Pantagraph.com | Letters | All wars repeat crimes of earlier generations

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

2W of DC wrote on Aug 29, 2007 2:30 PM:

" We are learning from history. 4+ "wars" have been fought since WWII. Number of nukes used: 0. The horror's of the use of the atomic bomb didn't hit home until it was actually used. We have learned not to use it... for now. As these 4+ wars have been fought, there have been fewer and fewer casualties. The true horror's of war are being left behind. Fewer have died in this war then in the average battle in past wars. If you want an end to war, quit treating it like a game... no non-combatants, every tool or weapon in play. See how long "war" lasts then. "

The Irascible Fachna wrote on Aug 29, 2007 2:25 PM:

" The CONSERVATIVES in 1941 did not want ANY war, the LIBERALS in 1941 did not want a war WITH JAPAN; but the CHRISTIANS, with their long missionary traditions in China, pressed for the escalating sanctions against the invading-and-occupying Japanese which ultimately provoked the Pearl Harbor attack. President Roosevelt wanted war with GERMANY, and had been doing all that he could - given the CONSERVATIVE, isolationist agitation in Congress and in the country, to goad them into an overt, warlike act. Remember that, in the summer of 1941, the great, moral outrage at Hitler could only manage a 1-vote House margin for extension of the military draft. At the penultimate moment, the United States expected a Japanese attack, but expected that it would come against the Dutch or British East Indies, or, if against us at all, would target the Philippines. "

to 9/11 wrote on Aug 29, 2007 1:56 PM:

" no, i don't want you to criticize other governments...i just want your arguments to be a little more fact based and not based so much on the extremist agenda that cherry-picks facts and quotes to suit their argument...take the recent discussions of WWII...rather than look back at history KNOW that we did not ask for the war and we were in-fact the good guys in that war, which should be quite obvious to anyone, the extreme liberals want to cherry pick quotes and facts and accuse us of somehow wanting the attack on Pearl Harbor so that we had a reason to go to war and then accuse us of atrocities and somehow make us look like bad guys in the war. Highly frustrating, but proves the point that no matter what we do as a country, guys like william blun will always cherry-pick facts and quotes to make it our fault. "

The Irascible Fachna wrote on Aug 29, 2007 1:54 PM:

" propounds a consistent, liberal philosophy ..... accept no imposters. "

Lizzy wrote on Aug 29, 2007 12:52 PM:

" Rebecca, I wish that everyone had your attitude/belief system then it could become a reality. HOWEVER - and the postings ppl have placed are a perfect example here - until attitudes and beliefs change, war is inevitable and we as a human race will destroy one another. Learning from history is difficult for most. Our war-loving president included. "

to to 9/11 wrote on Aug 29, 2007 12:31 PM:

" You are wonderful. You want me to criticize other countries and ignore the wrong doing of my own. You must love the illegal Mexican immigrants who have given up on their corrupt government and are bringing down wages in this country. "

to 9/11 wrote on Aug 29, 2007 11:49 AM:

" i went to your buddy, william blum's, website...took literally 10 seconds to understand where you're coming from, and just as i said yesterday, you're reading extremist literature...this man tries to blame everything bad that happens in this world on U.S. foreign policy...he is truly a conspiracy nut and anti-government...sounds to me like he's all about anarchy. "

Peeved wrote on Aug 29, 2007 11:38 AM:

" To Amen-History has given you a 60+ year opportunity to second guess and Monday morning quaterback the decisions that resulted in those two terrible days. You have given yourself the luxury of sitting back, looking down from on high, and deciding just when enough should have been enough. Too bad you weren't one of those soiling your undies as you prepared to invade a hostile country where casualties were predicted in the hundereds of thousands of our own troops. And just a FYI-we did NOT annihilate the enemy, we ceased hostilities WHEN they surrendered. That is all we were asking for in the first place. "

The real Devil's Advocate wrote on Aug 29, 2007 9:23 AM:

" To poster #3... Stop using my blog name. Find your own you copycat. "

to to 9/11 wrote on Aug 29, 2007 8:45 AM:

