I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Jul 19th, 2003 02:44 AM

KevinTheOmnivore

shat ap.

Jul 19th, 2003 01:06 AM

Grande

ho hum, what a conundrum.

Jul 16th, 2003 03:22 AM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Rorschach

The American people, by and large, I'm sure felt similarly, but there just as many who had respect for them. Even MacArthur held the Japanese in high esteem during the coarse of the war, I believe that speaks well of the diversity in American opinion of the time.

I'm sure many soldiers held respect for the grit of the Japanese, but it doesn't change the fact that racism (often perpetuated by our government) created serious resentment for the Japanese.

Quote:

Hardcare? We killed 118,000 men and women with the combined strikes, the total is placed at 160K due to sickness and cancer since. Japan lost less than two million men and women, miltary and civilian combined

Women and children were burned alive, bodies piled up in the dried up streams, because people rushed to cool off their burning flesh. Over 100,000 people, many innocent lives, were brutally murdered. The act shouldn't be beliitled simply due to the number (as if 100,000 lives, as well as countless other lives due to the radiation, is a small ordeal).

Quote:

You know nothing about what I value, and such a commentary reflect it. If you value human life, you should be thankful for Truman's actions as they saved needless hardship and suffering. If nothing else, they saved the 12,000 men of Bataan who had neither food nor water in their internment camp as the Japanese intended to take no prisoners whatsoever and were thus unable to care for them.

12,000 men+ isn't 100,000+ of predominantly innocent lives.

Quote:

Kev. . .Our Forefathers viewed government as a necessary evil, necessary because an organ must be in place which will intercede on behalf of the people against temporal powers which exist elsewhere in the world. Evil, because often it abuses the powers with which it has been entrusted towards tyannical ends. They believed, as I do, that the people are ultimately responsible for ensuring their government acts according to their will, and that they must resist any actions which take place without their authority.

I'm as much of an advocate of active citizenry as you are, but I feel your conclusions are a bit off. The Forefathers also feared the naive propensity of the masses to become rallied behind poor or ill-conceived plans, thus the fear that the "masses are asses." Are founding fathers may have been idealistic, but they certainly weren't stupid. They knew that the very nature of civic involement tended to create a mass of follwers, following behind a considerably smaller class of leaders.

Quote:

It is that spirit which is behind the "Not In Our Name" anti-Iraqi Engagement bumperstickers, and I do not believe that spirit is peculiar to America either. The People are responsible Kev, and saying they have mislead by craft politicians does not alleviate them of their duties one bit.

Such thinking clears every horrible ruler and politician for their misdeeds, down the line from Hitler to Hussein.

Quote:

The targets the bombs were designed for needed to be dropped on Japan for a reason: They needed to realize that despire their projected power they could be reached. They were initially targeted for military sites and set to detonate high enough above the gound that those on ground zero would not feel the full affect. You want to call our World War 2 generation terrorists? Fine, you are entitled to an opinion, but personally, I thinkt hat is probably the cruelest commentary I've ever witnessed. I think now I might have been wrong to encourage you to enter politics.

Whatever. I never once called WW II vets terrorists. I'm not some relativist who sees an American ROTC soldier trying to get through college as the same thing as a murderer from Hamas or Islamic Jihad. I do however think that the decision makers at the top, INCLUDING President Truman, used poor discretion when deciding to use such terrible weapons. I think you are kidding yourself if you believe that the dropping of the bombs wasn't a culmination of several things, some sinister, and some righteous. My point is IMO, when you weigh the two, the righteous arguments were not worth the consequences.

Quote:

Read the conditions, and tell me which one we shoudl have sacrificed in the name of peace. We sacrficed Prague to Russia in the name of peace, and No Korea to the Chinese. . .How many innocent lived does peace require? War is more honest than that sort of treachery.

The unconditional peace was FDR's baby with the Soviets, and I feel that an agreement could've been reached on the terms. Negotiations could've been held. Men could've solved things in a civil fashion.

I find it funny though that you think dropping two atomic bombs was worth it to stop the bloodiest war we had ever seen, yet letting go of a stipulation and conducting negotiations would've been outrageous.

Quote:

Kevin, you are left brother. I don't need to red-bait you, you glow Crimson when the nights flicker off. I'm a blind nationalists in many regards, not because I don't see error in past actions, but because I know the limitation to human understanding, and that for those who had to make such decisions, the options we see looking back were not available to them. I a soft judge on the past, those men did the best they could, and I could not have asked for more. It was a different world then, and one I cannot help but feel I would feel more comfortable living in.

Not questioning the actions of the past, while at the same time relinquishing all blame from the present and past leadership, doesn't seem to be a good place to me.

Just shrugging our collective shoulders and saying "well, they did the best they could" isn't enough. You can hold that same respect and umnderstanding while at the same time calling them out for the wrongs they've commited (something you frequently do regarding folks such as FDR).

Quote:

I've never disagreed on this point, I only resist what I feel undermines the Supreme Law of the Land. Communism is such a philosophy which would render our Constitution powerless.

I'd be interested to hear how the arguments made by the above posted article would lead to such a thing. If anything, the modern Liberal progressives are the defenders of the Constitution, not its defilers.

Also, on the argument last post over whether or not Truman approved the Nagasaki bombing, I promised you a citation. The directive to drop the atomic bomb, dated 8/25/45, drafted by General Groves to General Carl Spaatz to be submitted at Potsdam, declared that "Additional bombs will be delivered on the above targets as soon as made ready by the project staff." This needed to be signed off on by Stimson and General Marshall, but it ultimately gave Groves the discretion. The potential targets had previously been agreed upon, but perhaps Truman and the JCS had to sign off on that. But it seems as if Truman didn't have a say about the second bombing, specifically when/where/and if.

