'The War Is Not Over'

'The War Is Not Over'

There are 276624 comments on the Los Angeles Times story from Sep 12, 2006, titled 'The War Is Not Over'. In it, Los Angeles Times reports that:

WASHINGTON - President Bush led the nation on Monday in marking the fifth anniversary of the Sept.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Los Angeles Times.

Stopthemadness

Ireland

#291531 Sep 2, 2014
George bush jr. started this if he never invaded Iran, thousands of soldiers would have went home, no major terrorist groups except al queada, no executions, no massacres, billions of dollars of taxpayer money not wasted and NO wars in the Middle East except for other terrorist groups and he also executed gadaffi when he did nothing. America wants to take over all the oil and Middle East has the most so they attacked that really why not because of nuclear weapons they knew that they wouldn't have weapons and they were wrong.
ABs

Atlanta, GA

#291532 Sep 2, 2014
MoreLogicalThanYou wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back and properly read what I wrote, if you are capable of doing so...I have repeatedly stated that the ISIS hand and head choppers were sponsored, until just a few weeks ago, by none other than the USA and its North American Terrorist Organisation (NATO) minions. The 'Islamist loving lefties' were telling you all along what a bad idea such a connection was, just like they condemn your country's other alliance with the religious extremists of Saudi Arabia. The moral is simple : the North American Terrorist Organisation should GET OUT and STAY OUT of the Middle East.
I prefer option 2...arm all muscum muddle eastern nations with one short range nuke each and give 15 to Israel...
ABs

Atlanta, GA

#291533 Sep 2, 2014
Stopthemadness wrote:
George bush jr. started this if he never invaded Iran, thousands of soldiers would have went home, no major terrorist groups except al queada, no executions, no massacres, billions of dollars of taxpayer money not wasted and NO wars in the Middle East except for other terrorist groups and he also executed gadaffi when he did nothing. America wants to take over all the oil and Middle East has the most so they attacked that really why not because of nuclear weapons they knew that they wouldn't have weapons and they were wrong.
You left out the important part....you know...how George bush attempted to take down the WTCs twice, bombed the US embassies, sank the USS Cole and succeeded the 2nd time in taking down the towers of evil satan...
crusty

Lewiston, ME

#291534 Sep 3, 2014
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes we know, it's the standard excuse and justification by the US Gov't ... ridiculous!
And your post is a cop out. You can come up with not even a guess at how many lives on both sides would have been lost by a "conventional" invasion of mainland Japan?

Also you didn't answer~ Are you saddened by the decisive(due to nuclear bomb drops)victory of the US over Japan?
crusty

Lewiston, ME

#291535 Sep 3, 2014
MoreLogicalThanYou wrote:
<quoted text>
And if you prefer the combination of dictatorship WITHOUT sharia law, to the combination of dictatorship WITH sharia law, your country and its minions should not have been supporting the religious extremist ISIS rabble against Syria's SECULAR regime. The 'Islamist loving lefties' were telling you so all along. But glad to see that you have finally caught up with us (ever so slightly, anyway). Now your country should accept some more advice from 'Islamist loving lefties' and abandon its nauseating friendship with the Saudi Arabian sharia state.
Your country should GET OUT of the Middle East and STAY OUT.
Come to that, it should GET OUT of Europe and STAY OUT just for good measure.
It's not just the Middle Easterners and Russians who are utterly sick and tired of the irrational, self-contradictory, bullying conduct of your appalling, hypocritical country. It is the majority of people the world over, who want no political association between their countries and your own rogue state : with the possible exception of that terrorist, expansionist, apartheid outpost of yours.
I see.

We should embrace shia sharia not sunni sharia,~according to you.

Why should we get out of the middeast when so many other countries have troops there? IE; Russia in Syria?

Why are most US allies sane and rational countries whilst most of Americas enemies are basket cases?
cage rattlr

Lewiston, ME

#291536 Sep 3, 2014
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence. In other words, there were only 21 calendar years in which the U.S. did not wage any wars.
* Pick any year since 1776 and there is about a 91% chance that America was involved in some war during that calendar year.
* No U.S. president truly qualifies as a peacetime president. Instead, all U.S. presidents can technically be considered “war presidents.”
* The U.S. has never gone a decade without war.
* The only time the U.S. went five years without war (1935-40) was during the isolationist period of the Great Depression.


