Raimondo calls Jon Stewart a Wimp, Wuss and Moral Coward. lol!

[Jace]

...

[DirtMcGirt]

nice article once again from Justin

[KoldKut]

...

[BuddyRey]

What is Stewart apologizing for? If ordering the incineration of millions of people, most of them non-combatants, is not a war crime, then what is?

He's only allowed to criticize war criminals who are members of the Republican Party. Otherwise, the cognitive dissonance caused in Stewart's viewership would drive them to quit buying into the phony left-right paradigm and blindly following leaders like Obama. :D

[muh_roads]

Fuck his comment on Harding at the end. His is the model we should be following to get us out of the recession.

[eOs]

He's only allowed to criticize war criminals who are members of the Republican Party. Otherwise, the cognitive dissonance caused in Stewart's viewership would drive them to quit buying into the phony left-right paradigm and blindly following leaders like Obama. :D

hoorah

[Tabby]

That was... Unbelievably sad. It hurt to see him defeated like that, and the look on his face near the end...

Wow.

[Reason]

he's only allowed to criticize war criminals who are members of the republican party. Otherwise, the cognitive dissonance caused in stewart's viewership would drive them to quit buying into the phony left-right paradigm and blindly following leaders like obama. :d

qft

[Conza88]

Yeah, that was sad.

I want to meet him in person...

"C'mon bro... we both know he is."

[angelatc]

I disagree. We were attacked first, and the bomb ended that part of the war right now. Much simpler than dragging out some campaign that lasts years and years.

Moral cowardice would have been sacrificing an American life though he didn't have to.

The US told them it was coming. War sucks. Run if you can.

[winston_blade]

I disagree. We were attacked first, and the bomb ended that part of the war right now. Much simpler than dragging out some campaign that lasts years and years.

Moral cowardice would have been sacrificing an American life though he didn't have to.

The US told them it was coming. War sucks. Run if you can.

Hmmm....They all say that until it happens to your family.

Also, history disagrees.

[diggronpaul]

I think that the apology is meant to generate fear on a subconscious level, driving the public to think that a big-bad force is out there who is even going so far as to censor John Stewart and humiliate him. We are supposed to think our freedoms are gone, and that we live in a controlled state. Once we believe it, it is easier to execute.

[RevolutionSD]

I disagree. We were attacked first, and the bomb ended that part of the war right now. Much simpler than dragging out some campaign that lasts years and years.

Moral cowardice would have been sacrificing an American life though he didn't have to.

The US told them it was coming. War sucks. Run if you can.

You're a sick human being. Run if you can? Did the 100,000+ Japanese that lost their lives from the bombs have ANYTHING to do with Pearl Harbor?

War is BULLSHIT collectivism. BTW, FDR saw the Pearl Harbor attack coming too. FDR AND Truman are both war criminals.

[slacker921]

Raimondo is feeling a bit guilty for his Obama vote now?

[buck000]

What is Stewart apologizing for? If ordering the incineration of millions of people, most of them non-combatants, is not a war crime, then what is?

Robert McNamara: "LeMay said, 'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"

:(

[Original_Intent]

You're a sick human being. Run if you can? Did the 100,000+ Japanese that lost their lives from the bombs have ANYTHING to do with Pearl Harbor?

War is BULLSHIT collectivism. BTW, FDR saw the Pearl Harbor attack coming too. FDR AND Truman are both war criminals.

I wouldn't call Angelatc sick. As a missionary in Japan back in the 80's, I had a few people ask me how the U.S could do that, and I defended it. I wasn't a sick person, I just did not have all of the information that I have now.

I am pretty convinced that both bombs being dropped was set in stone, and nothing Japan could have done would have prevented it. The U.S. had the latest, greatest "Death Star" and no bombing of an uninhabited atoll would have provided the demonstration that was needed. And of course the second bomb was needed to prove that it was not just a one-hit wonder, but to demonstrate that we could wipe out hundreds of thousands of people with one strike repeatedly.

Shock and Awe.

Look up the definition of terrorism and then ask yourself who the terrorist are.

If you are not paranoid, you haven't been paying attention.

[Jace]

...

[AuH20]

What is Stewart apologizing for? If ordering the incineration of millions of people, most of them non-combatants, is not a war crime, then what is?

The war should have not even started, on the account that FDR cut off their oil. But I can't criticize Truman for making a controversial decision. An amphibious invasion of the Japanese homeland would have costed close to a million lives.

We have to remember that there are no rules in war. That is why it should be avoided at all costs. The goal in war is to annihilate your opposition as quickly as possible so they submit or relent.

[dannno]

Well he made it pretty obvious that his corporate strings were being pulled, which was sort of the point of the bit.. that's why he didn't give any good reasons.

I agree with the whole war is collectivism and collectivism is BS. Japan started the war because we provoked them into it, tptb wanted us to enter the war AND THAT IS MORE WRONG than Japan attacking us for provoking them.. it is the provocateurs who are to blame first.

Besides, Pearl Harbor was A MILITARY TARGET not a civilian target.

[BillyDkid]

You're a sick human being. Run if you can? Did the 100,000+ Japanese that lost their lives from the bombs have ANYTHING to do with Pearl Harbor?

War is BULLSHIT collectivism. BTW, FDR saw the Pearl Harbor attack coming too. FDR AND Truman are both war criminals.
I agree. These acts were crimes against humanity just as was the fire bombing of much of Japan as well as Germany.

[jmlfod87]

The war should have not even started, on the account that FDR cut off their oil. But I can't criticize Truman for making a controversial decision. An amphibious invasion of the Japanese homeland would have costed close to a million lives.

We have to remember that there are no rules in war. That is why it should be avoided at all costs. The goal in war is to annihilate your opposition as quickly as possible so they submit or relent.


You are laboring under the fallacious assumption that a land invasion was the only alternative to ending the war.

1. The war was already essentially won when we dropped the bombs. We were bombing cities like Tokyo on a daily basis. The Japanese had no industrial strength left to form anything that resembled a counter attack. It was only a matter of time before they had no other option but to capitulate.

2. The Soviet Union already had scheduled an invasion for the beginning of August. We didn't need to invade them considering the Soviets were going to invade anyways. This was essentially the reason truman decided to drop the bomb. He wanted the Japanese to surrender before the Soviet invasion, otherwise the Soviets would have claimed Japan as their own, and Truman was already working on a Cold War with the Soviets and din't want them to gain anymore territory.

In conclusion, the bombings, and the potential invasion, were unnecessary. We bombed them to end the war quickly before the Soviets could gain anymore strength. There was no other reason for the bombings. Jon Stewart is a wimp for retracting his statement regarding the criminal bombings.

[ourlongroad]

Well he made it pretty obvious that his corporate strings were being pulled, which was sort of the point of the bit.. that's why he didn't give any good reasons.
We're going to start seeing more "evidence" of their controls within channels that they control... i think they want to be more overt now as part of their psy-war. They have to make us believe they are in total control, even if its only make-believe Hollywood & NYC television.

Brownshirts, basically, political correctness police, seems to always follow when the 'left' takes DC.

[Todd]

That was... Unbelievably sad. It hurt to see him defeated like that, and the look on his face near the end...

Wow.

Yeah.. I felt sorry for him for a minute......but then I remembered.... He's a lap dog for Democrats. Screw him. :D

[dannno]

Yeah.. I felt sorry for him for a minute......but then I remembered.... He's a lap dog for Democrats. Screw him. :D

He's not a lapdog for the Democrats. It's just that his fan base is primarily progressive due to their age.

[Andrew-Austin]

He's not a lapdog for the Democrats. It's just that his fan base is primarily progressive due to their age.

I remember Stewart going on to the show Crossfire and ripping them apart for being phony partisan hacks, quite a glorious moment. But if he does not want people to think the same of him, he ought to make more jabs at the left despite his audience. But I simply think him and much of his staff are liberals when it comes to economic issues.