" As to Iraq invading Kuwait, didn't US emissary April Gilespie give Saddam the green light to attack Kuwait who was stealing Iraqi oil by slant mining? And how about the Rwandan and Ugandan guerillas the US has been supporting to attack the Congo since 1996 where over 5,000,000 poor people of the Congo have been butchered? Trying reading William Blum's work like Rogue State where he points out over 100 violent military and special forces attacks the US has committed since WWII. "

to 9/11 wrote on Aug 29, 2007 7:17 AM:

" You know, i'm sure you could find links from just about every industrialized nation to most of these same wars in some form or another. However, you don't mention those b/c it doesn't further your agenda....and their not mentioned in the liberal literature you read. "

Scott wrote on Aug 29, 2007 2:52 AM:

" I don't agree with the "war is icky" sentiment. Either a war is direct defense, or it is aggression. Examples: Going after Bin Laden is defense. Invading a country because it might have weapons and is run by a bad guy is not. Going after Japan after the attack is defense. Invading Mexico in 1914 was not. It is important that we have leaders with good discernment about what is defense. We don't need leaders who make judgements based on what feels icky. "

to to 9/11 wrote on Aug 28, 2007 10:51 PM:

" Don't forget that Nicaragua, and Honduras have both had the CIA funding terrorists to attack their own people or the Guatemalan death squads funded by the Reagan Administration. But I don't know about Ireland. Did they lose over 100 people? Of course, according to Johns Hopkins we help cause the violent deaths of about a million Iraqis, but I guess its worth it because we are giving them freedom and democracy. If they were “helping” us the way we’ve just done them, then 12,000,000 Americans would be dead. But I guess that would be okay if it was a gift. "

To The Irascible Fachna wrote on Aug 28, 2007 9:50 PM:

" You stated, "If George Bush wasn't in office, we would be living in peace and harmony." We were living in peace and harmony until YOUR people attack us on 9/11. Now it is time to face the reality of revenge. As the Japanese admiral once said after attacking Pearl Harbor, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." Apparently some nations didn't learn from those words. "

Rebecca, Rebecca, Rebecca . . . wrote on Aug 28, 2007 9:26 PM:

" Although your input would be an ideal utopia, we must face reality. Do you have a better plan to save the human race? Critiquing and complaining about it does not save people from tyrants who torture, and murder their own people for self gratification. That is what I don't understand with some of the people who are against this war. What Saddam and his henchmen did to the people of Iraq are unbelievable. Yet, like many democrats, you allow your political belief cloud your perspective to reality. "

AMEN wrote on Aug 28, 2007 8:28 PM:

" Too many of the still-bitter and holier-than-thou patriots are confused about something. Wars are bad enough without insisting that the enemy be annihilated. Almost every nation, right or wrong, is proud of its military. Noble things are done by men in all armies. But wars should not be used as an excuse to take out one's hatred on those who may have had NOTHING to do with starting the war in the first place. If our hearts are in the right place we should all want wars to end with victory, with as little bloodshed and destruction as possible. Sadly the USA did not choose that path at the end of World War II. "

to 9/11 wrote on Aug 28, 2007 5:31 PM:

" so, even though the U.S. did not start any of those wars since vietnam nor participated in the wars, the mere fact we supported one side versus the other means "the US has been the main source of warfare"? I'm sure the fact that Iran and Iraq hated each other in the late 70's and 80's had nothing to do with their war, it had all to do w/ the U.S. pushing our own agenda, right?...and we somehow tricked russia into invading afghanistan so we could fight them without actually fighting them? Get real...I do read books, just not the fanatical liberal books you read...you seem to love reading literature created to push radical liberal agendas. I think you are being exposed for what you are. "

Spoede's buddy wrote on Aug 28, 2007 4:49 PM:

" May I try to answer? THe difference in warriors going hand to hand and modern warriors, armed by the industrial miliary complex is just a difference in scale. People that claim that modern war has the potential to destroy the planet are speaking emotionally, not scientifically. While a full scale war would be horrendouse, there will be a victor and loser, and life will goe on. If we are the winners, we will be happier. While it is a shame that 100,000 japanese civilians were incinerated, it is wrong to call the decision makers criminals. In fact, it is a vain and immoral act. "

to to 9/11 wrote on Aug 28, 2007 4:31 PM:

" Your first two examples prove my point. The US supplied both Iran and Iraq with weapons including weapons of mass destruction and we supplied Osama bin Laden when he fought against the Russians during that war. Man, read a book. Ask yourself why we wanted to overthrow a democratic government in Afghanistan. We were supplying bin Laden and others to raise havoc and the Afghani government asked the Russians for help. "

Right On Rebecca! wrote on Aug 28, 2007 3:55 PM:

" Had we only negotiated with Hirohito and Hitler, the world would be a much better place! Those lovely Nazi gas ovens would still be working overtime on the current enemy of the Third Reich, and those ungrateful French wouldn't be a problem, because they'd be speaking German. "

The Joker wrote on Aug 28, 2007 3:32 PM:

" Rebecca-let's move this down a couple of pegs. Suppose you are the victim of a school yard bully. What do you do? Negotiations won't work-he ain't listening, and ain't interested. To him there is no problem to resolve. The problem is yours. You could bring in an outside authority (read United Nations) like a teacher. But that will only work while the teacher is looking, and then you gonna pay even more. Or...you could rain thunder all over this guy and show him that it just ain't worth it. The pain he will experience is greater than the satisfaction he gets from tormenting you. Then, and only then, will he stop. War is the same thing on a grander scale. An aggressor will only stop when he feels that he can no longer win. "

The Irascible Fachna wrote on Aug 28, 2007 3:32 PM:

" The wars that have been fought are directly the Christian's fault. That is a war we should fight on our own front. If George Bush wasn't in office, we would be living in peace and harmony. In fact, we should gift the east coast to the arab states as a goodwill gesture. "

Peeved wrote on Aug 28, 2007 3:23 PM:

" So you propose that after Pearl was bombed we employ the "tactics of negotiation"? You think this was some kind of chess game, where each side takes a turn, and there are rules? While we were negotiating what do you suppose the Japanese would be doing? What do you think they were doing in China LONG before they started on us? Yes, diplomatic channels should always be open. But in the event that diplomacy fails, you better be prepared to give the other feller a bloody nose! Question for you-how many wars were solved WITHOUT those nasty tactics of war planners? And what was the end result in those countries? "

to Spoede wrote on Aug 28, 2007 3:05 PM:

" So you can't see the difference between warriors who fight hand to hand when necessary to protect their families from military-industrial complexes that can ruin planets. That kind of "thinking", if not changed, will destroy us. "

to "9/11" wrote on Aug 28, 2007 1:32 PM:

" since vietnam, the u.s is the main source of warfare? wow, you really do have hatred for our government and a lack of knowledge about history. here's a few SINCE VIETNAM: iran/iraq war, russia invading afghanistan, iraq invading kuwait, Nicaragua civil war, Honduras guerrilla warfare, bosnian civil war, Croatian war of independence, Northern ireland civil war, etc, etc, etc. "

To Rebecca wrote on Aug 28, 2007 1:22 PM:

" I applaud your willingness to put your name on your letter. I, however, think you are completely misguided. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which you are unable to negotiate w/ some. These people do not "play by the rules" and are not interesting in cohabitating with "infidels"...Iran's leader is the perfect example: the holocaust didn't really happen and israel should be wiped off the face of the earth...how do you have intelligent conversation with that? Or, instead of "negotiating" with Iran, you just sit back w/ your head in the sand and hope they stay on their side of the world and we stay on ours? as we are slowly learning since 9/11/01, 10,000 miles of earth and sea isn't enough to allow that to happen. "

Spoede wrote on Aug 28, 2007 12:48 PM:

" War is a time honored activity that almost every indigenous group of human beings has periodically engaged in. From time immemorial war and warriors have been honored and lionized. For good reason. Warriors, not philosophers, have guaranteed the continuing existence of the family, the ethnic group, the clan, the tribe, the people and the nation. He customs and mores of the winners of innumerable clashes have marched down the ages and we are the beneficiaries of the warriors of old. Today, the warrior culture is under attack. We are supposed to be better than that, more than that. The warriors of old are criminals and wars are now atrocities. Sorry, but I don’t buy that. Winners write history books and losers get to make adjustments to their culture and life styles. People that call war “crime” are denying reality or trying to force their own private version of reality on the rest of us. And we listen to them at our peril. "

The Irascible Fachna wrote on Aug 28, 2007 12:09 PM:

" It was simply an argument that our admirals - and, of course, the Japanese - lost and some of our generals and diplomats won. "

bert wrote on Aug 28, 2007 11:27 AM:

" peace through superior firepower......I respect those of you who are pacificst and seek the kumbayah future but I won't let you kill me in the meantime. Humanity will fight until we are extinct and being on the winning side means a lot more to me than being nice. "

Disagree wrote on Aug 28, 2007 11:13 AM:

" Yes it is sad that it came to using an atomic bomb twice to end the war with Japan. What you must remember is they did NOT surrender after the first bomb. They attacked us first, provoking the War. What about the atrocities they committed? Torture, genocide, suicide bombers. If we had done a land invasion we'd have lost millions of young Americans. I for one, feel no shame that we used the bomb. Evil people/nations cannot be negotiated with. Although I think it's a good start, sometimes tough choices have to be made. Now they must live with the result of their choices. "

Mark H. wrote on Aug 28, 2007 10:49 AM:

" Rebecca is right when she says it is important to remember the victims of Hiroshima and other war atrocities. To drop atomic bombs on a civilian population was by any objective measure an act of genocide. To say so also has nothing to do with defending the crimes of Japanese imperialism. Nor is it unpatriotic. Those on the right who would like to make a cult out of military power should ponder the reality that the United States now has the largest military arsenal in the world, and yet we still don't feel safe. As the letter writer suggests, the costs of war over the last century are so great that unless we as a human community find a way to end war, war in this nuclear age may indeed end us. "

9/11 wrote on Aug 28, 2007 9:50 AM:

" Was probably caused by rogue elements of the US government. Ask any good architect, engineer or scientist and they'll tell you taht the planes had NOTHING to do with the collapse of the buildings. As long as the average American refuses to examine this issue and wishes to believe the propaganda from our presidents who want war at all costs and have the American taxpayer foot the bill to our large defense industries, we will never have peace. In other words, since at least Vietnam, the US has been the main source of warfare. "

Wendy wrote on Aug 28, 2007 8:58 AM:

" Coudn't agree more, but with the way people are, maybe that's a pipe dream. "

HEY REBECCA wrote on Aug 28, 2007 7:52 AM:

" WHY IS IT THAT ALL OF THE SO CALLED PEACE LOVING PEOPLE OF THE WORLD THINKS EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD THINKS LIKE THEY DO? DO YOU THINK THAT THE TERRORIST THAT ATTACKED US ON 9/11 THOUGHT THAT THEY SHOULD RETHINK WHAT THEY WERE DOING, AND DO THE RIGHT THING AND LAY DOWN THERE WEAPONS FOR THE GOOD OF A BETTER WORLD. WAKE UP. "

Devil's advocate wrote on Aug 28, 2007 7:38 AM:

" Nice try, Rebecca, now ponder what Sadam might have done to you if you had gone to him with your negotiation rhetoric. "

Area Resident wrote on Aug 28, 2007 7:38 AM:

" Amen! "

Laughing Bones wrote on Aug 28, 2007 7:12 AM:

" Wow! Now that is what I call a letter. Bravo! "

Ads by Yahoo!

Practice Forex Trading

Allheartchefs Discount Chef/Cooks Pants

2008 Diet Of The Year: