Opinion of Harry Truman
Bo:
Quote from: ♠♠♠Giovanni♠♠♠ on December 22, 2009, 02:20:47 PM
Quote from: Mideast Assemblyman Ben on December 22, 2009, 02:17:01 PM
Quote from: ♠♠♠Giovanni♠♠♠ on December 22, 2009, 02:13:27 PM
No, we're not.
Do you really agree with Libertas here, Giovanni?
Not on this point. I agree that the Atomic Bombings were not necessary. But I find it insulting that Mendeleev is thinking Libertarianism is fringe concept that only out of touch Big Businessmen and Pot Smoking Hippies. I mean, I'm not a Big Businessman nor a Pot Smoking Hippie am I? :D
Quote from: Mendeleev on December 22, 2009, 02:17:17 PM
Quote from: ♠♠♠Giovanni♠♠♠ on December 22, 2009, 02:13:27 PM
Quote from: Mendeleev on December 22, 2009, 02:11:47 PM
Quote from: Northeast Representative ZombieLibertas on December 22, 2009, 02:07:43 PM
Quote from: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on December 22, 2009, 01:47:32 PM
Quote from: Northeast Representative ZombieLibertas on December 22, 2009, 01:36:54 PM
Quote from: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on December 22, 2009, 11:03:18 AM
Super-FF for saving the lives of thousands of American soliders and thousands more Japanese civilians. He had the courage to finally end the war that was begun by Japanese aggression.
Oh, he had to burn the village down to save it? Makes sense. ::)
He had to shoot the aggressor in the arms to avoid shooting him in the heart. Even with the destruction wrought by the nuclear bombs many Jap leaders wanted to stay in the battle and fight.
As difficult as it is for me to say this about a Democrat, Harry Truman may be one of our greatest Presidents for making such a difficult decision that saved so many lives.
No surprise there. The Democrats were the party of senseless war and death then just like your beloved Republicans are now.
Most of the time, libertarians are out of touch with reality.
No, we're not.
I wasn't talking about libertarian-leaning Republicans. I was talking about fringe-Ron Paul-kind of libertarians.
Ron Paul is not fringe, get over yourself.
Then how come he received less than 5% of the total vote in the Republican primaries in 2008 and less than 1% of the total vote when he ran in 1988. He IS fringe.
JSojourner:
Again, there were three choices. Maybe four.
1. Use the bomb.
2. Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces. Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million. About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3. Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission. They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4. Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm. And reinforce its armies in China. This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag. And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it. A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.
So which alternative do you prefer? I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices. I detest false choices. But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl:
Quote from: JSojourner on December 22, 2009, 06:01:02 PM
Again, there were three choices. Maybe four.
1. Use the bomb.
2. Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces. Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million. About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3. Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission. They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4. Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm. And reinforce its armies in China. This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag. And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it. A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.
So which alternative do you prefer? I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices. I detest false choices. But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.
5. Accept Japanese surrender
k-onmmunist:
War criminal, hawk, and general HP.
JSojourner:
Quote from: Northeast Representative ZombieLibertas on December 22, 2009, 06:02:15 PM
Quote from: JSojourner on December 22, 2009, 06:01:02 PM
Again, there were three choices. Maybe four.
1. Use the bomb.
2. Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces. Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million. About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3. Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission. They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4. Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm. And reinforce its armies in China. This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag. And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it. A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.
So which alternative do you prefer? I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices. I detest false choices. But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.
5. Accept Japanese surrender
I said realistic. Japan was never going to surrender.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page