[KevinTheOmnivore]

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.

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.

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.

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???

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.