Really PAUL M, so please tell us, exactly what torment would this evil person face in hell? And why is it a shame that you no longer believe in hell? I would be delighted to believe that, ___ but I don't.

I also won't profess to say who is there or whom it is who may go. I'll leave that up to God. I have an idea of some whom I feel should go there, and rather hope that they do, but I don't have the power to send them, nor the wisdom to know if they may. Neither does anyone else here that I'm aware of.

GDE, says to read Robert Stennett's book on the subject of Pearl Harbor. Hmmmmm, any good writer who knows the ending of a story, can write the beginning and middle and make it sound good, factual or not. Monday morning quarterbacks often recieve good coverage with their "wisdom".

@expatincebu November 3rd, 2007 9:00 pm

Hows life in Cebu?

"BULLSHIT! ... WW2 was all out no holds barred war."

I would have thought so too, if I was alive at the time. It was a time when defence meant defence, rather than securing resources for the already rich. It would have been hard to hold back.

That was the emotion of the time. We need to get a handle on that. It has ramifications about war, and M.A.D. in general. And also how the Iraqis, Afghanis and Iranians might view bombings, invasion and occupation.

I suppose there are different types of masters degrees from different types of universities which have different types of agendas. After being criticized for not understanding what is by now common knowledge, I was going to reference Robert B. Stinnet's book, Day of Deceit, copyright 2000, in which he published photocopies of the supporting documents he obtained through the FOIA, but I see someone already did that.

It is difficult for most people in the West to understand just what kind of a country the U.S. is and that is not surprising given that the U.S. and their sychophant's institutions do not teach history but a garbled type of propaganda that uses some real historical events to make their ficticious point. All of the wars that the U.S. has been engaged in are part of an overall agenda of expansion which culminated in what that first idiot president Bush called "The New World Order".

The methodology for achieving this expansion is almost always the same. The U.S. waits until a country is weak and battered by war or deprivation and then they rush in to save the day. After Cuba had been warring with Spain for several years the U.S. moved against Spain, gaining such important ground as the Philippines. In WW1 they waited a couple of years before they joined. WW2, same thing. In Vietnam they actually helped the French for quite a while, because that weakened the French and the Vietnamese, and when they saw that the French were getting exhausted the U.S. pulled the plug on the French right when they needed that help the most and then the U.S. moved in there themselves. In Iraq the U.S. and Britain had sanctions for ten years before they moved in and during that time they had no-fly zones in which they made up whatever excuses they needed to blow up Iraq's defenses.

The way that the U.S. handles their business is the way of cowards. And they also intentionally target civilian populations as a means of further weakening and destabilizing their target. The whole world knows about the "real" U.S.A. and it is no mere pejorative that some refer to them as The Great Satan.

JMACNEIL: Very good points!

KEM PATRRICK, for your information:

I really do not believe in hell. I merely used it for what it signifies in almost all cultures.

To drop a 9000-pound atomic bomb on a population center destroying 220,000 innocent civilians when both Italy and Germany had unconditionally surrendered about two month before dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a criminal act by the US government, and it has been proven that it had nothing to do with ending the war. If we had already defeated two of the members of Axis with conventional weapons, to defeat the weak Japan that was at the time trying to negotiate a conditional surrender was a cinch.

You seem to justify this horrible action by saying that we were at war, that Japan had declared war and had attacked us, and that they were cruel, etc.

Well, let's take your logic further. Your country attacked Iraq, has almost totally destroyed that country, has caused the death of about one million, and has turned another 4 million into refugees. The shock and awe bombing of Baghdad in the middle of the night was not less cruel or savage.

Now, how many atomic bombs do you deserve to be dropped on your city?

I have always had my own private debate about the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The argument that Japan was poised to surrender is challenged by the fact that the Japanese did not immediately sue for peace on any terms after the first target was hit. Also, the American military had just fought its way across the Pacific witnessing tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers left to fight to the death for meaningless rocky atolls and experienced the senselessness of kamikaze attacks on their ships. Japanese soldiers believed surrender to be the ultimate act of cowardice. They thought that refusing to die for your emperor was a supreme humiliation. In part, the Bataan Death March at the start of the war in the Pacific was the result of the Japanese disgust for the 75,000 American soldiers who chose to surrender rather than get slaughtered.

