Shooting your enemy in the back

[Skybird]

the one thing that angers me the most about that day is the lack of longterm understanding on side of the Japanese . they lost the war on day one. The event itself - militarily it has my admiration. I never bought any pathos or understood why the slaughtering and mass killing of war is more civilized if there is papers traded before. If it comes to death, these things do loose all importance. In war I would not hesiate to shoot my enemy in the back when he sleeps and lies on his belly - no method is more safe. Everthing else is just empty words to me. If someone don't like it - he better don't go to war.

"If you made the decision to draw your sword, make drawing and hitting your opponent one and the same action." (my old teacher. He was a master with the sword.) It saved me three times so far.

I also don't see much difference between the Japanese action back then, and contemporary politics today. It's always about hiding your strike.

[August]

In war I would not hesiate to shoot my enemy in the back when he sleeps and lies on his belly - no method is more safe. Everthing else is just empty words to me. If someone don't like it - he better don't go to war.

I genarally agree with that sentiment but the point was that we weren't at war.

[kiwi_2005]

Although they weren't attacking japan, but everytime i watch Saving Private Ryan, i never get sick of it. The scene where they're landing on the beach is exciting and an eye opener. Guys drowning cos of there heavy gear, getting mowed down, on fire, blown to bits, and still they manage to keep there cool and push forward. I know its only a movie but its probably the closest thing a director could ever get to the real thing. And it convinced me! I still watch that movie and Enemy at the Gates all the time.

[Skybird]

In war I would not hesiate to shoot my enemy in the back when he sleeps and lies on his belly - no method is more safe. Everthing else is just empty words to me. If someone don't like it - he better don't go to war.

I genarally agree with that sentiment but the point was that we weren't at war.
But they were, for sure.

[TteFAboB]

the one thing that angers me the most about that day is the lack of longterm understanding on side of the Japanese . they lost the war on day one.

But you, yourself, has just made an extremely short-sighted statement! Just don't get angry with yourself. :rotfl: :arrgh!:

You believe Japan lost the war? The Emperor lost his absolute powers, facism was burried and Japan became the second economy in the world, how can this be a loss? If Japan never attacked maybe today it would be a feudal xintoist monarchy, stuck back in time like some regions in the interior of China, or Tibet. The military war may have been lost, but the national war, the political war, was definitely won, even if not a victory over any other country, but a victory against Japan itself.

Now if you look at Russia, the Soviet Union "won" the war, but what can Russia say they've gained from the WW2 victory? They were saved from extermination? Were they? Or did their own kind continued to exterminate themselves? Can Poland cheer the Russian victory?

Military victory or defeat means nothing but a waste of life and material, what looks like a defeat can be a victory and a false victory can be in fact a defeat.

I never bought any pathos or understood why the slaughtering and mass killing of war is more civilized if there is papers traded before.

Because there was a time when men went to war for hobby, or because they didn't really spoke each other's language to try to understand their differences and similarities, and if you're going to war, why not make it less of a hell? Why ban explosive bullets then? Why ban gas bombs? Why sign the geneva convention? Why should we avoid to target the civilian population if WW2 proved it was so effective? In the least it is POLITE to give a declaration of war, we are all humans, not slaughtering mass killing machines of doom.

In war I would not hesiate to shoot my enemy in the back when he sleeps and lies on his belly - no method is more safe.

In peace the safest method is not to go to war at all, but your method is good if you want to exterminate the enemy, but how about getting prisioners? Wouldn't you rather capture one or two to trade for one of your own? Who would you consider your enemy? The enemy soldier? What makes the guy dressed in a different uniform your enemy? If you come to a war where you have to shoot your enemy in his back and kill him when he sleeps and lies on his belly your only enemy is yourself, for allowing this situation to happen, where you are already defeated by having to shoot your enemy in the back.

I also don't see much difference between the Japanese action back then, and contemporary politics today. It's always about hiding your strike.

Better than paper-less slaughtering mass killing conflicts isn't it? :-j

[Konovalov]

It was a day of infamy but also a day that the sleeping giant America awoke.

It would have been nice to have a modern day Pearl Harbour film that did justice to those from that time. Ben Alfeck and co :down:

[The Avon Lady]

the sleeping giant America awoke.
Urban legend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto%27s_sleeping_giant_quote)

[Skybird]

the one thing that angers me the most about that day is the lack of longterm understanding on side of the Japanese . they lost the war on day one.

