BS: Mandela on Bush

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Beccy
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 05:19 PM

Oh wait... I'm thinking of the Godfather and "necktying" not "necklacing". Whoever said it was the burning tire thing was right. Both gruesome options, to be sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST,Bearheart
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 03:50 PM

I'm on the road teaching again and I guess I pushed the wrong button-- Anyway I'll try again.
I must say this thread is bringing up a lot of strong feelings in people. I'm no exception.
Speaking from my own experience and the discussions I've been having with family, friends and acquaintances , there are a lot of people in the US who think Bush's agenda is not a sane or moral one. He of course is not acting alone, but to say that he has the backing of most Americans is probably not the case. I personally have met almost no one (and in my work I meet a lot of people and talk to them about all kinds of things, and this topic almost always comes up)who has any faith that Bush can be trusted on this. Most people make no bones about describing him in unsavory terms. And many of these folks are not intensely political, nor would I describe them as radical. Most are probably moderate, some are left-leaning. Many are alarmed at his administration's willingness to pursue this course.

What's more, people who are not the kind to demonstate or speak up are doing so. Just because our media here has been slow to follow up and publicize the demonstrations happening all over this country does not mean they haven't been happening. And it's not just college students--who have been at the forefront of the movement. A friend in Columbia SC went to the October rally in Washington DC. She is an office worker in a computer firm. She went with a group of people from her church. She was gratified to see housewives, college students, grandmothers, blue collar workers of every description, bank presidents, and people of many races and ethnicities present. She couldn't believe the wide appeal-- people from all walks of life and all economic backrounds. If you don't think the January rallies were even bigger...! And this despite the weather. I personally feel that those at the rallies are also the tip of the iceberg. Many people have voiced their desire to attend these events who can't because of health, work or family obligations. There are online organizations where you can register your concern, as well. Make no mistake, if there weren't a strong feeling against this war effort, we would have been in it weeks, maybe months ago.

The bottom line is, most people do not see that there is justification for a war, particularly of the kind this administration wants to wage.

PS for a well written and informative take on the current situation regarding oil and its influence on all this, read The Hydrogen Economy. Not only will it open your eyes as to the influence of energy companies and big business in all of this (and he is not rabid-- just reporting facts) it will make you realize how desperate Bush /cronies are. Even the best estimates, which are probably way too optimistic, say we will be out of oil world wide by the year 2050. The world as we know it will change a lot by then. It does make you wonder why we aren't looking into alternative energy. Do you know in there are places in Eurasia where every little village does its own hydroelectricity, on small creeks and streams? And what about wind power? Seems to me we are asking the wrong questions and getting some very screwy answers when we do ask the right ones...

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: DougR
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 12:19 AM

I'll take your word for it Wolfgang. The practice of Necklicing is a new one to me. I just do not share your admiration for Mandela. Especially so after his recent vitriolic speech against the U. S. administration. I respect your feelings for the man though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 05:01 AM

Winnie was locked up in a prison cell from 1962 to 1990. (McGrath)

LOL. Winnie Mandela and Nelson Mandela are not the same person. (McGrath)

Aside from that slip, McGrath is completely right here, Doug. No serious source (from all sides of the political spectrum) I know of has ever accused Nelson Mandela to approve of that practise. Necklacing has been done; supporters (or even members) from the ANC fringe have been involved; the ANC leadership has officially denounced the practise; Winnie Mandela has at least once made a very careless speech which can be interpreted as her approving necklacing. It was one of these politicians' speeches in which a politician appeals to the lowest feelings in her most extreme supporters with carefully chosen words that later can be said to have a harmless interpretation. The supporters get the message, but to inquiring journalists the harmless interpretation is sold. In Europe, J.Haider is a master of this tactic.

Nelson Mandela, like everyone else, is not without fault, like for instance divorcing his wife too late, but this man singlehandely has done more than anybody else to ensure that the handing over of the power from the minority to the majority in SA has been extremely peacefull in comparison.

I once was a great admirer of Nelson Mandela and I still am.
I once was a great admirer of Winnie Mandela and I am now considerably less so.