The other argument that the entry of the Soviet Union into the war on Japan would have forced captitualtion has one clear flaw. Could the U.S. really have persuaded their 'ally', the Soviets, to enter the war against Japan, this same ally who they wished to 'send a message' with the A-bomb. And, of course, the message they sent was 'better get your own A-bomb, boys'.

Paul Tibbets was a soldier. As Jack Nicholson screamed in the movie 'A Few Good Men', for those who have never been in a war, 'You can't handle the truth'. I know little of Tibbets but I doubt he did not experience private moments of shame and doubt. But his public face was unrepentant as, probably, it should be. What would America have done with him if he had refused his orders in a time of war.

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this (sorry if I missed it!) but one major reason the atomic bombings took place was to wrap up the war as quickly as possible to keep the Soviets out of Japan. Remember the USSR had declared war on Japan right at the end there and the allies (UK and USA) didn't want a situation where Japan would be divided like Germany. Of course the reason we rebuilt Japan so quickly after the war was once again to have a pro-business, pro capitalist ally in Asia to keep the Soviets in check. If anyone is interested, Howard Zinn has written about the bombings quite a bit, I believe there is even a section in A People's History of the United States in fact, do yourself a favor and go check it out!

Thank you littlem85, jmacneil and Salia, you bring hope to these converstions. I would also like to add, when our individual times come, we will be very surprised to see who has joined us in heaven.

Well SALILA, I disagree with you for several reasons.

1.___ Truman authorized the use of the atomic bomb based upon the fact that Japan was attempting to build atomic bombs and Truman had no way of knowing how close they were to doing so. He well knew the Japanese would use them gainst us if they had them. He also was aware that they were not going to surrender unconditionally and for them to surrender to the Russians was totally unacceptable for several reasons. Russia never fought a minute against the Japanese during WW-2 and they were attempting to join in at the last and reap spoils. We reaped no spoils from japan, we insured their country would recover as soon as possible from the devastaion that had been caused by THEIR actions.

2. ___ Some claim Japan was already beaten. The truth is, they were fully prepared to fight a long and devistating war on their homeland and were still able to produce aircraft and the largest submarines ever constructed to this day. Those subs were aircraft carriers and again, Truman was not sure if Japan had been sucessful in developing atomic weapons and was aware of those submersible aircraft carriers. He had to end the war quickly. How can ANY deny that the use of the two atomic bombs we dropped on Japan did not accomplish that goal is beyond reason, for after the second was used, they did surrender within days and the killing stopped. Years later, Eisenhower gave his opinion. He disliked Truman, a mere Captain in WW-1. Eisenhower, Macarthur, and some other generals were of a mind set that conventional war was glorious and even nobel. They didn't know about the atomic bomb until it was used and they hated that, it was not the way they would have finished it. It was politically correct to speak out against the use of the atomic bomb some years after the war had ended and Eisenhower was a politician.

3.___ This article actually was about the man Paul Tibbets. I'll say again, I am certain that every single American aircraft pilot in our Army air Force at that time, would have volunteered to fly the B-29s that were flown to drop those bombs.

At that time in world history, most Americans, Chinese, Phillipinos and others did hate the Japanese as a nation, what our government did here to the Japanese and German Americans was appalling, immoral and outright criminal. War is hell and always will be. Personally, I believe we are all the same and those imaginary lines drawn on maps don't really exist. It is our different cultures, languages, governments, religions and the very few who control the wealth of the world that seperate humanity, as has been the case for at least 4,000 years.

What our unjust war in Iraq has to do with what Truman decided, what Tibbets did, what happened in 1945, is not the issue here in any way, shape or form and I'm certain that you are smart enough to know that. I'm also sure you are smart enough to attempt to cloud the issue by bringing that up. Our wars with the American Indians was unjust, as was the Spanich American War, our war with Mexico, the Vietnam War etc. The things our government is doing presently and has done in regards to being unjust in the past, is not the issue on this subject.

Uh, I thought this good soldier passed away recently. It seems to me that we should honor his service to his country and leave it at that. to judge this pilot on his actions while doing a complete focused look backwards in time holding absolutely no one accountable for that is a bit ridiculous. Nearly every able bodied American volunteered for WWII. We can argue the political and military ramifications of dropping or not dropping 1 or 2 A bombs all year. It will not change the fact that many good people all over the world died during WWI which was fought for many reasons on many fronts - but mostly for money and controll of valuable natural resources by the powerful & wealthy people in the nations involved. Personally I am glad many men like Mr. Tibbets answered the cal to defend our country. This does not make the actions of politicians any less criminal nor Mr. Tibets any less patriotic. The patriotic have long been exploited by the wealthy and powerful for monetary gain. This is true in all nations. If you doubt this just ask yourself how any border line on a map was created and why you cannot see these lines on the ground. Does Hispaniola look like 2 nations or 1 island from space? My hat is off to Mr. Tibbet's for his service - I am one of the beneficiaries of his servie and am grateful.

