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

[V-rod]

The first nuke was used too early but was justified, the second one was not and done waY too hastily.

 

[Conza88]

The first nuke was used too early but was justified, the second one was not and done waY too hastily.

It wasn't justified. i.e Truman had been ignoring the Japanese attempts to surrender all summer. He just wanted to use the bomb.

Search articles on Lewrockwell will help.

 

[diggronpaul]

What exactly did Jon Stewart say about Warren G. Harding?

Is it possible that the Truman retraction and the Harding comment are linked?

In other words, it is not OK to accuse anyone from the current ruling party of being a war-monger and at the same time, anyone who questions the Federal Reserve is scum.

The MSMedia is one mind-f*cking blur of PSYOPS after another...


History tends to repeat itself, yes?

You got that one right!

So why watch and listen to them as they do nothing other than confuse you and fill your head with disinfo?

By the way, it's ALL media now, not just MSM.

 

[acptulsa]

Framing this in the D vs. R false paradigm is just damned silly. So is commenting about Harding; though I suppose that could be used to make this look like a D/R debate. It certainly shows that trashing libertarian thought is safe enough. But of course the nuking of Japan is a sacred cow. One, there are people still alive who lived through that damned war--and the ones who fought in the Pacific theater will tell you that the Imperial Japanese weren't boy and girl scouts and would have done the same to us in a heartbeat. Two, there has been a load of propaganda on this subject over the last sixty-four years and it has been pretty believable.

FDR called for unconditional surrender by Japan. After he died, a lot of Americans, not just Truman, wanted to hold out for the same. Was that justified? Probably not, but who knows? Does anyone here have the details of the conditional surrender terms Japan was willing to stipulate to? What if they said, you can have all the Pacific just so long as we're able to continue to rape China and Korea? The fact that we were about to screw around and let China go 'red' was irrelevant at the time--irrelevant because it wasn't yet a given.

A second bomb three days later. Yeah, we wanted to test the plutonium bomb on a population, not just the uranium bomb. You betcha. Moral and high-minded? Hell, no. But even so, have you ever stopped to consider that, if we hadn't seen the after-effects of that crap, we probably would have gotten into a shooting war with the Soviets and wiped out everyone and everything but the cockroaches? Is that justification? No, but it certainly is reason to be thankful...

So, Stewart is pwned, libertarianism and Harding aren't sacred cows but Hiroshima and Truman are, and WWII isn't a subject to be trifled with even today. Which could be a useful political lesson for us--we don't help our cause by insisting on making the (rather weak) case that Pearl Harbor was a false flag event. No way to prove it at this late date, and plenty of reasonable doubt (we were so very good at underestimating the hell out of Orientals back then, probably because of the totally irrelevant fact that they tend to be short).

If you want to make a point about World War II, make the point that it didn't justify Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq and/or Bosnia the way its veterans all seemed to think it did. That's useful food for public thought, right there. And we didn't have to commit war crimes for that fact to be true, either.

 

[AuH20]

No it was not. Trust me.

The japanese had instituted a bastardized version of the Bushido throughout their military structure. Death before dishonor was the preferred choice. Ever heard of the spirit warriors? What about the kamikazes and kaiten operators? Why weren't the Americans utilizing suicide techniques?

 

[AuH20]

Ah well, blame my inadequate communication skills. I have an unusual perspective on moral questions like this. I basically agree with LeMay. He knew he was committing war crimes, but he felt those crimes were necessary. So when I said they earned every bomb, what I should have said was something like "they earned our perpetration of war crimes upon them". Does that make sense?

Mass incineration of populated cities is immoral under any circumstances, full stop. It's never just to flambe babies, full stop. However, as I said before, morality doesn't really apply to nation state interaction in war. Everything is based on expediency, and ensuring that your collective survives. Quaint notions of morality take a very distant backseat to the imperative of survival. I'm quite comfortable with endorsing immoral acts, if I feel those acts are required. But at the same time I don't try to portray those immoral acts as moral in order to assuage my conscience.
This may be because as an atheist I have no expectation of being judged on an absolutist scale after I die. Therefore I don't feel a need to put a righteous spin on all my acts and choices.

Great post. I agree. War by its very defintion is immoral. Obviously, it's disheartening to see conflicts intentionally escalated to certain heights by false flag attacks whether it be the U.S.S. Maine incident or the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

 

[Annihilia]

The japanese had instituted a bastardized version of the Bushido throughout their military structure. Death before dishonor was the preferred choice. Ever heard of the spirit warriors? What about the kamikazes and kaiten operators? Why weren't the Americans utilizing suicide techniques?

Civilian population != military structure.

I have second hand accounts from people who were just off the coast of Hiroshima when the bomb dropped. They knew it was over long before then.

Your accusation can be likened to those calling all practicing Muslims radical Jihadis.

 

[AuH20]

Civilian population != military structure.

I have second hand accounts from people who were just off the coast of Hiroshima when the bomb dropped. They knew it was over long before then.

Your accusation can be likened to those calling all practicing Muslims radical Jihadis.

Modern bushido also focused on nationalism and loyalty to the person of the Emperor. A large majority of citizens were quite willing to die for their god, the Emperor.

 

[sailor]

Why weren't the Americans utilizing suicide techniques?

Because they didn`t need to.

They would have at Alamo.

 

[AuH20]

Because they didn`t need to.

They would have at Alamo.

But the Japanese had been utilizing these tactics from an offensive standpoint since the beginning of the conflict. It wasn't like they suddenly adopted this strategy when were forced into a defensive posture. This mentality was engrained within their military structure as well as significant portion of the population. Death before dishonor in service of the Emperor. That was the creed.

 

[Annihilia]

Modern bushido also focused on nationalism and loyalty to the person of the Emperor. A large majority of citizens were quite willing to die for their god, the Emperor.

Towards the end of the war, people just wanted it to be over with. It was a lost cause and everybody knew it. Obviously if there was a land invasion, people would fight back to defend their homes. Wouldn't you?

But this is all irrelevant. A land invasion was not necessary as even the Imperial government communicated to the US a desire to negotiate surrender terms.

 

[acptulsa]

But the Japanese had been utilizing these tactics from an offensive standpoint since the beginning of the conflict. It wasn't like they suddenly adopted this strategy when were forced into a defensive posture. This mentality was engrained within their military structure as well as significant portion of the population. Death before dishonor in service of the Emperor. That was the creed.

You're looking at the Army. The Navy--at least its commanders--had a more reasoned viewpoint. But then, they understood the investment that had been made in those ships, and the fact that they couldn't be replaced with any ease or speed.

And as for the civilian population, well--they had their own problems, and most were smart enough to know that this quest for empire was at the heart of a lot of them.

I think too many of us are falling in the trap of painting them with too broad a brush. They may not have emphasized it so much--then or now--but the Japanese are individuals too.

Towards the end of the war, people just wanted it to be over with. It was a lost cause and everybody knew it. Obviously if there was a land invasion, people would fight back to defend their homes. Wouldn't you?

But this is all irrelevant. A land invasion was not necessary as even the Imperial government communicated to the US a desire to negotiate surrender terms.

Very true. And very strange that we were unwilling to negotiate with them. This certainly isn't the attitude we had toward the Italians.

 

[sailor]

But the Japanese had been utilizing these tactics from an offensive standpoint since the beginning of the conflict. It wasn't like they suddenly adopted this strategy when were forced into a defensive posture. This mentality was engrained within their military structure as well as significant portion of the population. Death before dishonor in service of the Emperor. That was the creed.

First Kamikaze attack was I think in 1944. If there were some manner of suicide attacks before that they were on a much smaller scale.

Kamikaze professed over and over again in their writtings and interviews that it was not about dying for the emperor or anything of the sort, but about protecting their families and their land.

 

[acptulsa]

First Kamikaze attack was I think in 1944. If there were some manner of suicide attacks before that they were on a much smaller scale.

Depends on your definition, I guess. They certainly preferred defeat (read annihalation) to surrender. It was made a social and religious imperative. And the Admiralty, for one, considered it a pain in the ass. Half the wise decisions they made caused mutinous stirrings in the ranks...

 

[sailor]

Depends on your definition, I guess. They certainly preferred defeat (read annihalation) to surrender. It was made a social and religious imperative. And the Admiralty, for one, considered it a pain in the ass. Half the wise decisions they made caused mutinous stirrings in the ranks...

So how come they didn`t disregard the 2nd September and fight on when the US landed?

 

[acptulsa]

So how come they didn`t disregard the 2nd September and fight on when the US landed?

Now that would have been dishonorable as hell--and pointless. Besides, they had already lost face. The damage was oh so done by then...

 

[sailor]

Now that would have been dishonorable as hell--and pointless. Besides, they had already lost face. The damage was oh so done by then...

Then why didn`t they ritualy kill themselves to prevent losing face as required by Bushido?

 

[acptulsa]

Then why didn`t they ritualy kill themselves to prevent losing face as required by Bushido?

Interesting question. Well, that was more of a Shogun thing than something for the hoi polloi. Besides, wouldn't you have been of a mind to look at Hirohito and say, 'after you'?

I expect some did. I wouldn't expect any women to do so. As for the rest, did they personally fail in their duties?

 

[Annihilia]

Some of the infantry did kill themselves rather than face capture, I know that for a fact. That is a far cry from saying the entirety of the civilian populace would attempt to overwhelm a landing force with frying pans and gardening tools..

 

[Danke]

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.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2105594&postcount=64