Winnie Mandela and Nelson Mandela are not the same person.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: DougR
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 12:22 AM

Geeze, McGrath, what an arrogant statement! Sometimes I think the Internet is a curse rather than a help. Anything posted on a site on the Internet is considered gospel by some folks. The Sites given do not exonerate Nelson Mandela, but McGrath gives him dispensation simply because he cannot accept the fact that such a man could have been involved in such an atrocity.

Give us a break, Kevin.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 08:39 PM

I don't think anyone who knows anything at all about South Africa has ever truly believed that Nelson Mandela carries any blame for that stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 06:55 PM

I may be going out on a limb here juggling dates, but according to the report above necklacing was first used as a 'war tactic' in 1985, while Nelson Mandela was in jail. So he couldn't have had any personal involvement in it then.

After his release in 1990 the incidents continued until 1994-5, but it's notable that according to the biography McGrath posted "... shortly after his release on Sunday 11 February 1990, Mandela and his delegation agreed to the suspension of armed struggle." It seems highly unlikely that he would have engaged in the practice of necklacing while agreeing to end the violence. According to the same biography however, he had refused to denounce violence while he was still in prison in the 80's, even when he was offered his freedom in exchange.

One thing's certain - Nelson Mandela was no stranger to the methods of violent armed conflict. But IMO that does not make him guilty of condoning or engaging in these horrific methods of torture and execution.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 06:25 PM

And here is a potted biography of President Mandela.

And, to give this thread a music related touch,here is a taster quote:

Locked up in his cell during daylight hours, deprived of music, both these simple pleasures were denied him for decades. With his fellow prisoners, concerts were organised when possible, particularly at Christmas time, where they would sing. Nelson Mandela finds music very uplifting, and takes a keen interest not only in European classical music but also in African choral music and the many talents in South African music. But one voice stands out above all - that of Paul Robeson, whom he describes as our hero.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 06:14 PM

Winnie Mandela and Nelson Mandela are not the same person. Winnie was locked up in a prison cell from 1962 to 1990.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 05:39 PM

What I gather from this (tentatively, at least) is that Nelson Mandela was probably not involved; but it looks like Winnie is a real piece of work.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 04:31 PM

Interesting article. Thanks Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 04:06 PM

"Truth and reconciliation" doesn't apply for Ms. Mandela for one vital component was missing: a confession.

BBC News on Ms. Mandela

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 04:03 PM

Thanks Carol. I didn't find any information linking Nelson Mandela himself to these atrocities, but of course I didn't examine all of the sites the search produced.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 03:51 PM

Re: Nelson's pardoning his wife in response to her alleged inolvement in the practice of necklacing... my understanding is that that was the agreement under the "Truth and Reconcilliation" agreement. And that anyone else who committed atrocities and confessed to them was pardoned also, on both sides of the conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 03:49 PM

Re the ANC's involvement in necklacing, here's a link that refutes that claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 03:28 PM

The promoting necklacing (in a speech) accusations have been made against Mandela, that's true, however the first name of the one accused is Winnie, not Nelson.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 03:23 PM

Here's a report describing the practice of necklacing, linking it to the ANC. And here's some pictures of the practice. Brace yourselves, they're not pretty.

And here's a link describing the involvement of Winnie Mandela in this practice and her husband's response.

Well, if these reports are true, I don't know what to think of Mandela now. Except that he is of course a product of the horrific social environment of apartheid he fought to end. Guess I'll leave the judging to the more qualified judges.

Yuk. daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 03:19 PM

Carol is right. It's a gasoline-soaked tire place around the victim's neck and set on fire. Before believing that Nelson Mandela was involved in anything like this, I would need evidence. All I have been able to find on the internet regarding this are several forums in which people make the same accusation that Boromir just made.

Boromir, can you provide such evidence, or, at least, a link to something more convincing than the same allegation on other forums?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 02:39 PM

(please pardon my spelling)

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 02:38 PM

I think "necklasing" was the practice of placing a burning tire around someone's neck. I have heard that this was practiced, but I would be interested in seeing evidence that it was practiced or promoted by Mandela.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 01:53 PM

Oooo, sorry I asked. Thanks Beccy

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Beccy
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 01:43 PM

daylia- necklacing is slitting the throat and pulling the tongue out through the wound like a necklace. ick

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 12:21 PM

'Necklacing' GUEST boromir? Please explain.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST,boromir
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 12:16 PM

All that bitching and moaning from a guy who includes necklacing in his methods of operation.

