Obama apologizing for America again...smh

Going to a Hiroshima memorial site.


What an embarrassment that man is.

Lame ducks should not be allowed outside the 48 states in their last 12 months in office.

Rocinante wrote:Going to a Hiroshima memorial site.
What an embarrassment that man is.

What are your feelings on the apology? Warranted?

I thought they said specifically that there wouldn't be an apology...

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I thought they said specifically that there wouldn't be an apology...

Well, he is going and that is pretty much the same. Of course big government love fest ban all guns Travis does not see it that way. Trump would not do this.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I thought they said specifically that there wouldn't be an apology...

Well, he is going and that is pretty much the same. Of course big government love fest ban all guns Travis does not see it that way. Trump would not do this.

Trump would bomb them again to show them we meant it the first time and to help the auto industry.

I don't really think it's the same. Of course, I don't really think that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was about the Japanese at all.

I mean, sorta. But that was secondary.

LooseGoose wrote:

Rocinante wrote:Going to a Hiroshima memorial site.
What an embarrassment that man is.

What are your feelings on the apology? Warranted?

Fucking unamerican is what I think, bucko.

He should say I'm sorry.


.



.




.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.

I'm sorry ol Doc Oppenheimer didn't have a couple more of those fuckers done more near the fourth of fucking July in 1945 instead of waiting till August 6th.

They did dwags. But ending the war wasn't why they dropped them bombs.

No Obama apology at Hiroshima, but more American now say bombing was wrong

Between August 1945 to July 2005, Gallup periodically polled Americans' approval of the Hiroshima bombing.

A few days after the bombing in 1945, a Gallup poll found that 85 percent of Americans approved of the bombing while only 10 percent disapproved. In 1995, approval and disapproval registered at 59 and 35 percent respectively. And then in 2005, Gallup found that 57 percent of Americans approved and 38 percent disapproved.

Pew Research Center found that similar opinions still persist in 2015: 56 percent of Americans believe the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified, opposed to 34 percent who say the bombs were not justified.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2016/0510/No-Obama-apology-at-Hiroshima-but-more-American-now-say-bombing-was-wrong

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:They did dwags. But ending the war wasn't why they dropped them bombs.

Were you on the interim committee?

DWags wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:They did dwags. But ending the war wasn't why they dropped them bombs.

Were you on the interim committee?

Something like that. Look, here's the deal. It was about russia. Not about Japan.

1) there was an agreement that Russia would join the war against Japan 3 months after the war in Europe ended. Which they did in fact do, but we had already dropped two bombs on Japan at that point so their war with Japan officially lasted about 3 weeks. It is absolutely not a coincidence that we dropped that bomb on Japan 3 days before Russia was set to join the war. Why? Because we needed to win the war on our own. Russia is given most of the credit for winning the war in Europe, if we hadn't dropped the bomb then the war would have lasted another year or so, but also it would have appeared as if Russia stepped in and saved us like our big brother or something. We didn't want that.

2) the Cold War was looming. Everyone knew the Cold War was looming. It's not like we were buds with Russia just because we were allies. Dropping the bombs was the best way to say "hey guy, look what we got. F you." While I think that type of statement is part of the reason, what I posted in the first part is 95% of the reason that we dropped the bomb.

So yeah, not really about Japan at all. In fact, we probably tried to convince them to give up on the war before the beginning of August so we wouldn't have to do that. Thus me saying that we could have dropped them in July if we wanted to, but we instead waited as long as we could to try to end it before the Russians got involved.

There are only so many "Thanks Obama's" left. Get them in now!

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

DWags wrote:

Were you on the interim committee?

Something like that. Look, here's the deal. It was about russia. Not about Japan.

1) there was an agreement that Russia would join the war against Japan 3 months after the war in Europe ended. Which they did in fact do, but we had already dropped two bombs on Japan at that point so their war with Japan officially lasted about 3 weeks. It is absolutely not a coincidence that we dropped that bomb on Japan 3 days before Russia was set to join the war. Why? Because we needed to win the war on our own. Russia is given most of the credit for winning the war in Europe, if we hadn't dropped the bomb then the war would have lasted another year or so, but also it would have appeared as if Russia stepped in and saved us like our big brother or something. We didn't want that.

2) the Cold War was looming. Everyone knew the Cold War was looming. It's not like we were buds with Russia just because we were allies. Dropping the bombs was the best way to say "hey guy, look what we got. F you." While I think that type of statement is part of the reason, what I posted in the first part is 95% of the reason that we dropped the bomb.

So yeah, not really about Japan at all. In fact, we probably tried to convince them to give up on the war before the beginning of August so we wouldn't have to do that. Thus me saying that we could have dropped them in July if we wanted to, but we instead waited as long as we could to try to end it before the Russians got involved.

Look, I was just making a joke on my first post, but your theory is shit and I have to explain why. It wasn't about Russia, it wasn't about Japan, it was about the military industrial complex. Eisenhower did not want to drop the bomb, Further, MacArthur sent a huge memorandum to Roosevelt that said no less than five times had Japan made overtures to surrender. You can't find one miliatry leader that probably was for it. Nobody wants to make war on civilians.

But, the military idustrial complex needed to kick start the cold war. They control America, always have controled America. Eisenhower warned against them in his farewell speech. "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. . . . Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful message and goals.”

When we dropped the bomb, it gave the USSR a reason to protect itself with an Iron Curtain, and in turn it gave us a chance to to build a war machine that would be used in the cold war all over the globe. Money talks Trav.

We need a villian. We need an enemy. When the USSR collapsed it didn't matter, we were going to find another enemy, another problem, another bully that would make us stay alert and keep us protected and keep guys and bombs and tanks and money flowing into the Military industrial complex. This new enemy is the greatest creation so far. They can't disappear, they won't go away, we can't defeat them and say "whew it's over".

Anyway, whatever. It's my opinion, I think Eisenhower tried to warn us 64 years ago. It's way too late now. Just sit back and let them keep rape you Travis.

Yeah, that too. Though your post ties in with mine a lot more than it disagrees with it. Particularly the second point. It also does nothing to show me why I'm wrong about the timing of it.

I know your post was a joke wags but I wanted to talk about other stuff. Let's stop being all high and mighty about when people are allowed to joke and when they aren't.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Yeah, that too. Though your post ties in with mine a lot more than it disagrees with it. Particularly the second point. It also does nothing to show me why I'm wrong about the timing of it.

I know your post was a joke wags but I wanted to talk about other stuff. Let's stop being all high and mighty about when people are allowed to joke and when they aren't.

You mean like you just did? Now he's asking, is wags joking or is he being serious? I dropped a bomb on you, baby.

DWags wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Yeah, that too. Though your post ties in with mine a lot more than it disagrees with it. Particularly the second point. It also does nothing to show me why I'm wrong about the timing of it.

I know your post was a joke wags but I wanted to talk about other stuff. Let's stop being all high and mighty about when people are allowed to joke and when they aren't.

You mean like you just did? Now he's asking, is wags joking or is he being serious? I dropped a bomb on you, baby.

You started it. You always do.

Anyway, it's an interesting topic. As long as we agree that the typically presented "we did it to save troops lives and to end the war sooner" line is bs then I can be comfortable with that.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

DWags wrote:

You mean like you just did? Now he's asking, is wags joking or is he being serious? I dropped a bomb on you, baby.

You started it. You always do.

Anyway, it's an interesting topic. As long as we agree that the typically presented "we did it to save troops lives and to end the war sooner" line is bs then I can be comfortable with that.

It's always been plausible deniability for the Military Industrial Complex. I have no doubts the Rosenbergs weren't the only people passing secrets onto the Russians. We needed them to have a bomb. We needed Pakistan to get one after India. We needed Israel to be the strongest nation militarily in an area surronded by people who hate them.

Russia just invaded eastern Europe and most of Asia. Welp, we need to increase the military budget..The vietcong just shot at us in the Golf of Tonkin, welp, lets start a draft. Cuba has Missles, lets build more navy ships. (Oh, and if you think the bay of pigs was really just a fucked up CIA operation, I have a bridge to sell you. It was the most precisely carried out plans by the CIA to date. Why? Cause we needed Communists 90 miles from Miami).

Why are we spending so much? Cause we need to be safe. If you aren't bullish on the military, you're not gonna be president. Hell, dress Dukakis up in a helmet just to let the M.I.C. know he's gonna be their boy too if he's elected. Kennedy was popular enough to pull out of Vietnam. How'd that go for him?

We will never be without an enemy. Without some threat to our shores, without somebody saying "if we don't do this, we could lose our way of life". Or, "we must protect our way of life." or some kind of bull shit somewhere.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:the greatest thing about Obama is that he's going to go down as maybe the greatest president of the last 50 years and that drives the right wing knuckle-draggers absolutely insane.

Not so fast.

Who was the best President of the last 50 years?

Who is the worst president since WWII?

Obama wins.

The current president is always underrated during his term. It's still too early to be judging bush in polls like that, much less Obama.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:The current president is always underrated during his term. It's still too early to be judging bush in polls like that, much less Obama.

it's pretty safe to say we have enough information to judge bu$h.

I was trying to be nice.

Floyd Robertson wrote:Who is the worst president since WWII?

Obama wins.

That is almost two years old. His approval rating is just over 50% right now, correct? That is better than several past two-term presidents at the same stage of their second term.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:the greatest thing about Obama is that he's going to go down as maybe the greatest president of the last 50 years and that drives the right wing knuckle-draggers absolutely insane.

He'll ALWAYS finish at least 2nd to Reagan and that drives your type insane. Personally I don't see how he edges Clinton or Bush 1 out either.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Anyway, it's an interesting topic. As long as we agree that the typically presented "we did it to save troops lives and to end the war sooner" line is bs then I can be comfortable with that.

Serious question here. Can you elaborate on why you believe this to be false?

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Anyway, it's an interesting topic. As long as we agree that the typically presented "we did it to save troops lives and to end the war sooner" line is bs then I can be comfortable with that.

Serious question here. Can you elaborate on why you believe this to be false?

I did already.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Serious question here. Can you elaborate on why you believe this to be false?

I did already.

So your "part 1/Part 2 post" is the basis of your belief? Or am I missing another post somewhere?

Generally yeah.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure someone somewhere was like "hey, also we'll get to end the war sooner so that's good." But, no, that wasn't the primary driver for dropping the bomb. Preventing the Russians from looking like our savior was. Plus telling them to F off.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Generally yeah.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure someone somewhere was like "hey, also we'll get to end the war sooner so that's good." But, no, that wasn't the primary driver for dropping the bomb. Preventing the Russians from looking like our savior was. Plus telling them to F off.

Possibly true though I think you're too heavily discounting the reduced casualty argument.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Generally yeah.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure someone somewhere was like "hey, also we'll get to end the war sooner so that's good." But, no, that wasn't the primary driver for dropping the bomb. Preventing the Russians from looking like our savior was. Plus telling them to F off.

Possibly true though I think you're too heavily discounting the reduced casualty argument.

I don't think you could find a WWII general who would agree to waging war against civilians. There are always casualties of war, but I don't believe a majority of our generals would have agreed to it.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Possibly true though I think you're too heavily discounting the reduced casualty argument.

I don't think you could find a WWII general who would agree to waging war against civilians. There are always casualties of war, but I don't believe a majority of our generals would have agreed to it.

This wouldn't be true of Air Force generals. We killed 10's of thousands of civilians with the firebombings in Germany and Japan.

If the US was concerned about the Soviets looking like saviors, why did Roosevelt ask the Soviets to join the Pacific war at the Yalta Conference in early 1945?

Loose is right. The Allied firebombing of Dresden killed over 20,000 people, and it happened at a time when the Nazis had been pushed into a far weaker position with little hope of winning the war.

interesting read:

It didn’t take a military genius to see that, while it might be possible to fight a decisive battle against one great power invading from one direction, it would not be possible to fight off two great powers attacking from two different directions. The Soviet invasion invalidated the military’s decisive battle strategy, just as it invalidated the diplomatic strategy. At a single stroke, all of Japan’s options evaporated. The Soviet invasion was strategically decisive — it foreclosed both of Japan’s options — while the bombing of Hiroshima (which foreclosed neither) was not.

The Soviet declaration of war also changed the calculation of how much time was left for maneuver. Japanese intelligence was predicting that U.S. forces might not invade for months. Soviet forces, on the other hand, could be in Japan proper in as little as 10 days. The Soviet invasion made a decision on ending the war extremely time sensitive.

And Japan’s leaders had reached this conclusion some months earlier. In a meeting of the Supreme Council in June 1945, they said that Soviet entry into the war “would determine the fate of the Empire.” Army Deputy Chief of Staff Kawabe said, in that same meeting, “The absolute maintenance of peace in our relations with the Soviet Union is imperative for the continuation of the war.”

Japan’s leaders consistently displayed disinterest in the city bombing that was wrecking their cities. And while this may have been wrong when the bombing began in March of 1945, by the time Hiroshima was hit, they were certainly right to see city bombing as an unimportant sideshow, in terms of strategic impact. When Truman famously threatened to visit a “rain of ruin” on Japanese cities if Japan did not surrender, few people in the United States realized that there was very little left to destroy. By August 7, when Truman’s threat was made, only 10 cities larger than 100,000 people remained that had not already been bombed. Once Nagasaki was attacked on August 9, only nine cities were left. Four of those were on the northernmost island of Hokkaido, which was difficult to bomb because of the distance from Tinian Island where American planes were based. Kyoto, the ancient capital of Japan, had been removed from the target list by Secretary of War Henry Stimson because of its religious and symbolic importance. So despite the fearsome sound of Truman’s threat, after Nagasaki was bombed only four major cities remained which could readily have been hit with atomic weapons.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/