(September 16, 2016 at 12:27 pm)RobertE Wrote:

(September 16, 2016 at 4:03 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Seriously?  You're comparing the PTO to Israel's policy of bombing civilians?  Japan in 1941 was a expanding, powerful empire.  Its policy of conquest in Asia was an existential threat.  Israel, on the other hand, are performing actions that are all out of proportion to what the Palestinians are doing.

The only way you could seriously compare the two would be if the Japanese had snuck into Hawaii and sprayed 'Roosevelt is a Homo' on a palm tree and then run away, at which point the US immediately began dropping bombs on preschools.

Boru

It doesn't alter the fact that whatever the Japanese did, they didn't warrant having a nuclear bomb dropped on them. The Japanese are your equivalent of the Hamas throwing rocks if you will, and your yanks are your Israeli equivalent of lancing rockets.

Then why do you support Israel's disproportionate response? That aside, you could you a lesson in the history of Japanese expansionist policies.

Boru

The decision to drop the bombs rested on two compelling facts.  

1.  Every island we took incurred a greater loss, for both sides.  The carnage was expected to increase until mainland japan itself had been overrun and held under occupation.  

2.  The american people would not have accepted a reality in which Eisenhower possessed the means to end the war but not the will to employ them.  

As to whether or not their use was warranted, I think that's too vague an issue to tackle without elaboration.

3.  At Yalta, Stalin had agreed to attack Japan 3 months after Germany surrendered.  That date was August 8th, 1945.  Do you think it was a coincidence that the first bomb was dropped on August 6th?

(September 16, 2016 at 12:27 pm)RobertE Wrote:

(September 16, 2016 at 4:03 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Seriously?  You're comparing the PTO to Israel's policy of bombing civilians?  Japan in 1941 was a expanding, powerful empire.  Its policy of conquest in Asia was an existential threat.  Israel, on the other hand, are performing actions that are all out of proportion to what the Palestinians are doing.

The only way you could seriously compare the two would be if the Japanese had snuck into Hawaii and sprayed 'Roosevelt is a Homo' on a palm tree and then run away, at which point the US immediately began dropping bombs on preschools.

Boru

It doesn't alter the fact that whatever the Japanese did, they didn't warrant having a nuclear bomb dropped on them. The Japanese are your equivalent of the Hamas throwing rocks if you will, and your yanks are your Israeli equivalent of lancing rockets.

You should probably brush up on your knowledge here before we enter this debate.

The Japanese were utterly prostrate by the Summer of 1945.  The submarine blockade had demolished their merchant marine.  The B-29 firebomb raids had killed far more people than the atom bombs would.  Admiral Mitscher's carriers sailed unopposed around the Home Islands attacking whatever they damned well pleased.

One plane dropping one bomb or a thousand planes dropping ten thousand bombs, it did not matter.  The Japanese could defend against neither.  Up until Stalin double-crossed them the Japanese were trying to get the Russians to intercede with the allies on their behalf.  They knew the war was lost.  Hell.  No one knew it better than them.

And yet the military mounted a coup attempt to try to ensure the war continued -- after the bombs were dropped, no less.

I think the bombs were just as much a message to the USSR as they were a military operation.

A handful of junior officers tried a coup.  A regiment of soldiers followed the orders of their officers without really knowing why... as is usually the case.   It was crushed by loyal elements.  The insurrectionists killed themselves.  It was hardly "the military" trying to stop the surrender.  

It was far more about the Russians than it was about the Japs.

(September 16, 2016 at 12:24 pm)RobertE Wrote:

(September 16, 2016 at 11:42 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: From where I'm sitting the BBC has a right wing bias and was part of reason for the Labour defeat by using the same gutter tactics as the tory rags. How many times did the BBC show that fucking picture of Ed eating the bacon sandwich!

Perhaps you are right. I mean Hamas is Islamic, and Islam is pretty extreme shit, next to neo-nazism, KKK, Aryan nation, nation of Islam and all other extremes. Mind you, the Jews can be extreme right-wing too.

All religions tend to be right wing apart from possibly budhism. Their nature is centralising power and control and endorsing the structure of class and wealth I'm balance. Remember the queen still claims her right to rule because of divine right, another reason the monarchy should be abolished.

(September 17, 2016 at 12:48 am)Minimalist Wrote: A handful of junior officers tried a coup.  A regiment of soldiers followed the orders of their officers without really knowing why... as is usually the case.   It was crushed by loyal elements.  The insurrectionists killed themselves.  It was hardly "the military" trying to stop the surrender.  

It was far more about the Russians than it was about the Japs.

It was the Ministry of War and the Imperial Guard, no? Toland as well documents the intransigence of quite a few generals.

I agree that it was more about the Russians, both to secure the islands from them quicker and to send a message to them, but the bombs were certainly cheaper in lives than either an outright invasion or continued submarine blockade.

(September 14, 2016 at 3:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: A (very quick) web search shows me that this story was covered by ABC News, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Military Times, and several dozen smaller outlets.

You're a lunatic.

Boru

You didn't actually read those articles did you?
NY Times never mention obama golfing and the seals being postponed because he could not be bothered on his down time. It simply says a Obama authorized a raid and missed hostages by hours.

The following google search uses the key words Obama, golfing, seals, and rescue.
Meaning I am looking for stories containing the fact that obama failed to authorize a timely rescue mission because he could not be bothered while on va-ca. Point??? Look down the list and you do not see a major source. When you do it is a puff peice blaming the kidnappers MO.

https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+go...n&start=10


Yes, your other media outlets do indeed mention the story, they do not mention the seals were in the air minutes from the hostages, could not get permission by a leader literally asleep at the wheel, and could not be bothered. No those other media outlets focused on the fact that the kidnappers moved the hostages around and spend 2/3 of the article citing examples of failed rescue attempt, negating the fact that IF the Seals would have been allowed to go in When they were ready the day before their would have been a recovery of the American and Australian held hostage.

Why not compare apples to apples and show me a left wing media outlet blaming obama for his tardy attention for these hostages. why just look for examples of this story in some form or fashion from a major media outlet?

Maybe you could start at page 5 of the google search I listed because i stopped looking after 4 pages on this google search. Maybe google burried the major media sources way way back, because maybe the algorithm is protecting obama and it is like you said, the major media outlets are indeed doing their job.