"It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

[Lucille]

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2011/08/not-suicidally-depressed-yet-try-this.html


Remember the significance of today's date (http://www.counterpunch.org/alperovitz08052011.html):


Today is the 66th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of "liberals," as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.

Here is how General Dwight D. Eisenhower reports he reacted when he was told by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson that the atomic bomb would be used:



"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."

In another public statement the man who later became President of the United States was blunt: "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force "hawk," was also dismayed. Shortly after the bombings he stated publicly: "The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."

Obviously they were secret Commies.

Alperovitz is unaccountably gentle (I suppose he'd say he's being "balanced" and "reasonable") in his discussion, at least in this article, of the actual reasons for the use of the atomic bombs: "Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor."

Given all the evidence of which I'm aware, I will state the necessary conclusion much more strongly. Every reason offered by the U.S. Government and its defenders for these acts of nauseating barbarity is a vicious lie. Dropping the bombs had absolutely nothing to do with shortening the war or saving American lives. No: the U.S. Government used the bombs -- and murdered huge numbers of innocent human beings -- to send a message to Soviet Russia.

I've discussed all this before, in a lengthy article from over six years ago (http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/06/culture-of-lie-ii-loathsome-lies-in.html). That piece provides many details if the subject interests you. You might want to consult it since you'll be hearing the vicious propaganda repeated still another time over the next few days.

"To hell with them. When history is written they will be the sons of bitches - not I."
--Harry S. Truman

Wrong again, Harry.

"The atom bomb was no "great decision." It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness."
--Harry S. Truman

Righteousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki), hm?

"This administration is going to be cussed and discussed for years to come."
--Harry S. Truman

You were a war criminal, and I hope you're enjoying hell.

[Anti Federalist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZYvodtZDTc&feature=player_embedded

[DamianTV]

Most of the major wars of the 20th century were justified under false pretenses, and were funded by the same people on both sides of the war. Wonder why we have the wars to begin with? Follow the Money.

[Wesker1982]

The Hiroshima Myth (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html)

Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary? (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIABJPdy2tQ

[heavenlyboy34]

all of the major wars of the 20th century were justified under false pretenses, and were funded by the same people on both sides of the war. Wonder why we have the wars to begin with? Follow the Money.



fixed for you.

[Revolution9]

fixed for you.

What is with the rudeness of altering folks quotes around here. He DID NOT say that...you did.

Rev9

[roho76]

It's just a joke rev. Chill out.

[erowe1]

What is with the rudeness of altering folks quotes around here. He DID NOT say that...you did.

Rev9

That's what "fixed it" means.

He even highlighted in red the words that were his own.

E.g.

What is with the rudeness hilarity of altering folks quotes around here. He DID NOT say that...you did.



Fixed it.

[PaulConventionWV]

What is with the rudeness of altering folks quotes around here. He DID NOT say that...you did.

Rev9

Yeah, what's with the Times New Roman font? I mean, certain things are acceptable, but that? How rude of you to utilize that deplorable font, HB34! Shame on you!

[speciallyblend]

What is with the rudeness of altering folks quotes around here. He DID NOT say that...you did.

Rev9

not altering just fixing;) humorous way of saying we are getting screwed in many ways!!

[Carehn]

They could have lit one off the coast not knowing at the time the lasting effects and simply demonstrating that we could in fact decimate Japan. Though the effects on the fishing and such may not have been known at the time it would have been a (and i can't believe I'm going to use this word) moral way to end the war.

I don't know if it would have worked but I do KNOW that most of the people killed wanted nothing to do with that war or any war. Odds are they could have taken the guy fling the plain and some guys working in the town below and even without speaking the same language put them in a room together and a poker game would be more likely to spring up then a fight.

Im middle school me and a broham of mine did a month long project on the bombs. I wish i could remember all the details but it was not all that necessary.

The people of Japan had even less control over their government at the time then we do now. They didn't want to take over the pacific. They just wanted to live out their life's. Same as all of us. That's why its imperative we get control over this empire of ours before someone drops the bomb on us.

Those crazys in Washington are marching around the world acting like dicks in our name, and when someone does push back its not going to be against Obama or Bush. It will be against some coastal town.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-n7Bhto-TFn0/TcUgcgcFKKI/AAAAAAAACFU/1E4j5cRb7HY/s1600/911-fake-planes.jpg
Im kinda a truther but the pic is spot on to my point anyway.

[Revolution9]

It's just a joke rev. Chill out.

I am chill. The thing is that they insert their words in someone else's quote. Search engines do not differentiate thereby changing what the original thread poster wrote for posterity. Seems to me this has been part of netiquette since the days of usenet. I find it offensive as I value words and where they issue from, and it shows the lack of comedic or editorial ability to respond creatively to the original thread posters statement.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

That's what "fucked it in the ass hard" means.

He even highlighted in red the words that were his own.

E.g.


Fixed it.

You fixed nothing. Note above. Do you see why it is distasteful now? Or do you find hilarity in it as I might were I so inclined?

Rev9

[angelatc]

How will this thread help Ron Paul get elected?

[heavenlyboy34]

Yeah, what's with the Times New Roman font? I mean, certain things are acceptable, but that? How rude of you to utilize that deplorable font, HB34! Shame on you!
lolz :D ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

How will this thread help Ron Paul get elected?

It seems to just be a topic of general interest. Many threads have nothing to do with getting RP elected.

[YumYum]

It seems to just be a topic of general interest. Many threads have nothing to do with getting RP elected.

Ron Paul is against preemptive nuclear strikes.

[Carehn]

Ron Paul is against preemptive nuclear strikes.

are you sure?

[moderate libertarian]

US having the distinct fame of being the first and only country to drop WMDs on cities with very large number of civilian populations goes against everything we say today.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ron Paul is against preemptive nuclear strikes.
Yes. As am I.

[affa]

I am chill. The thing is that they insert their words in someone else's quote. Search engines do not differentiate thereby changing what the original thread poster wrote for posterity. Seems to me this has been part of netiquette since the days of usenet. I find it offensive as I value words and where they issue from, and it shows the lack of comedic or editorial ability to respond creatively to the original thread posters statement.

Rev9

Hey Rev, I generally agree with you -- I absolutely hate having my words twisted, especially if people then build strawmen arguments. My words are my words, and I try to speak with specificity and intent. I even get in trouble with my wife sometimes, when I answer the question she asked, and not the question she meant (still trying to figure out that one, lol).

But... 'fixed that for you' is pretty standard internet usage for at least the past few years. it's either done for humor, or in disagreement to completely change the entire sentence, depending on tone. I think at this point, the majority of internet users recognize that the 'fixer' is intentionally changing the meaning and taking on the new sentence as their own. It doesn't really bother me, but I've also been exposed to it being used a lot. I don't think any disrespect to the initial poster is meant; it's more just an established figure of internet speech at this point.

In other news, great thread, and it's a total shame it got a bit derailed. At least this will bump it up. It's one of the most disgusting shams in history that people defending the use of nuclear bombs in Japan have the gall to say it 'saved lives'. So twisted.

[angelatc]

It seems to just be a topic of general interest. Many threads have nothing to do with getting RP elected.

That may be true, but it doesn't belong in general politics, and the position unfortunately only serves to send curious traditional GOP voters away ASAP. Nobody here supports preemptive nuclear attacks, but Japan attacked us first. Yes, we provoked them, but they took the bait. The war lasted two weeks. Arguing with success, especially in a climate where we've been in Afghanistan for 10 years makes absolutely no sense to me.


I don't really think that debating over whether we should have hit them as hard as we did serves any real purpose, and is counter-productive toward our immediate goal - getting GOP voters to vote for Ron Paul in the Iowa straw poll.

It is dumbfounding how we can simultaneously be one of Ron's biggest assets as well as his biggest cross to bear.

[anaconda]

There is the theory that the A-Bomb detonations over Japan were primarily meant to be a stern warning to Stalin. And the west simply used Japan as an excuse.

[Lucille]

That may be true, but it doesn't belong in general politics, and the position unfortunately only serves to send curious traditional GOP voters away ASAP. Nobody here supports preemptive nuclear attacks, but Japan attacked us first. Yes, we provoked them, but they took the bait. The war lasted two weeks. Arguing with success, especially in a climate where we've been in Afghanistan for 10 years makes absolutely no sense to me.


I don't really think that debating over whether we should have hit them as hard as we did serves any real purpose, and is counter-productive toward our immediate goal - getting GOP voters to vote for Ron Paul in the Iowa straw poll.

It is dumbfounding how we can simultaneously be one of Ron's biggest assets as well as his biggest cross to bear.

I get what you're saying, Angela. Mods, feel free to move this to Hot Topics.

[UWDude]

I have read quite a bit about the decision to use the atomic bombs, and I am still quite convinced it was necessary. I mean this literally, if it saved one American soldiers life, it was worth it. Even if Roosevelt lay down his hands to let the Japanese swing first, it must never be forgotten that the Japanese did indeed swing first. they started the war, we finished it. They started the war, we finished it. It must be remembered that all the American soldiers that died bravely fighting the Japanese were as innocent as women and children, dare i say, deserved even less to die, because they were defending America from foreign aggression. They were not the aggressor state, the Japanese were.

I also will pre-empt the embargo talks, by saying what the Japanese were doing to the Chinese was reprehensible. I would not be in favor of going to war to stop it, but I certainly would be in favor of, and still am in favor, of the embargoes we levied against Japan.

[Lucille]

wrong thread

[Wesker1982]

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/left-liberal-catholics-yay-for-the-atomic-bombings/


I am shocked that this kind of jingoism and raw collectivism would soil the pages (so to speak) of the NCR. I would expect this in the Weekly Standard. The use of formulations like “Japan started the war” helps to evade all the relevant moral questions; if “Japan” started it, can “Japan” be laid waste? Their political class makes an idiotic and suicidal military move, so every single three-year-old in the country becomes subject to bombing, poisoning, being burned or buried alive, etc.? At what point do we start questioning the logic of this, instead of formulating all our arguments as if this were simply an obvious moral given?

Instead of asking these hard questions, the kind of questions we are trained from early childhood not to ask, indeed not even to be intellectually equipped to formulate, NCR gives us a collectivist propaganda piece. Anyone who criticizes the decision to drop the bomb is trying to “defame our country” (again, in classic neocon style, conflating the decisions of a small circle of officials with “our country”).

I guess the editor of the Paulist Catholic World was trying to “defame our country”? Or how about L’Osservatore Romano, which also criticized the bombings? Or the great Catholic philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe? Or even Pat Buchanan, who denounces the bombings as acts of barbarism?

Oh, but “we” had to burn all those kids alive, comes the reply. Why, that’s all the fanatics in Japan would understand! (What if the author had said the police needed to kick in the heads of certain races of people because that’s all they would understand? Would you thoughtlessly nod your head at that?) Completely left out of the discussion are the genuine alternatives that existed to dropping the bomb, alternatives that could have worked even with the incorrigible Japanese. (Of course, whenever someone mentions “alternatives” to a decision made by the U.S. military, he is instantly derided as some kind of leftist dreamer.)

For what these alternatives were, and for something a little more significant than mindless, knee-jerk cheering of the U.S. military, as if this group of government employees were sacrosanct, I recommend this short piece by historian Ralph Raico.

[affa]

I have read quite a bit about the decision to use the atomic bombs, and I am still quite convinced it was necessary. I mean this literally, if it saved one American soldiers life, it was worth it.

We should nuke two cities populated with countless civilians if it saves one American soldier?

Honestly, and with all due respect, that's the grossest, most vile thing I've read in a long time. I need to go take a shower. Please reconsider your stand on this some day. I beg of you.

I would hope the majority of our soldiers would put their own life on the line to save a single foreign civilian, let alone hundreds of thousands.

[UWDude]

We should nuke two cities populated with countless civilians if it saves one American soldier?


No, we should have nuked, *past tense*, two cities, to save the lives of one more American soldier. This is not a discussion about the morality of circumstances today, it is a discussion about a much different world in 1945, in which the world had been plunged into a battle for survival.

American soldiers were just civilians forced to die for the greed and nationalism of the Japanese civilians.

I am the type that does not like war. You will find I disagree with most wars. But the Japanese made hundreds of thousands of innocent Chinese and Americans die because of their arrogant delusions of superiority. That is disgusting, and the Atomic bombs shut that down in 3 days flat. They had already killed hundreds of thousands for their pride and lust for empire, why should one more American die? It is the Japanese fault a hundred thousand brave, courageous men died.

And people always try to act like for some reason women and children are more valuable than men and soldiers. I couldn't care less for a single Japanese soldier. They were tools of an empire, most of them willing tools. But American soldiers were forced to die and be maimed to stop the aggression of the Japanese, and in my mind, were worth more than the cliche "innocent civilians".