When I heard about the twin tower attacks my first reaction was shock. like most anyone. An instant later I said "Oh, my God. We did this. The government did this." Of course that doesn't prove a damned thing. But there are an awful lot of unanswered questions. And it was clear they weren't going to allow a real investigation, which is suspicious in itself. We need an investigation.

greengal -- "Mookie, you have been good for comic relief. That is your intention, isn't it?"

No, that's not my intention. Only occasionally. Because I don't see things through liberal or 'progressive' glasses doesn't make me wrong. Most of you don't get a word I say. It goes flying straight over the tops of your heads.

And, greengal, just as a side note, I'm probably a lot greener than you.

Mookie:
No investigation is ever going to uncover anything significant. What we need is another Daniel Ellsberg, a whistleblower willing to release the secret documents and pay the price, which will be far harsher today than it was when Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers.

The soldier responsible for outing what was going on at Abu Graib can't go home, and has started claiming it was the fault of a few out of control soldiers, because otherwise the military would not have provided him and his family any protection against the death threats, etc., he was getting. I saw him on a news magazine show a while back, after the military's protection had stopped and he would not reveal where he and his family are now living. Any whistleblower today who reveals anything close to the level of what Daniel Ellsberg did could be deemed an enemy combatant and could just vanish. Best case scenario, that person would probably be prosecuted for something or other.

This is why I believe that the only change that comes will be from the local level up. We have to find a truly progessive candidate we can trust and get to work canvassing, etc., to get that person elected and moving up the political ladder. I've had it with backing the least objectionable person who seems to be electable. If Hillary gets the nomination, there is no way in hell I will support her or vote for her. Maybe I'll write in a vote for Donald Duck -- Elmer Fudd is too fond of his gun.

"And, greengal, just as a side note, I'm probably a lot greener than you."

Mookie, I am glad to hear it!!

I've read a number of the posts and too many have missed, what I believe Cesa was saying. Few would deny that war in it self is noble. Strategic and tactical errors not withstanding any war, whether today or centuries ago, were fought for glory. "Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder.... the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish their corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace....They are continually talking about their patriotic duty. It is not their but your patriotic duty that they are concerned about. There is a decided difference. Their patriotic duty never takes them to the firing line or chucks them into the trenches." This is from Eugene Debs who delivered a speech at a Socialist Party convention in Canton, Ohio, on 16 June 1918 and earned Debs 10 years in prison for it.

Bob is not subscribing to any war being good but that in the early 1940's America pulled together for a cause. Bob does enumerate WWII's dark side as any war produces. But he is comparing America then to America today. Then there was sacrifice; collections of scrap metal, tires, gum wrappers, and so much more, not because a president asked but just because. Now there is a magnetic strip saying "support the troops" a very trite rhetorical slogan. We are told to shop till we drop, go about our every day business and to be afraid that is why we are fighting them there and not here. We still buy gasoline and use the resources from the very same folks we are fighting. In the 1940's Tojo and Hitler were determined in conquest and plunder. Today some fathom group known as "Islamofascist" what ever that means. And most of all none of the hawks served but all are wealthy ergo chickenhawks.

As Bob said; "Beneath the pasty white surface of a typical Bush Republican you'll find greed, fear, ignorance, anger and a basic lack of understanding of America's place on the world stage. They're traits that drive nations into unnecessary wars. They're also traits that often breed cowardice." I'll Amen that.

Thanks for the rundown of your last comment concerning 9/11..very well realized. The duck and Fudd comment was supposed to humorous..sort of. I believe they would make as much sense as many of the posters on this page.

I don't want a 'progressive' candidate. Especially after hearing the Nazi propagandizing poop I keep hearing over here. Greengal, it's obvious that you are not brainwashed like many are here. Nor is KEM PATRICK.

Funny thing is I am a registered Green. I still like the Greens more than most of the other parties. I just don't want the big government that the Greens are calling for.

I want the America that we were promised but never really got. I want the America that Jefferson envisioned and Shays fought so bravely for.

We will never have that with a huge controlling government. It's like a tornado that just keeps cycling getting dirtier and dirtier and huger and huger.

Socialism in it's finer sense was a reaction to fascism or fascistic corporate control. In it's actual sense it's just not working. It only adds more control. The bigger the government, the more powerful the control.

I don't want to be controlled. I want freedom. When I was a kid in the 50's and 60's we had a lot more freedom than we have now.

I want that back. So badly, I want that back.

I also am watching Ken Burn's newest documentary with renewed awe and respect for what this country USED to stand for. I also am constantly feeling shame for our current generation's (and that of our leaders) complete and utter loss of the ideals that seemed so second nature to the ones Ken so eloquently displays in this masterpiece. True, even that generation had its grotesque moral perversions that seriously marred its true honor and valor - such as the unconscionable internment of Japanese Americans (through a presidential directive) and the despicable treatment of Black Americans who wanted nothing more than to contribute to their country's war effort. However, seeing how these same "victimized" American citizens, after finally being ALLOWED to contribute, displayed heroism of unbelievable magnitude somehow gives me renewed hope that maybe this nation will again find its honorable roots. Until then, however, I still cannot help but worry that my children will face a future more uncertain (and perhaps more dangerous) than anything that generation faced because the enemies that our current generation will likely face are those that are attacking America from within. I think our current enemies are more of our own making than those of the ever present evil foreign governments and their willing followers. It is unfortunately much easier to recognize, attack, and defeat an enemy that is blatantly evil and you are inherently honorable than it is to recognize, attack, and defeat an enemy that is only subtly evil and you are only conditionally honorable

Kem Patrick says: It will be every family, or every well supplied cult for themselves. There will be ample parties also, politcal an otherwise, millions of gangs roaming the land until they run out of food. The best armed will end up ruling, unless China, and or Russia comes to save what's left, __

Well, I guess Bush and Co. are right. We are just a bunch of savages barely being held in check by the authoritarian boot. As long as the dollar floats, we'll be good citizens, but as soon as it goes we will all lose our humanity, start slaughtering and cooking babies or cats--warning: my cat will eat you!!! Minky is one bad ass Burmese Tom.

A dollar is just a piece of paper in which people put their faith or do not put it. This country is huge--our resources are vast---a lot of our people are good, even if easily duped by someone like dubya. I just don't see it--Kem's scenario--even though sometimes I get so angry I like to add to the hysteria--but I do that for any upper crust who fear us already--be afraid, be very afraid, oooohhhh the mob is coming for you in your gated community!

In fact, it might just be a chance for us to start over, economically speaking, and perhaps we can get it right this time--of course, that will require reigning in the bankers and the money changers. It will mean an economoy that puts people first. It will mean bringing someone like Kuncinch and his economist, Michael Hudson, on board to help us plan such an economy.

