Hypocritical?

[miamited]

Trump is helping to undermine US democracy. That's just what Russia wants - CNNPolitics

Hi all,

Just reading this in the morning net news (Yes, I understand that for all Trumpites it's fake, so we'll just throw that out there as a given), but...

The article speaks a lot about how incensed we are that Russia would try to influence our governance. Claims have been made that they were the impetus behind much of the Clinton bashing during the election. Doesn't anyone else see the hypocrisy in all of this?

The U.S. has, for many, many decades been a player in 'directing' governments around the world. We supported Fidel Castro as the go to guy in Cuba and then he turned out not to be who we had hoped he was as a leader. I mean, we fought little skirmishes here and there and made efforts to 'direct' him to the leadership of Cuba. Here's an article on the subject of U.S. intervention in other nation's elections:

Database Tracks History Of U.S. Meddling In Foreign Elections

(quote)This is hardly the first time a country has tried to influence the outcome of another country's election. The U.S. has done it, too, by one expert's count, more than 80 times worldwide between 1946 and 2000. That expert is Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University. I asked him to tell me about one election where U.S. intervention likely made a difference in the outcome.

DOV LEVIN: One example of that was our intervention in Serbia, Yugoslavia in the 2000 election there. Slobodan Milosevic was running for re-election, and we didn't want him to stay in power there due to his tendency, you know, to disrupts the Balkans and his human rights violations.

So we intervened in various ways for the opposition candidate, Vojislav Kostunica. And we gave funding to the opposition, and we gave them training and campaigning aide. And according to my estimate, that assistance was crucial in enabling the opposition to win.(quote)

According to Mr. Levin in this article, the U.S. has done something similar to what we are accusing Russia of doing, at least 80 times since 1946. Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm not a fan of Russia having anything to do with our election process, but I'm just pointing out that this just seems so much 'the pot calling the kettle black' here.

On another issue of seemingly great hypocrisy:

The U.S. was the greatest mass murderer of civilian non-combatants in one event, than any other nation on the face of the earth. I'm referring here to our bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Doesn't anyone see the hypocrisy in all of this?

I'm just curious. I'm sure there will be excuses made as to 'how' these events are all different, but I ask, really?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[JackRT]

Anyone who reads the news carefully has known for a long while that the USA almost routinely interferes in the affairs of other nations. So yes, the hypocrisy is blatant.

 

[miamited]

to continue:

Let's look at this issue of developing nuclear weapons. The U.S. has the largest nuclear stockpile of any nation upon the earth. The U.S. is a sovereign nation, and as such, has the right to produce pretty much whatever they want. Certainly things that are bad for the populous will likely come up against a wall of complaint, but...

If the U.S. government decides that a certain direction is the way that they want to go, then as a sovereign nation we have the right to follow our hearts. North Korea is also a sovereign nation and they want to develop nuclear armaments. Who are we to tell them that they can't do it? Us, the nation with the greatest nuclear capabilities gets to tell other nations that they can't work towards having the same weaponry that we have. That somehow the U.S. is really the government of the world and all you other nations had better bow down to our leadership within the borders of your sovereignty.

I believe that if we want to tell other nations that they shouldn't develop nuclear weaponry, then we'd better clean our own house first. Something about the beam in our own eyes seems to apply here.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[A_Thinker]

As an issue of power ... that the US has done similar things is irrelevant.

The US (and it's citizens) can support resistance to such interference ... and take actions to sanction the offenders.

And, of course, no CITIZENS of the US ought to be involved in aiding and abetting an enemy/competitor state ...

 

[miamited]

Anyone who reads the news carefully has known for a long while that the USA almost routinely interferes in the affairs of other nations. So yes, the hypocrisy blatant.

Hi jack,

Right! But why do we believe, as a body of people, that our arrogant and self-righteous behavior in this is so much more acceptable than when someone else does it? Why is it that our government doesn't seem to understand that the people of these other nations have, by the fact of their sovereignty, the rights to do what any other nation upon the earth does? I'm just saying, hey, let's take off the rose colored glasses for just a moment and look at the world, and the nations that comprise the world, as being equal in their respective abilities to do what other nations do?

According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), there are nine nations around the globe that have nuclear weapons. NINE NATIONS!!!! So, under what directive has the U.S. been commissioned to tell any of the other 200+ nations of the world that they can't join the party? These other nations, especially the larger more warlike nations have every right to believe that they can and should have the same type of weaponry as those nine. If I were the leader of a nation that wanted to develop nuclear capabilities, I'd be asking these bullies, who died and made you king of my nation? You have such weapons ready and able to strike my country. Is there really any fair reason that I shouldn't have the same ability against you?

Now, many of the smaller, less affluent nations would rather spend their hard earned money taking care of their own. I think that's a wonderful idea. They aren't, for whatever reason, interested in being like the big boys. But, some of the larger, and as I say, more prone to fight, other nations do want the ability to level the playing field when it comes to armaments and weaponry. And one would have to ask, why shouldn't they? What, because it makes us feel uncomfortable? Well, guess what, they probably feel uncomfortable knowing that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump, has the ability to wipe them off the face of the earth and they'd be powerless to do anything about it.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

As an issue of power ... that the US has done similar things is irrelevant.

