Obama's Hiroshima visit stirs differing views across Pacific

[webfact]

Obama's Hiroshima visit stirs differing views across Pacific
MARI YAMAGUCHI, Associated Press
JULIE WATSON, Associated Press

TOKYO (AP) — Two very different visions of the hell that is war are seared into the minds of World War II survivors on opposite sides of the Pacific.

Michiko Kodama saw a flash in the sky from her elementary school classroom on Aug. 6, 1945, before the ceiling fell and shards of glass from blown-out windows slashed her. Now 78, she has never forgotten the living hell she saw from the back of her father, who dug her out after a U.S. military plane dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan.

People were walking like zombies, with their flesh scraped and severely burned, asking for help, for water. A little girl looked up, straight into Michiko's eyes, and collapsed.

Lester Tenney saw Japanese soldiers killing fellow American captives on the infamous Bataan Death March in the Philippines in 1942. "If you didn't walk fast enough, you were killed. If you didn't say the right words you were killed, and if you were killed, you were either shot to death, bayonetted, or decapitated," the 95-year-old veteran said. He still has the bamboo stick Japanese soldiers used to beat him across the face.

Different experiences, different memories are handed down, spread by the media and taught in school. Collectively, they shape the differing reactions in the United States and Japan to Barack Obama's decision to become the first sitting American president to visit the memorial to atomic bomb victims in Hiroshima later this week.

The U.S. dropped a second atomic bomb on Nagasaki three days after Hiroshima, and Japan surrendered six days later, bringing to an end a bloody conflict that the U.S. was drawn into after Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941.

Japan identifies mostly as "a victim rather than a victimizer," Stephen Nagy, an international relations professor at the International Christian University in Tokyo, said. "I think that represents Japan's regional role and its regional identity, whereas the United States has a global identity, a global agenda and global presence. So when it views the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, it's in the terms of a global narrative, a global conflict the United States was fighting for freedom or to liberate countries from fascism or imperialism. To make these ends meet is very difficult."

A poll last year by the Pew Research Center found that 56 percent of Americans believe the use of nuclear weapons was justified, while 34 percent do not. In Japan, 79 percent said the bombs were unjustified, and only 14 percent said they were.

Terumi Tanaka, an 84-year-old survivor of the Nagasaki bombing, said of Obama: "I hope he will give an apology to the atomic bomb survivors, not necessarily to the general public. There are many who are still suffering. I would like him to meet them and tell them that he is sorry about the past action, and that he will do the best for them."

The White House has clearly ruled out an apology, which would inflame many U.S. veterans and others, and said that Obama would not revisit the decision to drop the bombs.

"A lot of these people are telling us we shouldn't have dropped the bomb — hey, what they talking about?" said Arthur Ishimoto, a veteran of the Military Intelligence Service, a U.S. Army unit made up of mostly Japanese-Americans who interrogated prisoners, translated intercepted messages and went behind enemy lines to gather intelligence.

Now 93, he said it's good for Obama to visit Hiroshima to "bury the hatchet," but there's nothing to apologize for. Ishimoto, who was born in Honolulu and rose to be an Air Force major general and commander of the Hawaii National Guard, believes he would have been killed in an invasion of Japan if Japan had not surrendered.

"It would have been terrible," he said. "There is going to be controversy about apologizing. I don't think there should be any apology. ... We helped that country. We helped them out of the pits all the way back to one of the most economically advanced. There's no apology required."

Beyond the deaths — the atomic bombs killed 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 73,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945 — the effects of radiation have lingered with survivors, both physically and mentally.

Kodama, the Hiroshima schoolgirl, faced discrimination in employment and marriage. After her first love failed because her boyfriend's family said they didn't want "radiated people's blood in their family," she married into a more understanding one.

The younger of her two daughters died of cancer in 2011. Some say she shouldn't have given birth, even though multi-generational radiation effects have not been proven.

Obama doesn't have to apologize, Kodama said, but he should take concrete actions to keep his promise to seek a nuclear-free world.

"For me, the war is not over until the day I see a world without nuclear weapons." she said. "Mr. Obama's Hiroshima visit is only a step in the process."

Nagasaki survivor Tanaka views the atomic bombings as a crime against humanity. A promise by Obama to survivors to do all he can for nuclear disarmament "would mean an apology to us," he said.