A line from a little tune I know you love

Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

http://www.usa-flag-site.org/song-lyrics/star...
Pizza Pie

Sunbury, PA

#291537 Sep 3, 2014
MoreLogicalThanYou wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that it was your country that was until very recently supporting ISIS against Assad's SECULAR regime, just as it supported Islamic extremists against the 'Islamist loving commies' in 1980s Afghanistan, and just as your country is still in revoltingly close collusion with the Saudi Arabian home of Sharia Law.
A bit of advice for your country : GET OUT of the Middle East and STAY OUT.
It's no concern of your country what happens there.
You fight fire with fire . The fire jumped out of bounds when they crossed the Iraq border and killed American Journalist in a cruel and barbaric manner .
Pizza Pie

Sunbury, PA

#291538 Sep 3, 2014
Obama. Hit em again. Harder, harder. Hit em again . Harder, harde
spocko

Oakland, CA

#291539 Sep 3, 2014
crusty wrote:
<quoted text>
And your post is a cop out. You can come up with not even a guess at how many lives on both sides would have been lost by a "conventional" invasion of mainland Japan?
Also you didn't answer~ Are you saddened by the decisive(due to nuclear bomb drops)victory of the US over Japan?
Do your homework please, Japan's cities were incinerated and reduced to ashes. The Japanese army was defeated and demoralized lacking provisions and equipment, clearly offering very minimal resistance! It's history and very easily verified ...
just wondering

Oakland, CA

#291540 Sep 3, 2014
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Do your homework please, Japan's cities were incinerated and reduced to ashes. The Japanese army was defeated and demoralized lacking provisions and equipment, clearly offering very minimal resistance! It's history and very easily verified ...
While I agree with your history lecture, one must keep in mind that the Americans set about doing what no other occupation force, in history, had done before: remaking the political, social, cultural, and economic fabric of a defeated nation, and in the process changing the very way of thinking of its populace.
Food shortages had begun to appear in Japan even before Pearl Harbor. A majority of the Japanese already were malnourished at the time of surrender. In 1944, officials in Osaka estimated that 46% of all economic crimes in their jurisdiction involved food. Hunger was compounded by a disastrous harvest (1945 was the worst since 1910, a shortfall of almost 40% from normal yield) and exacerbated by the confusion, corruption, and ineptitude of the post-surrender elites. Food shipments from the U.S. helped avert the anticipated disaster of as many as 10 million Japanese starving to death through the fall and winter, and, in the process, enhanced the image of the U.S. as a generous benefactor. Having said all that, there can be no doubt the dropping to the bombs is inexcusable as Japan's surrender was but a few days away!
crusty

Lewiston, ME

#291542 Sep 3, 2014
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Do your homework please, Japan's cities were incinerated and reduced to ashes. The Japanese army was defeated and demoralized lacking provisions and equipment, clearly offering very minimal resistance! It's history and very easily verified ...
I've done my homework and have been over this topic many times I can come up with estimates.

You on the other hand seem unable to come up with a casualty number. Why is that?

----------

Secretary of War Stimson summed up his view of the meeting in a 2 July memo to the President:

"The plans of operation up to and including the first landing have been authorized and the preparations for the operation are now <page 561> actually going on. This situation was accepted by all members of your conference on Monday, 18 June.

"There is reason to believe that the operation for the occupation of Japan following the landing may be a very long, costly and arduous struggle on our part. The terrain, much of which I have visited several times, has left the impression on my memory of being one which would be susceptible to a last ditch defense such as has been made on Iwo Jima and Okinawa and which of course is very much larger than either of those two areas. According to my recollection it will be much more unfavorable with regard to tank maneuvering than either the Philippines or Germany.

