Letters from Iwo Jima

In soc.culture.japan Ray O'Hara <mary.palmucci.DeleteThis@rcn.com> wrote:

> "George Peatty" <peattyg47-1230.DeleteThis@copper.net> wrote in message
> news:a4ndf3hkttu5smioafe40qpcb6d9pp355d@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:16:46 -0400, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci.DeleteThis@rcn.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >the Pac war was fought between tow powers for colonial/economic reasons.
> > >it was not a "war of liberation" on the part of anyone.
> > >the western powers were trying to hold onto their conquered lands while
> the
> > >japanese were trying to take them away.
> > >
> > >for the allies the Pac war was one of reconquest.
> >
> > Not even in .. the Twilight Zone ..

> so we were trying to "liberate" our colony the philippines?

Since the US had already scheduled the Philippines for independence
in 1946, well, yes.

> you are in the twilight zone if you think "liberation"

Still, you have no excuse for not knowing about the PI.

Mike
 >> Stay informed about: Letters from Iwo Jima 

In soc.culture.japan Ray O'Hara <mary.palmucci.DeleteThis@rcn.com> wrote:

> "Calvin" <crice5.DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote in message
> news:1190585133.785293.66960@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 23, 6:13 pm, Dan <dnada....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Calvin wrote:
> > > > On Sep 23, 5:16 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu....DeleteThis@rcn.com> wrote:
> > > >> the Pac war was fought between tow powers for colonial/economic
> reasons.
> > > >> it was not a "war of liberation" on the part of anyone.
> > > >> the western powers were trying to hold onto their conquered lands
> while the
> > > >> japanese were trying to take them away.
> > >
> > > >> for the allies the Pac war was one of reconquest.
> > >
> > > > 12/7/41
> > >
> > > You had a point (other than on top of your head)?
> >
> > An obvious one.
> >

> and what happened after that. the allies retook their "possessions" and then
> tried to hold on in the post war era.

So, please detail the US steps to retain the PI.

> as i said , both sides were out for colonies.

Nonsense repeated is nonsense doubled, not halved.

> the allies already had them

And the US was ridding themselves of them.

Mike
 >> Stay informed about: Letters from Iwo Jima 

<mtfester.RemoveThis@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
news:fd6uvv$38c$2@news.Stanford.EDU...
> In soc.culture.japan Ray O'Hara <mary.palmucci.RemoveThis@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> > "Calvin" <crice5.RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote in message
> > news:1190585133.785293.66960@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Sep 23, 6:13 pm, Dan <dnada....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Calvin wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 23, 5:16 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu....RemoveThis@rcn.com> wrote:
> > > > >> the Pac war was fought between tow powers for colonial/economic
> > reasons.
> > > > >> it was not a "war of liberation" on the part of anyone.
> > > > >> the western powers were trying to hold onto their conquered lands
> > while the
> > > > >> japanese were trying to take them away.
> > > >
> > > > >> for the allies the Pac war was one of reconquest.
> > > >
> > > > > 12/7/41
> > > >
> > > > You had a point (other than on top of your head)?
> > >
> > > An obvious one.
> > >
>
> > and what happened after that. the allies retook their "possessions" and
then
> > tried to hold on in the post war era.
>
> So, please detail the US steps to retain the PI.
>
> > as i said , both sides were out for colonies.
>
> Nonsense repeated is nonsense doubled, not halved.
>
> > the allies already had them
>
> And the US was ridding themselves of them.
>
> Mike

wake up and smell the coffee
 >> Stay informed about: Letters from Iwo Jima 

On Sep 23, 4:42 pm, moviePig <pwall... RemoveThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 1:26 pm, Calvin <cri... RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 23, 9:47 am, Alric Knebel <alric@[cableone.net]> wrote:
>
> > > I haven't seen this movie yet, because I generally don't like war
> > > movies. But the premise sounds interesting enough, and I never took it
> > > as any more than a fact-based fiction. The war told from the OTHER
> > > sides point of view is intriguing.
>
> > In this case, the war told from the other side's point of
> > view is disgusting. There is no moral parity between the
> > U.S. fighting men in the Pacific in World War II and the
> > Japanese then. And now, learning that the whole premise
> > was false, I'm very glad to have never given in to curiosity
> > and seen this traitorous movie. Clint Eastwood has
> > shamed himself.
>
> You know... in the instance of movies, at least, it really is pretty
> much necessary to See the "evil" before you can claim even to Hear it,
> much less to Speak to it...

