Very well handled.
I think this was well done. However, I also have no problem with calling Harry Truman a war criminal.
We're not scheduled to have this annual discussion until August, but since we're early. No, it's not at all a given that 6 months of carpet bombing and an invasion was the only other option, and this insistence that JAPAN MADE US DO IT sounds suspiciously like rationalization. A few questions:
1) If the atom bomb was so pants-wettingly terrifying to the Japanese, why did we have to make a return trip?
2) Other Japanese cities experienced even greater devastation and loss of life through conventional firebombing; why would the Japanese even care how many planes it took to wipe out Hiroshima and Nagasaki? "I was okay with it when it took 24 planes to destroy a city, but just one plane? That will never do."
3) The Soviet Union invaded Japanese territory just as we destroyed Nagasaki. Why is the Soviet Union's well-timed involvement so routinely ignored? You don't suppose that being betrayed and humiliated by the Soviet Union had anything to do with Japan's losing its resolve? Of course not, that's crazy talk -- clearly the Japanese surrendered not because we were destroying them city by city, but because we were doing so with new technology.
I say we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the Soviet Union's benefit, to give them something to think about.
One of the reasons we used the a-bombs on Japan was to end the war more quickly, thus preventing Russia from moving her army into Japan. Stalin never met a land grab he didn't like, and a mainland invasion into Japan may have, among other things, led a divided Japan. God knows that another Berlin is not what the world needed.
He wasn't a war criminal. The Japs started that shit and they weren't prepared to finish it. They could have surrendered when we had air bases close to their main islands but they were too hard headed for to do so. That civilian blood is on the hands of their leaders.
I had mixed feelings about this, and was uncertain really what to say about an event of such magnitude. I've relinquished myself to the fact that there are some situations whose very complexity and sheer gravity are just beyond me. I can't comprehend being in these men's shoes, nor would I have the savvy to even consider all of the facets involved.
Thankfully Cena came along. The one thing I find is a constant in this crazy world of ours is Cena Mark can be depended upon to say the stupidest thing EVER. He just keeps raising the bar.
While I can't imagine myself in the shoes of Truman, I can always imagine Cena in a pair of high heels jerking off to Fox News. He embodies the worst in us and inspires us to be better.
Thank you, Cena Mark.
Cena Mark, are you ygurts?
How do you have this kind of stamina?
Cena_mark is not anybody but a fat dude from the south.
Pinder: How is that not a valid argument. The Japs should have surrendered after Okinawa.
|Caminante Nocturno |
Wow, a guy on TV with humility!
I don't know. I think he meant it when he said it, and he shouldn't feel like he has to apologize for what he truly believes. We have this bizarre, idealized, Steven Spielberg view of WWII like we were Gerard Butler and Hitler was a Persian drag queen.
Why should we not take his retraction at face value?
I've just noticed that WWII has this special aura around it, and any criticisms of how we may or may not have acted during that conflict are often lionized.
Winston Churchill was one of the greatest heroes ever, we all know. Except of course, he was the first guy in history to recommend gassing the Kurds, back when the British Empire was controlling that part of the world. So the Kurds were every bit as much Churchill's own people as they were Saddam's own people.
When Roosevelt was trying to deal with his allies Stalin and Churchill, he had serious misgivings about Churchill: while Stalin had territorial appetites, they were penny-ante compared to the British Empire that Churchill was such a proponent of. In retrospect we have decided that Churchill was clearly a good guy and Stalin was clearly the bad guy -- but then, we tend to forget that England had proposed a plan to split Eastern Europe with the Soviet Union.
Now retract all the bad things you said about Bush.
Name one war crime Bush committed. Calling bush a war criminal is just a liberal rant with no basis.
BTW don't bring up torture, because non uniformed terrorists don't fall under Geneva protections.
Plus, Truman at his worst is still way better than Bush at his best.
Actually to be fair, Christopher Hitchens argues Iraq effectively gave up its right to sovereignty when it invaded Kuwait, and violated the Genocide convention (Kurds), among other things. That is to say, these are ways in which nation-states lose sovereignty, ways in which Iraq under Sadam behaved.
Exactly Simon666. And that being Bush's only possible crime he is absolved.
Liberals forget what an asshole President Houssain was. So much they decided to elect another Houssain president.
Cena: While using terms like "Liberals" work for you, that is to say classifying or stereotyping a group allows you to make broad swipes which in turn allows your argument appear grand, to most it shows the weakness of the point you are trying to make. It is a 'straw man' argument. You are attacking a false enemy, "Liberals," when you should be attacking specific opinions, and claims of fact being made by the individuals who make up the group "Liberals."
You're right simon666. You are awesome.
|Lauritz Melchior |
I wish that more people in the media and in power would be so willing to say that they're wrong.
I'm glad you're all so verbose in the comments, cause I don't even watch the fucking videos.
Seriously, people, seriously?
We're talking about Japan here. We A-bombed Japan. You can't commit war crimes on animals.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|