Daily Show calls Truman a war criminal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

All I did was answer CGM's claim that Truman was a war criminal...and that's what I figured your main point of contention was and so I tried to support my side of the argument is all.

Historians that believe Truman is a war criminal should probably look at the death tolls from the Island Hopping the Marines were doing I already posted the American casualties but the Japanese casualties were even worse: 21,703 (KIA) Iwo Jima; 31,000 (KIA) Guadalcanal; 94,000-130,000+ (KIA) Okinawa (also an estimated 42,000-150,000 civilians were killed in Okinawa too)....so have some historian tell me the 2 bombs didn't save a number of American AND Japanese lives!

CFH, I'm sorry, I don't know much about Canada, I shouldn't have tried to make that point. I do think World Super Powers look at things differently than other countries, but that's just my opinion. Sorry about that though...and you're right I never really got around to learning anything about Canada....you call your Indians "First Nations people", I had no clue...learn something new everyday.

I didn't mean for my other post to be condescending...I just meant to explain the way I look at things and why it may differ from someone else is all. But I can see that all I've done recently by trying to explain things has just stoked your anger at me....so I would appologize but I didn't intend to be condescending so I'll just welcome the chance that'll you might re-read that post in a different tone because condescending wasn't the tone I was shooting for.

Sure you can use today's information when you look at history! I never meant to imply that at all. You learn a lot of different things as you go along that you didn't pick up on before and when you apply those findings to history it may change or alter your views on the intentions of historical figures, why and how events happened and so on. All I was saying is that we can't assume historical figures knew the things we do now and we cannot judge a historical figure on modern moral values and social norms, and I think that is very relevant to the whole idea of even considering Truman as a war criminal as he did not know a lot of things about the bomb, like the fallout and how badly the survivors (or the people who lived for a little while after the bomb was dropped) would suffer, but he knew it could end the war and it could save lives and that I think should clear his name from any of this war criminal stuff because anyway you can look at it Truman saved lives.

---

The bolded part is the only thing I can address at the moment because I am rushed, but I've never heard any historian describe Truman as a war criminal, only that the surrender of Japan was not the only reason for the dropping of the atomic bomb and that it was not necessary in the eyes of some. I didn't realize I hadn't been clear about that.

Oh OK, the war criminal stuff was what was irritating me is all. I don't doubt that the US was racing to develop the bomb before Germany and the USSR, and maybe even Japan developed it. I know that the working relationship between the US/UK and USSR disentigrated with the end of the European Theater and that the Cold War started right then and there. Maybe by using the bomb Truman was able to kill two birds with one stone, he was able to end the Pacific Theater and intimidate the Russians.

Either way it doesn't make what he did a war crime or even bad....I mean it sucks that it took that much to end the war but the ends justified the means.

Where's Kirkland?

Everytime I post in these threads I do so for about two or three pages, realize points are just being rehashed and come back a few days later to see its like 15 pages long. Lyle and Kirk and indefatigable.

Is he that famous US president that used to like to dress up in womans cloths? :dontknow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

Is he that famous US president that used to like to dress up in womans cloths? :dontknow:

---

...I think you are confused. J. Edgar Hoover, while around at that point in time, he was never President and never ran for President, he was the head of the FBI and served from 1935 til his death in 1972. He was famous for being the head of the FBI and also allegedly a closet queen and dressing up in women's clothes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

Is he that famous US president that used to like to dress up in womans cloths? :dontknow:

---

...I think you are confused. J. Edgar Hoover, while around at that point in time, he was never President and never ran for President, he was the head of the FBI and served from 1935 til his death in 1972. He was famous for being the head of the FBI and also allegedly a closet queen and dressing up in women's clothes.

---

oh ya. him :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Andre, you are well intentioned but alas history proves you wrong. Truman and other Allied leaders got together and on July 26, 1945 they issued the Potsdam Declaration which outlined the terms of Japan's surrender. They basically told Japan's leaders "If you don't surrender there will be a hole on the Earth where Japan used to be"...and apparently they thought we were bluffing.

Here's a timeline for everyone to follow: Potsdam Declaration July 26, 1945; Hiroshima was bombed August 6, 1945; Nagasaki was bombed August 9, 1945; and Truman announced the surrender of Japan SEPTEMBER 1, 1945.

FYI Andre, nobody knew the long term effects of those bombs but we did give them proper warning. The actual mission was carried out in secret because it had to be but Japan got warning and the fact that we HAD to drop a second one tells you they weren't going to just give up.