The US (and it's citizens) can support resistance to such interference ... and take actions to sanction the offenders.

And, of course, no CITIZENS of the US ought to be involved in aiding and abetting an enemy/competitor state ...

Hi thinker,

That all sounds fine and totally braggadocios. Why is it irrelevant that the U.S. has done similar things?

If I steal something and go to jail and someone else steals something, but because there family is rich and powerful, doesn't go to jail, you're sense of righteousness says that's fair?

I'd really like you to expound on your reasoning that would cause you to feel that it's ok to say that if the U.S. does something similar to what we accuse other nations of doing, it's irrelevant. I doubt seriously that the people of the other nations see it that way. This is one of the greatest reasons that we are seen as 'ugly Americans' over much of the world. We're just a big bully on the world scene and, to me, it's this idea that it's ok for us to do the same things we accuse others of doing, that cause people of other nations to say, "Wait a minute. That's not fair!"

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

We dropped two of the most powerful weapons that have ever been used in warfare on Japan. We literally slaughtered hundreds of thousands of ordinary people going about their ordinary lives to attempt to stop a war that had become untenable to us. Yet, let some other nation think to do such a dastardly thing and we'd be down on them like stink on ___! Of course, if you're an American that's all fair and good. If you're a Japanese, I'm not sure that's how it would be seen. Are we such a self-righteous people that we can't take what we dish out?

Why? Why do we need to spend another 50 billion dollars to build a greater war machine that is already the most powerful war machine on the face of the earth? Bottom line...why are we such a warlike people? We have fought more wars and skirmishes than any other nation on the face of the earth.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[JackRT]

A widely travelled Swiss gentleman that I met a few years ago had a neat way of describing the difference between Americans and Canadians: "Wherever they travel in the world Americans will make themselves right at home. On the other hand, Canadians always behave as guests."

 

[JackRT]

We dropped two of the most powerful weapons that have ever been used in warfare on Japan. We literally slaughtered hundreds of thousands of ordinary people going about their ordinary lives to attempt to stop a war that had become untenable to us.

As a student of military history, I am of two minds about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am appalled at the terrible loss of life both at the time and since then due to radiation effects. The total I believe may be several hundred thousand.

On the other hand, the invasion of the Japanese main islands was scheduled for the spring of 1946. Military planners were already well aware that the Japanese defense would be desperate and deadly. The official Japanese slogan of the day was "90 million die together”. The Allied planners were preparing for 6 million casualties in the invasion. It was estimated that 2 million of those would be deaths.

It must have been a heart wrenching decision for Truman to have to make. Remember that he had available only those two bombs. Another six would be available in 1946. He may very well have made the right decision based on the lesser of two evils proposition.

What Truman did not know, and is still little known today, is that the Japanese nuclear program was well advanced and was not years behind but only a few weeks behind. Their main research and development facility was located in what is now North Korea at Project Z. There is evidence that the Japanese actually conducted a successful nuclear test in the Sea of Japan off the coast of North Korea on the day before the Emperor intervened and forced the Japanese surrender.

Interestingly enough, Project Z fell into the hands of the Russian occupiers of North Korea and Russia was a nuclear power within a few short years.

 

[miamited]

Hi thinker,

You responed:

As for the US bombing Japan, ... it was to end the war that Japan had started, where their leadership wouldn't otherwise agree to surrender. It was a horrific act, but it ended a war that had already claimed 50 million lives.

Just to be clear, the bombing of Japan was after the European side of the conflict had already ended and your 50 million number is for the whole of WW2. Sticking strictly with Japan, and understanding that their purpose in declaring war on the U.S. was not the same as Germany's, even though they were a part of the Tripartite Pact of 1940, the number of deaths in the Asian arena was somewhat less than 2 million. So, to say that the bombs were dropped to stop a war that had already cost some 50 million lives is just a bit disingenuous. Most of the conflict that had caused those 50 million deaths was already over. The bombs were dropped to stop a conflict that had, so far, counted less than 2 million deaths.

Not that any of that is good, but again, I'm asking: Is it righteous to take such steps to bring about the end of a war that had only cost 2 million deaths. After all, there were that many and likely more in the Vietnam conflict. Is it right to slaughter several hundred thousand civilians of a combatant nation, to stop a war? If it is, then why didn't we do the same thing in Vietnam. Surely, they would have surrendered if we had dropped a couple of atomic bombs on two of their largest cities. Would it now be right to do the same thing to N. Korea if they decided to go to war with us?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[JackRT]

Not that any of that is good, but again, I'm asking: Is it righteous to take such steps to bring about the end of a war that had only cost 2 million deaths. After all, there were that many and likely more in the Vietnam conflict. Is it right to slaughter several hundred thousand civilians of a combatant nation, to stop a war? If it is, then why didn't we do the same thing in Vietnam. Surely, they would have surrendered if we had dropped a couple of atomic bombs on two of their largest cities. Would it now be right to do the same thing to N. Korea if they decided to go to war with us?