I don't know where all of this "freedom" was that everyone speaks of. I was born in the 50s. I remember a coup d'etat when President Kennedy was murdered because he threatened to take on the CIA and the bankers. I don't have the nostalia that some of you have. I remember seeing, at the age of 9, a casket being hauled up and down the streets of Washington, draped in a flag. I remember a fourth grade teacher crying her eyes out and telling us "children something really bad has happened." And it had. Hunt, the rich John Birch loving greedy bastard, and the other Hunt, the CIA murderer, and his band of ex-Cuban thugs had killed our president. ( My theory has more proof to it than a magic bullet by that Naval intelligence guy, self-proclaimed patsie, Oswald). Then it was Martin Luther King, Jr. who began to speak of economic justice--bam! Blew his brains out. Then Robert: give's Limbaugh's "ditto" a new meaning, huh? Ain't no economic justice to be discussed around these parts. Talk race relations all you like, Mr. King, but if you bring up economic justice and the economic injustices behind the Vietnam war, we gotta a bullet with your name on it. You damned right you see the promised land and we're going send you there."

Some people keep saying we are a "socialist" country now--I haven't seen any signs of it. We are a fascist nation-=with corporations and government in bed together and they were back then, too. I have never seen any capitalism either except some mom and pop operations--such as a local pizza parlor. It is the same as when people tell me all of the time about the "liberal media." I keep looking and looking for one of that species but, like the unicorn, they are very clever and hide every time I look in their direction.

The USSR was no more socialist than we are capitalist. I mean, didn't Adam Smith say that it was permissible for governments to pay people to bury money in a jar, and also pay them to dig it up? Seems like I recall that, but I could be wrong. Seems like it would be a lot better to pay them to replace those bridges before more of us fall into the river.

We are not a socialist country--have never been. Very few things go to benefit the general public. In a socialist country, it would. Instead, working people have their wages taxed, their utilities taxed, their food purchases taxed, the gas that heats their homes taxed, their telephones are taxed, their gasoline is taxed, their homes are taxed,their cars are taxed, and they are required to buy 101 licenses, permits, etc. which amounts to nothing but taxes, and Greenspan made sure that more and more of our wages were taxed for Social Security (exempting the rich, of course) and what happens to all of that money? It goes for a tax cut for the ultra-wealthy just as Greenspan desired--to the rich who should never have to pay a cent as far as they are concerned. They got pissed when a tax was passed on their yacht purchases and they boycotted yacht manufacturers. Imagine, they want your kids to go fight the wars, you to pay for those wars--to pay the (the bankers) interest for printing the money for the wars, and they they don't even want to pay a luxury tax on a yacht in which they sail up and down on our waterways.

Oh yeah, there was a class war declared by Ronald Reagan back in the 80s, and Alan Greenspan has been one of his chief Generals executing the battle plans. Socialism my ass. Better put on your bathing suit, and scrunch up your butt the next time you cross over a bridge, because none of that money has gone to improve our infrastructure, either, which it would have in a socialist state.

Now Greenspan is saying "don't blame me." He probably has all of his ill-gotten gains stored in euros. His old lady, Andrea Mitchell, can spend it if he kicks the bucket. It won't do him a lot of good in hell.

There are plenty of people with intelligence that can run this country a darn sight better than the thugs in charge now. I look for a better day when people are smart enough to hold the dubyas, the Cheney's,and the Greenspans accountable and quit falling for the rhetoric of assholes like Ronald Reagan. I live for the day when he goes down in infamy and we rename that airport.

Yes, we can see from the murders outlined herein that those in power get awfully testy when their power is threatened, yet it could happen. I repeat: it could happen. As John Lennon said: You may say I'm dreamer--but isn't that what this site is all about--common dreams--not common nightmares????

A lot has been said here about capitalism & capitalists, so I'd like to share a little item - for what it's worth. Way, way back in highschool (which is more years than I'd like to admit), my freshman Economics teacher told us that "...carried to their extremes, capitalism and communism are indistinguishable from each other". I didn't really understand what he meant, and it wasn't until the advent of the last couple administrations and congresses that I finally grasped what he was trying to tell us (All right, already! It's been 37 years!).

This is what I finally came to understand:

Under extreme communism, the state owns all means of production. This means that what is good for business is good for the state and vice versa. The state's interest is best served in governing in such a way as to give its production apparatus as many advantages as possible, even if it is against the best interests of the people it governs.

Under extreme capitalism, the means of production owns the state. This means that what is good for b business is good for the state and vice versa. Business' interest is best served in having the state it owns governing in such a way as to give its production apparatus as many advantages as possible, even if it is against the best interests of the people it employs - in fact, reducing the people to de facto serfdom or slavery is in the best interest of the industrial complex, and militarism is one of the best ways to promote this.

To my high school econ teacher, I apologize humbly for my lack of understanding. It would have profoundly changed my view of the world, this country and its politics for the better part of my life. It might not have had any significant impact on the world, but it probably would have changed a few of my votes. At least I have the satisfaction of knowing that, although late in coming, my education was not in vain.

Ken Hausle,
Your comments on my contribution to this discussion are indeed well-reasoned and worthy of consideration. Thank you for posting them. When I wrote that sentence, I deliberated for a good bit on exactly what would constitute an evil of such a magnitude that one would consider committing the lives of our greatest treasures - our children - to the task of defeating it. I am the father of a son who is truly the greatest gift I have ever received, as is my daughter, and I would without hesitation sacrifice my life in the effort to save the lives of either of them. However, I cannot imagine watching him (or her) go off to a war in which their odds of survival were as miniscule as some of those who Ken Burns is trying to show us. Even those who managed to survive and return were irrevocably altered for life and I cannot help but imagine that many of them suffered internally until their death. What level of "evil" would need to exist, be shown to exist, and be PROVEN to be a threat to the the nation that would justify hundreds of thousands of parents willingly sending their most precious gifts off to possible slaughter? I honestly cannot answer that one. I cannot tell you that if I had been in position of parents who had witnessed the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the "blatent evil" of the Hitler regime (even before he declared war on my nation) that I might be a bit more inclined to at least understand why one would consider the sacrifice. But, I CAN tell you that before I would "willingly" even consider sending MY son or daughter to fight and die for my country I would demand better justification than the current war (and most if not all of the wars subsequent to WWII). While I certainly understand all the discussion topics above and the various historical ramifications leading up to (and subsequent to) WWII, I cannot help but view that war, and the current one, as thru the eyes of a parent who watches helplessly as his son or daughter marches off to fight - and possibly horribly die - in its subsequent execution. I truly feel that those who argue for going to war at the drop of a hat - and don't have to commit THEIR sons or daughters to fighting it for them - are indeed "sitting in the cheap seats" and should at least try to put themselves in the position of the parents we see every day who are handed the neatly folded American flag that used to drape their child's coffin...

I posted some of what this comment says on another CD thread, but I have added a lot that is germane to this topic and think the duplicated material applies just as well here:

Quite a bit has been said here about capitalism & capitalists, so I'd like to share a little item - for what it's worth. Way, way back in highschool, my freshman Economics teacher told us that "...carried to their extremes, capitalism and communism are indistinguishable from each other". I didn't really understand what he meant, and it wasn't until the advent of the last few administrations and congresses that I finally grasped what he was trying to tell us.

This is what I finally came to understand:

Under extreme communism, the state owns all means of production. This means that what is good for business is good for the state and vice versa. The state's interest is best served in governing in such a way as to give its production apparatus as many advantages as possible, even if it is against the best interests of the people it governs.

