|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
Subject:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Bart:
I can't believe you're having arguments about the value of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.
I especially can't believe you're having arguments about whether or not
bin Laden is dead.
Before we dropped the bombs on H and N, Japan had made it perfectly
clear to us that
there would be no surrender and that as soon as they retooled, they'd
be right back at it.
That's what they told us, I suppose we
shouldn't have believed them.
Further, we were killing a lot more people by fire bombing the country
every day than were
killed by the A-bombs. Further, the military estimates were that
we'd lose a million men in
an effort to invade (not counting the Japanese).
I don't know how you can look at those
facts and say that Truman made a bad call.
Further, I think it's one of those decisions that no one took comfort
in. I don't think he
was laughing when he pushed the button. Basically what you have
here is people with
no real sense of history arguing that people three generations ago made
bad decisions.
And Obama isn't really dead? Really?
Three of his wives say he's dead and was killed right in front of
them.
Pakistan says he's dead, and boy are they pissed.
Al Qaeda says he's dead (but how would they know?).
And, I guess, the claim is that Obama got all these people in on the
conspiracy????
Bart, that argument makes birthers look sane.
Geezer
Geezer, someone wrote and said "Japan offered to
surrender IF they could keep their Emporer.
The US
said no, but Japan essentially got what they wanted after we dropped
the two bombs."
That's why I made the 9-11 comment.
If we don't know what happened
10 years ago - live on our TV -
how can we trust the "news" that's 65 years old?
Unless it's in Truman's
Autobiography, how does anyone know what was offered or declined?
And even if it's in Truman's book, he surely told the story the way he
wanted it remembered.
Subject:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Bart,
Over the years, I've been of two minds about those bombs.
I've held your opinion - that it saved the lives of a million US
soldiers.
I also believe that it was wrong to do. I can't reconcile those two
thoughts.
Remember, they drew us into this war - probably.
a bomb just offshore, maybe on a tiny, uninhabited or sparsely populated island.
The bomb would have leveled the island, maybe even erased it from the map.
That would have sent the message we wanted to send, but with a minimal loss of life.
All Truman had to do was send a follow-up cable to the emperor, "Next one falls on your house."
You only have to shoot at them to achieve the desired results.
on an unpopulated area. They wanted revenge. Maybe Harry did, too.
It's my understanding we only had the two bombs.
Exploding one offshore would've left us with one.
Until I see good evidence to the contrary, I'm with Harry on this call.