In Memoriam -- Part I ..::Revisited::...
As much as I recognize the necessity of war, I find it nonetheless to be among the worst of human proclivities. Here then is my apology for dropping not one, but two atomic bombs on Japan in the summer of 1945. Admittedly, I know little of Japanese culture; what is appropriate, what is not, so it's likely I may owe yet another apology....
Please use the 'Here's More' link for the full post.
Deflowering the Crysanthemum
She was led to a small stage prepared for just that moment; the moment they would demonstrate to the world the limit of their power over a nation, through one woman-- as though the horrors they had already unleashed were not enough. It was not enough to destroy her cities, ruin her people, her friends and family, now they would mock and shame her. Make of her something she would not otherwise have chosen. But this is the way of the victorious; they delight in examples, believing even their own propaganda; that they are righteous, and more deserving of victory... That their actions are somehow necessary.
But she went willingly. Up three steps of aged and polished wood; probably stolen from a decimated temple. And where had they found the shoji screens? --Their paper windows intact and the purest of whites.
They had made her paint herself in the traditional paints of a geisha, but they were ignorant and so made her paint her entire body. She did not argue... They did not understand. Her hair and pubic mound made a stark contrast to the gleaming white of the paints and she thought... How beautiful. They robed her in a kimono, crimson with yellow dragonflies, and briefly she smiled. They laughed and barked like dogs to one another; their tongues shaped about rough words... Their meaning a mystery.
Chosen from among the victorious were three men, stripped to the waist of their pine-hued shirts, and ringed about the spot where she was to kneel before a gathering of strange pale faces and stranger eyes. She looked out and over their heads to the ghost of a city, its once proud buildings, the temples, the gardens, all gone; blown to ash in the blink of an eye, and scattered upon atomic winds.
How many dead? Thousands? She began to cry-- tears drawing lines down the planes of her face --and then steeled herself... The victorious needed this display; garish and brutal as it was. What did it matter if they performed their little Noh play upon the charred bones of an entire city... An entire nation; once proud, now fallen to earth like cherry blossoms in spring...
But this is summer. The end of summer. She looked to her left and saw an ensemble of taiko drums, drummers all but naked. None would look upon her; they understood her shame, and shared it. A Shakuhachi player stood with flute in hand, his head bent and eyes cast down. His breathing was rhythmic, his kimono dirty. But the flute... Ahh, it was magnificent! She turned to her countrymen and bowed slightly, then turned back to her audience.
They were a strange people; prideful, uncouth, and so utterly ignorant. They shaped the world to their purpose rather than shaping their lives to the world about them. Their cities were ugly, and nothing about their culture held any sense of tradition. They were upstarts... Children. But children with powerful toys. And they’re eyes... So foreign.
A man in uniform-- a general perhaps? --rose from his seat up front and turned to face the gathered. He raised his voice and spoke in his rough tongue. He used his hands expressively, but the tone of his voice was dogmatic and said he held her and her nation in contempt.
"We are the defeated," she softly spoke, and one among those that ringed her whispered brokenly in her tongue.
"Forgive us Hiroshima, forgive us Nagasaki."
Another of the three grunted harshly and the first fell silent.
"It is easy to ask forgiveness when there is no consequence to face." She replied softly. "I will forgive you when the dead do." And though she couldn’t see it she felt him bow his head to her.
The general quickly finished and motioned to the drummers. As one they struck their drums, building swiftly a rhythm to which she could sing. Their bodies soon glistened with the sheen of sweat, and the power of their drumming grew, intent on stirring the victorious. The Shakuhachi player raised his flute and began a mournful dirge in counter to the beat of the drummers, yet his own rhythm matched them. Together they played perfectly, beautifully... But the assembled did not appreciate this, it was clear on their faces; it was alien to them.
She knew the words she was to sing. The song had been written for her, by aliens, and memorized in the long hours between dawn and this very moment, but she would not sing it. They knew little of Japanese, and would not know what she sang.
The man directly behind her undid her deep black hair, removing the long bamboo pins that held it, and she felt its weight as it fell long to her waist. She felt the first tug of the shears at the nape of her neck-- My hair! They are cutting my hair! It had taken years to grow... --and she began to cry once more. And through her tears she saw the child in the first row, a very young girl... What kind of people brings its children to such a spectacle? Barbarians!
The little girls eyes were the lightest shade of blue, and her hair-- in contrast to her own --was a lighter shade of yellow than the chrysanthemum in her tiny hand. She wore a dark blue dress, and her shoes shone bright and new. She stood close to her mother who held her hand.
There was a final tug, then release, and she looked about to see her beautiful black hair lying around her. The men to either side of her barber took hold of the crimson kimono’s collar and drew it open, exposing her breasts. Their hands tugged at the sash and they stripped the fabric entirely from her, letting it drop to the platform to cover her hair. She sat kneeling, hands folded in her lap. She shone like polished bone, entirely covered in the white paint.
Some in the crowd turned their heads, embarrassed to look upon her nakedness, others seemed to gloat, but all held an air of ambivalence. None but the child looked saddened. Then she felt the hands on her, wet with water as they began to make a show of washing her clean. There was symbolism in this of course, the drummers could see it, the Shakuhachi player could see it... And she began to sing.
It was a song to stir souls, had the victorious possessed such... It was a beautiful melody. The song trembled deep in her throat and crashed out over the audience. It was clear none understood her, but they understood the melody... Understood its pain and suffering, and understood in its cry a longing for a way of life now gone. Whether they realized it as such or not, they also understood that with two swift, cowardly blows, they had managed to decimate not just two cities and countless lives, but an ancient culture as well. But again, that is what victors do. They tear down the temples and the shrines and the theaters and the houses and reshape the land to their own liking. What changes will these men bring? What new ideas to supplant the old?
Her song rose and fell as hands washed her. She felt them move over her breasts, her stomach, to her thighs and the dark place between. She could feel their fingers move over her skin, but she could not sense a desire in them, they did not grope or fondle, only wash. Her face her neck, her shoulders, her back. They lifted her arms and she held them out like the very image of their crucified god on its hideous totem. They delight in torture; yet revere the god they killed! It’s not unusual to feel great respect for a vanquished foe, but worship? Never!
If she were in the bathhouse she might have felt desire for these men whose hands touched what no other had, but not here. This was her shame... To be stripped of her mystery; a Noh play devoid of tradition, performed for barbarians. The hands cupped and lifted her breasts, moved under her arms, down her back to her buttocks, and lower. The drummers drummed, the Shakuhachi player played, and she sang as the men shamed her.
When at last their hands left her, she finished her song and looked about her. The stage was washed in white, the pretty kimono ruined, and her hair... The men stood and left the stage, leaving her where she sat, their hands and arms now white. The general rose again to speak many words, none of which she understood. The drummers were led away. The Shakuhachi player followed. And when the general finished, the men who had led her to this place, mounted the stage to help her rise, and led her down the same steps of aged and polished wood, leaving white prints upon their dark surfaces like the footprint of ghosts.
Movement dark and swift caught her eye and she looked to see the child running to her. The girl stopped shyly and looking up into her face, smiled and held out the chrysanthemum. She bowed deeply to the child and took the offered gift.
The girl said something in her beautiful voice; her eyes held sympathy and embarrassment, a genuine sorrow for the painted woman.
"Thank you, little one." She said, bowing deeper. 'I will remember your kindness."
A soldier led the girl back to her mother, who fussed over and scolded her, admonishing her for her bravery. Would the child remember? Will she understand what she has done in years to come?
They did not clothe her, but led her naked back to where they had held her, where they had prepared her for this spectacle. Her escort did not touch her, but directed her with their grunting, and pointing, back and forth in their savage tongue. Soldiers gawked at her, countrymen bowed to her, averting their eyes. She would, of course, commit suicide; her shame was too great. No more parties on the palace lawn, no more plays, no more poetry, no more cherry blossoms in spring. The victors had stolen it all. But she would compose a poem for her death-- though none would ever hear it.
They came at last to the tents that were her prison. They would take her inside and allow her to wash and clothe herself before escorting her back to the palace, but she could not go back now. She could not bear the look of shame in her father’s eyes, or bear to hear her mother weeping. She would be a reminder to them, of their own shame... Better to die, with honor. So she would run! She would find a place untouched by their hideous weapon and perhaps find a shard of glass to cut her wrists, and compose her death poem.
