Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I Still Owe the Military Nothing
lewrockwell.com ^ | February 4, 2004 | Brad Edmonds

Posted on 02/04/2004 5:33:51 AM PST by dixiepatriot

I Still Owe the Military Nothing

by Brad Edmonds

My article on the military drew more emails than I've seen since I wrote a couple of years ago that Sheriff Andy Taylor of Mayberry was a commie rat. Then Paul Craig Roberts wrote this week a few good reasons why it's sometimes no fun to be a columnist. Just because it's enlightening and amusing (and a little informative), I thought it would be interesting to discuss the responses to my military article.

Free Republic was the most fun. As Paul Craig Roberts pointed out, some people will invent things they believe were in your article, and focus on those. One reader acted offended that I considered the rank of major "lowly," which I didn't suggest (I was putting it in relation to 2- and 3-star generals); another assumed my dad retired as a major, which I didn't suggest, and which wasn't the case. Others understood that I retired from the CIA, which I didn't. I was there for a relatively short time, and left in 1990. There was little of substance – mostly empty invective – on Free Republic, though one reader successfully corrected my simplification of US foreign policy in the Middle East to "40 years of bombing." I should have linked this article by Adam Young, and referred to "50 years of ham-handed, violent, dictatorial, capricious intervention" instead of "40 years of bombing." I stand corrected. Freepers, as they're called, are self-selected, and virtually all neocons; almost no libertarians are among them. I counted, just for fun, about 70 different posters, 65 of whom were opposed to my viewpoint (about 60 of those without substance).

My emails, also subject to self-selection, were just the opposite. I counted, just for fun, and heard from 114 different people – so far. 105 were in agreement, nine disagreed. Of those who identified themselves as military veterans, 32 agreed while only three wrote to disagree. None of the three claimed to have been a combat veteran, while many of the 32 mentioned the wars in which they saw combat.

Without exception, those who disagreed simply restated the point I wrote to dispel: That we owe our freedom to the military. A few thought they had me on a legal point: Since I noted that Americans' freedoms have decreased, some readers thought I'd confused the purpose of the military (defense from foreign invasion) with civil government (the enactment of laws, the existence of which limits freedom). No, they didn't have me; they made my point – that the military has little to do with freedom.

The only thing the military can do for our freedom is to repel an attack from an invader who, in occupying, would offer us a less free society than we have now. I mean, we must consider the possibility that an occupying force can increase our freedom, right? Isn't this Bush's point in Iraq? So, for our military to have been effective in protecting our freedom, the enemy must be (1) credible; (2) willing and prepared to attack; (3) likely to reduce our freedom if he wins; and (4) repelled by either the action, or the threat, of our military.

This circumstance has never obtained in our history, and probably never will. The British, in 1812, were the single most credible invading threat we've ever faced, and if the British invaded successfully they still might not have had a tremendous impact on our liberty either way. (Remember the Whiskey Rebellion? Our liberty was threatened by our own government in 1791.) Further, the most effective defense we had in 1812 was privateers – private ships, paid only in captured booty (which gave them incentive to preserve the enemy and his ships). So much for the government's military there.

The next "invasion" was the Union army invading the sovereign CSA, which only established once and for all that there was nothing voluntary about the US government. We have never been in any credible danger of being forced to speak Spanish, Japanese, German, or frankly, Russian. (We were in some danger of being hit by Soviet nuclear weapons, but the only deterrent was our own bombs – not men and women, not command structures, since ICBMs could be launched on Moscow from inside the US.)

The USSR was credible, likely to reduce our freedom, and somewhat hampered, if not repelled, by our military (but really mostly by our under-the-table payments to, for example, Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan; and our placements of missiles in Europe), but the USSR was never prepared to attack us. Hitler and Germany never constituted a credible threat to the US, and Hitler himself made no secret that he thought the new world order should consist of Germany, England, and the United States. Japan was goaded into Pearl Harbor, starving and desperate to break up our blockade of oil, steel, etc. against their island; but Japan never had any wish to invade the US. (Freepers take note: Yes, Germany, Japan, and the USSR were evil. Yes they were. I agree. They were still never a threat to us, with our without our military.)

What has made the US an uninviting target for 200 years is the oceans and our gun ownership. As Iraq and Afghanistan have proven in the last three years, making war halfway around the world is expensive, risky, and difficult even for the US, even today, even when attacking pathetically weaker opponents. Universal gun ownership means an occupying force can never succeed. To occupy, you have to step out of your planes and humvees and move on foot. The more the natives own guns and want to resist, the more ground area you have to occupy continuously. With a nation full of rifle-toting rednecks, a hostile foreign power can never succeed. To obliterate us, they would be forced to nuke us.

