Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Harry Boy, Oct 12, 2011.
Will America really re-elect this jerk, really-----
Apologies Not Accepted - Investors.com
**** article, thanks for posting.
Can nuclear weapons be un-invented?
Well, the nuclear strike on Japan was one of the most disgraceful acts of reckless violence in world history, and an apology is certainly warranted. That said, compared with the reign of Bush, the world has been a much calmer place. North Korea and Iran, by and large, are doing a lot less sabre rattling than they were, and even Iran overall has been fairly calm, today notwithstanding. Obama has done a good job helping calm things down, but of course that has not been good for the economy. Perhaps with Iran's transgression today, Obama will think of mobilizing the military.
What a ......
Iran says could deploy navy near U.S. coast: report - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Iran - msnbc.com
Don't worry, they'll have a nuke soon, which ought to really help with "stability" in the M.E.
I got curious about the cable, since Investors.com is another one of those sleazy dishonest right wing rags. Upon further investigation, I learned that there is no evidence that Obama offered to apologize.
Japanese Government Nixed Idea of Obama Visiting, Apologizing for, Hiroshima* - ABC News
In September 2009, US Ambassador to Japan John Roos reported to the Obama administration that the Japanese government did not think it was a good idea for President Obama to visit Hiroshima to apologize for the US having dropped an atomic bomb on that city, a secret cable published by Wikileaks revealed.
A senior White House official asserts to ABC News that there was never any plan for the president to apologize for Hiroshima. The cable does not state that the idea was from the U.S. Rather, Roos writes that Yabunaka thought that following President Obamaâ€™s call earlier that year for a world free of nuclear weapons, anti-nuclear groups would speculate as to whether he would visit Hiroshima.
There is that danger, but so far it's been kept in check by supposedly Israeli assassins with some American help.
If Hitler or Tojo got their hands on an Atomic Bomb (it was coming) what do you people think they would have done, they had already started WWII, engaged in the Savage Holocaust attacked America and would have slaughtered your parents and all the rest of your relatives if we had acted like a country of simpering coward liberals, THEY WANTED AMERICA DEAD.
Todays Liberal Wants Us To Apologize For Winning A War We Didn't Start.
God Damn Bullsh!t
Yesterdays Japan Can Kiss My American Ass they were ruthless dirty savages who bayonetted little children and they killed themselves in order to kill us.
They Started It We Finsihed It
The thing that really gets under the liberals skin today is "WE WON"
I disagree. We were in a war -- a war that had cost millions of fatalities and easily could have involved millions more. If you want to argue that the nuclear strikes were unnecessary, you can reasonably do so, but there's a reasonable argument on the other side as well. But I don't think there's any argument supporting the claim that they were disgraceful and reckless.
Certainly warranted? Again, I disagree.
However, the idea that an apology would be disgusting or however the harrys of the world want to describe it isn't necessarily the case, either. It would depend on the content of the apology, imo.
I know people like harry don't understand apologies, but that's probably rooted in insecurity. We could certainly apologize to the families of those who were killed for our necessary actions and explain why they were necessary. There would be nothing disgusting about it -- on the contrary, it's how adults handle themselves.
I don't think it's "appologies" that people like Harry don't like. I think it's "appologizing" for defending yourself, that they don't like. Personally, I agree with you for the most part that saying "sorry" in general isn't certifiably right or wrong. In the specific case of dropping those two nukes though, I wouldn't appologize. Those nukes saved american lives. In the context of that war, we shouldn't ever feel the need to appologize for that.
I am ambivalent about the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but you seem to be indicating that American lives are more valuable than Japanese lives.. most of those killed in those two cities were innocents, aka collateral damage and there lies my ambivalence.
I'm not sure how much you've read about the bombings, but there is ample evidence that the bombings were no longer necessary. After all, Japan's military was decimated, it was in full retrenchment mode, the Russians were poised to attack them, various officials were negotiating a surrender, Japan at that time no longer posed a serious threat, and very prominent American military leaders (including Eisenhower) felt is was not necessary to use the nukes. My issue with the nuclear bombing is that it willy-nilly killed tens of thousands of children and women. It was an act of terrorism. Did it end the war? It helped, but why not nuke Iran and North Korea, too? We opened a can of worms. We legimitized the use of nuclear weapons in war, and that led not to massive efforts others to acquire WMD. It's been good for the military-industrial complex, but that's about it.
While I do not disagree, and am concerned about the whole "collateral damage" thing, in the world war II museum in NOLA there is a graphic of the number of troops that stormed Normandy and the number of troops being amassed to storm Japan.. it is something like 3 times as many, along with the prerequisite logistics...
They were preparing to fight through Japan like they fought through Iwo Jima... otoh what would have happened in we isolated Japan, as we had overtaken most of the Islands and had decimated their air and navy??
I disagree with you re the harrys of the world.
As I replied to patters, I don't agree with the pov that an apology is "certainly warranted." However, I would have no problem with us being adults and telling families of the deceased that we're sorry we were forced to resort to such drastic measures, but we felt they were necessary to end the war -- a war we did not start -- and prevent the deaths of millions more Americans, Japanese and other soldiers.
I've read a fair amount about them, and that's why I acknowledge that there is a reasonable argument to be made. However, there is also a reasonable argument that the bombings did in fact end the war much earlier and saved many American lives.
I think anybody who claims that it's clear either way what would have happened is deluding themselves.
As for terrorism, I'd be curious how you're defining terrorism within the context of war. I would guess that each nation involved in WWII would have to be viewed as having taken terrorist actions during the war -- which makes the term somewhat meaningless, imo.
Now you're getting into an entirely different issue.
Given that nuclear weapons haven't been used in any war since, I'm not sure your claim about having legitimized their use is valid.
That said, I'd prefer there be no nuclear weapons, too -- but I view that as a different matter and, frankly, kind of like wishing there were no war at all.
In the context of that war, yes. Absolutely.
I'd take sacrificing 150k enemy lives to save just one American life anyday.
No regrets here...
And to AMERICANS...the lives of Americans ARE more important than those of any other nation.
Said from the comfort of your couch, decades after the fact, without having had to suffer from the consequences of that war. The bottom line is that dropping those nukes saved american lives, and when you are attacked by an enemy as we were in Pearl Harbor, while facing kamakazis and cave to cave fighting on every island in the Pacific, any means that avoids a land invasion, while saving American lives, is a necessary one.
One could easily argue that the use of those nukes is the reason why no one has ever used a nuclear weapon since then. That the sheer magnitude of the power of those weapons, at that time, prevented fools from pushing a button and ending the world with even more powerful weapons at a later date. Don't you think it was the visual, and the known power of those weapons, that helped prevent a few from going off during the Cold War, or more specifically, the Cuban missle crisis? I do. I truly believe that those weapons haven't been used because of the fact that reasonable people understand the destruction they will cause.
People who sit on their couch without cable TV, dreaming of New Utopia, miss the shows on History Channel and NGEO that show actual footage of what happened on those islands in the pacific. They miss the interviews with the people who actually faught there, and would absolutely be the last people to pick up a weapon and storm a beach, in return for not dropping those nukes. Heck, people sitting on their couch like that might even call veterans like Paul Tibbetts, "uncourageous tools". Just saying anyway.
An appology isn't warrented imo. While I wouldn't give the finger for doing so, I wouldn't recommend an appology be given either. I think some things are better off left unsaid, or left where they lay. This is one of those things imo.
I wonder if Patters has any clue of what the Japs, oops, Japanese did to the people in china, or to prisoners of war. Probably not.
Separate names with a comma.