And as if thought were motion she leapt away from her captors and ran, ignoring their shouts. She heard them begin to chase and she ran harder. The sound of their boots fell farther and farther behind. Pain shot up from her feet as rocks and glass cut her soles, but she ignored it. There was only running... The pound of blood in her ears, and the beat of her heart. There was only running, breathing... And the sound of thunder crashing through the sky, thunder so powerful it ripped the breath from her, and threw her hard upon the torn earth.
There was little sound now; only a loud hum over the shouting of men, the feel of their boots shaking through the ground as they neared her... Her own breath, heavy and labored... The beat of her heart, and the hot, wet feel of blood draining from the hole in her chest... They had shot her... Not thunder at all...
Lifting her head she looked over the ground to the ruined city, to ghostly survivors picking through the rubble, and there lay the Chrysanthemum. The world about it seemed colorless, but the flower was a bright dusty yellow, the color of pollen. It layed in her dimming sight a stark contrast to the desolation that framed it, and reaching for it, she pulled the flower to her breasts. Her lips moved with her last breath and shaped the words of a poem.
"What was it she said?" Asked one soldier.
The gunman knelt at her side, brushed a spill of hair from her eyes, and recited,
"...Chrysanthemum pure
Amid fields of wide ruin
Its lovely hair shorn."
ELAshley
Written in one sitting
September 1, 2001
10 days before 9/11
I posted this last year [and the year before as well], and the version you've just read is slightly different-- Some additions, some subtractions, and a lot of changes in punctuation. It would seem Stephen King is right: 'Set your work aside for at least 6 weeks... give it a rest... then come back to it with fresh eyes and edit your work.' This version is better. And since I am the author, and this has never seen publication anywhere but here, I guess I'm free to edit as many times as I wish-- though I suspect a time will come when it will need to be left alone, lest it lose whatever charm it had at its birth.
Please use the 'Here's More' link for the full post.
Deflowering the Crysanthemum
She was led to a small stage prepared for just that moment; the moment they would demonstrate to the world the limit of their power over a nation, through one woman-- as though the horrors they had already unleashed were not enough. It was not enough to destroy her cities, ruin her people, her friends and family, now they would mock and shame her. Make of her something she would not otherwise have chosen. But this is the way of the victorious; they delight in examples, believing even their own propaganda; that they are righteous, and more deserving of victory... That their actions are somehow necessary.
But she went willingly. Up three steps of aged and polished wood; probably stolen from a decimated temple. And where had they found the shoji screens? --Their paper windows intact and the purest of whites.
They had made her paint herself in the traditional paints of a geisha, but they were ignorant and so made her paint her entire body. She did not argue... They did not understand. Her hair and pubic mound made a stark contrast to the gleaming white of the paints and she thought... How beautiful. They robed her in a kimono, crimson with yellow dragonflies, and briefly she smiled. They laughed and barked like dogs to one another; their tongues shaped about rough words... Their meaning a mystery.
Chosen from among the victorious were three men, stripped to the waist of their pine-hued shirts, and ringed about the spot where she was to kneel before a gathering of strange pale faces and stranger eyes. She looked out and over their heads to the ghost of a city, its once proud buildings, the temples, the gardens, all gone; blown to ash in the blink of an eye, and scattered upon atomic winds.
How many dead? Thousands? She began to cry-- tears drawing lines down the planes of her face --and then steeled herself... The victorious needed this display; garish and brutal as it was. What did it matter if they performed their little Noh play upon the charred bones of an entire city... An entire nation; once proud, now fallen to earth like cherry blossoms in spring...
But this is summer. The end of summer. She looked to her left and saw an ensemble of taiko drums, drummers all but naked. None would look upon her; they understood her shame, and shared it. A Shakuhachi player stood with flute in hand, his head bent and eyes cast down. His breathing was rhythmic, his kimono dirty. But the flute... Ahh, it was magnificent! She turned to her countrymen and bowed slightly, then turned back to her audience.
They were a strange people; prideful, uncouth, and so utterly ignorant. They shaped the world to their purpose rather than shaping their lives to the world about them. Their cities were ugly, and nothing about their culture held any sense of tradition. They were upstarts... Children. But children with powerful toys. And they’re eyes... So foreign.
A man in uniform-- a general perhaps? --rose from his seat up front and turned to face the gathered. He raised his voice and spoke in his rough tongue. He used his hands expressively, but the tone of his voice was dogmatic and said he held her and her nation in contempt.
"We are the defeated," she softly spoke, and one among those that ringed her whispered brokenly in her tongue.
"Forgive us Hiroshima, forgive us Nagasaki."
Another of the three grunted harshly and the first fell silent.
"It is easy to ask forgiveness when there is no consequence to face." She replied softly. "I will forgive you when the dead do." And though she couldn’t see it she felt him bow his head to her.
The general quickly finished and motioned to the drummers. As one they struck their drums, building swiftly a rhythm to which she could sing. Their bodies soon glistened with the sheen of sweat, and the power of their drumming grew, intent on stirring the victorious. The Shakuhachi player raised his flute and began a mournful dirge in counter to the beat of the drummers, yet his own rhythm matched them. Together they played perfectly, beautifully... But the assembled did not appreciate this, it was clear on their faces; it was alien to them.
She knew the words she was to sing. The song had been written for her, by aliens, and memorized in the long hours between dawn and this very moment, but she would not sing it. They knew little of Japanese, and would not know what she sang.
The man directly behind her undid her deep black hair, removing the long bamboo pins that held it, and she felt its weight as it fell long to her waist. She felt the first tug of the shears at the nape of her neck-- My hair! They are cutting my hair! It had taken years to grow... --and she began to cry once more. And through her tears she saw the child in the first row, a very young girl... What kind of people brings its children to such a spectacle? Barbarians!
The little girls eyes were the lightest shade of blue, and her hair-- in contrast to her own --was a lighter shade of yellow than the chrysanthemum in her tiny hand. She wore a dark blue dress, and her shoes shone bright and new. She stood close to her mother who held her hand.
There was a final tug, then release, and she looked about to see her beautiful black hair lying around her. The men to either side of her barber took hold of the crimson kimono’s collar and drew it open, exposing her breasts. Their hands tugged at the sash and they stripped the fabric entirely from her, letting it drop to the platform to cover her hair. She sat kneeling, hands folded in her lap. She shone like polished bone, entirely covered in the white paint.
Some in the crowd turned their heads, embarrassed to look upon her nakedness, others seemed to gloat, but all held an air of ambivalence. None but the child looked saddened. Then she felt the hands on her, wet with water as they began to make a show of washing her clean. There was symbolism in this of course, the drummers could see it, the Shakuhachi player could see it... And she began to sing.
It was a song to stir souls, had the victorious possessed such... It was a beautiful melody. The song trembled deep in her throat and crashed out over the audience. It was clear none understood her, but they understood the melody... Understood its pain and suffering, and understood in its cry a longing for a way of life now gone. Whether they realized it as such or not, they also understood that with two swift, cowardly blows, they had managed to decimate not just two cities and countless lives, but an ancient culture as well. But again, that is what victors do. They tear down the temples and the shrines and the theaters and the houses and reshape the land to their own liking. What changes will these men bring? What new ideas to supplant the old?
Her song rose and fell as hands washed her. She felt them move over her breasts, her stomach, to her thighs and the dark place between. She could feel their fingers move over her skin, but she could not sense a desire in them, they did not grope or fondle, only wash. Her face her neck, her shoulders, her back. They lifted her arms and she held them out like the very image of their crucified god on its hideous totem. They delight in torture; yet revere the god they killed! It’s not unusual to feel great respect for a vanquished foe, but worship? Never!
If she were in the bathhouse she might have felt desire for these men whose hands touched what no other had, but not here. This was her shame... To be stripped of her mystery; a Noh play devoid of tradition, performed for barbarians. The hands cupped and lifted her breasts, moved under her arms, down her back to her buttocks, and lower. The drummers drummed, the Shakuhachi player played, and she sang as the men shamed her.
When at last their hands left her, she finished her song and looked about her. The stage was washed in white, the pretty kimono ruined, and her hair... The men stood and left the stage, leaving her where she sat, their hands and arms now white. The general rose again to speak many words, none of which she understood. The drummers were led away. The Shakuhachi player followed. And when the general finished, the men who had led her to this place, mounted the stage to help her rise, and led her down the same steps of aged and polished wood, leaving white prints upon their dark surfaces like the footprint of ghosts.