[dannno]

I remember Stewart going on to the show Crossfire and ripping them apart for being phony partisan hacks, quite a glorious moment. But if he does not want people to think the same of him, he ought to make more jabs at the left despite his audience. But I simply think him and much of his staff are liberals when it comes to economic issues.

Well, like I've always said, if you don't know why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer in this country (the real problem being The Federal Reserve), and you come to the realization that the system is some how rigged...now if welfare is the only option presented to you for fixing this problem and you are a reasonable human being, you would probably come up with a scheme to tax the rich to give to the poor... If the system is rigged for the rich and there is no answer as to how or why this is, then why not make it more fair for everyone?

Obviously this situation creates an incredible amount of inefficiency, and by getting rid of the rigged system and instilling an honest monetary policy we would not have any justifiable or moral reason for welfare. The problem is that Democrats don't understand this concept. They don't know how the system is rigged, and that is how I convert liberals into at least seeing the problems with our banking system.

[Reason]

I disagree. We were attacked first, and the bomb ended that part of the war right now. Much simpler than dragging out some campaign that lasts years and years.

Moral cowardice would have been sacrificing an American life though he didn't have to.

The US told them it was coming. War sucks. Run if you can.

Except that the war would have ended without a "costly ground invasion" as is taught in US history books. The Japanese were finished and they knew it. The main reason why we dropped the bombs was to establish a precedent in dealing with the Soviets.

[rp08orbust]

Raimondo is feeling a bit guilty for his Obama vote now?

Justin Raimondo never voted for Obama. He briefly supported him as the lesser of evils among the other Republicans and Democrats in the late Spring of 2008. His support ended the day Obama made a speech to AIPAC and pledged the US's eternal fealty to Israel. I can find the article if you want.

[slacker921]

Justin Raimondo never voted for Obama. He briefly supported him as the lesser of evils among the other Republicans and Democrats in the late Spring of 2008. His support ended the day Obama made a speech to AIPAC and pledged the US's eternal fealty to Israel. I can find the article if you want.

... ah! now that you mention it, I do remember him pulling his support for Obama. I just remember him gushing over Obama there for a while.

[rp08orbust]

I disagree. We were attacked first, and the bomb ended that part of the war right now. Much simpler than dragging out some campaign that lasts years and years.

What would have been even simpler is accept the surrender offered by the Japanese in January of 1945, by which time the US had already achieved a naval victory. Why was a ground occupation of Japan necessary when it lacked the means to ever threaten US territory again?

[rp08orbust]

... ah! now that you mention it, I do remember him pulling his support for Obama. I just remember him gushing over Obama there for a while.

And even when he did briefly support Obama, he admitted that it was 99% a gay thing. It was no different than the many Ron Paul supporters who were tempted by Sarah Palin because she was "hot".

[Dieseler]

The Japanese sank the very ship that delivered the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on its return trip.
The war was not over.

[Kraig]

I disagree. We were attacked first, and the bomb ended that part of the war right now. Much simpler than dragging out some campaign that lasts years and years.

Moral cowardice would have been sacrificing an American life though he didn't have to.

The US told them it was coming. War sucks. Run if you can.

lol moral cowardice? Let me ask how you would define "terrorism"? I find it completely amazing that some of you guys, while we live in an era where our government starts countless wars without our approval, condone killing thousands of civilians in punishment for the actions their government and military.

By your logic the people in every single country the US government has laid waste to has every right to come here and kill you and me.

[Brian4Liberty]

Did the 100,000+ Japanese that lost their lives from the bombs have ANYTHING to do with Pearl Harbor?

It would be collectivist to say that they were all completely innocent. Obviously, any of them that were against the war (or against war in general) were truly innocent (and the children of course). But how about the Chicken Hawks among them? How about the war-mongering fanatics among them?

[rp08orbust]

The Japanese sank the very ship that delivered the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on its return trip.
The war was not over.

The Indianapolis, whose captain was not even bothering with defensive zig-zag maneuvers, was sunk by one of two Japanese submarines still left. The sub was essentially on a suicide mission, patrolling for anything it could find to fire torpedoes at, and it got lucky and found the Indianapolis on a dark night while it was forced to surface. If this fluke demonstrates anything at all, it's how defeated the Japanese navy already was.

[rp08orbust]

It would be collectivist to say that they were all completely innocent. Obviously, any of them that were against the war (or against war in general) were truly innocent (and the children of course). But how about the Chicken Hawks among them? How about the war-mongering fanatics among them?

Since when is nationalistic fervor a capital offense? Are the 70% of American who supported the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 worthy of death?

[Kraig]

It would be collectivist to say that they were all completely innocent. Obviously, any of them that were against the war (or against war in general) were truly innocent (and the children of course). But how about the Chicken Hawks among them? How about the war-mongering fanatics among them?

What is your point? Some may have been innocent, some may have been guilty in support of the the war, so what? Drop the bomb and "let god sort em out" is horrendous.

[Annihilia]

It's the pseudo-nostalgia of the so-called "last good war" that keeps people from revisiting and challenging ideas that have been pounded into their heads since youth. Most of us weren't even born yet, but those black and white photos sure hit that patriotic chord!

To those who believe that it was a good idea to drop those bombs, apply what you know today to what you were taught in junior high. Human nature hasn't changed in thousands of years, what makes you so certain that our leaders back then were so noble?

[RevolutionSD]

It would be collectivist to say that they were all completely innocent. Obviously, any of them that were against the war (or against war in general) were truly innocent (and the children of course). But how about the Chicken Hawks among them? How about the war-mongering fanatics among them?

You mean the government?

[Brian4Liberty]

What is your point?

Some may have been innocent, some may have been guilty in support of the the war.


Drop the bomb and "let god sort em out" is horrendous.

Since when has war not resulted in the death of innocent people? Isn't "war-crime" redundant? Every bomb has the potential, and usually does, result in the death of innocent people.

[AuH20]

It's the pseudo-nostalgia of the so-called "last good war" that keeps people from revisiting and challenging ideas that have been pounded into their heads since youth. Most of us weren't even born yet, but those black and white photos sure hit that patriotic chord!

To those who believe that it was a good idea to drop those bombs, apply what you know today to what you were taught in junior high. Human nature hasn't changed in thousands of years, what makes you so certain that our leaders back then were so noble?

Now you're being ridiculous and melodramatic. You cannot equate what happened there to what transpired over Dresden. Of course, the war could have been avoided, but there needed to be a resolution to it. Read up on the code of the bushido and tell me that all hell would have not broken loose, the minute american troops would have landed. Plus, a large segment of the population thought that they had divine intervention on their side, considering the fact that Japanese had never been conquered by a foreign force during their history. Furthermore, many of the monday morning quarterbacks are forgetting about the failed coup attempt that occurred six days after the bombings. Many of the generals would have rather died in a prolonged battle that they could never win, as opposed to suffering the stinging humiliation of surrender.

[Brian4Liberty]

You mean the government?

I recall reading that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the safe-havens for the elite of Japan, as the US had not dropped bombs there (yet), and they were considered safe. So yes, there was supposed to be a fairly high concentration of political rulers there.

How responsible are the leaders? The elite who want to benefit from the wars? The war-mongers? Those who fan the flames of war? The public opinion makers? The average Joe-Sixpack "blow them all up, let God sort them out?"

Complex question. Seems that the UK has convicted Michael Savage of being a public opinion maker...would that make everyone more influential than him also guilty? Where do you draw the line?

[rp08orbust]

Now you're being ridiculous and melodramatic. You cannot equate what happened there to what transpired over Dresden. Of course, the war could have been avoided, but there needed to be a resolution to it. Read up on the code of the bushido and tell me that all hell would have not broken loose, the minute american troops would have landed. Plus, many of the countrymen thought that they had divine intervention on their side, considering the fact that Japanese had never been conquered by a foreign force during their history. Furthermore, many of the monday morning quarterbacks are forgetting about the failed coup attempt that occurred six days after the bombings. Many of the generals would have rather died in a prolonged battle that they could never win, as opposed to suffering the humiliation of surrender.