But you, yourself, has just made an extremely short-sighted statement! Just don't get angry with yourself. :rotfl: :arrgh!:

You believe Japan lost the war? The Emperor lost his absolute powers, facism was burried and Japan became the second economy in the world, how can this be a loss? If Japan never attacked maybe today it would be a feudal xintoist monarchy, stuck back in time like some regions in the interior of China, or Tibet. The military war may have been lost, but the national war, the political war, was definitely won, even if not a victory over any other country, but a victory against Japan itself.

Now if you look at Russia, the Soviet Union "won" the war, but what can Russia say they've gained from the WW2 victory? They were saved from extermination? Were they? Or did their own kind continued to exterminate themselves? Can Poland cheer the Russian victory?

Military victory or defeat means nothing but a waste of life and material, what looks like a defeat can be a victory and a false victory can be in fact a defeat.

I never bought any pathos or understood why the slaughtering and mass killing of war is more civilized if there is papers traded before.

Because there was a time when men went to war for hobby, or because they didn't really spoke each other's language to try to understand their differences and similarities, and if you're going to war, why not make it less of a hell? Why ban explosive bullets then? Why ban gas bombs? Why sign the geneva convention? Why should we avoid to target the civilian population if WW2 proved it was so effective? In the least it is POLITE to give a declaration of war, we are all humans, not slaughtering mass killing machines of doom.

In war I would not hesiate to shoot my enemy in the back when he sleeps and lies on his belly - no method is more safe.

In peace the safest method is not to go to war at all, but your method is good if you want to exterminate the enemy, but how about getting prisioners? Wouldn't you rather capture one or two to trade for one of your own? Who would you consider your enemy? The enemy soldier? What makes the guy dressed in a different uniform your enemy? If you come to a war where you have to shoot your enemy in his back and kill him when he sleeps and lies on his belly your only enemy is yourself, for allowing this situation to happen, where you are already defeated by having to shoot your enemy in the back.

I also don't see much difference between the Japanese action back then, and contemporary politics today. It's always about hiding your strike.

Better than paper-less slaughtering mass killing conflicts isn't it? :-j

I talk about war. And you answer with a digression on the worthiness of a policy of politeness. :doh:
Queer reply of yours. You also mix up different time scales. We think in completely different categories.

If we were in a duel, I already would have decided your defeat, and while you would still discuss the conditions for the duel to take place, I already would have cut you into two pieces with my first strike - that is my policy, you see.

Your polite words from the beginning already would have been forgotten before your funeral begins. War is no heroic adventure movie with noble heroes and educated gentleman. It's not Clark Gable versus Errol Flynn. It's biting dogs, nothing else.

[Konovalov]

the sleeping giant America awoke.
Urban legend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto%27s_sleeping_giant_quote)

I wasn't using that phrase with Yamamoto in mind. I was simply inferring that the United States underwent a massive transformation economically as a result of entering and ultimately being victorious in WWII in which it came out as a superpower with an economy that was booming unlike say Great Britian.

On that sidenote you mentioned however I would also agree that it is just a myth regarding the alleged comments attributed to Admiral Yamamoto.

[August]

If we were in a duel, I already would have decided your defeat, and while you would still discuss the conditions for the duel to take place, I already would have cut you into two pieces with my first strike - that is my policy, you see.

Bad analogy, and what you're describing is not a duel but cold blooded murder. Besides, conditions for dues are always arranged beforehand by "Seconds".

[joea]

It was a day of infamy but also a day that the sleeping giant America awoke.

It would have been nice to have a modern day Pearl Harbour film that did justice to those from that time. Ben Alfeck and co :down:

Tora! Tora! Tora! still rules, plus real planes were used. :up:

[Skybird]

If we were in a duel, I already would have decided your defeat, and while you would still discuss the conditions for the duel to take place, I already would have cut you into two pieces with my first strike - that is my policy, you see.

Bad analogy, and what you're describing is not a duel but cold blooded murder. Besides, conditions for dues are always arranged beforehand by "Seconds".

Hairsplitting. Dead is dead. Life is written by the living. The question if killing in war is murder or not has been discussed since aeons. Victors say No, victims say Yes.

One of my favourite poems:



Der Samurai

Was zum Überfluß Worte machen,
was soll das?
Es steht die Sache
auf diesem Schwerte,
auf dieser Klinge allein.

Yosano Hiroshi Tekkan

[Onkel Neal]

If we were in a duel, I already would have decided your defeat, and while you would still discuss the conditions for the duel to take place, I already would have cut you into two pieces with my first strike - that is my policy, you see.



