Thread Rating:

Poll

57 votes (47.89%)
33 votes (27.73%)
12 votes (10.08%)
10 votes (8.4%)
4 votes (3.36%)
3 votes (2.52%)

119 members have voted

bobbartop
bobbartop
Joined: Mar 15, 2016
  • Threads: 129
  • Posts: 2562
August 6th, 2016 at 4:18:36 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

So. Today is the 71st anniversary of Hiroshima. Close your eyes for 5 seconds and picture looking up that morning and seeing fat man dropping from the sky onto your home, your family, your life.



I'm closing my eyes for 5 seconds and picturing the Japanese trying to surrender months before we dropped the bomb.
'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 8108
August 6th, 2016 at 4:26:23 AM permalink
Quote: Joeshlabotnik

But when asked to name specifics, all they can do is squawk, "Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!" and "Emails! Emails! Emails!" over and over (and over, and over, and over...)

In any event, steeldco, one thing she definitely is NOT is "dumbass." I think what you don't see is all the hard work she's done in her various functions and offices. That is never glamorous, and most people don't bother to find out about it. I think that if people were more intelligent, or at least smarter than rocks, they would value her hard work and experience.
I just wish conservatives would be honest and admit that the reason they don't like Hillary is that she's a woman. They've never up and said that they don't like Obama because he's black, but that's at the core of their dislike for him.



You only hear Benghazi and emails.... There is whitewater, insider deals, pilfering, suppressing Bill's women, giant speaking fees .... But clearly she is very bright, and dumbass is the antithesis of her..... And I agree she is a hard worker. But you are 100% wrong on the woman thing..... SARAH PALIN was a darling of the conservatives, and she has two x chromosomes. And you are some % wrong on Obama, I think if it was Gore or Kerry (or Hillary!) we'd be disliking them as much. But of course there is a small subset that are just racist, but most Republicans/conservatives don't like him because of the trillions he added to the deficit, the ACA, etc....

Someone just wrote that if she was a he, it would be 538-0. If Trump was not in play, we likely would have a President Kasich, Rubio, or Bush up next.
Joeshlabotnik
Joeshlabotnik
Joined: Jul 27, 2016
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 943
August 6th, 2016 at 7:36:56 AM permalink
Quote: bobbartop

I'm closing my eyes for 5 seconds and picturing the Japanese trying to surrender months before we dropped the bomb.



Open your eyes, call up Wikipedia, and look up the Potsdam Declaration and how the Japanese reacted to it. They didn't "try to surrender." For that matter, they didn't even "try to surrender" after we dropped the first one on Nagasaki--the ruling military was willing to gamble that we didn't have another one. Ironically, we didn't have a THIRD one after Nagasaki (yet), so they could have fought on.

The morality of what we did to end the war has been endlessly debated. You have to take things in context:

1. We had already incinerated Tokyo and most other Japanese cities. The casualty count was far higher, and the destruction arguably more complete, than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thus, the atomic bombs were really just more of the same. "Strategic bombing" and the mass slaughter of civilians was old hat by 1945, and we should keep in mind what the Japanese did to civilians in Nanking, Shanghai, and other cities. We didn't cross any moral boundary. While killing civilians from the air is awful, you have to realize that all sides in the war had considered it to be a legitimate tactic. War is horrible whether guns, nuclear weapons, or rocks and sticks are the weapons used.

2. As the bombs did force Japan to surrender, they were spared a Russian invasion and subsequent partition of the country. We allowed Japan to regain its sovereignty in 1954. The Russians released East Germany from captivity in 1989. How long would they have held on to, say Hokkaido and the northern half of Honshu, with the Russians and Americans glaring at each other across the "Tokyo Wall"? Don't forget, the Russians declared war on Japan in August 1945 and were already in the process of occupying Sakhalin.

3. Without the atomic bombs, the Allies would have had to invade the home islands. Casualties were expected to be three-quarters of a million or more, and civilian deaths as high as ten million. There was every indication that the Japanese, who still had plenty of guns, would defend their home islands with the same fanaticism we had just seen at Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

There are also those who say we could have done something like tell the Japanese, "Watch this island" and then blown it up--the demonstration of the power of the new weapon might have been enough. Also, we could have simply bombed and starved Japan into submission without the atomic bomb or an invasion. But the Japanese resistance even when the situation was hopeless, and their response to the Potsdam Declaration, suggested that they might not surrender as long as the home islands were intact and the Emperor and government survived.