You are completely missing the point. I don't think anyone is disputing that the nuclear attacks were necessary in order for a land invasion and occupation to succeed.

What I, at least, am disputing is your premise that a land invasion was necessary at all in order to defend the United States. By the summer of 1945, Japan posed no threat to the 50 United States (or however many of them there were--49?).

[Brian4Liberty]

Since when is nationalistic fervor a capital offense? Are the 70% of American who supported the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 worthy of death?

Good question. Is there any responsibility? What do you think?

[rp08orbust]

Good question. Is there any responsibility? What do you think?

Sure, there's some moral responsibility, but not of the sort that government can or should punish, either by a local or foreign government.

[AuH20]

You are completely missing the point. I don't think anyone is disputing that the nuclear attacks were necessary in order for a land invasion and occupation to succeed.

What I, at least, am disputing is your premise that a land invasion was necessary at all in order to defend the United States. By the summer of 1945, Japan posed no threat to the 50 United States (or however many of them there were--49?).

The entire country was worked up into a frenzy to crush the Japanese and for good reason. Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, the Bataan death march? Remember those incidents? Too much blood was spilled at that point. The US had methodically pushed its way through 5000 miles of ocean at a heavy price and suddenly you expect them to stop, with the grand prize in sight? I'm just trying to paint the historically accurate perspective at that time. In 2009, it sounds reasonable to state that they should have stopped, but the vengeance factor of war were not going to let that occur.

[Original_Intent]

Now you're being ridiculous and melodramatic. You cannot equate what happened there to what transpired over Dresden. Of course, the war could have been avoided, but there needed to be a resolution to it. Read up on the code of the bushido and tell me that all hell would have not broken loose, the minute american troops would have landed. Plus, a large segment of the population thought that they had divine intervention on their side, considering the fact that Japanese had never been conquered by a foreign force during their history. Furthermore, many of the monday morning quarterbacks are forgetting about the failed coup attempt that occurred six days after the bombings. Many of the generals would have rather died in a prolonged battle that they could never win, as opposed to suffering the stinging humiliation of surrender.

The samurai code had been outlawed for two generations at the time of WW2.

[AuH20]

The samurai code had been outlawed for two generations at the time of WW2.

The core tenets of the Bushido was very much alive among the populace.

[KoldKut]

...

[rp08orbust]

The entire country was worked up into a frenzy to crush the Japanese and for good reason. Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, the Bataan death march? Remember those incidents? Too much blood was spilled at that point. The US had methodically pushed its way through 5000 miles of ocean at a heavy price and suddenly you expect them to stop, with the grand prize in sight? I'm just trying to paint the historically accurate perspective at that time. In 2009, it sounds reasonable to state that they should have stopped, but the vengeance factor of war were not going to let that occur.

Now that you've backed off from defending the nuclear attack to explaining the psychological causes for why it was inevitable, I have no disagreement.

But yes, all of us who support limited government expect, or at least hope, for a government that can exercise restraint and not pursue every "grand prize" it thinks it can win just because it's there.

[rp08orbust]

Why must every war be won by a Carthaginian victory? Why isn't beating back the enemy just enough so they can't attack you again good enough?

[diggronpaul]

This last "act" by Stewart is propaganda, how did this thread migrate to a discussion around WWII's atomic bomb detonations?

Anyway, the bombs were dropped to prove that man must be controlled otherwise we risk destroying the planet, and a One World Gov't would be the only way to implement those controls. The One World or None compendium put out by the Federation of American Scientists short after the war pretty much admits this if you read between the lines.

[KoldKut]

...

[Annihilia]

Now you're being ridiculous and melodramatic. You cannot equate what happened there to what transpired over Dresden. Of course, the war could have been avoided, but there needed to be a resolution to it. Read up on the code of the bushido and tell me that all hell would have not broken loose, the minute american troops would have landed. Plus, a large segment of the population thought that they had divine intervention on their side, considering the fact that Japanese had never been conquered by a foreign force during their history. Furthermore, many of the monday morning quarterbacks are forgetting about the failed coup attempt that occurred six days after the bombings. Many of the generals would have rather died in a prolonged battle that they could never win, as opposed to suffering the humiliation of surrender.

Yes yes, I argued this same point in high school during a presentation on Truman. Invasion would've been costly, all Japanese people were mentally insane and would kamikaze into an American landing force, there would be no peace and the war would drag on, etc. I played devil's advocate for some shock value.

But really, the civilian population knew it was over by then. The military was the only part of Japan holding out, and even so, surrender proposals have been communicated with the US.. So your argument falls apart there.

[Annihilia]

The core tenets of the Bushido was very much alive among the populace.

No it was not. Trust me.

[rp08orbust]

This last "act" by Stewart is propaganda, how did this thread migrate to a discussion around WWII's atomic bomb detonations?

Because that is the subject of the comments Stewart apologized for.

[rp08orbust]

No it was not. Trust me.

Why does it matter one way or the other whether Japan had any Samurais left? Did Samurai's attack Hawaii? Once the Japanese navy was defeated, what business did the US have in setting a single foot on the islands of Japan?

[KoldKut]

...

[rp08orbust]

Why isn't the wholesale incineration of the Japanese cities described as blowback for the inhuman barbaric behavior of the imperial Japanese military?

The Japanese military machine scoffed at the "rules of warfare" as defined in the Geneva Conventions. They summarily executed, raped, tortured, and enslaved non-Japanese people that came under their control. So why all the hand-wringing and self-loathing for nuking the fuck out of those bastards? They earned every bomb.

More collectivist bullshit.

What percentage of a city's population needs to be criminals before the innocent inhabitants are expendable for the sake of punishing the bad guys?

[Annihilia]

Why does it matter one way or the other whether Japan had any Samurais left? Did Samurai's attack Hawaii? Once the Japanese navy was defeated, what business did the US have in setting a single foot on the islands of Japan?

You are right, it doesn't matter. The whole Bushido excuse is just what some people like to use to justify their stance. It's entirely bullshit, though.

[Imperial]

Yes yes, I argued this same point in high school during a presentation on Truman. Invasion would've been costly, all Japanese people were mentally insane and would kamikaze into an American landing force, there would be no peace and the war would drag on, etc. I played devil's advocate for some shock value.

But really, the civilian population knew it was over by then. The military was the only part of Japan holding out, and even so, surrender proposals have been communicated with the US.. So your argument falls apart there.


The US wanted to end the war before Russia could mediate and claim influence over more territory. We put power politics over Japanese lives, and ended up conceding our unconditional surrender to the one condition the Japanese really wanted: keeping their emperor. Why the sudden change of heart? The Russian bear. But no politics should justify killing innocents.

[KoldKut]

...

[diggronpaul]

Because that is the subject of the comments Stewart apologized for.
The subject of the apology is irrelevant.

It's the invisible hand of power that everyone is supposed to see. But seems to be too much cognitive dissonance here to openly discuss what's intended for the subconscious.

[iddo]

Why isn't the wholesale incineration of the Japanese cities described as blowback for the inhuman barbaric behavior of the imperial Japanese military?
Do you also condone the finale bombings after Japan surrendered? Maybe you want to go bomb them today some more, or where do you draw the line?
As mentioned in this thread, the nukes were dropped several months after Japan already agreed to surrender (the distinction is that didn't agree to unconditional surrender).

[iddo]

Thus your question has no meaning. Individual guilt is not a relevant factor when tribes go to war.
So would it be ok if I send some aircrafts now to nuke you and your city, because your tribe started a war with the Iraqi tribe in 2003?

[KoldKut]

...

[rp08orbust]

Nation states are inherently collectivist. It's meaningless to try and evaluate events of WW2 from a zealously individualistic perspective. It just doesn't make any sense.

Thus your question has no meaning. Individual guilt is not a relevant factor when tribes go to war.

I'm curious as to what someone who does not consider themselves a zealous individualist is doing on this forum.

If there are no individuals in war--only tribes--then why didn't or shouldn't the US have just bombed Japan until the entire tribe was gone?

[youngbuck]

War is BULLSHIT collectivism. BTW, FDR saw the Pearl Harbor attack coming too. FDR AND Truman are both war criminals.

Exactly.

[rp08orbust]

I think people on this forum have no problem with describing the 9/11 attacks as "blowback" for U.S. actions and foreign policy. So how many of those dead workers in the towers played an active role in the U.S. policies that inspired the blowback? How many were just dumb, innocent, and unlucky?

Same reasoning can be applied to the dumb unlucky innocent japs who got cooked. Of course it is collectivist, and so what? Everything about politics, nation states, and any kind of ideological grouping is collectivist.

You are misunderstanding the concept of "blowback". Blowback does not refer to justice--it refers to unintended consequences.

The 9/11 attacks were blowback for US neocolonialism in the Middle East, but they were nevertheless unjust.

And yes, the bombing of Japan (nuclear and otherwise) was blowback for Japan's own imperialism, but it was nevertheless unjust.

[KoldKut]

...

[Original_Intent]

The subject of the apology is irrelevant.

It's the invisible hand of power that everyone is supposed to see. But seems to be too much cognitive dissonance here to openly discuss what's intended for the subconscious.

You need to get off your high horse. Your attitude that anyone that will not discuss things on your terms and abase themselves in amazement at your ability to see thru the BS is unenlightened is wearing pretty thin.

I don't really give a shit if the bombs were dropped to inflict a psychic wound on planet Earth by a bunch of Satanists, if it was a power grab by a bunch of narcissitic war-mongers, or just to scare the crap out of the land-tenants/serfs of the world. I tend to think that there are aspects of all three and lots of other motives. But I at least honestly engage people that I am having discussions with rather than making asides to a non-existent audience that the people that you are discussing things with are obviously to stupid to comprehend your overwhelming superiority. (I have bolded the quote above in case you predictably call foul). You are obviously a bright guy. Your views and input are most welcome. But I am not going to sit back and be insulted (even if it was a throwaway insult directed at the forum in general) just because you have learned how to make a cogent point by point argument. And no, linking people to a few books and saying "When you have read these, then you will be enlightened enough to be worth talking to." does not equal making an argument.

[KoldKut]

...

[Annihilia]

Can we please go a day without somebody accusing "cognitive dissonance"? It's starting to sound ridiculous.

[iddo]

What, do you think that some carefully worded moral argument will get me to agree with you that I should be nuked? Why even ask such a question?
I was trying to follow your logic.

Where did I say blowback implied "justice"?
Here:

So why all the hand-wringing and self-loathing for nuking the fuck out of those bastards? They earned every bomb.
By saying that they earned every bomb, you imply that those bombs were justified.

[KoldKut]

...

[KoldKut]

...

[LibForestPaul]

I disagree. We were attacked first, and the bomb ended that part of the war right now. Much simpler than dragging out some campaign that lasts years and years.

Moral cowardice would have been sacrificing an American life though he didn't have to.

The US told them it was coming. War sucks. Run if you can.

Yes, because Hawaii was one of the original thirteen colonies:rolleyes:

You comments are always amusing though, thx!

[tonesforjonesbones]

look at it this way...all they had to do was drop two bombs...now all they have to do is say "bomb/nuke" and people freak out. They have been using "The Bomb" against us for years...tones

[South Park Fan]

Mass incineration of populated cities is immoral under any circumstances, full stop. It's never just to flambe babies, full stop. However, as I said before, morality doesn't really apply to nation state interaction in war.
Why should morality be suspended due to war? Doesn't that just give justification for people to commit immoral acts during wartime?


Everything is based on expediency, and ensuring that your collective survives. Quaint notions of morality take a very distant backseat to the imperative of survival. I'm quite comfortable with endorsing immoral acts, if I feel those acts are required. But at the same time I don't try to portray those immoral acts as moral in order to assuage my conscience.

How was it necessary to nuke civilian cities in a country that knew it was defeated? They didn't pose a threat to the United States, so it could hardly be described as "necessary".


This may be because as an atheist I have no expectation of being judged on an absolutist scale after I die. Therefore I don't feel a need to put a righteous spin on all my acts and choices.

Being an atheist doesn't give you justification to commit immoral acts. That's just giving atheism a bad name.

[iddo]

I'm quite comfortable with endorsing immoral acts, if I feel those acts are required.
It's the other way around. The arguments presented to you in this thread are that those acts were not required, and therefore were not justified. Japan agreed to surrender several months earlier, and the terms of the actual surrender (after the nukes) were not different in substance (state-religious nonsense about recognizing the sanctity of the emperor). The real purpose of dropping the nukes was related to Russia, not Japan. Also, the finale bombings occured after Japan surrendered, so obviously those warcrimes were not "required".

I would also like to point out that your use of the term "self-loathing" is more evidence of your collectivist mindset. The fact that I loathe actions taken by government officials doesn't mean that I loathe every individual that the government claims to represent, and in particular doesn't mean that I loathe myself.

[KoldKut]

...

[diggronpaul]

You need to get off your high horse. Your attitude that anyone that will not discuss things on your terms and abase themselves in amazement at your ability to see thru the BS is unenlightened is wearing pretty thin.

I don't really give a shit if the bombs were dropped to inflict a psychic wound on planet Earth by a bunch of Satanists, if it was a power grab by a bunch of narcissitic war-mongers, or just to scare the crap out of the land-tenants/serfs of the world. I tend to think that there are aspects of all three and lots of other motives. But I at least honestly engage people that I am having discussions with rather than making asides to a non-existent audience that the people that you are discussing things with are obviously to stupid to comprehend your overwhelming superiority. (I have bolded the quote above in case you predictably call foul). You are obviously a bright guy. Your views and input are most welcome. But I am not going to sit back and be insulted (even if it was a throwaway insult directed at the forum in general) just because you have learned how to make a cogent point by point argument. And no, linking people to a few books and saying "When you have read these, then you will be enlightened enough to be worth talking to." does not equal making an argument.
Please tell me how I should go about getting forum posters to reframe if I see a discussion going in direction that misses major points.

When I tried this previously I am utterly dismissed. When I'm told to back-up my points, which require lots of backup (too much for a forum structure), I refer people to reading material and videos. But to date, it appears to me that no one has actually followed through and en engaged the material that I refer to.

Look, these are complicated issues. Of course. We know this. What I am repeatedly attempting to do it get push people toward a different frame, a different perspective... one that is usually radically different than they have been exposed to before. The typical reaction is to recoil.... which is a natural reaction at first. But I don't seem to see anything beyond the recoil, no questions, no ponding the perspective further, just moving right back into acceptable frames of thought.

How do we break ourselves of this... thinking within predefined boxes? That is what is important to me... and it should be important to all of us it is what will save us.

As far as intelligence, that is irrelevant. I've found it has no bearing whatsoever on ones ability to see things from another perspective. Education can have a negative impact, as the more education one has the more indoctrination, so it makes it harder to break from that programming.

Many times I just don't spit-out an answer because I've found that spitting out an answer just results in more recoil. I actually found that give people hints and letting them find the answers themselves typically is more successful. Basically, people must come to their own conclusions based upon the information in order to eventually accept them. But with new perspective, I find that people develop new conclusions.

What I am hoping to see is more analysis or propaganda, in all its forms. All these things we witness are deliberate and planned by experts. Nothing is left to chance, and its based on decades of human response study. I find too many are quick to dismiss this, but once one walks down this road I promise an entire world of understanding will open up and you will not be able to turn-off your new found insight and understanding. You will see how the manipulation is inserted everywhere. Once you have those skills you will become invincible.