Under extreme capitalism, the means of production owns the state. This means that what is good for business is good for the state and vice versa. Business' interest is best served in having the state it owns governing in such a way as to give its production apparatus as many advantages as possible, even if it is against the best interests of the people it employs - in fact, reducing the people to de facto serfdom or slavery is in the best interest of the industrial complex, and militarism is one of the best ways to promote this.

This is what it means:

I grew up at a time when everyone my age expected to end up better off than our parents. When my father was my age, he owned a home free and clear, had a single career that he was able to pursue for over 25 years, and put his children through college We all had excellent health care and benefits through his employer, and on retirement he and my mother enjoyed a comfortable living thanks to a combination of pension and Social Security. I have never owned a home, could not afford a family if I had one, and any children I might have had would have had to pay for their own college or not go. Despite my education, I have not been able have a career - instead, I have careered from job to job (via one layoff after another) like a drunken sailor. Thanks to HMOs that put their bottom line above their members' health concerns, my wife died and I am on disability, both due to conditions that could have been corrected if not for the fact that "...patient concern alone is not sufficient cause to authorize expensive tests." Only one job I ever had lasted long enough for me to even sign up for a pension program (and that one was with the government).

Please do not take the previous paragraph for a whine; its only purpose is to distinguish between the expectations I grew up with and the reality I now have. These expectations are not unique to me; they were shared by the entire postwar generation. They were not engineered by the boomers, but by their parents, the same generation that fought WWII, to ensure that the way of life they went to war to defend would continue as an inheritance. Nor is the failed reality unique to me; the middle class is being allowed slowly sink into insignificance. In the future, there will be less education, and fewer opportunities for upward social mobility than at any time since the gilded age.

Our parents didn't fight for the bottom line, they didn't fight for profits, and when it gets right down to it, they didn't even fight for patriotism or ideals or against tyranny. When they really speak honestly about it, our parents fought and worked and sacrificed so that someday, after all the commotion was over, they'd have a little spot someplace where they could come home, put their feet up and be at peace with the world and their families. That is no longer happening, and no war that has been fought after 1945 can be considered a "good" fight by any stretch of the imagination.

To my high school econ teacher, I apologize humbly for my lack of understanding. It would have profoundly changed my view of the world, this country and its politics for the better part of my life. It might not have had any significant impact on the world, but it probably would have changed a few of my votes. At least I have the satisfaction of knowing that, although comprehension was late in coming, my education was not in vain.

Colleen,
Our fathers must be about the same age. Your family's views are exactly the same as I have heard from my family. My dad's military training focused on hand to hand combat with the Japanese. The family's view has always been that dropping the bomb on Japan saved my dad's and many other young men's lives. Who knows.

You know, I have always wondered why we figured we HAD to drop atomic bombs on Japan to defeat them. Near as I can tell, and I may be wrong here, about the time we dropped these bombs "because if we didn't we would lose tens of thousands of soldiers in taking the Japanese mainland" we had almost total control of the water and the airspace around the island of Japan. If this is indeed true (or even mostly true), then why didn't we simply employ a complete naval and air blockade and wait them out? After all, Japan is a small island - relatively easy to completely surround with a naval and airspace blockade. It also is (or at least was) pretty dependent on imports of many essential raw materials and petroleum products. So, it would seem to me that we had everything we needed to isolate them completely already at hand and that it would be infinitely less costly in terms of loss life for our soldiers to bottle them up and not attack them conventionally at all. All I can think of is that (1) we were still really sore at what they did to us at Pearl Harbor and during the execution of the war in the Pacific and wanted as much physical revenge as possible and/or (2) we were impatient with the war and wanted it over as soon as possible and/or (3) we had the bomb and nobody else did and it was not really tested yet on "an enemy" so - what the heck - lets use it and see just how good a weapon it really is.

Regardless of the actual reason(s), we DID drop these weapons - knowing fairly well in advance just how devastating they were because of the results of our field testing. Not only did we drop the first one on Japan without first showing them what we had developed and threatening them with our new WMD unless they surrendered, we dropped it on a civilian target - not a military target. Then, after seeing what we had unleashed on the Japanese civilian population center we dropped another one on another civilian population center. I am not really sure we had many more atomic bombs to drop at that point or we might have continued dropping them until we ran out or until they finally yelled "uncle". What I DO know is that we have the distinct "honor" being the only nation that has dropped not one but two atomic bombs (e.g. WMD) on civilian populations when other means of eventual success were at our immediate disposal. I, for one, am somewhat amazed then of our nation's insistance that NOBODY else should be able to have such WMDs because they might be so immoral as to use them on US. I am waiting for the section on the atomic bomb attacks in Ken Burn's documentary to see if this question is mentioned or addressed.

Hey, everybody. I hate that we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We didn't have the time or resources to surround Japan.

It was a lot better in the 50s and 60s. People lived better lives. There weren't all these insane lawsuits and dumb-ass laws that we have now.

They just push to control every aspect of our lives. And if we keep letting them, they will. It's looking more and more like 1984, to me.

JIMMYT, why did we use the atomic bomb on Japan?

For starters, Roosevelt began the Manhatten Project, because he was aware Germany was working on perfecting atomic bombs. Roosevelt, unklike some of the American neo-cons, led by Prescott Bush, did not want Hitler to dominate the world, and if Hitler had developed atomic bombs, he would have used them and could have been sucessful in having his thousand year reign.

Next, when Germany surrendered, one of their subs that surfaced and surrendered, was carrying atomic bomb materials to Japan. That info ws kept top secret for years. Truman then knew, Japan was working on building atomic bombs, for that sub was not the first delivery of atomic materials to Japan. Truman did NOT know how close they were to having any for use. Of course the Monday after Japan surrendered, he found the truth that they were not even close. Monday morning quarterbacking is always the best. But he did NOT know that on Dec 7, 1945. He also didn't know how horribly devistating the use of an atomic bomb would be until after the first one destroyed Hiroshema. Truman did not authorize the use of the second, Secretary of War Simpson did. Truman did not want to use it and forbade the use of any more. He never publically criticized Simpson and that story was not known until the 1960s. Truman accepted the blame, and didn't care if he was blamed or not.

Blockade japan? __ Uh-uh. We were losing many ships to suicide bombers at Okinawa. Japan was actually only testing the process to see how effective it was. It was very effective. Most of the sailors who died in WW11, died from those suicide attacks at Okinawa. Japan had more than a thousand aircraft prepared to use on our invasion force once we approached their main Islands. Many of those were the rocket propelled BACA bombers, which we had dicovered were nearly impossible to stop. They would have destroyed our invasion fleet. Had we finally been successful in landing on Japan, the war would have dragged on for years. We would have lost at least a million ground troops, not ten or fifty thousand. The Japanese would not surrender to the forces of a land invasion, they had well proven that. A land war on Japan would have been far more horrible than the two atomic bombs were, which is a bit difficult to comprehend, unless one is fighting a ground war and sees the results first hand. More people died the day before Hiroshema in Tokyo from fire bombing. The controversy of if Truman was correct will never end of course. He had a decision to make, based upon the intelligence he had, he made the decision and it's history.

