I just don’t buy the revisionist crap even though it is likely Roosevelt want to get to war with Hitler and the Pearl harbor give him the justification to do so. He did not point a gun to force the Japan had attack. The Japanese attacked because they ran out of resources on the invasion of China so they decide to steal some from the colonies in Southeast Asia (not even about liberating Asia, it is all about the profits by cooperation that allied themselves with the military at the time, if you look up East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere, you will read alot of comments about former collabrators stating if Japan is show a tiny bit of keeping up their promise in liberating them, they will have better memories of the Japanese army; the only group that buy the Japanese liberation crap post war is the Azad Hindj and that is because they did not get liberated so they did not see how Japanese liberation is like).

The argument that America provoke japan to war is like saying someone flash their wallet, so he is asking for me to steal it.

Apart from hat, I agree the Pacific War is very racy and there is not point in denying them (but the Americans aren’t the only racist ones, so are the Japanese; ask a Imperial Japanese officers about their so call “weak willed Americans”.)

Here in the US, she is considered a congenital idiot when it comes to politics although she is quite a good actress.

First of all, the Japanese weren’t out to kill us. That comment doesn’t even make sense in the context of a national war. The Japanese sought to hamstring American power in the Pacific while they conquered all they could before America could recover and then Japan could negotiate peace. ‘Out to kill us’ makes them sound like an enraged Godzilla. In all war a soldier is out to conquer territory and that includes killing. I’m sure any nation would like to invade a territory without firing a shot and this has happened.

Next, even if the Japanese were ‘out to kill us’, it sure as hell wasn’t because ‘our way of living was different’. Can you imagine Japanese officers giving a pep talk before a battle or Japanese politicians giving a speech? “The Americans way of living is different from ours. For that, they must all die!” I think there was just a smidgen more nuance in this war for the supremacy of the Pacific.

Hanks comments have nothng to do with irrationality – they were simply ignorant. He was factually wrong and way off base in this regard.

The Japanese military based their ideology on racial superiority over the Chinese, Europeans, Americans and the indigenous people of the Pacific. As a consequence, the Japanese set the tone for the Pacific war with atrocious behavior in places such as Hong Kong and the Philippines where Japanese soldiers killed Allied wounded, tortured POWs and mistreated civilians. The Allied and U.S. soldiers who surrendered during these first encounters expected decent treatment. They did not expect things such as the Bataan Death March during which thousands of U.S. and Philippine POWs were killed. THIS is why the Japanese became “yellow-slant-eyed dogs” in the minds of Allied and U.S. troops.

On Guadalcanal U.S. Marines once again encountered Japanese soldiers who did not “fight by the rules”. The Japanese mutilated dead Marines, conducted suicide attacks and would feign death to lure U.S. medics in close and then detonate a hidden grenade. As a rule, the Japanese did not surrender. U.S. Marine Major General Alexander A. Vandegrift remarked, “I have never heard or read of this kind of fighting”. The Pacific war soon became a fight to the death. Did it degenerate into race hatred? At times yes it did, how could it not? The longer the war dragged on the more brutal and dehumanizing the fighting became until you have a skull being sent home as a “souvenir”. But, contrary to the comments of Mr. Hanks, the war did not start out this way.

The U.S. did not enter the war with a race based ideology to “annihilate” the Japanese for being “different” or for having “different gods”. One just has to look at U.S. conduct upon entering a defeated Japan in 1945. There was no revenge taken for Japanese atrocities. There was no enslavement of the Japanese people by a “racist” U.S. military. Japan’s Emperor was not summarily executed. Instead the U.S. rebuilt Japan and moved it away from militarism. U.S. General Douglas MacArthur proved himself a mostly benign conqueror.

Contrast this with the way Japan ruled the places it subjugated during the period of 1937 to 1942 and the side that was fighting a race based war becomes clear. There is no lingering hatred for Americans in the Pacific region the way the Japanese are still mistrusted and disliked by the older generation in places such as Manila, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. The reason for this is obvious and well documented starting with the “Rape of Nanking” in 1937. So, Tom Hanks’ comments are simplistic as well as inaccurate.

However, Mr. Hanks’ linking of a war against an enemy who has “different gods” with “what’s going on today” tips his comments towards the offensive. When the Taliban behead Afghans for not submitting to a barbaric brand of sharia law or when an Iraqi Sunni suicide bomber blows up Shiite religious pilgrims how does Mr. Hanks reconcile these actions with his apparent belief that the U.S. is at war because of racism against people who have different gods? Is it not more accurate to say the U.S. has found itself in the middle of the age old struggle within Islam between extremists and moderates and between Sunnis and Shiites? Isn’t this why the U.S. is still in Afghanistan and Iraq? Both societies are fractured along ethnic and religious lines. Thus, the difficulty of an “exit strategy”. One can debate U.S. foriegn policy moves after 9/11 but you would be hard pressed to pin thoses moves on the wish to annihilate an enemy who prays to a different god. Just look at the rights and freedoms given to Muslims, or any other religious minority, living in the U.S.

How exactly could the Americans “force” Japan to attack them?

That is just an outright lie. Japan felt forced to attack the US along with the UK, Dutch, Thai, Australian allies because we would not sell them out to continue their decade long, racist war against the Chinese.

The U.S. lost battles for a straight year before our industry greatly suprassed the Japanese.

I do not hate or look down upon the Japanese people. But at that time terrible things happened when you have to fight an enemy that uses the tactics of murder, genocide and racism against their enemies. Certainly it was helpful to dehumanize the enemy, after all it makes it easier to kill them, which is the exact purpose of war.

everybody!

All we are saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaying…….. is give peace a chance………

now lets all hug and kiss the next person you see, and pass it on!