"I can't figure out who you say "suckered the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor" but after they did attack us..." makes someone sound less like a "know it all" than a 'know a little, and thinking that's-sufficient'...

By it's Axis-alliances and invasions of China/Mongolia/Korea, Japan was doing little-more than 'learning at the knee of the US' -- having observed American 'success' and intents/Interests in the Philippines and elsewhere, and Britain's with China (and both, regards Japan). The US, waiting until the Imperial-armies were well-into those 'hostile-Theaters' before FDR gave the order to completely-blockade their supplies of oil, gave Japan a near-absolute incentive to over-reach by attacking Pearl Harbor. And, if you believe that this 'first Pearl Harbor' was any-sort of 'surprise-attack', then maybe you have better start your studies towards that much-needed Ph.D...and read a little outside the 'approved-curricula' in Western "International Relations"?

It is unfair to judge this event retrospectively. Few of us was even born at that time, or took part in that conflict. It is easy to look back with the wealth of knowledge we now have on nuclear weapons and their effect, and to judge this action, but such judgment is unrealistic and unfair. The dropping of the Abombs on Japan was tragic. Regardlses of what anybody claims, it did bring the war to a rapid close. It prevented a joint US Russian invasion of Japan which could well have had far reaching consequences, and it is a perceived blot...... a stain on "American Honor", and the horrifying consequences of that action haunt the US, Japan, and the World to this day and have successfully discouraged use of that weapon in the 60+ years since. Mr. Tibbits did his duty as he understood it, and had no idea at the time what the consequences of that action would be. The results, initially horrific, have been very far reaching and not by any means all negative.
At this late date, any leader who considers use of these weapons, knows that he instantly becomes a paria among humanity, both outside and inside his own country, and it is doubtful that any amount of personal protection could protect him from the rage and the vengance of his victims...... AND HIS OWN PEOPLE. Use of the bomb at this stage of history puts the man who makes that decision in the distinguished company of men like Adolph Hitler........ a legacy of shame...... a criminal legacy. That really does not apply under the conditions that existed 60+ years ago.

H.W.

KEM PATRICK - Absolutely right on the money. Easy to look at history and see it as isolated, deconstructed events, but there is context that no one seems to remember any more. The bombs were horrible and we would have won without them, but not without tens of thousands of American losses, and perhaps more than 1 million Japanese civilians and soldiers dead.

The Japanese were NOT suing for peace, they were "discussing it". A large part of their military junta were absolute in their decision not to surrender and they had the Emperor held entirely incommunicado. The bombs gave the peace factions in the Japanese government the ability to sue for peace unconditionally which was the only solution the Allies would accept. As someone posted above, if they were so close to collapse, why didn't they surrender after the first strike? Answer, they weren't ready to do so. There are many many pictures of 9-10 year old girls learning how to use bamboo spears to attack the Americans as they landed. How would you have liked that? American soldiers having to kill little children from one end of Japan to the other?

Also Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT civilian targets any more than Berlin or Hamburg. Hiroshima was an army group headquarters and rail center and Nagasaki was a major military manufacturing center that produced, among other things, all the torpedos for the Japanese navy and airforce - some of which were of course used on Pearl Harbor. War is like that, you build your war industries where there are people to work in them. When there is a war you don't avoid targeting those places because of it.

The bombs were terrible, but necessary. They ended the war faster than any other methods and with less loss of life. They were far more humane than bayonetting children or starvation of millions or firebombing of city after city.

We need to come to terms with this and move on.

Hi KIM PATRICK, I'm not SALILA, I am Saila.

Well said STONETOOL and MEALSOTOO. Wish I could have expressed it that well.

Sorry I gave a botched thread for my Off-Topic-Youtube-Interjection. My social skills (with my computer) will improve thursday aound teatime!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSOOK3tocTk

Please watch this as it features our hero American University communications expert Christopher Simpson author of the absolutely essential book The Science of Coercion

That's okay with me SALILA, KIM is fine too. Thank you for inconvenience. You ever picked a nit or a knit? You display an astute ability to do so.

It's a waste of time to argue about it, and takes attention of off the tasks of the moment.

That's correct ESHU, and time is the only thing of importance besides family that we really have. However, how much more can be said on the subject, of whether Paul Tibbets was an evil or decent man? What difference does it make? No one can go back and change anything now. We can only learn from our errors and the good thing we do in life. A life which is far too short to be unkind to others. Yet, debates are fun and good for the soul, we learn from them. ____ Well, many of us do.

I THINK IF I WAS TRUMAN AND IT WAS MY DECISION I WOULD HAVE TOLD THE JAPANESE THAT I HAVE WEAPON THAT IS SO HORRIBLE THAT I HESITATE TO USE, IT EVEN ON MY ENEMY, BUT I WILL IF FORCED TO! YOU HAVE ONE WEEK TO SURRENDER!

Truman considered that option SHANTI, he also considered having one exploded in a deserted area, to show the Japanese what could occur. It was determned that would not work, and apparently it would not have, for even after the first was used, the Japanese refused to surrender. When their emperor decided enough was enough and made arrangments to surrender, some army officers attempted to stop him from annoncing it over the airwaves. Truman had a tough and most critical decision and he made a very tough decision. ___ It's sad history. ___I would not wish to have been in his position. It is another example of science going into areas of science, where humanity should never tread. Some other less painful results of scientific minds at work are eveloping DDT, tricloretheline, Africanized bees, etc. Now we have an even worse atomic poison killing all life on our planet with DU use in ammunition.

YEAH, I AGREE WITH YOU KEM, IT WOULD BE A VERY STRESSFUL DECISION AND UNLESS WE WERE THERE WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT MUST HAVE BEEN LIKE. THE JAPANESE WERE A VERY BRUTAL REGIME; BUT IT IS TOO BAD SO MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE HAD TO DIE.

"Tibbets had to feel justified in order to live with himself." - Jaded Prole, above.

Bang on, Jaded Prole. As per usual.

Think of Tibbets' alternative: "I fried 70,000 people, leaving an equal number to die horribly within months from radiation - all for no good reason. Sorry, my mistake. Life goes on." ?

Some crimes are too great to admit.

Cf. Bush et al.

Cf. even ourselves, considering we live on the trade-structures established as spoils of the continued armed robbery over centuries. Plus our jadedness blinding most of US to our participation in the pillaging of nature and our own life-resources.

See how unrepentant most people are of anything and everything they/we do. Even when caught out. Kissinger's still at it, Blair got out scot-free, Rumsfeld's roaming the fields, etc.

Tibbets? - He's very little in this. But Truman, he's the "True man" behind the a-bombings.

Amazing! After only SIXTY YEARS enough evidence was finally gathered to decide that Paul Tibbets dropping The Bomb on Japan was unnecessary. Too bad HE didn't have that information sixty years before. I am sorry for the Japanese that lived through that horror, and for the ones that perished, but it was their leadership that caused their deaths, not Paul Tibbets. He did what he was trained to do, what the American people had paid for him to do, and what the military of the United States expected him to do if he ever got the chance, and that was to end the War. Any Johnny Come Lately who thinks he knows better sixty years later is a fool. Why are people blaming the Emperor of Japan for the destruction of his own country sixty years later instead the United States? Who the hell started the war in the first place??

Amazing! After only SIXTY YEARS enough evidence was finally gathered to decide that Paul Tibbets dropping The Bomb on Japan was unnecessary. Too bad HE didn't have that information sixty years before. I am sorry for the Japanese that lived through that horror, and for the ones that perished, but it was their leadership that caused their deaths, not Paul Tibbets. He did what he was trained to do, what the American people had paid for him to do, and what the military of the United States expected him to do if he ever got the chance, and that was to end the War. Any Johnny Come Lately who thinks he knows better sixty years later is a fool. Why are people blaming the Emperor of Japan for the destruction of his own country sixty years later instead the United States? Who the hell started the war in the first place??

EVERY SINGLE ONE of the pro-bombers who've posted comments here is guilty of repeating false dichotomy and a false premise.

The false dichotomy: that it was either nuke Japan immediately, or engage in a long and bloody land war.

The false premise: that the insights of the "anti" crowd are from the "benefit of hindsight."

First the Dichotomy - Japan surrendured unconditionally. However, the U.S. allowed Japan to retain its Emperor, and its right to cultural self-determination. THESE SURRENDER TERMS WERE NEVER OFFERED, NOT ONCE, AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE BOMBS WERE DROPPED. Truman deliberately refrained, in every speech for months leading up to the bombing, from specifying surrender terms which would allowew for the immunity of the emperor, or any right of Japanese sovereignty. He did this despite considerable, well-documented pressure at home, from government officials, congressmen, and even editorialists, all of whom believed that Japan would be open to conditional surrender terms. This, coupled with the fact that no land invasion could occur before NOVEMBER, begs the question...what was the pressing need to drop the bombs, without first offering the surrender terms that were actually enstated, and which were long known to be necessary to U.S. officials? The U.S. never intended to depose the emperor, because it was obvious he would be needed to order the stand-down of the troops. What was the timing? Obviously, it was based around the Soviets, who in fact reneged on their peace treaty with Japan days before the surrender.

The false premise: It is absurd to talk about the benefit of "hindsight" when in fact every argument made by the anti-crowd was also made within the Truman cabinet and the military many months before the bombing. We didn't just "happen" to drop the bombs when we did - it was a deeply calculated move. TO think that Truman would make such a huge decision WITHOUT knowning the actual conditions on the ground - i.e. Japan's imminent collapse - is also absurd.

THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A SECOND! All you pro-bombers keep saying that the bombs were no more murderous than the fire-bombings...think about what the U.S. knew at the time - that it only had TWO bombs to drop! If Truman actually thought Japan was able to maintain a huge a protracted land war in the summer of 1945 - what good would the bombs be? They were no greater MILITARY advantage than two more fire-bombings. They WOULDN'T have stopped Japan, if Japan was still that strong! He only had two bombs...would he risk using them on a strong enemy, failing, and then having nothing left with which to bargain? Their greater effectiveness against an enemy who is already near defeat should be clear.

From the very beginning, the strategy of Nuclear gamesmanship has been about Image and Power. The bombs are more effective at scaring an enemy - who doesn't know how many you have - than accomplishing a strategic goal. In this light, its usefulness against the Soviets is obvious.

The U.S. had both time and means, many months earlier, to simply offer the surrender terms it actually brokered with Japan. It did not, even once, make this attempt.

Really interesting comments from everyone. What I can't understand is how one would not be sorry regardless of their rationale. If I looked upon that devastation and had had ANYTHING to do with it, I'd be so, so sorry. I guess that is why I'd never be asked to do the job. Answered my own question. LOL.

That Americans still try to justify the barbaric crime of the use of nuclear bombs on Japan is crystal clear proof that this nation is still fundamentally, racist, bigoted and white supremist. Of course, that is also clearly demonstrated today by Bush and his various bigoted racist crimes around the world like the Iraq and Afghani Wars, the preparation to go to war with Iran and evil such as New Orleans/Katrina.

I believe most were sorry about it before and after. I was always very saddened by the fire bombings of cities, even though Hitler first began that type of operation on London. Anyone here feel bad about what Germany and Japan did and did it first?

We only had two bombs ASCOLTI? Well, within two weeks after those were used, we had a dozen ready and a lot more and "much better" ones ere ready within a month.

The surrender terms were prepared by General MacArthur. The only terms we offered before the surrender were the same as those offered to Germany. ___ Unconditional surrender. "After that has been done, we'll let you know what the terms are". There were no surrender discussions or terms offered to the Japanese government until they surrendered. The reason for tht was primarily due t the horrific war crimes their military officers had committed. There was no cease fire to discuss terms and Japan never asked for a cease fire ___ as was their option.

General LeMay did have a fleet of a thousand B-29s fly in formations over Tokyo after the second A bomb was dropped, in a display of power to hopefully entice the Japanese to surrender. They dropped no bombs on that mission. We did everything we should have done to end the war with Japan, proir to using the atomic bombs. We could have waited a couple of weeks and used seveal A bombs at once if we were as demented as some here suggest.

War is not nice or peaceful, as some here write it should or could have been. War never is nice and never will be, and I don't see where humanity will ever stop waging wars.

At the top of these comments, militantliberal wrote:
"I don't think I would have dropped the A-bomb on Japan, but people who make this argument refuse to look at the Japanese side."

Actually, this is not true. The book "Racing the Enemy" by T. Hasegawa is an in-depth look at the Japanese side of things investigating Japanese sources. He comes to very similar conclusions as Alperovitz and other "revisionists."

In fact, Alperovitz has discussed (in brief) Hasegawa's book in a previous Common Dreams article

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0803-26.htm

And in more detail here:

http://www.h-net.org/~diplo/roundtables/PDF/Alperovitz-HasegawaRoundtable.pdf

KEM P,

The U.S. did not have "another dozen" bombs "within weeks." They planned on having ONE more within a week, and then then subsequent bombs every couple of weeks - though even this was far from certain.

You also seem to be unaware of the Postdam Declaration, issued July 26, which listed specific surrender terms. It did not exempt the emperor from war crimes trials or subsequent prosecution, even though he was in fact allowed to remain in place. This was a crucial issue for Japan.

The question of "who started it" is just silly. The war was decades in the making - no one "started it." Japan's imperialism paralleled U.S. British, French, Russian, Dutch, and Chinese Imperialism. How did Pearl Harbor end up as a U.S. territory (it was not a state in 1941)? Or the Philippes?

You also overlook Hirohito's own words, which clearly emphasize the looming Soviet invasion as the primary reason for his concession - not the bombs, as well as his willingness to continue fighting, even in light of the bombing, if Japan's culture could not be preserved.

I am disgusted by the number of comments approving of the war crimes commited by the American military during WWII. It is a sad day when one of the most progressive/liberal sites in our democracy is bombarded with so many racist and ignorant statements supporting the nuclear holocaust of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have little hope that we can move towards a more peaceful and sane society when (even amongst so-called progressives!) there is still debate about such a black-white moral issue that occured a half century ago. I guess we have many people in our country who sing themselves to sleep at night with the "good war" myth. Fascism had to be beat but that doesn't mean that collective punishment of a civilian population is justified, or should even be celebrated. The US military has for long been the world's number 1 terrorist organization. When can we get them to surrender in this "war on terror".
Pacem in terris.

I likewise am very disturbed at all these pro-bomb viewpoints in what is supposed to be a progressive website. Were the Japanese more barbaric, particularly to civilians, than the US has been, around the world, SINCE World War II? Millions, perhaps tens of millions dies in the US brutal war against "communism". And I'm not even mentioning the native American and African slavery holocausts before that.

US imperialist exceptionalism lives on even among these "liberals" on this website. "Kem Patrrick" and the rest of these ignorant, arrogant, people can all go to hell.

Japan deserved everything it got simply for what they did to China, let alone the rest of the countries THEY invaded. 20 million Chinese, mostly civilians, died during WWII. What are Hiroshima and Nagasaki compared to that?

Vine,

Are you aware that every country Japan invaded during Hirohito's regime was a western colony, and which, in most cases, had been subjugated to centuries of brutal western rule? I'm not defending Japanese Imeprialism, but you do a great disservice to history if you leave out the context in which it occurred. The British had enslaved and killed tens of millions throughout China and India. Ditto the Dutch in various East Asian colonies. This continued for centuries, during which time Japan was a largely isolationist country with no imperial ambitions of any kind. Its expansionist policies began at the turn of the 20th century, and it was aided by Britain and France who built Japan's navy. Japan was an ally of the U.S. in WW1, and had a democratic government in the Taisho-era of the 1920's. Japan became an "enemy" when its ambitions lead it to depose western colonies, rather than Chinese and Russian "protectorates". To decry Japanese brutality in, say, the Philippenes during WW2, while overlooking that the U.S. had taken that same island by force (one half-million dead) only decades before is an unforgivable double-standard. To condemn Japan's actions in China, while overlooking China's own brutal civil war, is also unforgivable. Japan was just one of many players in a very savage and bloody struggle for dominance.

It seems that many Americans have still not suffieciently detoxed from the racist anti-Japanese propaganda of WW2 to see things with some semblance of objectivity.

I find it interesting that many on this board condemn the US for their actions, but say nothing about the atrocities committed by the Japanese and the Germans during the war.

I recommend watching the documentary "The War" by director Ken Burns on PBS. Or go to pbs.com and search the war. This is a great documentary with interviews with folks who lived through the war.

Oh nice, assume I'm an American.

1. China was not a colony, although, yes, some parts were controlled by Western powers.
2. I am perfectly aware of what Chinese have done to other Chinese.
3. However, Japan was my topic, not other countries. Japan's crimes are not to be excused. You come dangerously close to implying that it doesn't matter what Japan did. Should there be no consequences for their own actions?

Terrorizing a public for what their military has done is a barbaric mode of thinking. I would like to think that most of us have moved beyond stone age politics. Wiping out a neighboring "tribe" (see Vine's assumptions that the Japanese as a whole should have consequences for "their" actions) because of what those in power--the military junta--did is a questionable doctrine. I suppose many of these arm-chair "progressives" pontificating about the Japanese problem are still ok about rounding up the vermin and putting them in internment camps?? Those Japs in the states are no better than the ones over there...I guess this American arrogance and doctrine of exceptionalism is still what leads to our current acceptance of torturing any and all Muslims for what a few did on 911..I am saddened by the moral fabric of our US citizenry..

It is apparant that some, ___ like PJD,___ our blogging friend, who says I can go to straight to hell, have either a reading comprehension problem, or are so entwined in their one sided viewpoints, that they cannot see there is a flip side to every coin. I'm not surprised that PJD cannot see it, as he normally writes with his head stuffed up his ass. But perhaps some others may agree there were and are, ___ two sides to the issue.

I don't relish ever seeing anyone die, or get hurt, by any means. The point I attempted to make was this, perhaps I didn't write it well.

President Truman had a decision to make of whether to use the atomic bomb after it had been tested. Based upon the intelligence available to him, he WAS aware of this.

1. ___Germany had delivered nuclear materials to Japan. Was Japan building an atomic bomb or bombs? Truman DIDN'T know. __ He was of the firm belief, that if they had one or more, they would use them on us. He also was aware they had the means to do so. Could he take that chance? Truman decided he could not and gave the Okay to use the atomic bombs, in the belief it would end the slaughter and prevent Japan form using atomic weapons if they did have them or were close to having them. He was correct on one score. The war ended. Was it a damn shame, indeed it was.

2. ___ Finally, the issue began with, was Paul Tibbits guilty of a crime? No, he was not and to say he should suffer in hell,___ beware of what you say about others you don't even know, for if you believe in hell, then you must also believe in heaven and God. Therefore, you must allow God to judge, for God says do ot judge, less you be judged. Judge if you will, if some of you, like PJD, have a belief they may act as a God and write here as such.

Vine,

I specifically said I WASN'T defending Japanese imperialism. I'm just pointing out you sound like an uneducated lunatic when you say "the Japanese deserved everything they got for what they did to China, let alone the rest of the countries THEY invaded." China was the furthest thing from Truman's mind. And the rest of the countries "THEY" invaded had already been invaded and subjugated by others. What did the west "deserve" for its numerous crimes? A double-standard is what is it is. You have one, whether you admit it or not. When is it proper to murder civilians for the crimes of their government? We're fighting a "war on terror" ostensibly (laughably) to oppose the logic you seem to be defending.

Bruce,

You have the idea that Japanese atrocities were somehow so exceptional that they required special punishment. Such a view, while popularized during WW2 by the west, doesn't hold up to an honest analysis of history. The view that the Japanese were exceptional only holds up if you outright ignore the crimes of other nations. It does nothing to erase Japan's crimes to point out that they were part and parcel of Imperialism in general, and it is disingenuous to imply that anyone wanting to restore balance to a view of history by adding to the record is somehow trying to erase it.

Kem,

Stop making things up. The possibility that Japan had a nuclear weapon was never once seriously discussed by Truman, or anyone in his administration. There is no evidence that this affected his thinking. If I'm wrong, source me.

Look it up for yourself if you are so smart ASCOLTI. I'll give you a hint, it is in the area of the German submarine, which surrendered and was found to be transporting nuclear materials and nuclear scientists to Japan. For any to believe that Truman wasn't made aware of that is ludicrous. It was kept crypto secret for many years, anything concernig nuclear was at that time in history.

BTW, at times I am incorrect, but do not write I make things up in a most serious discussion. This is supposed to be a forum for debate, for learnng and at times is fun. Don't fuck it up, PJD is enough.

Old Badger puts it well.

Tibbets remained unrepentant. Unsurprising. He wasn't the man other WWIIVets were/are. A US Army Col. long retired from the Pacific theater, and now recently deceased, somehow was able to figure out the difference between brute soldiering and a warrior's duty. He recalled to his grandson how he felt simultaneously relieved and utterly ashamed when the bomb was used. As he got older, he said, "reasonable men learn to let their shame steer them back onto a straighter path, while scoundrels and fools stubbornly and loudly cling to their relief. I can only hope to God I'm getting more and more reasonable."

I can only wonder that one Colonel in the US Army could figure that out and come to terms, and why Tibbets could not. I can only conclude there are humans and there are trash dressed up as humans. No matter, from time to time the trash has to be taken out.

Were the Japanese guilty of thousand of henious war crimes? Here is just one of many thousands ASCOLTI. Japan DID start the war with the United States for whatever reason.
We legally reacted and durng one mission, bombed some Japanese industrial areas. Some of the bomber crews were shot down and captured. They were publically beheaded with swords. These were young men who were legally doing their duty as soldiers, they were wearing military uniforms. They were not spies. They were not given a trial. They were just taken out into the streets and beheaded, instead of being imprisoned. Their pictures and the films of their exxecutions were made public to the world. Had any been one of your loved ones, what would you think of it?

JUSTPLAIN JACK. So one Col has an opinion, and from that, you state the General Paul tibbits was trash because he had a different one on the issue. I disagree with you. Am I trash also, ___ or are you? Just because one has a different opinon, doesn't make them trash, or swine, or subject for hell's fire.

If any blame should be given for the atomic bombs and releasing the atomic Genie, give it where it is due.

JUSTPLAINJACK. Because one man has a different opinion than Paul Tibbets, Tibbets is trash. That does not make a lot of sense to me, ___ guess I need help.

Kem Patrick what do you think of the dissappearance of innocent Muslim men to detention centers like Guantanamo or Abu Grahib? Extraodinary Renditions? What if it happened to one of your loved ones is a very good question to ask? But make sure you ask it of non-white non-Christian non-American folks as well. The Japanese military junta during ww2 is surely guilty of countless atrocities..no one is denying that..the Rape of Nanjing is perhaps one of the bloodiest couple days of the 20th century..BUT..what myself and others on this discussion board are calling you out on..is the perverted logic that we can hold the "Japanese" responsible for the actions commited by their military in a time of war(how do you define Japaneseness? DNA? Hair-Color? Language? I can speak some Japanese and am a student of East Asian philosophies..should I be targeted? Religion? Ground zero for one of the bombs was a Japanese Catholic church you should remember..). I for one hope and pray everyday that I and my loved ones are never held accountable by angry Muslims for the "crime" of being American.

Oh, BTW. Truman never apologized for it either.

I'm not disputing the submarine KEM, nor am I affirming it. The point is, as I already stated, the possibility of Japan having the bomb was not among the list of reasons for Truman's decision. I know of no historical discussion by serious scholars - either pro or anti - which posits Japan's nuclear program as a reason for Truman's decision.

And KEM, "for whatever reason" does not cut it if you want to come across as having any authority on this topic. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor following a U.S. oil embargo. THAT was the reason. The embargo was put in place to stop Japan's agressions in the Western colonies. Japan's agressions in the western colonies were a response to Western agression in the Western colonies. And so on.

At least Pearl Harbor was a military target (and therefore also a legal target).

Stop arguing straw men. I'm not excusing beheadings of American soldiers. We're talking about why the bombs were dropped. You haven't refuted any of my points on that topic on strategic or moral grounds. Instead, you seem to view the bombings as a fitting punishment for bad people, regardless of military need.

Next time you're in a public park, watch the mothers, the children, old men playing chess...these are the people the United States cynically and mercilessly incinerated when they dropped the bombs.

RADICALCONFUSION. Do you ASSUME I agree with what our current administration is doing, or what other governments are doing, such as the issues you stated?

I don't agree that any human should be treated unfairly. World War Two was not the same as what is occurring today or during the past 60 some years, and to imply it was is irrational.

I believe we are all the same, with different cultures, religions, languages, those and greedy people who actually rule the world seperate us. I believe that the imaginary lines drawn on maps do not really exist and wish we would ALL learn to live in peace and harmony with one another and allow our children to have a fair chance at life.

I believe greed is spoiling the planet and killing our atmosphere and oceans, and unless we stop the stupidity we will leave our children and theirs forever on, with nothing but ruin. I believe this insane use of DU for weapons is far worse for humanity and for all life on our planet, than what we have done to date with atomic bombs.

But as for this article, I believe it is unfair and unjust to blame Paul Tibbits for what he did during the WAR.