Obama's Hiroshima visit stirs differing views across Pacific

[Scotwight]

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

I don't know anyone who thinks the USA dropped the atom bomb to punish the Japanese. What an odd idea! The USA dropped the bomb to shorten the war and prevent the loss of life on both sides that an invasion would have caused.

America dropped two bombs and Japan and 5 days later Japan surrendered. There is no reputable history text of the war an any reputable university that teaches America dropped the bomb for any other reason than ending the war.

[sirineou]

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

I don't know anyone who thinks the USA dropped the atom bomb to punish the Japanese. What an odd idea! The USA dropped the bomb to shorten the war and prevent the loss of life on both sides that an invasion would have caused.

America dropped two bombs and Japan and 5 days later Japan surrendered. There is no reputable history text of the war an any reputable university that teaches America dropped the bomb for any other reason than ending the war.

You misunderstood my post. I also make the same point.

But we also did not do it to shorten the war. This Thread is about Obama's visit to Hiroshima and not about the controversy concerning the use of atomic weapons in Hiroshima and later on Nagasaki , so I will not get in to it if you are interested

read the following link, it offers quotes from some of the major players and no opinion.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-it-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192

[Scotwight]

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

I don't know anyone who thinks the USA dropped the atom bomb to punish the Japanese. What an odd idea! The USA dropped the bomb to shorten the war and prevent the loss of life on both sides that an invasion would have caused.

America dropped two bombs and Japan and 5 days later Japan surrendered. There is no reputable history text of the war an any reputable university that teaches America dropped the bomb for any other reason than ending the war.

You misunderstood my post. I also make the same point.

But we also did not do it to shorten the war. This Thread is about Obama's visit to Hiroshima and not about the controversy concerning the use of atomic weapons in Hiroshima and later on Nagasaki , so I will not get in to it if you are interested

read the following link, it offers quotes from some of the major players and no opinion.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-it-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192

One man made the decision, Harry Truman and here is what he said about it at the time.

I have no qualms about it whatever for the simple reason that it was believed that the dropping of not more than two of these bombs would bring the war to a close. The Japanese in their conduct of the war had been vicious and cruel savages and I came to the conclusion that if two hundred and fifty thousand young Americans could be saved from slaughter the bomb should be dropped, and it was … he cities on which the bombs were dropped were devoted almost exclusively to the manufacture of ammunition and weapons of destruction.

http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/aug-9-1945-u-s-drops-atomic-bomb-on-nagasaki-japan/?_r=0

[chuckd]

Truman was right and Obama was wrong. He never should have gone to Hiroshima.

[ilostmypassword]

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.

First off, explicit means clearly and openly laid you If you have to use a chain of inferences then it's implicit, not explicit. And your evaluation of his speech is so fuzzy because it has to be. If it were an honest evaluation, you couldn't have come to the conclusion you did.

[ilostmypassword]

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.

So Obama agreeing to end the arms trade embargo with Vietnam was just one more way to debase the West? The only way I could construe that to be the case if you think it's a bad thing that he got the Chinese angry about this. Really, every time the name Obama comes up, you seem to regurgitate the same tired slurs and just sloppy association of ideas. Data is conspicuously lacking. If there were such a thing, I would nominate you for the Pavlov award for 2016. In fact, if there were such a thing, I suspect you could retire the crown.

[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.

First off, explicit means clearly and openly laid you If you have to use a chain of inferences then it's implicit, not explicit. And your evaluation of his speech is so fuzzy because it has to be. If it were an honest evaluation, you couldn't have come to the conclusion you did.

I can be circuitous, wrong, confused, but I am not dishonest.

Predictive text apparently changed implicit to explicit at 'reply.' In any event, a poster inferring either is not dishonest. It's often said a liar is among the first to presume another is. While analogy, I think it's instructive here.

My position is so commonplace the 'issue' of Obama's act at Hiroshima is an OP, not me; yet my evaluation is not honest? and by extension everyone else who has "differing views across the Pacific."

The appeal to the fallacy of authority renders your entire post intellectually inferior (Read-Drivel)-- because I do not agree with you I did not appreciate the facts, am therefore wrong, and necessarily dishonest. How ironic you'd induct another for dishonesty. This post is really a keeper filed under "foolish self betrayals." Fallacious Logic 101

[sirineou]

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

I don't know anyone who thinks the USA dropped the atom bomb to punish the Japanese. What an odd idea! The USA dropped the bomb to shorten the war and prevent the loss of life on both sides that an invasion would have caused.

America dropped two bombs and Japan and 5 days later Japan surrendered. There is no reputable history text of the war an any reputable university that teaches America dropped the bomb for any other reason than ending the war.

You misunderstood my post. I also make the same point.

But we also did not do it to shorten the war. This Thread is about Obama's visit to Hiroshima and not about the controversy concerning the use of atomic weapons in Hiroshima and later on Nagasaki , so I will not get in to it if you are interested

read the following link, it offers quotes from some of the major players and no opinion.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-it-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192

One man made the decision, Harry Truman and here is what he said about it at the time.

I have no qualms about it whatever for the simple reason that it was believed that the dropping of not more than two of these bombs would bring the war to a close. The Japanese in their conduct of the war had been vicious and cruel savages and I came to the conclusion that if two hundred and fifty thousand young Americans could be saved from slaughter the bomb should be dropped, and it was … he cities on which the bombs were dropped were devoted almost exclusively to the manufacture of ammunition and weapons of destruction.

http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/aug-9-1945-u-s-drops-atomic-bomb-on-nagasaki-japan/?_r=0

No Doubt he said that.

[arjunadawn]

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.

So Obama agreeing to end the arms trade embargo with Vietnam was just one more way to debase the West? The only way I could construe that to be the case if you think it's a bad thing that he got the Chinese angry about this. Really, every time the name Obama comes up, you seem to regurgitate the same tired slurs and just sloppy association of ideas. Data is conspicuously lacking. If there were such a thing, I would nominate you for the Pavlov award for 2016. In fact, if there were such a thing, I suspect you could retire the crown.

You have noted in in a previous post and you are correct. I detest Obama and see all his actions through this lens. I admit I must be guarded if I want to have intelligent observations and not be blinded by distaste. I try. I really do, and perhaps I sometimes miss a target because of this. But I do try to be objective.

Yet the template in which Obama operates, as evidenced by the paradigm he has established through his actions, leaves little wiggle room for other interpretation. Obama generally pursues that action which is either antithetical to traditional notions of "America," or self serving. (Contrasted with his genuinely funny charm it's unnerving).

I'm pretty sure I commented in the Vietnam OP that I applaud Obama's move. Yet even there I'm still troubled that it's intimately related to TPP, which I abhor. From a purely political POV, the Vietnam move is smart and timely.

I am not the OP; again. Perhaps you should take deep breathes before your emotive diatribes against TV members. They are not the OP. Once again, your post best defines not the ad hominem attack on me rather the poster. There are fewer ways a poster tells us more of themself then By their attack on others. We appreciate the projection but please stick to the OP.

[Publicus]

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.

President Obama is a loyal American who is faithful to the Constitution. For one thing, Barack Obama does not refer to other Americans as traitors or as Americans in name only, i.e. as Americans who are consciously and willfully determined to debase or to destroy America or the West. (Snowden and his like duly excepted.)

Japan is an island country ally off the continent of Asia, equivalent in significant ways to the US island country ally UK off the continent of Europe. Japan remains in the most strategic position globally in this century and going forward.

The decision by President Truman to use the bomb was a wartime strategic decision which closed out the worst war in history. It properly is taken as an illustration going forward of nuclear weapons -- and it is a lesson that people such as Donald Trump the ignoramus are incapable of learning or recognising. To include the Trump fanboyz who suffer from their own intellectual deficiencies and cultural deficits.

President Obama in Hiroshima neither apoligised nor did he seek to justify or to praise the use of the bomb. The use of the bomb in 1945 speaks for itself. President Obama speaks for 21st century America which is built on the achievements and accomplishments of 20th century America (and all that came before it).

Pres. Obama in Hiroshima neither said we shouldn't have done it nor did he say we're going to do it again so just hide and watch us for when we do use it again. President Obama was in short presidential in the same ways Harry Truman had been presidential.

The crackpot right who have always maintained President Barack Obama debases and willfully and consciously seeks to demean the United States, or that he seeks to destroy it, are simply madmen who are duly recognised as off the deep end and irretrievably so.

They remind us of the culturally deficient followers of the lunatic leaders of Japan and Germany during the insane interlude between the two great world wars of the 20th century.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Publicus

[JGV]

Some contributors make comment asking questions and seeking solutions to actions that are clearly atrocities

My own views about the merits of war and being an internationalist - meaning i am not in the business of acquiring territory to feed nationalism is a view. Solutions to demegogues regrettably I don't have and others can chastise me for this but the alternative of bloody conflict to prove that one is right seems to have obvious flaws and is also subjective