response 250 of 360:

May 20 23:21 UTC 2002

yes I do.

response 252 of 360:

May 21 00:17 UTC 2002

r251 Americans should have the courage and honesty to take the blames for
those ( eg. Vietnam, Hirosima/Nagasaki, supporting terorist groups resulting
Sept.11 and so on...) they are supposed to blamed.
Ok i have to go out and catch a cab.

response 254 of 360:

May 21 03:11 UTC 2002

I'm generally not a really pro-military guy, but I happen to agree.  
My grandfather fought during that time on the Pacific front, and I've 
been to Oahu Island in Hawaii to see the sites relevant to that period 
of the war.  I've been to Diamond Head.  I've been to Pearl Harbor.  
I've been to the Punchbowl Cemetery.

From the stories I hear, the U.S. was quite isolationist before the 
bombing of Pearl Harbor.  We were hoping the Europeans would be able 
to take care of the war, pretty much.

Pearl Harbor changed all that.

A high-ranking general of the Japanese Armed Forces was reluctant to 
order the bombing.  He feared the industrial might of the United 
States.  Go, go to Pearl Harbor-- or ask any military officer who was 
a good student in WWII studies.  But he went ahead, because the U.S. 
had cut off oil supplies.

"This means war" was a somber and a matter-of-fact quote given by.. I 
can't remember who the announcer was.  But I remember reading that it 
wasn't vengeful, but quite to the point of things.

Is Sarkel familiar with the kamikaze pilots?  They were fanatically 
loyal to the Emperor, and would do anything to take down opposing 
fighter planes, even if it meant certain death.  My grandfather also 
described what it was like in Guam, Iwo Jima, and Guadalcanal.  From 
what he has said, I believe that the war would have been very bloody-- 
much more bloody than it already was-- had things been allowed to 
continue beyond the H-bombs.

The Fat Man and Little Boy bombs were devastating not so much in their 
destructive impact, but in their radioactive aftereffects.  As a 
result, the Japanese still generally fear all things nuclear (Godzilla 
is one example).  But.. it got the job done.  General Douglas McArthur 
effectively became emperor for a short time, and the Japanese, as well 
as the Germans, were barred from military technology.  Granted-- they 
went to focus on other things.

World War II was incredibly bloody-- but the propaganda was slick.  
Vietnam was much different because we got more of the war unfiltered, 
and soldiers were coming in younger to endure greater intensity during 
their tours of duty.  There was great social upheaval at the time.

I really don't want to imagine what would have happened had we *not* 
bombed Hiroshima and Nagaski.

response 256 of 360:

May 21 03:42 UTC 2002

There may have been several low level attempts  to bring about a conditional
surrender, but nothing the allies could accept was ever proposed by the
japanese government.  We told them we required unconditional surrender.

The radietion effects of the Atomic bombs was unkown when we dropped them,
but the radiation is of little effect.  Everyone is afraid of the radiation,
not just the japanese.  How many people here are afraid of what radiation will
do if there is ever a nuclear incident?  It isn't that big a deal. The heat
and overpressure will kill you long before you get enough Gamma radiation from
a nuclear weapon.  If you survive the heat and overpressure, you will not die
of radiation unless you are stupid.

Sarkhel said a lot of things up there that made little sense to me.  Makes
me think his education is a little off.  The U.S. HAS supported many
democratic nations in the past, we support India today.  We also support none
democratic nations such as Pakistan.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

response 258 of 360:

May 21 06:19 UTC 2002

There were a lot of other things that lead up to Japan's attack on the
US.  Among other things, Japan had been busy creating themselves a nice
and not so little empire, occupying by military force all those
resources that were so lacking in Japan itself (which mainly only has
hydroelectric resources).  The US was merely "in the way" - it was the
only large military threat to Japan's supremacy that wasn't already
distracted by events in Europe.  The Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour
wasn't so much an attempt to attack the US itself as it was an attempt
to destroy US military might, and deny the US the right to challenge
Japan's control.

As far as I can tell, India got its notion of democracy from the
british, and really, perhaps even more so, from the American revolution.
As far as I can tell, what today comprises India was anything but
democractic, even at the local level.  Indeed, from everything I've
read, India was, and still is, quite fragmented, with cultures not just
in different places, but in the *same place* stacked up on top of each
other, in the form of different castes, and with no notion of equality
or fraternity.

