Presidential vapor in Hiroshima....

[Jimmy Higgins]

The were being carpet bombed every day so that was not expected. There was a two day gap between the first and second blast On the day after the first one they were still finding out in the rest of Japan what happened. We didn't have smartphones then of course.

The initiative for peace talks was not taken up. A ceasefire a few months earlier would have saved a lot of lives.

Why would anyone thing US foreign policy was any wiser than it is today?

How was it not expected? We asked them to surrender, they were losing badly and every they were continuing the fight even though they were losing. So yes, they should have said, "Yes we surrender". They didn't, the fight continued.

The Japanese were willing to surrender, however, there was disagreement over the terms. After Nagasaki, Truman just said 'Fuck it' and accepted keeping the Emperor. The price of removing him to the Japanese and the Americans was going to be too damn high.

- - - Updated - - -

So I can just say, "because I felt so" and have justified the harm and there is no guilt?

How is that a valid justification?

Technically, you aren't alive to question his validation of the killing.

 

[coloradoatheist]

How was it not expected? We asked them to surrender, they were losing badly and every they were continuing the fight even though they were losing. So yes, they should have said, "Yes we surrender". They didn't, the fight continued.

The Japanese were willing to surrender, however, there was disagreement over the terms. After Nagasaki, Truman just said 'Fuck it' and accepted keeping the Emperor. The price of removing him to the Japanese and the Americans was going to be too damn high.

- - - Updated - - -

So I can just say, "because I felt so" and have justified the harm and there is no guilt?

How is that a valid justification?

Technically, you aren't alive to question his validation of the killing.

But that was after the emperor had said they were going to accept the terms of surrender and Truman was listening to his advisors about what to do. Japan never sat down at formal surrender negotiations and the US officially said no to all conditions but the Emperor.

Even between the bombs Truman asked for surrender which the Japanese said no. If surrender was cut and dried as whichphilosophy says then it should have even happened them.

 

[untermensche]

Technically, you aren't alive to question his validation of the killing.

The action can only be validated by an acceptable justification.

Actions bring guilt, not the recognition of others.

One is guilty of unjustified violence by committing it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except in war we're only really defined new rules in the last 100 years and there might be a case that this has extended wars, but different solution.


the problem with a lot of this war/conflicts was that was a very fine line about who was doing what. People complain about the US involvement in Vietnam when Vietnam was a civil war with us helping one side. I haven't seen the condemnation of North Vietnam for the expansionist war into the south.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Japanese were willing to surrender, however, there was disagreement over the terms. After Nagasaki, Truman just said 'Fuck it' and accepted keeping the Emperor. The price of removing him to the Japanese and the Americans was going to be too damn high.

- - - Updated - - -

So I can just say, "because I felt so" and have justified the harm and there is no guilt?

How is that a valid justification?

Technically, you aren't alive to question his validation of the killing.

But that was after the emperor had said they were going to accept the terms of surrender and Truman was listening to his advisors about what to do. Japan never sat down at formal surrender negotiations and the US officially said no to all conditions but the Emperor.

Even between the bombs Truman asked for surrender which the Japanese said no. If surrender was cut and dried as whichphilosophy says then it should have even happened them.

I'm pretty certain Japan was willing to surrender at certain terms prior to the bombing.

 

[untermensche]

Except in war we're only really defined new rules in the last 100 years and there might be a case that this has extended wars, but different solution.


the problem with a lot of this war/conflicts was that was a very fine line about who was doing what. People complain about the US involvement in Vietnam when Vietnam was a civil war with us helping one side. I haven't seen the condemnation of North Vietnam for the expansionist war into the south.

War does not justify anything.

Justification would be something like self defense. If there was no other choice.

And US involvement in Vietnam was mainly an attack of the South and the people in the South trying to throw off the remnant of French imperial rule, the US supported government of South Vietnam that did not have the support of the South Vietnamese people.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The Japanese were willing to surrender, however, there was disagreement over the terms. After Nagasaki, Truman just said 'Fuck it' and accepted keeping the Emperor. The price of removing him to the Japanese and the Americans was going to be too damn high.

- - - Updated - - -

So I can just say, "because I felt so" and have justified the harm and there is no guilt?

How is that a valid justification?

Technically, you aren't alive to question his validation of the killing.

But that was after the emperor had said they were going to accept the terms of surrender and Truman was listening to his advisors about what to do. Japan never sat down at formal surrender negotiations and the US officially said no to all conditions but the Emperor.

Even between the bombs Truman asked for surrender which the Japanese said no. If surrender was cut and dried as whichphilosophy says then it should have even happened them.

I'm pretty certain Japan was willing to surrender at certain terms prior to the bombing.

