August 11, 2010

Percentage of Americans who think the U.S. should apologize to Japan for using nuclear bombs in WWII: 20.

Percentage of Americans who think the U.S. did the decision to drop the bombs was good: 59.

***

Meanwhile, in the Middle East....
What is ... likely, then, is that one day next spring, the Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, and the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran—possibly by crossing Saudi Arabia, possibly by threading the border between Syria and Turkey, and possibly by traveling directly through Iraq’s airspace, though it is crowded with American aircraft....

In these conversations, which will be fraught, the Israelis will tell their American counterparts that they are taking this drastic step because a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish people. The Israelis will also state that they believe they have a reasonable chance of delaying the Iranian nuclear program for at least three to five years. They will tell their American colleagues that Israel was left with no choice. They will not be asking for permission, because it will be too late to ask for permission.

219 comments:

1 – 200 of 219   Newer›   Newest»
Hoosier Daddy said...

I wonder if those 20% actually know Japan started the war or if that's simply irrelevant.

Although I'm quite confident those 20% have no idea what conditions were under Japanese occupation.

TosaGuy said...

It's sad that number is as high as 20 percent. It didn't used to be that way.

TMink said...

My father was terrified that he would be shifted from Europe where he flew 50 missions in a B-17 to Japan where he believed he would die in the invasion of the mainland. While I believe his fear was exaggerated, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ironically saved more Japanese than American lives.

Peace through strength and all that.

It reminds me of my internship at the VA hospital. I worked on the psych ward, and whenever a patient got too frisky Dr. Armstrong was paged. The informed able bodied men and women to come to surround the escalated patient with 20 to 40 adults who were taking off their glasses and rolling up their sleeves as they got ready to subdue the escalated patient.

Turns our you have to be VERY crazy to fight against 30 to 1 odds. The show of force reduced the need for physical confrontation.

And so it was with Japan.

Trey

Montagne Montaigne said...

Hiroshima: justifiable, probably saved lives.

Nagasaki: unjustifiable, probably a war crime.

Could the apology be split?

Meade said...

Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper.

TosaGuy said...

Some morons argue, "we should have dropped a demonstration bomb on an uninhabited island so the Japanese could have seen the horror and had a chance to surrender."

But yet it took a second bomb on a city to reveal this horror.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Nagasaki: unjustifiable, probably a war crime.

Why? Was Nagasaki nuked after the Japanese surrender?

AJ Lynch said...

Is it possible to even count how many reliable litmus tests there are to determine if one is a liberal?

Liberal has become a synonym for idiot fool.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Professor, you aren't trying to draw some parallel between the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor with an Israeli strike on Iran?

I suppose one could make such an arguement if the FDR administration was threatening Japan with extermination (considering the state of our military at the time such a threat was laughable).

paul a'barge said...

Bring. It.

Faster, please.

paul a'barge said...

Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper

"The famous quotation "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission" is often attributed to Grace Hopper"

traditionalguy said...

Israel will take action rather than wait out the ObamaCharade they see coming out of the USA. That is better for them than waiting to be being slaughtered with Iran's conventional weapons.

sonicfrog said...

That's nothing. My little brother and his wife think we shouldn't have even gotten into WW2. We are evil for doing so! And no, this is not coming from a libertarian rational; it is bizarro liberalism at its finest.

William said...

It was the right decision, but it's nothing to celebrate. I think Oriental kids are extremely cute. I'm against burning thousands of them to death and inflicting a painful, wasting disease on thousands more. We did the right thing, but it is also right to be sombre and ambivalent about the victory.

Hoosier Daddy said...

That's nothing. My little brother and his wife think we shouldn't have even gotten into WW2.

Well that was the prevailing sentiment in America right up to dawn on 12/7/41

Most people save true pacifists will hit back when struck.

Montagne Montaigne said...

"Oriental" kids? Lol. What are you, 105 years old?

Big Mike said...

Hoosier asks a good question. What percentage of the 20% believe that the US started the war with Japan?

If you had taken the poll shortly after VJ Day the numbers would have been 0.2% and 99.8%

Hoosier Daddy said...

We did the right thing, but it is also right to be sombre and ambivalent about the victory.

Which is what most people after the war acted.

Quite frankly I am tired of this nation being portrayed as the aggressor and the instigators as the helpless victims. I blame much of that portrayal on the nitwit history professors who for some reason fail to emphasize, as the victor, the grace and magnanimity we showed to Germany and Japan (not to mention Western Europe). The idea that we should apologize for bringing an end to a regime that murdered millions in thier conquests is nothing short of insulting. And being ignorant of the historical record doesn't excuse that.

AllenS said...

I like the word Oriental more than Asian. I like the word Negro more than black.

Michael Haz said...

They will not be asking for permission, because it will be too late to ask for permission.

They already have permission. And Saudi Arabia will turn off its anti-aircraft radar systems for "maintanance work".

Expat(ish) said...

That is an interesting juxtaposition.

I kind of wonder if Obama would try to use our air assets to block the IAF.

@TMlink - Why was your father terrified? I am not aware that the Japanese shot down any US aircraft in the last few months of the war. There is some evidence that they would have used K's against the surface ships, but the B-17 would have been land based out of Iwo. If he's still around, please tell him how proud we remain of his generation.

-XC

Joe said...

MM, please explain your position, be complete, show all your work, provide evidence, and citations please.....

Hoosier Daddy said...

They already have permission. And Saudi Arabia will turn off its anti-aircraft radar systems for "maintanance work".

I've heard some anecdotals that much of the Arab world is wondering when Israel plans on 'taking care' of this issue. Not sure of I believe this but the idea of Israel being an agent provacateur to the Arabs makes for a great Tom Clancy/Larry Bond novel

Hoosier Daddy said...

@TMlink - Why was your father terrified? I am not aware that the Japanese shot down any US aircraft in the last few months of the war.

The Army Air corps was mauled during the strategic bombing campaign in Europe so it stands to reason that his Dad's assumption it wasn't going to be any different in the PTO is reasonable.

GMay said...

Looks like Monty is stumbling, into yet another discussion he is ill-equipped to handle.

Nice troll Monty. And way to keep those lefty-PC bonafides up in denouncing the heinous use of the word "oriental".

rcocean said...

Hiroshima again? Sorry, it was 70 years ago. Funny,how the Japanese don't spend every December 7th asking themselves "Pearl Harbor - war crime or justifiable act?"

Americans just love to beat their breasts and show how morally sensitive they are.

More important: If Israel bombs Iraq, what is the blow back for us? I doubt Iran will believe the silly lie that we didn't give them 'permission'. I also wonder why Iran doesn't have the nuclear faciliites underground.

Big Mike said...

@William, during the firebombing raids on Tokyo some people tried to save themselves by jumping into rivers and canals. They died by being boiled to death. That was just one among the many ways to die in firebombing raid, as described by Japanese witnesses who were there at the time. Wikipedia has a picture of the charred body of a woman who had been carrying her baby on her back -- her back is unburned because the baby burned first.

Was that preferrable to dying in a nucleaur blast?

Night2night said...

Hindsight is always 20/20 (particularly for the self-anointed self-righteous), so I won't critique American leaders for their decisions facing the invasion of mainland Japan (I believe they were made in good faith and considered the relevant issues). I'm more concerned about the nutcase and mullahs in Iran who, in some part driven by their religious beliefs, seem to be obsessed with starting something which can only result in tragedy and death.

One of the more formative experiences of my early adult years (although I hate deriving empirical process rules from personal anecdotes) was my failure to believe a close personal friend who carried on at length in a manner I considered irrational (or maybe simply refused to recognize their reality). Of course, I was shocked when the predictable happened. Since then I've taken the counterintuitive approach of assuming people mean what they say (even if they deny it later). Its unfortunate a large portion of our current leadership refuses to see this since their ideology refuses to acknowledge some folks in Iran might really might mean what they say.

Joe said...

I am not aware that the Japanese shot down any US aircraft in the last few months of the war.

The Japanese shot down several B29s. Others were severely damaged and landed at Iwo Jima (which was why it was invaded.)

Losses for B29s were low compared to in Europe and other planes, but there was no guarantee that a B-17 pilot from the European theater would have been assigned to B-17s or B-29s in Japan. Even if he was, he could have been assigned to low altitude missions.

c3 said...

Pre-emption

A tricky concept.

Though it should be said Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they wanted to knock out a potential adversary in their (Japan's) aggression in Asia.

Israel bombing a nuc plant in Iran would be defensive pre-emption.

And of course, bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not pre-emption.

And now that I've used the term I assume we'll see comments regarding US and Iraq.

Joe said...

Hiroshima again? Sorry, it was 70 years ago. Funny,how the Japanese don't spend every December 7th asking themselves "Pearl Harbor - war crime or justifiable act?"

Amazing how the Japanese gloss over their actions in China and Korea. Never mind the numerous atrocities they committed elsewhere. (Every few years they apologize for Korea, but it's never followed up with meaningful actions like telling their own citizens the truth. To this day, the Japanese government openly lies about what they did to Korea and Nanking and a myriad of other places.)

(One of our biggest mistakes was not bombing the emperor's palace and not hanging the bastard after the war.)

Joe said...

(Not the really Handsome Crypto-Jew, one)

The Japanese never lost the ability to engage B-29's, they simply didn't have teh ability to inflict the 6% loss rate necessary to prevent a sustained air campaign.

From Wiki:

Professor Mark R. Amstutz (citing Michael Walzer) adopts a similar but slightly varied set of criteria and notes three factors when evaluating the justification of a preemptive strike.[4]

1.The existence of an intention to injure;
2.The undertaking of military preparations that increase the level of danger; and
3.The need to act immediately because of a higher degree of risk.

FormerTucsonan said...

Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper.

Wrote the original spec for COBOL. For that, I am sure she is sitting next to Hitler in the Ninth Ciricle of Hell.

Joe said...

[the Crypto Jew(??)]

