Subject: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Bart, are you really defending the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I didn't know those bombings needed to be defended.
You seem to be saying the world is united in their condemnation of Truman.
I don't think that's true.

Is mass civilian murder acceptable means for winning wars?

Let me ask you a question:   How many of YOUR sons
would you be willing to sacrifice to save those civilians?

Would you personally sacrifice YOUR life to save some civilians who
had the bad luck to live in a country that sneak-attacked a sleeping giant?

According to Wikipedia, 250,000 people died that August from our bombs.
Let's say another 250,000 died from radiation afterwards.

Why should America sacrifice one million soldiers (they say) to save 500,000 lives?

I generally don't have strong feelings about events that happened before I was born.
In those cases, I have to depend 100% on someone else's account of what really happened.

When a subject like this comes up, I get letters from every color in the spectrum saying,
"Everybody knows the real truth about this" but who am I supposed to believe?

We don't know idea what happened on 9-11
so how sure can you be about your 1945 facts?

Mass murder is never a good thing, but bad things happen in World Wars.

Americans like to pretend they had no other option to end the war,
but that is a BS notion in an attempt to clear the collective conscience.

You say that as if every reasonable person in the world agrees with you.

What are those other options?
Choke Japan off from the rest of the world and let them starve to death?

Their leaders wanted to try the bomb the entire world had been racing
to develop, and anyone thinking in such cynical terms are sociopaths.

I might call them "survivors."
You're saying racing to develope the bomb was a bad thing?
That'd mean you're OK with Hitler getting it first.

Are you sure you want to own that position?

I see you have gotten a lot of e-mails claiming you are blood thirsty lately.
You dealt with those ok, but it's hard to really prove them wrong when you defend this historical atrocity.
 Øyvind

You have yet to define "this historical atrocity."
These bombs ended a world war  - are you saying that's a bad thing - ending the war?
I think it's pretty easy to sit in comfort at home in 2011 and say, "Why didn't they do things differently?"

Whoever you're getting your WWII facts from, why do you think you can trust them?

On the other hand, if you're 90-years old and you know for a fact, personally, that Truman
had other options at the time that only a sociopath would ignore, then you may be onto something.

I think I already know the answer, but I'll ask anyway:
Should America allow itself to be taken over (or wiped out) to avoid killing civilians?

I never said war was pretty.
I never said war was fun.

I'm guessing YOU have never had your life threatened by another nation.

So many Liberals have this "violence is always wrong" attitude and that floors me.
If your choices were "death" or "violence" would you choose to live?   I would.

I own guns but I don't own them for the fun of killing innocents.

If a masked buglar breaks into your home at night,
are you going to turn the lights on and try to reason with him?

If you ask 100 liberals that question, 99 will say, "Well, how often does that happen?"
Well gee, how often does Japan bomb Pearl Harbor?

If a masked man breaks into my home, I'm going to go all "blood thirsty" on his ass
and live to see another sunrise.  That might make me a sociopath but I'll still have
my life and my wife - and a clear conscience.

I guess, in your view, that might make me a "cowboy" just like Cheney.
I guess I'll just have to "live" with that.

But seriously, when it comes to defending your family or country,
do you fight or do you surrender?

Thanks for keeping it civil.

 

Send e-mail to Bart

  Back to Bartcop.com