There is no incentive for any nation to do that to any other: There would be nothing of value to steal afterward, and it would be costly and dangerous for the nation using the nukes. America did it to Japan because we knew Japan was already defeated, and we were the only ones in the world who had nukes. Indeed, to prove the disincentives work: Truman bombed Japan because the Japanese demanded as their only condition of surrender that the emperor remain emperor. They continued to demand this after both bombings, so Truman just gave in. The bombings were for nothing. And with no retaliation for Truman or the US to fear, Truman still stopped, and gave the Japanese what they wanted. They didn't even have rifles.

We have rifles.

Heck, I'd be more prone to believe we owed our freedom to the military if they were here, defending our borders (or even their own headquarters). They're not.

And as to my point that the military is just a tool for Congress and the president, you don't have to listen to me. Listen to a retired Marine general, twice winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, on the subject.

We don't need a standing federal military. If someone invades, militias can pop up, with rifles and perhaps a government commission (while we still have forcible government) to get the job done and then disband until the next invasion. I'll be there, ready to go. Let me know when it happens.

February 4, 2004

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds181.html


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: badfiction; bradedmonds; lewsers; nowhinebeforeitstime
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-145 next last

1 posted on 02/04/2004 5:33:51 AM PST by dixiepatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
Yet more proof that LewRockwell.com = Whackjob.com
2 posted on 02/04/2004 5:37:39 AM PST by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
Yep, Nazi Germany was NEVER a threat to America...until they would have consolidated Europe and Russia.
3 posted on 02/04/2004 5:39:59 AM PST by Democratshavenobrains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
Lew Rockwell - proof that intelligence is an option, not a necessity.
4 posted on 02/04/2004 5:42:00 AM PST by reagan_fanatic (I'd rather be driving my '57 Chevy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
We don't need a standing federal military. If someone invades, militias can pop up, with rifles and perhaps a government commission (while we still have forcible government) to get the job done and then disband until the next invasion.

A "popped-up" militia standing up against a professional military force that is here as an invader - and succeeding - I don't see it happening.

5 posted on 02/04/2004 5:44:41 AM PST by Tennessee_Bob (LORD, WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
And Edmonds is the chief whacker!!!
6 posted on 02/04/2004 5:44:57 AM PST by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee_Bob
Uh, so do LewRockwellites EVER see a reason to go on the offense and invade an enemy country? Because militias would not be the best way to go about that.
7 posted on 02/04/2004 5:46:55 AM PST by Democratshavenobrains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee_Bob
A "popped-up" militia standing up against a professional military force that is here as an invader - and succeeding - I don't see it happening.

He must have watched Red Dawn a couple too many times. Even a trained militia force would need a lot of support to be able to beat a better-organized force.

8 posted on 02/04/2004 5:50:19 AM PST by RebelBanker (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
Sir,

I suppose this was about our last arguement:

Hitler and Germany never constituted a credible threat to the US, and Hitler himself made no secret that he thought the new world order should consist of Germany, England, and the United States.

I don´t want to re-open the discussion, just give note that my opinion cannot be that dumb.

Sincerely,

Michael

9 posted on 02/04/2004 5:53:16 AM PST by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
...Truman bombed Japan because the Japanese demanded as their only condition of surrender that the emperor remain emperor. They continued to demand this after both bombings, so Truman just gave in. The bombings were for nothing. And with no retaliation for Truman or the US to fear, Truman still stopped, and gave the Japanese what they wanted...

Proof that the author does not know history either. The casualty estimates for Operation Olympic - the ground invasion of mainland Japan - were in the millions on each side. Two atomic bombs convinced the Japanese government that further resistance was futile.

10 posted on 02/04/2004 5:54:01 AM PST by RebelBanker (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
Awful lot of verbage by the author, trying to defend his own original statement. That is usually a sign of a man that is a tad insecure. If his original story could not stand on its own, trying to prop it up is even more telling. If differing opinions hurt his very sensitive nature, so be it.
11 posted on 02/04/2004 6:00:22 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
What a no nothing....simply amazing.
12 posted on 02/04/2004 6:05:52 AM PST by cubreporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
Japan was goaded into Pearl Harbor

Indeed, to prove the disincentives work: Truman bombed Japan because the Japanese demanded as their only condition of surrender that the emperor remain emperor. They continued to demand this after both bombings, so Truman just gave in. The bombings were for nothing.

Mr. Edmonds still needs more history lessons. At least he now acknowledges that the US has been attacked other times than just Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese were never going to surrender. They were going to fight tooth and nail for the home islands. America was preparing and planning on 1 million US casualties for the invasion of the home islands

I leave a sneak attack that lead to a major war because someone was "goaded" for another poster...

13 posted on 02/04/2004 6:06:40 AM PST by 2banana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RebelBanker
LOL

I thought you Southern boys shunned federalis history?