Of course, us bystanders would have cried "Foul!" and cut you down at once.

I get his plow horse!
:arrgh!:

[Excalibur Bane]

All major battle tragedies are marred by incomptence and general stupidity on the side of the slaughtered. Pearl Harbor is no exception. Well, perhaps an exception in that most mistakes are not so numerous in a single incident, nor no do they cause such a deathtoll by the decision of several overly confident and arrogant individuals, that believe so blindly in their country that they think themselves invincible.

It's a standard "Pride Cometh Before A Fall" scenario. It's definately an interesting case study for how-to-be-caught-with-your-pants-down.

Granted, it was a underhanded manuever, but I will not comprehend how the generals and admirals shouldn't have expected something like that. Oh, well. The US got their revenge with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

No offense anyone. Just my viewpoint. :)

[Ishmael]

I wrote this poem on the 49th anniverary of Dec. 7th. I post it here for your comments.

Mushotoku
By
Richard Scott


The essence of One Cut, We climbed Mt. Niitaka,

That bright December morning on the East Wind Rain.

Crying, “Asia for Asians!”, we stooped out of the sky over the harbor of pearls,

Like cherry blossom petals on the Kamikaze,

To slay the sleeping giant, honor our Emperor and our ancestors.

We ran wild over the Pacific for a year,

But we had only awakened the giant,

Filling him with a terrible resolve.

Our Chiburi, blood falling like rain,

Was scattered across the jungles and atolls of the Pacific,

Leaving a trail for him to follow,

Back to the home islands.

We honored our Emperor and our ancestors,

But the giant brought with him the Whirlwind,

That burned shadows into the walls of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

And changed the Divine Showa into a human being.


Mushotoku
By
Richard Scott
Copyright © 1990
all rights reserved

[Iceman]

I wrote this poem on the 49th anniverary of Dec. 7th. I post it here for your comments.

Mushotoku
By
Richard Scott


The essence of One Cut, We climbed Mt. Niitaka,

That bright December morning on the East Wind Rain.

Crying, “Asia for Asians!”, we stooped out of the sky over the harbor of pearls,

Like cherry blossom petals on the Kamikaze,

To slay the sleeping giant, honor our Emperor and our ancestors.

We ran wild over the Pacific for a year,

But we had only awakened the giant,

Filling him with a terrible resolve.

Our Chiburi, blood falling like rain,

Was scattered across the jungles and atolls of the Pacific,

Leaving a trail for him to follow,

Back to the home islands.

We honored our Emperor and our ancestors,

But the giant brought with him the Whirlwind,

That burned shadows into the walls of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

And changed the Divine Showa into a human being.


Mushotoku
By
Richard Scott
Copyright © 1990
all rights reserved

Good job on the poem. :)

Death and Hell do follow the Red War Horsemen closely.

[bradclark1]

Skybird,
From your comments I'd take you as someone who would shoot prisoners
out of hand as part of war and not think twice about it. This is a new side you have coming out. Interesting.

[August]

If we were in a duel, I already would have decided your defeat, and while you would still discuss the conditions for the duel to take place, I already would have cut you into two pieces with my first strike - that is my policy, you see.



Of course, us bystanders would have cried "Foul!" and cut you down at once.

I get his plow horse!
:arrgh!:

Germans never learn it seems. Poland all over again.

[August]

I wrote this poem on the 49th anniverary of Dec. 7th. I post it here for your comments.

Mushotoku
By
Richard Scott


The essence of One Cut, We climbed Mt. Niitaka,

That bright December morning on the East Wind Rain.

Crying, “Asia for Asians!”, we stooped out of the sky over the harbor of pearls,

Like cherry blossom petals on the Kamikaze,

To slay the sleeping giant, honor our Emperor and our ancestors.

We ran wild over the Pacific for a year,

But we had only awakened the giant,

Filling him with a terrible resolve.

Our Chiburi, blood falling like rain,

Was scattered across the jungles and atolls of the Pacific,

Leaving a trail for him to follow,

Back to the home islands.

We honored our Emperor and our ancestors,

But the giant brought with him the Whirlwind,

That burned shadows into the walls of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

And changed the Divine Showa into a human being.


Mushotoku
By
Richard Scott
Copyright © 1990
all rights reserved

3rd line. I believe the word you meant is "swooped". "Stooped" is a form of squatting.