Historians point out that, prior to the atomic bombs, the conventional bombing of both European and Asian civilian populations did not break their morale or their resolve. In fact it had the opposite effect --- it [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed them off.

 

[miamited]

Historians point out that, prior to the atomic bombs, the conventional bombing of both European and Asian civilian populations did not break their morale or their resolve. In fact it had the opposite effect --- it [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] them off.

Hi jack,

Well sure. I don't recall many Americans being particularly overjoyed on and after 9/11. No nation wants to be bombed and such attacks against civilians does just make them more angry. I would think that's a given. And yet, since 1945 the U.S. had been involved in another dozen wars and never felt the need to follow the understanding of historians to end those wars. It would seem that even the U.S. knows, although we're loathe to admit it, that the method used to end the Japanese conflict was not the right thing to do.

But, as is human nature in all things, we seek to justify something that we've already done as right. I used to have a boss who once told me that even a murderer justifies in his own mind, why the person murdered should have died. Even with sin, we are very, very often prone to making some kind of excuse to explain why, whatever sin we're guilty of, is ok. It goes along the lines of: I know I shouldn't have done such and such, but... So often when we apologize to someone for something that we've done to them: I'm sorry that I did that, but... Then we go into explaining the reasons that it seemed right to us to do whatever we did because of some special circumstance that should only apply to this situation.

Man's heart is wicked. Who can know it?

Before anyone raises up some claim that I'm just being self-righteous, no! Not at all! I'm just as guilty as everyone else, but that doesn't make it right. I'm asking here that we throw out all national allegiance and look at the matter strictly from an outsiders viewpoint. Say, God's point of view. Here's an article, and I readily admit that I don't know anything about the source 'Liberty Web': U.S. Forces Were Against the Dropping of the Atomic Bombs

Here's another perspective on the subject: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan ... Stalin Did

And here: Should America have dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

It's curious to note that the real issue with Japan surrendering could well have been our demand that it be unconditional, and honestly I'm not sure what other kinds of surrender are made, but the Japanese seemed to have been particularly reticent concerning an unconditional surrender because it meant that the allies could come in and take over their country. Perhaps if we had just asked them to stop fighting and we'll leave you alone would have worked quite a bit earlier. After all, that seems to have been pretty much what we did in Vietnam.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[A_Thinker]

Hi thinker,

Just to be clear, the bombing of Japan was after the European side of the conflict had already ended and your 50 million number is for the whole of WW2. Sticking strictly with Japan, and understanding that their purpose in declaring war on the U.S. was not the same as Germany's, even though they were a part of the Tripartite Pact of 1940, the number of deaths in the Asian arena was somewhat less than 2 million. So, to say that the bombs were dropped to stop a war that had already cost some 50 million lives is just a bit disingenuous. Most of the conflict that had caused those 50 million deaths was already over. The bombs were dropped to stop a conflict that had, so far, counted less than 2 million deaths.

Not that any of that is good, but again, I'm asking: Is it righteous to take such steps to bring about the end of a war that had only cost 2 million deaths. After all, there were that many and likely more in the Vietnam conflict. Is it right to slaughter several hundred thousand civilians of a combatant nation, to stop a war? If it is, then why didn't we do the same thing in Vietnam. Surely, they would have surrendered if we had dropped a couple of atomic bombs on two of their largest cities. Would it now be right to do the same thing to N. Korea if they decided to go to war with us?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Per the other responders to the thread, the Allies were anticipating another 9 million casualties (2 million deaths) if they were forced to make an invasion of the Japanese islands.

There is also the tidbit about the Japanese nuclear program which was shared here.

Certainly, the USSR had a viable program, and was in the process of an planned global conquest. Conventional wisdom is that part of the rationale for the boming was a warning to the Soviets.

I would have hated to have had to make the decision to drop the bombs or not, and I can't really justify it, but in the world in which we live, it may have been the better choice.

Ultimately, the behavior of the US after the dropping of the devices gives justification to my claim that the US has, historically, acted as a preserver, rather than a spoiler. For four years, the US had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, ... and at no time did it try to use them for the goal of global dominance/conquest ... or even to destroy (potential) enemies. The US participated with the rest of the world in trying to harness the nuclear threat (being worked on by several governments by this point) ... and the threat of war in general by co-founding the United Nations and the United Nations Atomic Energy Commision.

 

[A_Thinker]

A widely travelled Swiss gentleman that I met a few years ago had a neat way of describing the difference between Americans and Canadians: "Wherever they travel in the world Americans will make themselves right at home. On the other hand, Canadians always behave as guests."

Perhaps Canada hasn't gotten into bed as much with the rest of the world as the US has ...

 

[JackRT]

The late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said it well "Canada sharing a continent with the USA is a little like a mouse going to bed with an elephant. No matter how well intentioned the elephant, every twitch and fart profoundly affects the mouse."