Korean Job Discussion Forums

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

In bringing up the War of 1812 I did not mean to suggest that the U.S. had been victorious in that war -- a claim, incidentally, that I have never heard made in any context.

In this war, the U.S. confronted Britain over several issues, in the context of the Naploeonic Wars. Besides the issue Ya-ta cites, above, we fought for neutrals' rights and free trade. (These issues and tensions surfaced again in the early years of the First World War, by the way, when Britain flouted international law to blockade all trade that might eventually reach Germany, even that coming from neutral nations.)

In doing this, Washington stood against a far superior naval power (and suffered the consequences). It certainly would complicate any thesis which alleges that the United States is guilty of cowardice or bullying.

Also, are those on this board who use "we" when discussing this war, as in "we burned Washington," British? Because those were the only belligerents in that war: Great Britain and the United States.

freethought · Joined: 13 Mar 2005

I assure you my grasp of US history is strong, and at no point did I call my list exhaustive. I didn't include the revolutionary war because it technically predates the US. Nor did I include the Civil war, since it was a domestic war. The war of 1812 was omitted, but in essense you've proved my argument. I listed 13 conflicts in the post-revolutionary period, of which only 1 or 2 can be said to be against even rough equals. If you add the war of 1812, that's 3. Three of 14. Less than 25%. You score 25% on a test you ain;t passing.

As to why I left some of the things mentioned off my list, for the very reasons they've been labelled... disputes. I said battles and FOUGHT opponents. the missile crisis was a stand off. the conflicts withthe brits over South America were marginal at best. I listed every major CONFLICT/War the US has been in other than the war of 1812 (my bad).

As for other nations fitting the bill, maybe. Canada's record of treatment of aboriginals is atrocious, as is Australia's. The problem is we weren;t talking about those nations, we were talking about the US. I debated for 5 years competitively, and I know the tricks most often applied during debates about American foreign policy. The issue is that redirection, obfuscation and accusations against other nations do NOT change the actions and the history of the United States.

As for Hiroshima and nagasaki and their necessity, it's a tired and tough argument. The way I look at it is that lots of people were going to die no matter what was done(starvation), but there are a large number of policies and tactics that could have been applied instead of dropping the bomb. Using the bomb was more of a poltiical decision, though that does not mean that tactical considerations were not considered.

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

mithridates · Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:40 am Post subject:

R. S. Refugee · Joined: 29 Sep 2004 Location: Shangra La, ROK

bucheon bum · Joined: 16 Jan 2003

R. S. Refugee · Joined: 29 Sep 2004 Location: Shangra La, ROK

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

freethought · Joined: 13 Mar 2005

In my case I did have relatives fighting, D-day airborne(great uncle Ivan, who is alive and kickin') was the most high profile. Also had relatives fight in Korea(grandfather). The key thing about the decision to drop the bomb is to take into account two things 1. the level of talk about the Soviets, 2. the fact that many members of the military and higher political echelons deliberately and consciously exagerated the number of expected casualities and other elements of the American intelligence assessments of the cost of invasion. If I recall, Truman once spouted the figure of 500,000 casualties(wounded and dead), which is totally false and a number never brought up in intelligence assessments, even the more dire assessments. I think an interesting point of view on this matter can be found from Robert Mcnamara in the documentary Fog of War. He was involved in the pacific war and he calls into doubt the decision to drop the bomb.

You're point is well taken, though, about second guessing etc. It's hard to know what should have been done and easy to second guess people post-facto. That said, to not look at the Soviet element, racism and a few other factors in the decision to drop the bomb is equally as egregious.

bucheon bum · Joined: 16 Jan 2003

bucheon bum · Joined: 16 Jan 2003

freethought · Joined: 13 Mar 2005

no, sir... not a single intelligence assessment during the war calculated the totals above 100,000. Those came AFTER the war. Right and leftwing scholars concur on that point.

As for a total of thousands being too many, I think that is a legit point. That said, they could have starved them to death in a blockade or via any number of other methods. The point is that the bombing was not NEEDED to win the war... it was done for WAY more reasons than that, and to say that it was done to end the war is extremely simplistic, if not erroneous.