OK "Joe" I'm working this side of the street....how we gonna make it obvious you ain't me?

Texan99 said...

Israel, unlike the U.S., doesn't have the luxury of pretending the world is as they would wish it to be. It remains to be seen how much longer the U.S. will have that luxury.

Joe said...

[The Handsome One, possbily a Cypto-Jew]
The reason the Japanese don't askt hat question, about Pearl Harbor, is that it was a War Crime. That question was answered in the period 1945-47.

Hoosier Daddy said...

(One of our biggest mistakes was not bombing the emperor's palace and not hanging the bastard after the war.)

In actuality, by not doing either of those things is why Japan is still a viable civilization today. MacArthur, for all his faults, correctly understood that the Emperor was the key to pacifying Japan. It was the Emperor's order that, more than anything, was able to secure a peace that otherwise would have been an insurgency that makes Iraq or Afghanistan look like Romper Room.

Hirohito by and large was a figurehead, one which held sway over the populace but a figurehead nonetheless. Executing him would have created more problems.

ricpic said...

That's right, Americans just love to drop bombs on others. 59% of Americans thought the decision to drop the A-bomb was good under the given circumstances.

Night2night said...

I still wonder about C3's hinted question. What should we do about Iran?

Lisa said...

I once heard a piece about the only individual who survived BOTH blasts.

The Japanese government was telling people that nothing happened in the first blast and that it was no big deal. This man, a doctor if I recall correctly, saved the lives of several of his colleagues by warning them what to expect and how to protect themselves.

Where they justified? I think so but I don't know, I wasn't there. I do know that it ended the war and was bad enough that no one else has used them since.

And yes, I FULLY support Israel taking out Iranian nuclear infrastructure... and if that doesn't stop Mahmoud and the Holocaust Denying Mullahs, then the government as well.

Expat(ish) said...

@Hoosier, good point.

@Joe - I can't remember which book I saw the casualties chart in, but the last four months before VJ day there were <10 casualties in the air over Japan. Probably several hundred guys died landing/taking-off/crashing. So, yeah, I was not trying to suggest that flying a bomber in formation in a war zone ws safe. Were B-17's used for low level missions late in the war? That would startle me - that would have been terrifying.

-XC

Flexo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fred4Pres said...

10% of America is mentally deranged. 10% more are probably misguided.

If only we had the bombs sooner. We could have saved that many more lives. I wish we could have dropped it on Berlin earlier in the war. That would have saved not only allied troops, but the victims of the Final Solution too. It would have probably avoided the Soviets occupying eastern europe.

Flexo said...

As tragic as they were, those who argue that Japan could have been defeated by conventional means overlook one thing -- it took TWO bombs being dropped on Japan for them to surrender.

Japan did NOT surrender before Hiroshima, when demands were made to do so, and they could have avoided all of the destruction.

And Japan did NOT surrender after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Instead, Japan continued to be belligerent. Even knowing the destructive power of the bomb, Japan refused to surrender, they wanted to keep on fighting.

If they were not ready to surrender after Hiroshima, does anyone really think that they would have surrendered by an invasion of ground troops, without dropping the bomb?

As awful as they were, the bombs most certainly saved lives overall.

Fred4Pres said...

The idea that Japan would have voluntarily surrendered is nuts. Oh they may have tried to negotiate an end of hostilities. But occupation and surrender? No, not even the threat of Soviet invasion was going to prompt them give in on that. They would have resisted in bloody fighting as they did in Okinawa. The fighting got more intense, more brutal, and more desperate the closer the Marines got to Japan.

They were prepared to resist to get terms. The bombs convinced them that was futile.

Joe said...


Were B-17's used for low level missions late in the war? That would startle me - that would have been terrifying.

B-17's were NOT a low-level a/c, so I doubt they were scheduled for that role.

I believe that the concern is an EMOTIONAL one, someone-you???-mentioned that upthread. The air war over Europe was brutal, pretty much until the end. I’m sure the FEAR was that the air war over Japan would be just as brutal, after all no one really pays attention to what is happening outside their theatre. Having survived somewhere upwards of 25 combat missions, I’m sure the problem was whiplash….”Thank G*D I survived. Oh NO, I’m going to fight over Japan?!?! (And risk the fate twice?)”

ALP said...

My partner is half Japanese - his mother's personality was formed growing up in post-WWII Japan. He made many, many trips to Japan to visit his maternal grandmother during his youth. Thus, Hiroshima and the bomb have been a frequent topic of discussion between us. He's been very clear on his position since I've known him: the Emperor of Japan would never have budged and would never end the war on his own - we really didn't have much choice. American's can't really grasp the concept of a leader such as the Emperor, who was considered to be a God. And you don't want to piss off God.

I agree and my view was further deepened by a trip to Los Alamos in NM several years ago - the museum there is a must see for anyone interested in this issue. The museum has a permanent Hiroshima/Nagasaki display that is split into a "pro" and "con" segments. Each segment has a guest book where guests can write their opinions and thoughts on the matter. What most impressed me, however, was chatting with the docents of the museum. Apparently, a number of elderly Japanese make a point of going to Los Alamos specifically so they offer some sort of thanks to the US for dropping the bomb.

Scott M said...

If only we had the bombs sooner. We could have saved that many more lives. I wish we could have dropped it on Berlin earlier in the war.

On his nationally syndicated satellite radio show (Sirius Left…go figure), Mark Thompson aka Matsimela Mapfumo said that the only reason we dropped the bombs on Japan and not Germany was because the U.S. was and remains a racist nation. Completely disregarding the dates both Germany’s surrender and the readiness of the bombs, of course.

Insane.

Joe said...

(The Handsome Crypto-Jew)
I will advance the possibly contentious argument, that it was NOT the Atomic Bombs, alone that ended the war. The crushing of the Kwantung Army in Manchuria, in fewer than four days, by the Soviets also contributed. The Japanese could see:

1) Their last diplomatic partner, one they had relied on to broker a peace deal had entered the war against them;
2) Their best combat formation was disassembled in less than a week by the Soviets; and therefore
3) The Home Islands were now subject to Soviet attack and occupation.

Scott M said...

I will advance the possibly contentious argument, that it was NOT the Atomic Bombs, alone that ended the war.

That's not contentious. Nothing exists in a vacuum in the real world.

TosaGuy said...

I suspect that either the US or USSR would have use A-bombs on each other if they had never been dropped on Japan.

Joe said...

I suspect that either the US or USSR would have use A-bombs on each other if they had never been dropped on Japan.

I’d dispute that. Blast patterns, and yield are calculable. The United States Joint Chiefs or the Soviet Stavka could lay out the consequences of nuclear attack on their own cities, without Hiroshima or Nagasaki. You don’t have to see the empty dome at Hiroshima, to grasp that 200 weapons will end your nation as a functioning military/economic power for a decade or more. Or that the delivery of 200 weapons will end your opponent’s capacity to wage war for a decade or more.

Joe said...

B-17's were NOT a low-level a/c, so I doubt they were scheduled for that role.

The B-29s sometimes flew relatively low missions (as compared to what they could fly) generally for incendiary bomb attacks (typically 5,000 to 8,000 feet vs. 30,000.)

The B-17s flew lower than the B-29s and would have had a fairly high casualty rate--Japan was developing interceptors, including jet powered ones, that couldn't quite reach the B-29s at altitude, but would have easily reached B-17s.

My other badly stated point was that the man's father could have been assigned to B-24 or B-26 aircraft which did fly at relatively low altitude ESPECIALLY if there was an invasion (for close air support.)

Maguro said...

As tragic as they were, those who argue that Japan could have been defeated by conventional means overlook one thing -- it took TWO bombs being dropped on Japan for them to surrender.

Of course, even after the second bomb, the Japanese cabinet was split 3-3 on whether to surrender or carry on the war. The Emperor broke the tie in favor of surrender, but it's worth remembering that even after two atomic bombs, three cabinet members wanted to carry on.

Joe said...

(The Handsome Crypto-Jew)

The B-29s sometimes flew relatively low missions (as compared to what they could fly) generally for incendiary bomb attacks (typically 5,000 to 8,000 feet vs. 30,000.)


Only at night, exploiting the lack of light flak, radar, and night fighters.

B-24's and B-17's were only SLIGHTER more vulnerable, I'd argue, than B-29's. The Japanese simply lacked the fuel and the engines to operate an effective air defense system.

On the B-25/26 Front, OK, I'd be a little more worried, that's for sure....

Roux said...

Forgiveness is sometimes easier to get than permission.

TosaGuy said...

"I’d dispute that. Blast patterns, and yield are calculable. The United States Joint Chiefs or the Soviet Stavka could lay out the consequences of nuclear attack on their own cities, without Hiroshima or Nagasaki. You don’t have to see the empty dome at Hiroshima, to grasp that 200 weapons will end your nation as a functioning military/economic power for a decade or more. Or that the delivery of 200 weapons will end your opponent’s capacity to wage war for a decade or more."

Just because I said "suspect" I didn't mean "likely"

You can tell someone a stove is hot and show pictures of burned hands....but some people will still touch the stove to find out.

Bruce Hayden said...

"Oriental" kids? Lol. What are you, 105 years old?

Would you rather "mongoloid"? That is, I believe, another term that has the same racial implications. The problem with using "Asian" is that it is not racially descriptive, since somewhere around half of Asians are White, or at least closer racially to Europeans than to "Orientals". Think maybe Bangladesh through India, Iran, all the way to the Bosphorus.

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

Correction: I meant B-25/B-26. The B-24 liberator flew at comparable altitudes to the B-17 (and was arguably the better bomber, though Brits would argue that the Lancaster was better.)

One thing to remember is that the jet stream over Japan was a big problem for B-29s; I can't imagine the effect it would have had on B-17s and B-24s.

even after two atomic bombs, three cabinet members wanted to carry on.

I was about to make the same point.

The US was bombing the shit out of Japan, burning down dozens of cities, bombing ports into cinder.