How do we get there together?

[KoldKut]

...

[Original_Intent]

Please tell me how I should go about getting forum posters to reframe if I see a discussion going in direction that misses major points.

When I tried this previously I am utterly dismissed. When I'm told to back-up my points, which require lots of backup (too much for a forum structure), I refer people to reading material and videos. But to date, it appears to me that no one has actually followed through and en engaged the material that I refer to.

Look, these are complicated issues. Of course. We know this. What I am repeatedly attempting to do it get push people toward a different frame, a different perspective... one that is usually radically different than they have been exposed to before. The typical reaction is to recoil.... which is a natural reaction at first. But I don't seem to see anything beyond the recoil, no questions, no ponding the perspective further, just moving right back into acceptable frames of thought.

How do we break ourselves of this... thinking within predefined boxes? That is what is important to me... and it should be important to all of us it is what will save us.

As far as intelligence, that is irrelevant. I've found it has no bearing whatsoever on ones ability to see things from another perspective. Education can have a negative impact, as the more education one has the more indoctrination, so it makes it harder to break from that programming.

Many times I just don't spit-out an answer because I've found that spitting out an answer just results in more recoil. I actually found that give people hints and letting them find the answers themselves typically is more successful. Basically, people must come to their own conclusions based upon the information in order to eventually accept them. But with new perspective, I find that people develop new conclusions.

What I am hoping to see is more analysis or propaganda, in all its forms. All these things we witness are deliberate and planned by experts. Nothing is left to chance, and its based on decades of human response study. I find too many are quick to dismiss this, but once one walks down this road I promise an entire world of understanding will open up and you will not be able to turn-off your new found insight and understanding. You will see how the manipulation is inserted everywhere. Once you have those skills you will become invincible.

How do we get there together?

My guess is that you are preaching to the choir - I don't recoil, I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I understand the concept of Hegelian dialectic, I understand how propaganda shapes our perceptions, I realize that TPTB are frighteningly intelligent, have decades if not centuries of research and technique refining on their side, and basically have an almost insurmountable power base because of their control of the media and most of the other levers of power.

If you try to point this out to the general population, TPTB will simply use the media to paint you as a whacko. You are right - when most people wake up, and realize what we are up against and how insurmountable the odds are, they recoil. You would have to be certifiable NOT to react that way. However, most of the people here have been thru that fire - I would guess that most people here don;t disagree with what you are saying, it is just that focussing on the ISSUE of cognitive dissonance - it really is counter productive because what you are saying is only going to ring true to the already awake!

If you go on and on about it to the not awake it sounds like "crazy talk" because they haven't been deprogrammed enough to listen to what you are saying.

So you are dealing with the following groups (sorry for the collective thinking) and their likely reaction.

Those who understand cognitive dissonance - most already agree with you - not productive.

Those who are in "recoil" mode - likely hearing more about cognitive will scare
them even more - not productive.

Those who are not aware at all of what is going on - You may intrigue a few to investigate, but more likely than not they will just write you off as a kook.

That's my opinion. I am sorry I was a bit of a jerk in my response. Some of your replies have been pretty off-putting though.

[KoldKut]

...

[iddo]

And you continue to not understand.
There's no misunderstainding. I disagree with your collectivist mindset ("self-loathing" nonsense), and with your claims that those warcrimes were necessary ("I basically agree with LeMay. He knew he was committing war crimes, but he felt those crimes were necessary.") You simply ignore facts when they don't conform with your presuppositions, such as the finale bombings that occured after the surrender and therefore were not necessary. I'll quote this summary (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn):

To put it briefly: the evidence is quite overwhelming on this matter. The Japanese had sent an envoy (Ambassador Sato) to Moscow (still officially a neutral) to work out a negotiated surrender. An instruction from Foreign Minister Togo came in a telegram (intercepted by American intelligence, which had broken the Japanese code early in the war), saying: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace... It is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war." The Japanese had one condition for surrender which the U.S. refused to meet — recognizing the sanctity of the Emperor. It seemed the U.S. was determined to drop the bomb before the Japanese could surrender — for a variety of reasons, none of them humanitarian. After the war, the official report of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, based on hundreds of interviews with Japanese decision-makers right after the war, concluded that the war would have ended in a few months by a Japanese surrender "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".
I stand by my argument. On factual grounds, your claims that dropping the nukes (and the fire bombings of Tokyo...) was necessary makes as much sense as me saying that it's necessary that you and your city would be nuked to stop your tribe's aggression against Iraq.

[diggronpaul]

What I am suggesting is that John Stewart's comment and apology were both deliberately planned in advance. They stage the entire charade.

That the goal of this charade was to frighten the public into believing that the men, who smoke big cigars in the shadows, are so powerful that they can even silence and humiliate the great John Stewart while a left wing progressive administration is in "power". Oh, and while I don't know what Raimondo is yet, he certainly adds to Stewart's humiliation with this article.... which also helps them get their msg of fear (and humiliation) across to the public.

I mean, it's one thing if Cheney is in charge, but now they make Stewart shutup with Obama in charge. Whoa! That's supposed to really freak out the progressives and make them wonder WTF is going on. (They just did the same thing to the patriot movement with the shutdown of the AJ Youtube channel - same drill, different actor).

They WANT to show their power now, and they want to do it overtly. The public is now supposed to see it, and be frightened of it.

What I am also saying is that big freaking deal. We knew these clowns owned and controlled all media a long time ago. So what if they can wave their magic wants on TV or movies, it's just a freaking screen. It's not reality. Screw them and their little games.


On edit
In times like this its good to watch this again

YouTube - Network (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI)

[dr. hfn]

posted it on jon stewart's daily show forum

[eOs]

Diggronpaul, You have no proof. How can you make such claims? Yes, it's POSSIBLE, but does that mean it happened?



There are, of course, good conspiracy analysts and bad conspiracy analysts, just as there are good and bad historians or practitioners of any discipline. The bad conspiracy analyst tends to make two kinds of mistakes, which indeed leave him open to the Establishment charge of "paranoia." First, he stops with the cui bono; if measure A benefits X and Y, he simply concludes that therefore X and Y were responsible. He fails to realize that this is just a hypothesis, and must be verified by finding out whether or not X and Y really did so. (Perhaps the wackiest example of this was the British journalist Douglas Reed who, seeing that the result of Hitler's policies was the destruction of Germany, concluded, without further evidence, that therefore Hitler was a conscious agent of external forces who deliberately set out to ruin Germany.) Secondly, the bad conspiracy analyst seems to have a compulsion to wrap up all the conspiracies, all the bad guy power blocs, into one giant conspiracy. Instead of seeing that there are several power blocs trying to gain control of government, sometimes in conflict and sometimes in alliance, he has to assume — again without evidence — that a small group of men controls them all, and only seems to send them into conflict.

Taken from Mises.org The Conspiracy Theory of History Revisited

Mises Daily by Murray N. Rothbard |

http://mises.org/story/2809

[Original_Intent]

What I am suggesting is that John Stewart's comment and apology were both deliberately planned in advance. They stage the entire charade.

That the goal of this charade was to frighten the public into believing that the men, who smoke big cigars in the shadows, are so powerful that they can even silence and humiliate the great John Stewart while a left wing progressive administration is in "power". Oh, and while I don't know what Raimondo is yet, he certainly adds to Stewart's humiliation with this article.... which also helps them get their msg of fear (and humiliation) across to the public.

I mean, it's one thing if Cheney is in charge, but now they make Stewart shutup with Obama in charge. Whoa! That's supposed to really freak out the progressives and make them wonder WTF is going on. (They just did the same thing to the patriot movement with the shutdown of the AJ Youtube channel - same drill, different actor).

They WANT to show their power now, and they want to do it overtly. The public is now supposed to see it, and be frightened of it.