Movement dark and swift caught her eye and she looked to see the child running to her. The girl stopped shyly and looking up into her face, smiled and held out the chrysanthemum. She bowed deeply to the child and took the offered gift.
The girl said something in her beautiful voice; her eyes held sympathy and embarrassment, a genuine sorrow for the painted woman.
"Thank you, little one." She said, bowing deeper. 'I will remember your kindness."
A soldier led the girl back to her mother, who fussed over and scolded her, admonishing her for her bravery. Would the child remember? Will she understand what she has done in years to come?
They did not clothe her, but led her naked back to where they had held her, where they had prepared her for this spectacle. Her escort did not touch her, but directed her with their grunting, and pointing, back and forth in their savage tongue. Soldiers gawked at her, countrymen bowed to her, averting their eyes. She would, of course, commit suicide; her shame was too great. No more parties on the palace lawn, no more plays, no more poetry, no more cherry blossoms in spring. The victors had stolen it all. But she would compose a poem for her death-- though none would ever hear it.
They came at last to the tents that were her prison. They would take her inside and allow her to wash and clothe herself before escorting her back to the palace, but she could not go back now. She could not bear the look of shame in her father’s eyes, or bear to hear her mother weeping. She would be a reminder to them, of their own shame... Better to die, with honor. So she would run! She would find a place untouched by their hideous weapon and perhaps find a shard of glass to cut her wrists, and compose her death poem.
And as if thought were motion she leapt away from her captors and ran, ignoring their shouts. She heard them begin to chase and she ran harder. The sound of their boots fell farther and farther behind. Pain shot up from her feet as rocks and glass cut her soles, but she ignored it. There was only running... The pound of blood in her ears, and the beat of her heart. There was only running, breathing... And the sound of thunder crashing through the sky, thunder so powerful it ripped the breath from her, and threw her hard upon the torn earth.
There was little sound now; only a loud hum over the shouting of men, the feel of their boots shaking through the ground as they neared her... Her own breath, heavy and labored... The beat of her heart, and the hot, wet feel of blood draining from the hole in her chest... They had shot her... Not thunder at all...
Lifting her head she looked over the ground to the ruined city, to ghostly survivors picking through the rubble, and there lay the Chrysanthemum. The world about it seemed colorless, but the flower was a bright dusty yellow, the color of pollen. It layed in her dimming sight a stark contrast to the desolation that framed it, and reaching for it, she pulled the flower to her breasts. Her lips moved with her last breath and shaped the words of a poem.
"What was it she said?" Asked one soldier.
The gunman knelt at her side, brushed a spill of hair from her eyes, and recited,
"...Chrysanthemum pure
Amid fields of wide ruin
Its lovely hair shorn."
ELAshley
Written in one sitting
September 1, 2001
10 days before 9/11
I posted this last year [and the year before as well], and the version you've just read is slightly different-- Some additions, some subtractions, and a lot of changes in punctuation. It would seem Stephen King is right: 'Set your work aside for at least 6 weeks... give it a rest... then come back to it with fresh eyes and edit your work.' This version is better. And since I am the author, and this has never seen publication anywhere but here, I guess I'm free to edit as many times as I wish-- though I suspect a time will come when it will need to be left alone, lest it lose whatever charm it had at its birth.
from the mind of... Eric | 12:01 PM
82 Comments:
Is this based upon anything in particular, or just your own imagination? I don't quite believe I understand your point in posting all this Hiroshima stuff. You place within it your feelings about what is going on in the world now, feelings with which I'm in agreement as nearly as I can tell. But this feeling that we must apologize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem like some neurotic guilt feelings. Why should you possess them? Why should any of us?
First off, I don't believe that the second bombing was done in anywhere near the attitude you've described. There have been debates as to whether either bombing was necessary at all, but I believe the facts are that it was a decision made with the best of intentions. The Japanese were, from what I understand, as close to the fanatics of Muslims we face today as any other group of people could be without actually being identical. Bombing them twice was, as I understand it, meant to leave no doubt about who won, who lost, and whether there was any hope of regrouping by the Japanese.
Hindsight and sixty years has altered the perception of what the times were like. Not being yet born, I make no assumptions about those times. A horrible episode? No argument there. But the deed is done, the genie is indeed out of the bottle and what we do now is of the utmost concern. What will all the world's mayors do if just one nation decides to keep and use their nuclear arsenal? I say we keep ours. We find the real lunatics in the world and make sure they don't have any, ever. As long as the technology exists, they will exist. It's the way it is. Crying over it, making grandiose speeches decrying it, none of that will matter.
As to apologies, I'm sorry they gave us cause.
BTW, I really do like the way you write. Sincerely. You have a real talent.
Marshall, I have to agree with you.
First time I have been puzzled by EL.
I can look back, despite not being alive at the time, and believe that America felt the need to drop not one, but two atomic weapons on two separate Japanese cities. It certainly ended the war in the Pacific, and I can't help but think it made the entire world sit up straight and take notice. What were they thinking, I wonder? Perhaps, 'how do you put THAT back in the bottle!?'
This nation cannot apologize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not because it's the wrong thing to do, but because this nation feels justified by the act of killing 80,000 people, instantaneously, with but a single bomb. We feel no compunction to apologize nationally for what we did on foreign soil, but we're falling all over ourselves to apologize for slavery, even talking of reparations. This is lunacy. Who do we pay reparations to? No one living in this country today was ever a slave-- not in THIS country they weren't!
But we did pay reparations to Japan in the form of rebuilding their society to what it is today. Perhaps that is apology enough for the United States of America, nationally.
Should America apologize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I believe America should. Japan apologizes every year. America has yet to apologize once. How difficult is it to say, "America is sorry that it felt it necessary to use such horrible weapons upon your nation"?
Apparently, it's impossible.
So a national apology is off the table. But what about individual apologies? As an American, I have to believe my nation did what it thought best at the time, if for no other reason than the fact that I wasn't even a twinkle in my late father's eye. I have to rely on history texts and the voice of those who witnessed that day for context, which means I have no personal context of the events. I have to believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary if for no other reason than that they saved lives... on both sides of the battlefield! But you see, we didn't obliterate soldiers on the battlefield. We destroyed more civilians than military with those two atomic bombs.
National apology? How do I judge whether they are warranted, having no personal context for their use in the first place? But as a human, with a very firm grasp on my humanity and the necessary compassion and empathy that MAKES me human... I feel compelled to apologize. Not for my nation, but for myself. I wish they had never been dropped. I wish 150,000 people weren't vaporized in a nuclear flash. I wish the hundreds of thousands that died shortly after and over the years had not suffered first the shock of such hellish weaponry, and the slow death of cancers in the aftermath.
As a man, I chose to demonstrate compassion for the Japanese people, and for me, that includes a personal apology. Not because I am personally responsible or culpable, but because I genuinely feel for what those innocent civilians suffered-- or didn't --in the blindingly white-hot flash of America's righteous[?] indignation.
I was deeply offended by the previous comment... so I 86'd it.
It's difficult to look upon any past action by our country that resulted in any civilian death and not feel badly for those civilians, at least if one has any heart at all. However, that's a bit different than making an apology. An apology indicates culpability, and I don't believe there is any on our part as a nation or as individuals. The apology I offered is about as close as I believe is appropriate. Now it can be said that the civilian population gave us no cause, but when a nation goes to war with the world, as did Japan, at some point the civilians must support the war or its cessation. We have that now in our country, but it's a bit different seeing as how we are not the agressors as was Japan. It can be said that the best way to end a war is to visit so much suffering upon not only the enemy, but it's people, that they insist on giving up. Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the ultimate example of that strategy and it worked. We also know that the best way to have prevented it was for Japan to surrender before they were bombed. Some say they were near doing so. I don't know. I find it hard to believe that we'd nuke anyone who was about to surrender. So I'd have to say that surrender was a possibility, but not one strong enough to risk more American lives.
The point is that the ball is always in the court of the agressor. Japan was the agressor and if there is anyone who should apologize for the devastation of those cities and their people, it is Japan.
I equate an apology from us to Japan, to the notion that the dead in Iraq are our fault and not the fault of the scum we fight there. Some insist that the civilian deaths in Iraq are Bush's fault. Well, they are in the same sense that the deaths of those in Japan are Truman's fault. Neither is true, considering the fact that neither president would have acted without the provocations of the respective enemies.
