Badmovies.org Forum

I want this reply to be seen, because I feel it is important.

Here is the original thread:
www.badmovies.org/bbs2/read.php?f=2&i=9017&t=8858


Chris said, about America's use of the atom bomb:

"THAT IS AN ACT OF COWARDICE THAT'S WORSE THEN WHAT THE JAPANESE DID TO PEARL HARBOR."

I disagree.  I very strongly disagree and think that anyone who has not served in the military, with the very real possibility of being killed in combat, should be careful with such words.

The United States did not ask for the war with Japan.  We had fought a series of bloody battles across the Pacific to finish it though.  Yes, they were going to lose, but invading the Japanese mainland was going to cost the lives of many American servicemen.

On 26 July 1945, the Potsdam Declaration called for the unconditional surrender of Japan.  Nothing, so on 6 August the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.  Still nothing; on 9 August 1945 Nagasaki was destroyed by the second atom bomb.  Finally Japan agreed to unconditional surrender and the war officially ended on 2 September.  

Between Hiroshima and Nagasaki it is likely that over 200,000 people died.  War is ugly, brutal business.  War is what happens when diplomacy cannot solve the problems between countries.

All this being said.  Japan would have happily bombed American cities into the ground if they could.  Have you ever read about their use of balloons to deliver bombs onto the U.S. mainland?  What do you think these were intended to do?  Attack military targets or kill curious Americans (especially children)?

While we are on the subject of Japan's morality.  How about the Nanjing Massacre, where it is estimated over 300,000 civilians and POWs were killed?  How about them forcing thousands of women to work in brothels during the occupation of parts of China?  How about working over a hundred thousand laborers to death on the Burma-Thailand railway?  

Read all the facts, then start judging.  If the worst you can find us doing is interning Japanese Americans in camps (and that was a mistake) and dropping two atomic bombs to save American lives, I can sleep sound.

Andrew

PS:  Feel free to check creditable references.  I pulled out a few books, including "The Oxford Companion to World War II" to get a couple of specifics.

Andrew, I thank you for stepping in to give your say about the matter. I have read over the statements and evidence you supplied and it is sound. But I still have my say on the matter and so do you. So here is my response to your questions and my outcome.


Andrew wrote:
>
> "THAT IS AN ACT OF COWARDICE THAT'S WORSE THEN WHAT THE
> JAPANESE DID TO PEARL HARBOR."
>
> I disagree.  I very strongly disagree and think that anyone
> who has not served in the military, with the very real
> possibility of being killed in combat, should be careful with
> such words.

Alright, so I have not served in the military. I am 17 years old for God's sake. I have read incidents that happened in World War II that were bloody and brutal. But I stick by my earlier statement (however, I can change it to "BOTH PEARL HARBOR AND THE TWO ATOMIC BOMBINGS ARE ACTS OF COWARDICE" to make it fair). And it's not easy at all for me to say this!



> The United States did not ask for the war with Japan.  We had
> fought a series of bloody battles across the Pacific to
> finish it though.  Yes, they were going to lose, but invading
> the Japanese mainland was going to cost the lives of many
> American servicemen.

Where did I say that the United States asked for war against Japan? I made no such comment on that. As for the Japanese mainland invasion, as I can recall (my memory is a bit fuzzy) that the cost of American servicemen if able to invade the Japanese mainland was an ESTIMATED GUESS! Their is a difference between a guess and a fact. But, if I am wrong about my statement here then my history teacher must have missed something when he was teaching us.



> Between Hiroshima and Nagasaki it is likely that over 200,000
> people died.  War is ugly, brutal business.  War is what
> happens when diplomacy cannot solve the problems between
> countries.

I totally agree with this statement. In fact, that is what my earlier statement was all about and that we should not judge a country for their past history. I am sure their is not one person out there who believes war is a good thing. And if there is, then God save them.

 

> All this being said.  Japan would have happily bombed
> American cities into the ground if they could.  Have you ever
> read about their use of balloons to deliver bombs onto the
> U.S. mainland?  What do you think these were intended to do?
> Attack military targets or kill curious Americans (especially
> children)?

Andrew, you have just gone WAY over my head here. I will admit that I have not heard about this case before. So there is some things my history teacher did not tell me!



