A-bombs taught U.S. how to justify attacks abroad

[jtuck004]

MAY 29, 2016

WASHINGTON – On May 27, Barack Obama became the first sitting American president to visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, the site of the world’s first atomic bombing. Though highly photogenic, the visit was otherwise one that avoided acknowledging the true historical meaning of the place.
...
The use of the term “myth” is appropriate. Harry Truman, in his 1945 announcement of the bomb, focused on vengeance, and on the new, extraordinary power the United States alone possessed. The military necessity argument was largely created later, in a 1947 article defending the use of the atomic bomb, written by former Secretary of War Henry Stimson, though actually drafted by McGeorge Bundy (later an architect of the Vietnam War) and James Conant (a scientist who helped build the original bomb). Conant described the article’s purpose at the beginning of the Cold War as “You have to get the past straight before you do much to prepare people for the future.”
...
The national belief that no moral wrong was committed with the atomic bombs, and thus there was no need for reflection and introspection (the blithe way Nagasaki is treated as a historical afterthought — “and Nagasaki, too” — only drives home the point), echoes forward through today. It was 9/11, the new Pearl Harbor, that started a series of immoral acts allegedly servicing, albeit destructively and imperfectly, the moral imperative of saving lives by killing. America’s decisions on war, torture, rendition and indefinite detention are seen by most as the distasteful but necessary actions of fundamentally good people against fundamentally evil ones. Hiroshima set in motion a sweeping, national generalization that if we do it, it is right.
...
We may, in fact, think we are practically doing the people of Afghanistan a favor by killing some of them, as we believe we did for tens of thousands of Japanese whose lives might have been lost in a land invasion of their home islands to otherwise end WWII. There is little debate in the “war on terror” because debate is largely unnecessary; the myth of Hiroshima says an illusion of expediency wipes away any concerns over morality. And with that neatly tucked away in our conscience, all that is left is pondering where to strike next.
...

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/05/29/commentary/japan-commentary/bombs-taught-u-s-justify-attacks-abroad/#.V0wdoR9vFQJ



Some things never change...

[malaise]

1. And there are folks right here on DU

Last edited Mon May 30, 2016, 08:57 AM - Edit history (1)

who justify the slaughter of others for nothing more than American imperialism. And they won't call it that either.

No slaughter of innocents can be justified because others will then justify slaughtering those who shroud their justification in made up bullshit like freedom. There is no freedom in death other than freedom from life.

[Ms. Yertle]

12. Imperialism??

WWII was not about American imperialism; it was about self-defense and destroying a brutal enemy.

[Delver Rootnose]

37. While we cannot avoid ....

...our part in creating the conditions in the world for WW2. I must add we were fighting against an actual empire, you know like with an emperor and all, who thought they were the spawn of the gods with divine right to rule.

[Monk06]

103. America came out of WWII with new 'protectorates' that they still control the Marshall Islands,

American Samoa come to mind

Imperialism is not necessarily derogatory It just means that America has been a colonial power which it was in the 19th century between the Civil War and WWI

It is still with remnants of the Spanish American War which gave it the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico as well as lesser client states such as Haiti, Cuba, Panama along with many lesser client states in South America including Colombia and Venequela

Britain Germany and France also had a part to play in dividing up the Western Pacific and South America before WWII

To say America is an Imperialist nation is just to say it is no different from France Germany Spain Russia Holland and Belgium

[pangaia]

13. Your first sentence has been quickly proven correct.

[skepticscott]

27. Oh? How so?

Show us the imperialistic intent and effect of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and prove that there was no other purpose.

Was the bombing of Tokyo also pure American imperialism? And all of those attacks on Japanese held territory in the Pacific? Couldn't be any Japanese imperialism in there, could there?

[Delver Rootnose]

41. And what about Dresden ....

Last edited Mon May 30, 2016, 09:47 AM - Edit history (1)

....FFS look what we did to that city without the newfangled atom bomb.

Just because it was done with an atom bomb what we did is no more, or less, moral because of the technology used.

[skepticscott]

52. Exactly

That so much attention and criticism has been focussed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has far less to to with the nature of the targets, the number of people killed, or the perceived military necessity than with what the weapons used later came to symbolize.