What I am also saying is that big freaking deal. We knew these clowns owned and controlled all media a long time ago. So what if they can wave their magic wants on TV or movies, it's just a freaking screen. It's not reality. Screw them and their little games.


On edit
In times like this its good to watch this again

YouTube - Network (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI)

Or was Network just controlled propaganda to try and get anyone with any backbone to stand up so that TPTB would know who to round up first? If you keep pursuing this rabbit down the rabbit hole you eventually become paralyzed because you "refuse to play into their hands"....

Or is THAT what they WANT you to think???

[eOs]

Diggronpaul, You have no proof. How can you make such claims? Yes, it's POSSIBLE, but does that mean it happened?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Murray Rothbard
There are, of course, good conspiracy analysts and bad conspiracy analysts, just as there are good and bad historians or practitioners of any discipline. The bad conspiracy analyst tends to make two kinds of mistakes, which indeed leave him open to the Establishment charge of "paranoia." First, he stops with the cui bono; if measure A benefits X and Y, he simply concludes that therefore X and Y were responsible. He fails to realize that this is just a hypothesis, and must be verified by finding out whether or not X and Y really did so. (Perhaps the wackiest example of this was the British journalist Douglas Reed who, seeing that the result of Hitler's policies was the destruction of Germany, concluded, without further evidence, that therefore Hitler was a conscious agent of external forces who deliberately set out to ruin Germany.) Secondly, the bad conspiracy analyst seems to have a compulsion to wrap up all the conspiracies, all the bad guy power blocs, into one giant conspiracy. Instead of seeing that there are several power blocs trying to gain control of government, sometimes in conflict and sometimes in alliance, he has to assume — again without evidence — that a small group of men controls them all, and only seems to send them into conflict.
Taken from Mises.org The Conspiracy Theory of History Revisited

Mises Daily by Murray N. Rothbard |

http://mises.org/story/2809



Or was Network just controlled propaganda to try and get anyone with any backbone to stand up so that TPTB would know who to round up first? If you keep pursuing this rabbit down the rabbit hole you eventually become paralyzed because you "refuse to play into their hands"....

Or is THAT what they WANT you to think???


This and this.

[diggronpaul]

Diggronpaul, You have no proof. How can you make such claims? Yes, it's POSSIBLE, but does that mean it happened?
This is an analysis based upon my knowledge of propaganda techniques. What I am arguing is that an understanding of the techniques will make this apparent. I can only do this from a distance using analysis. Tangible proof is, in almost all cases, not possible. But the good news is that you can learn this techniques too and conduct your own analysis.


Or was Network just controlled propaganda to try and get anyone with any backbone to stand up so that TPTB would know who to round up first? If you keep pursuing this rabbit down the rabbit hole you eventually become paralyzed because you "refuse to play into their hands"....

Or is THAT what they WANT you to think???
I think it might be best to start a separate network thread so we can talk about it, otherwise, we might derail this thread totally.

But to address your point in summary, Network showed that the public is just the dumb studio audience, who only react upon queue and only do what the teleprompter and studio hands tell them to do. The public pose no threat to anyone, they are merely pawns. No one really stands up to TPTB in this movie, not even Beale, as he's just another prop who is used by them. The purpose for me posting this video clip is to remind us that it's just a totally fake and contrived medium that we must not take seriously.

[KoldKut]

...

[Liberty Star]

He is a wimp, but a funny one.

[Andrew-Austin]

Vaporizing whole cities, tons of people, many of which had nothing to do with the war, is an incredibly immoral crime against humanity. The war was only between the rulers of Japan and the United States, not the inhabitants of the two countries.

The soldiers were used as pawns, whose wages were paid for with stolen money. The people who died from the nuclear blast were innocents, whom the state simply called collateral damage.

[South Park Fan]

Morality is ALWAYS suspended during war. Or are you going to try and argue that a soldier shooting a total stranger because they were ordered to do so is moral?

I oppose non-defensive war. I am not trying to argue that war is moral, just that the laws of morality are constant, and are not changed because of the state of affairs. Also, while both are immoral, isn't it worse to kill someone who did not join the military than to kill someone who did?





That's all just your opinion that they knew they were defeated and that they posed no threat. Obviously other people in the decision loop had different opinions.

Of course, several other people in this thread have shown that it was unnecessary, since Japan had accepted a conditional surrender months earlier.





You are looking for some mythical approval of your actions by some outside impartial arbiter of justice. There is no such thing. I enjoy a eating a cheeseburger now and again. Is that morally justified for me to devour the flesh of another sentient being? I don't think it is justified, and yet cows better fear me because I eat them regardless. I'm not going to make up some bullshit excuse for why it's justified for me to eat the cow so that I can feel all righteous and superior to the "bad" "evil" people.

I'd go so far as to say the only truly moral people are people like the Jains, who refrain from eating or killing any living thing. Are you a Jain? Where is your own immorality? Or do you delude yourself into believing that all your acts and choices are moral and good? How do you "justify" your immoral acts?

How does eating a cheeseburger have anything to do with mass murder of civilians? Would you use that argument as a defense during the Nuremburg Trials?

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Stewart is a douchebag, plain and simple. If it was staged or not is irrelevant. He's just another shithead hack.

[KoldKut]

...

[Gideon]

What exactly did Jon Stewart say about Warren G. Harding?

Is it possible that the Truman retraction and the Harding comment are linked?

In other words, it is not OK to accuse anyone from the current ruling party of being a war-monger and at the same time, anyone who questions the Federal Reserve is scum.

The MSMedia is one mind-f*cking blur of PSYOPS after another...


History tends to repeat itself, yes?

[sailor]

Morality is ALWAYS suspended during war. Or are you going to try and argue that a soldier shooting a total stranger because they were ordered to do so is moral?

Shooting a total stranger is perfectly moral, provided the stranger is a part of the military or of the government that is invading the shooter`s country. It is irrelevant if the shooter has been ordered to do so or not, or even if he is in the miliatary himself or not.

[V-rod]

The first nuke was used too early but was justified, the second one was not and done waY too hastily.

[Conza88]

The first nuke was used too early but was justified, the second one was not and done waY too hastily.

It wasn't justified. i.e Truman had been ignoring the Japanese attempts to surrender all summer. He just wanted to use the bomb.

Search articles on Lewrockwell will help.

[diggronpaul]

What exactly did Jon Stewart say about Warren G. Harding?

Is it possible that the Truman retraction and the Harding comment are linked?

In other words, it is not OK to accuse anyone from the current ruling party of being a war-monger and at the same time, anyone who questions the Federal Reserve is scum.

The MSMedia is one mind-f*cking blur of PSYOPS after another...


History tends to repeat itself, yes?
You got that one right!

So why watch and listen to them as they do nothing other than confuse you and fill your head with disinfo?

By the way, it's ALL media now, not just MSM.

[acptulsa]

Framing this in the D vs. R false paradigm is just damned silly. So is commenting about Harding; though I suppose that could be used to make this look like a D/R debate. It certainly shows that trashing libertarian thought is safe enough. But of course the nuking of Japan is a sacred cow. One, there are people still alive who lived through that damned war--and the ones who fought in the Pacific theater will tell you that the Imperial Japanese weren't boy and girl scouts and would have done the same to us in a heartbeat. Two, there has been a load of propaganda on this subject over the last sixty-four years and it has been pretty believable.

FDR called for unconditional surrender by Japan. After he died, a lot of Americans, not just Truman, wanted to hold out for the same. Was that justified? Probably not, but who knows? Does anyone here have the details of the conditional surrender terms Japan was willing to stipulate to? What if they said, you can have all the Pacific just so long as we're able to continue to rape China and Korea? The fact that we were about to screw around and let China go 'red' was irrelevant at the time--irrelevant because it wasn't yet a given.