[Skybird]

Guys,
what I mean and what it comes down to is simply this: if someone want to wage war, he better do it full-heartly, without restriction. Else you get a thing getting stuck like Vietnam, or the Balkans, or now Iraq. Obscure assumptions about "warrior's honour" and "dignity" only lead a partisan opponent hindering a regular army to win a war - and that way winning the war for himself. I understand the rites and rituals of the military as an attempt only to enable then single man to deal with the prospect of his own death or the fact that others had been brought to death by his very own hands. It is understandable that death and dying needs such an ritualized approach, else the unthinkable cannot be dealt with by one's own mind. Death (one's own or the death of the other) must be rationalized, else you cannot bear it. This is the reason why an opponent without fear of his own death often is such a fearsome enemy, like the old Samurai, or ruthless, like many religiously motivated insurgents in Iraq.

Concerning the one-on-one duel: I only refer to that scene in the wonderful Western movie "Open Range" by Kevin Kostner, when the shooting begins and Costner says he will deal with the enemy gunslinger. "Are you that famous sniper they knew over there?" (Proud:) "Yes!" "And have you shoot this and that fella over there?" "Oho, yes, I have!" Bang! and right between the eyes. That guy had too much pride. (No word by word excerpt, but you get the idea)

another story from my set of tales, about legendary sword fighter Musashi. It's not important if it is true or not. He was guest at the castle of a feudal lord and they started to argue and finally raised in anger and said they want to have a duel the next morning. "Okay", said the lord of the place, "at the shore of the lake outside my castle, tomorrow
morning!" and Musashi left. Next morning the lord called his knights and servants and everyone was dressed according to the rites for duels, and there was a fabulous procession of officials with flags and drums, and it was a wonderful scene, the lord dressed in finest silk and golden armour, and they went to the lake. Musashi was not there. They waited. No Musashi. One hour, two hours, the lord became increasingle angry again, and started to loose patience. No Musashi. Then, after miday, the lord cooking silent and with a red face, a point on the lake, that grew bigger and bigger - a boat, Musashi in it. The lord eased his servants again to swallow their anger nevertheless and behave properly. The boat reached the sand, Musashi jumped out with a warcry, cut the man into two pieces with a single strike, jumps back into the boat and was up anbd away before anyone could react.

That's how it is done. Do it, or don't, that simple, there is no trying. If that is not for your taste, don't call for a duel too easily then.

That we first sent bombers, then nurses to treat the ones that we have bombed just illustrates the perversion that war is - always. In WWI, 90% of the casualties were soldiers, onlöy 10% civilians. Since the 70s, this ratio reads different: 10% of the casualties are soldiers/figthers nowadays, 90% of them are civilians.

You are assuming right, you would not like the way I would wage war, if I were in the position and would be willing to wage war. I do not like it myself. that'S why I am so extremely hesitent to support decisions for wars for foul reasons.

"War don't ennoble men. It turns 'em into dogs. Poisons the soul." (A Thin Red Line)

I believe in all what I said here. Because it has saved my life at least two times, maybe more.

[Skybird]

If we were in a duel, I already would have decided your defeat, and while you would still discuss the conditions for the duel to take place, I already would have cut you into two pieces with my first strike - that is my policy, you see.



Of course, us bystanders would have cried "Foul!" and cut you down at once.

I get his plow horse!
:arrgh!:

Germans never learn it seems. Poland all over again.

Yes, it is the bad, ugly German bad boys again. :dead:

Fighting a war without compromise is different from liking to fight, or easily triggerign war for unjustified reasons.

Poland. You must be kidding, if you compoared me to the Nazi attack on Poland. Better look at the foul reasons of your own country for starting your latest military enterprise - one of many. And compared to the scale of the mess you created you cannot come up with anything truly satisfying that could justify your calling for war. So who is the monster here - me, or you? Maybe I would fight a war more uncompromising than you do - but I wouldn'T start it for such idiotic reasons. And that is the deciding difference.

[Takeda Shingen]

I was belatedly coming to acknowledge the anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack. I was under the impression that this was the correct thread, but it seems that I have stumbled upon yet another condemnation of 21st Century US foreign policy.

Perhaps someone would be so kind as to point out the location of the topic I seek.

[Wim Libaers]

If we were in a duel, I already would have decided your defeat, and while you would still discuss the conditions for the duel to take place, I already would have cut you into two pieces with my first strike - that is my policy, you see.



Of course, us bystanders would have cried "Foul!" and cut you down at once.

