Wikileaks: Obama attempted to APOLOGIZE for US nuking of Japan during WWII

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The sooner the idea that America is anything more or less than a particularly powerful, ideologically progressive (or at least it used to be) nation-state dies the death, the better. This sneering contempt of basic politeness on the part of our leaders has got to stop.

'President Obama fails to realize that being the leader of the Free World, the last best hope for mankind, means never having to say you're sorry.'

...What the actual fuck.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

why should the US apologize to Japan?  Japan started the war, Japan continued the war, Japan was allied with Hitler,and  Japan was also working on nukes with the intent on using them against the US.

We're not apologizing for doing any of those things, though. We're apologizing for atom-bombing civilian population centers, which Japan did not in fact do (also, citation needed on Japan working on nukes).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because he atom-bombed civilian population centers, that's why. It was a tragic necessity at best. Nothing to be proud of.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

seriously, Nathan, if you're not aware that Japan murdered MILLIONS of civilians during the war, you really don't deserve to be in this thread.   So do yourself a favor and GET LOST.

I assure you, I am not ignorant of Japan's actions. I simply, unlike you, don't have a retributive view of justice. Are you a Japanese major specialising in the Taisho and early Showa periods? No? I didn't think so. You get lost.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes, being at war with someone justifies nuking hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

It's what Jesus would've done.

when did Jesus, who claimed to by the King of Israel, apologize for any of the military campaigns listed in the OT?

stop kidding yourself, you're not smart, and you don't know much history, either biblical or modern.  Japan killed upwards of 10,000,000 (ten million) civilians during WWII - enough to make Hitler blush.

Japan had four per cent of its population killed, of which maybe...a fifth? At most? Were complicit in the crimes of groups like Unit 731 or those responsible for the Rape of Nanking. And most of the people who did those things lived. And none or almost of the ones who were killed (killings that were as justified as killing can ever get) were killed in the atom bombings. You know who were killed in the atom bombings? People like Hayashi Kyouko's family (If you don't know who Hayashi Kyouko is you have no right to be discussing the atom bombings at all).

The United States lost about one third of one per cent of its population--granted, almost none were war criminals, because that wasn't for the most part how the United States rolled.

It wasn't (and isn't) at all clear whether or not the Japanese government was ready to agree to a negotiated surrender, but that was at least in part because of translation errors relating to the verb 黙殺 (and whether Suzuki's use of it was meant for domestic or foreign consumption). See: http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/tech_journals/mokusatsu.pdf

seriously, Nathan, if you're not aware that Japan murdered MILLIONS of civilians during the war, you really don't deserve to be in this thread.   So do yourself a favor and GET LOST.

I assure you, I am not ignorant of Japan's actions. I simply, unlike you, don't have a retributive view of justice. Are you a Japanese major specialising in the Taisho and early Showa periods? No? I didn't think so. You get lost.

it wasn't for retribution which we nuked Japan, it was to end the war activities of Japan, activities which systematically tortured and killed millions upon millions of Asians and attacked the United States.

So you admit that it was a tragic necessity and something that should not have occurred.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Love that logic. Guess the allies should have gassed a bunch of Germans in concentrations camps. It's only their comeuppance.

the US didn't kill Japanese civilians after the war was over, instead the US nuked Japan to bring Japan to surrender.  After the war was over, the US poured billions into Japan and Germany to rebuild them, as no other nation has ever done for it's former enemies in the history of this world.

Which mitigates the fact that the United States killed innocents exactly as much as that fact mitigates the fact that Japan killed innocents.

So you admit that it was a tragic necessity and something that should not have occurred.

no, I admit it was a necessity and something I would do again any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

血溜澑が大好きですね...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Also, will Obama admit to this attempted apology?  In fact, we can have the entire 2012 election be about this one issue is it so pleases you bleeding heart liberals.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/17677/majority-supports-use-atomic-bomb-japan-wwii.aspx

The majority also supports state-sponsored revenge killings the death penalty. Also I don't think many people are going to be particularly concerned with this. I'm only concerned because you're using the history of the country of which I'm making academic study to score cheap points that exist only in your head.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The majority also supports state-sponsored revenge killings the death penalty.

so, does that mean prison is "state-sponsored revenge confinement"?  if prison isn't "revenge", then how is the death penalty?

Because it's a relatively minimal response in terms of keeping dangerous people out of society and/or attempting to make them not-dangerous. The death penalty is one of the ultimate acts of aggression against the soul because it takes away any future chance of repentance. If you're executing somebody who hasn't repented, you're essentially kicking them into Hell's flame yourself; if you're executing somebody who has, you have no leg to stand on anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about the teenage girls working in the munitions factories (a position which they were conscripted into and did not for the most part volunteer for or enjoy) who got blown up? What about the old people and babies who died? Does the fact that a bunch of young-to-middle-aged Japanese men killed teenage girls, old people, and babies in other countries on the orders of a Japanese government run by military men of various ages make us killing Japanese (and Korean, don't forget that part) teenage girls, civilian old people, and babies better somehow?

It's funny how for somebody so averse to collective judgment in the economic realm you're so gung-ho about collective punishment in the realm of nuking people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You aren't the Head of State of Germany, though. The President is the Head of State of this country. I accept the Japanese ambassador's judgment on this, actually, but I don't understand why it would have been so horrifying for Obama to apologize for one of his predecessors nuking civilians. Whether or not it was necessary, what I am trying to get across to you is that nuking civilians is still not something that one should feel at all good or even neutral about having done.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I accept the histories of both counties, but I not about to apology for nuking a country that attacked us and was trying to nuke us.

What about the teenage girls working in the munitions factories (a position which they were conscripted into and did not for the most part volunteer for or enjoy) who got blown up?

see below example:

if a crazy man in a minivan, with his whole family aboard, was driving crazy and causing other car loads of families to die, then I do whatever is needed to stop the minivan, even if I have to blow it up and kill all the occupants, even the innocent ones.

But that wasn't the situation by August of 1945. It's far from clear whether better options would have presented themselves, so even if you don't think they would have it's far from a fait accompli.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But Jesus was the head of state for Israel, and where was Jesus’ apology for Israel’s military campaigns, including campaigns against civilians, in the OT?  I’m sure Dibble could give you list.
[/quote]

Jesus' kingdom was not of this world. I know because he says and demonstrates so very clearly. Besides, even granted that several of those military campaigns were under Divine orders, Jesus had enough beneficence to the whole world and did enough for us all that an apology would have been rather puerile in comparison to what he in fact did; whereas, in secular politics, official statements carry a lot of weight.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

But Jesus was the head of state for Israel, and where was Jesus’ apology for Israel’s military campaigns, including campaigns against civilians, in the OT?  I’m sure Dibble could give you list.

Jesus' kingdom was not of this world. I know because he says and demonstrates so very clearly. Besides, even granted that several of those military campaigns were under Divine orders, Jesus had enough beneficence to the whole world and did enough for us all that an apology would have been rather puerile in comparison to what he in fact did; whereas, in secular politics, official statements carry a lot of weight.

So, when he comes back to restore the kingdom to Israel and establish his kingdom on earth (see Acts 1:6), then he will be issuing apologizes for his past orders to OT Israel which instructed them to slaughter civilians?

….[the sound of much page flipping]

I’m having trouble finding a reference to his future apology; can you point to the chapter and verse?

I think that would be the least of everybody's concerns at that point.

US-Japanese relations, however, are very much an earthly matter and Obama and Noda are earthly potentates. Not in a New Heaven and New Earth during the end times. Now. This is an important distinction, since we're not following the example of the Christ from Revelation who spits swords out of His mouth; that's not what we're called to do.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think I would have liked to have met your dad, anvi.