In Okinawa, the Japanese kept fighting way after the battle was lost for them.

(I suspect that the failure of Japan to mediate peace with the Russians was the final straw. I also suspect that Russia only agreed to Potsdam because they knew about the atomic bomb; without it, they would probably have grabbed Manchuria and the northern islands, but then sat back and done nothing more--which is exactly what they ended up doing anyway.)

TMink said...

Thanks for the questions about my dad. It was complicated.

Dad lied about his age and was flying missions at 16. So he was afraid if he stayed in they would find out about his age and put him in Levenworth.

Also, on his last mission, his denial broke! He had never had fear in the plane, but he had missed one mission due to an illness, so he made that mission up in another plane.

While on that mission, he saw some of his friends killed by flak in the next plane over. On his 50th mission, he realized he was in danger, and he got on the radio and told the pilot he was flying too low in no uncertain terms.

When he got off the plane, he kissed the ground! Then he spent two weeks in Ft. Lauderdale for psych observation! They thought he had battle fatigue, but a wise psychiatrist realized what was really going on.

So dad realized he was not invincible during his last mission. That is why he was sure the Japanese would kill him, because up till then, he had no such worries.

Dad is gone, but he was proud of his service, and I take your interest warmly and as a tribute to him. Thanks. Dad was a wonderful man, and I miss him. But I certainly appreciate this opportunity to speak of him.
Trey

Hoosier Daddy said...

Completely disregarding the dates both Germany’s surrender and the readiness of the bombs, of course.

I had this same discussion with a liberal acquaintance some years ago and referenced the first a-bomb test being 2 months after Germany's surrender. Didn't seem to faze her on bit either. I'm not sure if its insanity but I think the inability to process historical facts that run contrary to one's accepted narrative must constitute some type of mental illness ;-)

AllenS said...

The US Dept of Defense as late as the 1970s used these racial descriptions for KIAs from Hawaii during the Viet Nam war:

Caucasian
Malayan
Mongolian
Filipino- Japanese
Okinawan/Caucasian
Japanese American

Source: the wall usa

Dead Julius said...

Count me as strongly in the "it was good" category.

But this doesn't mean that any military action by the U.S. is good. Unfortunately, that's what many right-wingers seem to think whenever any military question comes up. Those folks were cheering at the sadistic abuse portrayed in the Abu Gharaib photos when they came to light; then they started trying to blame the leaker rather than admit how poorly the photos reflected on the military.

Or take John McCain-- the Republican presidential candidate who sang the tune "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran". There were a whole slew of different ways to deal with any threat from Iran. But instead of competently trying to neutralize Iran through political, economic, and international means, McCain just sang a stupid and juvenile song about what should be an ultimately serious last resort.

In fact, you could easily make the case that since the nukes were dropped on Japan in WWII, the Republicans have done everything possible to ruin the military strength of our country, all the while singing patriotic "Ra Ra America" songs to mask their failures and incompetence. After all, nothing has neutered American military strength more than the build-up of the military-industrial complex, and it was the Republicans who eagerly constructed that beast.

Lucky for the world that the Republcians haven't ruined Israel's military capability. Notice how Israel can still do things, and do them competently, and do them without having to ask anyone's permission. Good for them! And you don't hear potential Israeli leaders singing stupid bombing songs; instead, they just shut up and order the bombing.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Yes, of course the second bomb was a crime. Because the bombings of Tokyo, et al, that caused even more deaths than the atomic bombs were so effective in getting them to surrender.

edutcher said...

The reason we have such a high 'apology' percentage is the explained by the way history is taught. The US is always the bad guy.

For those interested, the 29 was a high-altitude bomber and originally used that way. When high-altitude precision bombing (the mainstay of the war in Europe) didn't get the results LeMay wanted, he switched to the RAF model, low-level, area incendiary bombing, which was devastating. See "A Torch to the Enemy", by Martin Caidin.

TMink said...

My father was terrified that he would be shifted from Europe where he flew 50 missions in a B-17 to Japan where he believed he would die in the invasion of the mainland. While I believe his fear was exaggerated, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ironically saved more Japanese than American lives.

Your dad had enough combat points to be discharged, in all probability. One of the things lost in the shuffle about the divisions going from Europe to the Pacific is that most of the men in them had enough points to be discharged and those divisions would have gone to China, Korea, or Japan with a lot of green kids, rather than combat vets.

Montagne Montaigne said...

Hiroshima: justifiable, probably saved lives.

Nagasaki: unjustifiable, probably a war crime.

Could the apology be split?


Absolute nonsense. Japan took 6 days to surrender after Nagasaki (requiring the personal intervention of Hirohito) and, even then, there were several attempts to derail the surrender.

We don't have a thing for which to apologize.

GMay said...

Dead Julius imagined: "Unfortunately, that's what many right-wingers seem to think whenever any military question comes up."

This would be what many call sphincter talk.

john said...

Joe - I suspect you have been reading Max Hastings.

"Not only does the use of the A-bombs seem to have been justified in the circumstances prevailing in August 1945, but I am among those convinced that the demonstration of nuclear horror, and the global revulsion which it provoked, has contributed decisively towards preserving the world since." (Retribution)

Too many negatives to prove, although I think he is right.

Joe said...

Joe - I suspect you have been reading Max Hastings.

I've read of him, but not read him. I've formulated my views over years of personal study.

The documentary "The Fog of War" reinforced my views.

Brian said...

@Julius:
The current administration & congress has no such excuse on Afghanistan. They've blamed Republicans for everything that went wrong in Iraq, but Obama labelled Afghanistan the "good war." And what happened when that wikileaks guy dumped the secret memos about Afghanistan? Showing just how bad it had gotten? Mostly, they blame the wikileaks guy for being anything from reckless, irresponsible, or an outright traitor.

As far as building up the "military-industrial complex": When LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam, I don't recall him trying to dismantle that beast. When Clinton bombed Bosnia & Serbia, I don't recall him trying to end the "military-industrial" complex.

And it was Clinton, and a Republican congress, that cut the military in the '90s, reducing army divisions from 18 to 10. How do you score that? Was that Republicans ruining the military? Democrats improving the military?

When Reagan expanded the military in the 80's at a breakneck pace, was that ruining the military, or destroying it? When the result was winning the cold war, was that ruining the military, or destroying it?

AJ Lynch said...

Abu Graib was milder than a frat house initiation. Give me a break - the NYT editors who chose to run that story day after day after day should have the piss knocked out of them.

If Obama had been president, it would not have even been a story for more than a day.

Skyler said...

I think it is ridiculously naive to think that air raids will have any impact on Iran's nuke development.

Night2night said...

@Skyler

I think you're right, but still ponder what that conclusion means in turns of next steps.

Matthew said...

20% of Americans are ignorant douchebags, and don't even realize it.

dbp said...

Dear Japan,

We are very sorry for not sticking to conventional methods to get your nation to surrender in WWII. While it is true that the damage to property and loss of life caused by the atomic bombs was a small fraction of what a conventional invasion would have caused and we note that your nation started the war between us; still, we humbly apologize.

Best Regards,

USA

SteveR said...

I suppose some people think the colonists should not have revolted against the crown, and we know there are people who think the wrong side won the civil war, but the right or wrongness of August 1945, is the toil of idiots. Sorry no facts can conclude it didn't save lives and second guessing is also folly.

Scott M said...

I suppose some people think the colonists should not have revolted against the crown, and we know there are people who think the wrong side won the civil war, but the right or wrongness of August 1945, is the toil of idiots.

And yet a majority of the tenured professors I had for poli-sci were utterly convinced that our atomic attacks on Japan was either unnecessary or simply criminal. This contributes heavily to that 20%, I'm guessing.

TosaGuy said...

When is Japan going to thank us for baseball.

MikeR said...

IMHO, Israel will do nothing to Iran. It's just much harder to attack hundreds of decentralized centrifuges, where they know you're coming, than the attack on the Iraqi reactor was. The US could do it successfully (including a blockade of Iran that would devastate it economically), but won't. It makes me sad.

Hoosier Daddy said...

There were a whole slew of different ways to deal with any threat from Iran. But instead of competently trying to neutralize Iran through political, economic, and international means...

Meanwhile in the real world, Iran has been subjected to all of the above and rather then being neutralized, has over the last 5-6 years, told the 'international community' to bugger off.

Skyler is correct in that air raids won't do anything other than stir up Iranian nationalism. Save new and moderate leadership taking power in Iran, the world will just have to get used to a nuclear Iran and hope that MAD will deter all that suicidal religious fanaticism emanating from Aquavelvajad.

Popville said...

Re: >"Percentage of Americans who think the U.S. did the decision to drop the bombs was good"

The sort of mid-sentence editing error I make regularly in emails ;)

SteveR said...

"idiots" and "poli sci professor" .. but I repeat myself

A.W. said...

um, okay, this is the part that i don't get. 16% said that dropping the bomb on them was the wrong decision.

but 20% said we should apologize.

So 4% said we should apologize but either we didn't do anything wrong, or they are not sure?

i chalk all of this up as another triumph of our crappy education system. my guess is that they think hiroshima is in vietnam somewhere.

former law student said...

First: As I recall, the B-17 was not pressurized while the B-29 was (not completely, more of a branching tube of pressurization.) So the B-29 was designed to fly at higher altitudes.

As flexo points out, the Japanese were unpersuaded by the first atom bomb we dropped. Not until we dropped the second one did they decide to surrender.

I have a very personal interest as well. That late in the war, my FIL was stationed on whatever island the photo recon planes were based, so he was among the first to see pictures of Hiroshima.

Which is why I thank God for the atom bomb, in the words of Fussell. Although a Marine, my FIL had been too old to put into combat. But based on the ferocity with which the Japanese had clung to the little bits of coral in the Pacific, the invasion of the Japanese home islands would have required every man available, with catastrophic losses. Therefore my FIL would have been unlikely to come home and marry my MIL, to produce my lovely wife.

Further, my dad joined the army at the earliest possible moment, in 1946. Because we had dropped the bomb, he served in the occupation force of Korea instead of the invasion force of Japan. So the atom bomb ensured my existence as well.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Israel can't take a chance on Iran having nukes.

Hagar said...

Once Lise Meitner explained what Otto Hahn had done, and Niels Bohr confirmed that an atomic bomb was now possible, it was inevitable that bombs would be built and dropped on someone, somewhere, sometime.

Was it necessary to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did it shorten the war and save lives - Japanese as well as American? No one knows what would have happened in the Land of If.

Harry Truman said he went with what they thought they knew at the time; the decision was made, the bombs were dropped, and he for one was not going to loose any sleep over a done deal that could not be changed.

c3 said...

So 4% said we should apologize but either we didn't do anything wrong, or they are not sure?

Why is that such a hard concept? Don't we, on a personal level, apologize for things that weren't done purposefully (i.e. step on someone's foot accidently)

miller said...

Why is that such a hard concept? Don't we, on a personal level, apologize for things that weren't done purposefully (i.e. step on someone's foot accidently)

"Oops, Cap'n! Pressed the 'Drop' button. There goes Hiroshima."

"Let's send them a nice card."

Brian said...

I'll bet if someone were to break into the CIA and view the secret files, you would find that George W. Bush actually ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki so that Haliburton could get the rebuilding contracts. I'm sure I could get at least 1/3 of that 20% to agree with that statement.

Bottom line: the Japs deserved it. And Nagasaki was completely on them because all they had to do was surrender after they saw what happened in Hiroshima. And let's not forget they did not even surrender until 3 days after Nagasaki.

When I was 18, my friend and I smoked some zootie and got stoned on some other stuff, and went to the local community college where a Hiroshima survivor was speaking and interrupted him to yell that the Japs deserved it and if we were so bad, why did he move to America after that? We got arrested for it but let go later on. If that had happened today, we would be all over You Tube.

Texan99 said...

This notion that you owe someone an apology for defending yourself escapes me completely.

The firmer a grasp countries have on what will happen to them if they act the way Japan did, the better for everyone.

Revenant said...

The funny thing being that Japan itself has never really apologized for its behavior during WW2. This is still a point of considerable bitterness in its dealings with other Asian nations.

AJ Lynch said...

Brian:

So it's Halliburton's fault! LOL.

exhelodrvr1 said...

c3,
"Don't we, on a personal level, apologize for things that weren't done purposefully "

Do you apologize for doing something purposefully, when it was the right thing to do? I.e. if you are a parent, do you aopologize to your children for punishing them?

Scott M said...

Here's an interesting twist on the whole topic. The backstory is that I was driving overnight crosscounty back in the days of yore long before satellite radio was available. The only thing you get that late across that many stations was Art Bell.

He had a guest who was very serious about the fact that nuclear weapons don't just work due to their inner mechanisms. In order for a nuke to go off, there had to be not only the bomb itself, but a convergence of cosmic energies...sort of a crossroads between spacial and temporal thingies. Only at those intersections in time and space could the bombs actually go off.

His theory was that both the Soviets and the US understood this, but couldn't predict when and where these intersections would occur. In order to make sure they had enough to make sure they could catch the intersection, the two powers wildly overbuilt the needed weaponry. He also theorized that the two bombs in Japan and all the testing sites before and after were flukes...that there hadn't been any since and that's why we hadn't had WWIII.

A definite LOL, but, you gotta admit...answers a whole lot o' nagging questions :)

Big Mike said...

The Smithsonian's original exhibit of the Enola Gay included these words:

"For most Americans it was a war of vengeance. For most Japanese, it was a war to defend their unique culture against Western imperialism."

So I'm not surprised that 20% think we should apologize for dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. According to American historians we weren't trying to end a war that we didn't seek. Nope. We were tryng to destroy their unique, misogynistic, culture through our Western imperialism.

Yup. That's us. Imperialists all the way.

gk1 said...

This is an old and stale point that gets rehashed every anniversary date. It was regrettible but unavoidable that we dropped the bomb. I agree with those that say it was a terrible thing but the alternatives of aerial fire bombing and conventional invasion were worse. Why do we need to castigate ourselves over this again? What's the point?

deborah said...

"They already have permission. And Saudi Arabia will turn off its anti-aircraft radar systems for "maintanance work"."

This would be dicey for SA. Their oil fields are concentrated near the Gulf and peopled primarily with Shiites, who are treated as second-class citizens. Iraninans are Shiites.

Dead Julius said...

@Hoosier Daddy-

Meanwhile in the real world, Iran has been subjected to all of the above and rather then being neutralized, has over the last 5-6 years, told the 'international community' to bugger off.

Oh, come on... The American administrations-- both Republican and Democrat-- didn't do jack squat about the threat from Iran. No serious limits were stated, no serious threats were made if those limits were broken, no attempt to cause serious discomfort for this misbehavior by sanctions.

Instead, the Americans just punted and postured. The leaders of both parties are more concerned about putting on a show of being tough for the American electorate rather than actually being tough.

traditionalguy said...

This post has a theme: Harry Truman is still giving em all hell. 1)The Sweet Old Bushido guys were totally trapped into a culture and military system that saw their own death, as light as a feather, to be far superior to living through a surrender. Nothing except these two quick nuclear blasts could have shaken them up. My god, the Imperial Compound could be next on the list. So Truman played this good hand right and bluffed the Japs into a full surrender. That was wonderful. We had no more fusion bombs ready to go for many months. God bless Harry Truman. This Baptist evangelical knew right from wrong better than any Ivy League fools now second guessing him. 2)Harry also pulled the trigger to create Israel in a day over much advice to abandon the Jews.

peter hoh said...

How much of that 20 percent wants a real apology, and how many think we should give Japan one of those "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" apology?

section9 said...

Montagne Montaigne said...
Hiroshima: justifiable, probably saved lives.

Nagasaki: unjustifiable, probably a war crime.

Could the apology be split?


What utter tommyrot.

It was Chuck Sweeney's Nagasaki mission that ended the war.

Paul Tibbets' Hiroshima mission was perfectly executed, but the Japanese warlords attempted to cover up what happened at Hiroshima from the general public. Sweeney's mission, conducted three days later, was fraught with danger and screwup.

Indeed, Nagasaki was the secondary target as the primary, Kokura, was overcast with clouds and haze.

The news that Nagasaki had been bombed with an atomic weapon came into the War Cabinet meeting just as it was deadlocked, 3-3, between the war and peace factions. The Emperor refused to take sides. The news that Nagasaki had been destroyed affected him greatly, and forced him off the fence. He ordered the army and the Government to sue for peace and accept the Potsdam Declaration.

Few people know that it was Chuck Sweeney and the men of Bockscar who actually were the catalyst to ending the war.

All told, it was the atomic missions above all things that forestalled Operation DOWNFALL and the cataclysmic effort to invade Japan. The peace activists who show up at Hiroshima and Nagasaki every August 6th and 9th never will understand this.

jr565 said...

Hoosier Daddy wrote:
Although I'm quite confident those 20% have no idea what conditions were under Japanese occupation.

Most libs probaby think that us killing kamikaze pilots before they blew themselves up only increased further kamikaze attacks and whe should just have tried to understand why our policies caused them to kamikaze us.

Fen said...

Oh, come on... The American administrations-- both Republican and Democrat-- didn't do jack squat about the threat from Iran.

Wrong. Bush would have chosen a UN inspections regime, but we saw how the Left undermined that in Iraq (and Iran learned lessons from it). Oil for Food the sequel? With Libtards watering down the standard of proof at every turn? It would have been exactly the delaying tactic Iran needed.

Bush also advocated a military strike, but Leftists in the CIA/NSA threw together a bogus NIE report that claimed Iran was not seeking nuclear WMDs.

And of course, the Left's constant badgering about not finding WMDs in Iraq poisoned the well. Please dont pretend that you guys wouldn't have crucified Bush for "warmongering over oil" in Iran.

After years of the Left sabotaging Bush foreign policy to score cheap political points, its a bit rich for you to be whining about Iranian nukes now.

Obama's Legacy will be the incineration of Israel.

Tom DeGisi said...

> Amazing how the Japanese gloss over their actions in China and Korea.

And the Phillipines. 100,000 civilians dead in the Battle of Manila.

Yours,
Tom

Cedarford said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
Professor, you aren't trying to draw some parallel between the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor with an Israeli strike on Iran?

I suppose one could make such an arguement if the FDR administration was threatening Japan with extermination (considering the state of our military at the time such a threat was laughable).
==========================
In hindsight, both Japan and US-Brit-Dutch-French sides made fundamental miscalculations.

The Japanese believed, like America, they had a Manifest Destiny. To control a big chunk of Asia, so THEY TOO could be a colonial power. As a resource-starved island nation, they saw this as a strategic imperative. They thought 1st that the other colonial powers would acquiesce to Japan's conquests if they did not clash with Western interests - so they went for China, Korea, Taiwan, East Siberia...any chunk of Asian land that was not nailed down by Western colonial powers, inc. the USA.
They then thought their belligerance and superb military campaigns would intimidate the Westerners. Then that their threat of war over economic embargo would get the West to back down. Then after their superbly performed attacks on Pearl, Singapore, Southeast Asia - that they could negotiate for peace - because no one wanted to mess with their awesome, high tech warriors.

The Western powers thought an embargo of all resources, notably oil, strategic metals, and food would choke off the Japanese and stop their brutal colonial "catch up with the West" ventures. The Western powers looked at the balance sheets of troop numbers, battleships, industrial production and determined that Japan simply wouldn't dare challenge them - so they could ignore the Jap threats of "end the embargo, stop meddling in China - or else."

Tom DeGisi said...

The U.S. absolutely should bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before Israel does. If you look in the article, other real Muslims think so.

Yours,
Tom

jr565 said...

BIg Mike wrote:
The Smithsonian's original exhibit of the Enola Gay included these words:

"For most Americans it was a war of vengeance. For most Japanese, it was a war to defend their unique culture against Western imperialism."


So funny. Wasn't Japan known, until they were defeated that is, as Imperial Japan? Nope, no empire there....

Fen said...

Libtard: [conservatives] were cheering at the sadistic abuse portrayed in the Abu Gharaib photos when they came to light

What alternate reality do you live in?

Fen said...

/the Smithsonian should move the Enola Gay disclaimer over to the Civil War exhibit, with some edits:

"For most Northerners it was a war of vengeance. For most the Confederacy, it was a war to defend their unique culture against Western imperialism."

LOL. File under PCBS Double Standards...

Cedarford said...

Tom Degisi - "And the Phillipines. 100,000 civilians dead in the Battle of Manila."

That was a brutal, inhuman fight. Imperial Japanese Special Landing Forces (their Marines) began a slaughterfest on any Filipino they could see, then shoot or bayonet (inc women and children) as US troops approached. Manila was like Fallaujah, only 100 times bigger. The Americans fought without a liberal or progressive Jewish media or "Human Rights Acivist Community" blubbering about Japanese rights. Japs took Filipino hostages and bunkered up in Manila banks, courthouses, old embassies - the US reaction, with cheering Filipinos who already wrote off the hostages as dead - was to fire 105 and 155 howitzers point blank into the buildings.

No prisoners. Enemy trying to escape into the hills were chased down like dogs - be they Japs, Jap Americans, or Filipino turncoats - and dispatched were they were found by US troops and Filipino scout squads.

Real bad one. And one of those battles, like Iwo and Saipan and Okinawa - that made the US dread an invasion of Japan itself.

Pogo said...

"Percentage of Americans who are gullible leftist morons who believe everything the Democratic Party university professors and TV shows and websites and newspapers and artists tell them: 20."

Methadras said...

Montagne Montaigne said...

Hiroshima: justifiable, probably saved lives.

Nagasaki: unjustifiable, probably a war crime.

Could the apology be split?


Shut your fucking hole. You have less than zero clue about you are talking about. Both were justifiable and it took Nagasaki to convince the Japanese to surrender. I've over simplified it for your putrid little mind. Why do you and your fetid ilk embrace evil at every turn? Why do you defend it on a whim?

peter hoh said...

I had a college professor (an English professor) who would didn't hesitate to tell anyone who asked that the bomb saved his life. And the lives of many other people, as well.

And here's a little story about how torture played a role in convincing the Japanese to surrender:

From Wikipedia: Surrender of Japan

Anami [Japan's War Minister] told the other cabinet ministers that, under torture, a captured American B-29 pilot had told his interrogators that the Americans possessed 100 atom bombs and that Tokyo and Kyoto would be bombed "in the next few days". The pilot, Marcus McDilda, was lying. He knew nothing of the Manhattan Project, and simply told his interrogators what he thought they wanted to hear to end the torture.

Pastafarian said...

Careful, Tom. Ritzy Brassiere will come along and diagnose you clinically insane, as he did me the other night.

And then Cedarford, his ally in this argument, will point out how those filthy mud-people aren't worth a drop of American blood or a dime of American money; and that you neocons are controlled by Jewish puppet masters.

I'm sure that Cedarford and Ritzy really agree on quite a lot. Philosophical soul mates, really. Cedarford, Ritzy, AlphaLiberal, Beth, garage mahal; they're all like peas in a pod.

Cedarford said...

Tom DeGisi said...
The U.S. absolutely should bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before Israel does. If you look in the article, other real Muslims think so.
--------------
I don't think so. The US pretty well shot it's wad on two stupid, eternal nation-building wars that have exceeded Vietnam in duration already. 1.2 trillion spent, 40,000 casualties, much of the military is burned out from repeated, high stress deployments.

We could, in extremis, elect to start and fight a 3rd enternally long nation-building war we could bill as "rescuing the Noble, Freedom-loving Iranians". But would really be All About Our Special Friend's welfare.

It would be best if we could avoid this war's impact - the Global Depression, US jobless rates up to 15-20% for at least a year, the spike in oil to 250 dollars a barrel, Iranian spec ops squads hitting us globally, and no one else lifting a finger to help.

Would China loan us the money to fight it?

(And the Zionists lack the means to get there and back unless Iraq or KSA not only lets the planes pass, but allows them to land and refuel. Even then, the Zionists lack the capacity to severely damage Iran with conventional strikes. Their strategy is to start a war and get us dragged in to take 98% of the casualties and expense.)

Pogo said...

In the future, voting should require a picture ID, a thumbprint by your name in a log book, and then you must answer this question:

"Should the U.S. apologize to Japan for using nuclear bombs in WWII?"

If answered yes, you are not allowed to vote, ever again, being egregiously and irredeemably stupid.

Pastafarian said...

See, Tom? I told you so.

Hoosier Daddy said...

He had a guest who was very serious about the fact that nuclear weapons don't just work due to their inner mechanisms. In order for a nuke to go off, there had to be not only the bomb itself, but a convergence of cosmic energies...sort of a crossroads between spacial and temporal thingies. Only at those intersections in time and space could the bombs actually go off.

There was a book along those lines called The Jesus Factor

hawkeyedjb said...

My father graduated from university in 1942, and immediately went off to serve on a subchaser in the Caribbean. When the war in Europe and the Atlantic ended, he was assigned to navigate a ship to the western Pacific to prepare for the invasion of Japan. His boat's mission was to serve as a forward spotter (in his words, 'sitting duck') during the invasion. He and his shipmates feel they owe their lives to president Truman and his decision to use the atomic bomb. Many men of that generation are infuriated at the modern tendency to apologize for that decision, and they are appalled at those who give no thought to the fact that some 60 million people had already lost their lives in the war. The very idea that a president would forgo use of a weapon that promised an end to such a conflagration, after so many years and so many millions lost, would be unthinkable. I hope that perspective does not die out with the WWII generation.

As for my father, bless him, he lived to see his 90th birthday recently, on the anniversary of Nagasaki Day.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Oh, come on... The American administrations-- both Republican and Democrat-- didn't do jack squat about the threat from Iran.

Probably because we haven't had formal diplomatic relations with them since 1979, no trade, still imposed sanctions so the idea that there was some leverage we had that had not already been in place for oh, thirty years has been asleep for some time.

Europe on the other hand had been attempting resolution through those noble endeavours you mentioned and got nothing from Iran but a big 'fuck you'.

Tom DeGisi said...

> We could, in extremis, elect to start and fight a 3rd enternally long nation-building war we could bill as "rescuing the Noble, Freedom-loving Iranians". But would really be All About Our Special Friend's welfare.

Straw man, Cederford. I said bomb, not invade. The only objectives I support would be the destruction of the Iranians nuclear program and possibly the destruction of the Islamic Republic. Let the Iranians rebuild their own nation afterwards.

But generally speaking, given that it's you I'm disagreeing with, THANK GOD. I always hate being on the same side as you, whenever we are.

Here are the biggest problems in the world (not just the Middle East) in order:

1) The bigottry of the Palestinians against Jews and Israel.
2) The bigottry of Arabs against Jews and Israel.
3) The bigottry of Muslims against Jews and Israel.
4) The bigottry of Christians against Jews and Israel.
5) The bigottry of the left against Jews and Israel.
6) The bigottry of the center against Jews and Israel.
7) The bigottry of the right against Jews and Israel.

Jews and Israel are the canaries in the coal mine of freedom, Cedarford. Every time you comment I hear a canary singing.

Yours,
Tom

Eric said...

It's sad that number is as high as 20 percent. It didn't used to be that way.

There's no price to pay for this kind of pseudo-moral preening. It's no different than the liberals playing who's-the-biggest-antiracist whilst safely ensconced in their lily white liberal enclaves.

bagoh20 said...

A dead Hiroshima victim asks posthumously: "Why did you nuke me?"

A living 1945 American marine asks: "Why did you nuke her?"

If I made the decision, I could answer both with without shame.

If we did not drop it, They would both be dead and I would then be ashamed.

Pogo said...

"Jews and Israel are the canaries in the coal mine of freedom"

True, dat.


Whenever the world seems to be sliding into another shithole, the antisemitism increases exponentially. And it is doing so now, which scares me not a little.

veni vidi vici said...

Trey @ 1:08:

That was really nice, man.

Your dad would be proud of the gentleman he has raised.

Methadras said...

hawkeyedjb said...

As for my father, bless him, he lived to see his 90th birthday recently, on the anniversary of Nagasaki Day.


May he be eternally thanked for his sacrifice because if it wasn't for people like him or my father-in-law, who was in Pearl Harbor on the USS Nevada, and many of his friends who have become my friends, I would not be sitting here today to thank him for it. It was men and women like this that make me eternally grateful for them and their lives. I have prospered because of them and it's on their backs that they have allowed everyone in this country the freedoms and liberties we are arguing about right now, much to my shameful regret. But I will never back down from the clueless boot-licking apologists on this blog. Ever.

Cedarford said...

Shorter Tom DeGisi, 7:10 PM.

"It's All About The Jews!!" "American interests are a distant 2nd to the Jews!" "The whole world is bigoted about the Jews but us bootlicking Christian Zionists!"

former law student said...

On the other hand we (the US) could demand Iran stop their nuclear weapons program with a lot more moral authority if we had stopped Israel's nuclear weapons program, which we continue to wink at. Once again we have one rule for our pet and another rule for everyone else.

Pogo said...

Congrats, fls, I was waiting for one of the lefties to blame Iran's nukes on the USA.

Heckuva job.

Tom DeGisi said...

Shorter Cedarford anytime:

... canary sings ....

Yours,
Tom

Revenant said...

On the other hand we (the US) could demand Iran stop their nuclear weapons program with a lot more moral authority if we had stopped Israel's nuclear weapons program, which we continue to wink at.

Even if we were some horrible authoritarian mass-murdering regime with no moral authority at all, that wouldn't change the fact that anybody with at least two functioning brain cells recognizes that a nuclear-armed Iran is a horrible idea.

Seriously, now. Use your head.

AST said...

What percentage would like it if more groups like the Taliban, or dictators thought we just might be crazy enough to do it again if they became a nuisance?

Now many of us still believe in peace through strength?

Cedarford said...

Neocons hate it, but the two nation-building wars they urged America into have helped leave is stripped of allies, weaker...and far more likely to see the average American's way of life devestated if we get embroiled in a 3rd "war of choice".
Without the Iraq War mess, we would be in a far stronger strategic position to stop Iran. The neos know it, won't admit it, and are trying to sell the idea of another preemptive war to a most leery US public that now generally reviles the Neocons.

The people hot to trot on bombing Iran for "another cakewalk war" gloss over the difficulties and have tried branding those who oppose starting an Iranian War as "bigots". They are desperate.

Israel can't do the job. They can't even get physically there and back without a 2nd nation directly supporting them with refueling. If they were able to get the Saudis or Iraqis directly complicit..their AF still lacks the ability to effectively bomb Irans nuke sites, air defense system, missile fields, special weapons facilities effectively.
Everyone knows that.
Israel is like Austro-Hungary on the brink of WWI. It starts the war hoping it's Special Friend, bigger and more capable, is stuck trying to finish it.
Israel could end it's isolation and largely diffuse the Iran threat by accepting Final Borders and the King Abdullah Plan. Accepting a nuke-free ME. But the religious right and Settler/Colonizer faction make that impossible.

Eric said...

Without the Iraq War mess, we would be in a far stronger strategic position to stop Iran.

This is wrong. We're in a much better strategic position to put pressure on Iran from Iraq. Without Iraq there is simply no point from which to launch an invasion, unless you (incorrectly) think the Turks would allow it from their territory.

But the reality nobody is going to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons short of invasion and occupation. There was never any stomach for that in the US or among our allies.

We could delay them a few years with air strikes, but that's a pretty dangerous game when you know they'll have nukes in 3-5 years anyhow.

PatCA said...

Strangely enough, 20% of the public consider themselves liberal too. The apology 20 must be one and the same.

Doug Wright said...

@William" Imagine how many of your "Oriental" kids today would not be here if those two bombs hadn't been dropped. There are good estimates that up to 400,000 Asians of all nationalities died each month during those last brutal 6-months of that war. There are estimates, well founded, that Ketsu-Go would have resulted in about 20,000,000 Japanese deaths during the planned invasion.
There were at least 2-million green IJA troops on the home islands, with just under 1-million sent to Kyushu in 1945. Japan had well over 10,000 planes and a vast supply of gasoline reserved for defense against the invasion. The Japanese high command was convinced it needed to surrender even after that so-called "war crime" bombing of Nagasaki. Does anyone here truly understand how terrible that invasion would have been for Japan, for the US, and for all of Asia? Does anyone here truly understand how brutal the Japanese could be and understand how its military would have behaved towards a hostage population in China, Burma, Indo-China, etc... during the invasion?

Sure, those atomic bombs scare people today and they scare me very well. During the 1961 Berlin Wall Crisis and then in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Americans were very concerned about A-Bombs falling on our heads.

But, measuring those two A-Bombs against what that invasion could have been, no doubt they needed to be dropped. There are many Japanese alive today because of those bombs. there are many Yanks and Asians live also because of those bombs. Sure, feel sorry for all those who died because of those two bombs but also feel happy for all those who live today because of them.

Cheers. To prepare for peace, prepare to wage military strength.

wv: sovist will never rest until they kill all of us.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Cedarford,
Israel has refueling capability

Gene said...

Historian John Toland in his book "The Rising Sun" quotes Japanese Admiral Toyoda as saying it was the Russian invasion of Manchuria, more than the atom bomb, that made Japan finally surrender. Japan had a non-aggression pact with Russia. Japan's military was truly stunned when, as they later complained, Russia "stabbed them in the back."

Before the Soviet Union entered the war, Japan's military leadership was willing to fight to the bitter end, believing that America simply could not tolerate the casualties it would suffer to invade the home islands.

Stalin, on the other hand, pretty much ignored casualties, and that truly terrified them.

Revenant said...

Without the Iraq War mess, we would be in a far stronger strategic position to stop Iran.

Let me translate that for you:

Without our military forces deployed on both the eastern and western borders of Iran, we would be in a far stronger strategic position to stop Iran.

Oh would we, now?

Doug Wright said...

Remeber, always, that haunting war cry: Peace through Joy, or something like that!

deborah said...

"Whereas Iran would have lots of options for bringing pressure on the United States. Just stopping Iran's own oil exports would drive the oil price sky-high in a tight market: Iran accounts for around 7 percent of internationally traded oil. But it also could block another 40 percent of global oil exports just by sinking tankers coming from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Gulf states with its lethal Noor anti-ship missiles.

The Noor anti-ship missile is a locally built version of the Chinese YJ-82. It has a 140-mile range, enough to cover all the major choke points in the Gulf. It flies at twice the speed of sound just yards above the sea's surface, and it has a tiny radar profile. Its single-shot kill probability has been put as high as 98 percent.

Iran's mountainous coastline extends along the whole northern side of the Gulf, and these missiles' mobile launchers are easily concealed. They would sink tankers with ease, and in a few days insurance rates for tankers planning to enter the Gulf would become prohibitive, effectively shutting down the region's oil exports.

Meanwhile Iran would start supplying modern surface-to-air missiles to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that would soon shut down the U.S. military effort there.

Iranian ballistic missiles would strike U.S. bases on the southern (Arab) side of the Gulf, and Iran's Hezbollah allies in Beirut would start dropping missiles on Israel. The United States would have no options for escalation other than the nuclear one, and pressure on it to stop the war would mount by the day as the world's industries and transport ground to a halt.

The end would be an embarrassing retreat by the United States and the definitive establishment of Iran as the dominant power of the Gulf region. That was the outcome of every war game the Pentagon played, and Mullen knows it. It is all bluff. It always was."

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/08/05/any-attack-on-iran-would-not-end-well.html?sid=101

Fen said...

FLS: On the other hand we (the US) could demand Iran stop their nuclear weapons program with a lot more moral authority

Awwww. You think "moral authority" is bankable with the UN and Iran. Thats so cute...

Quaestor said...

Montagne Montaigne wrote: "
Nagasaki: unjustifiable, probably a war crime."


Bullshit. Ignorance of history, undoubtedly true in your case, Monty, is no excuse.

Eric said...

The end would be an embarrassing retreat by the United States and the definitive establishment of Iran as the dominant power of the Gulf region. That was the outcome of every war game the Pentagon played, and Mullen knows it. It is all bluff. It always was."

He's right about one thing - it's a bluff. But it's not a bluff because we're afraid of losing. It's a bluff because we don't want to pay the price for success. Most of what you've quoted is nonsensica1 from a military perspective.

deborah said...

"It's a bluff because we don't want to pay the price for success. Most of what you've quoted is nonsensica1 from a military perspective."

You mean we could nuke them?

exhelodrvr1 said...

Those of you discussing Iran's options about closing the gulf need to consider the impact that would have on Iran's economy - it would affect them more than the rest of the world, and the resulting problems would cause their government to crash. So them doing that is highly unlikely. Much more likely would be terrorist attacks worldwide.

Doug Wright said...

Yes, of course we could nuke'em. But they'd be so pissed at us and the UN would really stamp its feet and tell us we'd been very naughty.

Cheers all.

Eric said...

You mean we could nuke them?

No, I don't mean that at all. I mean Iran is a country of sixty million people, so even though we'd brush their military aside pretty easily, if they used the same tactics the Iraqis used during the occupation we'd probably lose about 15,000 soldiers before the country was reasonably pacified. Plus a trillion dollars or so.

It's not worth it. A better strategy would be to pull the little troll into a room and tell him, "Look, if a nuclear bomb goes off anywhere in the middle east or the US, we're going to assume it was you and act accordingly."

former law student said...

for one of the lefties to blame Iran's nukes on the USA.

Absent moral authority, we must use force to get our way. Force invites retaliation, and so on. We may think Israelis are angels while Iranians are devils, but how to persuade Iran?

former law student said...

You think "moral authority" is bankable with the UN and Iran.

Imagine no Holocaust. How far does Israel's struggle for independence get?

Eric said...

Imagine no Holocaust. How far does Israel's struggle for independence get?

No difference, from what I can see. Countries talk a big game about ethics and moral authority, but when push comes to shove they always act in their own interests.

Israel was seen as a useful counterweight to pan Arab nationalism, which was taking a decidedly communist turn at the time. The country exists as a result of cold war realpolitik more than anything else.

Eric said...

Absent moral authority, we must use force to get our way.

And with moral authority... we must use force to get our way. Moral authority and five bucks will get you a latte at Starbucks.

M. Simon said...

Hiroshima: justifiable, probably saved lives.

Nagasaki: unjustifiable, probably a war crime.


Ah. Two too many.

Let me counter with: one not enough.

WV: quesser Quesser? Its a Jewish thing. You wouldn't understand.

Quaestor said...

Joe wrote: "One of our biggest mistakes was not bombing the emperor's palace and not hanging the bastard after the war."

Not bombing the Imperial Palace was a political decision taken at the highest levels. There is no written record, but most historian believe FDR gave George Marshall a verbal order to that effect. Preservation of a unified Japan was the likely reasoning behind that order. The fear was that without the emperor Japan might have fractured into competing daimyos, which could have made a definitive end to the war impossible.

To help save the Hirohito's life Walt Disney's studio made a huge 3D model of Tokyo which was filmed by cane-mounted cameras to simulate the view of the city from various altitudes and at various times of day and seasons of the year. The films made from this model were narrated by Captain Ronald Wilson Reagan, USAR.

A prominent feature of the model was an 1800-acre (to scale, of course) island surrounded by a 100-meter wide moat. US pilots and bombardiers were warned to stay well away from this feature.

bagoh20 said...

I think we should apologize to Japan... for taking so long to drop it. We could have saved even more of the lives they insisted on sacrificing all over the east side of our planet.

It's rare to have a war with such a clear case of good versus evil. It's almost impossible to believe how evil the Japanese were. Even they can't accept it, but we should, and never forget. An apology simply means we forgot.

Fen said...

FLS: but how to persuade Iran?

Hahaha! Yes FLS, and the Germans just needed a bit more living space.

Quaestor said...

Joe wrote: "B-17's were NOT a low-level a/c, so I doubt they were scheduled for that role."

B-17s and B-24s were used at least once as low-level bombers. During the Normandy campaign (June-August 1944) Eisenhour asked Ira Eaker for several raids against German positions in and around the enemy held town of Saint-Lô in order to help Bradley's 12th Army Group break out of their D-Day lodgments and into heart of occupied France (Eisenhour had to ask because Allied Bomber Command wasn't under SHAEF) Eaker demurred. He was unwilling to even bring a temporary halt to his daylight raids into Germany, and he said that his pilots weren't trained for cooperation with ground forces.
Ike continued to insist.

Eaker finally agreed to help. Harris had received a similar request from Monty to carpet bomb the area between Caan and Falaise to help his 21st AG get its advance started.

Eaker's first mission against Saint-Lô, flown at 25000 ft, missed the town entirely and hit some American positions, killing hundreds of GIs. The second attack was flown between 7000 and 9000 feet (very low-level for such a big slow target like a B-17). This time they hit the town and utterly destroyed it, but some of their bombs still fell short and killed more Americans than Germans. Harris' Lancasters didn't kill or destroy much of anything except some French civilians and quite a few cattle and sheep.

After Normandy the ground forces commanders left the heavy bombers strictly alone to do the job they were designed to do.

deborah said...

@ Eric, here's the rest of the article. With the trouble we had in Iraq and Afgh we couldn'd even contemplate a ground attack. And there's that little thing about the Iranians being crazy mofos.

"During the Iran–Iraq War, tens of thousands of young Iranian volunteer paramilitaries - Basij, were killed on the battlefield. Believing that they were holy martyrs and chanting songs about the Battle of Karbala, in which the Imam Hussein, died a heroic death, the basij cleared minefields as human waves so that more experienced soldiers could advance against the enemy.[12] The Basij reportedly marched into battle marking their expected entry to heaven by wearing plastic "keys to paradise" around their necks.

The human wave tactic was implemented in the following way: The barely armed children and teenagers had to move continuously forward in perfectly straight rows. It did not matter whether they fell as canon fodder to enemy fire or detonated the mines with their bodies. The important thing was that the Basij continued to move forward over the torn and mutilated remains of their fallen comrades, going to their death in wave after wave.[13]

“They come toward our positions in huge hordes with their fists swinging,” an Iraqi officer complained in the summer of 1982. “You can shoot down the first wave and then the second. But at some point the corpses are piling up in front of you, and all you want to do is scream and throw away your weapon. Those are human beings, after all.”[14]"
-Wiki

" When Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the highest-ranking American officer, was asked recently on NBC's Meet the Press whether the U.S. has a military plan for an attack on Iran, he replied: "We do."

General staffs are supposed to plan for even the most unlikely contingencies. But what the planning process will have revealed is that there is no way for the United States to win a non-nuclear war with Iran.

The U.S. could "win" by dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons on Iran's military bases, nuclear facilities and industrial centers (i.e. cities) and killing 5 million to 10 million people, but short of that, nothing works. On this, we have the word of Richard Clarke, counterterrorism adviser in the White House under three administrations.

Clarke revealed to The New York Times four years ago that, in the early 1990s, the Clinton administration had considered seriously a bombing campaign against Iran, but the military professionals told them not to do it.

The Pentagon's planners have conducted war games to model an attack on Iran several times in the past 15 years, and they just can't make it come out as a U.S. victory.

There's nothing the U.S. can do to Iran, short of nuking the place, that would force Tehran to kneel and beg for mercy. It can bomb Iran's nuclear sites and military installations to its heart's content, but everything it destroys can be rebuilt in a few years.

And there is no way that the United States could invade Iran. There are some 80 million people in Iran, and although many of them don't like the present regime, almost all are fervent patriots who would resist invasion. Iran is a mountainous country four times the size of Iraq. The Iranian army is slightly smaller than the U.S. Army. But unlike the U.S. Army, its troops are not scattered across literally dozens of countries.

If the White House were to propose anything larger than minor military incursions along Iran's south coast, senior American generals would resign in protest. Without the option of a land war, the only lever the United States would have is the threat of yet more bombs - but if they aren't nuclear, they aren't persuasive."

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/08/05/any-attack-on-iran-would-not-end-well.html?sid=101

former law student said...

Moral authority and five bucks will get you a latte at Starbucks.

Or it can end minority rule in South Africa.

As with the apartheid regime, loss of moral authority makes Israel increasingly isolated in the world and as we know from solitary confinement studies, isolation breeds insanity.

Revenant said...

Absent moral authority, we must use force to get our way.

Apparently you live in some fantasyland where countries act either (a) because they are impressed by the goodness of the nation asking them to act or (b) because the nation is forcing them, at gunpoint, to act.

You ignore (c), which is "it is in their own best interests to act".

In the real world, countries usually act from (c). Occasionally (b). Never (a).

peter hoh said...

The Iranians learned a hell of a lot about asymmetrical warfare during the last 7 years.

Eric said...

I wouldn't trust Richard Clarke any further than I could throw him, and I'm pretty weak for a guy. With him there's no way to know what's true, what's simply wrong, and what's heavily exaggerated in order to sell a book.

There's no way Iran comes out ahead in a war with the US. The Iraqi military was stronger in 1991 than the Iranian military is today relative to US power, and recent years have seen the development of some technologies that would make it easier for us and more costly for them. You can wreck half a country with a single heavy bomber full of SDBs.

You talk about the "trouble" we had in Iraq and Afghanistan, but think about it for a minute - we conquered a country of twenty million people in two weeks and then pacified it in five years losing 4500 US military. By any reasonable historical standard that's not a lot of trouble.

Now, if you define "winning" for Iran as "surviving" when a ground invasion is off the table, then sure, we lose. You don't need war games to realize that - it's the closest thing you'll find to accepted fact in military planning. Air power alone isn't enough - you need a 19 year old with a rifle standing where you want to enforce your will as a nation.

Capt. Schmoe said...

Go Jews!!!

Eric said...

Or it can end minority rule in South Africa.

I think you would have a hard time making the case "moral authority" had anything to do with that.

Gene said...

Deborah, your posts are quite impressive. I have often thought that the last thing the US needs now is a war with Iran. However, I fear the matter is out of our hands.

If Israel attacks Iran, Iran will attack any US ship within range, including any aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. Once that happens the US will be forced into massive retaliation, with the result that Iran will close the Strait of Hormuz. Oil will soar to $500/barrel. Obama won't have a clue what do do either economically or militarily. The US will end up in a thirties style depression for a full generation. When we come out of it, we will be lucky to be on an economic par with Brazil.

The only way the US can win a war with Iran is not to get it in the first place. Unfortunately, the decision is not in our hands. We are hostages of Israel. If she attacks, and Iran retaliates against us, we will be in the war whether we want to or not. As I see it, it's a lose-lose situation with our destiny not under our control.

I don't see Obama stopping this headlong rush to war. If he couldn't stop Netanyahu from building apartments in East Jerusalem, he certainly can't keep Netanyahu from bombing Iran.

bagoh20 said...

Moral authority is like an opinion - everyone's got their own and it's always superior to the rest.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

What's next, is someone gonna suggest that Iran will delivery the mother of all defeats to the U.S. And install Amanindinnerjacket as mayor of Pismo Beach?

An incredible level of strategeristicle misunderstanding displayed here, but hey, we read it on the internet so...

dick said...

Libs

1945 surround the island and negotiate - not


progressives

2010 negotiate with radical islamofacists - not.

Gary Rosen said...

Shortest C-fudd ...

his dick.

Gary Rosen said...

Israel's enemies have all the moral authority ... trillions of dollars worth under their sand dunes.

Fox said...

Fox Airsoft is The Ultimate Airsoft Store. We carry professional airsoft guns, tactical gear, upgrade parts, and more. Our retail airsoft store is located south of Denver, in Parker, Colorado.you are having a wonderful posts so i always like to visit to your blog and found this post very interesting.
ak47 airsoft gun

Anthony said...

I think it was the right thing to do. I do not think though we should shove the Japan's face in it though -- they are now an ally. I am a believer of "in victory -- magnanimity"

I do think that it was right in sending a representative to the Hiroshima commemoration, as it was in Reagan going to Bitburg. No apologises, but memory.

Marshal said...

"If Israel attacks Iran, Iran will attack any US ship within range, including any aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. "

The worst analysis I've ever read. Not only will Iran not respond in this manner the idea that we can't win such a war is ludicrous. Such a reaction would be the absolute worst step Iran could take.

Iran will respond by appealing to its allies, the western left and the authoritarian world to condemn Israel first and the US for allowing Israel to attack second. It will authorize its surrogates to increase terror attacks against Israel and the US, especially within Iraq. And they will use the attack as a recruiting tool to sponsor new actions, in the US and Europe if they can. And they will try to organize an oil embargo of the US and Israel.

New York said...

Interesting how the lefties like Deborah, Gene, and FLS play up the capabilities of Iran. They clearly want Iran to be strong.

But the considerations that the Israelis must be making are never mentioned. It's as if their unspoken opinion is that the Israelis should passively wait until Iran has nukes to threaten them with. They dream that Israel would disappear somehow.

Big Mike said...

@Marshall, the fact that an attack by Iran on the United States in retaliation for an Israeli attack would be unbelievably stupid is no reason why it wouldn't occur.

@FLS, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have had 18 months to find a diplomatic solution to the problem of Iranian nukes. They are now down to months, following which the solution will be diplomatic only in the sense of what von Clausewitz wrote: "war is diplomacy by other means."

Jason said...

Those who know me on this board know that I'm no lefty. I hate ignorant drooling libtards with the best of 'em.

Deborah's no libtard. She has it about right. I don't like the way this wargames, either.

Iran sits astride U.S. lines of communication with our Army in Iraq. It's a smaller Army than it used to be, but we still need to supply it through Kuwait.

Eventually, Iran loses. But it's very ugly.

Anthony said...

>Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have had 18 months to find a diplomatic solution to the problem of Iranian nukes. They are now down to months, following which the solution will be diplomatic only in the sense of what von Clausewitz wrote: "war is diplomacy by other means."

I agree with you but frankly think there is little that can be done one way or antoher.

So my Iranian policy (if I were president) -- recognize that Iran could build a nuclear weapon if they want to and that while we will do everything to prevent it, we probably cannot. But explain, in public, that if Iran or one of its terrorist proxies uses a nuclear weapon we will retaliate, and disproportionately at that. "So Iran, you or one of your terrorist groups uses a nuclear weapon, your country ceases to exist 30 minutes later."

That would be my policy.

former law student said...

Interesting how the lefties like Deborah, Gene, and FLS play up the capabilities of Iran.

Interesting how New York sees what he wants to read. I said nothing about the capabilities of Iran.

It's as if their unspoken opinion is that the Israelis should passively wait until Iran has nukes to threaten them with.

I would have liked to take away Iran's argument that they need to level the playing field against an aggressive Israel (look at its history of invading its neighbors) which has had thermonuclear weapons for the past twenty-five years.

If Iran had acted like Israel has it would have bombed Dimona decades ago.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I would have liked to take away Iran's argument that they need to level the playing field against an aggressive Israel.. (look at its history of invading its neighbors)

And your argument might have been helped if you had actually looked at said history.

former law student said...

And your argument might have been helped if you had actually looked at said history.

Dude, we like Israel. We can't see it objectively.

bagoh20 said...

If another genocide of the Jews through nuclear war occurs, I see many people simply saying they asked for it...again. Look back in history and see who you stand with, because history is repeating, and you will become who you choose to as did they back then. It was a foolish bias then and it is now.

You may fashion yourself a good person, but the last holocaust was only possible with good people doing nothing, and others siding with evil for whatever insufficient reason they may have had, and they were all clearly insufficient. I'm sure a very common excuse was: "I never thought that could happen." That one is a lie now.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Dude, we like Israel. We can't see it objectively.

If seeing it objectively means drawing an equivalency between a democratic Israel and theocratic Iran then yes you are correct sir.

traditionalguy said...

Has Japan apologized for the Bataan Death March and for using American prisoners in their germ warfare experiments? If they did, I missed that.

New York said...

I would have liked to take away Iran's argument that they need to level the playing field against an aggressive Israel

You also might have liked to consider whether that is a sincere argument ie. they don't really want nukes but Israel is pushing them into it.

look at its history of invading its neighbors

You mean how Israel invaded an independent nation called "Palestine" in 1967?

The lefties have reached the point where they openly flaunt their lack of interest in facts and their subservience to "narrative".

former law student said...

You may fashion yourself a good person, but the last holocaust was only possible with good people doing nothing,

I think that, once Chamberlain responded to Hitler's takeover of Austria only with a strongly-worded note, he sealed the fate of the Poles, and paved the way to the extermination of the bulk of the world's Jewry.

But how did so many Jews end up in Poland? After they were expelled from Western Europe, historically Poland was the only country to welcome them. (Jews remained in Central and other Eastern European countries.) Successive partitions of Poland meant substantial new numbers of Jews were now part of Germany, Austria, and Russia.

By the way, if ensuring the survival of the world's Jewry is your goal, concentrating six million in some 8000 square miles, more than half of which is uninhabitable desert, doesn't seem the most obvious strategy.

former law student said...

The lefties have reached the point where they openly flaunt their lack of interest in facts

Like the facts that Israel attacked Lebanon in 1978, 1982, 1993, 1996, and 2006? The most notable result was the creation and growth of Hezbollah from nothing in 1982 into the formidable enemy of today.

New York said...


>The lefties have reached the
>point where they openly flaunt
>their lack of interest in facts

Like the facts that Israel attacked Lebanon in 1978, 1982, 1993, 1996, and 2006?


Yes EXACTLY like that!

The 1967 example is better, because lefties really don't know what happened and don't care but it has no bearing on their narrative.

But your citing the Israeli invasions on 1978 and 1982 without acknowledging that southern Lebanon was controlled by Fatah and was firing Katyushas into Israel is not a bad example either.

New York said...

FLS: By the way, if ensuring the survival of the world's Jewry is your goal, concentrating six million in some 8000 square miles, more than half of which is uninhabitable desert, doesn't seem the most obvious strategy.


Because in the lefty view, Jews are supposed to run around and hide out in whatever country doesn't mind them at the moment.

Whereas - say the lefties - proud people like the Palestinians will fight to the last man and should be respected for that.

former law student said...

But your citing the Israeli invasions on 1978 and 1982

Compare the US invasion of Vietnam, where we were allied with the sovereign government to suppress the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong.

ken in sc said...

Like FLS, I probably would not be here except for the atom bombs dropped on Japan. My father was onboard an LST, halfway across the Pacific, with sealed orders for the invasion of Japan, when they were dropped. His combat duty was to drive those Higgins boats full of marines up on the beach and drop the ramp. His chance of survival of a full-scale invasion would have been very low. He probably would not have come home and married my mother. As it was, his ship was used to return Korean slaves from Japan to Korea. He spent the rest of his naval enlistment working in the galley and consequently taught me how to cook. I am grateful for the bomb.

New York said...

Compare the US invasion of Vietnam, where we were allied with the sovereign government to suppress the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong.

I'm amazed.

Each post you make demonstrates my point even more vividly.

Your first post ignored the fact that Fatah set up a state-within-a-state in southern Lebanon and fired rockets into Israel. Instead you wrote as if it were an unprovoked invasion.

After I point this out, you somehow see a similarity between this and the US propping up the South Vietnamese gov't???

About the only thing the situations have in common is that they are "bad things" in the lefty collective unconscious.

Fen said...

I think that, once Chamberlain responded to Hitler's takeover of Austria only with a strongly-worded note, he sealed the fate of the Poles

You are aware that the allies had 3 seperate mutual assitance treaties with the Poles? One was even specific enough to promise that if Germany invaded Poland, French tanks would counterattack and punch through the Siegfried Line towards Berlin. Its why the Poles fougt so valiantly. They knew that if they could just hold out for a few days...

This is what you put your faith in when you champion "moral authority" and all the other diplomatic bullshit to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Bob said...

FLS - the US invaded Viet Nam? Really?

The US had agreed to a UN mandate to assist the South back in the 1950s until national elections were held. But no such elections were allowed. Then, in the early 1960s, the government of South Viet Nam formally requested the introduction of US aircrews and then US ground forces to assist in quelling the Viet Cong.

The only country the US invaded in Viet Nam war was Cambodia in 1971 to destroy NVA supply dumps.

Joe said...

B-17s and B-24s were used at least once as low-level bombers.

B-24s were also used at Ploesti, flying in as low as 50 feet. (The raid was a waste of life and showed the futility of heavy strategic bombing, but that's a discussion for a different day.)

Marshal said...

"So my Iranian policy (if I were president) -- recognize that Iran could build a nuclear weapon if they want to and that while we will do everything to prevent it, we probably cannot. But explain, in public, that if Iran or one of its terrorist proxies uses a nuclear weapon we will retaliate, and disproportionately at that. "So Iran, you or one of your terrorist groups uses a nuclear weapon, your country ceases to exist 30 minutes later."

That would be my policy."

I don't believe any American politician has the will to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance not including a nuclear attack on us. There's no chance we nuke Iran because a nuke of unknown origin reduces Tel Aviv to rubble.

I seriously doubt there are many American politicians who would take that action even if the US was attacked.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Joe,
"The raid was a waste of life and showed the futility of heavy strategic bombing"

Not futile when they had fighter escorts. At the end of the war in Europe, Germany was producing more materiel than at any point previously, but they couldn't get it to the fronts because of fuel shortages and transportation issues caused by the strategic bombing.

jr565 said...

Fen wrote:
One was even specific enough to promise that if Germany invaded Poland, French tanks would counterattack and punch through the Siegfried Line towards Berlin. Its why the Poles fougt so valiantly. They knew that if they could just hold out for a few days...


Poland is like Flounder from Animal House when he lent out his brothers car and it got trashed.And this was the response.

Otter: Flounder, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up - you trusted us!

Poland simply counted on allied support, that they shouldn't have counted on considering their allies. Hence all the dumb polock jokes.

former law student said...

Your first post ignored the fact that Fatah set up a state-within-a-state in southern Lebanon and fired rockets into Israel. Instead you wrote as if it were an unprovoked invasion.

Lebanon didn't want Fatah there either, yet it was the Lebanese who suffered for things they weren't powerful enough to prevent.

I guess you weren't one of the commenters here who criticized Obama for wanting to attack al-Qaeda wherever it was found, even if it was inside Pakistan.

former law student said...

You are aware that the allies had 3 seperate mutual assitance treaties with the Poles?

Was one the Treaty of Versailles? Because the "allies" had let Germany break those provisions one by one, including the one forbidding the Anschluss. Or do you mean the "mutual" assistance treaties entered into right before Hitler invaded Poland?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 219   Newer› Newest»