Text 37501, 136 rader
Skriven 2006-08-25 19:26:33 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 37491 av LEE LOFASO (1:123/140)
Ärende: CELEBRATION!
====================
25 Aug 06 14:33, LEE LOFASO wrote to ROY WITT:

 LL> Hello Roy,

 >>HN> Sure it might have saved many allied troops when they had
 >>HN> to invade Japan, but that cannot be an argument for
 >>HN> celebrating the nukes in WWII.

 >>BK> While there is no reason to celebrate the deaths of so many, it
 >>BK> probably saved a lot of Japanese troops and civilians also.

 >>LL> Face it, Bob.  Harry S Truman was a mass murderer.

 >>RW> Which would put him in a class with Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin,
 >>RW> Churchill and Tojo...although, might makes right in this case.

 >>LL> Might makes right?

 RW>> In some cases. The Allies' was, the rest weren't.

 LL> Nazi Germany was invading countries left and right.
 LL> The Empire of Japan was invading countries left and right.
 LL> Fascist Italy invaded countries left and right.
 LL> Rather than invading countries left and right, the Allies
 LL> chose to defend what remained, and sought to defeat the
 LL> powers that had invaded so many independent countries.
 LL> Fortunately for the world, the Allies won.

 LL> IOW, might never makes right.  But it can set things right.

 >>LL> To the victor go the spoils?

 RW>> In some instances...not ours of course. We always give aid to the
 RW>> defeated, which is why there's a very strong economic Germany and
 RW>> Japan today.

 LL> We have not always given to the defeated.  And we do not always give
 LL> to the defeated.  After all, the Taliban will never receive any help
 LL> from us.  And neither will al-Qaeda.

 >>LL> Peace through strength?

 RW>> If necessary.

 LL> I much prefer the philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt, who once said "Speak
 LL> softly, but carry a big stick."  Rather than using the Big Stick to
 LL> bully others into submission, Roosevelt chose to keep the Big Stick
 LL> handy in case of need, as a means of protection for America and
 LL> others.

 >>LL> No country has the right to invade another country and to claim
 >>LL> that territory as its own.

 RW>> That depends on your point of view, that is, if you're not a victim.
 RW>> It was quite ok for Japan to do that, as it was also ok for Germany.
 RW>> But the rest of the world thought differently.

 LL> Nazi Germany thought it was fighting a defensive war.
 LL> The Empire of Japan thought it was fighting a defensive war.
 LL> Fascist Italy thought it was fighting a defensive war.
 LL> IOW, those nations thought of themselves as being the victim.

 >>LL> No country has the right to bomb another country that is basically
 >>LL> defenseless, either.

 RW>> That also depends. If they refuse to eject terrorists and allow them
 RW>> to even participate in that country's government, it's the only
 RW>> thing to do.

 LL> One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.  Prior to
 LL> Israel's bombardment of Lebanon, most Lebanese considered Hezbollah
 LL> as being a horrible terrorist group.  But today, the same Lebanese
 LL> people look at Hezbollah as being defenders of Lebanon, rather than a
 LL> terrorist group.

 >>LL> The Japanese high command had offered to surrender a full month
 >>LL> *before* the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 >>RW> Yeah! On their terms.

 >>LL> Nope.  Not by a long shot.

 RW>> By a very long shot.

 LL> On better terms than they would have gotten with an unconditional
 LL> surrender.

 >>LL> An unconditional surrender would have meant no leverage at all for
 >>LL> the Japanese high command,

 RW>> Which is why they were refused. They were guilty of war crimes and
 RW>> an conditional surrender would have given them immunity to
 RW>> prosecution.

 LL> Nope.  Even a conditional surrender would not have guaranteed them
 LL> immunity to prosecution.  And who says that all of them were "guilty
 LL> of war crimes"?  Some of them were.  But not all.  In any event, the
 LL> real reason why the Japanese were refused the option of a conditional
 LL> surrender had nothing to do with who was guilty of war crimes, but
 LL> rather of Truman's wish to demonstrate to the world his willingness
 LL> to atomize populated civilian centers, namely Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 LL> As such, who was really guilty of having committed war crimes or
 LL> crimes against humanity or <gasp> genocide?

 >>LL> meaning their own death.

 RW>> Many of them knew the consequences of thier crimes. They just didn't
 RW>> believe they'd lose the war, which is typical of all monsters who
 RW>> engage in such atrocitys.

 LL> The Japanese knew the war was lost, long before the atomic bombing of
 LL> Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 >>LL> A conditional surrender would have given the Japanese high command
 >>LL> some leverage, although not much, in regards to saving their own
 >>LL> skin.

 RW>> See above. What they finally agreed to was an unconditional
 RW>> surrender, one that didn't even protect their precious Emperor.

 LL> The unconditional surrender meant surrender under terms of the
 LL> Potsdam Agreement.

Correct.

 LL>   As for the status of Hirohito, a "secret deal" was made between
 LL> President Harry S Truman and Hirohito, thus allowing the Emperor to
 LL> keep his head.

Wrong.

               R\%/itt


--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)