That being said, I don't want you to think that I believe you're wacky for your feelings regarding the dead of Japan. Like I said, you'd have to be heartless not to feel some empathy for their plight, and I'm with you there. But I stand by my version of an apology, and I mean it in a positive and sympathetic way.
I'm with you 100% on this one, Eric.
We deliberately targeted civilians in the most horrible way possible. That is something that I don't think most Americans have within their value system any more and it is appropriate to apologize and promise Never Again.
(I'm not so sure that the nation any longer feels the nuking of these cities was the Right thing to do. We did back in the day, but the last poll I saw on the topic said that we were about evenly divided on whether or not it was right, with the majority of younger folk thinking it wrong and older folk thinking it right.
I think those who think targeting civilians with nukes can be a morally right thing are dying off.)
And even back in the day, there were many - including prominent Conservatives - who were strongly opposed to and repulsed by the bombing. Some of these include General Dwight Eisenhower, Admiral William Leahy and Herbert Hoover.
Any time Dan agrees with you, it is time to think again. He is so mixed up on so many things that how does one find something to agree with him on?
Dan finds deliberate misdeeds on everything except if a Democrat does it and then he will say it was bad when it can not be politically damaging to his party.
Only deranged people enjoy death and I don't think our ancestors were as bad as some of our species today.
Deeply offended?
You've been hanging out with the Reverend Redneck too long, Eric.
It was a valid point.
I'm surprised at your intolerance, my friend.
Really surprised.
Okay...okay. Do I have to apologize for breathing?
After all...by doing that necessary thing, I am contributing to global-warming, right?
mom2 chose the occasion of me agreeing with a conservative to bash me yet again, saying:
Dan finds deliberate misdeeds on everything except if a Democrat does it and then he will say it was bad when it can not be politically damaging to his party.
1. Truman, who dropped the bomb, was a democrat.
2. I'm criticizing Truman in the strongest terms possible.
3. Therefore, I DO criticize Dems (who aren't "my party" - I'm a Green Party kind of guy) and you are bearing false witness against me... Thou shalt not.
Rock on, Eric!
1. Truman, who dropped the bomb, was a democrat.>
Yes, Dan and I was a Democrat then, but the fact still remains that your criticisms come years after the fact. I still think you wait for a period of time to criticize Dems and jump on Republicans immediately and you do have Green thoughts on a lot of things, but I bet you vote Democrat. Just another excuse for you.
I also want to add:
Cut it out with the false witness stuff and don't start the "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus" either. I've seen enough of that.
Stop bearing false witness and I'll stop pointing out that you have.
1. I have criticized Clinton (MS and MR), Kerry and "the Dems" in general on my blog.
2. By repeating that I only "bash" republicans, you are bearing an easily verifiable (see here or here for proof) false witness against me.
3. Thou shalt not.
As to which party I vote for, while it's none of your business, I can tell you I supported in:
2004: Dem (Kerry - yuck! Only did so this year because I thought Bush's presidency was so bad that I DID have to vote for the lesser of two evils, which I usually avoid)
2000: Green
1996: Green
1992: Independent (Perot! ha!)
1988: Dem, I think
1984: Republican (shudder! Reagan, the Dark Lord) - at least I think. I know I supported him the first few years he was in office, I may have already been turned off by him by '84... my memory, she fails me
mom2:
Oh. Well I see I DID indeed bear false witness against you, Dan. I'm sorry, it wasn't my intent, I just missed those posts, I guess.
Dan:
Oh, don't sweat it, mom2. We all make mistakes. I forgive you.
Peace.
Oh. Well I see I DID indeed bear false witness against you, Dan. I'm sorry, it wasn't my intent, I just missed those posts, I guess.>
What is that all about? Are you pretending to speak for me? I did not post that. When I feel the need to apologize, I am big enough to do it and this is just some more of the kind of thing that (does not) endear you to folks.
Since you are talking to yourself and answering yourself both now, Dan.....You do have a habit of monopolizing sites and topics.
On this matter, I would ignore the opinions of the young of today in favor of the opinions of those who lived through the times. It's easy to sit here in 2007 and cast aspersions upon the judgements of those fighting an imperialist force bent on domination.
But this idea that civilians are always a prohibited target is all well and good if you are not the one to make the decisions in times of war. If conventional fighting doesn't sway the enemy to lay down their arms, an appeal to their people is necessary. Should that appeal fail, what then? Surrender? Kiss my ass. I know the difference between my country fighting for good or ill and thus far in my lifetime, we've been on the side of good, even if that is in the thinnest most general terms. During WWII there was no doubt.
Once again, one can debate whether the nuking was necessary. The guy in charge wasn't willing to take the chance. I cut him all the slack in the world on this. He had the entire free world to think about. Maybe Dan feels fine with surrender or risking more of his own rather than take a chance of hurting the enemy's civilians, but I have no trouble with ramping up our response when all else has failed. But hey, after it's been done, we still have the spineless appeasers like Dan to apologize to our enemies for forcing our hand.
Accommodating evil.
Inviting oppression.
MA said:
"But hey, after it's been done, we still have the spineless appeasers like Dan to apologize to our enemies for forcing our hand."
Yeah, go ahead and call names, that makes your argument all the stronger if you can mischaracterize my opinion and substitute a strawman argument for the real argument.
My argument, as opposed to the mythical one that MA just bore false witness to, is that it is always wrong to target innocent civilians. MA, terrorists and Hitler all disagree with me.
Choose your sides carefully, brother.
MA said:
I would ignore the opinions of the young of today in favor of the opinions of those who lived through the times.
Well, seeing as the old will continue to die off and the young will keep on coming, it will be increasingly difficult to ignore their opinion.
Or, once they're the great majority and you're the dying minority, shall we continue to bow down to your superior wisdom, and democracy be damned?
"Well, seeing as the old will continue to die off and the young will keep on coming, it will be increasingly difficult to ignore their opinion."
I have full confidence that the children you place so much hope in, Danielsan, will grow up into mature conservative adults.
It's only normal.
Hard to put much faith into someone who places the self-serving perception of youth above the experience and wisdom of maturity.
You follow along with your herd, Dan.
I'll stick with those who have clear understanding of what's going on around them.
It amazes me that you can't see the pure folly of your philosophy.
What I find weird is that I have to argue that it is a wrong thing to target civilians with nuclear weapons and that if folk like me or even fine upstanding conservative folk like Eric argue against targeting civilians for nuclear destruction, we're demonized and belittled.
Again, feel free to choose your sides. I'm with those who maintain that targeting civilians for nuclear destruction is not what civilized, moral people do.
I saw pictures on tv a few minutes ago of a young man with one leg gone and parts of hands and arms that had been chopped off. Thank God that in the past we have not lived in that kind of society and if we keep our defenses up, hopefully we never will. However, we may be headed toward that direction with the current crop of unthankful, belligerent, disrespectful ones I see posting on the internet.
A clarification. Daddio said:
have full confidence that the children you place so much hope in, Danielsan, will grow up into mature conservative adults.
In reference to my suggestion that younger folk were opposed to the Bombing more than older folk. When I said "younger folk," I wasn't referring to "children" - teens or even twenty-somethings, but rather, pointing out that those who were alive during the time or close to it (ie, 50-70+ years old) tended to think it right and those younger than that were more likely to think it wrong.
Here's a reference for that stat.
Sometimes, when we've lived through something, we have heard a lifetime's worth of justification. Sometimes, when we look back, it is very obvious that something was wrong that was justified wrongly back in the day.
I think slavery, Jim Crow laws, the disenfranchisement of women and, yes, nuclear terrorism (ie, Hiroshima/Nagasaki) all fall in that category. What is easily justified when we are fearful or dependent upon a moral wrong can be more easily seen for the atrocity it is with time.
"...justified wrongly back in the day. "
So then...how would you justify NOT using the weapon God had put into your hands?
"I'm with those who maintain that targeting civilians for nuclear destruction is not what civilized, moral people do."
And I'll stand with those who clearly understand that there has NEVER been an innocent society destroyed by nuclear weapons.
Japan was guilty.
So was its citizens.
They got the message clearly.
Especially after the second blow!
"...pointing out that those who were alive during the time or close to it (ie, 50-70+ years old) tended to think it right and those younger than that were more likely to think it wrong."
And I was pointing out...that after those youngsters mature...and put their childishness behind them...they would revise their youthful positions.
Unless they never mature.
And just keep smoking pot while listening to Buffalo Springfield LPs.