Jul 9th, 2003 05:51 PM

The_Rorschach

"Deny it if you wish, but the fact is, Americans hated the fucking Japanese."

I'll admit to you honestly, when I found out I was going to be stationed in Yokosuka, I tried to file for different orders because I still held a grudge. Took a few years and an appreciation of their endeavours in the Pacific War to turn my anger into admiration, but I managed to come around. The American people, by and large, I'm sure felt similarly, but there just as many who had respect for them. Even MacArthur held the Japanese in high esteem during the coarse of the war, I believe that speaks well of the diversity in American opinion of the time.

"Post-H/N pollsshow that most Americans were fine with the bombings. Granted, most would have no idea of the full ramifications for a few years, but they still knew they had fucked up two cities hardcore. Truman had an obligation to answer to the public blood lust, and he furthermore had an obligation to use weapons that drained some $2 billion from the American coffers."

Hardcare? We killed 118,000 men and women with the combined strikes, the total is placed at 160K due to sickness and cancer since. Japan lost less than two million men and women, miltary and civilian combined. . .Now compare that with China where over ten million lives were lost. Those bombs, in light of the informaton understood at the time, and situation as it existed, were the most desperate and sad necessity. I'm not proud of the action, but I stand by it Kev.

"Well, that's where we differ. I value human life, whereas you apparently value social security numbers."

You know nothing about what I value, and such a commentary reflect it. If you value human life, you should be thankful for Truman's actions as they saved needless hardship and suffering. If nothing else, they saved the 12,000 men of Bataan who had neither food nor water in their internment camp as the Japanese intended to take no prisoners whatsoever and were thus unable to care for them.

"This is utter nonsense. Every nation's hierarchy has a role in convinving their public that they are righteous and just. People in every country are prideful, as well as maliable. What you just said is the same pure shit that pieces of garbage like Osama Bin Laden use to justify the killing of innocent people."

Kev. . .Our Forefathers viewed government as a necessary evil, necessary because an organ must be in place which will intercede on behalf of the people against temporal powers which exist elsewhere in the world. Evil, because often it abuses the powers with which it has been entrusted towards tyannical ends. They believed, as I do, that the people are ultimately responsible for ensuring their government acts according to their will, and that they must resist any actions which take place without their authority. It is that spirit which is behind the "Not In Our Name" anti-Iraqi Engagement bumperstickers, and I do not believe that spirit is peculiar to America either. The People are responsible Kev, and saying they have mislead by craft politicians does not alleviate them of their duties one bit.

"Discourse is a two bladed sword, and blah blah....you justify using nuclear weapons, as did people back in the day, on the grounds that it was the most humane route to take, and would preserve the most lives all around. This is the rationale behind most progression in weaponry, that it shall be more precise, more direct, and more containable."

And someday we may get there, but I hope not too soon. It is good for people to remember that war is a last resort, when it becomes to precise, to sterile, the people will be quicker to embrace it.

"However you apparently don't care about how many "nips" you kill, nor do you care how. So don't chastize me on the grounds of humanity, because I realize it will never be humane, THAT is why I oppose it. I ask for just war if any, not humane. The two words together create an oxymoron. It is not just to punish the civilian population of any country in order to pressure or lobby the government into an action it may not have otherwise taken. Terrorists do this, not heroes."

A just war should be as human as possible, its why we don't use powdered cobalt to dust field, or napalm and flamethrowing weaponry on human targets. its the reason why lethal chemical agents are banned. Its why biological weapons are never condoned. The targets the bombs were designed for needed to be dropped on Japan for a reason: They needed to realize that despire their projected power they could be reached. They were initially targeted for military sites and set to detonate high enough above the gound that those on ground zero would not feel the full affect. You want to call our World War 2 generation terrorists? Fine, you are entitled to an opinion, but personally, I thinkt hat is probably the cruelest commentary I've ever witnessed. I think now I might have been wrong to encourage you to enter politics.

"Right, but the terms were unconditioal, and until they adhered to that, the war was still going on. The government's war cabinet wouldn't surrender, even after Nagasaki."

Read the conditions, and tell me which one we shoudl have sacrificed in the name of peace. We sacrficed Prague to Russia in the name of peace, and No Korea to the Chinese. . .How many innocent lived does peace require? War is more honest than that sort of treachery.

"I realize it's likewise all the rage to Red-bait someone who questions our government's actions, it's a tactic Vince is quite fond of."

Kevin, you are left brother. I don't need to red-bait you, you glow Crimson when the nights flicker off. I'm a blind nationalists in many regards, not because I don't see error in past actions, but because I know the limitation to human understanding, and that for those who had to make such decisions, the options we see looking back were not available to them. I a soft judge on the past, those men did the best they could, and I could not have asked for more. It was a different world then, and one I cannot help but feel I would feel more comfortable living in.

"I understand the circumstances, I understand how bloody WW II was, and I realize the stubbornness of the Japanese Empire. All of this considered, I disagree with the actions that were taken. I can't change history, nor can I condemn Truman too harshly, because he was in the position, not I. It couldn't have been an easy decision (although he reacted to the bombings with quite the zeal). "

I'm glad to hear that, many of my friends would not have even made that concession.