Who cares what he says.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: DougR
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 11:53 AM

L.H., yep, I did.

Greg: and yes, Truman was right.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 10:54 AM

Be interesting to hear what Harry would have to say about Bush and the Bushites; he had Tricky Dick sussed early on:

Richard Nixon is a lying son of a bitch. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at once and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in.

          Harry S. Truman

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 09:11 AM

Not on this level of reality he isn't, no. (I assume you left out the word "not"?)

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: DougR
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 09:01 AM

And Harry is saying much these days, right L.H.?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 08:49 PM

Yes, and he may have believed that too. Who knows? Only Harry Truman can say for sure. I'm glad I didn't do it.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: DougR
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 05:41 PM

True, McGrath, history can be distorted either by the originators, or the revisionists. I guess it just depends upon which evidence each offers.

L.H. I'm confident Harry Truman gave it a LOT of thought, both before and after. As far as I know, he never stated that he regretted dropping the bombs, only that he had to.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 03:27 PM

All history is revisionist, or it wouldn't be history. Checking out the facts as to what actually happened, and taking account of the facts that had been left out; and then trying to understand why it happened that way, and draw lessons from it.

Whate we are told at the time is more often than not distorted propaganda. It needs to be revised to get at the truth - and that is what history is about.

Of course it's equally possible to set out to distort the facts, and conceal them and tell lies. That's not history, even if it can be called "revisionism". Holocaust deniers, for example, aren't doing history, they are doing propaganda, completing the circle.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 03:07 PM

The blockade of Japan following the fall of Okinawa was so complete that what was left of the Japanese Navy was holed up in harbours without fuel, being bombed and sunk helplessly at their moorings by American carrier aircraft. The Japanese merchant marine had practically ceased to exist, such devastation had been wrought, resulting in American submarines attacking even tiny fishing boats from coastal villages, for lack of larger targets. The American and British battle fleets were able to bombard Japanese ports wherever and whenever they desired, with little or no way for the Japanese to fight back beyond a small number of kamikaze aircraft (most were being held back in reserve for the presumed invasion attack).

Tojo had resigned, in disgrace. The high command was still planning a defence of the mainland, naturally...that's what soldiers do, they plan for the next battle.

But...if the expected invasion had simply never come, the military government would have fallen or captitulated sometime in 1945. It was in such disgrace that it could not have endured. The Japanese army actually NEEDED another land battle on home territory to justify its continued authority over a collapsing nation. Not given such a battle they would have fallen from within.

Not only was the blockade by air and sea very effective, there was absolutely nothing the Japanese could do to change that. They were finished.

Mass murderers will try by any logic possible to justify their actions after the fact. They will wriggle, and squirm, and justify. And that is what the USA has done ever since it dropped those bombs. Tell a lie often enough, and most people will believe it, specially if it's the only version of the event they have ever heard.

People's basic viewpoints tend to be formed when they are fairly young...the childhood to teenage years...and then those viewpoints become the bedrock of how they see reality for the rest of their lives.

That is why we find ourselves endlessly arguing from opposing positions on issues like this one, and refusing to budge.

Okay, you believe as you wish, and I shall believe as I wish, and no amount of evidence or reference material will probably ever change how we each feel about it, because we just interpret the evidence to support our chosen loyalties.

See y'all in the next life, where we will probably have a whole lot of new myths and prejudices foisted upon us by our new parents and system, any maybe find ourselves on the same side for a change, and maybe still be dead wrong while we're at it.

