America /= US government

As for the bomb, I am persuaded that there was enough evidence that an invasion of Japan and the attendant death and destruction that would ahve ensued thereof was great enough to justify the dropping of the bomb with the hope (which proved successful) of forcing Japan to surrender. What I have never understood is why we dropped the second bomb so soon after the first. It might have been unnecessary....

The second was to show the Russians that we had more than one atomic bomb. It was the first salvo in the Cold War.

kitic77 wrote:
The second was to show the Russians that we had more than one atomic bomb. It was the first salvo in the Cold War.

Really? I had not heard that. I actually hope it is not true--killing 80,000 Japanese to show the Russians how powerful we are...it does not sit well with me at all. I had assumed we thought we needed to do two to convince the Japanese that this bomb was not a one time thing...



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

BoiseBYU wrote:

The second was to show the Russians that we had more than one atomic bomb. It was the first salvo in the Cold War.

Really? I had not heard that. I actually hope it is not true--killing 80,000 Japanese to show the Russians how powerful we are...it does not sit well with me at all. I had assumed we thought we needed to do two to convince the Japanese that this bomb was not a one time thing...



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I have heard both statements before, and both could equally apply. If Japan (and Russia) thought we had expended our whole arsenal, they may not have surrendered (Japanese) or remained in a stalemate (Russia).

From what I've read, the Russians were planning on entering the Pacific campaign in mid-August and the US was eager to force a surrender before the Soviets began fighting.

I don't think anyone at the time truly understood the magnitude of this weapon. I also think the effects of the true atomic killer - radiation- weren't understood either.



It's also not quite fair to judge WWII by 2011 standards. At a time when carpet and incendiary bombing was common place and very little accommodation for civilian casualties were made, I believe the expected outcome of this one bomb was thought to be very much like a repeated bombing campaign of a city with more traditional weapons.



i think they expected a Hiroshima to look like Berlin did at the end of the war which was their point of reference :Berlin.jpg

The result was a bit different at Hiroshima hiroshima.jpg:



Also, if you're a scientist, how do you explain extreme radiation poisoning to a politician, especially if you've never seen it before yourself?



I personally believe the bomb ultimately saved lives, but that's what war is, a sequence of death, destruction, and terrible decisions.

I don't have time to look it up right now. but I believe that the Japanese leadership was saying that the U.S. was not likely to have further such destructive weapons, and that neither would they be able to construct another very soon. Once the tally of radiation victims came out, that might have induced a surrender, but not if the Japanese really did not believe that we had more bombs.



Regarding the haste for dropping another fission bomb, it should be remembered how many American lives had already been lost in the campaign to liberate the Pacific, including Guam, where I now live. We Americans had tried to stay out of it, but were dragged in, and were a very war-weary people by that time, having made great sacrifices on two major world fronts. So there was not a lot of patience in waiting for a Japanese surrender. Though I imagine that the Russians were impressed, I do not believe that we sacrificed that many more non-combatant Japanese, simply for the cause of showing off to the Russians.



A further note regarding Guam: The island of Guam was the only U.S. territory to be invaded and occupied by the Japanese in WWII. The local (Chamorro) people here still remember the atrocities committed against them by the Japanese. They endured a pure hell for about three years until the Americans were able to come back with sufficient force to repel the Japanese occupation. They recount how overjoyed they were to see the American invasion for liberation begin. Many of them were murdered in cold blood by the Japanese as they were forced to retreat. In many circumstances, it was the largest local Chamorro men who were rounded up and killed, after they had been forced into slave labor for those years by Japanese soldiers. Women were also enslaved, and killed if they resisted sexual abuse.



Although there are a few activists who want American forces off the island, the vast majority of the native people here remain patriotic to America because of those times. Many of them participated and gave their lives in later American conflicts, such as Vietnam. Their pro-American spirit is a refreshing contrast to the anti-American attitudes being expressed at home by liberals, news media, and our own president.

Cougarfan87 wrote:
In fact, some Japanese military leaders staged a coup when they heard that the emperor was considering surrender.

You make my argument for me. Here you say the Japanese were considering surrender. In fact, Japan was making overtures to the Soviet Union to mediate surrender far in advance of any atomic bombs. Have you ever read the Potsdam Declaration? Truman knew the Japanese were going to surrender, the propaganda about 100M Japanese ready to die for their country was simply a bargaining point made by the Japanese government in the negotiations for surrender (and you contradict yourself by accepting it -- you say the Japanese would fight to the last man, woman and child (your 100M number) but it only took 200K deaths for them to surrender). Instead of negotiating a surrender on mutually advantageous terms, however, Truman murdered 200,000 Japanese civilians and told them he would murder the rest if the Japanese government did not capitulate to everything he wanted.



And you ask why do I think things would be different on the mainland than on the islands which is exactly my point. About 7% of the Japanese population was in the military. The Japanese civilians would not have fought any more than the German or Italian civilians did. To say otherwise is simply the apologia of lesser men who wish to justify murder. In fact, taking the Japanese mainland would have been far easier than taking the militarized islands.



If the German or Japanese governments or anyone else had dropped atomic bombs they would have been tried as war criminals and rightly so. Does it make any difference what the tool was? Or would you still sound like that moron Mitt Romney and say the US government should never apologize even if they had used gas chambers instead of bombs on 200,000 Japanese civilians? Someone else mentioned that we shouldn't judge people by the standards of 2011, well how about we judge them by the standards of the 1900s when attacking and holding civilians hostage was seen as morally wrong and a sign of cowardice?



But I guess you'll agree to disagree.

Schmoe wrote:
I deplore long-winded zealots turning good comedy into useless political rhetoric.

Thanks, Schnoe. As I started reading this thread, I was floored at the reasoning. You put the correct spin on the whole thing.

Perhaps Japan was considering surrender, but they were not surrendering, they were making kamakazi attacks on any American ship they could find, including hospital ships. The US was fire bombing Japan, but to no avail. If you think the Japaneze would have rolled over in the face of a ground invasion, you are sorely mistaken. For the Japanese as a culture, surrender was disgrace.Japan could have been defeated in an invasion, but at a terrible price for both sides.



Remember also that Japan started the war with unprovoked attacks on innocents, and the death they inflicted wasn't too pleasant either (and I'm not just talking about Pearl Harbor). I could argue reality for a very lomg time here, but I know that nothing will change jv's liberal viewpoint, no matter how logical and correct the argument, so I will just leave it at that.

bigbluepuma wrote:
I could argue reality for a very lomg time here, but I know that nothing will change jv's liberal viewpoint, no matter how logical and correct the argument, so I will just leave it at that.

You amaze me with that comment. JV is NO liberal. He's a TRUE conservative, to the CORE. To the point that he irritates everybody (myself excluded) on this board with his remarkably consistent reasoning along those truly conservative lines. He irritates people because he points out their philosophical and political inconsistencies. He comes on this board, I think, because he KNOWS the vast majority on here THINK themselves conservative, and he tries to help them actually become so. But you couldn't be more wrong with this comment.

I'd put JV as a libetarian before I label him as a conservative. He's about maximum freedom with no limits and no regard for consequences. The single most important thing to him is freedom and if people are trying to limit your freedom, then they're free to do anything (to include cheat, lie and steal) to maximize their freedoms.

kitic77 wrote:
I'd put JV as a libetarian before I label him as a conservative. He's about maximum freedom with no limits and no regard for consequences. The single most important thing to him is freedom and if people are trying to limit your freedom, then they're free to do anything (to include cheat, lie and steal) to maximize their freedoms.

I consider libertarians the ULTIMATE conservatives.



In my mind, conservatism SHOULD be defined as: The inevitable line of reasoning which stems from the premise that since all men are created equal they should interact with each other on strictly voluntary terms.

kitic77 wrote:
He's about maximum freedom with no limits and no regard for consequences.

I don't get that from him.

kitic77 wrote:
The single most important thing to him is freedom and if people are trying to limit your freedom, then they're free to do anything (to include cheat, lie and steal) to maximize their freedoms.

I've heard his say things to that effect, but it's the principle he's seemed to stress and not the practice. You could even say it is scriptural:



"Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded; But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you" (D&C 98:23-24).



If you asked me, I would say Gandhi was the kind of guy that would have taken the high road spoken of in this scripture (and in the subsequent scriptures immediately following it in section 98), Jesus as well, but it is interesting to hear it opine that we are well within our rights to fight fire with fire, so to speak. I don't think JV is too far off on this. What would be WISEST? I think the scripture makes it clear. But are you JUSTIFIED in retaliating? Apparently so.



Anyway. I've given my two cents on JV. I'm going to withdraw back into the abyss now. Been fun.

taekwondave wrote:

I could argue reality for a very lomg time here, but I know that nothing will change jv's liberal viewpoint, no matter how logical and correct the argument, so I will just leave it at that.

You amaze me with that comment. JV is NO liberal. He's a TRUE conservative, to the CORE. To the point that he irritates everybody (myself excluded) on this board with his remarkably consistent reasoning along those truly conservative lines. He irritates people because he points out their philosophical and political inconsistencies. He comes on this board, I think, because he KNOWS the vast majority on here THINK themselves conservative, and he tries to help them actually become so. But you couldn't be more wrong with this comment.

I was considering him a liberal because of his viewpoint that the way to end the war was to wait around for diplomacy to do the job (and a few other assertions that I consider ridiculous). I guess that, just as extreme left and extreme right got Stalin and Hitler to the same point, extreme left and extreme right can get peace activists to the same point.

bigblue, I agree with your reasoning in general, but I must comment on your catagorization of Hitler as being extreme right. American liberals created that false impression (Hitler being right-wing), in order to try to relate him to their political opponents, the Republicans. Extreme repetition of this senseless metaphorical description has given it some effect with the general public.



However, Hitler was as far from "right wing" as you can get. He was actually very similar to Stalin, including the cruelty. Both men were very facist, which has nothing to do with right-wing politics. Compared to Stalin, Hitler's facism included more of the racial variety, but that does not make him "right-wing." Hitler believed in oppressive, totalitarian government, which would allow close, official management of citizen's lives, which makes him as left-wing as they come. It would be most accurate to describe him as a vicious and intolerant socialist, having made himself dictator over his victimized people. As you know, there is no such thing as "rightwing" dictator. Monarchies are not right wing, either. To be right wing, there must be limitation of government power. Pushing the concept of conservatism to the extreme will bring a condition of inadequate government police management, in other words, anarchy. Hitler was a heavy handed socialist, not an anarchist.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

taekwondave wrote:

I'd put JV as a libetarian before I label him as a conservative. He's about maximum freedom with no limits and no regard for consequences. The single most important thing to him is freedom and if people are trying to limit your freedom, then they're free to do anything (to include cheat, lie and steal) to maximize their freedoms.

I consider libertarians the ULTIMATE conservatives.



In my mind, conservatism SHOULD be defined as: The inevitable line of reasoning which stems from the premise that since all men are created equal they should interact with each other on strictly voluntary terms.

I can see that, but once again, you're going to run into difficulty when your definition of something does not meet what the generally accepted of something is.



SHOULD be and IS are different words. Conservatism is not currently defined that way.

bigbluepuma wrote:
Perhaps Japan was considering surrender, but they were not surrendering, they were making kamakazi attacks on any American ship they could find, including hospital ships.

Japan offered surrender. Plain and simple. The only point in Potsdam they required a change with was the elimination of the emperor (although they wished to preside over their own disarmament as well). Instead of concede this point Truman murdered 200,000 innocents. Plain and simple.



Re: hospital ships. Americans had bombed plenty of Japanese civilian hospitals and you want to bring up military hospitals in defense. Come on, you can do better than that.

bigbluepuma wrote:
The US was fire bombing Japan, but to no avail. If you think the Japaneze would have rolled over in the face of a ground invasion, you are sorely mistaken. For the Japanese as a culture, surrender was disgrace.Japan could have been defeated in an invasion, but at a terrible price for both sides.

You are speaking of the Japanese military, not Japanese civilians. I tried to say this in other words so as not to offend before but now I'll give it to you simply. Accepting the lie that Japanese civilians would fight to the last (civilian) man, woman and child belies racism. Japanese "culture" as you use the term is simply the cover for this racism. Truman understood that a people willing to go along with the internment of US citizens of Japanese decent, would have less of an issue dropping a bomb on 200,000 innocent civilians of Japanese decent than those of German decent. He was and remains correct.



Was there not German propaganda saying the Germans would fight to the last man, woman and child? Of course. The German sense of honor was no different than the Japanese. Japanese civilians would have fought no more than German civilians (perhaps a review of Japanese history is in order). To think otherwise is a delusion based on racist thought.



The truth is Truman's best estimates were that of a ground invasion of Japan would end in 150,000 American military deaths (similar to the number of deaths in Europe). Truman knew Americans would not stand for that so he was faced with the option of murdering 200,000 innocents or allowing the emperor to remain. He chose the former. In fact, he was ready to continue murdering Japanese civilians until the emperor conceded the terms of Potsdam.

bigbluepuma wrote:
Remember also that Japan started the war with unprovoked attacks on innocents, and the death they inflicted wasn't too pleasant either (and I'm not just talking about Pearl Harbor).

Are you still interested in using 1940s morals to justify the acts of parties in the 1940s? If so you may like to know that the Japanese had told the Americans they would accept an embargo as an act of war (a generally accepted principle at the time). You might also like to read the memos that passed the desk of FDR who had already decided (prior to Dec 7) to use the US military against the Japanese and that he knew the Japanese would accept the embargo as a declaration of war, likely creating the incident needed for congress to declare war. But according to the rules of war (whatever you think about them) the US declared war when they started the embargo.

kitic77 wrote:

kitic77 wrote:
I'd put JV as a libetarian before I label him as a conservative. He's about maximum freedom with no limits and no regard for consequences. The single most important thing to him is freedom and if people are trying to limit your freedom, then they're free to do anything (to include cheat, lie and steal) to maximize their freedoms.

I consider libertarians the ULTIMATE conservatives.



In my mind, conservatism SHOULD be defined as: The inevitable line of reasoning which stems from the premise that since all men are created equal they should interact with each other on strictly voluntary terms.

I can see that, but once again, you're going to run into difficulty when your definition of something does not meet what the generally accepted of something is.



SHOULD be and IS are different words. Conservatism is not currently defined that way.

Conservatism means to conserve or to do what has been done in the past. In that way a conservative in the US (attempting to preserve freedom) is very different than a conservative in Russia or England. If you consider emulation of the Creator as the ultimate conservatism, libertarianism is conservatism. Can you cite one instance when the Creator used force against those who did not first use force (ie break a covenant or cause physical harm) against Him or His followers?

jvquarterback wrote:

taekwondave wrote:

I'd put JV as a libetarian before I label him as a conservative. He's about maximum freedom with no limits and no regard for consequences. The single most important thing to him is freedom and if people are trying to limit your freedom, then they're free to do anything (to include cheat, lie and steal) to maximize their freedoms.

I consider libertarians the ULTIMATE conservatives.



In my mind, conservatism SHOULD be defined as: The inevitable line of reasoning which stems from the premise that since all men are created equal they should interact with each other on strictly voluntary terms.

I can see that, but once again, you're going to run into difficulty when your definition of something does not meet what the generally accepted of something is.



SHOULD be and IS are different words. Conservatism is not currently defined that way.

Conservatism means to conserve or to do what has been done in the past. In that way a conservative in the US (attempting to preserve freedom) is very different than a conservative in Russia or England. If you consider emulation of the Creator as the ultimate conservatism, libertarianism is conservatism. Can you cite one instance when the Creator used force against those who did not first use force (ie break a covenant or cause physical harm) against Him or His followers?

I can't think of a single instance where the Savior broke any promises or covenants he made.