MacArthur and Ike were quite clear the bombs were unnecessary to achieve a negotiated surrender.
14 posted on 02/04/2004 6:13:43 AM PST by JohnGalt ("...but both sides know who the real enemy is, and, my friends, it is us.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee_Bob
Nothing can "Pop Up" if the guns have been taken away.
15 posted on 02/04/2004 6:14:45 AM PST by Lokibob (All typos and spelling errors are mine and copyrighted!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
I would at least consult non-gubmint history before making such a claim, this being a conservative web site and all.

16 posted on 02/04/2004 6:14:45 AM PST by JohnGalt ("...but both sides know who the real enemy is, and, my friends, it is us.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Michael81Dus
I don´t want to re-open the discussion, just give note that my opinion cannot be that dumb.

Lew Rockwell is a nutter.

17 posted on 02/04/2004 6:17:10 AM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
This idiot got his freedom from a box of cornflakes?
Can you say... fruits and nuts?
18 posted on 02/04/2004 6:21:59 AM PST by Publius6961 (40% of Californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
From http://www.ww2pacific.com/downfal0.html

World War II in the Pacific
Operation Downfall
The Invasion of Japan






Operation DOWNFALL, the invasion of Japan, was in two components scheduled for the Fall and Spring of 1945-46:

Operation OLYMPIC, Nov 1, 1945, after the hurricane season, before winter. General Krueger, Sixth Army, with nine divisions (3 more in reserve) was to invade three beaches in southern Kyushu, the southern-most of the four Japanese home islands. This was to became a giant airbase to support the next invasion phase in the Spring of 1946. The Japanese had correctly predicted our invasion point and had reinforced Kyushu threefold over initial US expectations.

Operation CORONET, March 1, 1946, of Honshu, the main island, with 22 divisions in the Spring after air fields on Kyushu allowed landbased air support. There were to be two prongs:
General Hodges, with the 1st Army to land east of Tokyo, clear the peninsula, establish air fields, land tank divisions transferred from European, about 30 days, then charge across the plains to take the capital.
Ten days after the initial landing, LtGen Eichelberger with 8th Army was to attack west of Yokohama, Tokyo's seaport, open Tokyo Bay and block any reinforcement of Tokyo.

U.S. PREPARATIONS
The previous phase of the war had been the capture of the Marshalls --Saipan, Tinian and the US island of Guam during June, July and Aug 1944. These were captured to provide air fields within the effective range of B-29 Superfortress, very heavy bombers. Previous attempts to fly B-29s from inland China could only reach the southern portions of Japan with minimal bomb loads and required an impossible to maintain rate of logistics. B-29 attacks started in November 1944, by March 1945, Tokyo, Osaka and other industrial cities had been bombed
Iwo Jima was taken in Feb-March 1945 to provide an intermediate airstrip for damaged B-29s, for fighter escorts, and for shorter ranged B-24 Liberator heavy bombers. Air attack was ratcheted up to 300 plane raids and the attack method changed from explosives to incendiary in which 15% of Tokyo was destroyed in the first raid.1
Air dropped mining began in March 1945 in the Shimonoseki Straight, separating Kyushu and Honshu, to isolate the invasion island. Over 120 ships succumb to these mines.
Submarine efforts were concentrated in the Sea of Japan, on the northwest coast, while carrier task forces concentrated on the Pacific Ocean side.
Preparation for the invasion began with the Okinawa campaign. This is the largest island in the Ryukuyu Islands, the chain nearest to Japan. The native Okinawans were of Chinese extraction but had been an independent kingdom for 800 years until Japan invaded in 1875. Annexed, they continued a race apart, looked down upon my Japanese.2

Carrier Task Forces. The first strike on Japan's home islands was the period 18-22March 1945 to disrupt attacks on our invasion fleet as it approached Okinawa. Raids by 11 fleet carriers and 6 light carriers destroyed aircraft such that the Japanese air attacks on Okinawa were delayed until 6 days after the landings.
Remnants of the Imperial Navy were destroyed in their yards at Kure (near Hiroshima) on the main island of Honshu during early July.
Two fleets were to participate in Olympic: The Strike fleet with 21 carriers, 10 fast battleships and their train. The Assault fleet had 1,500 transports and 800 warships including 26 carriers and 13 battleships.

Operation Zipper by Lord Mountbatten's southeast Asia command was to take Singapore and the Malay Peninsula about 1Sept45. Also, the US China theater was planning to take the Liuchow Peninsula, west of Hong Kong, in mid-August as a port to supply China.

JAPANESE DEFENSES

Troops. Japan was scrapping the bottom of a big barrel. Two million new recruits were called up and experienced Armies was brought back from China and Manchuria to defend the homeland.