A second bomb three days later. Yeah, we wanted to test the plutonium bomb on a population, not just the uranium bomb. You betcha. Moral and high-minded? Hell, no. But even so, have you ever stopped to consider that, if we hadn't seen the after-effects of that crap, we probably would have gotten into a shooting war with the Soviets and wiped out everyone and everything but the cockroaches? Is that justification? No, but it certainly is reason to be thankful...

So, Stewart is pwned, libertarianism and Harding aren't sacred cows but Hiroshima and Truman are, and WWII isn't a subject to be trifled with even today. Which could be a useful political lesson for us--we don't help our cause by insisting on making the (rather weak) case that Pearl Harbor was a false flag event. No way to prove it at this late date, and plenty of reasonable doubt (we were so very good at underestimating the hell out of Orientals back then, probably because of the totally irrelevant fact that they tend to be short).

If you want to make a point about World War II, make the point that it didn't justify Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq and/or Bosnia the way its veterans all seemed to think it did. That's useful food for public thought, right there. And we didn't have to commit war crimes for that fact to be true, either.

[AuH20]

No it was not. Trust me.

The japanese had instituted a bastardized version of the Bushido throughout their military structure. Death before dishonor was the preferred choice. Ever heard of the spirit warriors? What about the kamikazes and kaiten operators? Why weren't the Americans utilizing suicide techniques?

[AuH20]

Ah well, blame my inadequate communication skills. I have an unusual perspective on moral questions like this. I basically agree with LeMay. He knew he was committing war crimes, but he felt those crimes were necessary. So when I said they earned every bomb, what I should have said was something like "they earned our perpetration of war crimes upon them". Does that make sense?

Mass incineration of populated cities is immoral under any circumstances, full stop. It's never just to flambe babies, full stop. However, as I said before, morality doesn't really apply to nation state interaction in war. Everything is based on expediency, and ensuring that your collective survives. Quaint notions of morality take a very distant backseat to the imperative of survival. I'm quite comfortable with endorsing immoral acts, if I feel those acts are required. But at the same time I don't try to portray those immoral acts as moral in order to assuage my conscience.
This may be because as an atheist I have no expectation of being judged on an absolutist scale after I die. Therefore I don't feel a need to put a righteous spin on all my acts and choices.

Great post. I agree. War by its very defintion is immoral. Obviously, it's disheartening to see conflicts intentionally escalated to certain heights by false flag attacks whether it be the U.S.S. Maine incident or the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

[Annihilia]

The japanese had instituted a bastardized version of the Bushido throughout their military structure. Death before dishonor was the preferred choice. Ever heard of the spirit warriors? What about the kamikazes and kaiten operators? Why weren't the Americans utilizing suicide techniques?

Civilian population != military structure.

I have second hand accounts from people who were just off the coast of Hiroshima when the bomb dropped. They knew it was over long before then.

Your accusation can be likened to those calling all practicing Muslims radical Jihadis.

[AuH20]

Civilian population != military structure.

I have second hand accounts from people who were just off the coast of Hiroshima when the bomb dropped. They knew it was over long before then.

Your accusation can be likened to those calling all practicing Muslims radical Jihadis.

Modern bushido also focused on nationalism and loyalty to the person of the Emperor. A large majority of citizens were quite willing to die for their god, the Emperor.

[sailor]

Why weren't the Americans utilizing suicide techniques?

Because they didn`t need to.

They would have at Alamo.

[AuH20]

Because they didn`t need to.

They would have at Alamo.


But the Japanese had been utilizing these tactics from an offensive standpoint since the beginning of the conflict. It wasn't like they suddenly adopted this strategy when were forced into a defensive posture. This mentality was engrained within their military structure as well as significant portion of the population. Death before dishonor in service of the Emperor. That was the creed.

[Annihilia]

Modern bushido also focused on nationalism and loyalty to the person of the Emperor. A large majority of citizens were quite willing to die for their god, the Emperor.

Towards the end of the war, people just wanted it to be over with. It was a lost cause and everybody knew it. Obviously if there was a land invasion, people would fight back to defend their homes. Wouldn't you?

But this is all irrelevant. A land invasion was not necessary as even the Imperial government communicated to the US a desire to negotiate surrender terms.

[acptulsa]

But the Japanese had been utilizing these tactics from an offensive standpoint since the beginning of the conflict. It wasn't like they suddenly adopted this strategy when were forced into a defensive posture. This mentality was engrained within their military structure as well as significant portion of the population. Death before dishonor in service of the Emperor. That was the creed.

You're looking at the Army. The Navy--at least its commanders--had a more reasoned viewpoint. But then, they understood the investment that had been made in those ships, and the fact that they couldn't be replaced with any ease or speed.

And as for the civilian population, well--they had their own problems, and most were smart enough to know that this quest for empire was at the heart of a lot of them.

I think too many of us are falling in the trap of painting them with too broad a brush. They may not have emphasized it so much--then or now--but the Japanese are individuals too.


Towards the end of the war, people just wanted it to be over with. It was a lost cause and everybody knew it. Obviously if there was a land invasion, people would fight back to defend their homes. Wouldn't you?

But this is all irrelevant. A land invasion was not necessary as even the Imperial government communicated to the US a desire to negotiate surrender terms.

Very true. And very strange that we were unwilling to negotiate with them. This certainly isn't the attitude we had toward the Italians.

[sailor]

But the Japanese had been utilizing these tactics from an offensive standpoint since the beginning of the conflict. It wasn't like they suddenly adopted this strategy when were forced into a defensive posture. This mentality was engrained within their military structure as well as significant portion of the population. Death before dishonor in service of the Emperor. That was the creed.

First Kamikaze attack was I think in 1944. If there were some manner of suicide attacks before that they were on a much smaller scale.

Kamikaze professed over and over again in their writtings and interviews that it was not about dying for the emperor or anything of the sort, but about protecting their families and their land.

[acptulsa]

First Kamikaze attack was I think in 1944. If there were some manner of suicide attacks before that they were on a much smaller scale.

Depends on your definition, I guess. They certainly preferred defeat (read annihalation) to surrender. It was made a social and religious imperative. And the Admiralty, for one, considered it a pain in the ass. Half the wise decisions they made caused mutinous stirrings in the ranks...

[sailor]

Depends on your definition, I guess. They certainly preferred defeat (read annihalation) to surrender. It was made a social and religious imperative. And the Admiralty, for one, considered it a pain in the ass. Half the wise decisions they made caused mutinous stirrings in the ranks...

So how come they didn`t disregard the 2nd September and fight on when the US landed?

[acptulsa]

So how come they didn`t disregard the 2nd September and fight on when the US landed?

Now that would have been dishonorable as hell--and pointless. Besides, they had already lost face. The damage was oh so done by then...

[sailor]

Now that would have been dishonorable as hell--and pointless. Besides, they had already lost face. The damage was oh so done by then...

Then why didn`t they ritualy kill themselves to prevent losing face as required by Bushido?

[acptulsa]

Then why didn`t they ritualy kill themselves to prevent losing face as required by Bushido?

Interesting question. Well, that was more of a Shogun thing than something for the hoi polloi. Besides, wouldn't you have been of a mind to look at Hirohito and say, 'after you'?

I expect some did. I wouldn't expect any women to do so. As for the rest, did they personally fail in their duties?

[Annihilia]

Some of the infantry did kill themselves rather than face capture, I know that for a fact. That is a far cry from saying the entirety of the civilian populace would attempt to overwhelm a landing force with frying pans and gardening tools..

[Danke]

lol moral cowardice? Let me ask how you would define "terrorism"? I find it completely amazing that some of you guys, while we live in an era where our government starts countless wars without our approval, condone killing thousands of civilians in punishment for the actions their government and military.

By your logic the people in every single country the US government has laid waste to has every right to come here and kill you and me.

:D

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2105594&postcount=64

[diggronpaul]

Framing this in the D vs. R false paradigm is just damned silly. So is commenting about Harding; though I suppose that could be used to make this look like a D/R debate. It certainly shows that trashing libertarian thought is safe enough. But of course the nuking of Japan is a sacred cow. One, there are people still alive who lived through that damned war--and the ones who fought in the Pacific theater will tell you that the Imperial Japanese weren't boy and girl scouts and would have done the same to us in a heartbeat. Two, there has been a load of propaganda on this subject over the last sixty-four years and it has been pretty believable.

FDR called for unconditional surrender by Japan. After he died, a lot of Americans, not just Truman, wanted to hold out for the same. Was that justified? Probably not, but who knows? Does anyone here have the details of the conditional surrender terms Japan was willing to stipulate to? What if they said, you can have all the Pacific just so long as we're able to continue to rape China and Korea? The fact that we were about to screw around and let China go 'red' was irrelevant at the time--irrelevant because it wasn't yet a given.

A second bomb three days later. Yeah, we wanted to test the plutonium bomb on a population, not just the uranium bomb. You betcha. Moral and high-minded? Hell, no. But even so, have you ever stopped to consider that, if we hadn't seen the after-effects of that crap, we probably would have gotten into a shooting war with the Soviets and wiped out everyone and everything but the cockroaches? Is that justification? No, but it certainly is reason to be thankful...

So, Stewart is pwned, libertarianism and Harding aren't sacred cows but Hiroshima and Truman are, and WWII isn't a subject to be trifled with even today. Which could be a useful political lesson for us--we don't help our cause by insisting on making the (rather weak) case that Pearl Harbor was a false flag event. No way to prove it at this late date, and plenty of reasonable doubt (we were so very good at underestimating the hell out of Orientals back then, probably because of the totally irrelevant fact that they tend to be short).

If you want to make a point about World War II, make the point that it didn't justify Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq and/or Bosnia the way its veterans all seemed to think it did. That's useful food for public thought, right there. And we didn't have to commit war crimes for that fact to be true, either.
Some points about the above...


WWII was fought, in part, to finish what WWI did not achieve - League of Nations/United Nations (UN).


I would argue that nothing is a sacred cow, and all topics are openly available for manipulation as long as they serve the establishment's agenda.


"We" didn't "let" China "go Red", we actively encouraged it and actively worked to ensure that it happened.


"We" didn't go to "war" with the Soviets (although Gen. Patton wanted to) because Communism was always planned to be the victor, and because they needed a 40 year cold war to drain both country's of financial resources so that both could be collapsed and merged into a global system.


"We" didn't underestimate anyone during WWII. All went according to plan.


I would say that framing this as a "Hiroshima and Truman" versus a "libertarianism and Harding" debate is also falling into a false frame meant to turn us against ourselves. Overall, I continue to say that the main point of this "event" was as described in my previous posts in this thread.

[acptulsa]

I would argue that nothing is a sacred cow, and all topics are openly available for manipulation as long as they serve the establishment's agenda.

They have enough sense not to step on the toes of WWII veterans in the process--not even 'veterans' of the home front. I would hope we'd have as much sense.


I would say that framing this as a "Hiroshima and Truman" versus a "libertarianism and Harding" debate is also falling into a false frame meant to turn us against ourselves.

That was kind of my whole point.

The rest is opinion. And I know you can't back it up, because I share much of it, and I can't back it up.

[BenIsForRon]

Diggronpaul, if you've got everything so figured out, why are you on these forums so much? Wouldn't this just be a waste of your time. Shouldn't you be withdrawn from society or starting a secret revolution somewhere?

[diggronpaul]

Diggronpaul, if you've got everything so figured out, why are you on these forums so much? Wouldn't this just be a waste of your time. Shouldn't you be withdrawn from society or starting a secret revolution somewhere?
Why is it that I am questioned (and subtly attacked) in this "Libertarian" forum for expressing my opinion?

Shouldn't an individual's opinion be embraced, especially when it provides new perspective? Why is it mocked? Are we, as Libertarians, not supposed to honor and cherish individuality?

I toned down my posts, as requested. I have no ill will here. My goal is to help. Why then do we witness these types of replies?

[diggronpaul]

That was kind of my whole point.

The rest is opinion. And I know you can't back it up, because I share much of it, and I can't back it up.
Okay, I gotcha.

[acptulsa]

I toned down my posts, as requested. I have no ill will here. My goal is to help. Why then do we witness these types of replies?

The more the sparks fly here, the more honed and keen our wits become. The more honed and keen our wits, the more surgically we can apply them when we're out and about educating the masses and removing their misconceptions. :cool:

[BenIsForRon]

Way to dodge my question digg. I asked that because, as is obvious by the fact that you're on these forums so much, you are just a guy who's watched so many conspiracy documentaries and read so many conspiracy books that you don't know up from down.

If you were really as smart as you are trying to come across, you wouldn't bother with us measly grassroots organizers, you would be heading up some NGO or some other activist organization that is focused on ousting these shadowy characters you keep referring to.

We do embrace individuality on these forums, but we also are trying to keep conversation civilized. You have nothing to add to our conversations, because we know they are paranoid thoughts coming from your head. Your opinions are not based in reality. That's why people criticize you directly so much on these forums.

What I'm suggesting is that you either leave the forums, or only bring up conspiracy theories when you have at least a smidgen of tangible proof to point us towards. Just telling us to read a book does not work, you must cite the book, as in quote it or give us a fact from the book. You've just used the books to foster your own ultra paranoid way of thinking, much akin to UFO conspiracy theorists.

[diggronpaul]

Way to dodge my question digg. I asked that because, as is obvious by the fact that you're on these forums so much, you are just a guy who's watched so many conspiracy documentaries and read so many conspiracy books that you don't know up from down.

If you were really as smart as you are trying to come across, you wouldn't bother with us measly grassroots organizers, you would be heading up some NGO or some other activist organization that is focused on ousting these shadowy characters you keep referring to.

We do embrace individuality on these forums, but we also are trying to keep conversation civilized. You have nothing to add to our conversations, because we know they are paranoid thoughts coming from your head. Your opinions are not based in reality. That's why people criticize you directly so much on these forums.

What I'm suggesting is that you either leave the forums, or only bring up conspiracy theories when you have at least a smidgen of tangible proof to point us towards. Just telling us to read a book does not work, you must cite the book, as in quote it or give us a fact from the book. You've just used the books to foster your own ultra paranoid way of thinking, much akin to UFO conspiracy theorists.
You may not realize this, but you "measly grassroots organizers" (your words, not mine) are everything. You are the most important piece of the puzzle. Its all about you. That's why I'm here. Anything else worth a damn gets co-opted.

With regard to any statements that I make that you are not satisfied with, well, this is the one area where I agree with Alex Jones, it's your responsibility to do your own research!

If you want to talk about it some more, then I suggest starting another thread so we don't disrupt this thread any more.

[sailor]

Some of the infantry did kill themselves rather than face capture, I know that for a fact. That is a far cry from saying the entirety of the civilian populace would attempt to overwhelm a landing force with frying pans and gardening tools..

Yeah, exactly.

[Brian4Liberty]

The first nuke was used too early but was justified, the second one was not and done waY too hastily.

Two different types of nukes. Two real world tests.

[Emmitt2222]

This thread is long and arduous, but it did make me wonder something.

Does anyone have a decent ranking of presidents based on their loyalty to the Constitution and personal liberty. That is a list I would love to see because I think that some presidents I know very little about could shoot to the top of the list while many that are worshipped in current historical circles would be dead last.

[Met Income]

An open mind is generally a good thing. But it's like an open window, you need a screen or else a lot of bugs will get in.

[jmlfod87]

This thread is long and arduous, but it did make me wonder something.

Does anyone have a decent ranking of presidents based on their loyalty to the Constitution and personal liberty. That is a list I would love to see because I think that some presidents I know very little about could shoot to the top of the list while many that are worshipped in current historical circles would be dead last.

http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=77

YouTube - Book TV: After Words Ivan Eland "Recarving Rushmore" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx0qtQ7PeB4)