Skip to comments.Globe Columnist: Shamed by Hiroshima, America Was Awaiting 9/11 Payback
Posted on 08/07/2006 6:22:41 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
click here to read article
--"I hate America and Americans and all that they stand for. These acts in Hiroshima and Nagasazki were war crimes, and the US was so totally cruel and immoral to have done such a thing. And I won't let them ever forget it"
--"So help me, I hate all 'Nips (sic) with everything in my heart for what they did to us. That goes for military and civilian, men, women boys and girls, babies too. The only regret I have is that we did not kill even more. Too bad we could not have incinerated another 100,000, I'd be all for it."
--"I have two minds about this. One is the moral of ending a war, which in fact the bomb did as horrific as an act it was, it did actually bring an almost immediate cessation to the endless bloodletting in the Pacific, of which there certainly would have been more. I also regret the deaths of civilians, particularly women and babies in war. If it could have been finished--and the Japanese War Council more quick to act--with even just one A-bomb on Hiroshima only, that would have been better, but history is history and thank God the war is now over and Japanese troops are in Iraq on the US side. Thank goodness it did not take three of these."
I would say most people subscribe to one of these three fundamental viewpoints.
Thank you for saying that. My dad worked on the Manhattan Project.
No, actually, it goes the other way. Because of 9/11, I'm waiting for the USA to do a Hiroshima/Nagasaki type payback. I thought Kabul and Kandahar were good candidates, but since we missed the opportunity, I volunteer Damascus, Tehran and Qom for "demonstration" nuclear strikes.
My first thought was that he is a homosexual. Is that the case?
I don't fit any of those three.
My stepfather-in-law's father (grandstepfather-in-law? sheesh) worked at the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge, TN for many years. They're justifiably proud of their role down there.
He conveniently became a priest in 1962 after completing ROTC?
The energy of the current anti-war movement comes from those losers who dodged service in Vietnam.
In their consciences, they know they were wrong, but they continue to do the cowardly thing by trying to justify their abandonment of resposibility.
I think that politics for the next 20 years will be defined by the intragenerational conflict between those who did their duty and those who renounced their duty.
If the Japanese had surrendered after only one bombing, I think it would have been possible to wonder if the bombing were truly necessary. But as they chose to go on after the first bomb, had we not used the second, what on earth WOULD have stopped them??
Probably the last one who did.... Can you imagine anyone in the Democratic Partry today who would make such a decision?
Like I said, these things could be debated endlessly (and they are, on FR, starting usually 2 or 3 August and until the end of the month, every year, without fail!) :-)
No idea. But his writing is extremely effeminate.
I suppose the option would have been either to produce more A-bombs and hit Nagoya, Kobe, Okayama, Osaka, Sendai, whatever, or a full scale ground invasion in September of 1945. As it was, the US military arriving by air and sea in 1945 were confronted with a former enemy, laying down weapons, rather than a current enemy, hitting them with weapons.
I'm proud of Hiroshima.
The left is still POed that Truman dropped the bombs and ended the war before the Soviets could become a full "partner" in the war against Japan. What seems to be forgotten in most stories is that Russia did not declare war on Japan until 8/9/45 and the left was/is always more concerned with Russia than America
I get that from lots of people I ask in Taiwan, (and Korea and China for that matter), re: Hiro and Naga :-)
Japan serves as an example of what a defeated enemy is worth. An undefeated enemy is still an enemy.
They got what they wanted (barely). The idea was to have all that Japanese war materiel turned over to the Russians, who would then make it available to Mao, who would in turn use it against the Left's real enemy, Chiang. But the Russians had been burnt by Japan once before in the century, and weren't eager for a repeat performance. Their declaration of war, technical as it was, would never have come against a not-quite-absolutely-defeated Japan.
Guess which President since 1952 shows Truman's character.
It's a perfectly good sentence; the momentum of which he speaks is reflective of the urgency to beat the other war powers to unharnessing the secrets of the atom and the course of the war itself, by the time the bomb was ready, we had seen one major combatant fall leaving only one left to defeat.
To not have dropped it would have created the impression that its existence was fiction.
I suggest every high school student watch the movie called ABOVE AND BEYOND, about what went on behind the scenes of the bombing of Hiroshima. It's incredible that those who have no grasp of history are able to write ridiculous articles like this.
Carroll looks like a slimey 'catcher' from the first state to try and legalize gay marriages.
What is it with liberals and their need to carry around all this guilt all the time? No wonder they're all moonbats. They've driven themselves insane.
Didn't mean to set off a firesotrm. And Truman was supposed to be anti-semitic. But he know how to run a war.
Everybody forgets that the Atomic bomb SAVED far more Japanese than were killed because of the ending of the war. Not many people remember that prior to the bomb Tokyo was fire bombed, and more people died in Tokyo (over 100,000) that night than died in Hiroshima or Nakazaki. Had we not dropped the bomb, the Tokyo fire bombing would have repeated itself over every city in Japan, and would probably have caused the near extinction of the Japanese population (the Japanese army was willing to fight to the last Japanese).
We had some fun arguments in class over that book.
Anyone with any knowledge or familiarity of the Pacific war is probably going to come to the same conclusion. Hiroshima didn't come out of nowhere.
Please note that 'the Finkelstein character' wrote the column at NewsBusters posted here EXPOSING the Boston Globe column. The Boston Globe column of which you rightly complain was written by Globe columnist James Carroll.
And by the way, Finkelstein = me, governsleastgovernsbest.
You know 60 years ago this would have been called sedition.
Apologies for the mixup!
Thanks. I understand how it can happen - and it happens fairly often - but it's frustrating to be tarred with the very brush I was trying to expose ;-)
Carroll gets close to truth, however. Fear of nuke TERROR is the heart of the GWOT. In historical context, it is simply the continuation of the war of civilization with murderous, barbarian chaos that has continued from the time of the first walled cities.
Check out the elaborate fortifications from the year 1000 and after in Europe. Elaborate, expensive defense and justified paranoia have been the signature of our culture since the fall of the Romans.
Nukes make walls useless, and so here we are trying to root out organized, well financed terror funded by proxies. It is amazing that liberals think that barbaric forces can be reasonable; it never worked with Tamerlane or Gengis Khan, who generally slaughtered entire populations wholesale.
I've been pondering over the last few days why Western thought seems to have a leavening of suicidal tendencies mixed in, and whether or not the Romans had the same problem.
I mean, it's plain as the nose on my face that Islamofascism needs to be terminated with extreme prejudice, and I know many people who are blissfully unaware that ANY steps need to be taken in regards to Islam.