Excellent watch given the media hype about Obama's visit to Hiroshima

[IndyDave1776]

That article is one Hell of a hack job. It's a divisive piece, plain and simple. Claims are made, attributed SOLELY to the left, and not a single example is cited. The author could have just as easily have said purple dinosaurs concur with these "leftist lies." Needless to say, it doesn't cut the mustard as a scholarly work.

First, it is an editorial, not a scholarly work.

Second, you are being willfully obtuse in the effort of supporting a position. The man took standard left-wing boilerplate and explained why the positions contained therein are not defensible. If you don't recognize the aforementioned left-wing boilerplate for what it is you are either being less than honest or have been living in a cave for the duration of your life lived this side of World War II.

Third, it seems to me that you have accepted another piece of standard boilerplate so far as a conservative is 'divisive' if he dares presume to question liberal orthodoxy, but on the other hand a leftist (like the Kenyan for example) who deliberately exacerbates every line of division our culture has ever known is still in the eyes of the left a great unifier. This tells me that we are dealing with an aggregate of people who are either very dishonest or don't have the foggiest damned idea what truth is.

 

[Lowe0]

but on the other hand a leftist (like the Kenyan for example) who deliberately exacerbates every line of division our culture has ever known is still in the eyes of the left a great unifier. This tells me that we are dealing with an aggregate of people who are either very dishonest or don't have the foggiest damned idea what truth is.

If you're still going on about the President of the United States being a Kenyan, then I don't think you have any standing to criticize anyone else's familiarity with the truth.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If you're still going on about the President of the United States being a Kenyan, then I don't think you have any standing to criticize anyone else's familiarity with the truth.

I would expect no less than this from you. After all, you are very talented at demonstrating that you do not have a point.

 

[Lowe0]

I would expect no less than this from you. After all, you are very talented at demonstrating that you do not have a point.

Hey, if you don't like being criticized or mocked for perpetuating a falsehood, you could always try, y'know, not doing it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

First, it is an editorial, not a scholarly work.

Second, you are being willfully obtuse in the effort of supporting a position. The man took standard left-wing boilerplate and explained why the positions contained therein are not defensible. If you don't recognize the aforementioned left-wing boilerplate for what it is you are either being less than honest or have been living in a cave for the duration of your life lived this side of World War II.

Third, it seems to me that you have accepted another piece of standard boilerplate so far as a conservative is 'divisive' if he dares presume to question liberal orthodoxy, but on the other hand a leftist (like the Kenyan for example) who deliberately exacerbates every line of division our culture has ever known is still in the eyes of the left a great unifier. This tells me that we are dealing with an aggregate of people who are either very dishonest or don't have the foggiest damned idea what truth is.

Let's play a game, shall we?

“The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul,” he wrote. “The only difference between this and the use of gas (which President Franklin D. Roosevelt had barred as a first-use weapon in World War II) is the fear of retaliation.”

-Herbert Hoover

The bomb, he asserted, “had nothing to do with the end of the war.”

-General Curtis Lemay

“the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of not material assistance in our war against Japan.”

-Admiral William Leahy

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.

-Dwight D. Eisenhower

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

-Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it ...

-Fleet Admiral William Halsey


Point me out the liberals.

 

[Dead Duck]

The bombs we dropped were still not large enough to change or stop the core beliefs and traditions of the Japanese people.

-Dead Duck INGO 2016

 

[BugI02]

View attachment 47698














View attachment 47699












View attachment 47700

 

[IndyDave1776]

Hey, if you don't like being criticized or mocked for perpetuating a falsehood, you could always try, y'know, not doing it.

If you are so sure about this, pony up some evidence other than a computer-generated birth certificate. Otherwise, go do something anatomically impossible.

Let's play a game, shall we?



-Herbert Hoover



-General Curtis Lemay



-Admiral William Leahy



-Dwight D. Eisenhower



-Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz



-Fleet Admiral William Halsey


Point me out the liberals.

Nice dodge there. We were talking about contemporary revisionist history. Given Hoover's religious persuasion, I am not surprised that he would make the same error as many since him in believing it barbaric without considering that the usual fire-bombing was much more so or the number of American lives which an invasion would have cost. The officers you quoted would have all perceived having something to loose by the introduction of nuclear weapons, something the Navy would have cost them dearly in a few short years. You may want to review the cancellation of the USS United States and the Revolt of the Admirals (not to be confused with the Second Revolt of the Admirals directed against McNamara). Last but not least, Eisenhower was a high-ranking pogue. I will grant without argument that good logistics represents a critical element of winning a war, but it by itself does not replace good command in combat nor does it compensate for decisions made for political rather than military reasons.

Now, returning to the topic at hand, which is modern treatment of the subject, your attempted switch notwithstanding, please point out the living, breathing conservative who today is undermining the decision.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If you are so sure about this, pony up some evidence other than a computer-generated birth certificate. Otherwise, go do something anatomically impossible.



Nice dodge there. We were talking about contemporary revisionist history. Given Hoover's religious persuasion, I am not surprised that he would make the same error as many since him in believing it barbaric without considering that the usual fire-bombing was much more so or the number of American lives which an invasion would have cost. The officers you quoted would have all perceived having something to loose by the introduction of nuclear weapons, something the Navy would have cost them dearly in a few short years. You may want to review the cancellation of the USS United States and the Revolt of the Admirals (not to be confused with the Second Revolt of the Admirals directed against McNamara). Last but not least, Eisenhower was a high-ranking pogue. I will grant without argument that good logistics represents a critical element of winning a war, but it by itself does not replace good command in combat nor does it compensate for decisions made for political rather than military reasons.

Now, returning to the topic at hand, which is modern treatment of the subject, your attempted switch notwithstanding, please point out the living, breathing conservative who today is undermining the decision.

Let me get this straight, it is well held that conservatives today, don't hold a candle from conservatives from past years. I give you a list of conservatives, contemporary to the dropping of the atomic bomb, and who would hold a view today that you deem as "liberal," ...and it's revisionist?
Call me crazy, but it would seem the opinions who those who actively participated in the war, nevermind the fact that they made the decisions that sent scores to their deaths, as holding a tad bit more weight, than 21st Century "Conservatives," who seem falter on their "conservative" principles at an alarming rate.

Edit: and for the record, I agree with the dropping of the atomic bomb, but I disagree with painting the issue in black/white rudimentary terms such as conservative/liberal. If you think that the decision to vaporize thousands of people comes down to a simple "this or that," and can be explained by party affiliation, I think mechanisms which led to this particular instance escapes you.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Let me get this straight, it is well held that conservatives today, don't hold a candle from conservatives from past years. I give you a list of conservatives, contemporary to the dropping of the atomic bomb, and who would hold a view today that you deem as "liberal," ...and it's revisionist?
Call me crazy, but it would seem the opinions who those who actively participated in the war, nevermind the fact that they made the decisions that sent scores to their deaths, as holding a tad bit more weight, than 21st Century "Conservatives," who seem falter on their "conservative" principles at an alarming rate.

With the sole exception of Hoover (who was showing his Quaker faith clearly in his remark) each of the men you quoted had an agenda that the bomb threatened. Can you not understand that people then, as now, tend to have their views shaped by their self-interest? I would think it should be a pretty simple concept.

 

[Kutnupe14]

With the sole exception of Hoover (who was showing his Quaker faith clearly in his remark) each of the men you quoted had an agenda that the bomb threatened. Can you not understand that people then, as now, tend to have their views shaped by their self-interest? I would think it should be a pretty simple concept.

You're making an assumption. They very well may have had self-interest in mind, but there's not a shred of evidence to support that conclusion, and the premise is severely weakened by the fact that one of them, Ike, clearly had issues with military industrial complex.

 

[Lowe0]

If you are so sure about this, pony up some evidence other than a computer-generated birth certificate. Otherwise, go do something anatomically impossible.

By referring to our legitimately elected President as "Kenyan", you're the original claimant. Burden of proof is on you, chump.

 

[IndyDave1776]

By referring to our legitimately elected President as "Kenyan", you're the original claimant. Burden of proof is on you, chump.

OK, now explain two things: First, one of the critical problems is the effort he has put into concealing any and all evidence regarding his life, and second, you are dismissing the notion that a candidate for office has a burden of proof when there are questions. If we are going down this path, why not amend the Constitution to remove that requirement altogether?

 

[Lowe0]

OK, now explain two things: First, one of the critical problems is the effort he has put into concealing any and all evidence regarding his life, and second, you are dismissing the notion that a candidate for office has a burden of proof when there are questions. If we are going down this path, why not amend the Constitution to remove that requirement altogether?

Wow. You just went from demanding evidence to "well, he's hiding something". Do you have any standards whatsoever, or is it just whatever's convenient for your argument at the time?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Wow. You just went from demanding evidence to "well, he's hiding something". Do you have any standards whatsoever, or is it just whatever's convenient for your argument at the time?

Granny had claimed to have watched him born in Kenya. I recall similar claims from Obama himself before he considered running for president. If he were legally adopted by Soetoro that could introduce some citizenship issues. There are definite question for which he has succeeded at burying the answers through deliberate and proactive actions on his part. If he weren't your ideological soulmate, I doubt you would be willing to overlook this.

Given your apparent standards, I suppose you also believe that if Hillary successfully wiped her server that absolves her of wrong-doing in mishandling classified information.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Granny had claimed to have watched him born in Kenya. I recall similar claims from Obama himself before he considered running for president. If he were legally adopted by Soetoro that could introduce some citizenship issues. There are definite question for which he has succeeded at burying the answers through deliberate and proactive actions on his part. If he weren't your ideological soulmate, I doubt you would be willing to overlook this.

Given your apparent standards, I suppose you also believe that if Hillary successfully wiped her server that absolves her of wrong-doing in mishandling classified information.

That wasn't his grandmother, and that statement was made through a translator who immediately corrected the error. I can't recall Obama also making any claims as to being born in Kenya. Personally, if I was Obama, I'd wouldve never released anything. I'd just smile, point to my residence, and say "what cha gonna do?"

 

[Lowe0]

Granny had claimed to have watched him born in Kenya.

Which was immediately (during the same interview) corrected as an error. Seriously, go read a transcript of the McRae interview for yourself.

If that's the best you've got, then just turn your PC off for the night and spare yourself any further embarrassment.

 

[BugI02]

Just a little nudge back on course. No Kenyans were involved in building or deciding to drop the atomic bomb (that I could find records of )

 

[churchmouse]

Come on folks.
Even calling someone a chump is a push.
Putting it in purple in another context maybe.........not in the discussion that is here.
You can take offense to a post but keep your responses civil please.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

By referring to our legitimately elected President as "Kenyan", you're the original claimant. Burden of proof is on you, chump.

He was a Kenyan national at birth through his father. Do you have any cites that he has renounced his citizenship? If not, then referring to him as Kenyan is accurate.

That wasn't his grandmother, and that statement was made through a translator who immediately corrected the error. I can't recall Obama also making any claims as to being born in Kenya. Personally, if I was Obama, I'd wouldve never released anything. I'd just smile, point to my residence, and say "what cha gonna do?"

It was his step-grandmother. And it wasn't quite immediately corrected.

Per his bio (which I believe are approved by the author of the book) in a promotional brochure for his first book, it describes him as being born in Kenya.

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.