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

[jmlfod87]

The war should have not even started, on the account that FDR cut off their oil. But I can't criticize Truman for making a controversial decision. An amphibious invasion of the Japanese homeland would have costed close to a million lives.

We have to remember that there are no rules in war. That is why it should be avoided at all costs. The goal in war is to annihilate your opposition as quickly as possible so they submit or relent.

You are laboring under the fallacious assumption that a land invasion was the only alternative to ending the war.

1. The war was already essentially won when we dropped the bombs. We were bombing cities like Tokyo on a daily basis. The Japanese had no industrial strength left to form anything that resembled a counter attack. It was only a matter of time before they had no other option but to capitulate.

2. The Soviet Union already had scheduled an invasion for the beginning of August. We didn't need to invade them considering the Soviets were going to invade anyways. This was essentially the reason truman decided to drop the bomb. He wanted the Japanese to surrender before the Soviet invasion, otherwise the Soviets would have claimed Japan as their own, and Truman was already working on a Cold War with the Soviets and din't want them to gain anymore territory.

In conclusion, the bombings, and the potential invasion, were unnecessary. We bombed them to end the war quickly before the Soviets could gain anymore strength. There was no other reason for the bombings. Jon Stewart is a wimp for retracting his statement regarding the criminal bombings.

 

[ourlongroad]

Well he made it pretty obvious that his corporate strings were being pulled, which was sort of the point of the bit.. that's why he didn't give any good reasons.

We're going to start seeing more "evidence" of their controls within channels that they control... i think they want to be more overt now as part of their psy-war. They have to make us believe they are in total control, even if its only make-believe Hollywood & NYC television.

Brownshirts, basically, political correctness police, seems to always follow when the 'left' takes DC.

 

[Todd]

That was... Unbelievably sad. It hurt to see him defeated like that, and the look on his face near the end...

Wow.

Yeah.. I felt sorry for him for a minute......but then I remembered.... He's a lap dog for Democrats. Screw him.

 

[dannno]

Yeah.. I felt sorry for him for a minute......but then I remembered.... He's a lap dog for Democrats. Screw him.

He's not a lapdog for the Democrats. It's just that his fan base is primarily progressive due to their age.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

He's not a lapdog for the Democrats. It's just that his fan base is primarily progressive due to their age.

I remember Stewart going on to the show Crossfire and ripping them apart for being phony partisan hacks, quite a glorious moment. But if he does not want people to think the same of him, he ought to make more jabs at the left despite his audience. But I simply think him and much of his staff are liberals when it comes to economic issues.

 

[dannno]

I remember Stewart going on to the show Crossfire and ripping them apart for being phony partisan hacks, quite a glorious moment. But if he does not want people to think the same of him, he ought to make more jabs at the left despite his audience. But I simply think him and much of his staff are liberals when it comes to economic issues.

Well, like I've always said, if you don't know why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer in this country (the real problem being The Federal Reserve), and you come to the realization that the system is some how rigged...now if welfare is the only option presented to you for fixing this problem and you are a reasonable human being, you would probably come up with a scheme to tax the rich to give to the poor... If the system is rigged for the rich and there is no answer as to how or why this is, then why not make it more fair for everyone?

Obviously this situation creates an incredible amount of inefficiency, and by getting rid of the rigged system and instilling an honest monetary policy we would not have any justifiable or moral reason for welfare. The problem is that Democrats don't understand this concept. They don't know how the system is rigged, and that is how I convert liberals into at least seeing the problems with our banking system.

 

[Reason]

I disagree. We were attacked first, and the bomb ended that part of the war right now. Much simpler than dragging out some campaign that lasts years and years.

Moral cowardice would have been sacrificing an American life though he didn't have to.

The US told them it was coming. War sucks. Run if you can.

Except that the war would have ended without a "costly ground invasion" as is taught in US history books. The Japanese were finished and they knew it. The main reason why we dropped the bombs was to establish a precedent in dealing with the Soviets.

 

[rp08orbust]

Raimondo is feeling a bit guilty for his Obama vote now?

Justin Raimondo never voted for Obama. He briefly supported him as the lesser of evils among the other Republicans and Democrats in the late Spring of 2008. His support ended the day Obama made a speech to AIPAC and pledged the US's eternal fealty to Israel. I can find the article if you want.

 

[slacker921]

Justin Raimondo never voted for Obama. He briefly supported him as the lesser of evils among the other Republicans and Democrats in the late Spring of 2008. His support ended the day Obama made a speech to AIPAC and pledged the US's eternal fealty to Israel. I can find the article if you want.

... ah! now that you mention it, I do remember him pulling his support for Obama. I just remember him gushing over Obama there for a while.

 

[rp08orbust]

I disagree. We were attacked first, and the bomb ended that part of the war right now. Much simpler than dragging out some campaign that lasts years and years.

What would have been even simpler is accept the surrender offered by the Japanese in January of 1945, by which time the US had already achieved a naval victory. Why was a ground occupation of Japan necessary when it lacked the means to ever threaten US territory again?

 

[rp08orbust]

... ah! now that you mention it, I do remember him pulling his support for Obama. I just remember him gushing over Obama there for a while.

And even when he did briefly support Obama, he admitted that it was 99% a gay thing. It was no different than the many Ron Paul supporters who were tempted by Sarah Palin because she was "hot".

 

[Dieseler]

The Japanese sank the very ship that delivered the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on its return trip.
The war was not over.

 

[Kraig]

I disagree. We were attacked first, and the bomb ended that part of the war right now. Much simpler than dragging out some campaign that lasts years and years.

Moral cowardice would have been sacrificing an American life though he didn't have to.

The US told them it was coming. War sucks. Run if you can.

lol moral cowardice? Let me ask how you would define "terrorism"? I find it completely amazing that some of you guys, while we live in an era where our government starts countless wars without our approval, condone killing thousands of civilians in punishment for the actions their government and military.

By your logic the people in every single country the US government has laid waste to has every right to come here and kill you and me.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Did the 100,000+ Japanese that lost their lives from the bombs have ANYTHING to do with Pearl Harbor?

It would be collectivist to say that they were all completely innocent. Obviously, any of them that were against the war (or against war in general) were truly innocent (and the children of course). But how about the Chicken Hawks among them? How about the war-mongering fanatics among them?

 

[rp08orbust]

The Japanese sank the very ship that delivered the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on its return trip.
The war was not over.

The Indianapolis, whose captain was not even bothering with defensive zig-zag maneuvers, was sunk by one of two Japanese submarines still left. The sub was essentially on a suicide mission, patrolling for anything it could find to fire torpedoes at, and it got lucky and found the Indianapolis on a dark night while it was forced to surface. If this fluke demonstrates anything at all, it's how defeated the Japanese navy already was.

 

[rp08orbust]

It would be collectivist to say that they were all completely innocent. Obviously, any of them that were against the war (or against war in general) were truly innocent (and the children of course). But how about the Chicken Hawks among them? How about the war-mongering fanatics among them?

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?

 

[Kraig]

It would be collectivist to say that they were all completely innocent. Obviously, any of them that were against the war (or against war in general) were truly innocent (and the children of course). But how about the Chicken Hawks among them? How about the war-mongering fanatics among them?

What is your point? Some may have been innocent, some may have been guilty in support of the the war, so what? Drop the bomb and "let god sort em out" is horrendous.

 

[Annihilia]

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?

 

[RevolutionSD]

It would be collectivist to say that they were all completely innocent. Obviously, any of them that were against the war (or against war in general) were truly innocent (and the children of course). But how about the Chicken Hawks among them? How about the war-mongering fanatics among them?

You mean the government?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

What is your point?

Some may have been innocent, some may have been guilty in support of the the war.

Drop the bomb and "let god sort em out" is horrendous.

Since when has war not resulted in the death of innocent people? Isn't "war-crime" redundant? Every bomb has the potential, and usually does, result in the death of innocent people.