Yes, one can certainly imagine what it must have been like in Hiroshima that morning, thanks in part to John Hersey's excellent book. But one can also imagine what it must have been like in Nanking in 1936, or Warsaw in 1939 (and again in 1944), or Kharkov in 1942, or Berlin in 1945. To me, those are all tragedies that happen when people don't have any say in their own governance and a ruling kleptocracy comes to power. Fortunately for us, we have a system in place that limits the power of those in charge. That's why Bernie's and the OO's cries to destroy that system frighten me. I don't WANT to be a soldier in a conscripted army, wearing my mandatory orange wig, marching into Mecca or Beijing to slaughter the inhabitants.

We may at some point, as a species, view acts of war like Nanking, Warsaw, and Hiroshima as unthinkable. Are we there yet? No way. All those animals at Trump rallies screaming "KILL! KILL! KILL!" illustrate vividly that we're not.
Joeshlabotnik
Joeshlabotnik
Joined: Jul 27, 2016
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 943
August 6th, 2016 at 8:03:25 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

You only hear Benghazi and emails.... There is whitewater, insider deals, pilfering, suppressing Bill's women, giant speaking fees .... But clearly she is very bright, and dumbass is the antithesis of her..... And I agree she is a hard worker. But you are 100% wrong on the woman thing..... SARAH PALIN was a darling of the conservatives, and she has two x chromosomes. And you are some % wrong on Obama, I think if it was Gore or Kerry (or Hillary!) we'd be disliking them as much. But of course there is a small subset that are just racist, but most Republicans/conservatives don't like him because of the trillions he added to the deficit, the ACA, etc....

Someone just wrote that if she was a he, it would be 538-0. If Trump was not in play, we likely would have a President Kasich, Rubio, or Bush up next.



The Whitewater scandal was 20+ years ago, and the Clintons weren't found guilty of anything. Interesting note: the head of the FBI, who spearheaded the Benghazi/email investigation, was the chief prosecutor in the Whitewater investigation. Things like "insider deals and pilfering" are just speculation. "Suppressing Bill's women" ...? And earning really really big speaking fees isn't illegal last time I checked, not is it unique to Hillary--not by a long shot.

The nomination of Sarah Palin, the dumbest person in the universe, wasn't a choice of the Republican Party. In fact, they hated the idea (especially once she opened her mouth). But Presidential nominees can choose anyone they want as their running mate. The Republicans ducked behind a curtain and started retching once they realized that the horrible specter of a possible Palin presidency was going to cost them the White House in 2008. Far from her being a darling of the conservatives, they loathed her. But I don't think that the Republicans didn't want Moose Shooter Lady because she was a woman. I think they didn't want her because she was dumber than a bag of rocks.

You need to do some fact checking re what the economy was like when Obama took over vs. now. Also, some of us view the ACA as a strongly positive public good. I KNOW conservatives hate the idea of the unworthy, society's inferiors who should be hustled off to death camps, getting medical care. But you might feel differently if you were sick and couldn't get medical insurance.

I think that the upcoming electoral rout would be more of an actual contest if Kasich, Rubio or Bush were running against Hillary. However, I suspect that it still wouldn't be all that close. Conservatism is beginning to die out in this country, albeit slowly. Its core premises of xenophobia, bigotry, and fear just don't resonate with as many Americans as they used to. Fifty years ago, the cries of "Kill all the Licorice Jelly Bean people!!!" (I can't use the actual word here) wouldn't have sparked any sense of outrage. Now, people are genuinely disgusted by the Republican messages of hate. I think it's extremely telling that Trump's repeated spew has been criticized so weakly by so few Republicans. Deep down, they agree with him. Kill or at least deport all those inferior not-like-us people. That has almost orgasmic appeal to the mouth-breathers at Trump rallies and the millions of Republicans who watch them in rapt approval.
bobbartop
bobbartop
Joined: Mar 15, 2016
  • Threads: 129
  • Posts: 2562
August 6th, 2016 at 8:13:05 AM permalink
Days prior to Roosevelt's departure for Yalta, he was given a crucial, forty page memorandum from General MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from highly placed Japanese officials offering surrender terms which were virtually identical to the ones eventually dictated by the Allies to the Japanese in August. To which he responded that MacArthur was a great general but a poor politician. The war could have been over in Spring, without sending thousands of our boys to Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and without incinerating hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians with their new "war toys".

Even if they had to drop the bombs to force a surrender, which they didn't, why not drop them on something besides people?
'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.
Joeshlabotnik
Joeshlabotnik
Joined: Jul 27, 2016
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 943
August 6th, 2016 at 9:44:36 AM permalink
Quote: bobbartop

Days prior to Roosevelt's departure for Yalta, he was given a crucial, forty page memorandum from General MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from highly placed Japanese officials offering surrender terms which were virtually identical to the ones eventually dictated by the Allies to the Japanese in August. To which he responded that MacArthur was a great general but a poor politician. The war could have been over in Spring, without sending thousands of our boys to Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and without incinerating hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians with their new "war toys".

Even if they had to drop the bombs to force a surrender, which they didn't, why not drop them on something besides people?



That's along the order of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories. Even if what you say is 100% factual, what makes you think that an unidentified group of "highly placed Japanese officials" would have had the power or authority to actually negotiate a surrender? Japan was a military dictatorship, and they still held the home islands, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, some of the Philippines, Korea, and large portions of China. They weren't beaten yet, and whoever those vague officials were, they wouldn't have been able to convince the ruling military junta to hang it up.

Also, Roosevelt was absolutely correct in that MacArthur was ignoring world politics. Stalin wanted Eastern Europe as war booty, and the Allies weren't in any position to deny that to him. The most we could do was wring a few concessions from him, like promising to declare war on Japan (which he didn't do until long after Germany's surrender) and join the UN (which he only did once the USSR was promised to vote as FIVE separate countries in the General Assembly). We were looking at horrific casualties from having to invade Japan, and if we could get some Russian blood to be spilled instead of that of our soldiers, well, so be it, thought Roosevelt. At that time, we didn't know if the atomic bomb would even work.

It was actually considered to drop the bomb on an uninhabited island and invite the Japanese to watch. But would that have had any effect? They didn't surrender even after the Hiroshima bombing. They waited because they weren't sure if we had another one (we had ONE more). Would that have been the case after our hypothetical demo? MAYBE. In any event, such sensibilities weren't going to fly when the Japanese had already killed tens of millions of Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Malaysians, etc. etc. etc., not to mention several hundred thousand British, Australian, and American soldiers, some dying in horrific prison camps and being subjected to medical torture. So would we have chosen the "humane option"? At that point, probably not. In fact, the Japanese and the Germans (the West Germans, at any rate) were probably lucky that we were the ones to defeat and occupy them. Other enemies, like the Russians and Chinese, would have wiped them off the map. So as awful as it sounds, the atomic bombings were probably the best of a number of pretty horrible alternate scenarios.
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 192
  • Posts: 11772
August 6th, 2016 at 11:27:04 AM permalink
Quote: bobbartop

Days prior to Roosevelt's departure for Yalta, he was given a crucial, forty page memorandum from General MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from highly placed Japanese officials offering surrender terms which were virtually identical to the ones eventually dictated by the Allies to the Japanese in August. To which he responded that MacArthur was a great general but a poor politician. The war could have been over in Spring, without sending thousands of our boys to Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and without incinerating hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians with their new "war toys".

Even if they had to drop the bombs to force a surrender, which they didn't, why not drop them on something besides people?



Care to share your source for this?
The quote you butchered is FDR saying,to MacArthur, "I believe you to be our greatest General, but our worst politician."
That's how it was on my world. I'm coming to believe you live in a world of your own making, where white supremacist thrive alongside manly men, while the rest of society sucks their blood like little ticks.
Last edited by: billryan on Aug 6, 2016
bobbartop
bobbartop
Joined: Mar 15, 2016
  • Threads: 129
  • Posts: 2562
August 6th, 2016 at 3:11:51 PM permalink
Quote: Joeshlabotnik

That's along the order of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories.



History is written by the victors. As such, you'll rarely see an accurate portrayal of FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower as the criminals that they really were.

Your "tinfoil" remark was enough, we're done. If I were dictator, I'd just have you banished to eastern Oregon.
'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.
bobbartop
bobbartop
Joined: Mar 15, 2016
  • Threads: 129
  • Posts: 2562
August 6th, 2016 at 3:30:52 PM permalink
Quote: billryan


I'm coming to believe you live in a world of your own making,



Yep, I do. Named after the ancient Greek god, Bartopia.
'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.
SAMIAM
SAMIAM
Joined: Aug 4, 2016
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 43
August 6th, 2016 at 4:49:57 PM permalink
OOOPs Sorry Was looking for the 2016 tread, my bad.

  • Jump to: