I hope this discussion continues in the line of some of the more recent posts and the back and forth in your face posts diminish.

I agree that McVeigh's statements hold some truth but they also point out some severe misconceptions that seem to be plaguing public discourse. The first is that the US started all this stuff. Aside from our Australian friends the US is one of the youngest nations on Earth. Germ warfare? Look to the ancient Greeks and Persians. Mass murder, consider Tamerlane who laid waste whole cities and piled skulls into towers (at one city alone he purportedly killed 200,000 men, women, and children because they had refused to surrender). The fact is that man's inhumanity to man seems fairly limitless and can be viewed throughout history.

The United States did not start these things and, in general, has shown considerable restraint when dominant with certain technologies. Let's consider the use of nuclear weapons. President Truman stated that the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan was one of the most difficult he had ever made. What swayed his decision, the estimate that an invasion of the main islands would cause over 1 million American casualties. Please take into account that on Okinawa the US suffered some 1200 killed, 30000 casualties. The Japanese suffered 100000 military and almost 150000 civilian deaths. If these ratios remained even close then the 1 million American casualties equat to 10-15 million Japanese deaths. Even given the historical horror of the bombs given that same choice today most people would logically choose to drop the bombs. More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than died at either Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Truman also picked the targets for a reason, they were major military targets with a comparatively light civilian population. Even after the first bomb was dropped the Japanese refused to surrender. Even after the second bomb there was a core of die hard militarists that wanted to continue fighting, only the personal influence of Emporer Hirohito forced the conclusion of the war. A move which took great courage on his part and one he is barely remembered for.

The same Truman who used the bomb to end the war with Japan, another mis-fact being bandied here is that it ended the war with Japan and Germany but the war in Europe had been over for months, refused to use the bomb to stop the Chinese entry into the Korean conflict. General McArthur wanted to lay waste to all of the major Chinese cities on the coast (we could not reach the internal cities since ICBM's were still being developed). This would have taken China out of the war and ensured UN (it was a UN conflict not an American one) victory. Why did Truman refuse this time, because the devastation caused was not in accord with the loss of life it would prevent. To kill millions of Chinese to save thousands of Americans and Koreans was not acceptable.

America held a virtual Monopoly on the bomb for more than a decade and never used. Not in Korea, Vietnam, nor in Russia where many generals desired for us to go after WW-II. The reason, because Stalin was considered a monster (I am in agreement with this opinion) and they felt if we didn't fight him today then we would have to tomorrow with a greater disadvantage. History has proven them wrong but the issue was undecided for almost 50 years.

Now for the assertion about the gas in WW-I. We all know that gas was used. Primarily Mustard, CS, and Phosgene but its use started before the US entered the War and almost none of it was manufactured by the US. The US also led the coalition to outlaw its use in future conflicts as well as some other weapons considered too dangerous and devastating (flamethrowers and flechettes were included). Of all of the weapons banned only Biological and Chemical weapons remain a Pariah to the civilized armies of the world (nuclear weapons being added after WWII). Since they were banned in those treaties no Civilized nation has used them in combat. The army had to go through extensive tests to prove that agent orange was not a chemical weapon against the population. Unfortunately they did not test for the long term damage exposure could create.

It is for these reasons that I don't think McVeigh's treatise is much more than a rant. Currently it is very popular for to attack the decisions America makes, to ridicule America and its policies. In some ways this is good. I believe the world needs to have open discourse about events. I think America needs to pay attention when so many traditional allies are balking at what she is considering. Does this mean our President is wrong. Not necessarily but if we stop listening and discussing then we become the tyrants many people seem to feel we are. I believe the President has tried to comply with requests and suggestions from our allies. I hope he will continue to do so. However, to then get upset when Americans, or others, question those nations for their attitude is doing to us the same thing that they are complaining we are doing to them.



When France makes negative statements about America they should not be shocked when Americans retaliate. When the German chancellor makes disparaging remarks about us and his cabinet makes personal attacks on our President they should not be surprised that it upsets us (I do admit the cabinet member was sacked immediately). However, this is a part of modern discourse where we have become victims of the sound bite. The inflammatory phrase gets the headlines, the hyperbolic statement gets the camera, the angry mob gets on the evening news. . Just like the flame wars get started on these boards so do they in real life. My hope is that enough people behind the scenes are working and discussing and keeping logical, calm discourse alive to minimize long term damage between allies.

As for our Australian rock dwelling friends I am very appreciative for most of England's ex-Colonies. Australia has historically had an independance and spirit to rival any nation in the world (makes you question those criminal gene studies people are always touting), Canada is a shining beacon for even tempered beer drinking people everywhere, and America wasn't a penal colony we were a religious nut retreat and I thank England for sending those first settlers here. So if anyone is going to pay for a ticket to Australia why waste it on Korpdeath, send it to me and we will have a great, entertaining debate where we will solve all the worlds problems and then suffer the curse of Cassandra. Besides I've always wanted shrimp on the barbie.