Kamikaze. Numbers of about 2000 Navy and 3500 Army airplanes have been cited as available for the defense, and of course, preparations would have continued with 500 mini-subs under construction, specially designed aircraft build, motor boat and manned torpedo stations established. Japanese military was committed to and was convinced they could repel the initial assault. That we might make as second assault was too much to consider. 1,465 Kamikaze had attacked at Okinawa, 400 miles away, had sunk or damaged 250 warships. A ratio of 1 hit per 6 attempts. Troopships sailing into waters adjacent to Japan, they thought, didn't stand a chance. US planners estimated 250 hits; Japanese planners expected 480 ships sunk. See suicide page for a range of special attack (suicide) weapons used by the Japanese.

Expected casualties. By this stage in the war, the overwhelming American material condition had reduced the ratio of American killed vs. enemy. The assault by Pacific trained Army troops from the Philippine Campaign and combat hardened Marines lessened the expected causalities on the American side. Conversely, first rate Japanese troops with pre-war combat experience in China -- which had made the initial conquests in the Pacific against inexperienced Allied troops -- had mostly been killed. The combat trained troops in China had been replaced with secondary troops -- these now experienced troops were recalled to defend the home islands. These troops had never been exposed in China to the massive air attacks that were now normal operations from US land and sea forces. Japan's naval ships had been destroyed. Japan had never had an adequate new pilot training program. Industrial resupply was dramatically weakened with every war facility destroyed as soon as it was discover by American air reconnaissance. Raw materials had been cut off as the merchant marine was destroyed by American submarines and aircraft.

Usually omitted from the statistics, however, because the atomic bomb was a secret, is the 300,000 white slave laborers held by Japan. Most of these were to be executed if the invasion had happened. The appearance of the atomic bomb brought such a sudden end to the war, that these lives were saved, along with the expected military casualties of both sides and massive numbers of Japanese civilian population either participating in the defense or as collateral damage.

Prospects of Operation Olympic. Japan fully expected to be able to repel the first landing with the help of suicide tactics. As shown at Normandy, the Americans expected to overpower all in their way. The U.S. expected to have air superiority, which places an imposition on the defense. The Navy expected to interdict all movements of resupply and reinforcement.
Best guess, the attack would be a repeat of "bloody Omaha beach" with a successful American landing. The plan called for sealing the mountains rather than fighting an Okinawa type campaign. The goal of establishing air bases would proceed as an American specialty. There would be continued casualties, but the goal accomplished.

CORONET . With American aircraft numbers measured in the 5-digits by aircraft type, and Japan's total aircraft numbers measured in the 4-digits, possibly 3-or 2-digits after Olympic, it is inconceivable why Coronet should happen. Japan could be allowed to suffocate under a siege with sea and air attack. No item of military importance would exist within 10 miles of the shore or any item that could be seen from the air. However, if Japan had persisted, it could only be because of great resistance at Kyushu. The momentum of war would have followed the plan. Invasion of Honshu would have been brutal with total destruction of every square yard before the troops and ruthless combat. The atomic bomb not only saved many Japanese lives, it may have saved the nation. With surrender, the occupying troops could be magnanimous in the American manner. If they had to fight fanatical resistance, they would have been compelled to destroy everything in sight as a potential military threat.

19 posted on 02/04/2004 6:22:14 AM PST by 2banana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
They were still never a threat to us, with our without our military.

This isn't even plausible revisionism, based, I presume, upon emotion wrung from 20-20 hindsight. The assertion deprives the article of credibility.

Without deterrent, even clunky Soviet technology would have struck the U.S. The USSR would not have occupied the U.S. since that would have proven too expensive. However, Comintern Marxist theory required only control of all means of production internationally. That in turn required an organized, central bureau, and the natural candidate for such a large enterprise was the USSR Politburo.

To achieve domination of all means of production by the USSR only required neutralization of U.S. influence (and so, power), and that did not require occupation of the U.S., only its actual or virtual disarmament, either by war or intimidation.

The Cuban missile bases made the innaccurate Soviet missile technology a genuine threat. To say the USSR was never a threat is patently irrational.

Interestingly, American liberals of that age wanted to strip the U.S. of its nuclear arsenal. The Venona Papers have revealed that some liberals went further than merely advocating a change in domestic politics, actually spying for the USSR to catalyze change, presumably for the greater good of humanity.

Fortunately for us, liberals (like Kerry, McGovern, and Ted Kennedy) who repeatedly voted to reduce defensive preparedness, were thwarted by hawks in both political parties (and by Ronald Reagan in particular). The result: the collapse of the USSR, international communism, by and large, and nearly complete removal of the danger of nuclear destruction of the world. Why liberals hate this remains to me a mystery, except that in hating our nation's liberty they succeed in expiating some imaginary guilt rising from perceived unnecessary prosperity.

Unfortunately, neurosis is no basis for foreign policy. I hope the general electorate realizes that.