I get his plow horse!
:arrgh!:

That is why cutting down people is not so popular anymore: the right modern weaponry allows one to perform preemptive strikes while avoiding most problems with meddling bystanders. (though, technically, if they're interfering they're not real bystanders anymore)

Ignoring technical details, the principle is sound:
- If possible, avoid a fight.
- If there is no reasonable way to avoid it, use the strategy that is most likely to work and the lowest risk for yourself, even if some people might consider your strategy somewhat politically incorrect.

[Skybird]

I was belatedly coming to acknowledge the anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack. I was under the impression that this was the correct thread, but it seems that I have stumbled upon yet another condemnation of 21st Century US foreign policy.

Perhaps someone would be so kind as to point out the location of the topic I seek.

I'm sorry, Takeda, assuming you are meaning my last reply to August, I was just in direct self-defense against a stupid but nevertheless typical Nazi-comparison directed against myself, or modern Germany in general.

[Takeda Shingen]

I know that you were acting in defense, Sky. It takes more than one to argue, and the discussion is interesting. I just think that you guys might want to start a different thread for it. Maybe I'll even play, too.

[TteFAboB]

I talk about war. And you answer with a digression on the worthiness of a policy of politeness. :doh:
Queer reply of yours. You also mix up different time scales. We think in completely different categories.

You accuse me of mixing up different time scales, but I apologize if I did, because I have to search a very wide range to find an appropriate scenario for your strategies, I believe the only time period where it would be possible to apply it would be Sengoku Jidai, any nation connected to the rest of the world would not be able to maintain your policy without getting the attention of other nations and eventually turning them all against you, unless you plan a great alliance, and for that, you need Diplomacy.

The world does not live at war, excluding the African continent most of the time is spent at peace, you cannot ignore the game of diplomacy, isn't war a mean to reach an end? Then war must eventually come to an end, by no means do I intend to underestimate your abilities but you cannot achieve global conquest, you will have to shake hands with other nations again, how do you pretend to do that after you shot their ambassadors in the back? From then it's total war.

I agree that we think in different categories, I left the cave.

If we were in a duel, I already would have decided your defeat, and while you would still discuss the conditions for the duel to take place, I already would have cut you into two pieces with my first strike - that is my policy, you see.

This policy is universal and is mine too, you cannot call it for yourself, it's our animal instinct, our will to survive, I would do anything to save my life too, but I would never duel you, because I know I cannot trust you one tiny bit, you underestimate me to believe I would join a duel and wait for you to strike. But I understand this is an analogy to the Musashi story further down, quite interesting to see you comparing yourself to Musashi. However, it is with regret that I inform you, I am not an angry Feudal Lord, you were the one that said "what angers me the most..." in your original topic, you will suffer from anger in duel, not me.

Your polite words from the beginning already would have been forgotten before your funeral begins. War is no heroic adventure movie with noble heroes and educated gentleman. It's not Clark Gable versus Errol Flynn. It's biting dogs, nothing else.

Words of a wild Tiger, driven by animal instincts, easily blinded by emotion, I could tame and turn you into a nice pussy cat and throw you to the biting dogs before you realize, maybe someone already done this to you, who knows.

Now I believe I understand you, if I'm mistaken correct me, what I would like to know is if you understand me, please answer this simple concluding question:

In war, you would respect a truce or a ceasefire if the odds were against you but would betray or refuse if the odds were in your favour. The problem is that once you betray a truce, the enemy will return in the same coin, then the polite formality of truce which can be used for your advantage will be gone and you are left only with the disavantage of NEVER being able to sign a truce again, what do you gain from your policy of total carnage?

Now you are a Skybird are you not? You've read about WWI and WWII, what can you tell me about the first Air Duels of WWI? Is it not extremely noble and educated? And since then, didn't it downgraded and turned into total annihilation mentality? As a Skybird, I refuse to belive you would prefer late 1944 air combat rather than gentlemen's duels, but then I have my doubts, as you show little appreciation for a formal duel.

That guy had too much pride

You swarm with pride from head to toe, you underestimate me, and you belittle your "enemy", thinking of it as a "thing" that must be destroyed by any means necessary at any cost.

Your enemy is yourself, in the sense that he is your brother, your enemy thinks like you, your enemy will fight like you, he is as intelligent as you and will adapt, and change, like the insurgents in Iraq used by you as an example, your strategy would lead to a terrifying war and even if you can cause much suffering to the enemy, you will too suffer, would you take pride in leaving such a legacy in history? Do you Pride only the extermination of your enemy? Nothing else?