"Forgiving and ignoring the remaing condescension that ended your response, I suppose I'll conclude with this: America is great not because of blind nationalists who put (supposedly) the needs of the nation first, but by a whole range of ideas, ranging from Buckley conservatives to Chomsky Leftists. You can love this country, and not support her actions domestically and abroad all of the time. Period."

I've never disagreed on this point, I only resist what I feel undermines the Supreme Law of the Land. Communism is such a philosophy which would render our Constitution powerless.

Jul 8th, 2003 01:50 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Rorschach

It needed consent from the Joint Chiefs, which they gave, and they required authorization from the Commander in Chief. I'm not sure where you heard this Kev, but it simply isn't so. Truman nodded to Nagasaki too.

I'm away for a week, on a friend'scomputer, so I can't provide the citation immediately. To my understanding, Truman gave the stamp of approval to Groves to act as necessary, andalthough maybe Truman approved of the Nagasaki bomb, I don't believe he needed to sign off on it (perhaps I'm wrong).

Quote:

From what I've been reading about the Army and Navy actions during WW ][, it seems a general would be given a certain jurisdiction over an allotted number of men and materials, he would then study his pdf (principal direction of fire) and submit plans based upon his cabilities and the general time line of probably success tp the Joint Chiefs, and wait for approval. Much like MacArthur's RENO missions, many of which were aborted. The JCs would discuss it, revise it, submit it to the President, who would pronounce judgement, and then it would be cycled all the way back down to the general in queston to fulfill.

Right, but Groves to my recollection had been handed full reign over the nuclear program, and ran it as a general expectedly would.

Quote:

So outraged that they allowed Roosevelt to wage his private little war against the Germans while we lost 80,000 men in the Pacific Theatre and 70% of our standing Army Air Force in the region needlessly. So outraged that only a hand-full of citizens lobbied for MacArthur to recieve the support he needed to wage a war against Japan while the US drove troops into Italy. So outraged that Australia was forced to draft female citizens on wide scale latifundium in order to feed what troops he did have, making Australia give more in the Lend-Lease agreement than she recieved, while supplies were instead given to the Dutch and French. . .Thats was one outraged public.

So apparently "unoutraged" (according to you at least) that we sent over thousands of our men to die. The allocation of various resources seems to have less to do with the broader public, and more to do with the movers and shakers in the Executive and Legislative branches.

Deny it if you wish, but the fact is, Americans hated the fucking Japanese.

Quote:

"Not dropping the bomb by that point may have proven to be a political nightmare for Truman."

He didn't seek the nomination for VP under Roosevelt, it was forced on him by the Democratic public, likewise he didn't wish the nomination for a second term. In fact, he sought to have Adlai Stevenson run, but was trned down, and also inquired whether Eisenhower felt he was ready for political aspiration. He had no political nightmare. Read his memiors.

Post-H/N pollsshow that most Americans were fine with the bombings. Granted, most would have no idea of the full ramifications for a few years, but they still knew they had fucked up two cities hardcore. Truman had an obligation to answer to the public blood lust, and he furthermore had an obligation to use weapons that drained some $2 billion from the American coffers.

Quote:

"Determined, yes. Invincible? No. Prolonging the war may have cost American lives, but I personally don't see that as a moral justification for killing the innocent."

So you are contending uitlander lives are worth more than your countrymen. I see. I would sacrifice any hundred Nips in order to protect a single American,

Well, that's where we differ. I value human life, whereas you apparently value social security numbers.

Quote:

their actions in China and the Philippines are unconcionable. They handled themselves with the basest barbarism, and were duly accorded the fruits of their labours. Civilians suffer in times of war; Emotionally, fiscally and sometimes physically. They are not innocent in as much as their continuance to abide within that country supports the actions of their country.

This is utter nonsense. Every nation's hierarchy has a role in convinving their public that they are righteous and just. People in every country are prideful, as well as maliable. What you just said is the same pure shit that pieces of garbage like Osama Bin Laden use to justify the killing of innocent people.

Quote:

I believe non-combatant lives should never be taken, if at all possible to avoid, but I won't shed any tears over those that are. War is not, and never will be, civilized. It is unreasonable for anyone to expect otherwise.

Discourse is a two bladed sword, and blah blah....you justify using nuclear weapons, as did people back in the day, on the grounds that it was the most humane route to take, and would preserve the most lives all around. This is the rationale behind most progression in weaponry, that it shall be more precise, more direct, and more containable.

However you apparently don't care about how many "nips" you kill, nor do you care how. So don't chastize me on the grounds of humanity, because I realize it will never be humane, THAT is why I oppose it. I ask for just war if any, not humane. The two words together create an oxymoron. It is not just to punish the civilian population of any country in order to pressure or lobby the government into an action it may not have otherwise taken. Terrorists do this, not heroes.

Quote:

"They barely surrendered after both of the bombs."

Discoarse is a two bladed sword, and I believe you have here fallen upon it. Either the second bomb was unnecessary because they were ready to surrender, your first argugment, or both bombs were a waste because they 'barely' surrendered after two. Which is it? Was too not enough, or too much? I'm afraid I don't follow.

My argument was that whether or not they would've surrendered, the bombings were unjust. Period.

Quote:

They actually surrendered after the first one, the communique they initially sent was one of acceptance, but because of the fluidity in Japanese, it seemed to American linguists they were 'considering' a surrender, when in fact, they were considering the terms.

Right, but the terms were unconditioal, and until they adhered to that, the war was still going on. The government's war cabinet wouldn't surrender, even after Nagasaki.

