[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by The_Rorschach

The American people, by and large, I'm sure felt similarly, but there just as many who had respect for them. Even MacArthur held the Japanese in high esteem during the coarse of the war, I believe that speaks well of the diversity in American opinion of the time.

I'm sure many soldiers held respect for the grit of the Japanese, but it doesn't change the fact that racism (often perpetuated by our government) created serious resentment for the Japanese.

Hardcare? We killed 118,000 men and women with the combined strikes, the total is placed at 160K due to sickness and cancer since. Japan lost less than two million men and women, miltary and civilian combined

Women and children were burned alive, bodies piled up in the dried up streams, because people rushed to cool off their burning flesh. Over 100,000 people, many innocent lives, were brutally murdered. The act shouldn't be beliitled simply due to the number (as if 100,000 lives, as well as countless other lives due to the radiation, is a small ordeal).

You know nothing about what I value, and such a commentary reflect it. If you value human life, you should be thankful for Truman's actions as they saved needless hardship and suffering. If nothing else, they saved the 12,000 men of Bataan who had neither food nor water in their internment camp as the Japanese intended to take no prisoners whatsoever and were thus unable to care for them.

12,000 men+ isn't 100,000+ of predominantly innocent lives.

Kev. . .Our Forefathers viewed government as a necessary evil, necessary because an organ must be in place which will intercede on behalf of the people against temporal powers which exist elsewhere in the world. Evil, because often it abuses the powers with which it has been entrusted towards tyannical ends. They believed, as I do, that the people are ultimately responsible for ensuring their government acts according to their will, and that they must resist any actions which take place without their authority.

I'm as much of an advocate of active citizenry as you are, but I feel your conclusions are a bit off. The Forefathers also feared the naive propensity of the masses to become rallied behind poor or ill-conceived plans, thus the fear that the "masses are asses." Are founding fathers may have been idealistic, but they certainly weren't stupid. They knew that the very nature of civic involement tended to create a mass of follwers, following behind a considerably smaller class of leaders.

It is that spirit which is behind the "Not In Our Name" anti-Iraqi Engagement bumperstickers, and I do not believe that spirit is peculiar to America either. The People are responsible Kev, and saying they have mislead by craft politicians does not alleviate them of their duties one bit.

Such thinking clears every horrible ruler and politician for their misdeeds, down the line from Hitler to Hussein.

The targets the bombs were designed for needed to be dropped on Japan for a reason: They needed to realize that despire their projected power they could be reached. They were initially targeted for military sites and set to detonate high enough above the gound that those on ground zero would not feel the full affect. You want to call our World War 2 generation terrorists? Fine, you are entitled to an opinion, but personally, I thinkt hat is probably the cruelest commentary I've ever witnessed. I think now I might have been wrong to encourage you to enter politics.

Whatever. I never once called WW II vets terrorists. I'm not some relativist who sees an American ROTC soldier trying to get through college as the same thing as a murderer from Hamas or Islamic Jihad. I do however think that the decision makers at the top, INCLUDING President Truman, used poor discretion when deciding to use such terrible weapons. I think you are kidding yourself if you believe that the dropping of the bombs wasn't a culmination of several things, some sinister, and some righteous. My point is IMO, when you weigh the two, the righteous arguments were not worth the consequences.

Read the conditions, and tell me which one we shoudl have sacrificed in the name of peace. We sacrficed Prague to Russia in the name of peace, and No Korea to the Chinese. . .How many innocent lived does peace require? War is more honest than that sort of treachery.

The unconditional peace was FDR's baby with the Soviets, and I feel that an agreement could've been reached on the terms. Negotiations could've been held. Men could've solved things in a civil fashion.

I find it funny though that you think dropping two atomic bombs was worth it to stop the bloodiest war we had ever seen, yet letting go of a stipulation and conducting negotiations would've been outrageous.

Kevin, you are left brother. I don't need to red-bait you, you glow Crimson when the nights flicker off. I'm a blind nationalists in many regards, not because I don't see error in past actions, but because I know the limitation to human understanding, and that for those who had to make such decisions, the options we see looking back were not available to them. I a soft judge on the past, those men did the best they could, and I could not have asked for more. It was a different world then, and one I cannot help but feel I would feel more comfortable living in.

Not questioning the actions of the past, while at the same time relinquishing all blame from the present and past leadership, doesn't seem to be a good place to me.

Just shrugging our collective shoulders and saying "well, they did the best they could" isn't enough. You can hold that same respect and umnderstanding while at the same time calling them out for the wrongs they've commited (something you frequently do regarding folks such as FDR).

I've never disagreed on this point, I only resist what I feel undermines the Supreme Law of the Land. Communism is such a philosophy which would render our Constitution powerless.

I'd be interested to hear how the arguments made by the above posted article would lead to such a thing. If anything, the modern Liberal progressives are the defenders of the Constitution, not its defilers.

Also, on the argument last post over whether or not Truman approved the Nagasaki bombing, I promised you a citation. The directive to drop the atomic bomb, dated 8/25/45, drafted by General Groves to General Carl Spaatz to be submitted at Potsdam, declared that "Additional bombs will be delivered on the above targets as soon as made ready by the project staff." This needed to be signed off on by Stimson and General Marshall, but it ultimately gave Groves the discretion. The potential targets had previously been agreed upon, but perhaps Truman and the JCS had to sign off on that. But it seems as if Truman didn't have a say about the second bombing, specifically when/where/and if.