He added that his own government also should take some of the blame for the suffering of atomic bomb victims. "It was the Japanese government that started the war to begin with, and delayed the surrender," he said, adding that Japan has not fully faced up to its role in the war.

Japan did issue apologies in various forms in the 1980s and 1990s, but some conservative politicians in recent years have raised questions about them, said Sven Saaler, a historian at Sophia University in Tokyo.

"In particular right now when Japan has a government that is ... backpedaling in terms of apologizing for the war, if now the U.S. apologized, that also would be, I think, a weird signal in this current situation," Saaler said.

Tenney, one of only three remaining POWs from the Bataan Death March, wants Obama in Hiroshima to remember all those who suffered in the war, not just the atomic bomb victims.

"From my point of view, the fact that the war ended when it did and the way it did, it saved my life and it saved the life of those Americans and other allied POWs that were in Japan at the time," he said at his home in in Carlsbad, California. "I was in Japan, shoveling coal in a coal mine. No one ever apologized for that. ... I end up with black lung disease because they didn't take care of me in the coal mine, and yet there is no apology, no words of wisdom, no nothing."

Obama's visit is firmly supported by Earl Wineck, who scanned the skies over Alaska for Japanese warplanes during World War II.

"He's not going there like some of them might, and keep reminding them of all their transgressions," the 88-year-old veteran of the Alaska Territorial Guard said. "That should have ended after the war, and I think a lot of it did, but of course, there's always people who feel resentment."

Japan occupied two Alaskan islands during the war. The battle to retake one of them, Attu Island, cost about 3,000 lives on both sides.

"We hated them," Wineck said "But things change, people change, and I think people in the world should be closer together."

How so?

One Tokyo high school student has a suggestion. Mayu Uchida, who said she cried when she heard survivors recount their memories on a school trip to Hiroshima, wants Obama to bring home what he learns and tell any supporters of nuclear weapons how horrifying they are.

"He could also suggest, promoting opportunities for more Americans to visit Hiroshima, or to hear the story of Hiroshima," the 18-year-old said. "It will be even better if those opportunities are available for younger generations like us."

___

A version of this story with videos of the interviews is available at http://apne.ws/243ZLSD

___

Watson reported from Carlsbad, Calif. Associated Press writers Audrey McAvoy in Honolulu, Mark Thiessen in Anchorage, Alaska, and Ken Moritsugu in Tokyo also contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-05-24

[Credo]

How you view it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

[Baerboxer]

Has Ms. Uchida and her classmates had the opportunity to read the accounts of American, Australian, British and Dutch PoW's who witnessed and survived the extreme vile behavior of Japanese military to captured prisoners of war and civilians in occupied territory?

Has she read "The rape of Nanking" or researched other accounts of Japanese military behavior towards the Chinese just before WW11?

Has she been taught how Japan attacked Pearl Harbor before declaring war on America?

This victim culture only seems to extend to those who lost the war whilst ignoring their evil imperialist excessive war crimes. Never yet heard any Japanese official or student acknowledge let alone apologies for them.

[williamgeorgeallen]

would be a beautiful thing if some lessons had been learned from the second world war, but warmongering is only on the increase. those profiting from arms manufacturing who also push for conflict should be made accountable for the suffering they cause. instead it is almost every one else on both side of the lines pay for the few who gain.

[mania]

Rather than compare who had it worse I would just say

I feel very fortunate to not have seen such horrors in my own life.

Hopefully such destruction will never again be unleashed on a civilian population

[freebyrd]

Firstly, I'm a Brit.

The simple fact that the Japanese made an unprovoked attack on Pearl harbour. Had they not done so, the Manhattan project may not have been necessary.

When I was in the army I served with the Gurkhas. Their forefathers told stories of captured Gurkhas being tied to a tree and used for bayonet practice by the Japs.

The blame for the dropping of the atomic bombs lies with the incumbent Japanese government circa December 1941. Beyond that I can muster no sympathy. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Japs killed by the bombs VS millions made to suffer across Asia by Japanese aggression - no contest!

[Ulic]

My mother and her family where being held in a POW/concentration camp in Vietnam by the

Japanese. (Or as my father puts it, "your mother was a guest of the Japanese during the war"

If the war had lasted a few more months her younger sisters would have died, another

six months she would have died as well. There is no doubt dropping the bombs saved

millions of lives. Both Japanese and Allied. A tough decision to have to make, but the

correct one for certain.

[JGV]

I think it is pointless going through the usual tit for tat comments saying how both sides behaved atrociously - you just need to ask yourself are you in favour of war or not - all bombs kill and maime - the atom bomb was just bigger and killed more

War mongerers are either psychologically damaged or profiteerers or religious fanatics - collectively evil and sick

JGV

[retarius]

A war crime, pure and simple. You cannot intentionally drop bombs to kill civilians.

[freebyrd]

A war crime, pure and simple. You cannot intentionally drop bombs to kill civilians.

No civilians in Pearl Harbour area then?

[Publicus]

Where is Vladimir Putin today? Sitting in the Kremlin counting up his nuclear weapons to flap his lips about against Europe and Nato.

Where's Xi Jinping as CCP creates ever more nuclear weapons to menace the region and the world with yet another dictatorship.

The ayatollahs?

We meanwhile know where President Obama is and what he is saying, and to whom, i.e., everyone.

[Boon Mee]

This farewell apology tour almost over we hope?

[Publicus]

And where is Donald Trump today with his nuclear brain that is short numerous electrons and neutrons....

[Publicus]

This farewell apology tour almost over we hope?

Barack Obama was elected twice by the American people so the rightwhinge just has to suck it up despite the fact they never quit.

[steve654]

A war crime, pure and simple. You cannot intentionally drop bombs to kill civilians.

Yes a terrible crime, but the greater good was achieved in the end.

[Humberstone]

Has Ms. Uchida and her classmates had the opportunity to read the accounts of American, Australian, British and Dutch PoW's who witnessed and survived the extreme vile behavior of Japanese military to captured prisoners of war and civilians in occupied territory?

Has she read "The rape of Nanking" or researched other accounts of Japanese military behavior towards the Chinese just before WW11?

Has she been taught how Japan attacked Pearl Harbor before declaring war on America?

This victim culture only seems to extend to those who lost the war whilst ignoring their evil imperialist excessive war crimes. Never yet heard any Japanese official or student acknowledge let alone apologies for them.

Japan has made multiple apologies for its actions on WWII and has also paid reparations. The problem is some modern Japanese politicians are trying to get those earlier apologies retracted. Also, the countries they have apologized to have often felt that the language used by the Japanese didn't go far enough.

[Jingthing]

It was a historically great speech. President Obama, one of the greatest American presidents ever, in peak form. I'm so proud of him today and proud to be American as well. I'm sure people of good will, people who love peace, all over the world also approve of the gesture to visit and also the speech.

It

Was

NOT

An
Apology.

[Scotwight]

I think it is pointless going through the usual tit for tat comments saying how both sides behaved atrociously - you just need to ask yourself are you in favour of war or not - all bombs kill and maime - the atom bomb was just bigger and killed more

War mongerers are either psychologically damaged or profiteerers or religious fanatics - collectively evil and sick

JGV

I don't understand what you are saying. My family were peaceful farmers and another country came and dragged off the women and children and burned them alive, and destroyed our home and fields. Don't you think someone should try and stop those kinds of acts? Or would that be evil?

[Boon Mee]

And where is Donald Trump today with his nuclear brain that is short numerous electrons and neutrons....

Sewing up the Republican delegates as opposed to Old News, eh?

[halloween]

"...Obama would not revisit the decision to drop the bombs."

I would have bet the house, the wife and kids, and my last granny, on that happening.

Edited May 27, 2016 by halloween

[JGV]

Scotwight Innocent victims are in abundance in every conflict and of course this is terrible but I am not clear who carried out this - murderous men, a politically motivated violent group, a government - my comment was about the notion of war and if that justifies mass slaughter

In my opinion it is a symptom of nationalism and xenephobia and that is the problem so as an internationalist i am against war

I don't see other mammals acquiring land just for the sake of it and indiscriminately slaughtering species just because they want to

[halloween]

Scotwight Innocent victims are in abundance in every conflict and of course this is terrible but I am not clear who carried out this - murderous men, a politically motivated violent group, a government - my comment was about the notion of war and if that justifies mass slaughter

In my opinion it is a symptom of nationalism and xenephobia and that is the problem so as an internationalist i am against war

I don't see other mammals acquiring land just for the sake of it and indiscriminately slaughtering species just because they want to

Most rational beings hate war. So what would an "internationalist", what ever that is, deem a fitting response to Saddam invading Kuwait, for example?

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

Edited May 28, 2016 by halloween

[lifeincnx]

This farewell apology tour almost over we hope?

I take it you did not actually listen to President Obama's speech. If you had, you would know Obama did not apologize and he made very clear that Japan, despite a highly advanced culture, was to blame for the war, which “grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes.”

Unlike Breitbart or other hogwash sites harping on the tired old apology angle tripe, this New York Times article links to President Obama's speech, so one can hear what he actually said - far from any apology.

http://www.nytimes.com/.../asia/obama-hiroshima-japan.html

Your old avatar was really quite appropriate. Trump would have captioned it, "just more Lyin’ Ted [Cruz]".

Edited May 29, 2016 by lifeincnx

[sirineou]

A war crime, pure and simple. You cannot intentionally drop bombs to kill civilians.

No civilians in Pearl Harbour area then?

Though there are always some civilians on or near military installations, Perl Harbor was clearly a military installation.

If it was a crime to attack military installations because there are might be civilians there..............

[arjunadawn]

This farewell apology tour almost over we hope?

I take it you did not actually listen to President Obama's speech. If you had, you would know Obama did not apologize and he made very clear that Japan, despite a highly advanced culture, was to blame for the war, which grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes.

Unlike Breitbart or other hogwash sites harping on the tired old apology angle tripe, this New York Times article links to President Obama's speech, so one can hear what he actually said - far from any apology.

http://www.nytimes.com/.../asia/obama-hiroshima-japan.html

Your old avatar was really quite appropriate. Trump would have captioned it, "just more Lyin Ted [Cruz]".

The context: the Hiroshima bombing, then calling for a moral world, explicitly states the Hiroshima bombing was immoral. This is a simple grade school train of premise/context, inference/deduction, conclusion.

The book signing and genuflection combined, plus calls for a moral world, make apology. This is how Obama threads the needle in symbol. Humanity is a chain of symbols. If Obamaphiles really don't see the apology this explains how he was elected twice. Of course he apologized.

[Scotwight]

A war crime, pure and simple. You cannot intentionally drop bombs to kill civilians.

No civilians in Pearl Harbour area then?

Though there are always some civilians on or near military installations, Perl Harbor was clearly a military installation.

If it was a crime to attack military installations because there are might be civilians there..............

3 years before Pearl Harbor the Japanese killed 300,000 civilians in the city of Nanjing by sword and bullets and clubs. China was an ally of America during WWII.

[sirineou]

This farewell apology tour almost over we hope?

I take it you did not actually listen to President Obama's speech. If you had, you would know Obama did not apologize and he made very clear that Japan, despite a highly advanced culture, was to blame for the war, which grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes.

Unlike Breitbart or other hogwash sites harping on the tired old apology angle tripe, this New York Times article links to President Obama's speech, so one can hear what he actually said - far from any apology.

http://www.nytimes.com/.../asia/obama-hiroshima-japan.html

Your old avatar was really quite appropriate. Trump would have captioned it, "just more Lyin Ted [Cruz]".

The context: the Hiroshima bombing, then calling for a moral world, explicitly states the Hiroshima bombing was immoral. This is a simple grade school train of premise/context, inference/deduction, conclusion.

The book signing and genuflection combined, plus calls for a moral world, make apology. This is how Obama threads the needle in symbol. Humanity is a chain of symbols. If Obamaphiles really don't see the apology this explains how he was elected twice. Of course he apologized.

Hi Arjunadawn,

Doing well, hope you are doing well also

I think you are confusing regret with an apology

one can feel bad for being forced to act in a particular way , articulate that regret and propose that all parties evolved work in preventing same thing from happening again with out apologizing for said action .

Leaving the politics of the original action out, as they are arguable.

If indeed the bombing of Hiroshima was an act against humanity, as I think it was, then this act was also against the US as last I check Americans are human,

One could say that an act against humanity diminishes all humans.

So the question is, if he implicitly apologized as you concluded , what did he apologized for?

[arjunadawn]

This farewell apology tour almost over we hope?

I take it you did not actually listen to President Obama's speech. If you had, you would know Obama did not apologize and he made very clear that Japan, despite a highly advanced culture, was to blame for the war, which grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes.

Unlike Breitbart or other hogwash sites harping on the tired old apology angle tripe, this New York Times article links to President Obama's speech, so one can hear what he actually said - far from any apology.

http://www.nytimes.com/.../asia/obama-hiroshima-japan.html

Your old avatar was really quite appropriate. Trump would have captioned it, "just more Lyin Ted [Cruz]".

The context: the Hiroshima bombing, then calling for a moral world, explicitly states the Hiroshima bombing was immoral. This is a simple grade school train of premise/context, inference/deduction, conclusion.

The book signing and genuflection combined, plus calls for a moral world, make apology. This is how Obama threads the needle in symbol. Humanity is a chain of symbols. If Obamaphiles really don't see the apology this explains how he was elected twice. Of course he apologized.

Hi Arjunadawn,

Doing well, hope you are doing well also

I think you are confusing regret with an apology

one can feel bad for being forced to act in a particular way , articulate that regret and propose that all parties evolved work in preventing same thing from happening again with out apologizing for said action .

Leaving the politics of the original action out, as they are arguable.

If indeed the bombing of Hiroshima was an act against humanity, as I think it was, then this act was also against the US as last I check Americans are human,

One could say that an act against humanity diminishes all humans.

So the question is, if he implicitly apologized as you concluded , what did he apologized for?

It's possible I am conflating the two and my disdain for all things Obama clouds my observation.

I am not convinced we ever needed to drop the bomb. I am in a small group of those who think it's use was at best debatable. I am well aware of the arguments for its use. I am also well aware of the lives lost or potentially saved. I know this better than most. Yet, it's dishonest and unwise to rationalize Obama's behavior because a paredolia of sorts makes his behavior seem familiar to me because I think the bomb might not have been needed also. Obama' act is not familiar. He is unfamiliar.

although he and I may share mutual abhorrence at the use of the bomb we have no common ground in how this act translates into stewardship. The suggestion regarding evolving morality singularly pivots on ground zero-Hiroshima, not the chain of Japanese barbarities leading up to the bombs use. It's just further self loathing. If horror could be quantified and morality assigned or not, I see no reason why an atomic bomb has any more moral vacancy then the years of Japanese rape, genocide, and mayhem from Nanjing to Burma. This was absent. Thus any comment on morality is necessarily endorsement. There's no misunderstanding.

2016- In a world of Obama/Progressive policies increasingly used to isolate, victimize, stigmatize, and corrupt the blood of posterity, Obama genuflecting for this act without the deplorable context of the Japanese genocide upon planet earth, is just one more car in his apology train. Destination- Debase America.

[sirineou]

The context: the Hiroshima bombing, then calling for a moral world, explicitly states the Hiroshima bombing was immoral. This is a simple grade school train of premise/context, inference/deduction, conclusion.

The book signing and genuflection combined, plus calls for a moral world, make apology. This is how Obama threads the needle in symbol. Humanity is a chain of symbols. If Obamaphiles really don't see the apology this explains how he was elected twice. Of course he apologized.

Hi Arjunadawn,

Doing well, hope you are doing well also

I think you are confusing regret with an apology

one can feel bad for being forced to act in a particular way , articulate that regret and propose that all parties evolved work in preventing same thing from happening again with out apologizing for said action .

Leaving the politics of the original action out, as they are arguable.

If indeed the bombing of Hiroshima was an act against humanity, as I think it was, then this act was also against the US as last I check Americans are human,

One could say that an act against humanity diminishes all humans.

So the question is, if he implicitly apologized as you concluded , what did he apologized for?

It's possible I am conflating the two and my disdain for all things Obama clouds my observation.

I am not convinced we ever needed to drop the bomb. I am in a small group of those who think it's use was at best debatable. I am well aware of the arguments for its use. I am also well aware of the lives lost or potentially saved. I know this better than most. Yet, it's dishonest and unwise to rationalize Obama's behavior because a paredolia of sorts makes his behavior seem familiar to me because I think the bomb might not have been needed also. Obama' act is not familiar. He is unfamiliar.

although he and I may share mutual abhorrence at the use of the bomb we have no common ground in how this act translates into stewardship. The suggestion regarding evolving morality singularly pivots on ground zero-Hiroshima, not the chain of Japanese barbarities leading up to the bombs use. It's just further self loathing. If horror could be quantified and morality assigned or not, I see no reason why an atomic bomb has any more moral vacancy then the years of Japanese rape, genocide, and mayhem from Nanjing to Burma. This was absent. Thus any comment on morality is necessarily endorsement. There's no misunderstanding.

2016- In a world of Obama/Progressive policies increasingly used to isolate, victimize, stigmatize, and corrupt the blood of posterity, Obama genuflecting for this act without the deplorable context of the Japanese genocide upon planet earth, is just one more car in his apology train. Destination- Debase America.

As you said,the need to drop the bomb is highly debatable but there is no one who argues that we dropped the bomb to punish the Japanese for their war crimes, and as such was justifiable.

So linking the two would not be apropos.

There is no argument that the Japanese behavior during the war was abhorrent, the Japanese have apologized.

so we both seem to agree that dropping the bomb was unnecessary for the stated goals and had different motivations

The Japanese have apologized, but we have not

So I am confused , are you mad at Obama for implicitly apologizing, for not apologizing

or are you just mad at Obama

[media]

[media]

[arjunadawn]

The context: the Hiroshima bombing, then calling for a moral world, explicitly states the Hiroshima bombing was immoral. This is a simple grade school train of premise/context, inference/deduction, conclusion.

The book signing and genuflection combined, plus calls for a moral world, make apology. This is how Obama threads the needle in symbol. Humanity is a chain of symbols. If Obamaphiles really don't see the apology this explains how he was elected twice. Of course he apologized.

Hi Arjunadawn,

Doing well, hope you are doing well also

I think you are confusing regret with an apology

one can feel bad for being forced to act in a particular way , articulate that regret and propose that all parties evolved work in preventing same thing from happening again with out apologizing for said action .

Leaving the politics of the original action out, as they are arguable.

If indeed the bombing of Hiroshima was an act against humanity, as I think it was, then this act was also against the US as last I check Americans are human,

One could say that an act against humanity diminishes all humans.

So the question is, if he implicitly apologized as you concluded , what did he apologized for?

It's possible I am conflating the two and my disdain for all things Obama clouds my observation.

I am not convinced we ever needed to drop the bomb. I am in a small group of those who think it's use was at best debatable. I am well aware of the arguments for its use. I am also well aware of the lives lost or potentially saved. I know this better than most. Yet, it's dishonest and unwise to rationalize Obama's behavior because a paredolia of sorts makes his behavior seem familiar to me because I think the bomb might not have been needed also. Obama' act is not familiar. He is unfamiliar.

although he and I may share mutual abhorrence at the use of the bomb we have no common ground in how this act translates into stewardship. The suggestion regarding evolving morality singularly pivots on ground zero-Hiroshima, not the chain of Japanese barbarities leading up to the bombs use. It's just further self loathing. If horror could be quantified and morality assigned or not, I see no reason why an atomic bomb has any more moral vacancy then the years of Japanese rape, genocide, and mayhem from Nanjing to Burma. This was absent. Thus any comment on morality is necessarily endorsement. There's no misunderstanding.

2016- In a world of Obama/Progressive policies increasingly used to isolate, victimize, stigmatize, and corrupt the blood of posterity, Obama genuflecting for this act without the deplorable context of the Japanese genocide upon planet earth, is just one more car in his apology train. Destination- Debase America.

As you said,the need to drop the bomb is highly debatable but there is no one who argues that we dropped the bomb to punish the Japanese for their war crimes, and as such was justifiable.

So linking the two would not be apropos.

There is no argument that the Japanese behavior during the war was abhorrent, the Japanese have apologized.

so we both seem to agree that dropping the bomb was unnecessary for the stated goals and had different motivations

The Japanese have apologized, but we have not

So I am confused , are you mad at Obama for implicitly apologizing, for not apologizing

or are you just mad at Obama

[media][media]

I am literally laughing hard. Thx you. Yea. I guess it seems convoluted.

I'm not mad, nor surprised. Obama rises every day with the sole intention to debase the West. As absurd it as as I think this it's equally absurd to protest it. Neither know- so, look to his works. Obama disdains America. He should not have apologized. I think it was wrong to drop the bomb but I would not have apologized without context, not in Hiroshima. Doing so isolates all the factors that led to the bomb to only the bomb. Deploring immorality can only mean apology, self indictment.

Moral in this regard is absolutely relative to the amorality visited on the wired preceding the drop. Have a debate, air it out, diplomatically work it out so a joint speech by both leaders equally deplores all aspects... But this? This is apology. It's not worthy of an emotion of mad. It's not even a surprise.