"If we once land on one of the main islands and begin a forceful occupation of Japan, we shall probably have cast the die of last ditch resistance. The Japanese are highly patriotic and certainly susceptible to calls for fanatical resistance to repel an invasion. Once started in actual invasion, we shall in my opinion have to go through with an even more bitter finish fight than in Germany. We shall incur the losses incident to such a war and we shall have to leave the Japanese islands even more thoroughly destroyed than was the case with Germany. This would be due both to the difference in the Japanese and German personal character and the differences in the size and character of the terrain through which the operations will take place."

http://home.roadrunner.com/~casualties/
crusty

Lewiston, ME

#291543 Sep 3, 2014
just wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
While I agree with your history lecture, one must keep in mind that the Americans set about doing what no other occupation force, in history, had done before: remaking the political, social, cultural, and economic fabric of a defeated nation, and in the process changing the very way of thinking of its populace.
Food shortages had begun to appear in Japan even before Pearl Harbor. A majority of the Japanese already were malnourished at the time of surrender. In 1944, officials in Osaka estimated that 46% of all economic crimes in their jurisdiction involved food. Hunger was compounded by a disastrous harvest (1945 was the worst since 1910, a shortfall of almost 40% from normal yield) and exacerbated by the confusion, corruption, and ineptitude of the post-surrender elites. Food shipments from the U.S. helped avert the anticipated disaster of as many as 10 million Japanese starving to death through the fall and winter, and, in the process, enhanced the image of the U.S. as a generous benefactor. Having said all that, there can be no doubt the dropping to the bombs is inexcusable as Japan's surrender was but a few days away!
Really? A "few days " away? "defeated demoralized"?

Why did they fight on even after the bomb drops?

Date

9–20 August 1945

Japanese casualties

83737 KIA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_...
crusty

Lewiston, ME

#291544 Sep 3, 2014
An overwhelming majority of British people said Britain should take military action against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) militants
John_Schuylkill County_Pa

Sunbury, PA

#291545 Sep 3, 2014
crusty wrote:
An overwhelming majority of British people said Britain should take military action against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) militants
Obama is the anti-christ and Joe Biden is his preacher. They are going to follow them to "the gates of hell"
just wondering

Oakland, CA

#291546 Sep 3, 2014
crusty wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? A "few days " away? "defeated demoralized"?
Why did they fight on even after the bomb drops?
Date
9–20 August 1945
Japanese casualties
83737 KIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_...
The possibility that the atomic bombings may not have been necessary takes a little getting used to. For many years, much of the information that suggested the atomic bombings were not necessary was not available to the public. It was either classified as secret by the U.S. government or withheld in the decision-makers' private papers and diaries. The choice in 1945 was not as simple as either invasion or a-bombs.
In the words of the special presidential envoy Edwin Locke, Jr.:
In the weeks that followed the drop, the victors were taken aback by the extent of the country's devastation. The American officers in Tokyo were amazed by the fact that resistance continued as long as it did. Indeed, so great was the economic disarray that in the opinion of some Americans the atomic bombs, "while seized upon by the Japanese as an excuse for getting out of the war, actually speeded surrender by only a few days." The entire economic structure of Japan's greatest cities has been wrecked. Five millions of Tokyo's seven million population have left the ruined city. Investigative missions from Washington, led by analysts for the prestigious U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, similarly concluded that pre-surrender estimates of Japan's capacity for continuing the war had been vastly exaggerated. Japan, at war's end, was vastly weaker than anyone outside the country had imagined—or anyone inside it had acknowledged.
Pegasus

Arlington, VA

#291547 Sep 4, 2014
MoreLogicalThanYou wrote:
The USA's cyber war against the privacy of millions upon millions of people across the globe will never be over, either.
Don't be so.paraniod man.
crusty

Lewiston, ME

#291548 Sep 4, 2014
just wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The possibility that the atomic bombings may not have been necessary takes a little getting used to. For many years, much of the information that suggested the atomic bombings were not necessary was not available to the public. It was either classified as secret by the U.S. government or withheld in the decision-makers' private papers and diaries. The choice in 1945 was not as simple as either invasion or a-bombs.
In the words of the special presidential envoy Edwin Locke, Jr.:
In the weeks that followed the drop, the victors were taken aback by the extent of the country's devastation. The American officers in Tokyo were amazed by the fact that resistance continued as long as it did. Indeed, so great was the economic disarray that in the opinion of some Americans the atomic bombs, "while seized upon by the Japanese as an excuse for getting out of the war, actually speeded surrender by only a few days." The entire economic structure of Japan's greatest cities has been wrecked. Five millions of Tokyo's seven million population have left the ruined city. Investigative missions from Washington, led by analysts for the prestigious U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, similarly concluded that pre-surrender estimates of Japan's capacity for continuing the war had been vastly exaggerated. Japan, at war's end, was vastly weaker than anyone outside the country had imagined—or anyone inside it had acknowledged.
:.
""""" The American officers in Tokyo were amazed by the fact that resistance continued as long as it did """"