Quote:

It may interest you to know that Hiroshima was not even the first suggested target: Kyoto was also considered but its unrivalled beauty ruled it out. We wished a display of power, not distruction. It exploded 580 metres (roughly1,885 feet) above the ground, not on impact like many people believe. We were flexing, not stirking.

I'm aware of Truman's discretion over Kyoto, and that's admirable. However beauty and art are secondary luxuries next to human life in my book.

Quote:

The bomb delivered to Nagasaki was supposed to strike Kokura, now part of Kitakyushu, but as it was under heavy cloud-cover so the aircraft was diverted to its second target. Kokura, unlike Nagasaki, was a military manufacturing holding: Remember the Kokura Army Arsenal?

I'm aware they had selected a group of possible targets, and weather implications caused them to delay. This doesn't change the point, nor thesubstance of my argument.

Quote:

I think you need to brush up a bit Kev, these bombings were not as heartless as modern Americans who misremember the circumstances like to believe. I realize its all the rage to condemn America at every turn, but whether one choses to believe it or not, we've had some good and able men abiding by this nation.

I realize it's likewise all the rage to Red-bait someone who questions our government's actions, it's a tactic Vince is quite fond of.

I understand the circumstances, I understand how bloody WW II was, and I realize the stubbornness of the Japanese Empire. All of this considered, I disagree with the actions that were taken. I can't change history, nor can I condemn Truman too harshly, because he was in the position, not I. It couldn't have been an easy decision (although he reacted to the bombings with quite the zeal).

Bringing things back to the point, this is precisely the point. Perhaps Ror you view the world as a marble cookie, one side white, the other black, but I do not. We began by questioning the validity of Americans who you claim are merely advocates of socialism at best, and Stalinist spies at worste. According to you, these people could not be nationalists (of course denying the reality that over 1 million Russian Communists died defending their national identity from Germany).

Forgiving and ignoring the remaing condescension that ended your response, I suppose I'll conclude with this: America is great not because of blind nationalists who put (supposedly) the needs of the nation first, but by a whole range of ideas, ranging from Buckley conservatives to Chomsky Leftists. You can love this country, and not support her actions domestically and abroad all of the time. Period.

Jul 6th, 2003 06:16 PM

El Blanco

Quote:

Or maybe clouds would have given birth to kittens, horses begun singing in Gaelish and neon frogs with yellow wings saved the planet from ultimate destruction.

Thats beautiful, man.

Jul 6th, 2003 05:34 PM

The_Rorschach

"The 1st bomb needed to be approved by Truman, but after that, there was no provision mandating civilian leadership. Groves didn't even ok the dropping on Nagasaki with Truman. Furthermore, nobody could be certain that the Japanese would've surrendered post-bombings, since they damn near didn't. Had they not, plans were in the working for more bombs. Groves would've kept dropping them, and Truman estimated that another one could've been ready in one week. Truman also set the ball rolling on developing a Hydrogen bomb."

It needed consent from the Joint Chiefs, which they gave, and they required authorization from the Commander in Chief. I'm not sure where you heard this Kev, but it simply isn't so. Truman nodded to Nagasaki too. From what I've been reading about the Army and Navy actions during WW ][, it seems a general would be given a certain jurisdiction over an allotted number of men and materials, he would then study his pdf (principal direction of fire) and submit plans based upon his cabilities and the general time line of probably success tp the Joint Chiefs, and wait for approval. Much like MacArthur's RENO missions, many of which were aborted. The JCs would discuss it, revise it, submit it to the President, who would pronounce judgement, and then it would be cycled all the way back down to the general in queston to fulfill.

". . .but considering what the "Japs" had done to us, add to that the heavy (and racist) propaganda mill that was spinning out stories, and you have one outraged public."

So outraged that they allowed Roosevelt to wage his private little war against the Germans while we lost 80,000 men in the Pacific Theatre and 70% of our standing Army Air Force in the region needlessly. So outraged that only a hand-full of citizens lobbied for MacArthur to recieve the support he needed to wage a war against Japan while the US drove troops into Italy. So outraged that Australia was forced to draft female citizens on wide scale latifundium in order to feed what troops he did have, making Australia give more in the Lend-Lease agreement than she recieved, while supplies were instead given to the Dutch and French. . .Thats was one outraged public.

"Not dropping the bomb by that point may have proven to be a political nightmare for Truman."

He didn't seek the nomination for VP under Roosevelt, it was forced on him by the Democratic public, likewise he didn't wish the nomination for a second term. In fact, he sought to have Adlai Stevenson run, but was trned down, and also inquired whether Eisenhower felt he was ready for political aspiration. He had no political nightmare. Read his memiors.

"Determined, yes. Invincible? No. Prolonging the war may have cost American lives, but I personally don't see that as a moral justification for killing the innocent."

So you are contending uitlander lives are worth more than your countrymen. I see. I would sacrifice any hundred Nips in order to protect a single American, their actions in China and the Philippines are unconcionable. They handled themselves with the basest barbarism, and were duly accorded the fruits of their labours. Civilians suffer in times of war; Emotionally, fiscally and sometimes physically. They are not innocent in as much as their continuance to abide within that country supports the actions of their country. I believe non-combatant lives should never be taken, if at all possible to avoid, but I won't shed any tears over those that are. War is not, and never will be, civilized. It is unreasonable for anyone to expect otherwise.

"They barely surrendered after both of the bombs."

