Raimondo calls Jon Stewart a Wimp, Wuss and Moral Coward. lol!

[AuH20]

It's the pseudo-nostalgia of the so-called "last good war" that keeps people from revisiting and challenging ideas that have been pounded into their heads since youth. Most of us weren't even born yet, but those black and white photos sure hit that patriotic chord!

To those who believe that it was a good idea to drop those bombs, apply what you know today to what you were taught in junior high. Human nature hasn't changed in thousands of years, what makes you so certain that our leaders back then were so noble?

Now you're being ridiculous and melodramatic. You cannot equate what happened there to what transpired over Dresden. Of course, the war could have been avoided, but there needed to be a resolution to it. Read up on the code of the bushido and tell me that all hell would have not broken loose, the minute american troops would have landed. Plus, a large segment of the population thought that they had divine intervention on their side, considering the fact that Japanese had never been conquered by a foreign force during their history. Furthermore, many of the monday morning quarterbacks are forgetting about the failed coup attempt that occurred six days after the bombings. Many of the generals would have rather died in a prolonged battle that they could never win, as opposed to suffering the stinging humiliation of surrender.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

You mean the government?

I recall reading that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the safe-havens for the elite of Japan, as the US had not dropped bombs there (yet), and they were considered safe. So yes, there was supposed to be a fairly high concentration of political rulers there.

How responsible are the leaders? The elite who want to benefit from the wars? The war-mongers? Those who fan the flames of war? The public opinion makers? The average Joe-Sixpack "blow them all up, let God sort them out?"

Complex question. Seems that the UK has convicted Michael Savage of being a public opinion maker...would that make everyone more influential than him also guilty? Where do you draw the line?

 

[rp08orbust]

Now you're being ridiculous and melodramatic. You cannot equate what happened there to what transpired over Dresden. Of course, the war could have been avoided, but there needed to be a resolution to it. Read up on the code of the bushido and tell me that all hell would have not broken loose, the minute american troops would have landed. Plus, many of the countrymen thought that they had divine intervention on their side, considering the fact that Japanese had never been conquered by a foreign force during their history. Furthermore, many of the monday morning quarterbacks are forgetting about the failed coup attempt that occurred six days after the bombings. Many of the generals would have rather died in a prolonged battle that they could never win, as opposed to suffering the humiliation of surrender.

You are completely missing the point. I don't think anyone is disputing that the nuclear attacks were necessary in order for a land invasion and occupation to succeed.

What I, at least, am disputing is your premise that a land invasion was necessary at all in order to defend the United States. By the summer of 1945, Japan posed no threat to the 50 United States (or however many of them there were--49?).

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Since when is nationalistic fervor a capital offense? Are the 70% of American who supported the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 worthy of death?

Good question. Is there any responsibility? What do you think?

 

[rp08orbust]

Good question. Is there any responsibility? What do you think?

Sure, there's some moral responsibility, but not of the sort that government can or should punish, either by a local or foreign government.

 

[AuH20]

You are completely missing the point. I don't think anyone is disputing that the nuclear attacks were necessary in order for a land invasion and occupation to succeed.

What I, at least, am disputing is your premise that a land invasion was necessary at all in order to defend the United States. By the summer of 1945, Japan posed no threat to the 50 United States (or however many of them there were--49?).

The entire country was worked up into a frenzy to crush the Japanese and for good reason. Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, the Bataan death march? Remember those incidents? Too much blood was spilled at that point. The US had methodically pushed its way through 5000 miles of ocean at a heavy price and suddenly you expect them to stop, with the grand prize in sight? I'm just trying to paint the historically accurate perspective at that time. In 2009, it sounds reasonable to state that they should have stopped, but the vengeance factor of war were not going to let that occur.

 

[Original_Intent]

Now you're being ridiculous and melodramatic. You cannot equate what happened there to what transpired over Dresden. Of course, the war could have been avoided, but there needed to be a resolution to it. Read up on the code of the bushido and tell me that all hell would have not broken loose, the minute american troops would have landed. Plus, a large segment of the population thought that they had divine intervention on their side, considering the fact that Japanese had never been conquered by a foreign force during their history. Furthermore, many of the monday morning quarterbacks are forgetting about the failed coup attempt that occurred six days after the bombings. Many of the generals would have rather died in a prolonged battle that they could never win, as opposed to suffering the stinging humiliation of surrender.

The samurai code had been outlawed for two generations at the time of WW2.

 

[AuH20]

The samurai code had been outlawed for two generations at the time of WW2.

The core tenets of the Bushido was very much alive among the populace.

 

[KoldKut]

...

 

[rp08orbust]

The entire country was worked up into a frenzy to crush the Japanese and for good reason. Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, the Bataan death march? Remember those incidents? Too much blood was spilled at that point. The US had methodically pushed its way through 5000 miles of ocean at a heavy price and suddenly you expect them to stop, with the grand prize in sight? I'm just trying to paint the historically accurate perspective at that time. In 2009, it sounds reasonable to state that they should have stopped, but the vengeance factor of war were not going to let that occur.

Now that you've backed off from defending the nuclear attack to explaining the psychological causes for why it was inevitable, I have no disagreement.

But yes, all of us who support limited government expect, or at least hope, for a government that can exercise restraint and not pursue every "grand prize" it thinks it can win just because it's there.

 

[rp08orbust]

Why must every war be won by a Carthaginian victory? Why isn't beating back the enemy just enough so they can't attack you again good enough?

 

[diggronpaul]

This last "act" by Stewart is propaganda, how did this thread migrate to a discussion around WWII's atomic bomb detonations?

Anyway, the bombs were dropped to prove that man must be controlled otherwise we risk destroying the planet, and a One World Gov't would be the only way to implement those controls. The One World or None compendium put out by the Federation of American Scientists short after the war pretty much admits this if you read between the lines.

 

[KoldKut]

...

 

[Annihilia]

Now you're being ridiculous and melodramatic. You cannot equate what happened there to what transpired over Dresden. Of course, the war could have been avoided, but there needed to be a resolution to it. Read up on the code of the bushido and tell me that all hell would have not broken loose, the minute american troops would have landed. Plus, a large segment of the population thought that they had divine intervention on their side, considering the fact that Japanese had never been conquered by a foreign force during their history. Furthermore, many of the monday morning quarterbacks are forgetting about the failed coup attempt that occurred six days after the bombings. Many of the generals would have rather died in a prolonged battle that they could never win, as opposed to suffering the humiliation of surrender.

Yes yes, I argued this same point in high school during a presentation on Truman. Invasion would've been costly, all Japanese people were mentally insane and would kamikaze into an American landing force, there would be no peace and the war would drag on, etc. I played devil's advocate for some shock value.

But really, the civilian population knew it was over by then. The military was the only part of Japan holding out, and even so, surrender proposals have been communicated with the US.. So your argument falls apart there.

 

[Annihilia]

The core tenets of the Bushido was very much alive among the populace.

No it was not. Trust me.

 

[rp08orbust]

This last "act" by Stewart is propaganda, how did this thread migrate to a discussion around WWII's atomic bomb detonations?

Because that is the subject of the comments Stewart apologized for.

 

[rp08orbust]

No it was not. Trust me.

Why does it matter one way or the other whether Japan had any Samurais left? Did Samurai's attack Hawaii? Once the Japanese navy was defeated, what business did the US have in setting a single foot on the islands of Japan?

 

[KoldKut]

...

 

[rp08orbust]

Why isn't the wholesale incineration of the Japanese cities described as blowback for the inhuman barbaric behavior of the imperial Japanese military?

The Japanese military machine scoffed at the "rules of warfare" as defined in the Geneva Conventions. They summarily executed, raped, tortured, and enslaved non-Japanese people that came under their control. So why all the hand-wringing and self-loathing for nuking the fuck out of those bastards? They earned every bomb.

More collectivist bullshit.

What percentage of a city's population needs to be criminals before the innocent inhabitants are expendable for the sake of punishing the bad guys?

 

[Annihilia]

Why does it matter one way or the other whether Japan had any Samurais left? Did Samurai's attack Hawaii? Once the Japanese navy was defeated, what business did the US have in setting a single foot on the islands of Japan?

You are right, it doesn't matter. The whole Bushido excuse is just what some people like to use to justify their stance. It's entirely bullshit, though.