Was it absolutely necessary to bomb Dresden? No. Could the war have been won without taking that specific action? Very probably. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't justified or legitimate. Arguing that the only means a party that has been attacked is allowed to use to end the war against them are the absolute minimum necessary, and not one bit more, is simply ridiculous, and utterly divorced from reality.

[sinkingfeeling]

22. +1000

[RufusTFirefly]

38. Yup. Cognitive dissonance is even more powerful than the A bomb

"I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Silver_Witch]

80. This^^^

Memorial day is for recognizing all who have died trying to save this country!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

77. If only you had been in Japan in the 1930s to write those words.

[Fast Walker 52]

2. Evil empire is not too extreme of a term for the US, IMO

And while there are millions of good Americans who cringe at US warmaking, and thousands who actively protest, there are far far too many who justify our killing in the name of patriotism or American exceptionalism or simply racism.

When will it end?

[uhnope]

4. cool! Try "Great Satan" on for size, too

RFR

[whathehell]

16. Lol !

[brush]

47. That's your response? Really?

Last edited Mon May 30, 2016, 10:30 AM - Edit history (1)

American exceptionalism and racism factor hugely in our history of wars, coups, regime changes, assassinations and occupations in other countries.

In fact, since we dethroned the Hawaiian mornarchy in the 1890s at the behest of ex-pat American sugar and pineapple growers, we've been at continuous wars, coups, regime changes, assassinations and/or occupations in other countries (largely against countries with POCs).

It's our history and there is no denying it. Again, continuously since the late 1890s, there hasn't been a year that we have not been engaged in one or more of the above acts of aggression, all in the name of freedom, liberty and/or democracy, but in actuality, for our corporations to exploit natural resources.

Stephen Kinzer's book. "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" outlines it all.

You should check it out.

[7962]

70. Yeah, I guess we couldve left the world to the Russians, Germans & Japanese

Sure, we've had our share of screw ups & bad deeds. But the fact remains that most of the free world IS free because of the US & a few staunch allies. Thats just the way it is whether you like it or not.
Japan WOULD have prevailed in Asia, there would be NO South Korea, most or all of Europe would likely be in either Russian or German hands, Africa would still be colonized, only not by the British, etc etc. And we would be isolated with little power.
I'll take our mistakes over that scenario any day. So would the rest of the world, admit it or not.

[brush]

73. Typical.

[7962]

75. Best you got? Of course.

Truth hurts only when you dont like the truth

[brush]

76. Try reading Kinzer's book and get back to me then.

[uhnope]

105. = can't defend argument, so suggests a book

[brush]

108. You come in on the tail end of an argument days later. Read the rest of the posts on this.

The book was just to let the guy know there was even more he was uninformed about.

[Albertoo]

51. Absolutely. The US is a fascist, racist, warmongering, n'er-do-well great Satan

Or so I would believe after reading some posts on DU..

Any patriotic Democrats around?

[7962]

69. See post #25 & 64

[Monk06]

98. You've stepped in it now you, you America hater you !! Where is your Stalin, Mao, Tojo derp ?

[7962]

3. More were killed in other operations in WW2 than the A-bomb.

The firebombing operations killed far more. Yet the war continued & Japan prepared for a land invasion.
The Atomic bomb ended the war & saved countless more lives than it took. Thats just the way it is
Trying to change the history means noting now.

[TxGrandpa]

6. The Japanese conventially forget that they set in motion events leading up to Hiroshima.

Even at a young age, living in Oak Ridge, TN, I recall the relief of young and old knowing the war would soon be over. All because that was the last resort to save millions of both American and Japanese lives.

No, the Japanese should share more guilt for the attack on Pearl Harbor and bringing the United States in a long and protracted war that led up to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[skepticscott]

8. The same people who will always argue against the necessity of war

no matter what the circumstances, will claim that we forced Japan into the war and gave them "no choice".

[7962]

39. You are exactly right. I've seen it several times.

And the embargo is also just what these same people will call for against belligerent countries TODAY. Yet back then it "forced" Japan to attack.
Ridiculous

[Delver Rootnose]

45. And of course the Japanese ....

...also thought that they had 'no choice' in how they behaved in China and elsewhere regionally. Something to this day they still haven't fully and completely appoligized for or come to grips with as a nation.

[Ms. Yertle]

14. Oak Ridge?

My son did an internship there a few years ago. The history of the place is so interesting. We toured the museum, and it was eye-opening. Really brought WWII history alive.

[TxGrandpa]

42. My Dad was sent there during the Second World War instead of being drafted.

[skepticscott]

10. One has to wonder

If we had subjected Hiroshima to conventional bombing (as we did with Tokyo), would that attack have been as roundly condemned as the atomic bombing that actually occurred, even if it had killed just as many people. Doubt it.

[pangaia]

11. No. The atomic bombs did not end the war with Japan.

That is, as Shrub once infamously put it, part of the propaganda.

[skepticscott]

19. In any meaningful sense

yes, they did.

[MrModerate]

26. Err . . . yes they did.

One can argue that Japan was ready to surrender and the atomic bombings were unnecessary. However, you can also argue that the Japanese military class would have assassinated Hirohito before he could surrender, if they had the chance. They were, in fact, murdering officials they considered insufficiently ardent on the very day of the Emperor's announcement, and looking for Hirohito himself.

The horror of the bombings made it possible for Hirohito to surrender. Without that impetus, the invasion of Japan's home islands was much more likely to be necessary (under an emperor even more powerless). An invasion preceded by firebombing and just about everything the industrial might of the US could pour onto a small country.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings saved hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of Japanese and Allied lives. It also established for all to see that nuclear weapons could not be exchanged without risking our species' survival.

And that may have saved all of us during the worst parts of the Cold War.

[7962]

43. Well said. And meaningless to many here who refuse to see reality

While the fire bombings actually took more lives, it was over a series of days with thousands of bombs dropped. The A-bomb was ONE bomb. They then saw they could not continue
You fight to WIN, and WW2 was the last time we fought for total victory. Since then, we've been more concerned about what the rest of the world thinks. In Korea, just a few years later, the Chinese send in 100s of thousands of troops, yet the US hardly attacked China & their supply lines at all. The result is what we currently have to deal with in N Korea

[pangaia]

67. err no the didn't.

The Japanese tried to sue for peace long before August 6/9 1945 - or a number reasons, one of the biggest, maybe THE biggest, being the coming invasion by the Russians. The Japanese knew they were finished as soon as that happened.

[7962]

79. Wrong. "...the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb.”

Hirohito's speech to the Japanese people announcing the surrender.
The bomb pushed him to do it even against the military, who tried to overthrow him to stop him.

Any claims that they offered to surrender before are false & based on opinion, not fact. And "suing for peace" & surrender are 2 entirely different things

[MrModerate]

102. That is contrafactual . . .

One feeler -- with unacceptable terms -- made it to Truman (or his people) from the Emperor in the run-up to August. Meanwhile all other signs -- which turned out to be correct -- were that the Japanese military would not accept surrender except under the most extraordinary circumstances.

Truman held 'extraordinary circumstances.'

And the ghosts of those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been joined, for the most part, by the ghosts of those who were saved by Japan's sudden surrender. Perhaps they're arguing the merits.

[Cosmocat]

31. Yeah, cause Japan surrendering 28 days later

was just a coincidence ...

[skepticscott]

44. They surrendered much sooner than that.

It was only the formal signing of the articles of surrender that waited until September.

[Cosmocat]

48. You are correct

thank you for that ...

[7962]

54. ".. the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb.” Hirohito.

“The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb.”

Spoken in his surrender address. End of story.

[uhnope]

5. "Hiroshima set in motion a sweeping, national generalization that if we do it, it is right."

Um, I think the imperial fascist Japanese gov already had that as their SOP

[skepticscott]

7. The author should really learn US history better

before he tries to 'splain it to the rest of us.

[jimlup]

20. Well US "history"

isn't necessarily history. There is a broader context:

http://www.garalperovitz.com/2015/08/%EF%BB%BFthe-war-won-hiroshima-generals-dropped-bomb-knew/

The mythology that "The Atomic Bomb ended the war with Japan." is a useful one when seeking moral justification for that horrendous war crime but it is only mythology. The Japanese war council only knew that "Hiroshima was off line" and nothing more. They hadn't even had a chance to access the bombing. The Soviet declaration of war on August 9th had much more to do with the surrender than the atomic bombings.

[skepticscott]

23. And do you acknowledge

that the US carried out attacks abroad long before Hiroshima?

[jimlup]

34. Obviously

it isn't a matter of justifying one particular war crime because of others. That logic doesn't work. It is like saying it's morally justified in that "I murdered Sue by torture because I've already murdered 16 others."

[skepticscott]

36. Thank you for making my point

That the author's main thesis "A-bombs taught U.S. how to justify attacks abroad" is pure bullshit.

Given that their main point is demonstrable nonsense, as you yourself acknowledge, it's pretty difficult to take anything else they say seriously.

What, did you think you had a "gotcha" there? Please.

[jimlup]

68. Does this make you happy

now do you think you have a "gotcha"?

I don't care. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were blatant war crimes which were morally unjustifiable as explained.

[skepticscott]

89. Your saying it does not make it so

We bombed enemy cities during a war started by that enemy. That's what happens in a war. If you want to argue that all of war is a war crime, fine, but then point the finger at those who started it, not those who tried to end it.

Do you admit that the author's central argument is bullshit? Or are you going to dodge that point again?

[jimlup]

106. I'm not dodging

I just don't care. Yes, the author's central point is bs. But no, you are wrong. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unprecedented war crimes on a new and different scale.

My saying that "the sky is blue" doesn't make it so either. I've done my research. What's your point? That you disagree with my conclusion. You saying I'm wrong doesn't make that true, hello.

[skepticscott]

107. No, you haven't done your research

And no, saying anything doesn't make it so. Demonstrating it with evidence and logical arguments does. You haven't done so, and the burden of proof is on the one making an affirmative claim, not the one saying that the claim is unproven.

Your claim is that "The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unprecedented war crimes on a new and different scale." Prove it. Demonstrate it in a way that convinces people not predisposed to believe it. Show us why those bombings were war crimes while the bombings of Tokyo and Dresden were not.

[jimlup]

112. boring...

but I'll let Dr. Alperovitz take that:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/05/the-decision-to-bomb-hiroshima/http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/05/the-decision-to-bomb-hiroshima/

http://www.garalperovitz.com/atomic-bomb/

Dr. Alperovitz is a "Harvard Professor (Emeritus)" so you are fine to question his reasoning but it doesn't wash with me. I don't expect to change the currently entrenched mythology but I at least want to be one who reflects the historical truth. I'm convinced and you're saying that I'm wrong doesn't make me so. Beyond that, this conversation is over. I would hope that we could agree to disagree.

If not then...Nah, nah nee nah nah! I'm done here.

[skepticscott]

113. Nice try, but not even close

Your "Harvard professor" (which means zero, btw) makes the standard, boilerplate arguments for the side of those who think that using the atomic bombs was not absolutely necessary. As you say, boring. As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, those fighting to end a war are not required to use the absolute minimum means necessary against those who started it.

And nowhere does your pet professor come close to even addressing, let alone proving, your claim that "The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unprecedented war crimes on a new and different scale."

[Delver Rootnose]

49. So was the ...

...Dresden fire bombing a war crime, or any number of other cities destroyed in the war a war crime?

[7962]

53. The carnage from the A bombs didnt matter, but Russia merely declaring war did? Horseshit.

After the 2nd bombing it was obvious to Hirohito that the war was over. They had several days to see the damage in Hiroshima before the surrender was issued
Do you really think that they thought they had a chance to prevail against the US, but the mere threat of Russia entering the war scared them off? Please. The military even attempted a coup to keep the war going.
Hirohito's own words tell the truth:
“The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb.”

END of story

[pintobean]

9. It wouldn't be DU without some

trash America threads on Memorial Day.

It's shameful.

[whathehell]

18. +1. n/t

[jtuck004]

24. I don't think other points of view are ever shameful, nor is a memorial a time to whitewash. But

each to their own, eh?

[pintobean]

29. Today is a day to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice

so that you are free to be what you are.

I won't say what I think that is.

[jtuck004]

32. I am remembering ALL of those who made the sacrifice, not just those who suit my

nationalistic fervor.

[mountain grammy]

55. What better day to remember the total and complete insanity of war

and all the missed opportunities to avoid it? I say that with both of my parents lying in Arlington Cemetery, because they taught me the meaning of this holiday. I don't believe it's trashing America to disagree with her policies, especially in retrospect when cooler heads should prevail.

[lastlib]

15. Good Read!!

. . .

Never Again. Never.

[skepticscott]

21. Are you talking about us

or all of the atrocities that Japan committed?

Nanking, anybody? Far more innocents killed there than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

[jtuck004]

30. What does something else that was stupid, tragic, and useless tell you, that you seem to

think has escaped everyone else?

[skepticscott]

33. Not an answer

Try again.

And yes, in fact, the atrocities committed by the Japanese Empire do seem to have conveniently escaped the notice of the US-bashing posters here. Only that type could characterize Nanking as "stupid" or "tragic", when it was deliberate, intentional and calculated.

[jtuck004]

35. Have a happy day, sweetheart...bye now.

[skepticscott]

40. Feel free to stick your fingers in your ears

and enjoy life in your bubble, surrounded by people who never threaten your worldview.

[lastlib]

56. I'll say it for both.

War and genocide are the worst human activities of all. I want to see the end of killing on an industrial scale (and on the smaller scale as well), and I will fight them with every ounce of strength I can muster. Nuclear weapons should never be used again. I will acknowledge that in the case of World War II, their use did save lives, but at a terrible cost. Only by preventing the smaller wars and limiting the possession of nuclear arms can we ever realize that goal of stopping their future use.

[skepticscott]

61. Also not an answer

Try again.

[lastlib]

72. Then I can't help you.

Enjoy your day. 'Bye now.

[skepticscott]

90. Funny how all of the America bashers here

are brought up short by the simplest of arguments, and have nothing left but to resort to the Ignore button.

[StoneCarver]

17. We've hosted a few Japanese students.

The last one was a young man in college. I asked him why did our grandparents and parents fight each other to the death, but today we are best friends?

I told him I thought the next threat to Japan was going to be China, and Americans would die to defend Japan. Isn't that strange? I then asked him if the Japaneese would die to defend America? He didn't have any answers but I could see this blew his mind. I hope someday we all do have a new consciousness.
Stonecarver

[jtuck004]

63. Americans would be dying to defend America's supposed interests. Japan doesn't have

any interests to defend here.

What did more for our peace was American interest in cheap products. According to most everyone alive that I have spoken with, including more than one veteran, they hated the Japanese - right up until they could buy one of their cars for $10,000 less than an American car. That's when you saw the parking lots at the memorials begin to fill with Toyotas.

What probably blew his mind were the false choices you gave him.

"I hope someday we all do have a new consciousness. " < Yeah, me too, but we just helped to "liberate" Ramadi, a city that used to have a million people. Because it was necessary to defend them. So it looks like we might still have a ways to go. I bet your Japanese student doesn't want this kind of "help"

[7962]

81. Japan no longer has the monopoly on "cheap products". We'd still defend them.

These days we can get those products from anywhere. And their vehicles are now made HERE. But we have a treaty to defend them & we would hold to it.
Very few would come to our defense. The Brits, Aussies & Canadians likely could be counted on. The rest would run scared like they have for the past several decades; waiting for us to bail them out. AGAIN.

[Adrahil]

91. Japan is no longer the source of "cheap products" and hasn't been for some time.

Japanese products tend to be middle-to-high end products in this country. And the U.S. is their second largest trading partner. Of course, China is their number one partner. Not surprising considering the proximity.

[jtuck004]

93. If one slows down their reading comprehension is often improved. I said, that. is.

how. it. started. I said nothing about what it has evolved into.

I'll let you go back to your videos.

[Adrahil]

95. I'm not really sure you can say that either....

Though I do enjoy the nastiness in the reply. Quite nice, considering I was NOT nasty with you.

Japan's emergence as a major exporter did not occur until 1960's... some 20 years after the war.

[Feeling the Bern]

66. My family hosted a Japanese exchange student from Kobe.

She came home crying saying her history teacher said horrible things about Japan and the things Japan did in China.

I proceeded to show her all my historical primary sources about the war (since I was in the Honors Program at the Uni. of Arizona was doing my "Senior Thesis" on the Rape of Nanking). Then I showed her Frank Capra's "Battle of China" from the Why We Fight series.

She couldn't believe, told me they were lies and that no one in Japan could ever do that. I told her all my sources came from Japanese newspapers.

Japan doesn't teach what they did in China. Remember, they tried to edit out 90 seconds of The Last Emperor because it mentioned how Japan laced chocolates with opium and fed them to children in Manchuria and the Rape of Nanking.

Sadly, China has a massive score to settle with Japan. That's how the Chinese see it. My wife is a Chinese national (Han Chinese from outside Nanjing). China is itching for a fight with Japan.

[Feeling the Bern]

25. Unit 731 in Harbin, Rape of Nanking, Sook Jing Massacre, Parit Sulong, Manila, Singapore

Nary a word about it. . .especially the Rape of Nanking and Unit 731 in Harbin.

I guess those people deserved it. After all, they were just Chinese. My wife's great grandmother deserved to be gang raped and left for dead in a muddy ditch in 1938 by six soldiers of Japan outside Zhenjiang in Jiangsu.

But that atomic bomb. . .oh, that's just the worst thing ever. What the Japanese did in China, and still deny to this day. . .that means nothing.

[Delver Rootnose]

50. Comments like this....

...make me wish this site had a comment rating system which I could use to show support.

+1

[Albertoo]

57. Ah, but those Chinese were probably as racist as the genocidal Americans

I wish the America bashing would stop among far left 'Democrats' in name only

[7962]

58. Best response ever

People also seem to forget Hirohito's own words: "..the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb.”

[Feeling the Bern]

64. Oh, and the biological weapons used in Zhejiang and Jiangxi to poison the farm land as the Japanese

were leaving in order to make the farmland unable to produce food and cause a famine. That biological warfare cost the lives of at least two million Chinese people in two provinces.

But that also gets a pass from the Blame America first crowd.

So does the fact of history that: THE JAPANESE STARTED THE WAR IN ASIA AND ATTACKED US FIRST!

[Cosmocat]

28. Oh, for fucks sake

Look, this shit we are pulling now is well out of hand and unacceptable.

But, Nagasaki and Hiroshima had to happen. Flat out.

Whatever fantastical bullshit people want to gin themselves up to believe, Japan was NOT going to surrender w/o us invading the mainland and having to militarily overtake the entire country.

The loss of lives of non military japanese alone would have been many times higher than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined due to them defending their homeland, not to mention hundreds, many hundreds, of dead American soldiers.

[ileus]

46. Exactly...We should have fought the Japanese by bombing our homeland.

[LS_Editor]

59. The U.S. and United Kingdom had been firebombing German cities for years.

Prior to our use of the atomic bomb. And those raids killed more civilians, who were the ultimate losers of World War Il. It was already okay.

Bombing civilians was already being done comfortably. Also, consider the fatcs an American invasion of the Japanese home islands would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of American casualties, and Russia was mobilizing to take Japanese territory ànd create another Cold War arena.

America needed the war over, and Truman knew if he sent in grounds troops every Japanese civilian would resist and drag the conflict on. And when Americans found out he could've just used the bomb, they would have crucified him. A significant delay of Japan's surrender may also have allowed Russia to make a move on the Japanese home islands.

Not saying using the bomb was not a war crime. Simply stating the U.S. had already established bombing civilians was okay. And the Japanese resolve to continue fighting was so strong the Japanese did not surrender after the first atomic bomb, and almost didn't after the second bomb.

[Albertoo]

62. ^^^ well put ^^^

[davidthegnome]

60. A poor analogy.

Afghanistan is not Japan in the 1940s. America is not the America of that time either. That's not to say that using weapons of mass destruction against a civilian population was the right call, or the only call to make. That's not to say that we were wise in opening that particular Pandora's box. We can guess, speculate, hypothesize all we like about what would have happened if we hadn't used the A bombs... perhaps a ground invasion, perhaps the eventual surrender of the Japanese without having used them - but it was not a matter of American imperialism. It was, rather, what many viewed as the only way to end a seemingly endless war of attrition.

I'm not going to judge or condemn those who made that call. I was not them, I was not there - but my Grandfather was - and what few stories he was ever able to share about the battles he fought as a Marine, the atrocities committed by both sides... suggests to me that even a peace brought about by such devastating brutality may have been preferable to a ground invasion in which more lives would have been lost.

In any event, the invasion of Afghanistan is a very different matter. There was no Nazi Germany, there were no armies, no military forces that, in truth, were any sort of challenge for the modern US military. What we did have were criminals, mass murderers, who had to be rooted out - and a very angry population here at home. We also, around the time that particular war began... had unprecedented international support. Had we maintained the focus on destroying those responsible for 9/11 and ensuring that the particular conditions which enabled it to occur were no longer there... we might have simply left - or used that international good will to rebuild Afghanistan into a Nation that might have become a strong ally or even friend. We might have earned a great deal of goodwill and, ultimately, made our world a safer place.

Sadly, that was not what happened. Instead, we invaded Iraq - based on lies, based on our need for oil, based on a President's very old desire for revenge - and the greed of a particular few who profited immensely from it. The invasion of Iraq... in particular, created many of the terrorists of today and plays a large part in encouraging those of tomorrow. Acts of horrendous torture, drone strikes, the slaughter of civilians... that - and not the war in Afghanistan, would have far more to do with any notion of American imperialism or moral absolutism.

We launched an invasion... brought a war, to a people who did not want it, had not asked for it - and had done nothing to bring it about. Not the Taliban of Afghanistan, not Al Qaeda, nor even the Japan of the 1940s that was responsible for the slaughter of our people. Rather, a Nation that had already been devastated by years of bombing raids and sanctions after a war that had already left them crippled. We threw away our international good will as if it meant nothing. We repeated history as we did after the Soviets left Afghanistan many years ago - we took what was a good chance to build something good... and made no real attempt to do it.

Plenty of things change. During the time of World War II, I find it hard if not impossible to believe that the people of America, or the American military... would have permitted the invasion of Iraq. Japan was a military opponent that was quite capable and quite deserving of our wrath. That is not to say that our targets should have shifted to civilian, or that, as far as morality and honor is concerned... that we should not have focused, instead, on destroying military targets. War is a damned ugly thing... some times though, you are left with few options - and with none that look good. It is often a choice between what is right... and what is necessary.

[Feeling the Bern]

65. Japan Times: Impartiality at its finest! Hey, Japanese times, why not admit your shame with the

Rape of Nanking?

I've already gotten love letters and death threats in my email for the movie I wrote and is being produced about the Rape of Nanking. I had a Japanese businessman offer me $125K to buy the movie and have his writers "change it to make it more marketable and honest to the fact."

I keep all of them in my gmail. I've been accused of being a racist from the emails and not telling the Japanese side, even though a lot of my research for the screenplay happened in Japan as well as China.

Japan Times: Why not admit your country's brutality in the Philippines when 50,000 Filipinos were butchered in 1945 when Japan lost control of Manila?

Japan Times: Admit to the human experimentation labs in Harbin with Unit 731.

Japan Times: Why not apologize for the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor or the sinking of the USS Pinay in the Yangzte when the Japanese sacked and razed the city of Nanking to the ground?

Japan Times: Why not admit the siege of Suzhou, where the IJA murdered all but 500 people on their march towards Nanking in October of 1937?

Japan Times: Why not admit you illegally conquered Manchuria by blowing up your own train line in 1931 with the Mukden Railroad incident?

Japan Times: Why not apologize for your country bombing a surrendered Shanghai into the ground in 1937, killing thousands of unarmed, defenseless civilians?

[RufusTFirefly]

83. All of your assertions are true. But that doesn't make the Op-Ed false

Not everything is binary.

Reminds me of when those of us who opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq were accused of being sympathetic to Saddam Hussein.

Or the even more common accusation that when you criticize your country, that means you hate your country.

"A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

"This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I’m not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality."

[jtuck004]

88. " when you criticize your country, that means you hate your country." Is how the government, Gompers

and Big Business killed the IWW, along with any chance that labor would control things, and that has persisted to this day.

The earth will likely burn before that pendulum ever swings back.

[Feeling the Bern]

100. When Japan apologizes for starting the war and brutalizing the Chinese for 12 years,

I'll start considering apologizing for the bomb.

Until then, they started the war. They profited from it. Their economy expanded on the blood of people they illegally invaded.

Life sucks. Don't want a city vaporized? Don't start wars and then become a suicidal enemy when you start losing.

[Festivito]

71. OR, it's just another red herring in the continual war on justice in order to justify greed.

If we blame the use of a new technology, then we don't have to look at ourselves allowing greed to rise within us.

"Look at their greed!" Meaning look at America's greed at using this and then looking smug.

But, do not look at someone wanting to feel more important, maybe wanting to return to their own imperialism blaming the technological advance's use for someone else being ahead and standing in their way.

It is not the use of the new technology. It is what we do or do not learn about its use. It is also what we do or do not think beyond what we can quickly see and learn.

The Japanese needless killed many people for their greed.
The Americans have also.

It is our greediness we ALL need to check. We know that.

Aiming at the unknown as in this article is only to have us aim at a fog, while we ignore the target we know is right beside us.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

74. No, not really

This is just another aspect of the media (and most folks in general) giving more attention to large incidents and not as much attention to everyday occurrences. We see it all the time. The train derailments and airliner crashes that kill dozens or as many as a few hundred get international attention for weeks even months. Auto crashes that kill tens of thousands domestically are mostly never reported.

A-bombs didn't do this. Having lived with the idea that sometimes war is a good thing is where it starts. Is there a week that passes without a US drone strike, air strike or special forces mission to kill, capture and destroy?

Every country that has ever gone to war in response to mostly anything aside from invasion or attacks within its borders has lent a voice to the idea of justifying a wars of aggression, non-defensive wars and attacks.

We have a war on terror and a war on drugs. We started the second Iraq war. We went to war in Vietnam. We've entered a world war to ends wars, followed by another world war so winning that first one didn't work.

It's been said that 'War is a continuation of politics by other means.' It has also been said that for the most part war serves itself.

We elect folks to congress and as president for their ability, among other things, to lead us in our relations with people around the world. Do we have anyone in congress known as a peacemaker? Have we had a president who hasn't sent troops or ordered airstrikes?

[beachbumbob]

78. To end the war with Japan....I would glad see the entire Japan island go up

In flames....to Save American lives....extreme leftist can't change the history no matter how badly they want to....

[RufusTFirefly]

84. Lovely. Everyone must acknowledge that American lives are more valuable.

Why am I not at all surprised to learn what your favorite group is?

[Adrahil]

92. Not sure I understand this. Yes, war, that happens.

WWII was a true total war. In such circumstances, yeah, the value of the lives of the enemy is less than the value of the lives of your countryman. War is nasty and brutal.

[hack89]

99. That certainly is the case in a war that America did not start. Nt

[jtuck004]

87. This will not help you when they make up the lists for the diplomatic positions in the

new administration.

But everyone has to follow their own star, eh?

[cpwm17]

82. Evidence suggests that Americans place less value on human life than other people,

so it's easy to see that Americans are more than happy to swallow the B/S excuses for dropping bombs on civilians.

Currently, slaughtering poor and powerless people in third-world countries is considered an acceptable activity of the US Government, and it's hard to convince most Americans that engaging in such evil behavior disqualifies anyone from being elected US President.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx

While the majority of world citizens agree that military attacks targeting civilians are never justified, a decade after 9/11, there is a wide range in the level of support for this view. A clear majority in Asia and MENA (Middle East and North Africa) find military attacks against civilians unacceptable. This is not surprising considering the acute conflicts raging in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and other parts of the Middle East.

In contrast, regionally, residents of the U.S. and Canada are most likely to say that military attacks against civilians are sometimes justified. Americans are the most likely population in the world (49%) to believe military attacks targeting civilians is sometimes justified, followed by residents of Haiti and Israel (43%).

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Odin2005]

85. Classy, Hate-America-First bullshit on Memorial Day.

[One_Life_To_Give]

86. I guess those Mexican incursions

the Philippines, 1812 French and Indian War were somehow different? More like the Roman conquests? Or perhaps the Macedonian, Ottoman or Mongol? Or perhaps in this case Manchurian?

More like has origins from the first time two hungry tribes of Hominids first set eyes upon each other.

[name not needed]

94. I swear, if 9/11 happened today, you people would be cheering.

[cpwm17]

96. That makes absolutely no sense.

Are you claiming that people that are oppose to attacks against civilians would be cheering for attacks against civilians? Or do I not understand your position?

[jtuck004]

97. Thank you for making the author's point with such grace. rofl. n/t

[larkrake]

101. one of our largest shames

[Recursion]

104. OTOH the bomb also ushered in the most peaceful 70 years in human history

The rate of death by state and communal violence has been lower since 1945 than any time we know of (which, given how horrible the state and communal violence we've seen since then has been, gives you some idea of how awful the world used to be)

[uhnope]

109. +1

[Act_of_Reparation]

110. The piece completely ignores American military interventions prior to World War II.

There were many, and most were as morally dubious as dropping nuclear weapons on urban centers.

[Blue_Tires]

111. Of course Japan has a nice, fat

backlog of war atrocities to answer for themselves, but who's keeping score?