Discoarse is a two bladed sword, and I believe you have here fallen upon it. Either the second bomb was unnecessary because they were ready to surrender, your first argugment, or both bombs were a waste because they 'barely' surrendered after two. Which is it? Was too not enough, or too much? I'm afraid I don't follow.

They actually surrendered after the first one, the communique they initially sent was one of acceptance, but because of the fluidity in Japanese, it seemed to American linguists they were 'considering' a surrender, when in fact, they were considering the terms. Like in 1905, and 1918, they believed that the conditions were negotiable, as the US had always compromised with them in the past, it was there mistake as much as it was ours, and they paid for it. Just like our ships paid for their hostilities in China before the war began, where they were sunk simply because they were there.

It may interest you to know that Hiroshima was not even the first suggested target: Kyoto was also considered but its unrivalled beauty ruled it out. We wished a display of power, not distruction. It exploded 580 metres (roughly1,885 feet) above the ground, not on impact like many people believe. We were flexing, not stirking.

The bomb delivered to Nagasaki was supposed to strike Kokura, now part of Kitakyushu, but as it was under heavy cloud-cover so the aircraft was diverted to its second target. Kokura, unlike Nagasaki, was a military manufacturing holding: Remember the Kokura Army Arsenal?

I think you need to brush up a bit Kev, these bombings were not as heartless as modern Americans who misremember the circumstances like to believe. I realize its all the rage to condemn America at every turn, but whether one choses to believe it or not, we've had some good and able men abiding by this nation.

"They weren't certain even after all of the murder and destruction, and had Hirohito and Suzuki not pushed for it (putting their lives in jeopardy from their own people), the war would've been prolonged. Had things been slightly different internally, the "bloodiest war ever" may have continue, only now with the standards much lower."

Pure conjecture. Maybe Jane Fonda would have flown to Japan and fucked Hirohito and given birth to the anti-AmeriChrist bringing about the end of the world before 1969. Or maybe clouds would have given birth to kittens, horses begun singing in Gaelish and neon frogs with yellow wings saved the planet from ultimate destruction.

Jul 6th, 2003 09:40 AM

mburbank

"Boo-hoo-hoo, I'm a wee weiner crybaby."
-Vinth McFruitycallMaxaJew.

Jul 5th, 2003 01:48 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Dropping what? We only had 3. The first was the test in White sands, and then the next two to end the most destructive war the world had ever seen.

The 1st bomb needed to be approved by Truman, but after that, there was no provision mandating civilian leadership. Groves didn't even ok the dropping on Nagasaki with Truman. Furthermore, nobody could be certain that the Japanese would've surrendered post-bombings, since they damn near didn't. Had they not, plans were in the working for more bombs. Groves would've kept dropping them, and Truman estimated that another one could've been ready in one week. Truman also set the ball rolling on developing a Hydrogen bomb.

Quote:

The American public opinion polls showed that most Americans wanted to do the same.

the same polls that said Dewey would become president?

HAR HAR HAR! TAKE MY WIFE, PLEASE!!!

But seriously, the "polls are inaccurate" argument mayfly when judging whether folks in New Hampshire like or dislike Howard Dean's stance on health care, but considering what the "Japs" had done to us, add to that the heavy (and racist) propaganda mill that was spinning out stories, and you have one outraged public. Not dropping the bomb by that point may have proven to be a political nightmare for Truman.

Quote:

Actually, it was because Japan was a determined and dangerous enemy. Anything less than unconditional would have been inviting a disaster.

Determined, yes. Invincible? No. Prolonging the war may have cost American lives, but I personally don't see that as a moral justification for killing the innocent.

Quote:

The truth is nobody in the US government was certain Japan was going to surrender. It could've been propaganda to get us to ease up.

They barely surrendered after both of the bombs. They weren't certain even after all of the murder and destruction, and had Hirohito and Suzuki not pushed for it (putting their lives in jeopardy from their own people), the war would've been prolonged. Had things been slightly different internally, the "bloodiest war ever" may have continue, only now with the standards much lower.

Jul 5th, 2003 01:13 PM

El Blanco

Quote:

Groves wanted to keep dropping them all over Japan.

Dropping what? We only had 3. The first was the test in White sands, and then the next two to end the most destructive war the world had ever seen.

Quote:

The American public opinion polls showed that most Americans wanted to do the same.

the same polls that said Dewey would become president?

Quote:

The demand for unconditional surrender was a relic from the Roosevelt administration, an appeasement to the Soviets. Based on this we killed all of those people???

Actually, it was because Japan was a determined and dangerous enemy. Anything less than unconditional would have been inviting a disaster.

Quote:

The truth is that nobody in the Japanese government was certain it had been an atomic bomb, and for all they knew it could've been propaganda to make them surrender.

The truth is nobody in the US government was certain Japan was going to surrender. It could've been propaganda to get us to ease up.

Jul 5th, 2003 12:52 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Rorschach

She's refering to the mortal stakes yes? The Cold War was only moments away from becoming hot, and we're talking thermonuclear temperatures. Everyone knew the mortal stakes.

I don't think "everyone" knew throughout the entire Cold War, but that is a digression. Let's be fair and honest, shall we? You viewed this piece as a rationalization for American Socialism, which I think is completely off base. I quoted the author, who even still admits that there was no moral equivalency, Stalin was bad, period. But like all things in life (particularly in politics and international relations), it wasn't that simple. Russia and the U.S. had a long sordid history with each other, and few were truly aware of the intensity of the arms race, not then.