That would carry more weight if you applied ir evenly to
the other side, people who wont see or read something
because the critics (or professors, or whomever) have
already assured them of the lack of worth.
 >> Stay informed about: Letters from Iwo Jima 

On Sep 23, 5:16 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu....DeleteThis@rcn.com> wrote:
> the Pac war was fought between tow powers for colonial/economic reasons.
> it was not a "war of liberation" on the part of anyone.
> the western powers were trying to hold onto their conquered lands while the
> japanese were trying to take them away.
>
> for the allies the Pac war was one of reconquest.

12/7/41
 >> Stay informed about: Letters from Iwo Jima 

On Sep 23, 5:33 pm, nick <nickmacpherso....RemoveThis@AOL.com> wrote:
> But in this case, Calvin Rice is hiding from seeing Letters from Iwo
> Jima because--shock! horror!--Clint Eastwood portrays the Japanese as
> human beings instead of insane sadistic monsters. This criticism
> almost always is reserved for our non-white enemy. Movies that
> portray Nazis as human beings? The Pianist. Downfall. Schindler's
> List. Saving Private Ryan. Those are alright. But Letters from Iwo
> Jima?

I thought the Japanese were/are white. The Japanese people
I've known have been white. I've never understood referring to
Asian people as 'yellow'. They look white to me.
 >> Stay informed about: Letters from Iwo Jima 

On Sep 23, 5:16 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu....TakeThisOut@rcn.com> wrote:
> the Pac war was fought between tow powers for colonial/economic reasons.
> it was not a "war of liberation" on the part of anyone.
> ...

I've never heard anyone claim that the Pacific war was
a "war of liberation". Liberation of whom? Looks like
you have a nifty straw man there, if anyone buys it.
 >> Stay informed about: Letters from Iwo Jima 

On Sep 24, 8:00 am, Calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
>
> Read up on the Bataan Death March, and other Japanese
> atrocities inflicted on the Americans and other Allies, and
> Maybe you will be able to understand that racism has
> nothing to do with this.

Well, yes, but you haven't answered the question of how do you feel
about films that portray the German side of WWII. If you believed
Hollywood you'd think think the Wehrmacht was full of rugged Junker
war heroes who hated the SS as much as the Allies did.
 >> Stay informed about: Letters from Iwo Jima 

On Sep 23, 6:41 pm, "JohnK" <D....DeleteThis@Duh.com> wrote:
> But Iwo Jima is apparently pretty accurately depicted as a small dirt and
> rock island.
> And it's currently inhabited by some 400 Japanese troops and has a US Navy
> airstrip.

And has been renamed.
 >> Stay informed about: Letters from Iwo Jima 

Ray O'Hara wrote:

> "George Peatty" <peattyg47-1230 RemoveThis @copper.net> wrote in message
> news:96mdf3thbevto3004kke6rs8b015hrkskn@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:42:04 -0700, moviePig <pwallace RemoveThis @moviepig.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>>>You know... in the instance of movies, at least, it really is pretty
>>>much necessary to See the "evil" before you can claim even to Hear it,
>>>much less to Speak to it...
>>
>>I dunno that I agree. By that logic, it would be okay to screen Birth of a
>>Nation for an audience that had never seen it ..

....Umm, yeah, your point?


>> But, I think Mr. Rice knows enough
>>about the movies Eastwood made that he can form an intelligent and
>>defensible POV. It's not one I agree with, but I certainly understand his
>>case, and am fully persuaded he's not just making it up out of his own
>>imagination ..
>
> you should see it. i learned about in in high school and college bt nothing
> said even approaches the reality of BOaN.
>
> you sit their and go WOW.

I go by the Roger Ebert/Richard Jeni rule--
If you're going to attack a movie, nothing sinks it like sweet, sweet
detail...RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH.

Which also happens to be the prime rule of comedy:
In a battle of wits, the bigger stockpile of ammunition strikes first. :)

Derek Janssen (let's see, can't think of any Karpov=defense jokes, so
bang goes the r.g.chess crosspost)
ejanss RemoveThis @comcast.net
 >> Stay informed about: Letters from Iwo Jima 

In soc.culture.japan Ray O'Hara <mary.palmucci DeleteThis @rcn.com> wrote:

> <mtfester DeleteThis @netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
> news:fd6uvv$38c$2@news.Stanford.EDU...
> > In soc.culture.japan Ray O'Hara <mary.palmucci DeleteThis @rcn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Calvin" <crice5 DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote in message
> > > news:1190585133.785293.66960@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Sep 23, 6:13 pm, Dan <dnada... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Calvin wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 23, 5:16 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu... DeleteThis @rcn.com> wrote:

> > > and what happened after that. the allies retook their "possessions" and
> then
> > > tried to hold on in the post war era.
> >
> > So, please detail the US steps to retain the PI.
> >
> > > as i said , both sides were out for colonies.
> >
> > Nonsense repeated is nonsense doubled, not halved.
> >
> > > the allies already had them
> >
> > And the US was ridding themselves of them.

> wake up and smell the coffee

So, you really had no idea the PI were scheduled for independence, hunh?

And rather than admit it, you're going to try to get a quick shot in,
while you Google madly for something that might make you look less
silly?

Won't work, and we'll save you some time.

In 1934, the US passed the Tydings-McDuffie Act, which promised
Philippines Independence by 1946, and in 1935 the PI elected their
first full government, with the office of President of the Commonwealth
won by Manuel Quezon.

You're welcome, and next time, drink your coffee, instead of taking
nose hits.

Mike
 >> Stay informed about: Letters from Iwo Jima 

<mtfester.DeleteThis@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
news:fd73tu$7gj$1@news.Stanford.EDU...
> In soc.culture.japan Ray O'Hara <mary.palmucci.DeleteThis@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> > <mtfester.DeleteThis@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:fd6uvv$38c$2@news.Stanford.EDU...
> > > In soc.culture.japan Ray O'Hara <mary.palmucci.DeleteThis@rcn.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Calvin" <crice5.DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:1190585133.785293.66960@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > On Sep 23, 6:13 pm, Dan <dnada....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Calvin wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 23, 5:16 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu....DeleteThis@rcn.com>
wrote:
>
> > > > and what happened after that. the allies retook their "possessions"
and
> > then
> > > > tried to hold on in the post war era.
> > >
> > > So, please detail the US steps to retain the PI.
> > >
> > > > as i said , both sides were out for colonies.
> > >
> > > Nonsense repeated is nonsense doubled, not halved.
> > >
> > > > the allies already had them
> > >
> > > And the US was ridding themselves of them.
>
> > wake up and smell the coffee
>
> So, you really had no idea the PI were scheduled for independence, hunh?
>
> And rather than admit it, you're going to try to get a quick shot in,
> while you Google madly for something that might make you look less
> silly?
>
> Won't work, and we'll save you some time.
>
> In 1934, the US passed the Tydings-McDuffie Act, which promised
> Philippines Independence by 1946, and in 1935 the PI elected their
> first full government, with the office of President of the Commonwealth
> won by Manuel Quezon.
>
> You're welcome, and next time, drink your coffee, instead of taking
> nose hits.
>
> Mike

i mentioned we had promised it independence in the 'forgotten' campaign
thread.
but it was still under our thumb and phillipines weren't the only place
fought over.
and we "finlandized' the philippines after we granted them independence,
that had as much a chance tossing us out of subic as the cubans do in gitmo.
 >> Stay informed about: Letters from Iwo Jima 

In soc.culture.japan Ray O'Hara <mary.palmucci.TakeThisOut@rcn.com> wrote:

> <mtfester.TakeThisOut@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
> news:fd73tu$7gj$1@news.Stanford.EDU...
> > In soc.culture.japan Ray O'Hara <mary.palmucci.TakeThisOut@rcn.com> wrote:

> > In 1934, the US passed the Tydings-McDuffie Act, which promised
> > Philippines Independence by 1946, and in 1935 the PI elected their
> > first full government, with the office of President of the Commonwealth
> > won by Manuel Quezon.
> >
> > You're welcome, and next time, drink your coffee, instead of taking
> > nose hits.

> i mentioned we had promised it independence in the 'forgotten' campaign
> thread.

Ah, so you have brain damage, and forgot it.

You should get that looked at.

> but it was still under our thumb and phillipines weren't the only place

If by "under our thumb" you meant "under Japanese rule", you are
correct, but this is a non-standard definition, and again, I suspect
some sort of neurological disorder. If "under our thumb" you meant
"consisting of an entirely indigenous government, and ready to take
over for themselves", again, this is a non-standard definition. No
doubt, lead poisoning.

> fought over.

True. We also "fought over" Japanese territory, and many other areas
unrelated to US territory.

Let me guess; you are an American, with the stereotypicaly American
lack of knowledge of basic geography.

> and we "finlandized' the philippines after we granted them independence,
> that had as much a chance tossing us out of subic

Ah, comes the final piece in the pie of stupidity... one could point out
that all such bases were negotiated beforehand, and that the PI, as
would ANY developing economy, would see advantages in leasing out a port
for use to a richer nation, thus deriving direct monies (specifically,
hard foreign currencies) and indirect monies in not having to spend
money on a navy.

Of course, if you are as clever as you imagine, you would already know
all that. If you are not, well, you'd be you.

Mike
 >> Stay informed about: Letters from Iwo Jima