Would you issue the order to drop an atom bomb on a city? Think about it carefully.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 11:41 AM

On 16 Jul. 1945, Wisconsin again unlimbered her main battery, hurling 16-inch shells shoreward at the steel mills and oil refineries at Muroran, Hokkaido. Two days later, she wrecked industrial facilities in the Hitachi Miro area, on the coast of Honshu, northeast of Tokyo itself. During that bombardment, British battleships of the Eastern Fleet contributed their heavy shellfire. By that point in the war, Allied warships were able to shell the Japanese homeland almost at will.

from a website about USS Wisconsin (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/battleships/wisconsin/bb64-wi.html)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: mooman
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 11:34 AM

Dear Teribus,

Just because my premise is based on a hypothetical conjecture (albeit based on the opinions of more than one person who was involved in the naval bombardment and blockade of Japanese ports) rather than "fact" does not make it wrong. Just as your assertion that dropping the bombs that resulted in the Japanese surrender does not necessarily add up to that action being right,

As you correctly say, we are both entitled to our own opinions which, at least, is a good and healthy thing.

Regards,

mooman

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: DougR
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 11:30 AM

Teribus; Robomatic, good posts. Thanks.

It seems we have reached an impass on whether or not the A bombs were necessary. I am still in the camp that believes they were.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 11:23 AM

Mooman,

From your post above, are you trying to tell me that Japan was under a full and effective naval blockade in 1945? Facts show otherwise.

That Allied warships were bombarding coastal ports (All of them? Some of them? With what frequency?) implies little - During the First World War it was a fact that German warships bombarded British east coast ports to little effect - it signified nothing. Tip-and run raids, close the coast during the early evening, blast away, then get out to sea before first light.

With regard to necessity, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. With regard to fact, after the second bomb was dropped Japan did surrender, what your opinion is based upon is pure conjecture.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: mooman
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 07:59 AM

The bombs on Japan were, I believe definitely necessary. Talk about blockading Japan to end the war are pure fantasy - it just could not have been done. Logistically it was impossible.

Then why was it being done and why were Allied warships bomarding Japanese ports with their large guns from the sea?

For reasons I and others have posed above I believe the atomic bombs were definitely unnecessary from a military point of view as Japan would almost certainly have surrendered within weeks in any case.

mooman

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 07:06 AM

Clarification to my post above:

Where I have said:
"The Americans main push from the west was to the south to link up with the Russians."

That should of course read:
"The Americans main push from the west was eastwards through Germany to the south of Berlin to link up with the Russians."

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 06:59 AM

Little Hawk,

The "Unconditional" stipulation relating to the defeat and surrender of the Axis Powers in the Second World War was demanded by Stalin and was not negotiable at any time. The fact that, at the time it was made, Stalin was totally focused on Germany is immaterial. It also must be remembered that Soviet Russian did not declare war on Japan until the very end of the war.

Robomatic, thanks for your post above - very well put, accurate and informative. Your post and Little Hawk's are so close together I doubt if he saw your comments relating to the third bomb and the withdrawal of authority to use it.

Frankham, in your post above you say:

"You said," people used to brand the Europeans and Americans of the 30's for not realizing how dangerous Adolf Hitler was, and why didn't we stop him before he started the big war?"

The reason is that there were special interests in the US at the time that supported Hitler as a deterrent to the Bolshevik "Menace". Bank of America was one. The American Bund was another. And possibly Lindbergh."

America at the time was rigorously pursuing an "isolationist" policy and had deliberately chosen not to be part of the "The League of Nations", proposed by Woodrow Wilson at the end of the First World War. There is therefore nothing odd or sinister about the attitude of American business to what was happening in Europe at that time.


"Re: the infamous flight of the Enola Gay,
you said,
"I think it was right. I think it was justifiable. I think that much that is good came out of it.
The end of the war."

And the beginning of the Cold War culminating in Korea and Vietnam."

Certainly by Yalta, the Americans realised that the Soviet Russia, would pose a threat to peace once Germany was defeated - that was long before either bomb was dropped on Japan. Unfortunately the Americans had other things on their minds at the time of that conference and as a result may have deferred too much to Stalin. Certainly a very sick FDR, and his advisors, completely ignored Churchill's warnings on the dangers potentially posed by Stalin's Russia.

Earlier in this thread, and in other threads relating to "war crimes", the Dresden Raid and the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are proferred as examples where vicors have allowed such crimes to go unpunished.

