/dev/null Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/587698/201110111829/Apologies-Not-Accepted.htm
DC Tom Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 I, for one, am all for apologizing for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, I'd like to suggest some text: Dear Japanese people, We extend our most heartfelt apologies for nuking two of your cities with the specific intent of saving tens of millions of Japanese lives by ending quickly the genocidal holocaust in China of which the imperialistic war of aggression you initiated with surprise attacks on multiple countries and territories, allowing you to inflict numerous brutal war crimes and crimes against humanity on Americans, British, Malays, Indonesians, Dutch, Australians, New Zealanders, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Burmese, Indians, and other minority Pacific Rim ethnic groups. Sincerely, The inferior gaijin that kicked your sorry bushido asses up and down the Pacific theater. Now go write a history book that accurately reflects your barbaric behavior, you revisionist !@#$s.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 This has to be a joke. Unreal. Wtf is our president thinking. How out of touch is he. Somewhere organizing his community, looking for his birth certificate and visiting the 57 states he forgot to learn American history. I'm glad the Japanese wouldn't let him apologize . I cannot wait to vote his ass out in 2012
Nanker Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Sorry for asking You should be. Instead, you should lead an effort to make both August 6th and August 9th, National holidays.
RkFast Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 I, for one, am all for apologizing for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, I'd like to suggest some text: Dear Japanese people, We extend our most heartfelt apologies for nuking two of your cities with the specific intent of saving tens of millions of Japanese lives by ending quickly the genocidal holocaust in China of which the imperialistic war of aggression you initiated with surprise attacks on multiple countries and territories, allowing you to inflict numerous brutal war crimes and crimes against humanity on Americans, British, Malays, Indonesians, Dutch, Australians, New Zealanders, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Burmese, Indians, and other minority Pacific Rim ethnic groups. Sincerely, The inferior gaijin that kicked your sorry bushido asses up and down the Pacific theater. Now go write a history book that accurately reflects your barbaric behavior, you revisionist !@#$s. A-!@#$ing-men to that. Its a little known or acknowledged fact that the Japanese made the Nazis look like gentlemen.
Jauronimo Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 A-!@#$ing-men to that. Its a little known or acknowledged fact that the Japanese made the Nazis look like gentlemen. Much of WWII, despite 24 hour coverage on the Hitlery Channel, is little known or acknowledged. You'll see 10,000 shows about Nazi atrocities before you'll see one show about Nanjing. Another 5,000 about Dr. Mengela before you'll ever hear about Shiro Ishii and Japanese experimentation in Manchuria. A lot of our own history in WWII has been whitewashed to preserve the image of "greatest generation." I'm not criticizing or looking to question their sacrifice, but some details have been noticeably absent from the textbooks. Like not accepting surrender from Japanese combatants, our highly concentrated "internment" camps, or the fire bomb campaign over Japan which made Dresden look like roasting marshmallows. The war in the Pacific was a punitive one, and at every turn we were looking for revenge for Pearl Harbor. Now all we hear is the war was fought to free the world from fascist aggression, which certainly was the end result, but was it really the motive? Not really. To be clear, I have no problem with the gritty details of US actions during WW2. It does stand out to me though, as the behavior and actions of US soldiers in later wars have often been criticized and scrutinized against the squeaky clean image of the greatest generation.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 A-!@#$ing-men to that. Its a little known or acknowledged fact that the Japanese made the Nazis look like gentlemen. The Japanese were incredibly brutal. They did as bad or worse to Chinese civilians than Germany did to Poland . The Germans were just more organized and kept records like .... well nazis If we had to actually invade Japan I probably would never have been born because my grandfather wouldn't have survived and Japan would probably resemble present day Afghanistan more than it would its current self
DC Tom Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Much of WWII, despite 24 hour coverage on the Hitlery Channel, is little known or acknowledged. You'll see 10,000 shows about Nazi atrocities before you'll see one show about Nanjing. Another 5,000 about Dr. Mengela before you'll ever hear about Shiro Ishii and Japanese experimentation in Manchuria. A lot of our own history in WWII has been whitewashed to preserve the image of "greatest generation." I'm not criticizing or looking to question their sacrifice, but some details have been noticeably absent from the textbooks. Like not accepting surrender from Japanese combatants, our highly concentrated "internment" camps, or the fire bomb campaign over Japan which made Dresden look like roasting marshmallows. The war in the Pacific was a punitive one, and at every turn we were looking for revenge for Pearl Harbor. Now all we hear is the war was fought to free the world from fascist aggression, which certainly was the end result, but was it really the motive? Not really. To be clear, I have no problem with the gritty details of US actions during WW2. It does stand out to me though, as the behavior and actions of US soldiers in later wars have often been criticized and scrutinized against the squeaky clean image of the greatest generation. In point of note, the Japanese would rarely offer surrender until late in the war (quite a few prisoners were taken on Okinawa). And even when they did, as often as not it was faked to kill "just one more American". And in any conflict, one of the easiest ways to get yourself killed is to try and surrender on your own - in the middle of battle, "shoot first" is generally the rule, because it's a !@#$ing battle. Really, if the Pacific was different in that regard than any other theater, it's just because the Japanese were such !@#$s about surrendering (and the Russian front was arguably even worse, where BOTH sides were !@#$s about it). And the firebombing of Japan makes even Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like roasting marshmallows.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 In point of note, the Japanese would rarely offer surrender until late in the war (quite a few prisoners were taken on Okinawa). And even when they did, as often as not it was faked to kill "just one more American". And in any conflict, one of the easiest ways to get yourself killed is to try and surrender on your own - in the middle of battle, "shoot first" is generally the rule, because it's a !@#$ing battle. Really, if the Pacific was different in that regard than any other theater, it's just because the Japanese were such !@#$s about surrendering (and the Russian front was arguably even worse, where BOTH sides were !@#$s about it). And the firebombing of Japan makes even Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like roasting marshmallows. More people were killed in fire bombing than both atomic bombs combined
3rdnlng Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 How low can you go? http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?path=ISS2c_111012.jpg&docId=587698&xmpSource=&width=3963&height=2826&caption=In+November+2009%2c+Barack+Obama+became+the+first+U.S.+president+to+bow+to+Japan%26%2339%3bs+emperor.
DC Tom Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 More people were killed in fire bombing than both atomic bombs combined Depends on your definition of "killed". Seriously. The tendency is to only count deaths from "normal" bombing that are directly and immediately attributable to the bombing (e.g. someone who dies of burns three days later is a bombing casualty). But the tendency for nukes is to count any death that might be attributable to radiation, no matter how far in the future as a casualty. The definition of "killed" is different for each.
Adam Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 I, for one, am all for apologizing for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, I'd like to suggest some text: Dear Japanese people, We extend our most heartfelt apologies for nuking two of your cities with the specific intent of saving tens of millions of Japanese lives by ending quickly the genocidal holocaust in China of which the imperialistic war of aggression you initiated with surprise attacks on multiple countries and territories, allowing you to inflict numerous brutal war crimes and crimes against humanity on Americans, British, Malays, Indonesians, Dutch, Australians, New Zealanders, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Burmese, Indians, and other minority Pacific Rim ethnic groups. Sincerely, The inferior gaijin that kicked your sorry bushido asses up and down the Pacific theater. Now go write a history book that accurately reflects your barbaric behavior, you revisionist !@#$s. It saved millions of lives, no doubt about it. I won't argue that fact. I also feel for the innocent people that were obliterated- they were people, not collateral damage. War sucks and there is no way around that.
OCinBuffalo Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) Here's the spin: "I read that wikileak and nowhere does it say that Obama was going to apologize" Technically that's correct. Look Media Matters is already all over it! But, here's the actual transcript: link He underscored, however, that both governments must temper the public's expectations on such issues, as the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a "non-starter." Notice that Media Matters does't include the actual words, and instead only quotes what others have said. I wonder why? Let's apply some good old logic: If the "the idea" is a non-starter, then the Japanese didn't think of it. Why would they call their own idea a non-stater? Did they come up with the idea, and then have something change, and decide to change their minds? Why would they do that, and, what about their political realities has changed WRT this issue? Or, the more likely explanation: This WAS Obama's "idea". And the Japanese were responding to it. Where else did "the idea" come from? The Stay Puffed Marshmallow man? Sure Obama "was never going to apologize"....but that doesn't mean "the idea" to apologize wasn't his. Thankfully, the Japanese, who must be privately saying WTF?, saved Idiot Barry from himself. Edited October 13, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
Recommended Posts