Che Guevara Flags in Obama's Houston Office

[Ban Hammer 12,868]

Authorization.......

Paralleling its efforts in the U.N., the Bush Administration also sought domestic authorization for an invasion, which it was granted on October 2002 when the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq".

source

The Bush administration's efforts to obtain proper authorization from the Security Council failed. No authorization from that body and hence no lawful basis for the attack on Iraq exist. Effort, my friend, does not equal result.

you're under the mistaken impression that a country needs un authorization for a war.

[kaydee457 13]

Concerning Che and his status as a member of the communist party; it's hard to believe that he could have held such high level positions in Cuba as he did, and given the authority to carry out executions, without at a minimum having become a member of the communist party. Castro even declared him a "birth Cuban" even though he wasn't born in Cuba.

From what I understand, he later became disenfranchised with the USSR and then left Cuba to make war on innocent people elsewhere.

[kaydee457 13]

Authorization.......

Paralleling its efforts in the U.N., the Bush Administration also sought domestic authorization for an invasion, which it was granted on October 2002 when the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq".

source

The Bush administration's efforts to obtain proper authorization from the Security Council failed. No authorization from that body and hence no lawful basis for the attack on Iraq exist. Effort, my friend, does not equal result.

you're under the mistaken impression that a country needs un authorization for a war.

Ditto. This is a misconception. The U.S.A. is not bound by U.N. Security Council authorizations, nor is any sovereign nation.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Number 2: We would have won the war in the Pacific without Little Boy and Fat Man, but they were able to hasten the signing of the surrender papers by the Japanese. I can't believe people could ever justify that decision. Seriously, 220,000 people died. This doesn't include the ones who have been dying horrible deaths for the last 62 years.

It's very easy for us to sit here, over 60 years later from the event, and look back on what might have been done instead. Unfortunately, when you're in the middle of a war as difficult as World War II, stepping back and looking at everything objectively is a bit difficult. You are, after all, fighting for what appears to be your life, your country and the world as you know it.

But here are some details most either don't know or don't care to know: up until the end of the second world war and Japan's defeat, the emperor of Imperial Japan was considered a god. He could do no wrong and to die in service to him was considered a great honor. Why else do you think individuals became kamikaze pilots? It certainly wasn't because it was a good career move with lots of upward mobility. To make matters worse for the U.S., the Empire of Japan (and it's military forces) seemed to care very little for it's individual people and soldiers, as it literally threw thousands upon thousands of young Japanese men into the "meat grinder" in the Pacific Theatre. These soldiers were merely considered "cannon fodder" by the higher-ups, although to the Japanese public, they were broadcast as "heroes of the empire" in propaganda reels.

It became rapidly apparent that Japan would never surrender if the U.S. kept on fighting a conventional-style war and more American men were dying each day the fight continued, so when the atomic bomb surfaced, President Truman had to be a very difficult decision. He decided that the U.S. would WARN Japan first and demand that they surrender. Obviously, Japan did no such thing, so "Little Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima with devastating results. Amazingly enough, Japan still refused to "wave the white flag" so the U.S. decided to drop a second atomic bomb ("Fat Man") on Nagasaki as well. That finally made the Empire of Japan cave in and eventually end World War II.

So could we have won WWII in the Pacific Theatre without the use of those two atomic bombs? Maybe. We'll never truly know, but no matter the outcome, it would've cost many more American (and most likely Japanese) lives in the process.

Edited February 15, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Number 2: We would have won the war in the Pacific without Little Boy and Fat Man, but they were able to hasten the signing of the surrender papers by the Japanese. I can't believe people could ever justify that decision. Seriously, 220,000 people died. This doesn't include the ones who have been dying horrible deaths for the last 62 years.

It's very easy for us to sit here, over 60 years later from the event, and look back on what might have been done instead. Unfortunately, when you're in the middle of a war as difficult as World War II, stepping back and looking at everything objectively is a bit difficult. You are, after all, fighting for what appears to be your life, your country and the world as you know it.

But here are some details most either don't know or don't care to know: up until the end of the second world war and Japan's defeat, the emperor of Imperial Japan was considered a god. He could do no wrong and to die in service to him was considered a great honor. Why else do you think individuals became kamikaze pilots? It certainly wasn't because it was a good career move with lots of upward mobility. To make matters worse for the U.S., the Empire of Japan (and it's military forces) seemed to care very little for it's individual people and soldiers, as it literally threw thousands upon thousands of young Japanese men into the "meat grinder" in the Pacific Theatre. These soldiers were merely considered "cannon fodder" by the higher-ups, although to the Japanese public, they were broadcast as "heroes of the empire" in propaganda reels.

It became rapidly apparent that Japan would never surrender if the U.S. kept on fighting a conventional-style war and more American men were dying each day the fight continued, so when the atomic bomb surfaced, President Truman had to be a very difficult decision. He decided that the U.S. would WARN Japan first and demand that they surrender. Obviously, Japan did no such thing, so "Little Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima with devastating results. Amazingly enough, Japan still refused to "wave the white flag" so the U.S. decided to drop a second atomic bomb ("Fat Man") on Nagasaki as well. That finally made the Empire of Japan cave in and eventually end World War II.

So could we have won WWII in the Pacific Theatre without the use of those two atomic bombs? Maybe. We'll never truly know, but no matter the outcome, it would've cost many more American (and most likely Japanese) lives in the process.

