Donald Trump attacks Hillary Clinton as wins set stage for brutal election

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thorolfr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomdstone said:
“The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing … I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon,” Eisenhower said in 1963.
In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.
Click to expand...
That’s a simplistic view of a complex political situation. There were two camps in the Japanese junta: the war camp maintained that Japan must inflict tremendous damage on the Americans in order to win better terms than the “unconditional surrender” offered by President Franklin Roosevelt at the Yalta Conference in 1945. They urged fighting to the last man if necessary.

The peace camp contended that ending the war as soon as possible was the best way to achieve both camps’ overriding goal: retaining the emperor system as the only method to retain an authority that a Japanese populace would accept under U.S. authority.

Gen. Korechika Anami, Japan’s minister of war and the man calling the shots in negotiations, called for conditions that the world wouldn’t have recognized as surrender.

Anami wanted retention of the emperor, self-disarmament, no foreign occupation, and trial of any Japanese war criminals by Japan itself, according to “The Rising Sun,” John Toland’s 1971 Pulitzer Prize-winning history of Japan’s war empire. He was willing to inflict tremendous casualties on the U.S. invaders to achieve this goal.
 
Tomdstone said:
You don’t know if anyone would have been killed if the Americans had negotiated a surrender. I was taught that a good end is not justified by an evil means such as killing innocent children."According to the CCC
2314 “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
Click to expand...
If the Americans had negotiated a surrender, then of course not. The question is whether the war wing of the Japanese military would have accepted it without the twin threats of further atomic bombing and an invasion from the north by the USSR (which they feared more than additional nuclear attacks, based on their statements after the war.)
 
I’ve always believed that a good portion of the leadership of Japan was ready to surrender but was depending on Russia to act as an intermediary, not realizing that Russia had agreed to enter the war.

Another important point was that the Japanese government was almost overthrown after the bombs were dropped and surrender offered. There were definitely mixed messages coming from Japan at that point. Read “Last to DIe” which covers the events and the life of an airman who was killed several days after the truce and ‘surrender’.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
That’s a simplistic view of a complex political situation. There were two camps in the Japanese junta: the war camp maintained that Japan must inflict tremendous damage on the Americans in order to win better terms than the “unconditional surrender” offered by President Franklin Roosevelt at the Yalta Conference in 1945. They urged fighting to the last man if necessary.

The peace camp contended that ending the war as soon as possible was the best way to achieve both camps’ overriding goal: retaining the emperor system as the only method to retain an authority that a Japanese populace would accept under U.S. authority.

Gen. Korechika Anami, Japan’s minister of war and the man calling the shots in negotiations, called for conditions that the world wouldn’t have recognized as surrender.

Anami wanted retention of the emperor, self-disarmament, no foreign occupation, and trial of any Japanese war criminals by Japan itself, according to “The Rising Sun,” John Toland’s 1971 Pulitzer Prize-winning history of Japan’s war empire. He was willing to inflict tremendous casualties on the U.S. invaders to achieve this goal.
Click to expand...
John Toland did win a Pulitzer prize, but I am not sure that he had a degree in history. He attended the Yale School of Drama for a time.
In an article published on August 19, 1945, in the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Walter Trohan discussed a memo which showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms similar to the ones which were finally accepted:

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
Surrender of designated war criminals.
But the emperor would remain in place.
 
Tomdstone said:
John Toland did win a Pulitzer prize, but I am not sure that he had a degree in history. He attended the Yale School of Drama for a time.
In an article published on August 19, 1945, in the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Walter Trohan discussed a memo which showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms similar to the ones which were finally accepted:

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
Surrender of designated war criminals.
But the emperor would remain in place.
Click to expand...
With respect, I think the Japanese military would have rebelled and taken over the government if these terms had been accepted.
 
I should also point out that the revisionist theory that Japan had sent messages appealing for a peace treaty is one that arose in Japan after the war and was later adopted by some American historians. Many other historians, however, disagree with this view, based largely on the lack of primary textual evidence supporting it. No copies of the alleged teletypes exist. The sole primary textual evidence is a reference in Truman’s diary on July 18 stating "“telegram from Jap [sic] Emperor asking for peace.” While this has been claimed by the revisionists as evidence, it actually refers to an entirely different situation - the Japanese foreign office’s attempt (under the suspicious eyes of the military) to persuade the Soviet Union to broker a negotiated peace that would have permitted the Japanese to retain their prewar empire and their imperial system (not just the emperor) intact - a position that was clearly in opposition to the Allies’ basic war goals and one which Truman would never have considered - and copies of* these* telegram do exist.
 
If you would like to read the actual teletypes between the Japanese leaders who were attempting to draw the USSR in as an intermediary, it is again quite clear that a) the Japanese military and the Japanese state department were sending mixed signals, and moreover, that the Japanese terms expressed in the teletypes show they were not serious about surrender under any terms acceptable to the Allies. You can read them here: nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/correspondence/togo-sato/corr_togo-sato.htm
 
The Japanese Cabinet approved making the approach to the Soviets, but there was no agreement on surrender terms within the government, nor were there discussions of the terms of a potential surrender at the highest levels of the Japanese governments until after the second atomic bomb was dropped

The Soviets could’t make sense out of the Japanese proposals. Foreign Minister Molotov fobbed the Japanese ambassador off on a junior official and then left with Stalin for the Potsdam Conference.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
If you would like to read the actual teletypes between the Japanese leaders who were attempting to draw the USSR in as an intermediary, it is again quite clear that a) the Japanese military and the Japanese state department were sending mixed signals, and moreover, that the Japanese terms expressed in the teletypes show they were not serious about surrender under any terms acceptable to the Allies. You can read them here: nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/correspondence/togo-sato/corr_togo-sato.htm
Click to expand...
Cool stuff. Thanks.
 
Jeanne_S said:
I don’t believe anyone has blamed Hillary for Bill’s sexual abuse of numerous women.
Click to expand...
Well, what’s coming is this argument:

“It’s proven that homosexuality is genetically caused” (therefore, we should all embrace homosexuality)…

“And now it’s proven that philandering is genetically caused” (therefore we should all embrace philandering).
 
meltzerboy said:
So you’re saying that being Black trumps being a woman. Therefore, I assume you will agree that in a few months, we’ll find out if being Trump trumps being a woman.
Click to expand...
And then in a few years we will find out if being a woman who identifies as a man trumps Trump.
 
Lilly,
I summarized both lists of your linked Hillary accomplishments below.
Which of these accomplishments am I undervaluing. I discounted points where she was just riding the current, not creating the current.

===================
1st link - I bolded what I thought important pluses
  • Serving on a committee is not an accomplishment by itself, the Dems gave it to her for fluffing her resume.
  • Sponsoring bills that supported the Military after 9/11 are not examples of leadership.
  • Sponsoring funding for NY after 9/11 is also a DUH no brainier, they were sponsored by every representative from the state and guaranteed to pass.
  • She supported the Dream Act, which failed. This clarifies her amnesty position but it’s not an accomplishment.
  • She had some minor healthcare legislation that passed
2nd link - I bolded actual accomplishments (IMHO).
  1. Her China speech on women.
    ?? While it may have been a good speech, it had no impact on China.
  2. Her role in killing Osama bin Laden.
    ?? This is embarrassing. She voted Yes to violating Pakistani sovereignty with the Seal Team mission. The CIA and Seals get the credit here.
  3. Management of the State Department and increase in US Exports.
    ?? Very embarrassing to claim as wins.
    ?? Inspector General reports were critical of her management,
    ?? her efforts to avoid FOIA with a private server.
    ?? The Sec of State gets zero credit for increasing exports. Exports rise when exiting a major global recession DUH.
  4. Iran sanctions.
    !! I concede this as a win for her record, she’s a hawk.
  5. Foreign Policy Victories
    ?? I’m not surprised Harry Reid didn’t mention any specifics, lol. The ME policy has caused much chaos and loss of life, the current EU refugee crisis is her offspring.
  6. The SCHIP program
    !! I concede this minor healthcare legislation as a win for her record,
  7. $21 billion in Fed aid for NY after 9/11
    This isn’t really an accomplishment. Any warm body from NY could have gotten the money for NY after 9/11.
  8. “She was an inspirational figure for billions of women … she also did much to restore the shattered credibility of the United States,”
    ?? This is nice for a eulogy but there’s no meat on it, no substance to back it up (beyond she’s female).
  9. ‘Rebuilding America’s leadership and prestige overseas after the Bush years’
    ?? Same as above, pure partisan BS - no meat.
  10. ‘The Pediatric Research Equity Act’
    !! I concede this minor healthcare legislation as a win for her record,
  11. ‘Crippling sanctions against Iran’
    !! I already conceded this as a win for her record.
So when you look at it her ‘win’ record with honesty, on actual leadership that made a difference:
  • sanctions against Iran
  • some minor healthcare legislation
 
PRmerger said:
A good end never justifies an immoral means.

#never
Click to expand...
That’s begging the question by simply presuming that the method of warfare was immoral.

God himself commanded that the Israelites utterly destroy the Amalekites in a manner that was not inconsistent with Hiroshima and Nagasaki - "“put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey”. Were God’s commands immoral? The Amalekites were horrible people who attempted to subvert God’s chosen people and turn them from their divinely mandated path.

It was clearly horrifying, but most warfare is. We firebombed Dresden to try to destroy the Nazi empire’s will to resist, using non-nuclear weapons that targeted a civilian population center that killed between 22,000 to 25,000 people, most of them civilians. It destroyed a huge infrastructure that allowed the Nazis to continue to war and the genocide of the Jewish people.

Few dispute that the Nazis and the Japanese government started the wars. They brought death and untold misery to millions. They were not our moral equals, and as I showed, they bore the moral responsibility for the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden, not us. With the benefit of hindsight, we might have used different means to bring the war to a less violent conclusion, but that is assuming a whole lot of what-ifs. Things could just as easily turned even worse, with even more loss of American and innocent civilian lives in Japan and Germany. The American military had to end the war quickly. The American people had suffered enough under the Nazi and Japanese’s plans for world conquest, and we could not sustain the war much longer.

I know some disagree with me, but I’m glad my father survived, and I think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a moral action, although a horrible and difficult one. If you want to blame someone, blame the Nazis and the Japanese military, who created the situation that caused it. They sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
That’s begging the question by simply presuming that the method of warfare was immoral.
Click to expand...
No.

I am not necessarily addressing Japan.

I am simply stating this fact, which is incontrovertible: a good end can never be justified by an immoral means.

Never ever.
 
PRmerger said:
No.

I am not necessarily addressing Japan.

I am simply stating this fact, which is incontrovertible: a good end can never be justified by an immoral means.

Never ever.
Click to expand...
That’s fine and good, but not applicable in the situation we were discussing, then.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
God himself commanded that the Israelites utterly destroy the Amalekites in a manner that was not inconsistent with Hiroshima and Nagasaki - "“put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey”.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not.

God does not condone genocide.

As Fr. Barron articulates so well: those passages portoray a symbolic representation of our struggle to eliminate sin completely in our lives.
 
PRmerger said:
Absolutely not.

God does not condone genocide.

As Fr. Barron articulates so well: those passages portoray a symbolic representation of our struggle to eliminate sin completely in our lives.
Click to expand...
I am not a Biblical literalist, and I agree that the sections concerning apparent genocide in the Old Testament have to be interpreted in context. But there’s no doubt, based on the historical evidence, that God’s chosen people did practice defensive wars that targeted civilian population centers. They may not have interpreted those commands in quite the same way you and Father Barron do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top