Quote:

Firstly, noone understood nuclear fallout, nor knew the long lasting effects of such a weapon. His knowledge was limited to the destructive yield of the weapon. . .

Right, but they clearly knew they had a highly destructive weapon, one that would create havoc. Furthermore, that may pass as an excuse for Hiroshima, but Nagasaki?? Was this out of necessity, or merely the need to test both the Plutonium and the Uranium bomb...? Groves wanted to keep dropping them all over Japan. The American public opinion polls showed that most Americans wanted to do the same. Truman called it the greatest thing in world history.

I'm not trying to bully on Truman and what you might call "Liberal nationalists" or simply nationalists, but I am trying to raise the point that to simply classify the world in "good guys" and "bad guys" solves nothing. Never has, never will.

Quote:

So why did he use it? Well, because certain military personnel amongst the Germans and Japanese were stockpiling munitions and gold so, after an appropriate period of supposed 'peace' the war could once more be resumed. We intercepted messages from the Enigma channels which hinted towards such a resurgance conspiracy and Truman felt that he needed to make his point clear: The war was too costly to continue, and was now at an end.

I must admit I've never heard this, and it sounds a bit speculative to me. Most historical data shows that the Japanese would've surrendered, were the terms not unconditional.

Quote:

The Japanese were a little slow to respond so we made the point a second time.

A callous assessment at best. Truman doesn't understand nuclear fallout, so in your book he gets off clean. Hiroshima gets a powerful bomb dropped on it, loses contact with Tokyo, and they were "a little slow." The truth is that nobody in the Japanese government was certain it had been an atomic bomb, and for all they knew it could've been propaganda to make them surrender.

We made the point a second time, and had General Groves had his way, it may have been several times. The demand for unconditional surrender was a relic from the Roosevelt administration, an appeasement to the Soviets. Based on this we killed all of those people???

Quote:

I, personally, feel no sympthy for them after having read the atrocities comitted by the Imperial Army during the Pacific Threatre war.

Hmm, who is stretching for moral equivalence now...? Women and children eating breakfast and getting ready for school burned alive in those bombings, and no doubt the sick and disturbing actions taken by the Japanese were terrible, but does this justify mass murder? Sounds a bit like the rationalization used by the 9/11 killers, "all Americans pay taxes," etc.

Quote:

"I submit to you pundit Ann Coulter, who despite her lunacy has developed quite a fan following in this country."

So did Michael Moore, popularity is not a sign of acceptance: Criticism can inspire followings too.

If only it were true that all of the folks buying Coulters book were doing so critically.

Quote:

"Now you can say that every nation is the same, which is most certainly true, however not my problem."

I disagree entirely. Every nation is unique, they simply utilize similar means.

Right, but they all utilize means of indoctrination, that was my point.

Quote:

"Progress and stagnation have always been in competition here, and the rallying call of the latter has always been things such as values, "nationalism," tradition, and patriotism."

Oh? I do wonder what our ForeFathers would make of that statement.

Our ForeFathers practiced patriotism, they didn't need to use it as a rhetorical crutch. Thomas Jefferson realized the institution of slavery was like a wolf by the ear, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay published their discourses about what should and shouldn't be done, in his farewel speech, George Washington outlined what the young country should and shouldn't do. The list goes on, from rabblerousers like Thomas Paine to populists, anti-centralizationists like Jackson. This country is built upon the words, thoughts, and blood of cynics.

Quote:

Goldwater was for allowing gays in the military back in the sixties, while many were still in the closet. Being Conservative does not bar one from also thinking progressively.

Certainly not, but even Goldwater and Buckley's brand of conservatism has its reactionary flaws. I'm much more of an Irving Kristol man myself, but that's coming from a Lefty.

Quote:

Embracing the Constitution does not make one stagnant, but by all means, if you believe yourself smarter than the past generations of Americans who settled and tamed this land, I'll do nothing to try and change your mind. I have a bit of a mad ego myself.

Is this what conservatives do??? Someone should have a talk with John Ashcroft.

Quote:

If their cause is just, I would say they are duty bound to educate the populace on Bush's misdeeds.

It's all about severity and "applying the pain" appropriately. When war was imminent, many felt it was necessary to be out in the streets every day, protesting, screaming, blocking traffic, etc.

If we were to do that now, we would educate nobody, because the public would dismiss us as militants. To most, the war is over....on to Liberia in the American psyche.

In the meantime,many are in fact maintaining the education, through online journals, teach-ins, etc.

Quote:

Not because of enlightenment or interested, but the communications infrastructure we possess and the liberty of the media. I'm quite sure that had these capaibility been emplaced in 1902, there would have been equally strong criticism against Germany for the attempted invasion of So. America.

I would say it had at least something to do with interest, Ror.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Kevin, I have no argument, so I am going to revert to Red-baiting. I'm not intelligent enough to contribute to your debate with Rorschach, swo I'm going to act like a clown. Ultimately, I'm just insecure about the size of my mandrake. Some compensate by purchasing fast cars, I just talk like a brazen idiot on message boards. It makes my pee-pee feel all better.

It's ok Vince, I understand.

Jul 4th, 2003 10:43 PM

Helm

Gay until proven innocent.

Jul 4th, 2003 09:04 PM

Protoclown

Well, he's obviously gay, because he's thus far completely failed to prove that he isn't.

Jul 4th, 2003 03:10 PM

Immortal Goat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeanette X

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Your obession with me is pretty damn sick. I'm surpised you haven't sent me love letters yet.