I ponder now, where are your values? Do you have a code of moral (or ethics)?

about legendary sword fighter Musashi

And here is pride again, you compared yourself with Musashi in your hypothetical duel with me, there are many great things to inspire from Musashi, I wouldn't say an old true or not Japanese duel where Musashi, filled with pride, decides to teach a lesson and use the weakness of the Lord (his ease for anger, already tested and tried on the previous night) instead of defeating him with swordsmanship - is something to inspire from, was Musashi's life threatened by the Lord? Did the Lord offended Musashi?

Because it has saved my life at least two times, maybe more.

Were you waging war in those occasions? My curiosity may not be polite, but I believe there is a huge difference between self-defense and waging war.

[TteFAboB]

Now I think it would be nice to present a contrasting opinion.

Sun Tzu said the SAFEST way is NOT to fight at all, that means routing the enemy, making them withdraw, cutting their line of retreat, encircling them, forcing a mass surrender, desertion or starvation, only entering a fight when you know (yourself and the enemy) you have the advantage to win every the battle without having to fight them, preserving all your forces intact.

Let's take the example of Iraq, if the Americans refused to accept the Iraqi mass surrenders making them to fight to death, entrenched in their cities, because they need to make sure none of those soldiers will turn into insurgents, forcing the Americans to kill every single one of them, how would that be better? Here's another of Sun Tzu's teachings, when the enemy is surrounded, with no chance to escape or facing sure defeat they fight like desperate men, desperate men do not care for their life, as Skybird mentioned, and will fight to the bitter end, turning any engagement into a bloody brawl, what do you gain by turning your enemy into a desperate opponent?! And isn't it better to capture the insurgent leaders ALIVE to interrogate them and dismantle the entire cell? Dropping a tactical nuke on Fallujah would get rid of all insurgents, but their secrets would go with them.

My point of view is that of Sun Tzu's, I prefer to preserve all life untill there is no other option left, exploiting the concept of reciprocity to my advantage, not against me.

[August]

If we were in a duel, I already would have decided your defeat, and while you would still discuss the conditions for the duel to take place, I already would have cut you into two pieces with my first strike - that is my policy, you see.



Of course, us bystanders would have cried "Foul!" and cut you down at once.

I get his plow horse!
:arrgh!:

Germans never learn it seems. Poland all over again.

Yes, it is the bad, ugly German bad boys again. :dead:

Fighting a war without compromise is different from liking to fight, or easily triggerign war for unjustified reasons.

Poland. You must be kidding, if you compoared me to the Nazi attack on Poland. Better look at the foul reasons of your own country for starting your latest military enterprise - one of many. And compared to the scale of the mess you created you cannot come up with anything truly satisfying that could justify your calling for war. So who is the monster here - me, or you? Maybe I would fight a war more uncompromising than you do - but I wouldn'T start it for such idiotic reasons. And that is the deciding difference.

Oh please. Save your rather lame redirection attempts for someone else. You are the one who said you'd strike to kill without warning while negotiations are still being conducted, not me.

If, as you say, I am personally responsible for my countries actions then you Sir, are just as responsible for yours.

So if you really want to compare the foul reasons that our two countries have gone to war then, from one monster to another, let me point out that your country has done the world far greater harm in just the last 100 years than my county has in it's entire existancr and my country has done far greater good in the world in the last 100 years than your country has in its entire existance.

[Skybird]

Long and angry reply of mine - and then deleted. Takeda is right. And those of you going after me again - will always do your best not to understand the true meaning of what I say. So it probably is not worth to consume my time.

I did not arrive where I am because what I say is wrong. I got there because I kept it all in mind. And it was for the good of me, and the good of others whom I were able to help by that attitude. Can't see anything negative in that.

[The Avon Lady]

I think Japan, like most any country has a lot to be proud about their people and their abilities - but not this, if it's true (linked to on SubSim's main page):
Japan finds pride in suicide ship (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17535761%255E31477,00.html)
Richard Lloyd Parry, Tokyo
December 12, 2005

IN any country other than Japan, the wretched story of the battleship Yamato would be a source of shame rather than inspiration.

The mighty vessel, the largest battleship ever built, was the pride of the Imperial Navy. A US military assessment called the ship the mightiest engine of destruction afloat.

In April 1945, in a hopeless gesture of defiance, the Japanese high command sent her into the jaws of the enemy on a suicide mission. The Yamato sank with the loss of almost all her men, an emblem of the folly and cruelty of the Japanese kamikaze strategy.

The story of the doomed ship is attracting intense interest 60 years after its destruction. This week, a big-budget film recounting the story of the ship and her young crew opens in Japan.

The wave of nostalgia about the Yamato has caused concern among those who believe that Japan is undergoing a slow shift to the Right.

"This film can be seen in the same context -- another symptom of growing nationalism," said Mitsuo Okamoto, a professor of peace studies at Shudo University in Hiroshima.

The producers of the film, Everyman's Yamato, have milked every drop of pathos out of it. The Yamato could outgun any other ship in the world in a surface battle, but it was rendered obsolete by the rise of bomber aircraft.

Its orders were to sail to the island of Okinawa and relieve it from US bombardment. But the sailors on board, 60 per cent of whom were teenagers, knew that most would never return.

To a score of wailing horns and weeping violins, the film shows their tearful farewells and divided emotions. "What is the point of my death?" one young officer asks in an actual exchange recounted in a book by one of the few survivors. His comrade answers: "How else can Japan be saved except by losing and coming to its senses?"

Rather than kindling outrage at the waste of life and resources, the film concentrates on the individual tragedies of the young sailors.

Producer Haruki Kadokawa said: "My message is about people's courage to live and I want to have people think again how to live with self-awareness and pride as Japanese."

The film embodies a sentiment that has been repeated over and over this year, the 60th anniversary of the end of the war: that, far from being the helpless victims of fascism, the wartime deaths somehow contributed to Japan's postwar success.

Professor Okamoto said: "We should rather say that postwar prosperity was established in spite of that stupid war."

[joea]

If we were in a duel, I already would have decided your defeat, and while you would still discuss the conditions for the duel to take place, I already would have cut you into two pieces with my first strike - that is my policy, you see.



Of course, us bystanders would have cried "Foul!" and cut you down at once.

I get his plow horse!
:arrgh!:

Germans never learn it seems. Poland all over again.

Yes, it is the bad, ugly German bad boys again. :dead:

Fighting a war without compromise is different from liking to fight, or easily triggerign war for unjustified reasons.

Poland. You must be kidding, if you compoared me to the Nazi attack on Poland. Better look at the foul reasons of your own country for starting your latest military enterprise - one of many. And compared to the scale of the mess you created you cannot come up with anything truly satisfying that could justify your calling for war. So who is the monster here - me, or you? Maybe I would fight a war more uncompromising than you do - but I wouldn'T start it for such idiotic reasons. And that is the deciding difference.

Well I believed for myself that the point about Pearl Harbour was not the actual attack (in military terms I too admire the attack as much as the attack on Poland or the initial sweep into Iraq in 2003, and I oppose all 3 actions, not that they are the same :doh: ) but the context...an act of aggression that to my mind as I wrote to our local IJN fan here (I am one too I admit) could not be seperated from Japanese actions in the rest of Asia. PH also meant death and suffering for Canadian lads sent uselessly to Hong Kong, AZNACS in Singapore, the Filipino people, Dutch in Indonesia etc. It seems both Americans and non-Americans here want to turn everything from history into a comment on the great old USA. Just as the Second World War did not (even in the Pacific let alone Europe) revolve around the USA, neither does the world today. For the other side, the USA is not the unique source of evil, and the war in Iraq not the only injustice going on today.

I really am getting sick of this. Anyway, Skybird is not a warmonger as written on another thread. no way, he hs cewrtainly experienced violence I have not...and that comes across in his postings.

[bradclark1]

It seems both Americans and non-Americans here want to turn everything from history into a comment on the great old USA. Just as the Second World War did not (even in the Pacific let alone Europe) revolve around the USA, neither does the world today.

I'd have to say you are dead wrong and I'm not saying it because I'm an arrogant American. American industry supplied the most equipment out of any country in the war. American manpower supplied most of the manpower in both theaters.
Take those three equations out of the problem and you would be speaking German or Japanese. Thats a fact or please prove me wrong.
Without America the invasion of europe would never of happened.
Without America and the Liberty ships England would have starved.

[Iceman]

Lock this thread plz Neal.

I only posted it to show my measure of respect for those who died that day. It is a great and terrible day to me partly being from Arizona I feel for the men aboard the USS Arizona yet always celebrate it being it is my daughters birthday....she's 9 now so for me it is a bitter sweet day that I will always always hold dear.

