unconditional surrender

Submitted by jennifer solis (United States), Aug 24, 2007 at 18:53

I thank Mr. Gardner for his response and thoughtfull, "dealing with the reality" commentary. The illustration of the situation of Japan, after WW II, is an interesting one. I'd like to ask Mr. Gardner to comment, however, on these points:

There was one confirmed leader of Japan; the United States had one Leader with whom to sign the treaty, and to whom the Japanese populace would in it's entirety acknowledge. Sure, at the time we didn't know for sure what the citizenry would do. But there was the track record of the Japanes' extreme loyalty toward ONE leader (Saddam never had the loyalty of all three tribes).

The Japanese fought wearing uniforms. How can you fight (in Iraq) an invisible army?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki................what an attention getter / way to gain respect (fear).

The Japanese unconditionally surrendered. Turns out that they did. Turning out not the same in Iraq.

Last, but not least, Japan's religion was not the second biggest in the world, their soldiers where not funded by an eternal flow of oil money, and we showed no mercy in this country by having internment camps on our home soil. Not that I desire internment camps for Muslims. There was, I believe, a "tougher mettle" attitude of Americans back then (they lined up around the block to enlist).

What are your thoughts, Mr. Gardner? -JS

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".