CFH, I'm sorry if the "nationalistic" comments offended you, however, to call the guy who effectively ended World War II a war criminal should offensive to everyone and HELL YES calling Trumana war criminal is controversial!!! I'm sorry, but I have no use for this revisionist history where America is turned into the villain it's bogus, nationalism may have something to do with it and the fact that America is a wonderful place to live and I am thankful for the opportunity to live here, or perhaps it's because the TRUTH is Truman did what was right to end the war, and thankfully he's the only US President/World Leader to ever use nuclear weapons and sure if he knew about the after effects he may have given Japan extra warnings other than the ones he actually issued but he would have still chose to end the war. When someone attacks America unfairly as just happened I do tend to get a little irritated, I'm not sure if someone missed that memo...but that's the case and in this case an unfounded (and unsupported) attack on what America/an American leader did was made and perhaps I reacted a little bit emotionally but I wanted to set the record straight and do it quickly because the type of ignorance that says "Truman is a war criminal" is shocking...do you kids not ask questions in class??? I hope to God this type of bullshit isn't being taught in American schools.

To be totally honest as an American I am really fucking tired of people painting America as the bad guy and the only reason we catch shit is because unlike Russia and China we try to do the right thing. I don't feel bad about being an American, and I probably never will.

---

Cool mate, I didnt know that.
So your forefathers did issue a warning! Makes me feel alot better that they did to be honest, but it surprises me somewhat.
I would have thought a lesser target would have been a fair warning, you know: show them the hole in the ground in their not so populated areas and then give them a count down..I imagine in hindsight they would probably do that now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Youngblood

Is he that famous US president that used to like to dress up in womans cloths? :dontknow:

---

...I think you are confused. J. Edgar Hoover, while around at that point in time, he was never President and never ran for President, he was the head of the FBI and served from 1935 til his death in 1972. He was famous for being the head of the FBI and also allegedly a closet queen and dressing up in women's clothes.

---

oh ya. him :p

---

F B I = Feminine Bastard Incorporated ;-)

Bush and Cheney are war criminals too with their disregard of the Geneva Conventions. String 'em all up, I say!! :plthumbsdown: :fighting0043gi5::cool:



































































Will that make Lyle angry....:p;D

miles, after your previous posts on this thread I just don't take you seriously.

Sure the left had been clammoring for Bush and Cheaney to get the war criminal treatment but in all honesty they don't deserve it, I mean it's better than what the CIA used to do....I don't think overdosing someone on LSD is all that great, I'd rather be water boarded, don't know about you. It's not like the CIA sawed anyone's head off, so we're still the good guys in that regard so there you have it.

I almost find the term war criminal paradoxical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanChilds

I almost find the term war criminal paradoxical.

---

I agree with that as well. The notion varies wildly based on whatever the current cultural constructs of which classifications of people (ie. soldiers, civilians) can be justifiably killed, maimed, or "tortured".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

miles, after your previous posts on this thread I just don't take you seriously.

Sure the left had been clammoring for Bush and Cheaney to get the war criminal treatment but in all honesty they don't deserve it, I mean it's better than what the CIA used to do....I don't think overdosing someone on LSD is all that great, I'd rather be water boarded, don't know about you. It's not like the CIA sawed anyone's head off, so we're still the good guys in that regard so there you have it.

---

A little bit tongue in cheek perhaps, but not a million miles away really. A better label for these types might be "the morally obsolete". Not good people by any stretch of the imagination. Mike Tyson has commited fewer crimes against humanity than these people! :D

At the end of the day the USA is still the good guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

At the end of the day the USA is still the good guy.

---

I think a nation as powerful as the United States is far too complex to be described in terms of good and evil. Really, I think that it's impossible to describe any nation in such terms except for extreme cases such as Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia etc. America does many things I would consider to be good, but it also does many things I would not consider good. However, it also depends on how the word "good" is defined in this instance. At a very basic level, the primary goal of the nation is to look after it's own citizens and perhaps that is the only way which it should be judged. However, the very structure of the nation and the interconnectedness of our world means that a country, particularly one as powerful as America, has such scope and impact worldwide that some consideration must be given for the way its actions impact others.

I guess that was a long-winded way of saying I have no idea if America is "good" or not as I don't even know how to define "good" in this instance...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

At the end of the day the USA is still the good guy.

---

Every nation likes to think that about themselves.

America has had it's many moments when that could be questioned. But I'm hopeful that this change in administration might lead to a renewed attitude of respect for the states. It's been very touch and go with Bush at the helm.

I find it very hard to make excuses for his time in office. :-\

Well miles has America not done enough good to outweigh the bad they may have done?

No country or leader is without sin or mistake....America atones for past sins by welcoming everyone and being a stronghold of freedom and liberty for everyone to enjoy.

Al Queda doesn't follow the Geneva Convention, they don't wear uniforms, they don't try and avoid civilian casualties, they do more than just torture people AND all those people have to be is not be muslim or not be muslims enough for them and they will cut their heads off as if it was the Crusades all over again...so using a set of guidelines like the Geneva Convention seems a bit too "modern" for the enemy we are fighting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Well miles has America not done enough good to outweigh the bad they may have done?

No country or leader is without sin or mistake....America atones for past sins by welcoming everyone and being a stronghold of freedom and liberty for everyone to enjoy.

Al Queda doesn't follow the Geneva Convention, they don't wear uniforms, they don't try and avoid civilian casualties, they do more than just torture people AND all those people have to be is not be muslim or not be muslims enough for them and they will cut their heads off as if it was the Crusades all over again...so using a set of guidelines like the Geneva Convention seems a bit too "modern" for the enemy we are fighting

---

I don't need to debate that with you because I'm sure you know that overall my picture of the US is positive. But I was certainly not a fan of the Bush years and certain policies in times before, especially Israeli policy.

One thing I always expect of America, and I don't think it is unreasonable, and that is to always try and show the moral highground as the nation that leads all others. That did get lost under Bush for me, but is possibly getting back in line under Obama.

Admittedly, it's not easy to maintain a moral highground when you have nations like China and Russia doing what they want. But America should lead the way and not stoop to the level of vagabond terrorist groups.

I personally would like to see the US take a much more isolationist foreign policy. Being the "world police" is a largely thankless job that quite often brings more problems than its worth.

People can dislike Bush all they want to for whatever reasons but we were going to Iraq no matter what, it was predestined, Saddam was going to be ousted whether by coup or invasion, even Al Gore had stepped up his language on the subject of Iraq.

I completely understand and agree on the US having the moral high ground, and I even with Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and all the water boarding scandals that we still undoubtedly have the moral high ground.

The question you have to ask yourself is, how far can you go to protect your country and still be in the right? And I think that is where the fundamental difference is between the people who don't think waterboarding is that big of a deal and the people who think water boarding is morally wrong. Anything more extreme than those views are strictly political in their nature and the people spouting them either just want to be "right" or they want to punish former/current politicians in power.

In a non-joking manner the movie, Dark Knight is very similar to what situation the US is in. You have a villain who obeys no rules, America is bound by the Geneva Convention, America belongs to the UN, America has to answer for their actions and their enemies don't. Al Queda doesn't have A COUNTRY, they don't have A GOVERNMENT, they are without borders, uniforms, ranks, and limits. Because of that America must fight their enemy and win...but the question is HOW do you win? Do you follow your rules and guidelines and maybe accept that more casualties/collateral damage will be inflicted by these villains? Or do you follow no rules like your enemy and in winning put your morals and values on the line instead of the citizens you are bound by law to protect?

There is no right or wrong in this situation, there are different shades of gray and anyone saying otherwise is just posturing for political purposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanChilds

I personally would like to see the US take a much more isolationist foreign policy. Being the "world police" is a largely thankless job that quite often brings more problems than its worth.

---

Totally agree.
We are a country with a crumbling infrastructure.......we need to really take care of things here.

Lyle a dramatic shift in our policies on energy and Israel would go a long way in removing us from militant Islam's cross hairs. I don't know if you watched the videos I posted in my Global Eco thread but I found it really interesting. You and I tend to agree on a smaller and limited federal government but moving our country away from a dependence on foreign oil can only be done by government mandates. Regardless of ones opinion about right or wrong in regards to Israel, as long as they are forming settlements they are an imperialistic power and no longer need our economic and military support. I didn't vote for Obama but these are two issue I felt he could make happen. So far I am not seeing much.

I don't know if I fully agree with that Van. If there was a "simple solution" then we would have done it years ago. Without Israel we don't have many true Allies over there part of that is our fault and part of it is their fault.

If we buy their oil a group of those guys are happy while another group is unhappy, if we don't buy their oil then the guys who had been happy are unhappy and who knows about the other group.

Well I think the reason the solution its not simple is because of the tremendous lobby that both Israel and Oil companies use.

I was looking for that national security speech to those students you posted so i could email the link to a friend ..what thread was that in mate? She had some good answers there.

Truman should of gone for the hat trick and dropped 3 bombs

he force Douglas McArthur to retire, our finest general ever! ass clown truman :mad:

Truman was right to replace McArthur IMO, he had no choice, he was insubordinate, in public not just in private, and a bit of a loon at times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julius Rain

he force Douglas McArthur to retire, our finest general ever! ass clown truman :mad:

---

I 100% disagree with that because Patton was our best General of that era...but of course he died before Korea heated up.

As far as best general ever, we've got quite a few to be proud of, but Patton is close to the top of my list although he shared some of the same personality flaws that McArthur had.

I think that Ridgeway was a better general than Mcarthur...Doesn't get the accolades he deserves IMHO.