Ah, but you're failing to realize that some of us got our cranky conservatism out of the way when we were young. And now we are more mature, more faithful, less nutty than we were then (and no one in my extended circle of so-called liberal friends smoke pot).
But that is just another diversion. For, this is not a liberal/conservative issue. This is a moral/immoral issue. More and more folk recognize that it is immoral to bomb civilians. There's a word for that - terrorism.
how would you justify NOT using the weapon God had put into your hands?
God HAS placed a weapon in our hands. It is prayer. It is overcoming evil with good. It is the sword of truth and the girdle of righteousness.
If you're referring to nuclear WMDs, I suspect that they came not from God but a source a bit lower, more cowardly and heinous than God.
Let your fear and loathing go, Brother Daddio. It's a weight that drags you down.
ummm, to be more biblically correct, I should have said sword of truth and the breastplate of righteousness. Fingers got ahead of my brain.
"Ah, but you're failing to realize that some of us got our cranky conservatism out of the way when we were young."
Yeah...you've shared with us your disdain for your upbringing.
"It is overcoming evil with good."
And in some cases...as in the instance of ending the war with Japan...nuclear annihilation IS overcoming evil with good.
But...go ahead and invite oppression.
It makes me laugh, really. The same leftist-minded capitualtors who make the claim that religious zealots on the right are attempting to mold history to fit their worldview are the same leftist "christians" who invite oppression so they can become martyrs.
Funny when you think about it.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord. On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.
-Jesus
"And in some cases...nuclear annihilation [of 200,000 men, women and children] IS overcoming evil with good.
-Daddio
Hey, Toad. I'm not even part of this discusion. But thanks for the press!
"D.Daddio Al-Ozarka said...
Deeply offended? You've been hanging out with the Reverend Redneck too long, Eric."
Toad croaks!
As to the point of these posts:
Again, until and unless we apologize for ALL the innocents who have died at our hands as a nation, the Japan stuff just rides on crocodile tears, in my opinion.
If only sheer numbers can evoke a conscience, it's just guilty feelings, which are different.
Further, for the record: I think these kinds of apologies amount to a real small hill of beans. Why bother. It's not like it's going to change anything about the pastg -- or the present and future.
"Do not repay anyone evil for evil..."
Has anyone suggested that was ever the motivation for a U.S. war?
Besides a wacko, I mean?
"Do not take revenge..."
Who's advocating such a thing?
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."
Hmm...let's see. We defeated Germany. We defeated Japan.
Hmmm...
Those the left has managed to turn into defeats for the US?
Well...we know how well fed and taken care of they are.
Your logic is either tragically flawed or deliberately deceptive, Dan.
You complicate simplicity... disregard common-sense.
But we've established all that in the past.
"...of 200,000 men, women and children]"
And how many more innocent civilains all over Southeast Asia would have been tortured, starved, enslaved, and ultimately slaughtered by the japanese had the war continued for another year or two?
We'll never know.
Because a very large faction of that two-hundred thousand people either worked to supply the murderous regime or were put into harm's way by those who supported that murderous regime were killed in two fantastic explosions that shook the world and ushered in an era of peace like the world has seldom seen.
..::TWO THINGS::..
Dan said:
"What is easily justified when we are fearful or dependent upon a moral wrong can be more easily seen for the atrocity it is with time."
Amen.
Daddio said:
"...two fantastic explosions that shook the world and ushered in an era of peace like the world has seldom seen."
Brother. Look around... WHAT PEACE!!???
Truth be told, the world has seldom SEEN peace!
All of this sickens me! There is no peace!! And there is no GOOD answer to the problems we face today... not the kind of answer that will please all sides...
Radical Islam must be crushed... it is pure unadulterated evil. Japan, circa 1945 was not. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were port cities... much more than military bases or industrial complexes. They were home to hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS. Fishermen. Teachers. Merchants. Students.... CHILDREN!!!
It's one thing to invade a nation with conventional weaponry, and take the land by sheer might of arms and bloodshed-- ON BOTH SIDES! It is quite another to drop two hideously destructive weapons upon civilian population centers from the lofty heights of heaven... above the fray... without the loss of a single American life. Oh, how noble! What honor!!
But Eric. Are you suggesting that we are SUPPOSED to lose American lives when we go to war? The whole point of dropping the bombs was to end the war and to do so without further loss of American lives. Nobility is not a major concern in warfare, only winning the war. Sad, but true. We can take solace in the fact that in general, we've tried to take the high road whenever possible. At least in the 20th century. I can't get too worked up over the losses sustained by the enemy when the enemy is the agressor. By being the agressor they in effect are asking for anihilation. They got their wish in WWII. They were so willing to win that they were sending kamikaze. That's a determination that screams, "Wipe us out!"
The unfortunate thing about the WOT is that there is no specific nation that is the source of our troubles. If there were, their civilian population would also be at risk. It was such during the Cold War. In fact, that risk of having a city bombed is what kept us apart, rather than engaging in war. In other wars since WWII, the idea of using nukes has always been one that has been avoided and always considered an absolute last resort.
If we were the imperialists the left likes to believe we are, we'd definitely be seeing a much larger dissent among our people. (Because it's BS, we don't) If we were the imerialists the left likes to believe and we were, as a majority, supportive of the efforts, then at some point, we'd be at risk because being the agressor country, it would be up to us to turn from our agression or suffer the consequences.
But even more unfortunately for us today, our enemies in the Middle East look forward to a nuclear season as they believe their goofy beliefs will manifest. In today's situation, nuclear warfare is unlikely from us, unless we are totally devasting the entire region in one fell swoop. I doubt there's anyone in this country who doesn't understand the ramifications of such an act. But our enemies, like Iran, and they are an enemy, can't be trusted with nukes and need to be relieved of them and the ability to make more. (Not that they have them yet, but I was getting carried away.)
But go ahead Dan. Apologize. You too Eric. I think it's inappropriate to apologize for protecting one's self in such situations. Particularly since we've done so much for them since the war ended. Only the Japanese are to blame for what happened to them. Not us.
"Brother. Look around... WHAT PEACE!!???"
Refer to my explanation, Eric.
Yes...compared to the bloodiness of the past, it has been an era of peace.
Japan? Peaceful after all these years.
Germany? Peaceful after all these years.
Or..how 'bout N. Korea? Slavery. Misery. Starvation.
Victory in Iraq? Iran? The greater Middle East?
An era of peace and prosperity like the world has never known.
I dooubt the left will allow it to happen, though. The left has too much at stake to allow an American victory.
I wonder...if we took the 75 years prior to WWII and the 75 years following WWII and compared the civilian casualty as well as the military casualty figures which era would be shown to be the bloodiest...and most brutal.
You are allowing your leftist trolls to corrupt your common-sense, Eric. Get a grip.
You should have figured it out by now, El. These leftist faux christians are experts at complicating simple issues with tainted rhetoric.
Don't fall for the revisionism of the left, Eric.
You're worrying me.
Eric, I thought I remembered that Japan was offered an apology on behalf of the United States by the Smithsonian Institute in 1994 or thereabouts so I went in search of the text of it on the internet. I didn't find it. From what I remember, the apology was inscribed on a plaque that had been placed in front of the "Enola Gay" (the plane that dropped the Hiroshima bomb) when it was enshrined in the museum.
Perhaps you would be interested in doing your own research. Here is something about it I did find on the Air Force Association website:
"In 1994, the National Air and Space Museum planned to exhibit the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, as part of a political horror show. A raging controversy ensued when Air Force Magazine and the Air Force Association brought the plans to the notice of the public, the news media, and Congress. In 1995, the museum’s parent organization, the Smithsonian Institution, pulled the plug on the original exhibition and replaced it with a straightforward program that eventually became the most popular exhibition in the museum’s history."
Correction: I should say an apology was originally PLANNED to be inscribed on the plaque, but after several more attempts to find the text of it on the internet, I haven't found it, so maybe it was never actually done before the controversy effectively negated the plans.
I only know that there was a hotly contested controversy when plans were revealed to post an apology to Japan at the exhibit, and the curators agreed to present only the facts of the event and leave their opinions on whether it was right or wrong out of it.
I did find, however, that Japan had over 400,000 prisoners at the time, and they had been ordered to execute ALL of them if The United States stepped one foot on Japan's soil. If that is true, it would appear that it is a fact that more lives were saved by the use of the Bomb than were lost.
I fear that the leftist have beaten up on Eric so badly that they have put a guilt complex on him. He has a good heart and does not want to cause anyone to stumble, but it is not wrong to stand against evil and some that have beat up on him unmercifully on his site, clearly are on the wrong side of some issues that he did stand for.
As the old expression goes, you can't unscramble eggs so if mistakes were made, what is the good that will come from words spoken by those not involved in the deeds.
In discussions like this I always try to imagine the question under different scenarios. Sometimes taking a moral question like this out of context can give a fresh perspective.
A similar situation on a small scale might be: A family with an abusive father and enabling mother. If Social Services determine the family need to be broken up and the father and mother sent to jail. Should the judge apologize to the children for the damage done to their lives?
A inverse situation might be: If you were Japanese and your family survived the bombings would you be comforted by an expression of regret from the official government of the United States?
Taking the worst case scenario to its logical extension gives us the idea that by apologizing America somehow shows weakness which encourages the Japanese people to again take up arms and attempt to dominate the world.
This is sort of the process I take when evaluating moral questions. I can't see a harm that could result from America apologizing to Japan. I can however imagine many goods that could result.
---
Tomorrow I'll write a post talking about nuclear proliferation. Lots of misconceptions and misunderstandings in this thread. Tune in then...I'm sure it'll be a barn-burner.
ben t., You have been one to beat up on Eric terribly. Now you want to use his site to spout your "profound" knowledge. You have decided to put your faith in the wisdom of the world, a lot of good that will do with conditions such as they are right now.
The Serial Conformist?
With friends like these, EL ... with "friends" like these!
"[I] can't see a harm that could result from America apologizing to Japan. I can however imagine many goods that could result."
And that's all I've been trying to say.
"The Serial Conformist?"
I believe what I believe, most of which severely conflicts with most folks who comment here. Now because I express an opinion that my detractors actually agree with I'm 'conforming'?
Careful, Eric - you're just a step or two away from being called a traitor and, shortly after that, your Christianity will be questioned at first and then rejected out of hand... They're on to you.
We heathen communists have to stick together!
You're not funny, Dan. With all the whining you do about people misunderstanding your comments, then you have the nerve to say something like your last comment.
Ya see, it was a joke, mom2. Neither Eric nor I are heathen or communist, so it was a joke about how people call you silly names like that and the humor was in the fact that we are not in those categories.
You see?
Humor. Great stuff. Try it a bit.
And if that doesn't work, consider taking up alcohol or some other relaxant.
[that, too, was a joke, you see...]
That is your stock answer, Dan. How come you have no humor when you think you are misunderstood? No, You were being sarcastically rude.
How come there are trash can (delete) signs after my comments, but not Dan's?
You can delete your own comments, but not others.
I'll pass on speaking with you further for now, mom2, as full of fun as it is.
You are intent on thinking and speaking ill of me and that is your right. Reasoning gets no where with you, nor does humor, nor does kindness, nor does persistence.
If you ever have a question about what I've actually said instead of just rude comments about what you say I mean, I'll be glad to answer your questions. (And, by the way, that would look like this:
"Dan, you said 'a, b, c'... and I was wondering what you mean by that?" or "...and that sounds like you're saying ..., and if so, I disagree because..."
Like that.)
'Til then, peace to you.
For the record, EL, I see and understand your point. It is always a tragedy when innocent people die, but it is a certainty of war.
I suppose the real question here is: Would more lives have been saved as a result of the bombs? Was the detonating of those bombs necessary to bring peace, and prevent further loss of life?
I believe more lives were saved then the bomb took, but how many more? Was it worth it?
Sadly we will never know the answers to those questions this side of heaven.
Does The United States owe an apology to Japan? I would say we owe an apology to those innocents in Japan who lost their lives, who didn't supoort their nation's drive for world domination, but not to the ones who supoorted it.
So, Mark, by that criteria: Do you suppose that the terrorists who think that the US is the Great Satan and a threat to the world and that more lives might ultimately be saved if they could just stop the great Satan, do you think they're in the Right in theory and it just matters whether or not more lives were saved?
That is, if the terrorists who've attacked the US could prove that more lives were ultimately saved by their actions, then their actions on 9/11 would be justified?
That's a sincere question, not a setup.
That's a good question. Mark's position seems to be straight out of the secular humanist -- that is, "situational ethics" -- handbook. Since it bases the rightness or wrongness of an action on the outcome of the action.
And the logical question that comes after that is, IF it is okay to wipe out whole cities IF "more lives will be saved," what criteria will we accept as reasonable for "more lives will be saved"?
In Truman's day, many advisers and political leaders said that it wasn't reasonable to think more lives would be saved by targeting a city of civilians for terrorism (Gen. Eisenhower, Admiral Leahy among them). Others said we would save lives.
Whose judgement will suffice? If Truman says he "thinks" more lives will be saved by targeting civilians for mass slaughter, that's okay. Is it also okay if Hitler says so? If bin Laden? What criteria will we use?
Again, these are all reasonable questions to ask those who support the notion of targeting civilians for terrorism and slaughter. No slam intended, just honest questions.
Dan wrote:
"...targeting a city of civilians for terrorism."
"...targeting civilians for terrorism and slaughter."
Let's leave the word 'Terrorism' out of it; it is a purely modern construct, and however it looks to us in hindsight, use of the word 'Terrorism' in the context of a world war... well, it's meaningless compared to what the War itself wrought upon the face of modern civilization. Couching the Past in modern terms, by modern standards, holds the Past to a standard beyond the Past's ken of reckoning.
Ah now we get to modern day applications of this moral debate. Do the ends justify the means? Do the imagined ends justify the means?
Does an imagined peaceful Middle-east justify the chaos in Iraq now? Does a supposed bomb justify torture?
At what point does a feared or imagined or believed hypothetical future justify moral wrongs to others to avoid said future? And is there even a way to quantify such percentages?
In one book I read a long time ago it explained the need deities might have for mortal followers. It posited that a truly omniscient being would not be able to perceive the future, for by its clear sight the choices and permutations of the future would be in constant flux. And a truly omnipotent being would not even be bound by the graven image of the past. The idea presented in this book is that only a mortal something with a limited span and limited sight and limited power could perceive time as a series of discrete events flowing from one to the next. Such a race proceeding along through the forth dimension (time) as long as deity did not meddle would lay down a path of causality that could reach a perceived definite end point in the fight between chaos and order.
I hope you can understood my rambling explanation. This theory makes sense to me. It places a logical reason for an omnipotent, omniscient being to create humanity. It is one of the reasons I class myself as agnostic, not atheist.
"I believe what I believe, most of which severely conflicts with most folks who comment here. Now because I express an opinion that my detractors actually agree with I'm 'conforming'?"
Conformist by default, perhaps?
Too many nods of agreement with agents of evil. It worries mr for you, EL.
"With friends like these, EL ... with "friends" like these!"
Friends don't let friends drive drunk, pal.
BenT wrote: "In one book I read a long time ago..."
In one book I read a long time ago, by one Michael Moorcock, Jesus was the drooling idiot, mental-defective son of a prostitute named Mary. And the man who traveled back in time to witness the crucifixion felt compelled to take up the role of Messiah and go to the cross for the sake of "History"
...but that one book hardly makes me want to accept its premise as legitimate. You see, Michael Moorcock is a man, albeit a talented writer, but a man nonetheless, and naturally flawed. As is the author of your "once upon a time" book.
Were it not for your references to "gods' needs" I'd suspect you were referring to Frank Herbert's construct, Paul Atreides, who also saw the future as muddied waters because of actions that may or may not be taken in the future.
God, however, is omniscient. Which means he knows all things. 'All' being the operative word here includes the future as well. If a being knows the hairs on your head, knew the length of your life to the the day, hour, and minute, as well as the color of your eyes BEFORE you were born, it's a cinch that he also knows every choice you will ever make. However much He would like you to NOT commit sin, He knows you will... and loves you in spite of it. And since He knows every action you'll you'll ever take, as well as knows and knew the actions of billions of people throughout all of human history, however far back that goes, the waters of the future are as crystal clear as pure spring water. He knows exactly what the future will be, and He knows exactly how it will get there. And He uses this knowledge to affect His own will upon the future, not only of the world, but of each individual within it throughout all of human history.
I thinks it's fine to look at the ideas of other mortal men and think, 'Hmmm, that's really interesting.' But it's quite another to take what these men say and use them as planks in one's own personal philosophical platform. One must be very careful when building such philosophies that one doesn't inadvertently add a noose and a drop-hinged door.
I must take issue with Dan's "sincere" question. It implies that mere perspective makes a difference at all. Truman's decision was based on his beliefs regarding the outcomes between dropping or not dropping the bomb, and it was motivated by his desire to stop the enemy, who by any standard today, were the bad guys. We can only judge these things by OUR perception of right and wrong. Simply put, Hitler, bin Laden, Amin, any of thos guys, doing exactly what we do for the same reasons are still wrong because of what provoked the entire war. They began as scumbags and no matter their sincerity of belief, they are scumbags. Truman's intention were good, as was FDR's in going to war in the first place. They saw an evil and took action. They saw an evil based on OUR perception of good and evil. Thus, for the Taliban or AlQueda or anyone else seeking to fly planes into our buildings and doing so to save more lives is lame, since their original intent is their f'd up religious beliefs telling them to murder. They are still the bad guys.
For our part, I say, YES! our actions are justified if our intentions are pure and for the sake of good. Thus, we bombed the crap our of Japan to end the war, save lives and defeat an enemy bent on world domination. And a brutal enemy at that. It worked. I'm way cool with it. Could it have been done in any other way? Moot issue now, ain't it?
If we torture someone we are convinced has info that will save innocent lives, our actions are NOT immoral, but unfortunately necessary. The action isn't evil, the intention is. It's sorta like "guns don't kill, people do". Here, it's "actions aren't evil, peoples' intentions are". Few want to commit cruel brutality upon any other human being. But if that human being is a cruelly brutal one, we must do whatever necessary to defeat his evil intentions.
Now if anyone (Dan) wants to argue that there's no difference between what we do and what our enemies do, give me a head's up so I can skip what will be a crappy comment.
Oh, one last thing. It goes without saying that we can't know another's heart, thus their true intentions. But I'll take my chances with our leaders against those of some wacked out Islamofascist group any day.
Do I trust Bush more than I trust bin Laden? Certainly.
Does that mean I trust Bush? No way.
You have more confidence in humanity, Marshall, than this so-called liberal.
Still Marshall, your response leaves the question unanswered?
And the logical question that comes after that is, IF it is okay to wipe out whole cities IF "more lives will be saved," what criteria will we accept as reasonable for "more lives will be saved"?
Will we trust Bush to make that call, but not Clinton? Or any US leader but not one of Britain's? Or any western nation, but not Chavez or Iraq's new leader? And what criteria - the "correct" countries can do it if their "intelligence" says it's a good idea?
What criteria is a fair question if you're going to advocate nuclear destruction of innocent civilians. And if you can't answer that question, then you don't get to play.
I get where you're coming from Marshall, and I can't say I disagree. You answer nonetheless skirts a very thin dangerously ambiguous line.
Dan's questions:
1) We trust whoever has to make that decision at the time; that is, after all, why they have been elected. (We can, and WILL, criticize for political posturing after all is said and done)
2) What criteria? 'Clear and Present Danger's'... Incontrovertible dangers, and then only with a lot of fasting and praying. Which is something EVERY American president SHOULD be doing on a weekly, if not daily, basis.
1. Who do we trust? Whoever has to make the decision at the time? N Korea's Il, do we trust him to make that decision at the time necessary, and if he thinks the evidence supports the thinking that more lives will be saved by a nuclear strike at nation X, then we must trust Il to do so? Or Hillary, if she's elected? Or Germany's Merkel? Or Israel? We'll trust them all to make the right decision??
I can tell you right now that not for one second do I trust Germany, N Korea, Israel, George W Bush or Hillary Clinton to make that call. I simply don't trust our leaders that much. I'm a bit surprised that Christian conservatives would - seeing as you believe in the fallen nature of humanity and that we need to put our faith in God, not human leaders to deliver us.
So, given this circumstance: Leader X thinks that the evidence is such that we need to attack civilians, killing 200,000 of them, in order to save 300,000 of our citizens - I would say HELL NO! because:
1. Targeting civilians is wrong and something that the US does not engage in. It is terrorism, a war crime - against our own laws! - and we just will not do it, and
2. I don't trust Leader X's guess that we'll save 100,000 lives. It's just Leader X's best guess and I don't trust that guess enough to willingly target civilians for destruction (see point 1).
One other question: are those who support sometimes targeting civilians advocating breaking our own laws in order to "save lives" or are you advocating changing our laws so that targeting civilians is not against the law. Because you need to know that some goodly number of us WOULD press charges against ANY nation that engages in war crimes - even our own beloved nation. Why? Because targeting civilians is illegal and, beyond that, just wrong.
DAMN MY EYES!! I READ THEM ANYWAY!!
We don't have to trust Kim Jong Il. He's not our president, and he's a psycho. Anyone who trusts him is as well. The same goes for all those countries that fall short of being a true ally. But even for allies, we don't need to trust them either. We didn't have anything to do with their being elected. I only care about our leaders, who, by virtue of their having been elected by my fellow Americans and/or myself, are embued with our national trust or they wouldn't be in office. If you can't trust a candidate to make such a decision, why the hell would you vote for him/her? If you don't think of such possibilities when you select a candidate, where do you get off thinking you should be voting at all? This decision could fall into the lap of any president we ever put into office and you damn well better have considered such weighty possibilities before you cast another vote! This ain't a game!
As to other world leaders or countries, I can say that I sleep better knowing Israel has weapons than I do knowing N Korea might have them, or China. I would support any measures to deprive such countries of their nuclear capabilities without giving up ours or those of particular allies. Rational people will need some mighty compelling reasons to launch, especially considering what we now know about the consequences.
As far as bombing civilians, again, our leaders would need some mighty compelling reasons for doing that as well. We know certain Middle Eastern scumbags have no problem with such strategies. I feel confident that our leaders thus far, and most likely for the foreseeable future, would have a huge problem with the concept. Yet, I also believe most of them would bring themselves to do most anything to protect American lives. That was the point of Hirshima and I believe Truman's heart was sincere in his beliefs.
As to whether the USA has laws against attacking civilians "no matter what" I couldn't say. Assuming there are no exceptions to this alleged law, I'd still support such a decision if I, too, believed it was necessary to secure the same goals as did Truman.
Dan, you like to think that somehow you have risen to a higher spiritual state by standing firm on this issue of "targeting civilians". When such a decision is made, or for that matter when most decisions are made, there are never any guarantees. And there certainly can be none regarding how many lives might be saved or lost if we do or don't bomb. No one is going to come to such a decision lightly, and in the case of a Hiroshima type situation, the risks are great either way. But it did guarantee the end of the war, so I support Truman's decision.
But as to your kumaya position, how does it differ from any wartime killing? Because the civilians aren't in uniform? It isn't the uniform that justifies killing an enemy soldier, it's a human decision that determines that killing an enemy soldier during war is justified, or not immoral. Should a leader decide that such an action is again required, he'll have made the same type of determination for the goal would be deemed worthy of the action. Part of that would likely be that all other options have been exhausted. At that point, what are we to do? Surrender because all other options failed? Nonsense.
God willing, we'll never have to entertain such an idea.
"At that point, what are we to do? Surrender because all other options failed? Nonsense."
Nonsense, indeed. No matter how many times that false dichotomy is offered, it will always result in nonsensical answers.
"That was the point of Hirshima and I believe Truman's heart was sincere in his beliefs."
As do I. And sincerely wrong. As do I and General Eisenhower, Admiral Leahy and more and more people every day.
Further, I believe the 9/11 terrorists were sincere in their beliefs that they were doing the right thing. Sincerity only goes so far if one is sincerely wrong.
It remains morally and legally wrong to target civilians.
Speaking of which:
"As to whether the USA has laws against attacking civilians "no matter what" I couldn't say."
You don't know what our laws are, that's fine. Most people don't.
But, the fact is, it IS against our law to target civilians. "The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited."
Hiroshima broke many laws.
Read it yourself here.
So, given that, are you advocating breaking our laws or changing them?
Dan,
According to your link, Article 2 refers to the convention being binding only on those who are a part. Thus, we would need to know if Japan was signed on, as we would with Nicaragua. Your link didn't provide that info from what I could tell. Thus, the morality of the action, it's rightness/wrongness is totally subjective and of personal opinion.
You continue to name the same two generals who disagreed with the Truman decision. The number of dissenters does not support your opinion except to say that others agreed with you. I would wager that there were others who agreed with Truman. In the future, list those as well for the sake of intellectual honesty. The same happens now, as lefties continue to mention those advisors who opposed Bush's decision, as if there were none who supported it. Very lame.
Whether the action is moral or not cannot be judged on the action alone, but on the circumstances surrounding and attached to it. As Mark points out, there was the distinct possibility of several thousand allied prisoners being executed should an allied invasion of Japan occur, as well as loss of troops' lives in the process. Those must be weighed out in the decision as well as how long the war would actually go on and with what possible destruction or loss of life. When added up, it could clearly be shown that NOT dropping the bomb could be the immoral decision. In any case, I find it shameful that anyone would seek to determine the morality of the decision when only one man was entrusted with making the decision and being responsible for the outcome. In addition, it's really easy to be 60 years removed from that decision and cast judgement on the action alone without consideration of all the other issues and possibilities that went with it.
For you last question I answer it this way:
Based on the circumstances of WWII, the actions against Hiroshima would indicate the laws of warfare need to be changed. This is even more important considering how few of those with whom our country has engaged actually adhered to such laws. But even more important than that, I would support forgoing our adherence to such laws should our enemies prove to be nefarious scumbags, like the Japanese imperialists, the Nazis, and the Islamofascists, and do what's necessary to preserve as much innocent American and allied lives as possible. Once again, if the our scumbag enemies have amongst their civilian populations those who do not agree with their leaders, they have an obligation to join the fight from the inside. Otherwise, they are at risk for retaliation by the forces who oppose the scumbags.
MA said:
"Based on the circumstances of WWII, the actions against Hiroshima would indicate the laws of warfare need to be changed."
You're welcome to that belief - that we should legalize the US committing war crimes if our leaders think it best - but what you need to do is work to convince the rest of the US that committing war crimes should be legalized.
In the meantime, it is against the law and those of us opposed to war crimes will seek prosecution against anyone - terrorist, fascist or our own leader who thought it best - anyone, who engages in war crimes. Setting aside the question of morality, if you wish, it is against US law and we will not abide such actions.
If that to which you linked IS US law, then, as I stated, the "victim" would have to be a willing participant of the convention for us to have committed any crime. That's the way Article 2 reads. I shall endeavor to study the rest of the convention, but I also got the impression that if our opponent breaks "the law" and is a participant, that changes things as well for us. In the meantime, you can point out which Article disputes what I've stated if you can. Until then, according to my understanding, we committed no crime by bombing Hiroshima, no matter how badly you'd like to believe it, and no matter how badly you'd like to set the stage for action against our current administration.
MA said:
If that to which you linked IS US law, then, as I stated, the "victim" would have to be a willing participant of the convention for us to have committed any crime.
As I noted to you elsewhere (and will here, should anyone reading here want to know) Japan and Germany were willing participants of the convention I cited, as was/is the US. So, yes, we committed war crimes by targeting civilian centers for mass destruction (in Dresden, in Hiroshima, in Nagasaki).
Does that mean that you will now agree that we must not abide by war crimes?
Or are you advocating that we ignore our war crimes laws?
If so, does that mean that you want to give Japan a pass for attacking a civilian center at Pearl Harbor (although, it, at least, was also a military base)? Clearly, you DO want to hold Japan accountable. So does that meant that you want war crime laws apply to everyone else but us?
Are you advocating that we change our war crime laws?
Good luck getting the US to support you in your crusade to change our laws to allow the US to commit war crimes if "we think it best."
You have a much greater trust for this human gov't than I do. I am certain the good folk of the US will stand solidly opposed to a law change to allow war crimes. It's quite frankly, un-American.
And what's American about allowing further death and destruction to Americans and our cities and towns? I can just picture it now: years in the future, a couple of Austrians talking about a place once known as America and how noble they were allowing themselves to be destroyed rather than bomb the cities of their enemies. They didn't even start the damn war, but man, what great human beings for holding to their principles. Too bad there aren't any more Americans.
It works this way, Danny-boy: I INSIST that our leaders do whatever is necessary to end the agression enacted toward us in the quickest most convincing way possibly. I want the world's scumbags to know that we are capable of anything and eager to prove it to protect our people and our allies. I want the world to wet their pants at the thought of us until they realize that we're great guys who just want to live in peace and ain't afraid to kill everybody in order to get it. I want them to know that we will be THE MOST vicious and savage because we want the conflict over, NOW! I want them to know that just as there exists no law that keeps evil from acting, there is no law that will stop us from stopping evil. It's an easy dynamic for anyone to understand. It goes like this: "Hey bud! Let's party!" But if they wanna act tough, we will act with extreme prejudice.
I also trust our people, that they would not stand for a leader of ours who turns out to be despotic. As other nations fight our despotic leader (assuming they actually would), I'm certain that our despotic leader would also have his hands full with his own people. We just wouln't stand for it.
In the same way, the people of Japan, or any other potential nuke victim, are responsible for their leaders as well. There's only two ways to stop a fight. Either knock him out, or make him suffer so that he'll never want to fight you again. The same goes for war. If we can't destroy our enemy, we have to inflict as much suffering as we can so that THEY want to stop. It's the way we fight now anyway. If the people of the nation with whom we war won't stop their scumbag leaders themselves, they have to leave or risk our extreme prejudice. Are they truly innocent if they do nothing to stop their scumbag leaders? Should it only be our people who die trying?
So, if we are on the defense, there is no crime even if the war stopping action killed millions. The enemy protects their people by laying down their arms and not warring with us. If they insist, then the deaths of their people is on THEIR heads, not ours.
I'll end this here. Any questions?
Yes, I've a question. Your legal source for this bit of relativism:
So, if we are on the defense, there is no crime even if the war stopping action killed millions.
Says who? You? Do you mind if I ignore your opinion and stick with the law on a matter so grave as endorsing war crimes.
Dan,
Since you're an idiot, I'll step back a bit and clarify my position.
You asked if I was in support of changing our laws regarding "war crimes". I responded by stating that I support leaders who will put the lives of his people against the arbitrary laws of man. You have no problem with the disregard for law when it comes to personal gain, i.e. illegal immigrants, while I'm talking about disregarding law to preserve American lives.
I would also like to say that my position is based upon the election of honorable men to lead us. Honorable men would not instigate agression upon other nations for any reason other than self-defense, or the defense of less capable foreign neighbors. Honorable men seek diplomatic resolutions first, but don't risk lives for the sake of them. Honorable men trust the mercy and judgement of God when they have exhausted all peaceful options, sacrificed lives exhausting all conventional military options, and have resolved that the only option left requires actions that armchair quarterbacks like you will call "war crimes" from the safety of sixty-years later.
I find it ironic that someone who claims to be so spritually enlightened would choose this incredibly difficult decision over which to be so inflexible. You'll allow for men to indulge their lusts contrary to the Will of God, but you'll condemn someone who feels incredible violence is the only option left for defeating an evil force who thus far has not been swayed. I would hope that you believe there is no sin that God would not forgive, but you'll not consider the intention of a leader because YOU don't like the means. As far as wordly judgement, such a leader would have my support, particularly if it was MY people who were saved by his actions. Your insistance that he be convicted simply shows your shameful lack of concern for the lives of your own people.
Regarding your attempts to muddy the issue by putting forth examples such as the 9/11 terrorists and the possibility that they felt justified, you can stick it, fool. WE decide what's justified by OUR standards, so no, other countries don't necessarily get to make such decisions, and some do. England, Israel, Australia, for example, think much like ourselves. Should they take such actions against a foe of theirs, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not is was justified based on a variety of factors. Castro, Chavez, bin Laden? Hell no. But it doesn't matter. I'm concerned about what OUR country does. We, nor any ally we consider a true friend, would not initiate any unjustified agression. Nor are we likely to take such measures without good reason, the kind of reason that would be obvious to all and the kind that would invite God's forgiveness.
But for you, I can only pray for God's Blessings on your family, friends and aquaintances that they should never need to rely on YOU for their preservation.
Since you're an idiot...Stick it, fool...
Better to be an honorable idiot and fool than one who advocates war crimes and the targeting of children, in my Book.
Peace.
"Better to be an honorable idiot and fool than one who advocates war crimes and the targeting of children, in my Book."
No matter how many lives of my people it costs. Yeah, that makes you an idiot and a fool.
Post a Comment
<< Home