Maybe, but that was never clear what they wanted. The Soviets played the games with Jap minister when he went there and the Soviets also said unconditional surrender.

- - - Updated - - -

Except in war we're only really defined new rules in the last 100 years and there might be a case that this has extended wars, but different solution.


the problem with a lot of this war/conflicts was that was a very fine line about who was doing what. People complain about the US involvement in Vietnam when Vietnam was a civil war with us helping one side. I haven't seen the condemnation of North Vietnam for the expansionist war into the south.

War does not justify anything.

Justification would be something like self defense. If there was no other choice.

And US involvement in Vietnam was mainly an attack of the South and the people in the South trying to throw off the remnant of French imperial rule, the US supported government of South Vietnam that did not have the support of the South Vietnamese people.

The war continued for about 2 years after the Americans left. There was support in the south to not be unified.

 

[untermensche]

The war continued for about 2 years after the Americans left. There was support in the south to not be unified.

The US continued the war with proxies and air cover for 2 years.

The people of South Vietnam wanted an end to colonial rule and the US imposed government.

The US committed genocide to prevent this.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The war continued for about 2 years after the Americans left. There was support in the south to not be unified.

The US continued the war with proxies and air cover for 2 years.

The people of South Vietnam wanted an end to colonial rule and the US imposed government.

The US committed genocide to prevent this.

But if the South Vietnamese did not want to fight, it would have been over in days. And no, it wasn't genocide.

 

[untermensche]

The US continued the war with proxies and air cover for 2 years.

The people of South Vietnam wanted an end to colonial rule and the US imposed government.

The US committed genocide to prevent this.

But if the South Vietnamese did not want to fight, it would have been over in days. And no, it wasn't genocide.

It was the South Vietnamese that the US was bombing into oblivion.

Genocide.

With imperialism there is always a facade of power that stands between the imperial power and the things it is exploiting. The Saudi so-called royal family is such a facade.

A ruling class looking out for the interests of imperial powers as much or more than the interests of their own citizens.

In South Vietnam the government was a US controlled facade. A US imposed and supported government that was the remnant of the French colonial presence.

 

[Barbarian]

But if the South Vietnamese did not want to fight, it would have been over in days. And no, it wasn't genocide.

It was the South Vietnamese that the US was bombing into oblivion.

Genocide.

With imperialism there is always a facade of power that stands between the imperial power and the things it is exploiting. The Saudi so-called royal family is such a facade.

A ruling class looking out for the interests of imperial powers as much or more than the interests of their own citizens.

In South Vietnam the government was a US controlled facade. A US imposed and supported government that was the remnant of the French colonial presence.

Did it ever occur to you that in your narrative the US is exactly as omnipresent, powerful and malevolent as the Jews are for the Stormfront crowd? I see parallels.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/8/iraq-sectarianismshiassunniskurdsnourialmalaki.html

Your position is pure prejudice. An irrational hatred of Muslims. Bigotry. Nothing more.

Al Jazeera used to be an independent source. That's history, though, now it's under control of the Islamists.

- - - Updated - - -

Japan behaves in a friendly fashion towards us. Castro's Cuba went out of it's way to keep antagonizing us--the embargo gave him a convenient scapegoat to blame Cuba's economic problems on.

What did Cuba do to antagonize the Americans other than not get rid of Castro? The confrontation with Russia ended a long time ago. The purpose of the blockade was to harm Cuba's economy so no one needs to find any scapegoats.

There have been many things. Off the top of my head, his response to the boat lift was to open the prisons and send the prisoners to the US. That caused a lot of trouble for Florida.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm pretty certain Japan was willing to surrender at certain terms prior to the bombing.

Yeah--the question is what those terms would be. We weren't willing to accept the terms they were willing to offer. Their idea of "peace" was retaining control of at a minimum Japan, parts of China to be negotiated.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Al Jazeera used to be an independent source. That's history, though, now it's under control of the Islamists.

When?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The war continued for about 2 years after the Americans left. There was support in the south to not be unified.

The US continued the war with proxies and air cover for 2 years.

The people of South Vietnam wanted an end to colonial rule and the US imposed government.

The US committed genocide to prevent this.

If they didn't want to fight they could have surrendered. They didn't.

You just can't believe the US could possibly be on the side of good.

 

[untermensche]

It was the South Vietnamese that the US was bombing into oblivion.

Genocide.

With imperialism there is always a facade of power that stands between the imperial power and the things it is exploiting. The Saudi so-called royal family is such a facade.

A ruling class looking out for the interests of imperial powers as much or more than the interests of their own citizens.

In South Vietnam the government was a US controlled facade. A US imposed and supported government that was the remnant of the French colonial presence.

Did it ever occur to you that in your narrative the US is exactly as omnipresent, powerful and malevolent as the Jews are for the Stormfront crowd? I see parallels.