sounds like fanaticism

""""Japan, at war's end, was vastly weaker than anyone outside the country had imagined—or anyone inside it had acknowledged."" "

"Investigative missions from Washington, led by analysts for the prestigious U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, similarly concluded that pre-surrender estimates of Japan's capacity for continuing the war had been vastly exaggerated."
The often quoted us sbs was after the surrender? sounds like great hindsight

Are you sad the US defeated Japan?
just wondering

Oakland, CA

#291549 Sep 4, 2014
crusty wrote:
<quoted text>
:.
""""" The American officers in Tokyo were amazed by the fact that resistance continued as long as it did """"
sounds like fanaticism
""""Japan, at war's end, was vastly weaker than anyone outside the country had imagined—or anyone inside it had acknowledged."" "
"Investigative missions from Washington, led by analysts for the prestigious U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, similarly concluded that pre-surrender estimates of Japan's capacity for continuing the war had been vastly exaggerated."
The often quoted us sbs was after the surrender? sounds like great hindsight
Are you sad the US defeated Japan?
Huh?
crusty

Lewiston, ME

#291550 Sep 6, 2014
just wondering wrote:
<quoted text> Huh?
I Just took a few quotes from your post, to empahasize a few points.

Basically your post showed how hindsight is often used to second guess or rewrite.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#291551 Sep 6, 2014
crusty wrote:
<quoted text>
I've done my homework and have been over this topic many times I can come up with estimates.
You on the other hand seem unable to come up with a casualty number. Why is that?
----------
Secretary of War Stimson summed up his view of the meeting in a 2 July memo to the President:
"The plans of operation up to and including the first landing have been authorized and the preparations for the operation are now <page 561> actually going on. This situation was accepted by all members of your conference on Monday, 18 June.
"There is reason to believe that the operation for the occupation of Japan following the landing may be a very long, costly and arduous struggle on our part. The terrain, much of which I have visited several times, has left the impression on my memory of being one which would be susceptible to a last ditch defense such as has been made on Iwo Jima and Okinawa and which of course is very much larger than either of those two areas. According to my recollection it will be much more unfavorable with regard to tank maneuvering than either the Philippines or Germany.
"If we once land on one of the main islands and begin a forceful occupation of Japan, we shall probably have cast the die of last ditch resistance. The Japanese are highly patriotic and certainly susceptible to calls for fanatical resistance to repel an invasion. Once started in actual invasion, we shall in my opinion have to go through with an even more bitter finish fight than in Germany. We shall incur the losses incident to such a war and we shall have to leave the Japanese islands even more thoroughly destroyed than was the case with Germany. This would be due both to the difference in the Japanese and German personal character and the differences in the size and character of the terrain through which the operations will take place."
http://home.roadrunner.com/~casualties/
I strictly go by historical and verifiable facts, I'm not interested in your misguided and tiring right-wing pseudo facts based entirely in ideology.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Terrorism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Gov: Removing Confederate statues like losing 9... 11 hr DonaldMcDumpfHeil... 515
News A look at the family rescued from Taliban-linke... Oct 13 Lucky 1
News End the 'big wink' in US-Middle East foreign po... Oct 7 stalk this 5
News Canada puts pressure on allies to monitor far-r... Oct 4 Charlie 1
News Trump considering more hawkish approach to Iran... Oct 2 GHJ 4
News At Trial, a Focus on the Facts, Not the Politic... Oct 1 St Rick Saintpornum 2
News US commemorates 9/11; thousands expected at gro... Sep 28 Dominick 3
More from around the web