeated. And he did. I don't see the Japanese nation as helpless as you do at that point in time.
If the Japanese aren't hapless victims then the US isn't so evil, and we can't have that, now can we?
QuoteBut in this case it seems to me you are using the 'time machine' thinking here, in that you are looking at Truman's choice with today's eyes.
The morals I look at these situations with are about 2300 years older than Truman... so I don't think that is really applicable.
QuoteIf the Japanese aren't hapless victims then the US isn't so evil, and we can't have that, now can we?
That hypocritical hole just keeps digging itself deeper and deeper...
Quote from: Shiranu on January 06, 2017, 11:18:55 AM
The morals I look at these situations with are about 2300 years older than Truman... so I don't think that is really applicable.
That hypocritical hole just keeps digging itself deeper and deeper...
I simply disagree with your point of view.
I'm alright with that.
The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb (https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 06, 2017, 01:14:27 PM
The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb (https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/)
Good site--I'd missed that one.
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 06, 2017, 01:42:23 PM
Good site--I'd missed that one.
Just filled with quotes of glee as the monsters planned to incinerate the poor Japanese. Quite a jolly read, all in all.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 06, 2017, 02:04:00 PM
Just filled with quotes of glee as the monsters planned to incinerate the poor Japanese. Quite a jolly read, all in all.
I guess you just have to result to intentional hypocrisy now to just say you were doing it all along...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 06, 2017, 07:17:16 AM
The British-US discussion of this matter is informative. Got it somewhere in that maze of bookcases behind me.
Britain was concerned about Japan, because China, because Hong Kong. And at one time Japan and Britain were allies ... the Japanese were fools to abandon that.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 06, 2017, 08:34:39 AM
So let me get this straight... committing various war crimes against them and encouraging it =/= who cares? But saying we shouldn't be the one's doing the killing = who cares?
Man dat logic doe.
Obama the First does war crimes, right now. It hasn't changed, according to time, geography or leadership. War is a crime.
Quote from: Baruch on January 06, 2017, 06:31:54 PM
Britain was concerned about Japan, because China, because Hong Kong. And at one time Japan and Britain were allies ... the Japanese were fools to abandon that.
Antony Best,
Britain, Japan, and Pearl Harbor. Good read.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 06, 2017, 09:17:25 AM
Again though... all I really ask is that America admit they made the wrong choice. We have never apologized for the war crimes we committed in Japan (and other countries)... how many of the "evil" countries have beaten us at that? How many of the "evil" countries continue to say that their war crimes were justified... find reason after reason while it made sense.
Again... I don't want some time machine to change what happened... I want Americans to be honest about what happened like most other countries do. We learn from our mistakes from acknowledging them and not from denying their was any alternative and that we were right to make it.
We made the wrong choice, revolting from King George ... we are traitorous and heretical criminals. You are not Han Solo, America isn't the Galactic Empire, and the President isn't Emperor Palpatine ... though I do think Dick Cheney is Darth Vader ;-)
Quote from: Shiranu on January 06, 2017, 11:18:55 AM
The morals I look at these situations with are about 2300 years older than Truman... so I don't think that is really applicable.
That hypocritical hole just keeps digging itself deeper and deeper...
Yes, an atheist who has a Christ complex then? Ironic, yes? If you want to be pure, go join a monastery (W or E). I mean that seriously and in a friendly way. Maybe that is the path you need to take. It was an alternative path I chose not to take, because I don't believe in pacifism. You don't need to spend your life moralizing how everyone but you is an asshole. And by all means, never get involved in politics, or your monk's robe will get pizza stains.
Quote from: Baruch on January 06, 2017, 06:42:53 PM
Yes, an atheist who has a Christ complex then? Ironic, yes? If you want to be pure, go join a monastery (W or E). I mean that seriously and in a friendly way. Maybe that is the path you need to take. It was an alternative path I chose not to take, because I don't believe in pacifism. You don't need to spend your life moralizing how everyone but you is an asshole. And by all means, never get involved in politics, or your monk's robe will get pizza stains.
I've considered taking up the monastic life, but I gotta get outta school first. Maybe one or two more heart breaks as well.
Quote from: Shiranu on January 06, 2017, 06:58:35 PM
I've considered taking up the monastic life, but I gotta get outta school first. Maybe one or two more heart breaks as well.
A broken heart hurts, but it brings maturity if you use it for good. And when you are ready to leave the monastery, then you are ready for your own TV show ;-)