20 posted on 02/04/2004 6:23:11 AM PST by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
Admiral William D. Leahy. 5-star admiral, president of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combined American-British Chiefs of Staff, and chief of staff to the commander-in-chief of the army and navy from 1942–1945 (Roosevelt) and 1945–1949 (Truman):

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted the ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, quoted by his widow:

". . . I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life. . . . We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything." And – E. B. Potter, naval historian wrote: "Nimitz considered the atomic bomb somehow indecent, certainly not a legitimate form of warfare."

Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet:

"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake ever to drop it . . . (the scientists) had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before."

Rear Admiral Richard Byrd:

"Especially it is good to see the truth told about the last days of the war with Japan. . . . I was with the Fleet during that period; and every officer in the Fleet knew that Japan would eventually capitulate from . . . the tight blockade."

Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy:

"I, too, felt strongly that it was a mistake to drop the atom bombs, especially without warning." [The atomic bomb] "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion . . . it was clear to a number of people . . . that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate . . . it was a sin – to use a good word – [a word that] should be used more often – to kill non-combatants. . . ."

Major General Curtis E. LeMay, US Army Air Forces (at a press conference, September 1945):

"The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb . . . the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."

Major General Claire Chennault, founder of the Flying Tigers, and former US Army Air Forces commander in China:

"Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped..."

Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces.

". . . [F]rom the Japanese standpoint the atomic bomb was really a way out. The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell. . . ."

Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker, Arnold's deputy.

"Arnold's view was that it (dropping the atomic bomb) was unnecessary. He said that he knew that the Japanese wanted peace. There were political implications in the decision and Arnold did not feel it was the military's job to question it. . . . I knew nobody in the high echelons of the Army Air Force who had any question about having to invade Japan."

Arnold, quoted by Eaker:

"When the question comes up of whether we use the atomic bomb or not, my view is that the Air Force will not oppose the use of the bomb, and they will deliver it effectively if the Commander in Chief decides to use it. But it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion."

General George C. Kenney, commander of Army Air Force units in the Southwest Pacific, when asked whether using the atomic bomb had been a wise decision.

"No! I think we had the Japs licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit."

W. Averill Harriman, in private notes after a dinner with General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz (commander in July 1945 of the Pacific-based US Army Strategic Air Forces), and Spaatz's one-time deputy commanding general in Europe, Frederick L. Anderson:

"...Both felt Japan would surrender without use of the bomb, and neither knew why a second bomb was used."

General Dwight D. Eisenhower:

"I voiced to him (Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson ed note: a Stalinist spy) 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. It was my belief that Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum of loss of 'face'. . . . It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

former President Herbert Hoover:

"I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

Richard M. Nixon:

"MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it. . . . He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be to limit damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off, which I think speaks well of him

Norman Cousins, from an interview with MacArthur:

". . . [H]e saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it did later anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
21 posted on 02/04/2004 6:25:37 AM PST by JohnGalt ("...but both sides know who the real enemy is, and, my friends, it is us.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
I agree. What the heck, a whole article from LewNutball.com, and it didn't mention once the dastardly high crimes of Abraham Lincoln or the poor oppressed South? What's this world coming to? Their standards are slipping.
22 posted on 02/04/2004 6:26:44 AM PST by egarvue (Martin Sheen is not my president...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
This here is the Paul Craig Roberts article he mentioned. It's worth a read.
23 posted on 02/04/2004 6:29:12 AM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
This hyperbole is barely worth confronting.

The mere threat our military presents to potential enemies insures our relative freedom and prosperity. To suppose that two oceans prevent attack by an enemy is stupid in this age of ICBMs. What prevents an attack is the threat of retaliation by our military's missles.

There may be a better way to run a country, but until Libertopia is established and shows us the enlightened path, this will have to do.
24 posted on 02/04/2004 6:33:42 AM PST by sergeantdave (Gen. Custer wore an Arrowsmith shirt to his last property owner convention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
I am very sympathetic to Mr. Rockwells views on our military. It would be nice to live in a country where we could just worry about whats going on in here. I wish that he were correct. But he's not.

in 1801, barely 14 years after the constitution was signed, the President, Thomas Jefferson, sent an expeditionary force halfway across the world to wage war against the Barbary coast pirates. and Thomas Jefferson was as strong an opponent of federal power as you can find.

Jefferson did it because the choice was clear. Wage war or allow thugs and barbarians to ravage American shipping, and American interests because of perceived American weakness. Jefferson chose war and it was the right choice. That war sent a message about American strength and resolve and saved a whole heap of trouble.

President Bush is making the same choice for the same reasons.

25 posted on 02/04/2004 6:33:50 AM PST by delapaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RebelBanker
"He must have watched Red Dawn a couple too many times"


WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
26 posted on 02/04/2004 6:34:56 AM PST by Blzbba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
He makes some good points and some points that are just WAAAYYY out there.

