New Orleans, the shame of America

Thanks Munk.

Dropping the bomb to save millions of lives is only a necessity if we HAD to invade , thus incurring the expected millions of casualties on both sides.

My question is, DID we HAVE to invade? Was it an essential act of self defense?

It seems like most here agree that we need to provide for our national security, and strive to help the people of the middle east, as well as around the world, when we can.Hopefully that will , among other things, tend to promote stability, and a safer environment for our nation to go forward in.

Some of us disagree about the best methods to achieve those objectives.

It is hard to know, since it is not normally given to us to know the end from the beginning. That being the case, my belief is that we should strive to be true to our principles. It is always right to do right. The consequences are seldom, if ever, in our control.

If I obey the speed limit, and someone jumps in front of me, I am not held responsible for injuring them. One mile an hour over the limit, and I am.

I don't believe that I should preserve my own life at ALL costs. I don't believe a nation should do so either.

With respect to Iraq, I do not advocate a Romanesque brutality.

Deciseveness, vigour, even forcefullness. Never brutality.

A question- Should the new Iraqi government ask us to leave in the next year or so, should we honor that, or set our own timetable?

I am glad that this has become a thoughtful discussion.

Tom
 
On the Bomb being dropped on Japan:

--------------------
From wikipedia: (Yes, I know this isn't the best source, but these are direct quotes from other sources, so I figure no harm no foul. Also, I don't have the time to do thorough research right now. This is the jist of the argument though.)

Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[36]

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
--------------------

That we had to drop the Bomb to save lives is a myth.

~tmd
 
tinmaddog said:
On the Bomb being dropped on Japan:

--------------------
From wikipedia: (Yes, I know this isn't the best source, but these are direct quotes from other sources, so I figure no harm no foul. Also, I don't have the time to do thorough research right now. This is the jist of the argument though.)

Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[36]

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
--------------------

That we had to drop the Bomb to save lives is a myth.

~tmd
Click to expand...

Read that several places before. I think it was more just to try it out.

I knew after the Gulf War in 91 and the glee with how well the Tomahawk cruise missles and laser guided bombs worked that we'd be finding some way to play with those again too:rolleyes:
 
Revisionists.
Go on to read the relevant notes. The President decided to drop the bomb after his cabinet and military advisors pointed out to him the cost of a land invasion: at least one MILLION Japanese dead, and an enormous cost to the US soldier. The civilian population of Japan were preparing to resist all the way; like the Phillipines and Jia Jima. (sic)

Maybe you think it would have been more humane to fly over once a month and bomb all the sites developing counter strikes, and starve the suicidal population who would never submit. Yee gads.

munk
 
Munk, I'm not disputing the cost of a land invasion. I'm disputing the necessity of it. As I understand it the Japanese were willing to surrender, just not unconditionally.

~tmd
 
munk said:
Revisionists.
Go on to read the relevant notes.
munk
Click to expand...

Revisionist? Relevant?

History is always revisionist, Munk. I know you know that. Humans are never static, in their perceptions of things or in any other way. And relevance is defined by those with power.

Think, for a moment, what the history of our Civil War would look like if the South had won. Do you think that our childrens' history books would read that the war was about slavery (which it was NOT, at the onset: the Emancipation Proclamation was a good bit of PR), or about economic realities? Or state's rights?

I have no idea, but the point is, I hope, clear.

The story that the president's advisors told him it was either bomb or invade is bogus. Completely. Actual documents, now declassified, have recorded huge levels of dissent in the upper levels of advisors as to whether either bombing was necessary.
http://www.doug-long.com/hirosh2.htm
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

My point is this, Munk: those in power will always use "history" to explain, justify, or sterilize their actions. All history is revisionist. From the moment it gets recorded by any particular party, it represents that party's perspective, agenda, whatever.

It's always been that way, from what I understand. Look back at Herodotus; read Josephus; most of the "history" throughout history has been as much propaganda as anything else. He who controls the stories controls the people's opinions on the past, can therefore more easily manipulate the present, the future.
 
I just think the one bomb was enough,tell them the next one is going into Tokyo and it woulda been over.
 
My grandad was on a boat headed to Japan when the surrender happened. He had two brothers already fighting in theatre. My uncle Ray was in Europe.

Just those three lives justify the bomb to me.
 
brokenhallelujah said:
Revisionist? Relevant?

Humans are never static, in their perceptions of things or in any other way.

Actual documents, now declassified...
Click to expand...

This is absolutely the case. When it comes to historical details, it is best not to breeze through them and chisel your conclusions on a rock. Blanks are being filled in constantly, like the number of new species of dinosaurs that are discovered every year.
 
brokenhallelujah and all;

Yes, History is revised. Somewhat. History is never going to be revised to fit the radical leftist view that the bomb did not save lives and was unneccesary.

Peter Jennings had a special on this and had egg on his face. The most sympathetic view on his stumble was that he was 'sadly misinformed'. Frontline might agree with you. Those who think we went to Iraq for oil, and that Bush lied, would have a larger percent of their group in the revision, but reputable Historians? Nope. The small percent of those who cater to this nonsense will die off and not be replaced. This is a vouge social event, not lasting.

That is my opinion. Why is it hindsight is so morally aloof? What the heck do any of us know about it? Is the plan to wait the Japs out, while they starve to death? We can second guess this to the end of the lifespan of those few revisionist historians.

We lost so many soldiers in our island campaign. Do you know the most causalties on any one event in the war for us was during that? So, if a war weary world does not wish to lose 500,000 soldiers, and one million Japanese, what is the alternative? Starve them? Continue bombing poor Tokyo into the stone age?

And the Russians- The Japanese would be speaking Russian. You are aware the Soviets were advancing and intended to beat us there? Yeah, I'm certain the Soviets would have been kind to Japanese civilians....

Look at the Good News: It saved lives, it ended the war, and we rebuilt Japan and they are friends. The horror of nuclear war was clearly spelled out- and the World has been unwilling to go there again.

You want to second guess? Let's live in a world with USSR and US tension, without that grave example, and see if maybe New York would have gone instead. Remember- we had no idea what would happen with the bombs. Do you think Russia would have hesitated later without that example?
No, and No. It is interesting to play theorhetical, but you weren't there and do not appreciate the horror that was WWll in the Pacific.

And why this? Why not the firebombing of Dresdan? War is horror. Can anyone seriously suggest going back and removing this horror or that because it, 'wasn't neccesary? You fight a war like that, and we'd be speaking Japanese, and the Brits German.

Holy moly. The Baton death march. All the executed prisoners. Those were the people we were dealing with then. The women made into prostitutes in the Phillipines.... the invasion of mainland China and the rape of Nanking (?) The Japanese had been going about this for 40 years- we have documents now from them with the 'master plan' to eventually take all of China, Australia, (bet some of you did not know that) Korea and Indochina. This was a people with the stamina and conviction to have set this in motion and followed it for 40 years.

They were lucky. That's right. The Japanese were Lucky that we only dropped two nukes. (all we had, too) AFter Pearl Harbor? Lucky and grateful.

BTW, Brokenhallelujah, what would the US look like if the South had won the war is a fascinating topic. Many people do not know that the limits on State rights were established then.


munk
 
Here's an interesting piece of information I got while visiting the New Market battlefield site:
At the time of the Civil War, all but 2 of the states that would become the Confederate states had legislation pending to end slavery. The debate of the day was not how to keep slavery, but how to end it without destroying the economy. Everyone wanted to end it, but they didn't know how to do it.
That one surprised me!
 
munk said:
what would the US look like if the South had won the war is a fascinating topic. Many people do not know that the limits on State rights were established then. munk
Click to expand...


Indeed, what would the world look like today had the South won? (I am one southerner who is glad they didn't.) Had there been no Civil War to estabolish those limits on State rights the invasion from below would be very worrysome. As it is there is no right to seceed, and even when the majority in the southwest tips toward latino, they may not do so. That is a major contribution of the south, and one way the civil war is VERY relevant today. Ha Ha. I take great pleasure in the fact that our loss has denied the right of the invaders to carry out the plan I've heard pubicly declared by protesters of late. :D Now if we can just get our congressmen to build us a big old electric fence.;)
 
From what I know about it, the bombing of Dresden was morally an outrage.

vengeance is not pretty.

If we really had guts, and the moral high ground, the third nuke would have been dropped on Stalin. The 4th on Mao.

Those two acts would have saved more lives than we saved by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We could have just turned the boats around and gone home, when our country was no longer in jeapordy.

The Constituion died in the Civil War.

That fact will prevent the Illegals from taking over the southwest? I doubt it.

best to hunker down. The vandals are coming, and the oligarchy is fiddling while the kindling is being stacked for the great burning...

I think I had better go join the sad thread now!

:)

Tom
 
Andy, I would have BET MONEY that you are a Southerner who is glad the Union won!
I bet you are equally glad that we chased those no-account Indians onto little reservations and off that land they weren't developing anyway.
We don't need no stinkin' environmental controls either, do we?
Am I reading your mail?
 
The_Shadow said:
Here's an interesting piece of information I got while visiting the New Market battlefield site:
At the time of the Civil War, all but 2 of the states that would become the Confederate states had legislation pending to end slavery.
Click to expand...