The bombs on Japan were, I believe definitely necessary. Talk about blockading Japan to end the war are pure fantasy - it just could not have been done. Logistically it was impossible. Where would such a blockade have been based from? The condition of most allied ships having fought across the Pacific would have rendered it impossible (In an engineering lecture while in the Navy regarding the necessity of boiler cleaning, the lecturer gave the figures for the number of ships that would not have been available had Olympic gone ahead - It was quite amazing the numbers that would have been considered unoperational, therefore not available).

The Dresden Raid was another matter - at the time there were four targets under consideration. I believe they were Berlin, then to the south there were Chemnitz, Leipzig and Dresden. The Americans main push from the west was to the south to link up with the Russians. Bomber Harris strongly favoured continuing his assault on Berlin and could see no point in attacking any of the other targets nominated. At the insistence of Stalin, Churchill and Portal ordered Harris to direct his command to attack Dresden. I believe this was done for two reasons:

1. Of all targets Dresden was closest to the Russian Front, an attack there might affect what was happening immediately in front of his troops. If the raid was successful it might speed up their advance - where his armies met the Americans would be the line - should he chose to honour it.

2. He wanted to see what British and American airpower was capable of achieving. Immediately after the German Armistice, Soviet Air Force commanders were astounded at the devastation wrought by the use of strategic air power - a power that they did not possess - their own air forces were primarily tactical.

If the Soviets were amazed at what conventional strategic bombing could do - they were totally horrified at the effects the A-Bombs had. So in a way they did result in the "Cold War" as it became known - but far better that than what the Soviets might have been tempted to do had they not been so impressed.

As to who is with who, the jury is out on that and I believe people may yet be convinced - the UK government has solidly supported the USA from the start - that line has been followed for a reason, I believe they are good reasons, others may differ, that is their perogative.

Your comment regarding Germany within Europe:

"Germany maintains quite a bit of dominance already in the European community. They are doing quite well financially compared to others."

I would agree with your first sentence if it were applied to the Germany of a few years ago. France and Germany used to run the former EEC, then latterly the EU like the inner circle of a members club - everything exclusively for their benefit. As the community expands that influence is waning - they know that. Biggest stumbling block is France's down right refusal to equalise the CAP, Germany supports them in their old back scratching way. Your second sentence as applied to the current situation is totally wrong - Both Germany and France are in a horrendously, perilous financial state.

You mention oil cartels - OPEC and the Oil Companies themselves. Russia could beggar both tomorrow if it so wished.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Frankham
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 08:17 PM

Robotmatic,

You said, "Mandela deserved some credit for his stoicism under the terrible rule of apartheid. But his selling point was his own endurance, not his wisdom, leadership, nor party."

People all over the world supported his leadership. They respected his courage but I don't see that he lacked wisdom. How? His party certainly supported him in spite on Winnie's misbehavior.

You said," people used to brand the Europeans and Americans of the 30's for not realizing how dangerous Adolf Hitler was, and why didn't we stope him before he started the big war?"

The reason is that there were special interests in the US at the time that supported Hitler as a deterrent to the Bolshevik "Menace". Bank of America was one. The American Bund was another. And possibly Lindbergh.

Re: the infamous flight of the Enola Gay,
you said,
"I think it was right. I think it was justifiable. I think that much that is good came out of it.
The end of the war."

And the beginning of the Cold War culminating in Korea and Vietnam.

You said,
"Keeping the Soviets from seizing more Asian territory than they did as they ramped up their Pacific effort."

This is giving the Soviets more credit for military power than they actually had.
As it turns out, they wouldn't have grabbed China. They couldn't even grab Afghanistan.

Also stated,
"My opinion: If Pres. Mandela has any knowledge of this, it didn't show up in his statements."

His earlier statements are probably not known since he was not at that time in the headlines. We don't really know what he said.

You said,
" The Japanese military was for continuning the war."

This is possible. They were not going to give up. But the question will remain, did the use of nuclear weapons really keep the war from being prolonged? Or is this just propaganda by people who would like to believe that? As you have pointed out, there is no "parallel universe" to substantiate that historical theory. There is evidence however that Japan was badly defeated at that time.