Regarding Columbus and all that; it's true, Columbus wanted to find
India.  He wasn't interested because India was a "great nation" however;
he was interested in getting rich by trading with "ignorant" natives.  A
highly organized national gov't, like China had at the time, would have
been just in his way.  Arguably, at the time Columbus sailed, he was a
member of the most "technologically advanced" society of the time.  That
is to say, he had at his command the best instruments of war of the
times, and would have posed a credible threat to any organized community
on the planet.  Not the least of his weapons was the art of writing, by
which he was able to fire up the imagination of europeans everywhere on
his return, all of whom retraced his steps to get rich quick off of
those ignorant natives.  The Spanish got rich looting the temples and
palaces of central and south america.  The French did the same thing
with furs.  The British, who got in the game late, had to make due with
pine trees and tobacco.  The portuguese actually got into the game
first, even before Columbus.  They were the ones busy trading with
India, Indonesia, and other parts, until the British drove them out
using superior guile and warships built using tobacco money and pine
trees from North America.

response 260 of 360:

May 21 14:50 UTC 2002

Um . . . Sharkhel . . . you really are misinformed.  Vietnam did not 
begin with the US, but rather with the French.  Ever hear of Diem Ben 
Phu? That was in the 50s, my friend.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki--the US 
have never claimed they weren't responsible and have not hidden this 
information at any time . . . this was also in the context of war and 
was not against any regulations established by the proto-UN in place at 
the time.  You also continue to deliberately interpret "official" 
responses to political/social/economic phenomena as the view of the US 
populace as a whole.

And I would argue that your nation is just as much to blame as any 
other nation for the terrorist movement that affects the world.  India 
is not blameless in this.  Terrorism is a world phenomena, and most 
governments have information on one terrorist organization or another 
that would possible be useful to fellow nations.  Need I remind you of 
how the conflict between India and Pakistan began in the first place?

As for the "war on communism," you're just barely cutting your teeth on 
this, the US had a hard-on about that subject long before Indian 
independence did not deal with the French instead, which it would have 
had they not lost the 7-Years (French & Indian) War in the 1700s.  The 
French were worse in their treatment of Colonials generally than were 
the Brits.

response 262 of 360:

May 21 15:52 UTC 2002

somewhat = marginally

response 264 of 360:

May 23 02:14 UTC 2002

Well, America has certainly supported countries that train terrorists,
and even directly trained terrorists.  We threw all kinds of support
into Afghanistan when they were at war with the Soviet Union, funneling
a lot of it through Pakistan.  It's a pretty sure thing that the people
who backed the 9/11 attack have in the past received substantial US
support for doing things not very different than they did to us. 
Embarrassing, and not the first time poorly chosen "friends" have turned
on us.

Of course, it is substantially easier to find out about America's
stupidities than it is about other nations.  We aren't very good at
secrecy.  India's media, for example, is much more inclined to support
the government.  Monica-gate could not happen in India, not because
Indian politicians don't get blow jobs, but because the Indian media
would not publish such news.  I can't decide if this is enviable or not.

response 266 of 360:

May 23 06:13 UTC 2002

technically my ancestors (depending on how far back i go, and which side) have
been both opressors and opressed. i don't feel it affects me personally on
issues of opression. 

response 268 of 360:

May 29 23:58 UTC 2002

        Indeed.  Nothing is ever that simple, ever.

response 270 of 360:

Jun 4 13:07 UTC 2002

World War II was the result of World War I.
I did not care who started the "Vietnam" but the genocides and the brutality
of US force simply unthinkable.

response 272 of 360:

Jun 5 04:04 UTC 2002

re#270:  Actually, as far as brutality and genocide goes the US
ranks far behind the Koreans and the ANZACs who as a group lag
rather far behind the french.  Even the japanese though rank far
behind the brutality and genocidal activities of the Viet themselves.
As is often the case, the worst atrocities are enflicted by the
revolutionaries.  And the Viet as brutal as they were invaded
kampuchea to overthrow its brutal genocidal regime.

response 274 of 360:

Jun 5 14:09 UTC 2002

When no one wants to hear you,
If you feel from your heart that
You are correct and can do good to the world,
Go alone,even if the path is full of dangers
Go alone.....

Rabindra Nath Tagore