60 Years Ago This Week

[Griff]

Truman ended the war by bombing civilians. Our truly righteous anger over the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor changed us from a pacific introverted society to one willing to do anything our executive branch masters deem necessary. This anniversary, coming as it does in the midst of more executive over-reach, should have been a time of national soul-searching but we're beyond that sort of thing today.

[Undertoad]

The Japanese slaughtered 15 million Chinese citizens in their war which preceded Pearl Harbor by one generation.

Unlike today the US was not necessarily more powerful than Japan and it was not certain that a similar fate would not be in store for us.

Now then, you were saying??

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Now then, you were saying??

You guys make my point perfectly. I was saying we no longer even consider the possibility that we could have done the wrong thing dropping atomic weapons on civilians. I'm not minimizing what the Japanese were. I'm talking about what we have become. We talk about invading the Japanese home islands like it had to be done even though we had cut off their troops from supply and had destroyed their naval and air power along with their industrial capacity to replace them. Truman was apparently afraid not to use the bombs wanting to scare our commie "allies", making ours the only government in history to nuke people. I was also thinking about how we at least attacked the enemy after Pearl Harbor but after 911 we didn't even have to make a connection. We've hardened our hearts to the suffering we cause others while wrapping it in sanctimony. I'm whining about the abuse of Executive power and our uncanny ability to look the other way because our motives are never questionable.




I'm also being a troll but its just that the anniversary passes without even a passing thought.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Griff

I'm also being a troll but its just that the anniversary passes without even a passing thought.

I always think of it, but then I have a particular interest in the Manhattan Project.

[Radar]

60 years ago, America TOLD Japan we had the bomb and begged them for 5 days to surrender or we'd use it. Then after we dropped the bomb in Hiroshima, we contacted Tojo and Hirohito and begged them to surrender again or we'd drop another one. Once again, they refused to put the lives of their people above their own stubbornness, and thousands upon thousands died.

In the end, far less people died by dropping those 2 bombs than would have ever died with a full-scale invasion of Japan.

60 years ago, America did the right thing by ending a war with less casualties than it would with any other option, and gave these people warning (something they didn't give us), and a way out (something they also didn't give us). At the same time we ended this war, we sent a message around the world that we aren't to be fucked with.

As much as I detest America being involved in wars and know we had no reason to be in most of them (including WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq twice, etc.) the men on the Enola Gay did the right thing by dropping those bombs, and actually saved lives.

[lookout123]

In the end, far less people died by dropping those 2 bombs than would have ever died with a full-scale invasion of Japan.

overall, fewer people died. more importantly, NONE of OUR people died in an invasion to end a war we didn't start.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's a shame there weren't bigger targets......or bigger bombs.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Radar

As much as I detest America being involved in wars and know we had no reason to be in most of them (including WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq twice, etc.) the men on the Enola Gay did the right thing by dropping those bombs, and actually saved lives.

Radar, I wouldn't try having it both ways like this: every single war you've cited, and more besides, were wars fought with nondemocracies, autarchies, dictatorships. Such things are our business, particularly if we want a good world. Is not dictatorship the most easily found and most prevalent evil on the Earth's face? I want a good world, and I'm willing to hang slavemakers to get it. Will you join me?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Radar, I wouldn't try having it both ways like this: every single war you've cited, and more besides, were wars fought with nondemocracies, autarchies, dictatorships. Such things are our business, particularly if we want a good world. Is not dictatorship the most easily found and most prevalent evil on the Earth's face? I want a good world, and I'm willing to hang slavemakers to get it. Will you join me?

Well, if we go back further, the Spanish-American war was with a constitutional monarchy. Japan was our ally in WWI, so we didn't complain about it's method of government then.

BTW, you do know that the Unites States isn't really a democracy, do you? Hint: "..and to the republic, for which it stands."

England is also a constitutional monarchy, a 'non-democracy'. Of course, we did go to war with them, twice, so I guess they bolster your theory.

We have propped up thugs and dictators in our self-interest and held down or subverted legitimate democracies. While I applaud the concept of our 'getting religion' and going after every single 'bad guy', we really aren't. The Saudi government is far from a 'democracy' even in the looser definition you seem to prefer. We have pretty much ignored Africa in favor of invading a country in a region with our strategic energy supply.

Of course, in the Spanish-American War, which was stared on the 'faulty intelligence' that the Spanish had sunk the Battleship Maine. In that War, the US annexed Hawaii and the Philippines, and took control of Guam. We also directly affected Cuba until 1934.

That was one 'faulty intelligence' war which really paid for itself.

Clinton was roundly criticized from both left and right for his involvement in Yugoslavia and the Balkans. Compared to Iraq, that conflict was a shining success. A lot of the criticism centered around the idea that there was nothing in it for us.

I actually like your honest desire to take on all thugs. I presume this means even if they happen to be our allies at the moment. However, if we were to measure the suffering of the population, Iraq under Hussein wouldn't top the list.

Unfortunately, if you believe that the US is only engaged in wars to support human rights, I will have to disagree. We are still at the point where we will support non-democratic caplitalist governments over democratic socialist ones. Economic theory plays a role in picking our enemies and friends.

Thanks for the article, UT. Very interesting. Was that in response to my question about the capacity of Japanese women to kill at the time?

My great-grandmother and my grandmother faced the occupiers alone, having ordered the children to hide. The Japanese had been warned that the invading barbarians would rape and pillage. My great-grandmother, a battle-scarred early feminist, hissed, "Get your filthy barbarian shoes off of my floor!" The interpreter refused to interpret. The officer in command insisted. Upon hearing the translation from the red-faced interpreter, the officer sat on the floor and removed his boots, instructing his men to do the same. He apologized to my great-grandmother and grandmother.

The old lady certainly sounds spunky, but she didn't run out with pistols blazing, either. That's kind of cool that the American officer would take off his boots and order his men to do the same, though.

[lookout123]

she wasn't charging out with pistols because they had already been defeated. up until the emperor's public statements they were not defeated.

[djacq75]

Originally Posted by Radar

60 years ago, America TOLD Japan we had the bomb and begged them for 5 days to surrender or we'd use it.

What you didn't mention is that Japan offered the U.S. peace terms in July 1945 on almost exactly the same terms that eventually were accepted. The hold-up? They wanted an assurance that we weren't going to hang their Emperor.

We didn't end up hanging him anyway, of course, but in order to prove the point that we could if we wanted (i.e., "unconditional surrender"), we killed an extra 120,000 people.

Don't take my word for any of this...look it up yourself.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The japs offered peace terms a few hours before the attack on Pearl, too. A cute little trick, the people that were living then, had not forgotten.
Even after the two A-bombs they would have fought to the death if the Emperor hadn't finally over ruled the military that were running the show. Don't forget the soldiers that were left on remote islands and still fighting the war 20, 30, 40 years later.
Unconditional surrender was the only way.

[djacq75]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Even after the two A-bombs they would have fought to the death if the Emperor hadn't finally over ruled the military that were running the show. Don't forget the soldiers that were left on remote islands and still fighting the war 20, 30, 40 years later.

Yes, but the Emperor could've made them swallow it on July 15 as easily as on August 15. He was a god, remember?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes, but he didn't, did he? It took two bombs to convince him.....or convince the people that advised him.