Lest we forget - Hiroshima & Nagasaki

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"They attacked us first"

And this justifies killing hundreds of thousands of children?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but it shortened the war. And a bluff wouldn't have worked. And neither would only 1 bomb. And they attacked us first. Feel free to insert your own rationalization for why it was ok to fry thousands of helpless children alive in their hometown.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the Americans should have just told Japan, "The war is over. We won.", and gone home after the Battle of Okinawa?

Does anyone who argues against the use of the two bombs think we shouldn't have pushed for total surrender by Japan?

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The Japanese were the sole instigators of this war and brought the wrath of the US down upon themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
FWIW, this is not entirely true. If the US hadn't [censored] with Japan's economy they wouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you buy this line, go back one step further. Why was the US messing with the Japanese economy? Did we make them invade China too?

[/ QUOTE ]
What concern is it of ours if Japan invades China?

If you want to go back to the beginning, its the US's fault that Japan was even in the position to be a great power in the Pacific in the first place by forcing open Japan to Western trade in the 19th century

[/ QUOTE ]

What concern it is of yours if your neighbor's house is on fire or if his house is broken into or if his children are abducted? Not your problem, right? I'd love to have you as a neighbor.

[andyfox]

An editorial typo. It has to be. The article is dated August 8 and it talks about "this week" being the 62nd anniversary. So Scheer had to have meant August; it is likely the publication messed up the date. And if Scheer accidentally submitted "April," a decent editor, seeing that he said "this week" as the anniversary week, would have noticed the April/August discrepancy. I've met Scheer and he's a very well-read (but opinionated) guy, I'm sure he knows the bombs were dropped in August. He has to: otherwise how could he say this week was the anniversary?

The answers to your questions: No, the 9/11 attacks were not justified. American retaliation for the attacks was justified. I favored the attack against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The President had an 89% approval rating in the wake of the retaliation against Afghanistan, so evidently a lot of liberals approved of it as well.

Can you answer one question for me which I asked you in my prior post: Can you give me an example of my being a "nazi or islamic collaborator." Or of any liberal/Liberal? Thanks.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you answer one question for me which I asked you in my prior post: Can you give me an example of my being a "nazi or islamic collaborator." Or of any liberal/Liberal? Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

[andyfox]

Many people were against unconditional surrender at the time. Churchill, for one. At Casablanca, there was no declaration on the subject because of Churchill's disagreement on this with Roosevelt. Roosevelt used the phrase in the postconference press briefing, and claimed later that it was an unintentional error.

Churchill felt that by foreclosing any possible negotiations toward surrender, the Allies were making it more likely that the Germans and Japanese would fight to the bitter end, at a huge cost in lives on both sides. And that the resulting level of devastation might lead to another war.

Churchill felt that unconditional surrender could be taken by the enemy as promising the destruction of not just its armies but of its entire society. And, sure enough, Goebbels told the German people that the unconditional surrender demand meant the Allies were set on making slaves of their entire population. Churchill felt that the enemy, given the demand for "unconditional surrender" would have no reason to mitigate the ferocity of its resistance. It would be an invitation to the Germans and the Japanese to fight back without restaint, even as their defeat came to be seen as inevitable, preferring to take their chances with immoral tactics as a last stand rather than to accept defeat by an enemy refusing to offer any terms whatsoever.

Stalin, too, was against unconditional surrender. He aruged that even the harshest conditions (and this was not a "soft" guy: he wanted to, if not enslave the Germans, at least impoverish them) would bring about a settlement far sooner than unconditional surrender.

[andyfox]

The war was a fait accompli when the Supreme Court elected Bush. Key members of the Bush administation had openly called for it.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
The war was a fait accompli when the Supreme Court elected Bush. Key members of the Bush administation had openly called for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And key members of the Clinton administration called for it. BFD. If SH had complied with all of the UN resolutions and allowed unfettered access to Iraqi sites and scientists there would have been no war. There is no such thing as a fait accompli until the first missile is fired or the first boots hit the ground.

Re the "Supreme Court" nonsense, I was actually coming to expect better from you. Too bad you find it irresistable to dip into the kool-aid now and then. Even that great conservative haven of the NYT admitted that Dem challenges could only succeed by cherrypicking areas to recount.

[andyfox]

I think I can make a very good argument for a war in Iraq being a fait accompli when Bush came into office. I think I may have already on this forum. But we'd be hijacking this thread.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I can make a very good argument for a war in Iraq being a fait accompli when Bush came into office. I think I may have already on this forum. But we'd be hijacking this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link me to it.

[andyfox]

Haven't a clue how to do it. If I have some time and inclination, I'll start a new thread.