December 7 truly a day of Infamy.

[The Avon Lady]

yet always celebrate it being it is my daughters birthday....
It's one of our son's birthday, too.

That is how all of our children know more about PH Day than most of their friends and neighbors. Yes, they've all watched "Tora, Tora, Tora" - even our youngest.

[joea]

It seems both Americans and non-Americans here want to turn everything from history into a comment on the great old USA. Just as the Second World War did not (even in the Pacific let alone Europe) revolve around the USA, neither does the world today.

I'd have to say you are dead wrong and I'm not saying it because I'm an arrogant American. American industry supplied the most equipment out of any country in the war. American manpower supplied most of the manpower in both theaters.
Take those three equations out of the problem and you would be speaking German or Japanese. Thats a fact or please prove me wrong.
Without America the invasion of europe would never of happened.
Without America and the Liberty ships England would have starved.

Did you read the rest of what I wrote...I posted my respect on this thread...I have argued for the importance of American involvment (even with Russians who are rightfully on about thire huge sacrifices) and criticised the European attitude and obsession with the US too. Everything your wrote is true, but the US would have paid a much higher price without the time bought by the Brits, or blood spilled by the Russians (or Chinese, most IJA troops were in China), and I do in general like the States and it's influence in the past. :-?

[jumpy]

Seeing as everyone else is having a go :lol: here's my contribution:

As far as I can see there's some dispute about war and commiting fully to it these days- if you're going to war, then don't start pissing about pretending how noble and justified it is, you've done that already- just get on with it. and finnish it up as fast as possible (it being war, the best way to do this is to kill as many of the enemy and his reasources as possible in the shortest time) I think that's the gist of what Skybird was on about.
The Japanese strike on pearl harbour; I always understood that this was a inevitable considering japans designs on pacific expansion at the time- the american navy being the largest force to overcome to ensure a chance of victory in the pacific for Japan. They were hardly likely to telephone the president and say "well mr president, we're going to annex all the pacific and to do that we need to remove your pacific fleet from the equation to ensure success. Is a week on friday ok with you for this?" From a Japanese military standpoint this is/was entirely an valid and logical reason for a (to use the modern term) 'pre-emptive first strike' on pearl harbour.


That it's a tragedy of loss of human life is not disputable, but never the less to be expected given the circumstances.
Give a thought to all of them who never came home. It is no more or less a tragedy than anything which happens in wartime if you ask me.

[The Avon Lady]

That it's a tragedy of loss of human life is not disputable, but never the less to be expected given the circumstances.
The important word that's missing here is "inexcusable".

[jumpy]

Who's condoning it?

[The Avon Lady]

Who's condoning it?
I found the words "but never the less to be expected given the circumstances" vague.

[Skybird]

WTF...??? This is what unbiased moderation is about. Not only stabbing from behind, but turning the blade inside the wound. Whoever did it obviously has not the slightest idea what I was talking about - in another thread. This one has not been started by me. Nor is the title by me. correct it, or delete it. :down:

[The Avon Lady]

huh?...??? This is what unbiased moderation is about. Not only stabbing from behind, but turning the blade inside the wound. Whoever did it obviously has not the slightest idea what I was talking about - in another thread. This one has not been started by me. Nor is the title by me. correct it, or delete it. :down:
I have a more constructive idea:

What would you name the thread? ;)

[jumpy]

Who's condoning it?
I found the words "but never the less to be expected given the circumstances" vague.


*sigh* I forget that there are some people in this world who only deal in absolutes...
Yes, to be expected given the circumstances of imminent outbreak of war in the pacific from the Japanese military point of view, as I have already made clear, or is that too 'vague'?
At no point did I express that it was my personal oppinion that this action was 'right', or did you miss that?

[The Avon Lady]

Who's condoning it?
I found the words "but never the less to be expected given the circumstances" vague.
*sigh* I forget that there are some people in this world who only deal in absolutes...
Yes, to be expected given the circumstances of imminent outbreak of war in the pacific from the Japanese military point of view, as I have already made clear, or is that too 'vague'?
At no point did I express that it was my personal oppinion that this action was 'right', or did you miss that?
*sigh* It's often hard to read emotions or sense intentions in written text. :yep:

[jumpy]

*sigh* It's often hard to read emotions or sense intentions in written text. yep

Agreed. :)
*wanders off for five minutes to find a nice refreshingly cool glass of water*