Hiroshima, 64 Years Later
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
klein
Für Meno :)
wkmac : you really surprise me today.
You know what, you don't even have to go that far into history.
Look at the Taliban. The "terrorist group" once all mighty USA supported with fullforce. With money and weapons.
Now, your bring body bags back, had 9/11, and the rest of World (Nato and UN) is trying to clean up your mess.
Somethings are best, just to leave alone.
US Taxpayers paid for supporting the terrorists, and now paying to get rid of them. (which is now proven to be much more costly, and not just monetary).
I was fortunate enough to have a highschool teacher to learn us, that you can't just get information from 1 source only.
That if you read a newspaper, you better buy 2 or 3.
As for tabloids, he told me not even to read the headlines at a checkout stand.. Those lies (even though you know at the time they are lies), will stick in your memory, and after some time, your brain, still has that info, but can't recall if it was "good and truthful" info, or just BS.
If you watch news, don't just watch it on 1 channel or even from only 1 country.
As to this day, I still listen to him. And , if you ever try it out for yourself, to watch BBC, CBC, and CNN, and even other news... you'll find a huge difference.
Kinda like here on the internet, anyone can paste a link, there is always pro and contra.... the truth lies somewhere inbetween, but mostly in the worlds most popular medias.
Btw: At WWII, the USA only stood 17th worldwide in military power (without the german technoligy with the A bomb, in the later years).
They didn't have much firepower at all.
You know what, you don't even have to go that far into history.
Look at the Taliban. The "terrorist group" once all mighty USA supported with fullforce. With money and weapons.
Now, your bring body bags back, had 9/11, and the rest of World (Nato and UN) is trying to clean up your mess.
Somethings are best, just to leave alone.
US Taxpayers paid for supporting the terrorists, and now paying to get rid of them. (which is now proven to be much more costly, and not just monetary).
I was fortunate enough to have a highschool teacher to learn us, that you can't just get information from 1 source only.
That if you read a newspaper, you better buy 2 or 3.
As for tabloids, he told me not even to read the headlines at a checkout stand.. Those lies (even though you know at the time they are lies), will stick in your memory, and after some time, your brain, still has that info, but can't recall if it was "good and truthful" info, or just BS.
If you watch news, don't just watch it on 1 channel or even from only 1 country.
As to this day, I still listen to him. And , if you ever try it out for yourself, to watch BBC, CBC, and CNN, and even other news... you'll find a huge difference.
Kinda like here on the internet, anyone can paste a link, there is always pro and contra.... the truth lies somewhere inbetween, but mostly in the worlds most popular medias.
Btw: At WWII, the USA only stood 17th worldwide in military power (without the german technoligy with the A bomb, in the later years).
They didn't have much firepower at all.
Last edited:
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Well if I surprise you, that's a good thing.
Oh I know we have very recent events worth much time in themselves but it's easy to see these as nothing more than a one off event. You know, we just spent the last eight years electing the wrong cowboy but get in the other guy and all is well again. But what if one was willing to step back, shed the political "cult of personality" loyality thing and just be an American and look at things with honest eyes as much as you can. If one does this and then if one observes a pattern over time that then suggests our cowboy wasn't a one off but was a business as ususal and then the new guy is just a continuation!Kinda changes things don't it?
I agree about the foreign and alternative press as the MSM of America has been compromised in that they tow the gov't line in order to maintain access. Adam Curtis for the BBC a couple of years ago did a 3 part investigation that initially was going to be about the so-called conservative movement in America and the comparisons of the factions of the neoconservatives on one side and the individualist libertarians on the other. But as Curtis explored the subject, especially the neoconservatives he realized that they (neocons) had a more comparative history/MO with radical fundamentalism and dropped the lowly libertarians altogether. Curtis then went on to give an excellent look at both the groups and their history from NeoCons roots in Leo Strauss to Al Qaeda's roots from the Muslim Brotherhood. Just from it's historical POV of both sides, Curtis' "The Power of Nightmares" is well worth the viewing. It is available on Google video in 3 parts.
What or where is the truth? Good question and sometimes one not easily answered. At moments, truth is like a mirage in that you aren't sure as to what you eyes are seeing. You have to keep looking and travel down the road to actually arrive at the truth and even then it can still be murkey. Multiple sources are a good thing but I also think time and patterns of operation can also prove most effective in painting a true picture. Question is, are we willing to look and ask those question which really are most uncomfortable to ask?
Speaking of alternative press and alternative views, not about Hiroshima but you might find this alternative pres piece interesting none the less.
The Sheik Down
It raises the "uncomfortable" spector of what modern American warfare is really about and the reality of how we are so-called winning the war. I always found it funny how folks will condemn gov't at home for wealth redistribution and yet in their own innocent way, defend the very same thing abroad all because it's wrapped in the flag and carried forward by America's greatest icon, the American soldier.
Wealth redistribution and misallocation of resources by force (taxes and debt creation) is still wrong even if you hoodwink Superman into doing your dirty work!
c ya!
Babagounj
Strength through joy
A press report on August 10 revealed that the government of Italy is planning to modify if not dispense with its post-World War II constitutional limitations on conducting offensive military operations; that is, to reverse a 61-year ban on waging war.
The news story, reminding readers that "Italy's post-World War II constitution places stringent limits on the country's military engagements," stated the Italian government intends to introduce a new military code "specifically for missions abroad," one that - in a demonstration of evasiveness and verbal legerdemain alike - would be "neither of peace nor of war." [1]
On August 10 and 11, respectively, the nation's Defense Minister Ignazio La Russa and Foreign Minister Franco Frattini were interviewed in the daily Corriere della Sera in in tandem they bemoaned what they described as undue restrictions on the Italian armed forces in performing their combat roles in NATO's war in Afghanistan.
