Kent Finnell wrote:
>> Kent Finnell wrote:
>>>>>> Actually, the record is with Max on this one. Truman was advised
>>>>>> against the use of nukes. The Japanese had already all but surrendered
>>>>> Ah, "all but"... there's the rub, the fly in your argument. There were
>>>>> elements in the Japanese military that tried to destroy the recording
>>>>> of Hirohito's surrender message to the Japanese people before it could
>>>>> be played.
>>>> Citation please.....
>>> A documentary on the History Channel. I've seen it twice. Of course
>>> you'll probably blow it off. I believe it was titled "The Last Mission."
>> No hits on the History Channel for The Last Mission though it does
>> get mentioned in
IMDB.com....still, there's no citation of your particular
>> assertions. Could you be a little more specific? After all,
>> I posted direct quotes for my citations, surely you can do the same.
>
It's worth noting in response to earlier discussion in this thread, that
despite the atomic bombing and the Potsdam declarations, Truman offered
and accepted terms less than unconditional surrender. In fact the same
terms which were being proposed from at least early 1945--and perhaps
before--were eventually
incorporated...namely the continuation of the
Imperial government.
Why not, Kent? Should we simply believe because you said so? You don't
give us the same privilege.
>
>>>
>>>>>> and Truman used the excuse that only an unconditional surrender would
>>>>>> do. After the firebombings of Tokyo which killed well over 100,000
>>>>>> civilians, as well as similar bombings in Germany and Italy, the
>>>>>> Allies
>>>>>> held no high ground. The numbers you are quoting are simply made up in
>>>>>> the aftermath of what can only be objectively viewed as war crimes.
>>>>>> Many historians agree with Max. I can give you references if you are
>>>>>> really interested.
>
>>>>> And many do not. I'm sure you've cherry picked them, Joseph. And no,
>>>>> I'm not interested. For whatever reason, Joseph, you've decided that
>>>>> every American president from at least Lincoln forward was evil.
>
Cherry picked? You'll have to do better than that. The second and
third highest ranking military officers in the U.S. at the time is not
good enough authority for you?
Come on...
>>>> No, Kent....I simply posted the quotes from people like Ike, Hoover,
>>>> MacArthur etc......if you up front decide not to read them by sticking
>>>> your head in the sand, then it says a lot about your lack of
>>>> objectivity. And by the way, almost every president of the U.S.A. has
>>>> been to one degree or another a power hungry, evil politician. Hell,
>>>> even Jefferson and Washington early on betrayed the spirit of the U.S.C.
>> I see you once again ignored my supporting quotes.
>
> How long have you had them on hand in the cherry bin?
>
How long have you had your 'recollection of a History Channel' episode
ready to trot out?
>>> Oh, maxo, note the confession above.
>> No confession above, Kent. You are dodging the question yet again.
>> You've seen my supporting documentation and refused to address the
>> issue yet again. And by the way, I have also produced specific areas
>> in every case where American presidents abused their constitutional
>> powers and yet all you can respond is that I call them evil. Where
>> is your evidence of my logical mistakes?
>>>>>> The Japanese did indeed have a lot to answer for, both in the war
>>>>>> and prior to it in China. Because the leaders of the Japanese
>>>>>> government
>>>>>> were evil can in no way justify evil on the part of the leaders of the
>>>>>> Allies, specifically Truman.
>
>>>>> Evil? To save the lives of American service men and women?
>>>> No, Kent, evil to have killed the number of innocent civilians after
>>>> surrender was already assured. Evil to kill civilians at all. You rage
>>>> on about all the innocent people who died in the WTC and Pentagon
>>>> attacks. Pray tell, why is it evil if other entities act in that manner
>>>> but not when an agent of the U.S. government does the same? Answer, it
>>>> can only be true if you have an inconsistent set of values.
>>> So the radical Islamist were justified on 9/11/01?
>> That is simply nonsense. Address the issue Kent. If the actions of
>> the radical Islamists were evil, and I believe they were, why are the
>> same types of actions not evil when done by agents of the U.S. government.
>> Answer, they are evil. Hence your lack of internal
>> consistency. I don't know how it can be explained in a simpler
>> manner. Your attitude reeks of America right or wrong. It simply
>> has no ethical underpinnings.
>
> So whose father and grandfather would you have sent to their deaths had the
> invasion of Japan gone forward as planned prior to the use of the bombs?
>
Kent, you've not proven any such. I lost an uncle, myself in the S.
Pacific. No, I was not old enough to remember him--not even born
yet--but I remember the grief and bitterness that both my father and his
brother (not to mention my grandparents) carried to their graves.
>>>>>> Kent, this is simply propaganda. Try to get outside of the
>>>>>> perspective that everything that allied leaders was noble and
>>>>>> right and realize that the "war is hell" excuse cannot justify
>>>>>> genocide, no matter who does it.
>
>>>>> Well, Joseph, what the hell would you have done to end the war. Sing
>>>>> Kumbya?
>>>> Kent, if it had been up to me, I'd never have enticed the Japanese to
>>>> attack Pearl Harbor. The U.S.A. federal government has gone out of its
>>>> way, historically, to become involved in wars that have nothing to do
>>>> with the interests of the country. And before you ask, no, I don't think
>>>> that U.S. involvement in WWII was justifiable. (now I can predict the
>>>> howls of incredulity)
>>> Ahoooo! So screw the rest of humanity, let the barbarians rule.
The thing you haven't noticed is that barbarians *are* ruling....
>> Predictable. How about let the Europeans solve their own
>> self-created problems for a change? I suggest that before you
>> enter into a discussion, you really might want to actually read
>> a little, or even a lot of history. It sort of gives one a bit of
>> a more informed perspective. Specifically, you might want to read
>> about the U.S. involvement in WWI, the Treaty of Versailles, the
>> Weimar Republic, how Hitler came to power, the aftermath of WWII
>> and why the U.S. government keeps making the same stupid mistakes
>> again and again. Here's a hint, the U.S.C. does not support wars
>> of aggression...never has. However, that has never stopped the
>> political class from getting involved. By the way, we also have
>> Truman to thank for the >50,000 dead soldiers from the Korean
>> war. That guy was a loser from start to finish.
>
> Joseph, the isolationist. Since the invention of the airplane, any war, any
> where had the potential of spilling over. The Nazis were working on their
> own A-bomb and long range bombers capable of delivering that bomb to New
> York City.
>
Hence the justification for *developing* the bomb...not for using it.
In any case, the Nazis had no real hope of actually delivering whatever
potential WMD to the U.S. They might have eventually developed a
ballistic missile capable of doing so, but no conventional bomber would
have been able to; give the complete air superiority of the Allies.
> BTW, Joseph, don't talk down to me. I'm at least passing familar with all
> of the above. Just because I haven't reached the same conclusions that you
> have doesn't mean I'm ignorant of the facts. "Rise and Fall of the 3rd
> Reich" and the Krups about the time you were entering grade school or maybe
> high school.
>
'Passing familiar' is apparently not enough, Kent. You read the history
books 50 years ago...the ones written by the victors...without the
historical perspective offered by fifty+ years of further research.
>>>>>> Well, that's a really rational argument....
>>>>> At least as rational as maxo's, but that's no excuse, it's just my
>>>>> feeling toward people who always blame America.
>>>> What does that phrase mean, Kent? It seems semantically null. In this
>>>> case, Max simply pointed out the actions of another U.S. president who
>>>> made a bad decision. In your worldview, does the president represent
>>>> America??
>> No reply....I wonder why?
>>>>> Neither you nor maxo were alive during that period of time. I was a
>>>>> little more than a year old when the US entered the war. I know that
>>>>> you, Joseph, believe that it was a plot by Roosevelt. I don't. I was
>>>>> not quite 5 when the Japanese surrendered.
Kent, It's said that everything you need to know, you learned in
kindergarten. Despite supporting evidence, it's not true. It seems
that you are still stuck with opinions and prejudices formed at five
years old.
> Why not place the blame on those who caused the need for the increased
> security, the radical Islamists? I'm sorry, that would be too simple (and
> logical), wouldn't it? Some of the TSA rules and regulations are boneheaded
> and frequently mystifying. Searches of 90 year old Medal of Honor
> recipeants and blue haired grannies are prime examples. After the Brits
> uncovered the "mix and go boom" plot, the intial response was almost
> hysterically funny. The more reasoned (barely) 3-1-1 regs would have been
> in place about the time you returned from Italia.
>
While you were not looking, the terrorists won. In fact we're handing
them more victories every day as we curtail our own rights and freedoms
in response to 9-11.
> Having flown only once (domestically) since 9/11/01 (Oct. 2005), I've gone
> through the line only twice. There was no drama. So you'd go back to the
> pre-9/11 standards? Talk about being unrealistic! The TSA folks both here
> and in Ft. Meyers were both polite and professional. I didn't have to take
> off my shoes since I explained about my right foot and had brought a bill of
> materials from an earlier purchase. I still have it but I didn't have to
> display. You might have had bad luck on the draw with the "barely verbal
> TSA thug" or you may have been displaying your usual bristley air of
> superiority. I sometimes exude the same attitude, generally to my
> detriment.
>
The barely verbal part is almost hard-wired into the system. The TSA
agents are hardly trained and poorly paid. Most take the job because
they have little other prospect. It's a matter of giving unprecedented
power to the least qualified to handle it.
>> I, on the other hand, take the assertion of a free country more
>> seriously. Let's see shall we Kent. One near and dear to you, the
>> RKBA is seriously infringed by every level of government here in the
>> land of the free.
>
> Ever so slowly, but surely, that right is being restored, even in the face
> of that RINO, the mayor of the US ... er NYC, Bloomberg. TSA's regs and
> training of armed pilots is a maddening joke. Personally I'd like to see
> those with bonafied state CCW licenses allowed on domestic flights, freeing
> air marshals for international flights. Of course those air marshals whould
> have to be freed from their dress codes and fixed seating assignments.
>
That would put *you* on a flight with a gun. Of course you'd like to
see that. It would give you the potential oportunity to carry out your
Dirty Harry fantasies.
No thanks....
>> The right of the people to peaceably assemble and
>> petition the government is a joke. How about them free speech zones.
>> When I was growing up, we used to describe how bad it was in Russia
>> using these exact scenarios. Right of the individual to be safe in
>> his home....now a joke, and has been for years. The list goes on.
>> In your complacency you show a remarkable ability to ignore
>> reality.
>
> I've never felt unsafe in my home even when some loose cannon sheriff's
> dept. has broken into the wrong home because some idiot clerk cannot type or
> fails to proof read a warrant. It's a rare occurrence. How many of those
> "peaceful" assemblies have turned into full blown riots because of radical
> infiltration?
>
Well, so far they haven't broken into your home. Is that what it will
take, or are you not smart enough to take notice and realize that it
'could' happen...and speak out.
Not being paranoid in this case--IMHO--is a strange reaction.
What does rioting have to do with it? What peaceful assemblies? How
many riots have you heard about in Tennessee during your lifetime? How
many mistaken police shootings?
> The only time I fear for the well being of my country is when I see people
> in positions of authority who are will to place all the blame for all the
> ills of the world on America.
>
More propaganda, Kent. The thing that bothers me the most is when I see
wrong being done in my name and people in positions of authority NOT
being willing to take responsibility for egregious actions they've
authorized and carried out.
jak