> While we are on the subject of Japan's morality.  How about
> the Nanjing Massacre, where it is estimated over 300,000
> civilians and POWs were killed?  How about them forcing
> thousands of women to work in brothels during the occupation
> of parts of China?  How about working over a hundred thousand
> laborers to death on the Burma-Thailand railway?

Now these cases I have heard of. But that is no excuse to bomb two unsuspecting cities who contain civilians who have NO CLUE what's going on in the Pacific involving any war crimes. What are the chances of the Government actually telling them that "Hey, we are torturing some US soldiers"? Not much because if that DID leak out at the time then the Japanese people would want to end the war and not continue (And remember, politics is probably one of the leading effects of war. It's not about race or who's the better country, it POLITICS). The people who deserve the atomic bomb to be dropped on them would be the bloodthirsty soldiers, NOT PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THEIR HOMES AND DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THEM.



> Read all the facts, then start judging.  If the worst you can
> find us doing is interning Japanese Americans in camps (and
> that was a mistake) and dropping two atomic bombs to save
> American lives, I can sleep sound.

I disagree completely and I cannot sleep sound. I have read all the facts that you have delivered to me, Andrew. And I thank you for doing so. I do feel that the worst thing that we have done was the Japanese internment camps and the two atomic bombs. And I cannot sleep sound on that. Why? Imagine if you were sleeping one night and you were forced into a lousy conditioned camp just becasue of your ethnic background (i.e. it seems that at the time we were creating our own Nazi Germany, minus the gas chambers and tortureous slayings)! Or one night you were sleeping and a atomic bomb blasted in your neighborhood and it either sheared your flesh off or you survived while your family died! That's what scary about it! How can you kill inocent lives like that in order to save your own? Have you ever read books about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings with interviews with those who were lucky enough to survive and recall a bad memory? Have you seen gruesome pictures of what the blast did to people who were just walking outside not wondering what was going to happen? Have you seen the corpses that are so awful to look at that you just could not see why such a thing had to be done? Have you seen the results? It's devistating! It's not victory at all. I am more likeley to be ashamed, not proud. And it did end the war, but was their a side effect?

I will be honest. I am not a pacifist or a "concenecious objector". If I need to kick ass, then kick ass I will. But I am a peacefull guy and I enjoy siting back and thinking about something like this. I cannot go by that saying "that's the way it is" because it is not always that way to me. almost everything is not placed in a little box with a sign on it saying "It's like this, nothing more." Just doesn't work that way for me. I have to look at things more openly and focus on what I feel is wrong about this or that. We cannot change the past, but we can change the way how we act when we learn from the past. And I believe in that more than anything else.

If you were highly offended by some of the way my statements are written in that special "mean attitude" on this post and the earlier one, please don't. I don't mean it that way. I just felt you were getting a little hostile (it felt like it) on this post about what I said earlier. And I didn't mean anything against the USA or anything like that for I am not one of those "hostile" people who have something against their own country or another country. I love Japan, Germany, Spain, Italy, England, France, and the United States (sorry if that one is last).

I like you Andrew and I like your web site. You have your beliefs, and I have mine. It's close to Christmas and we should just put this behind us. We have proven our points, so lets end it. And if it sounds like I am being a "wuss" about this, I just don't want to get in a whole argument that results in insults and rude comments that go way to far! I'd rather be a man and end the argument right now, than be a child and continue on with no reason to continue. It's better to end it now, then end it later.

Chris,

I've never been much for flame wars, since my goal is to have the other person(s) see why and how I have come to my conclusions. Your argument brings up a few counterpoints, so I'm going to address them.

A large number of balloon bombs were released, but only a few landed across the northwest U.S., Canada, and Alaska.  No more than a handful of people were harmed by the devices.

Hiroshima was at least a partial military target.  Something like 20,000 military personnel were killed when it was destroyed.  And one thing that you have to remember is that a country's military forces are drawn from its civilian population.  The massacres and atrocities were committed by Japan's sons.

My real argument here is that we had spent countless American lives destroying the Japanese military, but the Emperor still showed no sign of agreeing to unconditional surrender.  We had two atomic bombs and hoped that, by destroying two cities with them, the war would be brought to a quick end.  No invasion, no more firebombing, and no more Japanese civilians committing suicide rather than being captured (they were fanatically dedicated).

I have yet to meet a single Marine who served in combat during World War II that did not think the decision made was the correct one.  They gave thanks for the opportunity to come home and raise a family.