As I mentioned - regardless of what the historical consensus has become since then, a number of pretty influential folks in the military at the time expressed significant reservations about the policy.

Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds hold that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender.

One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[34][35]

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[35] Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[36] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[37]

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[38]

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[38]

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

You're right - we can't know for sure - but it seems clear that the opinion on the merits of this was far from unanimous. That the folks essentially running the war in the Pacific were of this opinion, should surely give some pause for thought?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Authorization.......

Paralleling its efforts in the U.N., the Bush Administration also sought domestic authorization for an invasion, which it was granted on October 2002 when the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq".

source

The Bush administration's efforts to obtain proper authorization from the Security Council failed. No authorization from that body and hence no lawful basis for the attack on Iraq exist. Effort, my friend, does not equal result.

you're under the mistaken impression that a country needs un authorization for a war.

Ditto. This is a misconception. The U.S.A. is not bound by U.N. Security Council authorizations, nor is any sovereign nation.

You fellas need to educate yourself on what it means to be a signatory to the UN Charter. That'll help you avoid ignorant statements like the ones above.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

I really want that t-shirt.

[Peikko 1,575]

As these guys not only want to get rid of the UN but also see no necessity for the universal declaration of human rights, because the 'bible' tells them all they need to know about such things, I can't see being bound to the UN charter as a particularly large obstacle to their ideals of legality vis a vis the Iraq war.

[SMOKE 1,426]

I really want that t-shirt.

i want you to have it too. just leave the model there plz.

[Ban Hammer 12,868]

As these guys not only want to get rid of the UN but also see no necessity for the universal declaration of human rights, because the 'bible' tells them all they need to know about such things, I can't see being bound to the UN charter as a particularly large obstacle to their ideals of legality vis a vis the Iraq war.

who mentioned a bible in this thread?

[GaryC 7]

As these guys not only want to get rid of the UN but also see no necessity for the universal declaration of human rights, because the 'bible' tells them all they need to know about such things, I can't see being bound to the UN charter as a particularly large obstacle to their ideals of legality vis a vis the Iraq war.

who mentioned a bible in this thread?

I did. I mentioned that I didn't need the UN to tell me what human rights were. My faith gives me that. She thinks I am a cave man for trusting in my faith apparently. It's OK, her attitude tells me that she has nothing to bring to the conversation. People like that are best ignored.

[peejay 327]

As these guys not only want to get rid of the UN but also see no necessity for the universal declaration of human rights, because the 'bible' tells them all they need to know about such things, I can't see being bound to the UN charter as a particularly large obstacle to their ideals of legality vis a vis the Iraq war.

who mentioned a bible in this thread?

I thought the same thing when I saw that. More haters of Judeo-Christianity and it's obvious. Occasionally they let their true feelings slip out along with their righteousness.

I'm not quite sure how a thread about radical Leftist supporters for Obama morphed into a "blame it all on the Jews and Christians" and "New World Order" rant, but welcome to VJ.

Maybe Obama has the answer to all this? I'll wait with bated breath for the Obama press conference to clarify all this. But if you hold your breath you might turn blue!

[kaydee457 13]

Authorization.......

Paralleling its efforts in the U.N., the Bush Administration also sought domestic authorization for an invasion, which it was granted on October 2002 when the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq".

source

The Bush administration's efforts to obtain proper authorization from the Security Council failed. No authorization from that body and hence no lawful basis for the attack on Iraq exist. Effort, my friend, does not equal result.

you're under the mistaken impression that a country needs un authorization for a war.

Ditto. This is a misconception. The U.S.A. is not bound by U.N. Security Council authorizations, nor is any sovereign nation.

You fellas need to educate yourself on what it means to be a signatory to the UN Charter. That'll help you avoid ignorant statements like the ones above.

Don't have to. It's absurd to think a failure to acquire approval of the U.N. security council supercedes U.S. law.

U.S. law dictates our destiny, not the dictates of the U.N.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Authorization.......

Paralleling its efforts in the U.N., the Bush Administration also sought domestic authorization for an invasion, which it was granted on October 2002 when the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq".

source

The Bush administration's efforts to obtain proper authorization from the Security Council failed. No authorization from that body and hence no lawful basis for the attack on Iraq exist. Effort, my friend, does not equal result.

you're under the mistaken impression that a country needs un authorization for a war.

Ditto. This is a misconception. The U.S.A. is not bound by U.N. Security Council authorizations, nor is any sovereign nation.

You fellas need to educate yourself on what it means to be a signatory to the UN Charter. That'll help you avoid ignorant statements like the ones above.

Don't have to. It's absurd to think a failure to acquire approval of the U.N. security council supercedes U.S. law.

U.S. law dictates our destiny, not the dictates of the U.N.

The problem with your argument is that outside of the US - where the unlawful attack happened to take place - US law means precisely squat.

And as absurd as you might feel it is, as a signatory to the UN charter, that approval is exactly what a nation needs to go to war unless is it is defending itself from an attack under way or from an imminent attack. Neither of the latter was the case in Iraq. Attacking that country was an illegal act of aggression whether you like it or not. It was no different than Saddam's attack on Kuwait back in 1990. Saddam's only problem was that he wasn't a permanent member of the Security Council as were the US and the UK.