Commenting on La Russa's and Frattini's assertions, another news account summarized them as follows:
"Italy's 2,800 soldiers operate under a military peace code, which largely restricts them to shooting back if they are attacked. Changes could give the troops heavier equipment and allow them to go on the offensive."
Frattini is quoted as saying, "We need a code for the missions that aim to bring peace, which cannot be achieved only through actions for civilians but also through real military actions."
The news story, reminding readers that "Italy's post-World War II constitution places stringent limits on the country's military engagements," stated the Italian government intends to introduce a new military code "specifically for missions abroad," one that - in a demonstration of evasiveness and verbal legerdemain alike - would be "neither of peace nor of war." [1]
On August 10 and 11, respectively, the nation's Defense Minister Ignazio La Russa and Foreign Minister Franco Frattini were interviewed in the daily Corriere della Sera in in tandem they bemoaned what they described as undue restrictions on the Italian armed forces in performing their combat roles in NATO's war in Afghanistan.
Commenting on La Russa's and Frattini's assertions, another news account summarized them as follows:
"Italy's 2,800 soldiers operate under a military peace code, which largely restricts them to shooting back if they are attacked. Changes could give the troops heavier equipment and allow them to go on the offensive."
Frattini is quoted as saying, "We need a code for the missions that aim to bring peace, which cannot be achieved only through actions for civilians but also through real military actions."
wkmac
Well-Known Member
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
The only difference between a-bombs and conventional incindiery raids is the number of aircraft that are required to achieve the same level of destruction.
In many respects, Japan reaped what it sowed; they carried out similar bombing raids on the Chinese city of Nanking in 1939.
Over 20 million Chinese died during the Japanese conquest of their country between 1936 and 1945. This was 3 times the number of deaths that occured in the Holocaust.
Ask yourself this; if the Japanese had posessed B-29 bombers and/or a working nuclear weapon in 1945, would they have used them? Absolutely.
They had an operational plan in place to construct radiocative "dirty bombs" using Uranium-235 that was being shipped from Germany via submarine. These bombs would have been used on American cites on the west coast, dropped from submarine-launched aircraft. The only reason this plan was not carried out was because the German U-boat (u-232)that carried this uranium never made it to Japan; it departed Germany on April 20th 1945 and was in the mid-Atlantic on May 7th when Germany surrendered. The two Japanese officers that were on board committed suicide, and the captain of the U-boat took his ship to the U.S.A where he surrendered it and its cargo; in addition to the uranium, this U-boat contained plans and parts for V-1 and V-2 missiles and a complete, disassembled ME 262 jet fighter.
I am not advocating indiscriminate air attacks against civilian population centers; but this was a tactic that the Japanese had used themselves, and the refusal of the Japanese govt to surrender long after there was no hope of victory is what caused the war to drag on and for so many civilians to be killed.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
No I didnt.
In a perfect world there would be no war and the point would be moot.
Our current military strategy calls for surgical strikes on military targets with precision weapons, with every effort made to minimize civilian casualties.
Such technology did not exist in 1945.
We did attempt to warn the Japanese civilian population of impending attacks on their cities by dropping leaflets. Our goal in destroying the cities was to cripple the Japanese war effort and eliminate their industrial capabilities to make weapons. Far more civilians would have died of starvation or been killed in combat had we continued our naval blockade and launched the invasion of the home islands that was planned to begin in November.
The final conventional attack upon Japan was launched because we were trying to keep the pressure on them to surrender and end the war. A 3rd atomic strike was not possible for the simple reason that we did not have any nuclear weapons left; the test bomb and two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had depleted our entire supply of plutonium and enriched uranium, and we were several weeks away from being able to construct another weapon. We didnt want them (or the Russians) to know this.
tieguy
Banned
For the most part I agree. There was no concern about collatoral damage though. When we dropped the two atomic bombs though we definitely intended to kill civilans and lots of them.
Its disturbing to me a corruption of our value system. At the same time I do agree that the japanease mindset at the time was one where many of those same civilans would have picked up arms against us if we had invaded their homeland.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
It is also important to remember that our actions after the Japanese surrender were to assist in the rebuilding of the country and to create a stable and peaceful democracy.
Compare post-war Japan with post-war East Germany. The level of destruction in both nations was comparable; but while we helped to rebuild Japan, the Russians only goal was to create an impoverished, bankrupt sattelite nation that would serve as a buffer zone between it and the West.
The debate over the moral implications of dropping the atomic bombs needs to factor in the realities of the global war we found ourselves thrust into. There had already been unspeakable death and destruction on a scale never before seen in the history of humankind. Entire cities had already been leveled; entire nations and ethnic groups had been uprooted, starved and slaughtered. Something like 60 million people died worldwide. New terror weapons (German V-1 and V-2 rockets) had been introduced that indescriminantly target civilians and against which there was no defense. The atomic bomb was seen, at that time, as just another point in this gruesome continuum of destruction. We simply used the best weapons we had to end the war as quickly as possible.
Compare post-war Japan with post-war East Germany. The level of destruction in both nations was comparable; but while we helped to rebuild Japan, the Russians only goal was to create an impoverished, bankrupt sattelite nation that would serve as a buffer zone between it and the West.
The debate over the moral implications of dropping the atomic bombs needs to factor in the realities of the global war we found ourselves thrust into. There had already been unspeakable death and destruction on a scale never before seen in the history of humankind. Entire cities had already been leveled; entire nations and ethnic groups had been uprooted, starved and slaughtered. Something like 60 million people died worldwide. New terror weapons (German V-1 and V-2 rockets) had been introduced that indescriminantly target civilians and against which there was no defense. The atomic bomb was seen, at that time, as just another point in this gruesome continuum of destruction. We simply used the best weapons we had to end the war as quickly as possible.