(and no, I don’t want to be assassinated, thank you LOL)

Once again, America got trolled. hard. by the people that run right-wing radio and TV shows.

Even US generals admitted they deliberately forced Japan to attack USA, then used the needless losses of naval personnel for their own purposes.

It should be noted that the Americans were on very friendly terms with the Chinese, who are almost racially indistinguishable from the Japanese.

During the war, Life Magazine ran this article on how to tell apart Chinese and Japanese:

http://imgur.com/XJRFS

The U.S. Army also printed this lovely “How to Spot a Jap” booklet to help educate soldiers on the difference between Japanese and Chinese:

http://ep.tc/howtospotajap/

What fueled the 2nd WW was hardly a matter of race alone.

I’m pretty sure that Tom Hanks would agree with you on that.

Tom Hanks’ conclusion that WW2 was fueled by racism is too generalized a statement and is historically unverifiable, disrespectful and inaccurate. The fact that the Japanese soldier at the turn of the century was tough, cruel and brutal to both enemy combatants and civilians, regardless of race or nationality, didn’t make it hard for others to hate them.

It should be noted that the Americans were on very friendly terms with the Chinese, who are almost racially indistinguishable from the Japanese. No one questions the existence of racism, but to say that wars are fueled by racism is too simplistic an argument. If some nation forced me to ship out to fight on some malaria filled island, and watch my buddies die, etc, I’d be pretty racist towards them too.

In short, historically, no one goes to war over racial issues. They go to war over resources. Japan admired the US before Pearl Harbor. They declared war after the US decided to cut off trade in fuel and steel, which would in turn adversely affect their war in China. What fueled the 2nd WW was hardly a matter of race alone.

I will only disagree with you in that, for me in all honesty, I don’t have high regards for both parties, truth be told. But working in this business for so many years, it is not that I ONLY agree with FOX, but if you read some of my previous statements, I used to work for a major news network in Los Angeles, number#2 market.
and I have a lot of people, good and bad, know all the innings of how they work and who really is telling the truth.

1) So it is not 10%. it is hard work and research and long hours that I put in when I write a story to make sure I get my facts correct.
It is a culmination of balancing the majority 90% left over the 10% right.

2) I am not radicalizing anything, remember: it’s about gathering various points of view and talking to reliable sources-be it Liberal or Conservative (which you have on both sides) as long as they don’t go totally partisan and you and have a sensible, logical debate, of course, I am willing to listen, learn, analyze, write and report.
The key is, I try to stay away from loons on both sides. I don’t go near the “911 truther far-left liberals” and I stay away from the “far-right conservative birthers.”
These people damage both parties and delegitimizes them from any discourse of discussions or debates.

And, for the record, I would by far rather listen to someone on Fox news point out the lies and retractions and misinformation spewed forth from BOTH political parties, than I would care to listen CNN’s blatantly one-sided partisanship.

Kool-Aid? I think the Kool-Aid being consumed is by the far-left liberals who are content to merely parrot what they are told, without ever once analyzing the consequences of their actions. All I have ever heard from them are lofty goals and pie-eyed dreams, with no diagrams based on any sort of logic, and no solutions to existing problems or the ones their “plans” will result in. And lots, and lots of hair-raising, vicious verbal attacks on anyone who questions what they say, and proposals for laws to keep us from doing what we like to do, and have earned the right to do, instead of laws to prevent them from doing the things we don’t NEED them to do.

Like a cult.

I think anyone with a basic level of consciousness would choose to disagree, since this statement is utter nonsense. But I hope you enjoyed your Glenn beck-flavored Kool-Aid!

World War I? Nice chyron, Fox News. Helps with the credibility, donchaknow.

Uh, native americans?

There is no money to be made in peace. The machine is the war, the war is the machine. And so on and so forth and such nonsense.

We’ve come a long way, baby. LOL

Really, haven’t we come such a long way? Look at all of us here making the silliest arguments when all we have to do is reach and hug each other and give peace a chance. John Lennon – smart man. LOL

http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/cable-news

You should note two salient facts, however:

1. When you’re calling 90% of media “left-wing,” and you only believe 10% is “fair,” that’s a pretty good indication that your perspective is not unbiased.

2. You admit that it’s a network “that allows Conservatives a voice.” Sounds like maybe we agree that it’s biased then. Then the difference between other media and FoxNews then is simply that you agree with FoxNews, not that they’re fair or unbiased. In other words, you’re a perfect example of what I talked about in my initial post–the network is just an echo chamber, and you’re willfully radicalizing yourself by refusing to even accept that other media is unbiased.

http://cgi.2chan.net/f/src/1269228538419.jpg
It’s true?

Yes. Corpse mutilations of that kind were real. There are so many accounts of such things happening that it would be a joke to deny its existence.

U.S. Marine did same thing

The later part of the TV miniseries will be based on Eugene Sledge’s memoirs. His book includes scenes in which marines mutilate Japanese bodies to collect gold teeth, so we can probably expect that future episodes of The Pacific will include that.

Like I said, Hollywood needs to stay out of politics as much as the politicians need to stay away from “Dancing with the Stars!”

As far as his parallels to what is going on today I think he is mistaken. I assume he is talking about people of the Muslim religion (which could be any race). I think people have gone out of their way to differentiate between Muslim and Muslim extremist. Maybe it’s just the people I know but I just don’t see it. Maybe Mr Hanks should find a new crowd to hang out with.

It’s true?
maybe..fantasy．

Don’t distort historical facts.
Ah..God will assuage American’s conscience..

BTW,Our record indicates that U.S. Marine did same thing in Makin．
Japanese don’t get a fair shake in U.S.War movies.
thankyou