thinker 2, "It is hard however you look at it, to match the record of the U.S. for military overkill."

You previously gave the nuclear explosions that forced Japan's capitulation and the end of war in the Pacific theatre in WW2 as an example of alleged US 'excesses'.

In the battle of the Coral Sea the US lost thousands of its youth defending Australia, which was entirely alone and at risk of imminent invasion. You might have a check on the tonnage of bombs dropped on Darwin by the Japanese and compare it with cities in the European theatre, a fact that was kept secret by Australian governments for decades. We were lucky not to have sustained huge losses of civilians, but there would have been if the main capitals were eventually bombed as Japan planned to do.

The US lost many more thousands capturing Pacific Islands - again the losses have only come to light recently as embargoes on the release on military records has lifted.

Invasion of Japan would have caused massive losses both of military personnel and civilians. There had been significant losses of civilians in Pacific Islands through mass suicides encouraged by Japan's leaders.

What strategy can you now propose with the benefit of hindsight that would have forced Japan to surrender with fewer casualties? Second, is there any doubt that if Japan had had a nuclear bomb it would have used it on Darwin for starters?

Cornflower,

There is a difference between the strategies employed in a major conflict like WWII and a superpower prowling the world during relative "peacetime" picking off countries for invasion because it suits their economic agenda.

Belly

In the modern era we have arrived at a situation whereby one superpower has achieved a state powerful enough to influence events throughout the world - whether this power is militarily based or economically based, it is called hegemony, and it is dangerous because it actually works to destabilise relations between countries.

America as the foremost representative of Western dominance, has had its fingers in the Middle-East pie for a long time. It's back again lauding its reasons as being altruistic in the name of democracy and freedom. The U.S. was Saddam's number one backer during the war with Iran and since his downfall is responsible for the deaths of many and the indiscriminate destruction of infrastructure in a country that lead the region in advanced education and medical facilities.

Poirot,

Your comment is irrelevant. My challenge to thinker 2 was to prove it was an excessive use of US force as claimed by him.

However if you believe the US used excessive force in its bid to end the war in the Pacific theatre by all means suggest how the Allies could have achieved the same purpose another way. Both you and thinker 2 have the full benefit of hindsight, so go for it.

Despite the tone of my last post I had privately given Belly credit for not shooting the messenger, a typical reaction of people when trying to defend the indefensible.

I'm glad I did not do so publicly as his next post does just that. While I am not a Green it is fair to say they have been the most vocal on this issue in the political sphere and they cop a decent spray.

In virtually any other sphere I am confident Belly would be manning the barricades when faced with the facts of this issue. Why so blind now?

Does he know that the drone strikes in Pakistan are not done by the military but rather the CIA. That's right a country's secret service without the military's rules of engagement is raining death and terror from the skies. Whilst imperfect the military does at least have a system of accountability that the CIA is not constrained by. Indeed information about the latest attack was gleaned from two Pakistani intelligence officers but only on the promise of anonymity.

Doesn't the Geneva Convention have something to say about this one may well ask? Indeed it does but the Additional Protocols 1 and 2 which have the most relevance in this matter (and have been used to convict war criminals recently) have been signed but not ratified by the US.

Well don't we need to be able to trust the CIA will make every effort to make sure they are hitting the right target and keeping civilian casualties to a minimum? Surely they wouldn't strike public places like mosques or schools now would they?

"September 8, 2008 missile attack on a North Waziristan village. The drones fired at least five missiles at a religious school founded by Jalaluddin Haqqani—a Taliban leader (who was formerly financed by the CIA) and the official target of the U.S. attack. At least 17 people were killed with some estimates reaching as high as 23. Of those killed, at least eight were children. Haqqani's wife, sister, and sister-in-law were all killed as well."

Cont...

Cont...

"Roughly twenty were wounded, most of which were women and children according to doctors on the scene. Haqqani was not present at the time of the bombing."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16539

What about public gatherings?

"..the U.S. fired several missiles—as many as ten—into the village of Damadola, located in the Bajaur tribal area on January 13, 2006. According to The Washington Post, "the target was a dinner celebrating the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha." The individual whom the U.S. was hoping to kill was Ayman al-Zawahiri, an al-Qaeda deputy. The CIA had reportedly received some evidence—possibly derived from an interrogation of another al-Qaeda operative—that al-Zawahiri was going to be attending the holiday dinner."
 
"Initially, U.S. and Pakistani officials declared that up to four members of al-Qaeda were killed in the bombings. » ….»When the dust settled after the blasts, at least three houses were totally destroyed and at least 18 people were killed, with some reports putting the death toll as high as 22.[34] By all accounts, five children and five women were among the dead while 14 of the dead were likely from the same family. » … « U.S. and Pakistani officials later admitting that "none of those al-Qaeda leaders" previously alleged to have "perished in the strike" were in fact killed, noting that "only local villagers were killed.""

What about these doesn't make you want to weep?
Yet drones are increasingly becoming the weapon of choice. In 2004-7 there were 9 strikes in the Tribal Areas, 2008 – 34, 2009 – 53, 2010 – 117. The bulk of these were in North Waziristan, one of the most disadvantaged areas in Pakistan. Compared to a national literacy rate of 56% its is less than 16%. While there is a doctor for every 1226 people in Pakistan as a whole the is only one for every 7670 in the tribal areas.

Why are we surprised by greater numbers joining the Taliban?

For a map of past drone strikes go here;
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/18/spotlight_on_north_waziristan

Have we forgotten.
Do we not remember America helped fight the Russians in Afghanistan?
Are Americas crimes as bad as Russia's there.
Who dare talk of financial world leadership and leave China out, Russia, India.
I am aware of American wrongs, support Wikileaks, know we are never told the whole story.
But refuse to budge, the left stayed silent when America stopped the deaths in the Balkans, Helped over throw true evil in the Taliban.
In reference the ww2 America ,remember, did not torture and kill prisoners of war, rape and murder hundreds of thousands of civilians.
America has never hidden the true history of ww2 JAPAN today still refuses to teach its kids the whole true story of crimes unmatched in any war by any country.
Blind your self to the madness of the murderers using middle ages hate to power destruction, who cut throats and kill for joy, I will not.
Left off center people should carefully watch the true left, it presents more danger to true change true Labor government that the very right.