Not for a second.

I am talking about documented US crimes. Mass killing on an unimaginable scale. Just to stop people from doing what they wanted to do.

Do you know your behavior is typical for some when faced with facts they don't like? They blame the messenger.

 

[untermensche]

The US continued the war with proxies and air cover for 2 years.

The people of South Vietnam wanted an end to colonial rule and the US imposed government.

The US committed genocide to prevent this.

If they didn't want to fight they could have surrendered. They didn't.

You just can't believe the US could possibly be on the side of good.

The ones fighting were fighting because we were paying the bills and were bribing or threatening the generals to push them.

They were part of the imperial facade.

Not an indigenous force.

The indigenous forces were opposing them.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If they didn't want to fight they could have surrendered. They didn't.

You just can't believe the US could possibly be on the side of good.

The ones fighting were fighting because we were paying the bills and were bribing or threatening the generals to push them.

They were part of the imperial facade.

Not an indigenous force.

The indigenous forces were opposing them.

Excpet that people who don't have much to fight for don't fight very hard for it. They could have easily given the keys over to the VC and NVA and that would be it.

And which genocides are you talking about?

 

[Barbarian]

Did it ever occur to you that in your narrative the US is exactly as omnipresent, powerful and malevolent as the Jews are for the Stormfront crowd? I see parallels.

Not for a second.

Well, it should. On certain fora I frequent, the Stormfront-types actually use the USA and the Jews interchangeably. Your posts would not stand out there, excepting for the fact that they are written in English, because nobody would notice you don't mention the Jews.

I am talking about documented US crimes. Mass killing on an unimaginable scale. Just to stop people from doing what they wanted to do.

The USA is the world leader in choosing the wrong local ally in any conflict, that's true. I put it down to an unwillingness of the government to heed warnings about people in other parts of the world being, you know, different. On the other hand I applaud US efforts to prevent populists and communists from gaining or keeping power, whatever the alleged 'real' motivation behind those moves. It would have to be some quite heinous act before I say anything like 'even communism is better than that'.

Do you know your behavior is typical for some when faced with facts they don't like? They blame the messenger.

But I do like the message. I'm happy there's an USA meddling into the affairs of unworthy countries. I'm dead serious. I've lived 24 years under the rule of Ceausescu, and whenever the USA is alleged to overthrow a government or embolden rebels, I always think 'would I have welcomed this in 1985?' And the answer so far was always 'yes'. I don't care if all this serves business interests as well; business is about mutual advantages, about everybody getting something out of it, and the country most likely to ensure this is the USA. If the USA fucked with Japan because of access to resources in the Pacific, I could not care less even if I tried, because repelling the Japanese was beneficial to the local population who were spared a permanent subhuman status in a Japanese empire.

 

[Bronzeage]

The Japanese were willing to surrender, however, there was disagreement over the terms. After Nagasaki, Truman just said 'Fuck it' and accepted keeping the Emperor. The price of removing him to the Japanese and the Americans was going to be too damn high.

- - - Updated - - -

So I can just say, "because I felt so" and have justified the harm and there is no guilt?

How is that a valid justification?

Technically, you aren't alive to question his validation of the killing.

But that was after the emperor had said they were going to accept the terms of surrender and Truman was listening to his advisors about what to do. Japan never sat down at formal surrender negotiations and the US officially said no to all conditions but the Emperor.

Even between the bombs Truman asked for surrender which the Japanese said no. If surrender was cut and dried as whichphilosophy says then it should have even happened them.

I'm pretty certain Japan was willing to surrender at certain terms prior to the bombing.

That would have been filed with the Office of Too Little, Too Late. After the Battle of the Coral Sea, Japan was on the defensive. After the Battle of Midway, the Japanese were no longer capable of offensive action. There was no possibility of a stalemate. Japan was going to lose the war. The Allies had come too far and paid too much to settle for anything less than unconditional surrender.

The military honor code of the Japanese High Command did not allow for surrender, even with "certain terms." There were plenty who were willing to face certain and futile death, rather than surrender.

The only way the honor code code be satisfied with less than death in battle or suicide, was as an act of obedience to authority. The Emperor and the High Command had to be in complete agreement. This was not possible before the atomic bombings.

The only plausible scenario which could avoid the atomic bombings would have been a request by the Japanese government for terms, following Truman's call for unconditional surrender.

Had this happened, everything would have been put on hold, while talks started. The term "unconditional" if fairly vague in this context. The Japanese experience with unconditional surrender was only as the victors, and they may have been expecting the same kind of action from the Allies. At this point, both Hitler and Mussolini were dead. They probably envisioned a mass beheading in front of the Imperial Palace.