Another tidbit I learned recently was that when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation the Royal Navy was loading up for a trip across the Atlantic to interfere with the Union blockade of confederate ports. Due to anti-slavery sentiment in England at the time, once the North officially declared this position the RN had to stand down.

So, was Lincoln acting out of compassion, or was it a political manuver?
 
Political maneuver. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in Confederate states. Slaves in the Union were still slaves. I lived in Delaware for a few years, which was a "border state", and that history is very well known. Delaware was a farming state, and the slaves kept on working after the proclamation.
Lincoln did not care at all about freeing slaves, he said so himself. His only issue was to keep the union intact. That's it.
 
aproy1101 said:
Had there been no Civil War to estabolish those limits on State rights the invasion from below would be very worrysome. As it is there is no right to seceed, and even when the majority in the southwest tips toward latino, they may not do so. That is a major contribution of the south, and one way the civil war is VERY relevant today.
Click to expand...

I actually disagree very strongly, Andy. I am not, by any means, a neo-confederate (as most of you probably know), but I do appreciate that the Civil War was declared for pretty much the same reasons as the (first) American Revolution: taxation without representation, misappropriation of resources, and an all-around restriction on the ability to change things through the "proper" legislative channels. The role that the Southern states were allowed to play in national decision-making at the policy level was, well, inadequate isn't the right word...

The Civil War was an economic necessity for both the North and the South. The South, because the raw goods originating in the South were being profitted from by the Northern industrialists at hugely disproportionate levels, felt that it could better serve its interests by marketing those goods in foreign markets. The tarriffs imposed by the Government made that impossible, and the Government was far fonder of its industrialist patrons than it was the Southern citizenry... for obvious reasons. The North, because of the stranglehold they had on refining products originating from Southern states, had to maintain that resource; ergo, they could not relenquish political and economic control over the South because it would have destroyed the profitability of their ventures into heavy industry. There was also a huge labor issue -- many of the Northern laborers that had fed the factories with plentiful, and therefore cheap, manual labor, were now in short supply: dead, wounded or scattered to the newly opening West. In the newly freed African-American slave, there was a new labor pool waiting to be tapped...

I can keep on going. And I do agree with you in one respect, Andy, that we should always keep a close eye on those who wish to import their cheap labor from elsewhere rather than pay an American a decent, living wage. So many of the issues that we confront today in our society are painfully relevant when examining the underpinnings of the Civil (Second American Revolutionary) War.

My main point, I suppose, is that none of what I listed above is REVISING anything, per se, just interpreting the events that DID take place with a different agenda. It's funny what you find when you do that.

History is not monolithic; history is not objective; history is an agreed upon presentation of certain events, usually devised to paint one party or another in an overwhelmingly favorable light. Humans are drawn to that -- black and white appraisals, right or wrong, good or bad.

But the world does not work that way. It is one thing to apply one's own moral interpretation to the events of history; it is quite another to acknowledge only those events of history that confirm one's own moral standard.

We can be moral. History is not. Recorded histories, by necessity, are unfortunately qute often moralized for a particular agenda. It's also human nature to want to always be the good guy, to never doubt that "me-and-mine" have a special lease on the moral highground. But that is utter nonsense.

Matthew 7:5.
 
The_Shadow said:
Lincoln did not care at all about freeing slaves, he said so himself. His only issue was to keep the union intact. That's it.
Click to expand...

Which was an economic necessity for the Northern states, who also benefitted, rather directly, from slave labor on the Southern plantations.
 
The_Shadow said:
Andy, I would have BET MONEY that you are a Southerner who is glad the Union won!
I bet you are equally glad that we chased those no-account Indians onto little reservations and off that land they weren't developing anyway.
We don't need no stinkin' environmental controls either, do we?
Am I reading your mail?
Click to expand...

You would have lost money. I don't like the 'south will rise again' crowd as stated above, and I absolutely abhore the battle emblem. I consider the feelings of blacks justified in that it is a symbol of oppression and out of courtesy should not be the GA state flag. I am offended by this post. I have no ndn blood, but I was a Boy Scout, Order of the Arrow, my father tought me to respect the ndns young, and I have always despised that action by our country ever since. My dad is a history nut, and his favorite subject was the ndn's. We did a fair amount of traveling through the south to ndn sites. Additionally I am an environmentalist. I do, however, believe we need more refineries/think environmental regulation has gone too far. Reading my mail, no, you don't know me from Adam. You are new here Shadow, why the attacks? Have I personally insulted you in some way? Have I called you out in any personal way? I'm very tired of the personal attacks I have suffered this week. I have been followed from thread to thread, there has been namecalling, and now I'm being pigeonholed into a less than endeering stereotype. Please desist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top