You said,
"The amount of thought and soul-searching that went on in the scientific community and the political establishment in the United States was immense and is well documented. Good people from the Manhattan Project found themselves on different sides of the bombing issue. There are good books and web sites devoted to every part of the story, which is a fascinating one.

This is undoubtably true. Einstein was shocked that the US had used the weapon on Japan. He had hoped it would be for Hitler. There were many consciences at work. Oppenheimer, Harold Eurie (sp?).

You said,
"As for the U.S. going it alone in Iraq, this is not the case. Britain is with the U.S. Most of the other European countries are with the U.S. Germany is exploiting the situation as a means to assert dominance in Europe and isolate Great Britain, and they are luring France into bed with them."

Don't be too sure that the British people are behind Blair. Most of the other European countries are not with the US. As you recall, the Nobel Peace Prize went to Jimmy Carter and there was an aura of politics about that. Perhaps it would be helpful to enumerate those countries that are supporting the Bush adminstration in the impending war.

Germany maintains quite a bit of dominance already in the European community. They are doing quite well financially compared to others.

You say,
"And of course oil is a factor. We'd be idiots if we didn't acknowledge that. So what? Nuclear weapons, biological toxins, and oil make a powerful inducement to trouble."

The question is who is reaping the benefits of depleting oil? Who has the most to gain? Not the American people since they would do better with alternative energy sources that Detroit could supply in a New York minute if they wanted to. The oil cartels and special interest groups won't allow that.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 05:18 PM

I understand your puzzlement, Doug. You probably have not read the same references on the situation that I have, that's all.

The USA had only 2 bombs made and ready at the time, and they used both of them.

The Japanese were at first not even sure exactly what had happened at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. To expect an "immediate" surrender was completely unrealistic, as they were still trying to sort out just what the heck was going on. For this reason alone, the bombing of Nagasaki was extraordinarily callous.

Japan absolutely would have surrendered, had the USA & its allies simply blockaded the mainland for a few more months (or even weeks). Their economy was in a shambles, their government was tottering, the Russians were overwhelming them in central East Asia, their Navy was gone, their air force was impotent, they were finished. The Emperor would have moved to end the war quite soon, regardless of the atomic bombs. This is so clear to me from what I have read that I am truly chagrined that many Americans don't know about it, and can't see it.

You see, if they did know about it, then they would have to re-examine their own assumptions about themselves and their government in the World War II era. And they don't want to do that. It's called "denial". If Hitler had won World War II, do you think that any Germans would presently be admitting to the willful extermination of 6 million Jews and a great many other innocent people in the concentration camps?

They would not even know it had happened that way, if they knew anything about it at all. They would be under the firm and unshakeable impression the Nazi Germany had * saved the world * from barbarism, communism, and other horrific threats to civilization.

That's denial. It is practiced by all victorious Empires, following their ruthless destruction of whoever stands in their way. They teach it to their kids, and their kids believe it because children just naturally trust their parents when they're young.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: robomatic
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 05:08 PM

Well, to speak to the words of Nelson Mandela whose quotation starts off this BS list:
While George W is no deep thinker, Nelson Mandela is the one who has no foresight and "can't think properly.

As all this argument is going back and forth, I keep remembering how often people used to brand the Europeans and Americans of the 30's for not realizing how dangerous Adolf Hitler was, and why didn't we stope him before he started the big war? I'm learning just how tough it is to get the world committed to opposing even the most obiously dangerous and heinous of all leaders.

Mandela deserved some credit for his stoicism under the terrible rule of apartheid. But his selling point was his own endurance, not his wisdom, leadership, nor party. His wife unfortunately did not behave particularly well. When he was released and assumed the presidency, I think he acted like a defrosted Marxist with little flexibility and no originality.

As for the atomic bomb, it's a big red herring. Mandela's observations are hackneyed and fatuous. The discussion in the list serve is particularly illuminating and one of the main reasons is that history is not scientific. There is no parallel world we can use as a 'control'. So many of us 'know for a fact' what would have happened. I think that responsible people can come down on both sides of the rightness or wrongness of that decision.

I think it was right. I think it was justifiable. I think that much that is good came out of it:

The end of the war.

Keeping the Soviets from seizing more Asian territory than they did as they ramped up their Pacific effort.

Establishing as a fact in evidence and not just theory how terrible indeed the new weapon was.

And after challenging the usefulness of facts I'd like to bring out a few more 'facts':

1) The Japanese military was for continuning the war. The emperor himself decided to 'endure the unendurable' and went on the radio to the Japanese nation with the statement that the progress of the war "had proceeded not necessarily to the favor of the Empire". (This puts even English understatement to shame).

2) The issue of 'unconditional' surrender is also a bit of a red herring. One of the aspects of a 'conditional' surrender would still have been giving up the deification of the emperor, and this was a main sticking point to the Japanese. The allies, (or the U.S. alone) could have simply bombed the emperor (non-nuclear) if they had wanted.

3) There was a third bomb that had been released to the authority of Curtis LeMay, the air force general who directed the bombing campaign. After the second bomb, Truman directly ordered that no further atomic bombs be dropped, and took back the final authority to dispose of nuclear weapons.

4) The amount of thought and soul-searching that went on in the scientific community and the political establishment in the United States was immense and is well documented. Good people from the Manhattan Project found themselves on different sides of the bombing issue. There are good books and web sites devoted to every part of the story, which is a fascinating one.


My opinion: If Pres. Mandela has any knowledge of this, it didn't show up in his statements.

As for the U.S. going it alone in Iraq, this is not the case. Britain is with the U.S. Most of the other European countries are with the U.S. Germany is exploiting the situation as a means to assert dominance in Europe and isolate Great Britain, and they are luring France into bed with them.

And of course oil is a factor. We'd be idiots if we didn't acknowledge that. So what? Nuclear weapons, biological toxins, and oil make a powerful inducement to trouble.

COmments INvited!

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 04:22 PM

And you're right about the leaflets. But--all sides were dropping propaganda leaflets all the time, and many of them bragged about having an invincibly powerful secret weapon (the Germans were supposed to have a huge juggernaut that could bore through the earth and come up in the middle of London or Chicago to scatter death and destruction far and wide, so we'd better surrender real quick before they used it). All that leafeting accomplished was to 1) provide amusement at the imagination and ingenuity of the propaganda writers (probably science fiction writers in civilian life); and 2) alleviate the shortage of toilet paper.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 04:21 PM

Oh by the way--not only did the US use it's atomic weapons as soon as it had them, and remains to this day the only country to have ever used them, I forgot to add, they also used all the atomic bombs they had.

It is well known that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not used to end the war, but as military experiments, as were the atomic weapons detonated exposed both US civilians and military veterans were military experiments.

The atomic veterans include members of the United States Armed Forces who were exposed to ionizing radiation from atomic and nuclear weapons testing during the period beginning with the Trinity Blast of July 16, 1945 at Alamogordo, New Mexico; continuing through the U.S. clean-up of Nagasaki / Hiroshima; during the 235 atmospheric atomic and nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific and Nevada test sites; until the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963. The National Association of Atomic Veterans recognizes that civilians as well as military personnel were exposed to harmful nuclear material radiation, and that many of these personnel have since expired as a result of radiation induced illnesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 04:10 PM

Feelings ran very high in Seattle, Doug, because if the Japanese ever bombed the West Coast, Seattle was a prime target. Nearest city to Japan on the great circle route, and Boeing was here. Just across Puget Sound was the Bremerton navy yard, which would have been another prime target. I remember on a ferry trip to Bremerton, the ferry having to wait to be escorted through the mines and the submarine nets guarding the entrance to the harbor.

Forget about the Bomb for a moment and consider this: invasion of Japan was not necessary. One of the plans at the time was to blockade Japan. They were so dependent on imports that a tight blockade would have forced them to surrender in fairly short order. At the same time, it was known that much of the Japanese people, and much of the military, were fed up with the fanatical bunch at the top and wanted to end it. A little patience would have produced the desired result and save a lot of lives, both Japanese and American.

This is not Monday morning quarterbacking. All of this was known at the time.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: DougR
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 03:27 PM

So okay, Don, perhaps I did stetch the truth a bit about dancing in the streets. I was fifteen at the time and I think we all knew that the end of the war was in sight. I don't believe any of us knew or could comprehend at the time how powerful those bombs were, nor could we grasp how one bomb could kill so many people.

Certainly Japan could not have continued to survive with such devestating bombs available (I don't know if we even had more bombs). It forced the surrender.

I still contend that the dropping of those two bombs saved many more lives than were lost on that day. That does not mean that I regret the loss of human lives. I regretted the loss on both sides during the terrible battles that took place on various islands in the Pacific. It was war time though, and lives are lost during wars.

One should also take into account the fact that the Japanese were intensely hated by most Americans because of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. I don't believe there were a large number of sympathizers for Japan's position in those days. Perhaps there were in Seattle, but certainly not where I lived in Texas.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. It makes experts of us all.

L.H. I simply don't understand how you think the war would ever have come to a conclusion if: 1. Those bombs were never dropped; 2. there had been no invasion of Japan. You think maybe Truman could have TALKED them into surrendering? They certainly had every opportunity to do so prior to the bombs being dropped. If memory serves correctly, days prior to the dropping of the bombs, the Japanese government and the people were warned by leaflets dropped by crews of B-29s that a terrible thing was going to happen. Had they surrendered, the bombs would not have been dropped.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 02:53 PM

"Scuse me again. "Hersey," not "Hershey." I reall must learn to proof-read.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 02:44 PM

Well said, Don and Little Hawk. I've been trying to make this point here and elsewhere but not as articulate as either of you have done here.

A rose is still a rose no matter what else you call it and...

Wrong is wrong.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 02:44 PM

'Scuse me. "Cheering." None of that, either.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mandela on Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 02:38 PM

I remember very well when those bombs were dropped, and there was cheering in the streets.

I have to comment on that. I remember vividly hearing the news about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. I was fourteen at the time. It was early afternoon and my dad and I were sitting in the car waiting for my mother and my two sisters. We were going swimming. While we waited, the news came over the car radio. That morning, the entire city of Hiroshima had been destroyed by a single atomic bomb. The announcer went on to describe that the bomb made use of nuclear fission, the process that powered the sun, and that for a moment, it was as if the sun had appeared a thousand feet above Hiroshima and incinerated the whole city. Among the other details the special news bulletin included was the comment that due to radioactive contamination from the fissionable material in the bomb, the surrounding area would be uninhabitable "for perhaps as long as the next seventy years." The scientific details were not all that accurate, but at the time, even the scientists didn't really know. This was something new, even to them.

Dad and I sat there in the car, quiet and feeling pretty damned sober. When my mom and sisters got into the car, the news was being repeated. We went about our business that day and ran into a lot of people both at the swimming pool and in downtown Seattle. There was no jubilation, no celebrating, and no dancing in the streets. Everybody was pretty quiet and sober. All of the implications had not yet sunk in. It was evident that the war was about over--but it was also evident to most people that the world had changed that day and nothing would ever be quite the same.

My dad was on vacation for the entire month of August, and we had planned a trip to Vancouver, B.C. We arrived in Vancouver in the late afternoon of August 14th, and the whole city had gone berserk! Cheering people everywhere. We didn't had the car radio on, so we hadn't heard the news. The Japanese had surrendered. The war was over! And indeed there was dancing in the streets!

But not on August 6th. People were hopeful that the war was all but over and they were glad about that, but most people were aware that, despite some news reports, Hiroshima was not just a military base, but a city, filled with civilians, and that a horror beyond belief had been unleashed on them. "Hell," a few people said, "they were only Japs!" But despite the fact that feelings against the Japanese ran pretty high during the war, most people felt pretty ambivalent about the bombing of Hiroshima--and especially Nagasaki. Battles between armies and navies are one thing, but the incineration of tens of thousands of civilians, even if they were "the enemy," was not something most Americans felt very good about.   

For those who like carrying "a big stick," the A-bomb was a glorious new toy, but for the the rest of the world, August 6th was not a good day.

A little over a year later, John Hershey's book Hiroshima was published. It also came out in a 35¢ paperback edition, so a lot of people read it. It should be required reading for everybody.

Talk about sobering. . . .

Don Firth