Andrew

Andrew,  I can't believe you're arguing with this moron!  He just doesn't get it and probably won't for a long time until he wises up as he gets older and truly appreciates what those men did for our country.  Those men that put their lives on the line are my personal heroes.  Because of their acts(and even the ones in the higher echelons that gave the order to drop the atomic bombs) WE ALL get to live the way we do now.......FREE!   Chris K. Don't doubt or take for granted for even a second, EVER, what they helped preserve for you...........your freedom.

And another thing....the Japanese we dropped those atomic bombs on deserved what they got.  They started it.....we finished it!

You know, calling me a moron may be a part of "freedom of speech" here in the US, but their is a difference between giving your own opinion and being just plain rude! I know those brave men of our country put their lives on the line to die for our country and I have never doubted it for one second. I have NEVER taken for granted, even for a second, on how they have preserved my freedom and yours as well. And as I can recall, I gave my opinion on the matter (and I am entitled to an opinion) and said that the argument should now be closed so now other arguments should result in childish namecalling or insults. I guess that did not put an end to it becasue I now have Ashthecat being a jerk and calling me a "moron". I don't argue the facts at all. And if you had read my response earlier in my comment back to Andrew, I admited that their were some things I did not know about (i.e. the bombs being flown via baloons) that went way over my head and Andrew gave his say about it. So Ashthecat, the next time you want to insult somebody for giving some deep thought into American history please read the posts carefully BEFORE JUDGING. If anyone who is judging harshly, it's you Ashthecat!

Oh, and the term "They deserved it" is just a bit pushy. Granted Japan DID START THE WAR (obviously), but their is a difference between killing bloodthirsty Japanese soldiers and Japanese citizens who DID NOT have a clue what was going on in the Pacific islands and feared the war rather than support it. Their is a difference, but regarless what's done in the past is done. Let's end it at that, Ashthecat.

"[T]he Japanese we dropped those atomic bombs on deserved what they got. They started it...we finished it!"

Not to be an ass or anything, but that has to be one of the more offensive statements made in a while.  Whether or not you support the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a means of ending World War II, the women and children who died as a result of the bombings did not deserve it, any more than any other civilians who were killed in London, Dresden, or wherever else was bombed.  They did not order the bombing of Pearl Harbor, or the massacres done in their country's name.  Their government did, or, rather, the men running their government did.

Now, to REALLY be an ass, and probably (and, no doubt deservedly) get yelled at in the process, let me tell you the first thing that ran through my mind while reading the above quote.  Isn't that basically what the radical Muslims were saying after 9-11?  That the victims of that attack "deserved" it due to all the US's actions in the Middle East?  I know probably you didn't mean it that way, but that's the way it comes across.

As for the bombings themselves, I think they might have been better for both the US and Japan in the long run.  All I know for certain is that I *IN NO WAY* want to be in the position of making such decisions.  I would either make the wrong one, or make none at all (which might well be redundant.)

I get my post out six minutes AFTER someone else makes my key points.  Serves me right for spell checking...

I know I started the whole thing with my observations about the atomic bombings, but this is not what I expected. I haven't changed my mind about what I said, and I already said I agreed more or less with what Chris K. said. I think he has been quite brave to speak like that considering the war winds around. I respect, though I still disagree, with whatever anybody else can think about the matter (well, except Ashthecat) here, BUT THIS IS NOT THE MATTER! Please, this is a movie forum, and what I tried to say is that I was angry the authors of "Pearl Harbour" had ignored or changed many things just for the money profits.

We are from different places, have received different education  and do different things in life, so it is obvious we strongly disagree in many things, so it's getting time we park them and discuss what we have in common... bad movies. This is not the place nor the time to discuss other topics. Anybody disagrees?

Neville, I agree that this forum is a site for bad movie chats. And I thank you for saying that I was brave enough to make my comment. But I take full blame for the argument. Their are times when I speak up and take the backlash in order to get my statement out there, but their are times when I have to just shut up. However, their are others out there who are just PLAIN RUDE (Ashthecat is an example) to accept one's thoughts on a subject and go off to insult those who served bravely in WW2 (which I DID NOT insult at all; I have an uncle who served in the Korean War and I respect him for what HE had to go through). But for now, I will overlook Ashthecat's rudeness and put it in the past where it belongs and lets at least have a good day talking about bad movies and such.

I now feel that this argument should now be closed. We have our owns thoughts and educational standpoints on this subject, we ultamately cannot agree on every statement for their are some differences. At lest we understand where the argument goes.


Therefore, all is at rest and we can go back to our discussion of "bad movies". Agree?

Now, has anyone seen CREEPSHOW...Great movie.

Chris K. wrote:
> However, their are
> others out there who are just PLAIN RUDE (Ashthecat is an
> example) to accept one's thoughts on a subject and go off to
> insult those who served bravely in WW2.

My mistake on this part of the sentence. I meant to say "However, their are others out there who are just plain rude to not accept one's thoughts on a subject and go off TO THINK THAT I INSULTED THOSE WHO SERVED BRAVELY IN WW2". My mistake. This is what happens when you are at computer class and don't have time to check over what you wrote because a teacher is watching over to see if you are doing any REAL WORK or not!

Mental note to myself: CHECK OVER YOUR COMMENTS BEFORE POSTING THEM ON MESSAGE BOARD.

Just to let you know...I have read your responses but have to go to work now and don't have time to post a response of my own.  But I'll most definitely post one after I get off work.  Then after that we can talk about some bad movies......

Great flick indeed.  I even have soft spot in my heart for the sequel, even though Michael Gornick's direction is a tad too TVish for my taste.  I wish Romero got financing/work more often, the man is truly a talented filmmaker.

Ever see "Tokyo: The Last Megalopolis?" That film really struck a chord with me. In its own peculiar way, it shows how huge disasters like earthquakes kept Tokyo in a state of constant rebuilding. Every few years, they had to reconstruct the city from the ground up. The idea of reconstruction became part of the culture. I always thought that film presented a lot of solid insight into all of the Japanese monster movies.

But moreover, it speaks of a culture whose "language" includes the massive destruction of populated areas. So in a weird way, I've always seen the nuking of Japan as sending the only message that would have resonated with the culture at large. (the message being, "yo, cut it out with that art of war crap, guys.") Fierce battles with heavy casulaties weren't getting the message across, that's for sure. But they did understand the nukes -- the fact that this weapon could destroy entire cities. Like an earthquake. Or Godzilla.

I want to know why every piece of anime I have seen seems to take place in Neo Tokyo.  You'd think that the Japanese would give up after being attacked by 50 different forms of aliens and giant robots.

A very good point. Now that I think about it, a great deal of Japanese entertainment follows that theme. I'm reminded of Star Blazers, in which Earth seems to be devastated and it's fleets decimated on almost an annual basis, then rebuilt in time for the next saga. Makes you wonder why they even bothered to rebuild the space fleets, when the same ship won the war single-handedly every time.

Anime aside, I've often wondered if using the atomic bomb when it's size and availability were limited might have been a good (for lack of a better word) thing. Did the world need to see what the bomb could do to a real city full of real people in order to properly fear and respect it? It's not something I like to think about, but it comes to mind when this issue pops up. If the first cities weren't nuked when there were only two crude 15-20 kiloton bombs, would that lesson have been learned later, when an entire arsenal of easily delivered H-bombs was available? This is not a judgment of whether the decision was right or wrong, but more a speculation.

I tend to agree with the view that an invasion of Japan would have devastated cities, and cost many lives. It just would have taken longer, the damage would have been throughout Japan, and the casualties would have included many American soldiers, as well as Japanese. This is far from the black and white issue many would like it to be. It's very easy to say "war bad, nukes bad, peace good" but it's never that simple.

Some of you have mentioned that city-destruction and post-apocaliptic scenarios are very typical on anime (Akira, Fist of the North Star for instance) or the monsters movies.
Some of the criticism I have read about the topic explain it as a psicological side effect of the atomic bombing. To face an unbeatable creature that can destroy your city is a recurrent fantasy in the post-war Japanese psique. Aparently, because I have not seen it, the original "Godzilla" movie is almost a metaphor of the atomic fear.

Not that this is anything new: on the other side of the ocean, american B-movies also reflected cold-war paranoia, and so do some sci-fi writers of the time, specially Philip K. Dick and Ray Bradbury (Anybody remember the end of "Farenheit 451"?

Take the movie "Screamers", based on a Philip K. Dick short story: It deals with a planet which has been the scenario of a war between two large companies
which actually never fought against each other directly (cold war scheme), and it is packed with references to nuclear war and nuclear energy.

How does all that tie in with city that transforms into a giant battle station?  That tends to show up often as well.

Probably a cultural thing.  It is my understanding that the Japanese are fiercely nationalistic, any outsider (aka Gai-jin) is considered a barbaric invader (or simply an irritation).  So whole communities (men, women, and children) would fight against allied troops (or just kill themselves rather become prisoners and suffer the humiliation of lost face - evidently there was a mass suicide on Saipan, literally hundreds of people jumped from cliffs into the ocean rather than allow themselves to be captured).  So an entire city mobilizing to battle an invader doesn't strike me as particularly strange, as that is the historic mind set of the entire country.   Or so I have been led to believe by Pop Culture, History (both accurate and revised), and simple observation.

So it goes.

Tried, really tried, to remain silent, but can't.

In the easy comfort of studying history, knowing the outcome of any and all decisions made during war, peace, and assorted crisis moments in between, it is easy to pass judgement.  I have not, and don't think I ever will, think of either Pearl Harbor or the atomic bombings as cowardly acts.  They were simply acts of war.  Nothing else.  It is far to easy to reinvent and reimagine history if we only had done "this" instead of "that', when the truth is no one can truly know the outcome of any said action until it has been done.  Then, only in hindsight, do the other options become plain, or acts of bravery seem either cowardly or stupid and vice versa.  It is far too easy for arm chair warriors and children, being safely removed from the responsibility of making this decisions themselves and then having to live with the outcome, good or bad, to condemn actions made by previous generations in times of strife.

If America had invaded Japan by land the losses on boths sides would have been considerably larger, and the war would have no doubt have dragged well into 1946, possibly even 47.  Not an option when you want to end the war.  It is interesting that no one thinks as to why the single bombing of Hiroshima was not enough to make Japan surrender.  We had to drop two.  That sends a subtle message about the small country's considerable will to fight to the bitter end (which was very bitter).  Also I have heard that the Emperor of Japan did not use the word surrender once in his address to the nation.  This, undoubtedly, was to avoid the many suicides that would have followed such an announcement.  Japan has a very high suicide rate, or so I had heard when attending school in the far east.

So it goes.

Very early yesterday morning when I typed my comments, I'd had a little too much to drink.  I am a hardcore patriot and to me, comments against the U.S. in any way are unacceptable.  So when I read what Neville & Chris K. had typed, I was enraged.  Yes, I agree I came across as a little harsh but how many people do you think read the comments that I typed and totally agreed with me?  Quite a few I bet.  I thank Chadzilla for backing me up on this one.  So yes, we can all be friends now but please, please don't type any more negative things about the U.S.  I appreciate it.  s**t!  Terrorvision's on T.V.!  Gotta go!

Thank you Ashthecat for responding in a kinder fashion and giving us your reasons on why you were a bit "harsh" towards us. But please understand, my comments were IN NO WAY insulting or unacceptable towards the United States of America (and I am an American too). I myself am a patriot, but I have to look at things carefully and consider their motives that to me are highly questionable (in other words: I think too much). I made no negative comments about the US of A on this post. At times some criticism needs to made, but my statements were just ponderous questions and thoughts on this-and-that, not criticism. If I wanted to make critical comments about America, or any other country for that matter, I would be risking my life to be lynched or shot! God knows I DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN!

OK, so now we are friends. I have nothing against the USA and that's that. Now I have to wait for my DVD of A TASTE OF BLOOD to come in and then I will have something new to talk about. DVD shipping process, how slow it is.

So how do you feel about the genocide of American Indians? And how the government over the years has done very little to support them, except giving them impovershed reservations to live on and throwing them in prison for becoming politically active? (like Leonard Peltier). I love America also, i wouldn't stay here if I didn't. I just don't like the america that some people here want.

Chris wrote:
>
> So how do you feel about the genocide of American
> Indians? And how the government over the years has done very
> little to support them, except giving them impovershed
> reservations to live on and throwing them in prison for
> becoming politically active? (like Leonard Peltier). I love
> America also, i wouldn't stay here if I didn't. I just don't
> like the america that some people here want.

My take on the genocide of American Indians is somewhat shortsided. I don't know much about those incidents, but I have heard. Personally, part of my ethnic heritage is Cheroke. And my uncle (the one I mentioned in one of the posts who served in the Korean War) recreates American Indian materials such as wardrobes, shoes, etc.

I feel that the genocide of American Indians is one of the many controversial incidents (at least in my opinion) that has been a part of early American history. In fact, some historical sources have claimed that during the Revolutionary War the British wanted to control the New Colonies expansion in order to make peace with the Indians and sign solid treaties that would prevent the New Colonies to take over their land. As an end result, New Colonies win the war and expand to take over Indian's land. Whatever the outcome is, I feel that what we have done in the past regarding the "land snatching" of the Indian lands was wrong and shows how we were trying to remain dominant towards a land that we called "ours" when it indeed inhabited by an earlier colony. I do believe that is was wrong though, for I have read about the terrible conditions of the Reservations and in the end even the Government taking that away from them as well. Their is more to it, but at this time I cannot get WAY INTO the whole discussion.

But Chris, their is one question that I need you to clarify. You said, and I quote, "

Chris wrote:
>
> So how do you feel about the genocide of American
> Indians? And how the government over the years has done very
> little to support them, except giving them impovershed
> reservations to live on and throwing them in prison for
> becoming politically active? (like Leonard Peltier). I love
> America also, i wouldn't stay here if I didn't. I just don't
> like the america that some people here want.

My take on the genocide of American Indians is somewhat shortsided. I don't know much about those incidents, but I have heard. Personally, part of my ethnic heritage is Cheroke. And my uncle (the one I mentioned in one of the posts who served in the Korean War) recreates American Indian materials such as wardrobes, shoes, etc.

I feel that the genocide of American Indians is one of the many controversial incidents (at least in my opinion) that has been a part of early American history. In fact, some historical sources have claimed that during the Revolutionary War the British wanted to control the New Colonies expansion in order to make peace with the Indians and sign solid treaties that would prevent the New Colonies to take over their land. As an end result, New Colonies win the war and expand to take over Indian's land. Whatever the outcome is, I feel that what we have done in the past regarding the "land snatching" of the Indian lands was wrong and shows how we were trying to remain dominant towards a land that we called "ours" when it indeed inhabited by an earlier colony. I do believe that is was wrong though, for I have read about the terrible conditions of the Reservations and in the end even the Government taking that away from them as well. Their is more to it, but at this time I cannot get WAY INTO the whole discussion.

But Chris, their is one question that I need you to clarify. You said, and I quote, "I love America also...I just don't like the America that some people here want." Can you please give an example of what the America some people want? The question doesn't seem to follow right, unless I am missing something on that question.

"I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean;
I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left nor right,
I'm just staying home tonight
Getting lost in that hopeless little screen."

- Leonard Cohen, "Democracy"



Nathan

Great quote, Nathan. I don't think a bit of criticism is that bad, and I can't believe this topic going on and on. This post is to clarify my position: I am not an american, but I have mixed emotions about my own country as well, and I don't think that makes me a bad patriot or an enemy of my own country. Being a citizen of a particular country does not mean to agree by heart with absolutely every political  measure they apply or all the historical events it has participated in.

Ok, now we are to the Indian Issue. Living in Oklahoma, I've known some Indians and known many people who have had much contact with them. Now I don't agree with what happneded to them. It's sick and discusting. The government has tried to make up for it. Many Indian tribes own land around here and can do what they want with it. The government also has provided housing and and plenty of money(I went to high school with guys that received $3,000 a month). They are also intitled to many benefits(they can get the best health care around and it is free). But many of them are jerks(just like lots of people around the world). They spend their money on booze. Whatever you do, don't get in a fight with an Indian, you will be surrounded by about ten of them. I have nothing personnal against Native Americans(I am partially Native American and my cousins are half Native American) but I'm sick to death of the Native Americans that just go around acting like a***oles just because they think they can get away with it. I know it's not against the law to be a jerk but that doesn't make it right. Thankfully most don't act like this, just the few that make them look bad.

Well....hasen't this been a real kickstart to the old cognitive centers.  Just proves ya' can't avoid the real world forever, i guess. I mostly agree with andrew, but a lot of intresting points have been made by everybody. I'm just glad that we won the Second world war....well, we being the U.S. and her allies. Though Russia never realy got over the horror of her own government, just helped smash the Nazi's , who had genocide on their sick lil' minds. Have we learned much from those days? Have we forgotten more? I hope not....but we shall see. The idiot brigades will never learn, and no matter what groups they lurk in, they will come up to bleet and whine, second guessing after the fact, but not realy proving they could do any better. All you can say is....it could have been worse.