In article <DaEHa.1817$Bm.66@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, USA@aol.com says...
>
>
>"Kay" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:9cyHa.186$vC1.112131@news.uswest.net...
>> In article <b78Ha.4492$Uj1.2464@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, USA@aol.com say
>s...

>> >And what the hell is your rant suppose to mean?
>> >Hirohito wasn't a war criminal because we
>> >never charged him or tried him as one.
>> >He never got a "pardon" because he didn't have to.
>>
>> Huh?  Wasn't Hirohito the Emperor of Japan?
>
>Yes he was.
>
>> Isn't the Emperor supposed to be the head of
>> the state?
>
>Yes he is "supposed" to be. The history of Japan shows thats for the
>majority of her history
>that has not been the actual case.
>
> Did Japan commite war crimes?
>
>You can't try an entire nation, therefore, did certain members of the
>Imperial Japanese Forces
>commit war crimes? The answer is yes.
>
>> If so, the head of the state is one of the
>> people, if not the one, who committed crime?
>>
>Yes, Emperor Hirohito was prepared to take 
>the full responsibilty of all the actions
>taken by Japan and her military. He made 
>this clear to Gen. MacArther.

>> Criminal is one who committed a crime.
>> Criminal is not one who the USA says he is one.
>>
>Well that's where you couldn't be more wrong.
>The USA decided NOT to even charge Hirohito, 
>instead finding the government officials 
>(cabinet members, ministers) including the 
>infamous General Hideki Tojo guilty. Most of them
>got the death sentence.

In other words, Hirohito knew that he was guilty
of the crime and he ought to.  Although the
day-to-day activities were responsibility of
the prime minister (Dojo, was it?), Hirohito
is still responsible as the emperor.  At least
he had the sense and I commend him for that.

So, MacArther decided not to lay blame on him
for political reasons and you say Hirohito was
not a war crime!  You can do better than that.
If a guy is guilty, he is guilty regardless of
whether he was charged for the crime he committed.

It's like this.  You walk down the back alley of,
say LA or NY.  A guy suddenly appears, robs you
and beat the hell out of you.  A press charge
and for whatever reasons you decide to drop the
charge; maybe the guy turned out to be a
conservative white and you figure a conservative
white cannot be a crime.  Or, maybe he is a
member of your church.  Maybe he is a Bush
supporter.  Anyway, the point is that you decided
not to press charge.

Question:  Is he legally guilty?
Answer: No.
Question:  Is guilty?
Answer: Yes.  He robbed you and beat you. Of course,
he is guilty.

Your response above is the reason why I keep 
saying you believe in American Imperialism.  
That's how the past empires operated and you
support it!

This is not knocking the US; I don't believe
the US is an empire nor do I believe that it
should be.  It is knocking your small mind
that is full of hatred imperialism.

>> >And all that has nothing to do with what;s going on in Japan now or i
>t's
>> >decision to send JSDF troops to Iraq.
>> >If you feel you must have ONE reason for all that is happening it is.
>..K
>> >im Jong iL.
>>
>> What's Kim Jong Il got to do with the subject
>> of the topic: Iraq?
>> You must be a secret admirer of Kim since
>> everything you say eventually leads to him.
>> Don't you think you are overdoing your hate
>> business?
>
>Kay, you really let me down today. 

Good.  I am happy to hear that.  I keep
trying!

>Although I think you are a liberal 

Thank you for your complement.  I am proud
of being a liberal and progressive.  I am
proud to be able to support progressive
ideas such as anti-racism, fairness to all,
and democratic reform, which obviously
you are against.

>The decision by Japan to send military forces to Iraq, 

I cannot go through all your endless harangue
but I can sense where you are going.  So, I 
will cut the rope here and respond.  With all
that nonsense, you did not address anything 
about what Kim Jong Il has got to do with what
we are discussing.  We all know that you are
obsessed with Kim.  However, we would greatly
appreciate it if you do not bring him in unless the
topic is related to him, at least indirectly.  We are
sick and tired of his antics that we do not wish to
hear of him unless we are talking about something
at least remotely related to him.  Since you seem 
to be hard of hearing, I will spell out the instances we
wish not to talk about him. (DWS)

1)      When we are having Chrismas dinner
2)      When we talk about baseball unless Kim is a great pitcher, which I 
doubt
3)      When we talk about "Computerbility Theory"
4)      When we talk about the consequences of General Relativity.

There is a place for everything but not 
everything has to be in one place.  Don't
tell me you talk about Kim in your bed with 
your wife.  Wait, maybe you do.