Story Comments
Posted by: cloud15 1 year, 4 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
47%
cloud151 year, 4 months ago
-
73%
skeek1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
America's nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a deliberate assault on civilians. As such, by your own definitions that your nation now cynical utilises for political leverage around the world, it was nothing more than war crimes that America has conveniently rewritten as national mythology in much the same way that "McCain as War Hero" is mythologised.
Reply
Those bombings announced to the rest of the world just who they should now be afraid of and to just whom homage must be paid. They announced to yourselves as citizens that they now ruled the roost.
Those bombings may have brought an end to that war, but it was only a chapter that had been closed, not the book. America's wars have continued almost ceaseless since that time. Every war America has fought post Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been to protect or advance American 'interests' – imperial interests. A new chapter of war had opened up just as quickly as that one had closed -- The Advancement of the America Empire.
Vietnam, and John McCain’s role in it, was no different. The true heroes of that war were the Vietnamese people. Not a man, now running for president, who bombed them relentlessly. Their heroism is in the fact that they not only survived an unprovoked aggressor employing excessive force with the most deadly technology but also repelled them from their country; a heroism America has yet to be big enough to acknowledge. Frankly, without even raising the topic of compensation, America has also yet to make an apology. Wesley Clark was right.
"Sadly," he writes, "McCain's sacrifice had nothing to do with protecting the United States. He was sent to Vietnam along with hundreds of thousands of others in an attempt to prop up what was essentially an American colony, South Vietnam, which was being run by a dictator whom we installed."
I take it that's the closest America will come to admitting fault in Vietnam.-
75%
alakazam1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The deliberate assault on civilians wasn't started by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings - it was ended by them.
Reply
A subtle difference but a very important one.
Have you ever seen a picture of London taken before World War II?
Do you have any idea of the atrocities that were committed in Asia by the Nipponese armed forces? It had to be stopped by any means necessary. It was a REAL threat that had to be countered. You can deny it until the cows come home but the US was not the aggressor in WWII.
Do I approve of it...no not really. Do you have a viable alternative that could have been used then? Please share it with the group.
Vietnam was quite a different story and so is Iraq. One thing I have noticed about Vietnam is that apparently not enough people learned anything from it.
If they had we would not be in the same damn mess all over again.-
55%
Jaydee401 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nuking Japan was an act of terrorism and nothing more and the records are there to prove it. It is well recorded that Japan had no more ability to bring war to anyone but the US had to end it before Russia was able to bring their own resources against the Japanese and then demand spoils of war like they did in Europe. Russia had much more to do with the Nuke being uses than amy fear of Japan. The rest of what you say is very true, history is a lesson very often ignored.
Reply-
-
JoseMadreComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
75%
skeek1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The deliberate assault on civilians wasn't started by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings - it was ended by them. A subtle difference but a very important one."
Reply
I hadn't said either and I don't agree with either. What I said was:
"America's nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a deliberate assault on civilians."
A not so subtle difference and not only more important but more factual as well.-
25%
alakazam1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So we did in an afternoon what would otherwise have taken weeks?
Reply
It would have been far more bloody.
I do not approve of the "surgical strike" nonsense myself. Waking up to a nearby 5 megaton blast would be a hell of a way to start the day.
Should we have just walked away?
What were the actual alternative results of NOT using it?-
-
0%
skeek1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Read on McDuff...
Reply
"Since the late 1940s the common justifications for President Truman's decision to drop two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have consisted of five basic assertions: 1) that the bombs saved more lives than they took by eliminating the need for a US ground invasion of Japan, 2) that the bombs were dropped on military targets essential to the Japanese war machine, 3) that the bombs were dropped only after a process of careful deliberation by US leaders, 4) that those leaders were forced into dropping the bombs because of the Japanese leadership's refusal to surrender, and 5) that the bombings effectively ended the Pacific war by convincing Japan's leaders to surrender. These five assertions had their origins in the public statements of Truman, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, and others in the years 1945-47, and constitute the core of what might be labeled the "official narrative" concerning the use of the atomic bombs [1].
Historical scholarship in recent decades has completely refuted the first three assertions. Most scholars who have studied the use of the atomic bombs agree that Truman and his advisers knew a mainland invasion of Japan to have been "an unlikely possibility" given Japan's dire military situation in late-July 1945 [2]. Even in the event of a US mainland invasion, the highest projected casualty estimates for US forces were not "over a million" like Stimson and Truman later claimed, but between 30,000 and 50,000 [3]. More importantly, prior to August 1945 Truman and his advisers had considered it possible that the war would end without either the atomic bombs or a mainland invasion by US forces [4].
The claims that Truman and advisers used the bombs on military bases, and after careful consideration of alternatives, have both been proven false; Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major population centers, not military targets, and high-level officials later admitted that the bombs had been used hastily [5]. US officials clearly knew beforehand that the bombings would result in massive civilian deaths in both cities, but as J. Samuel Walker notes, that realization made little impact on US leaders given the long-established strategy of targeting civilian populations [6]. In fact, very little deliberation occurred as to whether or not the bombs should be dropped; according to historian Barton Bernstein, "it was not a carefully weighed decision but the implementation of an assumption" [7]. Once the bombs were developed, it was assumed they would be used."
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/08/06/kevin-young-the-atomic-bombing-of-japan/-
Neutral
alakazam1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1) An invasion of the Japanese homeland was unlikely because they were weakened militarily ? This makes no sense at all.
Reply
2) So 30 to 50 thousand American dead in a conventional invasion..How many Japanese dead?
3) The Japanese refused to cease aggression...What in your mind would have put an end to it? You say yourself the possibility it could be ended without invasion or bombing was considered. Why was that route discarded? Do you honestly believe they just wanted to "nuke" someone? Why not as many as possible?
4)I think a port which was a major military shipyard qualifies as a military target. They could have just as easily chosen Tokyo if it was only about killing people.
5)You mean like the Rape of Nanking?
6)So you consider Barton Bernstein an unassailable authority on the mental state of the people making the decision? What exactly does "They implemented an assumption" mean?
7) Are you aware of a weapon ever developed that has NOT been used.
I will cede that there are SOME bioweapons that obviously have not.
I am not and have not defended the use of the bombs. I have asked several times for someone to explain a viable alternative.
So what was the alternative and why would it have been better?-
0%
skeek1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've cut&paste three paragraphs from the article whose link I provided. I recommend you read it.
Reply
The main focus of it is the views of Japanese historian, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, who refutes, firstly, your third point, which makes the others moot. "Hasegawa observes that no one in the Japanese government ever formally rejected the terms of the Potsdam Proclamation...
...Hasegawa's strongest supporting evidence for this claim is a detail of supreme importance, though one which is usually neglected in the standard histories: Stimson, Chief of Staff George Marshall, and General Thomas Handy had, prior to July 26, already approved a directive (circulated on July 24-25) that ordered the use of multiple atomic bombs against Japan "as soon as weather will permit" [19]. In addition, Hasegawa notes that US officials had not sent the ultimatum through normal diplomatic channels and cites passages from the diaries of Truman and Department of State adviser Walter Brown that suggest the ultimatum was merely a "prelude" to the use of the bombs [20]."
...Hasegawa's second major challenge to what has become the official scholarly version of the bombs' use is that the Soviet declaration of war rather than the atomic bombs was the major factor compelling Japan to surrender. The direct role of the bombs in bringing about Japan's surrender has always been part of the official narrative, for obvious reasons [21]. Yet that argument has also gone virtually unchallenged among revisionist historians and those who criticize the bombs' use [22]."
I have always believed there has been much more to the official narrative that has never, to my thinking, proven either complete or satisfactory. What has always bothered me most is how something so abhorrent has been portrayed as morally virtuous, how black has been made white, and how, in the end, Machiavellian thinking is not only justified but reigns supreme -- America's historical version of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally validates how the end justifies the means. That, itself, is reprehensible.
Which brings me back to the two points I have made repeatedly throughout this thread. Why were the bombs used? The newest world empire had arrived -- the USA. Does their use constitute war crimes? Yes.-
Neutral
alakazam1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So you wanna talk about War crimes?
Reply
An opinion...not mine, on the work of Hasegawa.
"Hasegawa's bias is too blatant. In his Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan, he sets out to prove that the Pacific War just happened; it "is a story with no heroes, but no real villains, either." So he can ignore the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, the hundreds of thousands of Asian slave laborers who died building the Burma railway and starving in Japanese mines and factories. Not to mention beheadings, endless other atrocities, forcing native populations to jump off cliffs rather than be captured by the Americans.
UN and other figures put the number of civilians killed by the Japanese Empire at 10 to 25 million. Some Chinese historians claim 30 million Chinese alone perished. General Ishii and his chemical warfare operations were not villains, just guys doing a job." -Robert Newman
I am still looking for that alternative. -
-
-
-
0%
DropkickaLib1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Definitely not true. A military coup almost derailed the Emperor's surrender decision. There were many hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers in mainland Asia and the Japanese military was hording suicide boats and aircraft. Your post is a pack of lies written by your PRC handlers.
Reply-
Neutral
alakazam1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I dunno who his handlers may or not be.
Reply
He would do better by accepting the broader facts of this analysis by Josette Williams.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v46i3a07p.htm
The revisionist crap he has been extolling all over the page is ridiculous and woefully obvious as nothing but a vehicle to promote anti-American sentiment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
43%
Justice4All1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You sound like just another envious Brit. Maybe you could make a list of the worlds problems today that were not caused by the English. That should keep you busy for 5 or 10 seconds. Then let us know how you think this the war in Japan would have ended without nuclear weapons, and how many lives would have been lost.
Reply
Another 2 years of bombing followed by a ground assult would have cost many more lives than the atomic bombs.-
67%
skeek1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Justice For All -- now there's an oxymoron given the narrowness of your point of view.
Reply
I said that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes; this is by all current definitions including your nations' own. I have yet to see anything you have said dispute or deny that.
What you and others have instead done is provide reasons as to why you think those war crimes were necessary, but that is beside the point. They are rationalisations. All perpetrators of war crimes will always rationalise their crimes to justify their actions.
-
-
25%
injest1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
skeek
Reply
“America's wars have continued almost ceaseless since that time. Every war America has fought post Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been to protect or advance American 'interests'”
News flash Buckie!
ALL wars, ours and others are fought in “the 'interests'” of those fighting it.
After that sinks in try this, ALL wars are optional.
Yep true, ya can always just surrender
BTW how much time have you sent in the Peace Corps?-
50%
donald511 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Injest, yah, the right wingers wanted Patton to continue WW2 with his corps against the Russians, McArthur to cross the Yalu, Vietnam indefinitely prolonged (Kennedy possibly slain to prevent a pullout), lies to go into Iraq a second time and stay for a 100 years... yes, the repugs are war mongers of choice! And all the war profiteering under the repugs with the sole source, unaudited contracts! Disgusting behavior for any human being!
Reply -
50%
skeek1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
injest:
Reply
"ALL wars, ours and others are fought in “the 'interests'” of those fighting it. After that sinks in try this, ALL wars are optional."
You are being disingenuous. You have drawn this based on a quote from my comment. What is worth noting is that you have excluded the last two words of my sentence thereby deliberately misconstruing its meaning. Here it is in full:
“America's wars have continued almost ceaseless since that time. Every war America has fought post Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been to protect or advance American 'interests' -- imperial interests."
Please note the word 'imperial' and consider its meaning. After that sinks in, try this -- ALL American wars are imperial.-
-
Neutral
skeek1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Is there something being lost in translation here? Firstly, the word I used was 'all' not 'only.' I do however appreciate it that you agree with my point that America's wars are imperial.
Reply
Secondly, I have not argued that war aggressors are not imperial, as you imply. Are you admitting that America has been, either covertly or overtly, the initiator of its imperial wars? If so, I also appreciate your agreement on this point to.-
Neutral
alakazam1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So you are resorting to insult now?
Reply
First of all, I didn't agree with anything. You claimed ALL American wars have been imperialistic. I disagree, but would like to know when in your mind a war would not be imperialistic. Has there ever been any war that was not?
Secondly, I made no such Implication...I asked a question. You seem to keep accusing people of making claims upon your statements when it hasn't occurred, but see no problem in taking whatever license you want in amplifying their comments to fit your response.
Simply addressing an issue you bring up in the forum does not qualify it as a quote nor does it make any claims on your comment other than as a vehicle for discussion or rebuttal.
I' ll just consider your last two sentences an evasion of my question.
-
-
-
-
-
-
40%
navythunderbolt1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If we had planned all along to use the atomic bomb agaisnt Japan, why did we wait until thousands of US Sailors were killed to do it? Not to mention why use it on smaller cities instead of a huge one like Tokyo?If I remember correctly Japan attacked the US first. The US was doing just fine minding its own buisness while Japan was fighting China, and Hitler was taking over Europe. I believe the bombing of Pearl Harbor made Japan the agressor. You wanna mess with the big dogs, be prepared to face the consequences. Japan conqured island chain after island chain. Germany conqured nation after nation and slaughtered millions in the process, but America is the bad guy? Hate us if you want, but don't come crying for help when the next Adolf Hitler (and there will be another Adolf Hitler) has his guns pointing at your country.
Reply -
0%
DropkickaLib1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A lie, PRC shill. The atom bomb attacks headed off Operation Olympic and saved an estimated 1 million U.S. lives as well as countless Japanese. Actually, Hiroshima was a substantial garrison town. Quit telling this lie as I have debunked it numerous times.
Reply
-
-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Those bombs set the stage for the Cold War... which was a bonanza for the military industrial complex.
Reply
I think the reasoning behind the use of the bomb is highly debatable... but the outcome is not. Nope, y'all. I'm not going to debate Hiroshima/Nagasaki on here, again. Its pretty obvious I've never changed a mind on this issue, either those who consider it an absolute act of evil or those who champion the idea that it was necessary. -
0%
papacool41 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How in the hell does the use of "nuclear weapons" equate to prolonging a war?????????? The bombs were used on Japan, has ANYONE USED THEM AGAIN??????????
Reply
The Japanese were fanatic about fighting to the last man, and in the case of invading the Island of Japan, EVERYONE.
I for 1, think that Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, were (at the time) very necessary... it saved UNTOLD AMOUNTS OF AMERICAN LIVES.
I think that death tolls for Americans, taking Iwo Jima, and Guadalcanal, exceed the count for all of the Vietanam conflict...
cloud15 un f*ck yourself
-
loading ...
vidman04
mcarpentry
JoseMadre
stoutkraut
AntiNeoCon
cptnkrk
Wolfie2007
Ciera-Marie
Neophile
miklkit
juvel
mesodude
skeek
dissent
Progressive
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.