This from a man who uses Max's icon with little horns on it.

He's "horny" for Max *heehee*.

Jul 4th, 2003 03:08 PM

Jeanette X

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Your obession with me is pretty damn sick. I'm surpised you haven't sent me love letters yet.

This from a man who uses Max's icon with little horns on it.

Jul 4th, 2003 12:40 PM

VinceZeb

If you spent as much time thinking of something intelligent to say as you do with your little "Oh here is a Vinth saying with a cute name" quotes, then maybe you would be seen by the whole of society as something greater than a dustboy at a museum.

Jul 4th, 2003 12:37 PM

mburbank

That'll shut me up.

Oh, wait, it didn't.

I must congratulate you on a two clause error free sentence though. It's been a while. Your bound to be sore tomorrow, but don't let it discourage you.

"All of you is Jew now now now now now!"
-Vinthable.

Jul 4th, 2003 12:33 PM

VinceZeb

Without me your existance on the internet would be pointless, if your constant obession with commenting on everything I say is any indication.

Jul 4th, 2003 12:32 PM

mburbank

Crybaby. You'd die on lonliness if it wasn't for me.

"Now Jew now now is are is a Jew now is!"
Vinth Iliteratti

Jul 4th, 2003 12:29 PM

VinceZeb

Your obession with me is pretty damn sick. I'm surpised you haven't sent me love letters yet.

Jul 4th, 2003 12:26 PM

mburbank

Vinth missed history classes.

"Now, Max missed where that those is just jokes because the hooked nose of his Jewishness are in a consternation camp."
-Vinth Thycopath

Jul 3rd, 2003 09:21 PM

VinceZeb

Kevin misses those days where he could hop up on Uncle Joe's lap and hear him tell a mighty tale how he he would slaughter people seeking basic freedoms. They used to also watch video from the Square and laugh at the little Chinese guy holding up his Statue of evil Capitalist liberty.

Jul 3rd, 2003 03:42 PM

The_Rorschach

"Well, first off, to be fair to the author: "and even as a child you grasped the mortal stakes of the conflict with Joseph Stalin and were not wrong." "

She's refering to the mortal stakes yes? The Cold War was only moments away from becoming hot, and we're talking thermonuclear temperatures. Everyone knew the mortal stakes.

"American nationalists such as Harry Truman who dropped two atomic bombs on Japan???"

Firstly, noone understood nuclear fallout, nor knew the long lasting effects of such a weapon. His knowledge was limited to the destructive yield of the weapon. . .So why did he use it? Well, because certain military personnel amongst the Germans and Japanese were stockpiling munitions and gold so, after an appropriate period of supposed 'peace' the war could once more be resumed. We intercepted messages from the Enigma channels which hinted towards such a resurgance conspiracy and Truman felt that he needed to make his point clear: The war was too costly to continue, and was now at an end. The Japanese were a little slow to respond so we made the point a second time. I, personally, feel no sympthy for them after having read the atrocities comitted by the Imperial Army during the Pacific Threatre war.

"I know all the arguments that "nationalists" such as these tell themselves to justify large body counts, but that's just the point. Stalin justified madness, brutality, and genocide through the theory of perpetual revolution, constant strife, constant disorder. Nothing the United States has EVER done is as bad as Joseph Stalin, but I think you're missing the point of the article."

No I am not, I simply remember Aesop's fable concerning the Ash Sapling. I'm not willing to conceed what I know to be true, though it produces some contention, in order to get along with others.

"When you are born an American, you have it pounded in to you that you come from a land that can do no wrong, or if anything, merely "outgrows" her mistakes."

I don't know much about the East Coast philosophy, but my experiences contrast that sharply. In truth, I remember my first lesson in American Mistakes coming in first grade when we examined the first fifty years of Mass. as a pilgrim colony. From then til now, I understood that while this country was created to abide by ideals which transcend human inclinations, it was up to able Statesmen to ensure this country stayed on course. . .But Statesmen fail and sometimes fall blind.

"I submit to you pundit Ann Coulter, who despite her lunacy has developed quite a fan following in this country."

So did Michael Moore, popularity is not a sign of acceptance: Criticism can inspire followings too.

"A great man, a war hero, etc. This is revisionist, it's dangerous, and it's just one example of how introspection has often been a difficult task for America and Americans."

Three years after his accusation against the State Department McCarthy died a broken alchoholic. Largely, it's well known that his entire speech was altered hours before delivery because he was informed that he could grab greater headlines. . .While I believe there was some truth to his statements, I don't believe he was aware of it, and his clumsy handling was more harmful than the threat itself.

"Now you can say that every nation is the same, which is most certainly true, however not my problem."

I disagree entirely. Every nation is unique, they simply utilize similar means.

"It has NEVER been the actions of those who found this place to be in fallible that has made this place great."

Maybe I'll be a first

But in al seriousness, duly noted. Archie Bunker clones have not in any way shaped this country beneficially.

"Progress and stagnation have always been in competition here, and the rallying call of the latter has always been things such as values, "nationalism," tradition, and patriotism."

Oh? I do wonder what our ForeFathers would make of that statement.

"And as for "American Socialism," well, the interesting thing, if you go back and look at the platforms of a lot of the old Socialist candidates, you'd see that a lot of what they stood for has now become accepted."

For better and for worse. Goldwater was for allowing gays in the military back in the sixties, while many were still in the closet. Being Conservative does not bar one from also thinking progressively. Embracing the Constitution does not make one stagnant, but by all means, if you believe yourself smarter than the past generations of Americans who settled and tamed this land, I'll do nothing to try and change your mind. I have a bit of a mad ego myself.

"Haven't you in fact made this very same argument to me in the past, Ror? Despite the fact that crime dropped throughout the 90s, clearly, compared to 1850, America seems to be a more dangerous place, right? I could've sworn you made this same argument."

Similar but subtly different. Violence within our society is a symptom, not the disease.

"Well, uhhh, the war ended. Would you like them to keep protesting???"

If their cause is just, I would say they are duty bound to educate the populace on Bush's misdeeds. I continue to see the war as an inevtiable one, and so long as some stability and, a-hem, 'creeping socialism' to use your phrase, are implimented, I will count the blunders of the President a small price to pay. It's all about the progeny.

"The protests seen here and around the world shattered past records, btw."

Not because of enlightenment or interested, but the communications infrastructure we possess and the liberty of the media. I'm quite sure that had these capaibility been emplaced in 1902, there would have been equally strong criticism against Germany for the attempted invasion of So. America.

I just woke up, and I haven't looked for typoes. Please forgive any you find. I'm going to crawl back to bed now.

Jul 3rd, 2003 12:44 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Rorschach

nor can I begin to concieve the brand of logic which would equate anything which the US has done with the acts perpetrated under 'Uncle Joe' Stalin. Maybe that is why this piece did nothing for me. It struck me as a weak attempt to find a middle ground between American nationalists and American socialists, a wasted attempt at that.

Well, first off, to be fair to the author: "and even as a child you grasped the mortal stakes of the conflict with Joseph Stalin and were not wrong."

So anyway...

American nationalists such as Harry Truman who dropped two atomic bombs on Japan??? I know, I know, war is war, it supposedly saved American lives, the Japanese supposedly never would've surrendered, etc. I know all the arguments that "nationalists" such as these tell themselves to justify large body counts, but that's just the point. Stalin justified madness, brutality, and genocide through the theory of perpetual revolution, constant strife, constant disorder. Nothing the United States has EVER done is as bad as Joseph Stalin, but I think you're missing the point of the article.

When you are born an American, you have it pounded in to you that you come from a land that can do no wrong, or if anything, merely "outgrows" her mistakes. I submit to you pundit Ann Coulter, who despite her lunacy has developed quite a fan following in this country. As it has been pointed out in the Coulter thread, this woman is currently doing the talk show thread dismissing the gravity of HUAC and the McCarthy nightmare. A great man, a war hero, etc. This is revisionist, it's dangerous, and it's just one example of how introspection has often been a difficult task for America and Americans. Now you can say that every nation is the same, which is most certainly true, however not my problem. I live in America, and America is my problem. And I'll say this now, more certain of it than ever. It has NEVER been the actions of those who found this place to be in fallible that has made this place great. Those who have sat back and accepted the proverbial status quo of things are not what makes America great. Jackasses like Vince blabber on about the meaning of independence, what it was about, blah blah. Clearly, the needs and wants of colonial Americans differ in comparison to that of the progressives of the late 19th-early 20th Century, and the womens sufferage activists, and the civil rights activists of the 1960s, etc. Their wants may not have been the same, but their desire to make this place a better place to live in freedom and comfort certainly were.

The Vinces of the day bitched and whined then, too. They whined about how America already is great, and how submiting to the demands of such people who ruin everything great about America. Progress and stagnation have always been in competition here, and the rallying call of the latter has always been things such as values, "nationalism," tradition, and patriotism.

And as for "American Socialism," well, the interesting thing, if you go back and look at the platforms of a lot of the old Socialist candidates, you'd see that a lot of what they stood for has now become accepted. What you might call "creeping socialism" others would call progress, and I place myself in the latter category. Just look, President Bush is out fighting for medicare extension to prescription drugs. The John Birch Society must be going nuts!!

Quote:

The argument that violence within our culture is causing its deterioration is ludicrous. There has always been violence, from the frontier period when settlers travelled under armed escorts and relied upon the Union soldiers to curb Amer-Indian aggression to post-WW ][ Hollywood productions. However successfully that strawman has been established, it is no more legitimate now than it was twenty years ago when I first heard of it.

Haven't you in fact made this very same argument to me in the past, Ror? Despite the fact that crime dropped throughout the 90s, clearly, compared to 1850, America seems to be a more dangerous place, right? I could've sworn you made this same argument.

Quote:

Equally, statements like: "Voices of protest from around the world will grow louder as this hemorrhaging worsens. . ." are only so much hyperbole. The protesting reached a crescendo and has since been reduced to a disconcordant muttering. In the near future it will be strangled off and forgotten -If the Iran/Contra crimes could be forgotten in a mere decade, how much longer will this last?

Well, uhhh, the war ended. Would you like them to keep protesting???

The protests seen here and around the world shattered past records, btw.

Jul 3rd, 2003 11:35 AM

mburbank

"The problem with Independance Day is that there are idiots out there celebrating it that don't know the meaning of the holiday or insist that govt take care of everything, thus having what we did when we were a colony!"
Vinth Thtupid

Vincey... You know that's not a sentence, right?

"Max... You know you're not... not a Jew, right? Wait a minute. Now you are a not not Jew which is a Jewish guy you are knowing it... Not not a not-Jewish... non-Jewisher.... Oh, wait, not a Christian notter!...

YOU HEBE!"
-Vinth Anti-Themite

This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum