POLITICS SCHMALITICS

[shabba4detroit]

5 hours ago, oblong said:

It's been said that by the time Truman became President there was no way to stop the bomb.... the train was already at high speed.

It's been said that the War Department ordered so many Purple Hearts to be issued to the expected injured or dead from the expected Battle of Japan, which was preempted by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, that they didn't have to order any more until 2008. 

[gehringer_2]

48 minutes ago, shabba4detroit said:

It's been said that the War Department ordered so many Purple Hearts to be issued to the expected injured or dead from the expected Battle of Japan, which was preempted by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, that they didn't have to order any more until 2008. 

That story sounds like USDOD all over. Should be true even if it isn’t. ( which I’m not arguing) 

Edited February 24, 2022 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

On 2/24/2022 at 8:04 AM, gehringer_2 said:

how racist is it to just deny 'anyoneness' to over 200,000 souls? Asking for a friend.

Maybe about ten or fifteen years or so ago, on the old board—which at the time was probably two-thirds Bush conservatives—the subject of The Bombs came up. People on both sides generally agreed that dropping the bombs saved American lives and ended the war earlier. I chimed in that it not only saved American lives, it also saved perhaps who knows how many Japanese civilian lives—half a million, a million, maybe more, who knows.

Predictably, many posters were genuinely offended by my comment and I got roasted for it. Who cares how many Jap lives it saved? No one cares about Jap lives. They were the enemy, for chrissakes! The object is to kill as many enemies as possible! Are you not even American? What the hell is wrong with you?

You know, comments along those lines.

I was pretty shocked back then at the blowback because it seemed like a pretty innocuous observation. But, some people simply can't brook certain ideas, I guess.

[buddha]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Maybe about ten or fifteen years or so ago, on the old board—which at the time was probably two-thirds Bush conservatives—the subject of The Bombs came up. People on both sides generally agreed that dropping the bombs saved American lives and ended the war earlier. I chimed in that it not only saved American lives, it also saved perhaps who knows how many Japanese civilian lives—half a million, a million, maybe more, who knows.

Predictably, many posters were genuinely offended by my comment and I got roasted for it. Who cares how many Jap lives it saved? No one cares about Jap lives. They were the enemy, for chrissakes! The object is to kill as many enemies as possible! Are you not even American? What the hell is wrong with you?

You know, comments along those lines.

I was pretty shocked back then at the blowback because it seemed like a pretty innocuous observation. But, some people simply can't brook certain ideas, I guess.

what poster on the old board used the term "jap lives"?

[clark1mt]

On 2/24/2022 at 9:37 AM, gehringer_2 said:

Skeptical on that. He isn't going to stop the *program*, and shouldn't have wanted to, but the order to go still had to be given and he was CIC. He may have felt he was not up to the task of making a different decision, but that doesn't mean he didn't have the power to. That said I'm not arguing the much bigger question of whether he should or shouldn't have, only that I don't agree it wasn't in his power to have made a different decision. If you can order MacArthur relieved, you can change a weapons deployment.

We'd already been doing the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed at least as many civilians as either atomic bomb. The only difference is that it didn't happen all at once. So in that context, there would be no reason not to use the bomb. All you're doing different is saving time (radiation/fallout aside; not sure how well that part was really understood in 1945).

That doesn't change the question of whether any of that was justifiable, but it does put the bomb in perspective a little bit.

[gehringer_2]

23 minutes ago, clark1mt said:

We'd already been doing the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed at least as many civilians as either atomic bomb. The only difference is that it didn't happen all at once. So in that context, there would be no reason not to use the bomb. All you're doing different is saving time (radiation/fallout aside; not sure how well that part was really understood in 1945).

That doesn't change the question of whether any of that was justifiable, but it does put the bomb in perspective a little bit.

no arg there. I was only taking up the specific supposition Rob noted that some have argued that Truman could not have made a different decision. Of course he could have, he could have directed them to drop it two miles offshore or on a non-urban area, or in the other direction on Tokyo instead of a secondary city  - or held off longer on the 2nd bomb. For better or worse the specific history happened as it did because specific people decided to do it the way it was done, and I was expressing skepticism that you can argue the CIC out of that decision matrix. Even if Truman punted and followed along - that was still a choice he had to make as Pres.

Edited February 25, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Jim Cowan]

As early as the end of 1940, the dropping of incendiary bombs on Coventry set the stage for ever-increasing terrorist activity by both sides, culminating in the deliberate roasting of 25,000 people in Dresden by the RAF and the USAF when the end of the war was in sight.  It is not much of a leap from those activities to dropping the big one.  I don't see that any sort of line was crossed there, the line was crossed the first time somebody aimed artillery at a peasant village in the 1700's.

[buddha]

32 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

As early as the end of 1940, the dropping of incendiary bombs on Coventry set the stage for ever-increasing terrorist activity by both sides, culminating in the deliberate roasting of 25,000 people in Dresden by the RAF and the USAF when the end of the war was in sight.  It is not much of a leap from those activities to dropping the big one.  I don't see that any sort of line was crossed there, the line was crossed the first time somebody aimed artillery at a peasant village in the 1700's.

heck man, you can go back to the beginnings of human history for that type of warfare.  the only difference is mechanization making it less "personal."  i dont have to cut your eyes out and make you walk back to your village before i rape your children and sell them into slavery (typical mongol practices back in the day), now i can just drop some bombs from a plane.  or drone!  even easier to kill you and your family (an american favorite)

the history of what human beings have done to each other in war is brutal.  humans are horrible creatures to each other.

[buddha]

biden's approval rating now at a trumpian 39%

[CMRivdogs]

Ask them to come up with an alternate solution on any topic and you'll get the same answer.

 

[chasfh]

TBF, they may simply be telling CNN as an organization to go fuck themselves, so Joe Lockhart perhaps need not take it seriously.

[oblong]

I’ve yet to hear any reasonable alternatives from anyone.  Just like Afghanistan.  The answer is “this wouldn’t have happened”. No thoughts on what should be done 

[Jim Cowan]

31 minutes ago, buddha said:

... now i can just drop some bombs from a plane.  or drone!  even easier to kill you and your family (an american favorite) ...

Yes that's the point.  The introduction of artillery meant that you didn't need any personal courage to kill large volumes of civilians.  Didn't need to see them or smell them.  "Strategic bombing" is just the logical progression, nuclear is not more of a war crime than incendiary.

[pfife]

36 minutes ago, oblong said:

I’ve yet to hear any reasonable alternatives from anyone.  Just like Afghanistan.  The answer is “this wouldn’t have happened”. No thoughts on what should be done 

they don't care about effective governance.

[Jim Cowan]

50 minutes ago, oblong said:

I’ve yet to hear any reasonable alternatives from anyone.  Just like Afghanistan.  The answer is “this wouldn’t have happened”. No thoughts on what should be done 

Arnold Palmer told a story once, this guy in the gallery following him around and, 5 or 6 times, saying "that's not the shot that Hogan would have played there".  Eventually Palmer hit one into the long grass under a tree and, exasperated, turned to the guy and said "So?  What would Hogan do now?". And the guy said "Well, he wouldn't be in there".

[Motown Bombers]

The Republicans Russia plan will be unveiled in two weeks. This is harder than anyone thought plus they need to wait until they are done being audited. 

[1984Echoes]

22 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

The Republicans Russia plan will be unveiled in two weeks. This is harder than anyone thought plus they need to wait until they are done being audited. 

But we'll see their plan in two weeks though...

Right?

[Crazy Cat Gentleman]

FWIW, a lot of outlets seem to be calling him Rand Paul's grandson-in-law, but that seems to be his relationship to Ron Paul. he's Rand's niece's husband (nephew-in-law? whatever).

[pfife]

Any word on whether he's patriotic though?

[pfife]

strictly for the record, Alito told us foreign countries would never throw money into our elections.    According to commentators a week ago, he's still throwing a tantrum about it and hasn't been to a SOTU since he said that hot falsity

[CMRivdogs]

I guess Alito had never heard of 1968 and Nixon’s deal with Turkey….

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said:

I guess Alito had never heard of 1968 and Nixon’s deal with Turkey….

the really dangerous one that the conservative on the court are pushing is that state legislatures are not bound by their own state constitutions. I seriously doubt that is anything the founders had in mind.

[buddha]

On 3/8/2022 at 7:50 AM, gehringer_2 said:

the really dangerous one that the conservative on the court are pushing is that state legislatures are not bound by their own state constitutions. I seriously doubt that is anything the founders had in mind.

what are you talking about?  the decision to let the pro democrat maps pass without review?

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, buddha said:

what are you talking about?  the decision to let the pro democrat maps pass without review?

Wouldn't it also basically do away with independent commissions established in states like California?

[buddha]

40 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Wouldn't it also basically do away with independent commissions established in states like California?

i dont know, that's why i asked him which decision he was talking about.  i havent really been following it.