MOOKIE, when the depression hits, it will be more like the fictional Mad Max, not 1984. One thing is for certain, we won't be sitting in front of a computer screen yakking about it. Get ready, for unless a miracle occurs, we will have a depression. I have a recipe book for road kill. Did you know that the only fat in rodents is in their intestines? Our systems need a certain ammount of fat. Soooo, be prepared to learn how to clean up shit before you put the rat in the pot. I have my cave almost ready now, rat traps, a homemade brewery, 500 cans of Bugler tobacco, two thousand Viagara pills, shotguns, ammo, peanut butter and jelly, etc, and some good books. Gonna be exciting ___ and very sad.

Thank you Pelosi, Conyers and the Starfish.

holymoly: You are my kind of woman. In the most noble way. Bless your soul.

Just finished watching Ken Burns 'War' and can hardly stay awake but turned on the computer to check this article.

UNBELIEVABLE! Bless you all!

Nighty, night.

"I have a recipe book for road kill. Did you know that the only fat in rodents is in their intestines? Our systems need a certain ammount of fat."

275 comments later this is what it comes down to .. rat fat. I fold. We are truly awesome.

Eric Arthur Blair,

Very moving post. I feel it summarizes the great oppression of Big Brother/Big Business that most of Americans feel right now, but cannot express in words as you just did.

KEM PATRICK, I agree completely with your Japan atomic bomb analysis. As unpopular as the position is, I think that for us to say that Truman did not need to do it, is to ignore the very real possibility that the axis bomb programs where ahead of us. We had shut down their air power, but we could not know everything that was being developed in country. The Japanese might have trouble delivering one, but, we now know Nazis (Sen: Prescott Bush's buddies) had also supplied plans and support for a long range bomber to Japan that was also being built in the tunnels of Germany.

Today we know the the axis was working on it. All they needed was time as far as Truman knew. Unlike this Iran situation, the Japanese aquiring a secret bomb was not something we could have taken a chance on. The Emperor was a God and would never worry about how many he killed (sort of like our dickhead who thinks God talks to him.)

The consequences of dropping the bomb on humans was not known then, but they are known today even to someone as unsophisticated and scientifically naive as the Bushmonkey.

The shift to offensive use of these weapons will do just what the Ind/Milt/Comlx wants: to thrust the world into another arms buildup and cold war.

I really like how Eric distilled this down; it's worth repeating: pac - out

Quite a bit has been said here about capitalism & capitalists, so I'd like to share a little item - for what it's worth. Way, way back in highschool, my freshman Economics teacher told us that "…carried to their extremes, capitalism and communism are indistinguishable from each other". I didn't really understand what he meant, and it wasn't until the advent of the last few administrations and congresses that I finally grasped what he was trying to tell us.

This is what I finally came to understand:

Under extreme communism, the state owns all means of production. This means that what is good for business is good for the state and vice versa. The state's interest is best served in governing in such a way as to give its production apparatus as many advantages as possible, even if it is against the best interests of the people it governs.

Under extreme capitalism, the means of production owns the state. This means that what is good for business is good for the state and vice versa. Business' interest is best served in having the state it owns governing in such a way as to give its production apparatus as many advantages as possible, even if it is against the best interests of the people it employs - in fact, reducing the people to de facto serfdom or slavery is in the best interest of the industrial complex, and militarism is one of the best ways to promote this. - Eric Arthur Blair

Mookie says: It was a lot better in the 50s and 60s. People lived better lives. There weren't all these insane lawsuits and dumb-ass laws that we have now.

Mookie, that sounds like a Rush Limbaugh line: "There weren't all these insane lawsuits"...

The Neo-con crowd is always trying to limit our access to courts--they want to take away habeus corpus (looks like they've about succeeded for now)--and a right to a trial by Jury (especially in Federal cases)--all in violation of the Constitution. Anytime I see such a statement, I'm going to call the maker on it. The CONSTITUTION says I have a right to bring my case to court. After that, the court can do several things: 1) it can dismiss my case as being without merit (rest assured the side being sued will put in a Motion to Dismiss, on that very ground, among other things) or 2) the judge can decide my case is not insane and that a jury should hear the "facts."

I REPEAT: To try to bar someone from court is a violation of our Constitution. Therefore, please be careful or selective before you trash my Constitution and my rights with it. It is easy to call something "insane" such as a lawsuit, but the ramifications of doing so are dire.

An "insane lawsuit" is like the proverbial saying of one man's trash is another's treasure. There are safeguards to handle "insane lawsuits" as you call them--it is a judge and/or a jury, should the case make it that far. Very often though, a so-called "insane lawsuit" has more sanity on closer inspection--at least that is what I've discovered.

Remember old Trent Lott used to repeat that line and was always trying to pass laws against "trivial lawsuits." Then, when Katrina hit, and his insurance company refused to pay, Ole Trent hired his democratic brother-in-law, a lawyer, to pursue his "trivial lawsuit." So, you see, my "trivial lawsuit" becomes Trent's Constitutional right. As my daddy used to say: it all depends on whose ox is being gored. The Constitution says one man's ox ought to be as good as another's. Everyone should have a fair hearing. The neo-cons and their ilk work very hard to convince the public (brainwash) that there are so many lawsuits that we really need a "check" on this absurd right for everyone to go to court. If they had their way, only the corporation could bring a suit AGAINST YOU.

I repeat, there are checks, already. Even the bloody King of England allowed his subjects to sue and, I believe it was what we call an Equity Court now, that ruled on those suits--and the king would usually abide by their ruling. Shall we limit people's rights more than the King of England did? Jefferson and the other framers thought not. I vote with Jefferson on this one.

As for your general "dumb-ass laws", I can think of hundreds and hundreds of examples. But anytime you want to give examples with your general statements, it would be appreciated.

You know, I can just imagine a historian 60 years after a German victory (impossible given the odds against it, but let's pretend it was possible) giving similar justifications for Nazi crimes that I'm seeing some of you folks give for Hiroshima. There is no possible justification for the incineration and radiation poisoning of nearly half a million people in the two atomic bombings, especially given that Japan was trying very hard to surrender. You are in complete denial if you think that it is EVER justifiable to target civilians in such an indiscriminate fashion.

CHICANERY, the point was and is, Truman did NOT know how far Japan was in development of the atomic bomb when he gave the Okay to use ours. He did know they were building giant aircraft carrier submarines and when Japan surrendered one surfaced and surrendered, it was on a mission to bomb the Panama Canal. Anyone who cannot see the dillema Truman faced, is in denial of what was occurring in 1945.

Yes indeed, anyone who uses atomic weapons is crazy, it didn't seem so on Dec 7, 1945. Truman did not konw if Japan had them or was very close to having them. He could not afford to have the war go on for another year or more. I wish as many people who speak out against the atomic bombing of Japan, would speak out against the use of 'depleted uranium' for weapons. DU radiation contamination is much worse than that from an atomic bomb.

GYPTIAN, it is a bit sad to see when one cannot detect when another is attempting to inject a BIT of humor into a discussion. Actually however, the only fat in rodents IS in their intestines and without any fat in our diet, we will eventually die from the lack of such. But, I live in Arizona and it will be a cold day, if and when I ever eat a rodent, including Javelina or jack rabbit. Anyway, why not attempt ot lighten up a touch, life is too short to not have a chuckle once in awhile.

A bit philosophical here....but oh well, what it can it hurt.......

Kem - perhaps you and others could agree on this: there are some technologies/"tools" that are way more trouble than they are worth. I'd argue, now is the time to set some "tools" that have been discovered (mainly due to war) off to the side and perhaps let them reside there "a long time".

Some would say "dream on" because pandora's box has already been opened, or "the cat is out of the hat", or "you can't put humpty dumpty back together again". I so disagree with this. For example, i think it is totally within the capability of humanity to "choose not to use nuclear weapons", and to create enforceable mechanisms to make it happen during the transition period when ALL nuclear weapons are dismantled.

Anyhow, just a thought...

Peace,
Ken Hausle

Excellent thought Ken.

KEN, ___ I believe the "tools" you referred to, are atomic weapons. How incredible it is, that when the scientists set off the first atomic bomb at the Trinity site in New Mexico, they were making bets if the explosion may or may not, set Earth's atmosphere on fire and destroy all life on the planet. Some thought it may begin a chain reaction that could destroy the entire universe. Did that stop them from pulling the trigger? ____ Of course not, they had to 'prove' their mathamatical calculations were correct, it was science at it's best and isn't every day a scientist has an opportunity to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Einstein said men were stupid.

well KEM, science for the sake of science is utter stupidity for the sake of humanity. Science should be a "tool or resource" for humanity -- not drive humanity off the cliff. You know what i mean?

Peace,
Ken Hausle
Charlotte, NC

Edit: 12:08: Kem, my comment was per your original text (which has changed), but i think i'll just keep it the same.......

Regarding the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as I said earlier in this post, and as others have stated, our fathers who fought in the Philipines and were on ships being transported to Japan felt like the bombs saved their lives. They were told that the Japanese refused to surrender and that being a stubborn people, it was necessary to show them forcefully that they had no option but surrender without terms. I am not taking up for Truman's decision on this--I am just saying that is the way the men looked at it who were going to have to fight hand-to-hand on Japanese soil. If you have ever heard a WWII veteran describe fighting the Japanese, you will know that they were a formidible enemy.

I am not an expert on WWII history, but I have read some books about it. What I read could be summed up like this: there was some question about whether or not the Germans could develop the bomb before we did--and, of course, I think this is what Einstein's letter emphasized to Roosevelt. Up until Roosevelt died, Truman had been kept in the dark about this project. I seem to remember something about captured German scientists being sequestered in a room that was bugged, and they discussed the possibilities of an atomic bomb, and actually didn't think it was even possible that the U.S. had really developed such a bomb. They discussed amongst themselves if it could be true. This convinced the scientists on the Manhattan project that the Germans were not nearly as far along as they had first imagined.
I may have read this in Richard Feynman's book. I can't remember exactly right now. But I did read this in a book about WWII and the bomb.

As far as the Japanese having the technology or nearly having it, this is news to me. I never heard that Truman had such a dillema. Always in the past, it has been presented that due to the recalcitrance of the Japanese, it was necessary to push home the fact that they must surrender and that we would not lose--I believe they said several million soldiers --in an invasion of the Japanese homeland.

I think documents now show that the Japanese were trying to sue for peace in a way that would save face, or to put it another way, peace with terms. It is very difficult to judge with hindsight (which everyone will agree is 20/20 and usually wrong), but some credence must be given to the desire of preventing American casualities in a mainland invasion--this cannot be dismissed. It certainly concenctrated the minds wonderfully of those who were on their way to do the job.

I think the most credence must be given to the fact that the U.S. had a new war toy, a very powerful war toy. And yes, they had tested it in the deserts of New Mexico, and they had some idea of what it would do--but they had never tested it on people and actual property. For this reason, those two cities were chosen. They were pristine and had never suffered war destruction. Immediately after the terrible deeds were done, the U.S. sent in scientists and doctors and statisticians and all sorts of experts to record the effects. Of course, in order to kill an enemy and to kill him without regrets, you have to dehumanize him. The Japanese helped accomplish this by their vicious behavior toward the Chinese during that invasion. They also helped to solidify that image in the way they treated our prisoners of war, and the way they fought down and dirty. For this reason, even the thoughts of killing that many people did not bring about a lot of remorse in most Americans after the bombings. They wanted to end that damn war and bring their loved ones home.

Yet, it almost looks as if there were a rush to use those weapons as though they were afraid that peace might break out. I don't care how badly they wanted to use those bombs, they should have pursued every avenue of peace and then, I still find it hard to believe, even we accept their reasoning, that dropping another bomb only three days later was necessary, and it is pretty indicative that the U.S. was intent on using those weapons and the civilian population was used as guinea pigs, which makes us criminal in that regard. There may be something I am unaware of here, and if someone knows something different, please inform me.

I have listened to the audio book of Hiroshima by Hershey, and one cannot listen to that without great feelings of sorrow and regret and shame that mankind comes to this. When I hear of the Japanese going out and saluting "Mr. B"--the B-52 that often flew over, never realizing the carnage that was about to rain down on them, I am sickened. When I hear of the seared flesh and radiation poisoning, and the birth defects, and of those who died in agony with little or no help for them, and the impending deaths from leukemia and other cancers, how can I feel anything but anger and contempt for those who would bring it about? And it would not surprise me, if the high cancer rate we have in this country today is directly influenced by the using and testing of such bombs--perhaps those very ones.

There is an old saying in the military "don't shit in your mess kit." It is fairly self-explanatory. Every time a nuclear device is used or developed there exists a potential for us to "shit in our mess kit." The earth is very small, and is a living system. You cannot poison one part of the system without it flowing eventually into the rest of it. You cannot spread radiation around and it not have the "blowback effect." It will get into your water; it will permeate your air, it will settle as dust on your crops which you and your cattle will eat. It will eventually affect you or your loved ones. Unlike George Bush, many of us would like to insure that a baby born 100 years from now is not likely to die of a radiation-induced disease.

The only thing that I can see, is that we need to prevent this from happening again. We need to make sure that blind patriotism is no longer an option. Right now, there is a chance that these crazies in Washington may be planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran. They may not be--but it is awfully suspicious that live nuclear missles were loaded onto a bomber last week. This may be just as accident as they say, but we cannot afford such accidents. The actions of the current administration have given us reason to be paranoid, to suspect the worst of them, to realize they have no value on human life except their own. They are chickenhawks. They don't mind blood spilling as long as it is someone else's. They have, as Dick Cheney said about his own lack of military service, "other priorities." Bush has said that he doesn't care how history will look at him, because in another 100 years, he will be dead. I have news for him, his age guarantees he will be dead before then; however, this is frightening because a man who has no sense of any future, certainly wouldn't mind dropping a bomb on a country, a bomb that would poison it and its population for years to come. If one has no sympathy for those on whom it is to be dropped, one might remind oneself for purely selfish reasons that to drop a nuclear weapon on others is to drop one on oneself. I hope I am just being paranoid, and reading more into the situation than what is there. But when this administration constantly demeans and dehumanizes the Iranians, and we realize that Iran sits upon some of the largest oil deposits in the world, and is situated on strategic real estate, I wound't hold my breath that peace is an option.

holymoly - incredible note, but i'd like to say that peace is ALWAYS an option. It is just a question of whether or not it is chosen.

Peace,
Ken Hausle

holymoly, my thoughts exactly. I also was completely "surprised" at the above postings saying Japan had the bomb (or at least credulous evidence pointed that way) and that there was imminent potential for them to use it against us. Although, even if they DID have the bomb, it might have been questionable if they would have been able to deliver it against any US territory given the state they were in immediately before we dropped "Little Boy" over Hiroshima and then followed up with "Fat Man" over Nagasaki. It is also interesting in retrospect that "Fat Man" was based on an entirely different technology than "Little Boy" and I am sure everybody was "chomping at the bit" to see it in action.

So, I am still skeptical on the assertions that the US had no other alternative but to immediately drop these bombs because otherwise our soldiers - who "absolutely HAD to invade the mainland of Japan" - would die horribly at the hands of the fanatical Japanese. Bear in mind, I have no doubt that the Japanese WOULD have been absolutely fanatical fighters and that our US soldiers would have died in tremendous numbers should we have decided to invade them. However, I have serious doubt that something like that had to be done IMMEDIATELY or else Japan would have been able to turn the tides of war against us and possibly win the war in the Pacific.

What if we had instead simply continued to fight Japan and had re-taken all the territories up to the mainland and then simply stopped and blockaded them. Then, if they were still completely uninterested in laying down arms, what if we exploded one of our 2 atomic bombs on one of the small volcanic islands near them and gave them unequivocal warning that either they surrender or we will drop one on their mainland? I believe at this point Japan had already seen how we had no qualms about firebombing large civilian areas of their country and that our threats to drop "the big one" were probably quite serious - and, besides, Japan could not have known that we had only 2 of these WMDs...

I realize that all of this is just hypothesizing and that there are more "what if's" than there are thinking people in the world. However, as an advanced society, we simply MUST learn from history. History tells us that even benevolent "superpowers" like ourselves can and will annihilate civilian populations with WMDs if it is expedient and if there is virtually no equivalent response that can be used as retaliation. I think of this hypothesis every time I hear of our abject horror that somebody might be able to use a WMD on our nation - which, I agree is not out of the realm of possibility. But, as a thinking and educated person I KNOW that the USA has an almost unimaginable arsenal of WMDs that would make "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" look like popguns in comparison. Even twenty years ago we had hundreds if not thousands of multi-megaton, multi-warhead (e.g. 5 to 7 independently targetable warheads per missile) weapons and multiple different ways to instantly deploy them anywhere at any time via land, air, and water. So, can there be any doubt to any "rational" potential enemy that striking our nation with any sort of WMD would not instantly rain Armageddon on them - possibly with as little warning as we gave Japan? Knowing all of this and knowing that we decided to use WMDs on Japan when we KNEW (or at least must have had credible doubt) that they could not retaliate in kind, what will stop us from testing out our really cool "new WMD toys" on a nation that we "suspect" was responsible for striking our country with a WMD of some kind? I suppose that if a nation were stupid enough to send a nuclear missile our way it would not be difficult to pinpoint where it came from and reduce their country to radioactive dust. But what if we were not sure who attacked us? What if the WMD was silently shipped here and detonated - or if there was no correlation between where the missile(s) were launched and the governments or civilizations current residing there? Would we again respond without rational and humane forethought? Would we be able to shake off the politically-motivated pundits, war-mongers, for-profit newspapers and television news stations? Would we succumb to the ever-present instant polls from people who were scared to death and wanted to exact revenge from SOMEBODY. I, for one, am afraid that we would replicate our WMD attack on Japan and rationalize our need to do so afterward - if there turned out to even be an afterward...

I apologize for the rambling here. I just wanted to try to publish my personal thoughts and see if I was indeed silently going mad and fearing for the future of our nation and perhaps the rest of the civilized world.

Peace.

JIMMYT. __ No one ever stated Japan had the bomb. They did not have it.

What was stated was, when Germany surrendered, ___ one of their submarines on route to Japan ___ had nuclear materials and technical datta for atomic bombs. ___ It was also then discovered, that it was not the first shipment to Japan, others had delivered muclear materials, scientists and technical data to the Japanese.

The truth is, and the facts are, Truman did not know how far along Japan was to having atomic weapons. How could he have have known.

As stated previously, japan was not close to developing the bomb, but Truman didn't know that until the war ended. The primary reason Germany hadn't developed them, was because allied bombing destroyed their heavy water plants in Norwway in 1943-4. They had the technology, as Russia proved when they set off their first atomic bomb. Russia had captured the German scientists when Germany surrendered.

Japan didn't have the means to deliver the bomb here? ____ Wrong, they did! ___ They had three submersible aircraft carriers which each carried three bombers. One was at sea heading to bomb the Panama Canal when the war ended. It only requires one to deliver an atomic bomb.

As to Japan making offers to surrender go, that was not viable. They wanted terms, ___ in essense, they wanted the war to end with us leaving Okinawa and forget the war ever happened. Suppose we had agreed to THEIR terms and sometime later they finally did have the atomic bomb? Would they have then started it all over again? Oh no, of course not, they were a "peace loving" society.

Japan's army officers would never have allowed their Emperor to surrender, in fact when he did announce the surrender, strong attempts were being conducted to prevent his radio broadcast to the world. Their efforts failed and the war ended.

Truman did not have to use the atomic weapons. We could have allowed Japan to surrender under their terms. ___ We could have kept fighting, invaded their home islands and lost more than a million men and most of our fleets of invasion and landing ships. ___ We could have just allowed General Curtis Lemay and our B-29s to keep fire bombing Japanese cities. We were killing on average, 100,000 civilians a raid by that method. Of course dying by conventioal fire is more humane than by the heat from radiation if I read some of you correctly.

The day prior to Japan surrendering, Lemay had over a thousand B-29s fly in formation over Tokyo and other Japanese cities and they dropped no bombs. It was a show of force, designed to plead with them to surrender.
Our surrender terms were honorable and the war ended. We, General MacArthur and Truman, treated them as humans, unlike they had treated everyone else.

Truman had no other viable option. And always remember ___ who started it in the first place and reaped the whirlwind. ___ We are now in that position with Iraq.

Kem. I guess we will have to agree to disagree here. I cannot discount many of the propositions you have presented (and I apologize for misstating several of them). I suppose that all, many, some, few, or none of them may be true - depending on who you talk to or how you decide to investigate them. That is typically how things of this sort of complex nature turn out when sufficiently investigated. However, I simply cannot agree with the premise of your last sentence. There are ALWAYS other options - IF you are interested in looking for them and considering them when they are presented. Japan 'started' the actual war against the USA via the attack on Pearl Harbor. That is a matter of history. However, ending the war COULD have been accomplished in various other ways. Dropping two atomic bombs on them "because they started the war in the first place" is not something I can agree with on principle alone. Not even if it was proper and reasonable for them to "reap the whirlwind" as a result. And, I for one certainly hope that this country's current "position with Iraq" is not resolved in a similar manner.

Peace

Holymoly, holymoly. That there was some damn good writin.

JIMMY, I agree, and I also agree Truman didn't authorize the use of the first one to get even, or because Japan started the war. He wasn't going to authorize the second after he realized what it had done. Simpson went behind his back and it was done before Truman was aware of it. There is documetation for everything I wrote. If 'Starfish' uses them on Iran, it will be the worst mistake since using DU for ammunition. If he attacks Iran in any manner, it will be the worst mistake since DU use.

Starfish is my nickname for Bush BTW. You see, starfish are very destructive creatures and ,amage to live without having a brain.

Well, ouuta here for a three week fishing trip, sadly there are few fish now that are safe to consume. So we'll just relax and forget about bait or lures. Seeya all later. have fun here at Common Dreams ___ Kem

Re 10/1, 10:37 am, Monday, holymoly said:

"Bushwa, if 42% of the American people believe the government was complicit or allowed 9-11 to happen as a recent Zogby poll suggests, then I don't think it is out of line to mention it..."

With that wording, holymoly, everything turns on "complicit." Incompetent is something different than what I thought you were suggesting. Rivalry/dysfunctionality/whatever between agencies is something different.

Go back to Oliver North and the Christic Inst suit. After going through all that I am afraid you are not going to change my mind. What works and what doesn't work. Investigation that goes propitiously (granted, a lot of pushing envelope first) and that which they intend to obstruct with every asset they can steal. The compromise between those who want reform to fly and those who want utopia. It's sad we can't get to the bottom of many things, but as you know by now...someone like ol Jim Crow in Cyberspace moves very fast. That said, voters must be approached on the basis of where an issue hits them most directly...or they will not take action quickly enough. Call it pragmatic, utilitarian, shrewd, or whatever. When bureaucracy gets big enough...Le Carre and Ellul have shown in different ways it's capable of anything. Gravel's right about more direct democracy (but very wrong about how much better a flat tax would be...you see, the dumbest trip-ups happen when it comes to fiscal theory...where you'd never expect them...very anti-climactic).

I've read a fair amount of Palast on vote fraud, and I believe what he sez. I can't ignore something both John Dean and Chomsky woke me up to though...loose nukes. Nukes alledged to have been sold to al Qaeda. That's the real nitty gritty. Voters need to get moving, but the way they're burnt out by this society...they're going to ACT on the basis of what is gonna hit'em (no they're not thinking nukes; they're thinking bills). No time for anything else. Whatever bill they're worrying over, willy nilly the fact remains terrorists might someday stoop to nukes. The way Homeland Security runs around I don't think they're worried enough, or don't really know how to act on their concern. Sacrifice? Hey, how bout re-toolin to make all this stuff we bring over in these steel containers (right off the bat we could start making sure everything containing lead we import...like PC monitors...gets packed in entirely different ways...no two adjacent boxes touching, space between...etc)? At any rate, when you think about what they thinks gonna hit'em, that's why single payer is important for Kucinich for example. I don't know what you think about 9/11 to tell you the truth. It's a sign of complete Roman hubris/decadence/mimesis they didn't track that dude who didn't need to learn how to land; but the fact remains that the polity will get motivated on the basis of where statistically they are most likely to get ripped off next. I enjoyed your rant cause you hit on the economic motivators re Germany. Has anyone else even mentioned it? Did I miss Burns mention of same?

Can't keep up with anything else here looks like, and am still looking forward to reading 1 more I see you've got up since yesterday morning, 10:37.

Just scanning it HM, I see you were rappin your own version of the same thing...nukes that is. Hope to get back to your take in full.

To clarify, when I wrote we are in that position now, I meant we had started it with Iraq and we may reap the whirlwind. ~~Bye.

This is turning into a 'marathon of will' in presenting our case/s for actions taken in WW2.

If anyone can find the 1975 ( week and month-? ) article in the defunct 'SATURDAY REVIEW' magazine by the late editor and writer, Norman Cousins, about Truman nuking Japan, please post at least the essence of the article.

my my Bushwa Blues:
i like what you say,
but not sure what you said..

paisano and a very nice wood fire
here 'n all ya know
ken

"...not sure what you said."

Ditto.

Re "complicit" or "allowed," consider something verifiable...the documented travel of Robert Manning in the Chris Hedges article up there.

Well, I've scanned hmoly's last & peaceman's last.

holymoly, they don't seem to be thinking much about the Ur dust from our spent fuel projectiles. Don't know why. Wonder if they're still rain'em down on the roads to set off IEDs.

Skimmed through Gar Alpervowitz's "Atomic Diplomacy" once and came away thinking the argument seemed very believable, show of force for Russia. Japan had relayed serious desire for terms (through Russian emmisary?) but IIRC exactly at the time of the bomb-plan implementation. I guess that timing's the thing.

Hi Peaeman. There have been numerous articles written by credible writers about the subject of Truman and his decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan. I find the most credible, are in the Library of Congress and de-classified, former top secret documents now available on the internet. There are two sides of the coin, some truths on both sides. For certain, it is sad history. Someday in the future, nuclear energy will end the arguments forever, by the spread of DU, or nuclear accidents, or by poliferation of discarded nuclear waste into our oceans. OR, an atomic war, __ which Bush is fully capable of accomplishing.

KEM: Thanks again for your thoughts on the subject. It certainly is sad history and there are two sides of the coin. When I think of all the money we used for military ventures and now threaten the world with nuclear bombs and the spread of DU, which you have written about extensively on other CD articles, I do think of innocent people around the world who don't have the military might to defend themselves against the American bully.

I'm gonna find that article somehow, and when I do, I'll post it on Common Dreams for all to read.

Can you imagine living in Iran and not knowing what the Americans will do? We have our 'armada' outside their territorial waters with pinpointed targets across their nation. Russia and China have got to help Iran or the world will be screwed. We have become what those before us fought against in WW2.

Bushwa, I don't quit understand your last post. Regarding the "complicit" and "allowed" versus incompetent: When you say, it is different from what you thought I was suggesting--do you mean what I was suggesting with the poll or what I was suggesting happened on 9-11?

The Zogby poll shows that 42% polled do not believe that have been told the truth about 9-11 by their government. My point is if that many Americans believe their government has lied to them and that the first "investigation" was little more than a coverup--then, it is not just a "fringe element" that thinks we need a real investigation into the greatest mass murder on our soil (at least that we can remember). I will call for an investigation any chance I can.

As for myself, I believe that elements in this government planned and executed the events on 9-11, and I believe that objective consideration of the evidence in open court would prove that. But this administration will never allow it and it fought hard to control the one investigation had. Congress, who is supposed to provide a balance to the executive branch, shuns its duties. The Federal courts have so far barred the suits of people who have lost loved ones on 9-11, citing national security. This should make people really suspicious. The American people are the only ones kept in the dark where "national secruity" is concerned. All other nations always seem to know what is going on before we do. We are the only ones left ignorant. What is this government afraid of??? Obviously, the truth.

As for WWII and Truman's decision to use the bomb, I still find no evidence that the Japanese even had an idea of what the bomb could do--much less that they were working on it. An article that seems to give a good idea of the conditions and the mindset that went into Truman's decision can be found here:

http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/potsdam_decision.htm

Notice in the article: 1) the large loss of life of both Japanese and Americans in the battles within weeks of the decision to drop the bombs. 2) the destructive blows Japan was still delivering to our troops and our Navy vessels 3) political negotiations with Russia. All of these things influenced Truman for sure, but no where is it even suggested that Truman had an idea that the Japanese may have been working on the bomb. While trying to develop the bomb, there was a question about how far along the Germans were--and they were not very far along, apparently--however, I repeat, I have never read anything about the Japanese even attempting to have it.

Notice, too, that the estimate was hundreds of thousands of American GIs might have lost their lives in the invasion of the homeland--not the millions I mentioned above from my memory coffers which do malfunction at times. When we place ourselves in the mindset of the blood and carnage of WWII, it becomes easiers to be charitable to Truman in his decision. It was, apparently taken after a great deal of consideration. And, I must emphasize, the Japanese were suing for peace (through Stalin?), but it was on their terms--something which our military was not willing to accept--and no formal suit had been made by the Japanese to our government.

If you do a google search on the warnings that Truman gave the Japanese people, you will see that he warned them (with leaflets over their cities) of a destructive new bomb--equal to 2000 of a regular bomb (he did this after the fact and after he had some idea what the bomb would do). He told them that he would continue to drop such bombs on their cities until their leaders surrendered. He then advised them to evacuate their cities. So, while we are arguing over whether dropping two bombs was terrible and a gut-wrenching decision, apparently our government was willing to continue dropping such bombs until its aim was achieved. We must take into account as well that Truman did not want Stalin to have a hand in deciding Japan's post-war fate--probably a very good decision for the Japanese people given Stalin's history. All of this added to Truman's "rush" to use the bombs. It would be interesting to know if the Japanese people would have preferred the bombs or Stalin's army invading and having to divide Japan up with the U.S. after the war. They would probably choose the bombs as bad as they were. I think I would, if I had to make such a decision for my country.

So, to be trite: war is hell. People suffered. Truman had his hands full, and he was trying to bring an end to the carnage even if had to be cruel to do it. We have all benefited and suffered because of this: we have the unhappy distinction of being the only nation to have used such bombs, but I sure am glad Hitler did not get it, ditto that for Japan. I'm sorry Hiroshima and Nagasaki got bombed. I'm sorry my dad had to fight the Japanese in the Philipines. At least we can point to the terrible carnage and say, no more! I know to consider someone mad when they suggest "all options are on the table, including nuclear ones." No wonder Putin is builing up his nuclear arsenals once again. It seems that MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is alive and well.

What was that rebelnow?
Holymoly, holymoly. That there was some damn good writin.

Louder, I can't hear you, my hearing is not what it used to be.

Rebelnow: I said: Holymoly, holymoly. That there was some damn good writin.

Oh, thank you!! (tee hee)

Guys, I've posted such long diatribes that my computer is having trouble holding this post in memory. Thanks for all the feedback--my motto (which is stolen) is: "I write to understand more than to be understood," and believe it or not, I love the "ahhh ha!" experience that comes when people show me something I've not thought of before. So thanks for the encouragement and for keeping me in line when I need it and when my views are out in left field. If you think I'm wrong, back me to the wall. I'll probably get angry at first, but Ill get over it--I always do, or, then again, maybe I'll prove you wrong! Anyway you look at it, if we get closer to the truth, we all win. Thanks again to all for the lively discussion.

mookie wrote (230):
medic6869 — "War is capitalism oxygen as it guarantees they make huge profits."

mookie responded to the above with:
"There's truth in that statement, but what was their excuse in waging war, before capitalism existed."

The excuse was greed, and capitalism is an economic system which is fueled by greed, encourages greed, and enables the capitalists greed.

mookie wrote (230):
"And, excuse me, but communism has existed. And guess what? It failed miserably every time."

If you had even a cursory knowledge of Marx, you should know that communism has never existed in any nation at any time, so all I can excuse is your ignorance. The closest to Marxism has been Cuba, and even that is far removed from what Marx envisioned. Still, considering how the US has held Cuba in siege for a half century, Cuba is doing very well: much better at taking care of their citizens education and health needs than the US.

mookie wrote (247):
"Funny thing is I am a registered Green. I still like the Greens more than most of the other parties. I just don't want the big government that the Greens are calling for."

Huh? Green? You can't mean the same party I worked my butt off for. Must be a right-wing libertarian branch I'm not aware of.

mookie wrote (247):
"Socialism in it's finer sense was a reaction to fascism or fascistic corporate control. In it's actual sense it's just not working. It only adds more control. The bigger the government, the more powerful the control."

Good grief, man, socialism as a form of communal ownership of the means of production came many centuries before corporations existed. Marx and many others were theorizing about socialism well over a century before Mussolini formally described it.

mookie wrote (247):
"I don't want to be controlled. I want freedom. When I was a kid in the 50's and 60's we had a lot more freedom than we have now."

From that statement I can presume without fear of error that you are neither a woman or a black person, or a person who gave a damn about either in the fifties.

mookie wrote (247):
I don't want a 'progressive' candidate.

Well, of course you don't, mookie: from what you've written above you obviously prefer regressive candidates to take you back to the 50's

mookie wrote (268):
"It was a lot better in the 50s and 60s. People lived better lives. There weren't all these insane lawsuits and dumb-ass laws that we have now."

Right, dumb-ass laws like equal opportunity laws for women and minorities, the dumb ass laws that allowed black people access to lunch counters and the front of the bus. And none of these insane lawsuits that make corporations take care of the widows and orphans their business practices created.

Yes, indeed, there certainly are a lot of dumb-asses.

Kem Patrick wrote (270):
"I have my cave almost ready now, rat traps, a homemade brewery, 500 cans of Bugler tobacco, two thousand Viagara pills, shotguns, ammo, peanut butter and jelly, etc, and some good books."

Now if only all of you folks that are planning on some sort of apocalypse would turn your energies into preventing the thing you fear and save everybody instead of investing your time and energy in saving yourself.

LeeAnnG wrote (264):
"I've been telling people for a long time that the difference between Communism and Capitalism is that in Communism the government owns the businesses and in Capitalism the businesses own the government...."

What you've been telling people is incorrect: while it is certainly true of the various countries that have called themselves communist, none have been communist. Marx described communism as a democracy at the same time he called it a "dictatorship of the proletariat." None of the countries that have called themselves communist have had either. Marxist communists usually refer to these nations such as the former Soviet Union, North Korea, etc, as having a form of government they call "state capitalism."

That seems to be an accurate term: instead of a number of giant corporations that own most of the means of production ruling through the government, as in Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, or the US: in "state capitalism," misnamed "communism," the state acts as a single corporation that owns everything with the party leaders acting as an executive board.

Japan was building a nuke bomb during WWII: Click Here:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE6D7173CF93BA3575BC0A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

see also:

http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=tl&q=Japan%27s+attempt+to+build+the+bomb&btnG=Hanapin+sa+Google&meta=

never mind the fact that they were behind, the germans were shipping them uranium and the pacific fleet caught them in the act.

Cheers,

pac