Obama and Clinton Dream Ticket

[poului]

however, he did have a lot of doubts about whether to support Israel ...

Very, very partial credit for that.

 

[agricola]

Yes. And your paragon of pacifism ordered their dropping. Is there anything you wish to contend in that fact?

I said he was not a warmongering President. He did not start that war, but he did finish it.

Debatable. The Japanese were trying to sue for a negotiated settlement via Stalin when the US dropped the bombs. Many would contend that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were used to display American might in what was essentially the opening salvo of the cold war.

The only acceptable surrender for the Japanese was an unconditional one, and they were not at war with the Soviets - though they would be shortly. Even after both bombs had been dropped there was a serious coup attempt aimed at keeping the war going - had this not happened then it is almost inconcievable that a realistic peace would have occured.

He intervened militarily in a civil war partly of his own making. UN charters do not cover civil wars, and the UN resolution giving the US carte blanche to intervene was a legally debatable fig leaf.

It is also very misleading to pass it off as a civil war - the country had been effectively split in two ever since 1945, with two countries existing separately by any rational measurement.

As for the 2,500,000 - that wasnt directed at you, but fela fan.

 

[bendeus]

I said he was not a warmongering President. He did not start that war, but he did finish it.

Regardless of who 'started' anything, Agricola, dropping heavy nuclear munitions on two densely populated civilian population centres is warmongering. Pure and simple. To quote Leo Szilard,

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?

(My bold)

The only acceptable surrender for the Japanese was an unconditional one, and they were not at war with the Soviets - though they would be shortly. Even after both bombs had been dropped there was a serious coup attempt aimed at keeping the war going - had this not happened then it is almost inconcievable that a realistic peace would have occured.

The bomb was, without doubt, in direct contravention of all international conventions and norms of war. Doubtless the Japanese were also capable of inflicting horror on civilian populations, but that does not excuse Truman. Not one iota. By his actions, Truman ushered in an age in which mass destruction not only became possible, but became casual - the flick of a switch would wipe out a city. He should never be forgiven for this.

It is also very misleading to pass it off as a civil war - the country had been effectively split in two ever since 1945, with two countries existing separately by any rational measurement.

Any more misleading than to pass it off as conventional war between two sovereign nations? Why was Korea split, and who did the splitting?

As for the 2,500,000 - that wasnt directed at you, but fela fan.

No. You directed it at me first, when you commented on the number of deaths the Japanese had caused during WWII.

 

[agricola]

Regardless of who 'started' anything, Agricola, dropping heavy nuclear munitions on two densely populated civilian population centres is warmongering. Pure and simple.

They were not "heavy nuclear munitions" - this is a nonsensical phrase - they were of low yield compared to what was to come later.

The bomb was, without doubt, in direct contravention of all international conventions and norms of war. Doubtless the Japanese were also capable of inflicting horror on civilian populations, but that does not excuse Truman. Not one iota. By his actions, Truman ushered in an age in which mass destruction not only became possible, but became casual - the flick of a switch would wipe out a city. He should never be forgiven for this.

For a start, its blatantly obvious that it was not "casual" - since noone has done it since, despite many crises, wars with nuclear-armed states, and even direct shooting wars between the superpowers.

Secondly, it was not "in direct contravention of all international conventions and norms of war". The allies had just spent several years bombing - with conventional munitions - Japanese and German cities, including one and possibly another raid that killed more people than either atomic bombing. This was not a war crime. The Germans and Japanese had, prior to the Allied efforts, spent the period before that bombing cities - this policy, even at Nuremburg, was not a war crime. Noone stood trial for Coventry or the Blitz.

Any more misleading than to pass it off as conventional war between two sovereign nations? Why was Korea split, and who did the splitting?

Did I ever suggest that?