Actually, it's the aggression of [i]Nazis[/i] in Germany and [i]militarists[/i] in Japan as well as the [i]fascists[/i] in Italy that should be identified as the aggressors in WW2, along with those corporate interests that financed these groups.
"German and Japanese aggressors" is a shorthand that can sometimes be very misleading, not to say harmful, if it is used to justify unfriendly attitudes today.
quote:
I’m not talking about memorials to our war dead (the soldiers). I’m talking about the hand-wringing every August about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why no similar angst about the 50 million dead?
It's not clear to me what you're talking about at all.
The point isn't angst or 'hand-wringing' as you dismissively put it: the point is to draw attention, on the anniversary of their first use, of the dangers posed by weapons that threaten us today with a death toll that could easily exceed 50 million.
A special point of concern for many Canadians is our country's complicity in the spread and use of these weapons around the world including, for example, to India.
Moreover, the threat from nuclear weapons is getting worse over time, as witnessed by the recent adjustment of the Doomsday Clock to Five Minutes to Midnight.
Flippant references to the crimes of Fascist Germany and Imperial Japan do nothing to challenge the seriousness of these facts.
[ 10 August 2007: Message edited by: sgm ]
quote:
Sven: I’m talking about the hand-wringing every August about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why no similar angst about the 50 million dead?
It's not "hand-wringing" or "angst" as you probably know very well. Nuclear weapons are a different kind of weapon in the world today - and their use will result in a world of "no conquerers and no conquests, but only the charred bones of the dead on an uninhabited planet" to use the words of William Shirer in the preface to his famous book, [i]The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich[/i]. Don't be so obtuse.
The Nazis, fascists and militarists in Germany, Italy and Japan were [i]militarily routed[/i] and crushed by the combined efforts of the Allies. On the other hand, our planet is awash with nuclear weapons to this very day and, the very same country that unnecessarily used nuclear weapons on all those Japanese civilians continues to engage in the most bellicose and horrific foreign policy since Jenghiz Khan.
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]On the other hand, our planet is awash with nuclear weapons to this very day and, the very same country that unnecessarily used nuclear weapons on all those Japanese civilians continues to engage in the most bellicose and horrific foreign policy since Jenghiz Khan.[/b]
American has “the most bellicose and horrific foreign policy since Jenghiz Khan”?
What about German, Italian and Japanese foreign policies of the 1930s and 1940s that resulted in 50 million dead? Or, are you just engaging in hyperbole?
[ 10 August 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]
This issue is of more importance that anyone's view of the foreign policy of the US. The current regimes that have these weapons must have their stockpiles reduced, new countries should be discouraged from getting them, etc.
In today's world, the bellicose foreign policy of the US leads directly to the result that small countries that dare to disobey the US are led to the conclusion that [b]only[/b] nuclear weapons will protect them. North Korea is a good example.
Try to put your obvious obsequiousness towards the US aside, Sven, and imagine, just for a minute, that there are general global concerns for the earth and you actually give a shit about such things. How would we get to a world free of nuclear weapons? Everything else is just detail.
[ 10 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]How would we get to a world free of nuclear weapons?[/b]
If you can figure out how to permanently rid the world of nuclear weapons, you’ll be a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
But I see no conceivable scenario where the Russians, the Chinese, the Americans, the British, and the French will get rid of those weapons.
If you can't imagine such a world then I understand that you wouldn't make any effort to reach it. I don't share such views and I am firmly of the belief that one MUST imagine such possibilities as a prerequisite to making them come true.
As soon as nuclear weapons had been developed (and used), Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell imagined such a world and they made a decent effort to effect change. The events in Hiroshima and Nagasaki every August remind all of us, all of humanity, that Einstein's and Russell's task is still incomplete. I can't think of a more important or noble cause other than the preservation of the biosphere in the face of the damage of human activity.
quote:
But I see no conceivable scenario where the Russians, the Chinese, the Americans, the British, and the French will get rid of those weapons.
You forgot the Indians, the pakistanis, North Koreans and (whats that other one oh yes), the Israelis.
I see youre a little behind times.
In any case, for the record, Israel does not have any nukes since they denied their existence.
Nor do they have a leadership mad enough to use those hypothetical nukes.
*Walks away whistling*
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]If you can't imagine such a world then I understand that you wouldn't make any effort to reach it. I don't share such views and I am firmly of the belief that one MUST imagine such possibilities as a prerequisite to making them come true.As soon as nuclear weapons had been developed (and used), Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell imagined such a world and they made a decent effort to effect change. The events in Hiroshima and Nagasaki every August remind all of us, all of humanity, that Einstein's and Russell's task is still incomplete. I can't think of a more important or noble cause other than the preservation of the biosphere in the face of the damage of human activity.[/b]
It’s not a matter of not being able to “imagine” such a world or not desiring such a world. The question is: How do you propose it be [b][i]practically achieved[/b][/i]?
quote:
Originally posted by BetterRed:
[b]You forgot the Indians, the pakistanis, North Koreans and (whats that other one oh yes), the Israelis. I see youre a little behind times [/b]
I didn’t forget those other countries. I intentionally left them off the list. The perception of many is that if you can convince the Russians, the Chinese, the Americans, the British, and the French to get rid of [b][i]their[/b][/i] nukes, the rest of the world will simply follow along. To put it charitably, that’s naпve.
quote:
Sven: The question is: How do you propose it be [b][i]practically achieved[/b][/i]?
There are lots of peace websites out there that show what's being done. Canadian Steven Staples is a good name to google and whose output continues to impress me.
Not to rub your nose in it or anything, but regular annual events like those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki keep this issue in the public eye. And that's something and a good thing in my books.
The difference between the sentiments of Canadians and the approach of our governments has been well documented. The same is often true in the US as well. The peace movement could use all the activists and help they can get. It's that simple, really. Get involved.
Closing for length.
