For whomever asked

[TheShiznit]

You're quoting from an obscure web site that rails against Dick Cheney and KBR on its home page. Did it ever occur to you that the "information" that it provides may be somewhat biased and not completely accurate?

 

I said when I posted the link I don't agree with the politics of the site....but just because Fox News does a story...does it make it untrue cause some liberal says so? And, the fact is that story about KBR avoiding taxes is 100% true. You might not like it...but it was true. You give the republican party a bad name cause you cannot read anything not filtered through the republican noise machine....otherwise it is liberal propaganda...how much sense does that make?

[Bill Swerski]

Well, after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights all the high points were sort of covered. Plus, many of society's principles are not protected by law because society's priorities change faster than law makers can act.

 

One of the long-standing and widely-shared values that I had in mind was marital fidelity. I've never heard of one being prosecuted in a criminal court for cheating on one's spouse (although examples of reparations being made during divorce proceedings in civil court are ubiquitous). That's always stuck out to me as a case where one needs to hold him/herself to a much higher standard than the law.

 

That, and today's law makers only do two things well: (1) nothing; and (2) overreact. But it still beats living in Darfur.

 

True dat.

[Azazello1313]

Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe and was one of the authorities permitting the round-the-clock raids on Germany, which killed many more than the A-bombs.

 

Are you seriously arguing that Eisenhower and Macarthur (who later famously wanted to use nukes in Korea) were against the use of this weapon and would prefer to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of American soldiers instead?

 

eisenhower never liked the decision, but i'm not sure how tuned in he was to the details of the situation in the pacific. if you showed him detailed invasion plans and projected casualty figures, he may have had a different outlook. macarthur probably opposed it because he wanted to be the one triumphantly landing on the shores of japan for all the newsreels. there were a number of people who disagreed with truman at the time, but if anything, i would say 60 years of hindsight has made the decision to use the bomb look wiser, not more foolish.

 

it's an interesting, legitimate historical question whether it was wise to use it. but almost all of the chit shiznut is saying is totally made up....like the US had a surrender offer "in hand". that is false. japan made some overtures to/through the russians (who they were DESPERATELY trying to keep out of the pacific war at that point), but if there were specific terms offered (and i've seen no evidence that there were), such terms were totally unacceptable, and rightly so, to the US. a willingness to stop fighting under extremely favorable terms is hardly an offer of surrender.

[Bill Swerski]

I said when I posted the link I don't agree with the politics of the site

 

So you agree now that your "source" is highly-biased and probably ripe with inaccurate information?

 

And, the fact is that story about KBR avoiding taxes is 100% true. You might not like it...but it was true.

 

I don't really care if it was true or not. The fact that they featured it where they did tells me everything I need to know about their motives.

 

You give the republican party a bad name cause you cannot read anything not filtered through the republican noise machine

 

So, if I cite an opinion piece from Rush Limbaugh's site and present the material to you as fact, you're not going to call the information into question?

 

Once again, you're full of crap.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Bill Swerski

[TheShiznit]

So you agree now that your "source" is highly-biased and probably ripe with inaccurate information?

I don't really care if it was true or not. The fact that they featured it where they did tells me everything I need to know about their motives.

So, if I cite an opinion piece from Rush Limbaugh's site and present the material to you as fact, you're not going to call the information into question?

 

Once again, you're full of crap.

 

I knew you couldn't......thanks for the demonstration.

 

So, they might have an agenda.....to report things that harm the neocon agenda......does it make the reporting factually wrong? You cannot assert otherwise. Now I have the benefit of actually writing a paper in college on the political implications of the use of Nukes to "end" WWII. As of yet all I am getting is no it wasn't...your an idiot....yada yada yada. The FACT is that Japan offered a surrender....the United States said no and offered POTSDAM(sp) and the Japanese took too long to decide so we nuked em. I am 100% sure that the SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER was fully abreast of the casualty rates and what not our troops where about to incur if the bombs weren't dropped....and he still decided against it. So, while you'all can say I am full of chit....the historical accounting says I am not.

 

And AZZ.....do you think it was appropo for the US to prove its strength to Russia by killing innocent japanese civilians? And I thought terrorist were bad people.....you sound just like em.

[Bill Swerski]

I knew you couldn't......thanks for the demonstration.

 

Thanks for demonstrating that you're a massive Kool-Aid drinker. It's a good thing that you decided to not go to law school, because you've failed miserably in convincing others in this thread that you're correct.

 

So, they might have an agenda.....to report things that harm the neocon agenda......does it make the reporting factually wrong?

 

No, but it makes me suspicious. Their lack of citations to back up their claims makes me even more suspicious.

 

Now I have the benefit of actually writing a paper in college on the political implications of the use of Nukes to "end" WWII.

 

 

The FACT is that Japan offered a surrender....the United States said no...

 

... because the United States didn't agree with the terms that they presented.

 

and the Japanese took too long to decide so we nuked em.

 

Or, one could say that the Japanese were using a stall tactic in a desperate attempt to gain some sort of traction and the United States didn't want to lose any more lives while this was going on.

[TheShiznit]

Thanks for demonstrating that you're a massive Kool-Aid drinker. It's a good thing that you decided to not go to law school, because you've failed miserably in convincing others in this thread that you're correct.

 

Oh yeah....that is it...I must be a koolaid drinker cause I don't think every source has to be filtered through Fox News before it is legit. Geez what a miserable life it must be to know you have to be suspicious when you read any books that disagree with your preconceived idea of what you thought you knew.

[Azazello1313]

And AZZ.....do you think it was appropo for the US to prove its strength to Russia by killing innocent japanese civilians? And I thought terrorist were bad people.....you sound just like em.

 

when you consider that they woulda killed several factors MORE "innocent civilians" under the alternative (firebombing and invading japan), yeah. to an idiot like you, this makes me indistinguishable from people who make home movies of chopping off peoples' heads. so be it, idiots will be idiots.

[TheShiznit]

when you consider that they woulda killed several factors MORE "innocent civilians" under the alternative (firebombing and invading japan), yeah. to an idiot like you, this makes me indistinguishable from people who make home movies of chopping off peoples' heads. so be it, idiots will be idiots.

 

Oh yes...because the evidence was we were going to increase the firebombings...lol. You argue in circles and call me the idiot. The plan was an invasion of the Japanese homeland in November. We had time to get our differences ironed out. This attitude is exactly why the country has went form hawkism to one more open to diplomacy. What ever happened to patience is a virtue. I noticed you didn't address the accusation though...nice punt.

[whomper]

You know what always bothered me. People that know when to use whomever instead of whoever.

[Bill Swerski]

Oh yeah....that is it...I must be a koolaid drinker cause I don't think every source has to be filtered through Fox News before it is legit.

 

When did I ever say that everything that goes through Fox News is legit? Again, you're full of crap.

 

Geez what a miserable life it must be to know you have to be suspicious when you read any books that disagree with your preconceived idea of what you thought you knew.

 

I'm suspicious of just about everything I read. That includes arguments from various idiots on message boards and the obscure/questionable web sites that they cite (that don't cite any sources themselves).

Edited March 18, 2008 by Bill Swerski

[TheShiznit]

You know what always bothered me. People that know when to use whomever instead of whoever.

 

Now there is a good observation!

[TheShiznit]

QUOTE(TheShiznit @ 3/18/08 1:32pm) *

Oh yeah....that is it...I must be a koolaid drinker cause I don't think every source has to be filtered through Fox News before it is legit.

 

 

When did I ever say that everything that goes through Fox News is legit? Again, you're full of crap.

 

QUOTE

Geez what a miserable life it must be to know you have to be suspicious when you read any books that disagree with your preconceived idea of what you thought you knew.

 

 

I'm suspicious of just about everything I read. That includes arguments from various idiots on message boards and the obscure/questionable web sites that they cite (and that don't cite any sources themselves).

 

OK, you got me....you just blasted me about your suspicion of bias....then asked me if Rush would do for me. Let me ask so I can get clarity then. Just exactly what source would you accept as legit when it comes to getting information? Please be as specific as possible.

 

And the author was offering commentary....about facts already in evidence....go prove it wrong if you wish.

[Azazello1313]

Oh yes...because the evidence was we were going to increase the firebombings...lol. You argue in circles and call me the idiot. The plan was an invasion of the Japanese homeland in November. We had time to get our differences ironed out. This attitude is exactly why the country has went form hawkism to one more open to diplomacy. What ever happened to patience is a virtue. I noticed you didn't address the accusation though...nice punt.

 

i can't even figure out what you're trying to say. you're about as coherent and lucid as moneymakers. what did i supposedly not address?

[Bill Swerski]

OK, you got me....you just blasted me about your suspicion of bias....then asked me if Rush would do for me. Let me ask so I can get clarity then. Just exactly what source would you accept as legit when it comes to getting information? Please be as specific as possible.

 

Apparently you didn't write very good research papers in college, because you don't know that multiple sources from respected authors (professional historians, in this case) are strongly preferable to an obscure one on the Internet.

[Ursa Majoris]

The plan was an invasion of the Japanese homeland in November. We had time to get our differences ironed out.

Differences? Differences? This isn't the tail end of some collective bargaining agreement, this is the end of a war started completely and singly by a belligerent with a sneak attack killing thousands of people and ended by the country that had those people killed. Differences? The Japanese had but one option and that was unconditional surrender - anything else would have been an utter scandal.

 

While you're daintily ironing out "differences", soldiers, sailors and airmen would continue to die in the Pacific. Why? So that some f'n war criminals can save face? As I said earlier, the Japanese can count themselves extremely fortunate to still exist at all.

[Kid Cid]

Very well said! thanks.

 

But seriously....it is the very lack of patience that this adminstration showed pre-Iraq that lead to many American soldiers needlessly dying as Truman's lack of patience with the process of securing the unconditional surrender The US could live with to stop the war. Instead, we had to kill innocent humans to prove our point.....something there terrorists tried to do on 9/11. I am not equating the two....I made the point...in another thread that was deleted....that indeed some around the world deem our dropping of the bombs as a terrorist type act. It does no good to simply say....no it wasn't. The facts are there was a road map to surrender that was not expedient for one reason or another for President Truman. Virtually every influential military person of the time vehemently disagreed with this strategy...including Eisenhower, MacArthur, and etc.... They did not feel mass killing of innocent humans as a viable means to ending a inherent military struggle. That is specifically what we get "angry" with terrorists about. For what it is worth....the historically significance of dropping the bombs has different meaning to different people in the world. Maybe that is why the dissenters at the time didn't want to drop the bombs and give the surrender olive branch more of a chance. But the fact remains that there was a surrender offer in hand.....and we a-bombed them anyway...when most of all the military leaders disagreed.

Let me see if I can sum up things in a (necessarily) condenced fashion.

1. Japan begins military aggression against China. This includes many atrocities including torture, murder and enslavement of many innocent civilians.
   
2. We do nothing overt based on a large isolationist movement here in the States but we do provide limited economic and military advisor support to China.
   
3. Japan drags us into this war by attacking Pearl Harbor without warning or military provocation.
   
4. Japan continues their aggression taking control over large portions of mainland China and many smaller countries and islands in the Southern and Central Pacific regions.
   
5. A meeting of the world leaders (Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin) in Yalta lays the groundwork for the military effot going forward. One of the things to come out of this Conference is that unconditional surrender Axis powers was the only acceptable outcome.
   
6. Over the course of several years we focus our economy to support this war (and the one in Europe) and manage to stem the Japanese tide.
   
7. The Japanese see the tide turning against them and wish to negotiate a surrender that allows them to keep much of their plundered gains and the government that embarked on this campaign of aggression.
   
8. These overtures by the Japanese are rebuffed because the only acceptable outcome is unconditional surrender.
   
9. The Americans drop two atomic boms on the Japanese islands in an attempt to end the war quickly and to send a message to the Russians.
   
10. Your stance is that the Americans were not right to do so (drop the bombs) and that we should have entered into negotiations with the Japanese government to negotiate a surrender acceptable to them. This would be in spite of the stated objectives of the Allied powers, while continuing a very costly ground war against the Japanese empire.
    

Now I'm no historian, but it strikes me that by following your suggestion of negotiated surrender, we would have been turning our backs on many countries that had suffered at the hands of their Japanese overlords. In addition, the Allied powers would have had to invade the Japanese homeland using conventional means to continue to bring pressure upon the Japanese government. What I want to know is, how exactly would this have made America a better team player than the route that we eventually took? What would America and the world gained by pissing on the alliance forged with the blood of so many men, women and children throughout the world and from so many different nations?

[Bill Swerski]

Differences? Differences? This isn't the tail end of some collective bargaining agreement, this is the end of a war started completely and singly by a belligerent with a sneak attack killing thousands of people and ended by the country that had those people killed. Differences? The Japanese had but one option and that was unconditional surrender - anything else would have been an utter scandal.

 

I think it speaks volumes that a relatively left-of-center guy like Ursa thinks that your demonization of Truman is complete bullcrap.

[Azazello1313]

The FACT is that Japan offered a surrender....the United States said no

 

you've said this about a million times, i would like you to back it up, please. on what date was this offer of surrender made? to whom was the offer communicated and by whom? did this person have the authority to make such an offer on behalf of the emperor? what were the terms of the surrender offered? were they offering an actual surrender, or a cease fire under which they would maintain power and territory? who, on behalf of the united states, said "no"?

 

if you can't answer these questions clearly there really is no use in continuing this.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Azazello1313

[Bill Swerski]

Virtually every influential military person of the time vehemently disagreed with this strategy...including Eisenhower, MacArthur, and etc.... They did not feel mass killing of innocent humans as a viable means to ending a inherent military struggle.

 

You still haven't told us whatt made MacArthur change his mind about mass killing of civilians when he wanted to nuke Korea? Did the mass pain and suffering in Hisoshima and Nagasaki trigger some sort of sadistic fetish?

 

This attitude is exactly why the country has went form hawkism to one more open to diplomacy. What ever happened to patience is a virtue.

 

Yeah, "patience" and "diplomacy" were working just great with Hitler at the time. What a shocker that they didn't employ that same strategy in dealing with Japan.

[Ursa Majoris]

One other thing. If the A-bomb had NOT been used in Japan, then it would have been used elsewhere subsequently. That is the nature of inventions and also the nature of weapons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided the whole world with a horrific demonstration of what nuclear weapons can do and it is entirely due to their use in 1945 that they have not been used since - everyone is well aware of what such use would mean.

 

I'd say that in itself is sufficient justification for their use in 1945.

[TheShiznit]

i can't even figure out what you're trying to say. you're about as coherent and lucid as moneymakers. what did i supposedly not address?

 

In your previous post....as a secondary "bonus" to dropping the bombs....it helped establish us as a superior power to the Russians....I am sure the dead japanese are impressed with our machismo. It is sorta like the Al Qaeda doctrine....made you sound like them...you naturally skipped over that explanation.

[TheShiznit]

This is a piece after my reasearch I did in 1993...I will have to get this book.....this is what I remember the speculation was. You can go to this site and read this. You can then redicule the source as being full of chit because it doesn't espouse your view. All japan wanted was to keep the imperial power in place....which to some extent it still is today....for cultural reasons...with no real power. But, the fact remains that the Japan offered a surrender. It was rejected. Then we needlessly bombed them. I don't think I need to correct the record when it does not need correcting.

 

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/7184

[Bill Swerski]

This is a piece after my reasearch I did in 1993...I will have to get this book.....this is what I remember the speculation was. You can go to this site and read this. You can then redicule the source as being full of chit because it doesn't espouse your view. All japan wanted was to keep the imperial power in place....which to some extent it still is today....for cultural reasons

 

While this guy presents an interesting thesis and that he's correct that the Soviets played a large role, I really don't think that the Japanese would've continued to fight after Nagasaki. Cultural differences notwithstanding, being completely out-matched and watching your fellow citizens being wiped out in droves by a weapon of unprecedented power would sap morale pretty badly in any society.

Edited March 19, 2008 by Bill Swerski

[Azazello1313]

This is a piece after my reasearch I did in 1993...I will have to get this book.....this is what I remember the speculation was. You can go to this site and read this. You can then redicule the source as being full of chit because it doesn't espouse your view. All japan wanted was to keep the imperial power in place....which to some extent it still is today....for cultural reasons...with no real power. But, the fact remains that the Japan offered a surrender. It was rejected. Then we needlessly bombed them. I don't think I need to correct the record when it does not need correcting.

 

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/7184

 

can you point me to where in that article it mentions an offer of surrender made by the japanese which was rejected by the US? TIA.