Good points - The only thing the military can do for our freedom is to repel an attack from an invader who, in occupying, would offer us a less free society than we have now.

With a nation full of rifle-toting rednecks, a hostile foreign power can never succeed. To obliterate us, they would be forced to nuke us.

Bad points - So, for our military to have been effective in protecting our freedom, the enemy must be (1) credible; (2) willing and prepared to attack; (3) likely to reduce our freedom if he wins; and (4) repelled by either the action, or the threat, of our military.

Without our military I believe there woiuld have been many countries in the past 200+ years that would have met requirements 1, 2, and 3.

This circumstance has never obtained in our history, and probably never will.

And again, I believe this is due DIRECTLY to our military.

Hitler and Germany never constituted a credible threat to the US

Never let this man into public office.
Hitler's Germany was the most advanced country, next to the USA, in the world. Hitler would have consolidated Europe, Russia, AND the mideast and come a running after the USA. We probably would have been speaking German before 1950.

Truman bombed Japan because the Japanese demanded as their only condition of surrender that the emperor remain emperor. They continued to demand this after both bombings, so Truman just gave in. The bombings were for nothing.

It seems to me that it is a fairly well known fact that more US lives were saved by this than, almost, any other single event in WWII.

We don't need a standing federal military. If someone invades, militias can pop up, with rifles and perhaps a government commission (while we still have forcible government) to get the job done and then disband until the next invasion.

Sure, if you want to prove it every 50 years to the next tinhorn dictator that doesn't remember the last time we opened a can of USA mean on someone.
The militias better have more than rifles though. Somebody better be passing out the grenades, LAWS rockets, machine guns, aircraft, anti-aircraft missiles, etc, with which todays battles are being won. Otherwise we will be toast in short order.

27 posted on 02/04/2004 6:35:28 AM PST by Just another Joe (FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
Listen to a retired Marine general, twice winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, on the subject.

Number One: It's Medal of Honor RECIPIENT

Number Two: If in fact Smedley Butler said this, I doubt he meant it the way that the author has twisted it.

There have been 7 Marine Corps double recipients of the MOH, however Smedley Butler and Daniel Daly were the only ones who received it for separate actions.

28 posted on 02/04/2004 6:35:53 AM PST by CholeraJoe (Air Force! We're the smart ones, we send the officers out to fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
Brad...you should have a nice view of your entrails from there....
29 posted on 02/04/2004 6:39:42 AM PST by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Democratshavenobrains
If Germany didn't have the ablitity to subdue England in it's darkest hour, they couldn't manage a cross channel invasion, then there is no way they could have handled a cross Atlantic invasion. They didn't have long range bombers, fighters or aircraft carriers or a sizable enough navy. Germany posed no threat to the US and like the man said Hitler wanted the world divided into spheres of influence. Germany in Europe, the US in the west, England would have had its far flung colonies and Japan the east. FDR wanted the world divided into spheres of influence also - just a different version of powers and spoils. That shaped up jsut the way FDR wanted after the war.

If you believe Germany threatened us, you've been suckered by propaganda.

P.S. when you go to bed tonight be sure to check under the bed for boogiemen first (sorry for the cheap sarcasim, I couldn't resist).

30 posted on 02/04/2004 6:40:58 AM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Excellent quotes...One common thread runs among all of them if true...None of them were doing the dying and bleeding and I think hindsight may have crept in there with many.

If I may, I served under Lemay as a peon during the Korean thing and he was hot to drop the A-bomb on Russia or China or anyone else that raised their head. He seems to have had different views at different times as do most of these people.

There are audio tapes of Lemay being rude to JFK over the cuba fiasco, he was hot to bomb Castro with whatever it took. Had I been JFK I would cashiered the SOB then and there.

31 posted on 02/04/2004 6:41:53 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Why don't you go through and date all those quotes?
32 posted on 02/04/2004 6:42:05 AM PST by general_re (Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
"Somebody better be passing out the grenades, LAWS rockets, machine guns, aircraft, anti-aircraft missiles, etc, with which todays battles are being won."

And the knowledge and training on how to use them. How many "Just Another Joe"s from the street could climb into an M1 Abrams, or pick up a surface-to-air missile launcher, or a TOW-missile launcher and know how to use 'em?

33 posted on 02/04/2004 6:43:41 AM PST by BlueLancer (Der Elite Møøsënspåånkængrüppen ØberKømmååndø (EMØØK))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe; dixiepatriot
The author exposes himself as a full on tool.

and Hitler himself made no secret that he thought the new world order should consist of Germany, England, and the United States

And what makes that Statement credible, when considered in light of his protestations of Lebensraum/Czechoslovakia ?????

Or....Maybe his maps were just really bad, and he thought that the Sudetenland really stretched from the south of France, to the Sea of Japan....By way of Poland...

34 posted on 02/04/2004 6:44:21 AM PST by hobbes1 (Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RebelBanker
>the author does not know history either

The invasion of Japan did not have to take place. Their Navy was defeated, their air force destroyed. We controled the waters and the air. The island was isolated and effectively blockaded. Their armies in China and Korea were of no use to the homeland. Since Japan is so dependent on imports of all kinds the days of the war were numbered.

P.S. Japan had been sending out feelers for surrender. We didn't have to invade and we didn't have to drop the bombs.

35 posted on 02/04/2004 6:48:33 AM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
I hear you; it is certainly a complicated issue, I was just putting some balance from the conservative perspective.


My Great Uncle was a medic, won a medal on Okinawa, and was on the first 'boat' into Nagasaki after the surrender. A Japanese officer even surrendered a sword to him. He told me over breakfast in '96 that seeing the bomb up close, he knew it was wrong, and he believed he had been lied to about the character of the Japanese people, including the military, who were not suicidal at all-- this coming from a man who carried shattered bodies of friends around on Okinawa and watched the terrible suicides of civilians jumping off cliffs.

Great Uncle Forbes, Old Right to the corps, when he learned of what the brass said about the bombs when he got back stateside, severed all ties with his military buddies and hasn't spoken to any of them since 1945, even refusing a free trip to Okinawa in 1995 for a reunion of sorts. Still alive at 93, he will go to his grave hoping God forgives him.

Safe to say, my opinion on the subject was solidified that day.
36 posted on 02/04/2004 6:49:55 AM PST by JohnGalt ("...but both sides know who the real enemy is, and, my friends, it is us.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
It was Brad Edmonds who wrote the article. And it´s interesting to see our discussion going on (FReeper u-89 thinks like me...). Have a nice day,

Michael
37 posted on 02/04/2004 6:49:57 AM PST by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
I see no real reason to go into this again with this nitwit, as he is obviously too full of himself to see that some folks really don't give a rat's patootie about what he says, one way of the other. The fool provided a moments distraction for me at the time of the original posting, but his continued silliness now tells me I was right about him in the first place.

Nothing but a loudmouthed REMF with nothing better to do.

By the way, idiot, no one WINS the Medal of Honor. One RECEIVES the medal.

And there ain't no such thing as a Congressional Medal of Honor.

Geez, one would think with all the education and intelligence you have, you'd at least be able to get that right.

Posted by OldSmaj to dixiepatriot On News/Activism 01/29/2004 7:15:12 AM PST #48 of 107

I don't idolize, but I do admire those 99% of the members of the armed forces who have served honorably. But I owe them nothing.

Hmmm. Should I or shouldn't I?

Yeah, I guess I should. Listen pogey-bait, I'm speaking as one those that you owe nothing to: I didn't ask for anything from you, in the first place, you stinking REMF.

I served because I got paid reasonably well to do things that I enjoyed doing. Others may call it what they wish, I called it a job. I didn't fail at it, either. Your stinking ass is still around to spew this crap, ain't it?

Thanks for paying your taxes, so that I could be paid, but otherwise, I really don't give a damn if you live or die.

In fact, you mealy-mouthed wanna-be spook, your type is the same type that did nothing but piss me off day after day, anyway, since all you could do was postulate and present your silly-ass pipe dreams based upon your fabricated imaginings, with no other purpose than to make a pitiful attempt to justify your own job. Good and honorable men died for your Clancy imaginings.

Your type wasted my time and talents on many occasions, with your Cold War crap and the constant doom and gloom crap that never existed.

You would have been better off just keeping your idiotic mouth shut. Tis better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and verify the suspicion.

CIA, my ass. The good ones don't go around spouting this crap. If you knew half of what you think you know about why someone serves, you wouldn't be wasting your time writing your silliness for Lew Rockwell forums.

But, you, you ignorant James Bond wannabe, you don't know diddly about your subject, best you go back to writing assessments of non-existant planned invasions of Bora-Bora or whatever it is you ring-knocking, joe college CIA dipshits do.

38 posted on 02/04/2004 6:50:32 AM PST by OldSmaj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy:

"I, too, felt strongly that it was a mistake to drop the atom bombs, especially without warning." [The atomic bomb] "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion . . . it was clear to a number of people . . . that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate . . . it was a sin – to use a good word – [a word that] should be used more often – to kill non-combatants. . . ."

Since it's already "dowdified" quite a bit, I thought I'd do a little more. How do you like it?

"I, too, felt strongly that . . . to drop the atom bombs, especially without warning . . . was . . . necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion . . . [I]t was . . . good . . . to kill non-combatants. . . ."

39 posted on 02/04/2004 6:53:04 AM PST by whd23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: u-89
"Hitler wanted the world divided into spheres of influence. "


Hitler was also extremely angry at Tojo for attacking the US and drawing us into the European Theater, as he knew that our involvement there spelled inevitable disaster for him.
40 posted on 02/04/2004 6:54:03 AM PST by Blzbba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: whd23
LOL
41 posted on 02/04/2004 6:58:42 AM PST by Blzbba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: u-89
According to US Army archives, Hitler did indeed have plans to invade the US. The plan was to drop paratroopers into the Canadian Rockies, establish bases and attack from the north. I'd guess this was contingent on conquering Russia, so the Nazi forces could jump off from Siberia. The information, I believe, came from a Swiss diplomat who passed it on to the Allies.

I believe the documents are in the Army Winter Warfare school.

I never saw the documents but read a synopsis from the Army some years ago. If someone could verify this, I'm sure it would make interesting reading.
42 posted on 02/04/2004 6:58:45 AM PST by sergeantdave (Gen. Custer wore an Arrowsmith shirt to his last property owner convention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: u-89
Yeah there is no way Germany could have made atomic weapons or long-range bombers.

You slept through history, didn't you?
43 posted on 02/04/2004 6:59:32 AM PST by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
"The plan was to drop paratroopers into the Canadian Rockies,"


French Canada would've been a better drop-point...
44 posted on 02/04/2004 6:59:58 AM PST by Blzbba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dixiepatriot
I have to admit that I agree with much of this.

No one owes me because I chose to serve in the AVF military. This is the opposite side of the wrong-headed coin that subscribes to the idea that my parents made some sort of sacrifice for my decision.

I also agree that our military is more Machiavellian than a militia-based last line of defense.

I do think it is appropriate to honor those that choose to serve in the military as we should those that choose to serve in the police, firefighter, medical, etc. services that are based on selflessnes over, say, entertainers whose self-aggrandizement motivates them more than a concern for the welfare of others.

I would also say that during my service, I have probably done more to ensure the freedoms of Europeans, Asians and South Americans directly. Whether that has pushed the frontiers of our own national security out from our borders, making the risk of foreign attack less, can certainly be debated.

I also have understood that Americans do not trust the military to be directly involved within our borders in enforcing security - choosing to engage our military abroad rather than against non-citizens and interlopers domestically.

The author is entitled to his opinion, and in uniform or out, I support his right to publish it. Given the success of our freedoms, I do not see a need to defend it, or rail against it, with anything more than the tools at hand in my civilian role.

Should that change, he can count on me to do it in my military role.
45 posted on 02/04/2004 7:01:04 AM PST by optimistically_conservative (The BBC killed Kelly!! Those b@stards!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lokibob
Ssshhh...we're not supposed to think about that!!
46 posted on 02/04/2004 7:01:29 AM PST by Tennessee_Bob (LORD, WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
Hyping the threat of an enemy is what government due to justify mothers giving up their sons to serve the interests of the state.
47 posted on 02/04/2004 7:07:27 AM PST by JohnGalt ("...but both sides know who the real enemy is, and, my friends, it is us.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Appy..Adolf had one of his 4 engined aircraft come within 12 miles of New York city during the war.
48 posted on 02/04/2004 7:14:46 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: whd23
We could also say "I did...have sex with that woman..."

I'll be danged - Clinton DID confess!!
49 posted on 02/04/2004 7:16:22 AM PST by Tennessee_Bob (LORD, WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: delapaz
The comparison of the Barbary pirates to today's wars is apples and oranges. Jefferson understood the purpose of the navy and defense. The founders wanted a navy to defend our shores and our shipping. To war agaisnt attacks by pirates and demands of tribute for safe passage is as legit as it gets.

Consolidation the American continent by the US could be considered aggressive expansionism but most thought it was a natural enough phenomenon to control the area coast to coast. Late in the 19th century when that job was done suddenly that wasn't good enough. We wanted to be a major power of the European model. We wanted to project force through the world. We built up our navy to compete. Then we grabbed Hawaii and picked a war with Spain in order to grab her holdings. We have been meddling in other's affairs ever since and have been at war ever since at the coast of millions of US casualties and tens of millions of foreigners. Not to mention the billions and billions of tax dollars.

So in order to play big shot instead of just being a peaceful bastion of freedom and prosperity we suffer the results of heavy taxation, government/corporate alliances, foreign enemies where they need not exist, the occasional draft, the surveillance state, increased police powers, foreign aid and a host of other evils. As the founders understood a standing army was a threat to freedom. And we certainly are a lot less free since 1898.

To sum up the problems we have today are what the CIA phrased as blow back. The unintended results of our actions. Absolutely no comparison to the Barbary pirate situation.

P.S. To prove the wisdom of the warning against a standing army presenting too big a temptation for politicians here's a Madelene Albright quote: "what's the point of having the world's most powerful military if you don't use it?"

50 posted on 02/04/2004 7:20:42 AM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-145 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson