John Kerry Makes Historic Visit To Hiroshima Memorial

[radcen]

Are you saying that you really don't see the significance of a high ranking US government official visiting a memorial dedicated to the most destructive man made events in history, which was instigated by the US government?

I think he was commenting on how the "historic" tag has become overused to the point that it doesn't mean anything anymore even when it should be legit.

 

[radcen]

Unfortunately with politics these days, someone taking a dump in a White House bathroom ends up "historic."

Talking about historic "dumps"... yesterday...

...never mind.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Are you saying that you really don't see the significance of a high ranking US government official visiting a memorial dedicated to the most destructive man made events in history, which was instigated by the US government?

Significance yes, which was the spirit of the earlier post. "Historic?"... no.

 

[Slyfox696]

I think he was commenting on how the "historic" tag has become overused to the point that it doesn't mean anything anymore even when it should be legit.

I understand that and don't necessarily disagree. But this is a big deal.

Significance yes, which was the spirit of the earlier post. "Historic?"... no.

We'll just have to disagree then. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan forever changed the world. It resulted in nearly a quarter of a million Japanese lives lost (probably more) and essentially ended the largest scale war in history. We dropped those two bombs on Japan, we were responsible for the destruction and massive loss of life...for a Secretary of State to visit an official memorial for that act, I consider that to be very important.

Will it alter the course of history? Probably not and I'm guessing that's roughly your standard of historic (which is understandable). But I don't think historic has to change the world. I think the fact the Secretary of State is visiting a memorial to the most terrible acts of war to ever be unleashed, to come face to face with the reality of those actions decades ago, is historic.

 

[OrphanSlug]

We'll just have to disagree then. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan forever changed the world. It resulted in nearly a quarter of a million Japanese lives lost (probably more) and essentially ended the largest scale war in history. We dropped those two bombs on Japan, we were responsible for the destruction and massive loss of life...for a Secretary of State to visit an official memorial for that act, I consider that to be very important.

Will it alter the course of history? Probably not and I'm guessing that's roughly your standard of historic (which is understandable). But I don't think historic has to change the world. I think the fact the Secretary of State is visiting a memorial to the most terrible acts of war to ever be unleashed, to come face to face with the reality of those actions decades ago, is historic.

We might have some room for agreement, your assumption of weight on the history of this matter has merit.

Where we are with Japan today vs. several years before WWII is monumental no doubt, even if there is plenty of room for continued improvement. Namely our continued military occupation of Japan, even though we claim today it has more strategic value than WWII reason (for both sides.)

Historic to me means some act, some resolution or agreement, that suggests a real change in the course of our national relationship with Japan. I am not saying that Kerry visiting the Hiroshima memorial is meaningless, I just do not agree with historic. That concern is amplified by the number of times we call an event of significance historic, and in some ways we have politics here at home to blame for someone using that label.

But, I do appreciate your comments and take on this.

 

[American]

Along just one front, they had 3700 aircraft, 80 subs and numerous other naval support. Could ally tanks have swum across to normandy? No, it's the same concept. They had 1.5 million ground troops which is far beyond the ability of japan to defend. Again this was just their northern front

They conquered manchuria in short order, in fact in between the two atomic bombs. The soviets then landed and captured the kuril islands attached to japan's main land, which remain in their control. Only then did japan surrender, a full month after the bombs

Stalin was never impressed by the bombs, which did very little damage to japan militarily. It did not impress much of japan's own high command either, as they attempted a coup on the emperor to prevent a surrender

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

You're talking myths.

 

[yankintx]

I have no problem with the visit, or any future visit by an American President, so long as we never apologize.

No one even mentioned apologize except you. Its called reconciliation, and moving forward while remembering the past.

 

[radcen]

No one even mentioned apologize except you. Its called reconciliation, and moving forward while remembering the past.

Given our government's recent history, it's not an irrational fear that they might apologize.

 

[yankintx]

Given our government's recent history, it's not an irrational fear that they might apologize.

I doubt very much that will happen, and to dwell on it is a waste of time.

 

[radcen]

I doubt very much that will happen, and to dwell on it is a waste of time.

I don't necessarily agree. I believe that, in a general context, people being aware and outspoken about stuff even seemingly insignificant helps keep them honest.

 

[yankintx]

I don't necessarily agree. I believe that, in a general context, people being aware and outspoken about stuff even seemingly insignificant helps keep them honest.

Why is it neo cons are obsessed with the Obama administration and the myth they like to perpetuate that the administration goes around apologizing for our countries past discretion's?

 

[Tigerace117]

Why is it neo cons are obsessed with the Obama administration and the myth they like to perpetuate that the administration goes around apologizing for our countries past discretion's?

The decision to drop the atomic bomb isn't one which should be apologized for. The alternative would have killed far more people.

 

[radcen]

Why is it neo cons are obsessed with the Obama administration and the myth they like to perpetuate that the administration goes around apologizing for our countries past discretion's?

Two things...

1) Where do you get the idea that I'm a "neo con" and/or obsessed with Obama? Is your "undisclosed" lean a shield for uber-liberal? That's the only logical conclusion that can come from your post here.

2) Maybe people more objective and less emotionally biased remember that we seem to apologize and give in a lot... and that it goes back at least a couple decades. Including Obama, but not exclusively Obama. Note that I specifically said "government".

 

[yankintx]

Two things...

1) Where do you get the idea that I'm a "neo con" and/or obsessed with Obama? Is your "undisclosed" lean a shield for uber-liberal? That's the only logical conclusion that can come from your post here.

2) Maybe people more objective and less emotionally biased remember that we seem to apologize and give in a lot... and that it goes back at least a couple decades. Including Obama, but not exclusively Obama. Note that I specifically said "government".

I never claimed you were a neo con, and my political leanings are non of your concern

I simply asked a question

 

[Sherman123]

I never claimed you were a neo con, and my political leanings are non of your concern

I simply asked a question

Then why raise the 'neocon' issue at all?

 

[yankintx]

Then why raise the 'neocon' issue at all?

It's a fair question, which is still unanswered, kinda like the question:

Who was the the last GOP Pres to shrink the government?

Crickets lol

 

[Sherman123]

It's a fair question, which is still unanswered, kinda like the question:

Who was the the last GOP Pres to shrink the government?

Crickets lol

Because it has nothing to do with this topic.

 

[yankintx]

Because it has nothing to do with this topic.

Because you can not answer more like it lol

The rest of is know the answer

 

[Captain America]

I already did. You cut down my posts when replying and responded to the one sentence where I wasn't explaining it.


Truman's decision only seems simple if (1) you only see things in either black or white, and (2) you think Americans are the only real human beings on Earth.

If you don't agree with either, or both, then it is a very bitter decision with no clear right answer

Your point about Americans and their attitude they are the only real humans on Earth that matter is not lost on me. There are countless posters on this very website that show themselves to be of that mindset every hour of every day.

But if it comes down an us or them, their dead or our dead, you can bet your ass that I would do my best to see that it was THEIR dead that would be weighing on my conscience rather than OUR dead.

 

[radcen]

It's a fair question, which is still unanswered, kinda like the question:

Who was the the last GOP Pres to shrink the government?

Crickets lol

First off, I don't believe you when you suggest the question was generic. You made an assumption, got called on it, and are now trying to wiggle out of it.

But for the sake of conversation let's say it was meant to be generic. A better was to convey it would have been to clearly point out that it was generic and not simply throw it in when responding to a specific post as if all of your response was directed to said specific post and poster.

There's my friendly helpful hint for the day. :2wave:

 

[apdst]

I already did. You cut down my posts when replying and responded to the one sentence where I wasn't explaining it.


Truman's decision only seems simple if (1) you only see things in either black or white, and (2) you think Americans are the only real human beings on Earth.

If you don't agree with either, or both, then it is a very bitter decision with no clear right answer

Truman's decision to pop a couple of miles not only saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, but also hundreds of thousands, probably millions of Japanese lives.

There were millions of Japanese civilians organized into suicide units and were literally armed with muzzleloaders and farm tools who were to be the last line of defense.

 

[Fledermaus]

I would say, in terms of atrocity and the sheer brutality of the Pacific Campaign (vastly committed by the Japanese I might add), it is incredible how far both nations have come and this kind of thing is just a small gesture that has at least some weight that is welcomed.

By the way, the Hiroshima Memorial Peace Park is a beautiful place, amazing museum that actually really doesn't take sides, just more explains the effects of the bombing in detail as a warning to future generations.

If you can ever get there, well worth a look.

Well said and agree 1000%

Some have called it life changing.

 

[yankintx]

First off, I don't believe you when you suggest the question was generic. You made an assumption, got called on it, and are now trying to wiggle out of it.

But for the sake of conversation let's say it was meant to be generic. A better was to convey it would have been to clearly point out that it was generic and not simply throw it in when responding to a specific post as if all of your response was directed to said specific post and poster.

There's my friendly helpful hint for the day. :2wave:

I do not need you to make sarcastic suggestions to score some dumb ass points

I have better things to do with my time than sit a computer debating with folks, as you can tell by my low amount of posts, in other words I do no make this forum a career.

Over and out

 

[Fledermaus]

The civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands during their military's campaign?

Well, I didn't know that.

Somehow, I doubt you'd defend the nuking of American cities because of deaths caused by our military in its campaigns....

And that would simply back up my point: there's a valuation of American lives above all other human life on Earth that is going on here, but which people aren't admitting/confronting.

We were firebombing the cities pretty much non stop.

The firebombing of Tokyo may have exceeded either A-bomb targets casualty toll. We were getting pretty efficient in firebombing. Look at Dresden.

But those are mere footnotes to some and completely unknown by many. Why? It took thousands of little bombs instead of one big dirty one.

Seems hundreds of thousands of non-combatants are fine if they burn to death.

 

[apdst]

The civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands during their military's campaign?

Well, I didn't know that.

Somehow, I doubt you'd defend the nuking of American cities because of deaths caused by our military in its campaigns....



And that would simply back up my point: there's a valuation of American lives above all other human life on Earth that is going on here, but which people aren't admitting/confronting.

Did American troops rape and murder 15 million people?