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

[John Dibble]

Along the lines of what I just posted above, here's an article that offers a different opinion:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46822

Also, ABC apparently has a White House statement on it:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/japanese-government-nixed-idea-of-obama-visiting-apologizing-for-hiroshima/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

What is it Jesus said about an eye for an eye?

again, you and your leftist buddies are framing the bombings are revenge, and they were not.  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.

[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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

A senior White House official asserts to ABC News that there was never any plan for the president to apologize for Hiroshima.  The cable does not state that the idea was from the U.S. Rather, Roos writes that Yabunaka thought that following President Obama’s call earlier that year for a world free of nuclear weapons, anti-nuclear groups would speculate as to whether he would visit Hiroshima.

hummm...seems there are limits to Obama's Apology Tour....good for him.

But where does that leave Obama, who seems to have no intention of apologizing for the US nuking of Japan, in the eyes of those who believe the US should apologize?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

---

You aren't the Head of State of Germany, though.

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.

[Link]

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

I don't always agree with Obama but geez. Travel the world some time.  There is plenty of controversy about the nuking of Japan and the firebombing of Dresden.   Apologizing for either of these acts is not the worst thing that a Noble Peace prize winner could do.  If this is the best "dirt" you've got I'm not liking your chances in '12.

Look we nuked those little yellow bastards and won.  Now let it go.

[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.

[Jacobtm]

The OP didn't even read his article. Nowhere does it say that Obama attempted to apologize for US nuking of Japan.

Of course it would be wholly appropriate to do so. We've already nuked them, saying sorry wouldn't hurt. There are still people living with the after effects of that radiation.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If this is the best "dirt" you've got I'm not liking your chances in '12.

well, give us a break, what else do we have to attack him on with his economic and foreign policy going so well?  I mean, if he had backed revolutions by crazy groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, and ran up was much debt in 4 years and W did in 8, and presided over net job losses in the millions and a double dip recession starting at a level of 9.1% UE and a $1.3T deficit...then we would have something else to hold him to.  As it is, we have nothing, and we're grasping at straws, so cut us a little slack.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I like the status quo---we all awkwardly ignore the fact that WW2 happened! They dont bring up the Atom Bombs, we dont bring up Pearl Harbor.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I like the status quo---we all awkwardly ignore the fact that WW2 happened! They dont bring up the Atom Bombs, we dont bring up Pearl Harbor.

yeah, thankfully Dec 7th doesnt come around once a year

[Sbane]

So the article doesn't even mention Obama wanted to do this. Only that something like that would be out of the question, regardless of public expectations. You creamed your pant too quick Jmf. What does your wife think of this problem you have?

[Franzl]

Why would an apology be a bad thing, even, just theoretically?

I would have dropped the atomic bomb, to be perfectly clear....but it was an awful thing, and I'm not sure it's really relevant today why it happened. Thousands of innocent people died. It may have been the least bad option, but it was still a terrible, terrible event.

[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.

[Link]

So the article doesn't even mention Obama wanted to do this. Only that something like that would be out of the question, regardless of public expectations. You creamed your pant too quick Jmf. What does your wife think of this problem you have?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Why would an apology be a bad thing, even, just theoretically?

Because it's a pretty gay thing to do.

America won't survive by acting gay though.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You creamed your pant too quick Jmf. What does your wife think of this problem you have?

depends if it is morning or night...I have more time to reload at night.

[Хahar 🤔]

It's always fun to have a look into jmfcst's worldview.

[King]

The US could at least call every once and awhile to see how Japan is doing.

[Insula Dei]

Actually, knowing what we know today, one could easily argue that dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima (and certainly on Nagasaki) was neither a necessity, nor an in any way justifiable act.

There's a (I'm told quite convincing) case by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa that Japan's unconditional surrender was already guaranteed after the start of USSR military actions in Manchuria. Hiroshima simply played no very major role in that decision.

And if the US couldn't know that to be the fact, yet wanted to spare itself the huge number of casualties and the tremendous cost of an invasion of the Japanese home islands, it could just have settled for a conditional surrender of the Japanese, as was proposed on several occasions by the Japanese high command itself.

What would that have entailed? Simply put, the Emperor's position would have to be guaranteed. Given the fact that MacArthur obviously ended up keeping the Japanese monarchy anyway, this would have been a small price to pay for the end of Pacific War. Also, the US would have had to ignore the decisions taken at Cassablanca and (If memory serves me) Tehran in pushing for anything but an  unconditional surrender from an Axis Power. This too would have been easy, as there was a precedent in the (very) conditional surrender of post-Mussolini Italy, and the fact that noone would be disadvantaged by this decision.

As far as the obvious other reason for Hiroshima is concerned, one wonders what use bombing Nagasaki could possibly have had towards that end.

[Link]

The US could at least call every once and awhile to see how Japan is doing.

You're out of line.

[greenforest32]

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.

I agree with this. This whole idea of inherent American exceptionalism is crazy. You're only exceptional when you do exceptional things.

[patrick1]

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.

I agree with this. This whole idea of inherent American exceptionalism is crazy. You're only exceptional when you do exceptional things.

Well, the Manhattan project itself was an exceptional undertaking...

[anvi]

I'm going to retell a story that I've told on the forum before, but I think, given the topic of this thread, is appropriate.

My dad was a WWII veteran.  He joined the army in September of '41, and fought in North Africa, Italy, France and the Philippines and was on an aircraft carrier bound for mainland Japan when the bombs were dropped.  He was a very strict Catholic and remained one all his life.  He had spent two years in the seminary when he was young, and was so well-versed in the liturgy that, when chaplains were absent or ill in his unit, he would say a good part of the mass in their place for other Catholic soldiers (in Latin, of course).  At the army reunions he took me to when I was a kid, his unit friends didn't call him by his first name; they called him "little padre" ("little," I think, because he was short).  He showered stories on all of his children about the war, and since I was the youngest in the family, I think I heard all of them more often than anyone else.  He was first scrub nurse for surgery in a medical unit for most of the war, and told stories about everything from patching up allied and enemy soldiers, to getting winning poker hands while crossing the equator on a boat, to being deafened for several weeks by hand grenades on the battlefield, to having to kill a Japanese soldier who was trying, with a comrade, to raid his camp while on night guard duty in the Philippines.  He saw the worst of everything for the entirety of the war.

Because I listened to all of his stories, when I was about eleven, I started reading histories of the war, and watching lots of documentaries about famous generals,  I was especially fascinated with Patton because my dad's unit was attached to the 3rd Army for a little bit while they were rolling through France, and my dad remembered standing within feet of Patton during morning duty.  I began, after a time, reading about the War in the Pacific, and realized that, had it not been for the bombs, my dad would have had to fight, and may very easily have died, in mainland Japan after having survived four years on the western fronts.  

So, one day, when I was 12, I mustered up the courage to ask my dad about that.  He had a sometimes unpredictably quick temper (which I inherited), so I was kind of careful about which questions to ask him.  But, one day, I finessed my way into it with the remark: "you must have been really relieved when the bombs were dropped on Japan, ending the war, since it meant you wouldn't have to fight on the mainland."  "Of course," he replied: "we were all relieved."  "So, you think dropping the bombs to end the war was the right thing for the U.S. to do."  He turned to me, and answered, in a slow cadence, in a quiet but somber tone I will never forget: "no.  Absolutely not.  Dropping those bombs was a mortal sin."  "But," I mildly protested, "everyone thinks that many more people may have died if we had conducted an invasion, and it's almost certain many thousands of more soldiers, including you, would have died too."  My dad answered: "that's not the point.  Dropping those bombs meant we killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians.  That's what we were supposed to be fighting against Germany for.  That's why we considered Japan to be in the wrong; they were the ones invading countries and killing civilians, and that's why we had to stop them.  And besides, the Bible, and our Lord, tells us that we must not murder.  We were soldiers; dying on the battlefield was our job, our duty.  It was not our duty to kill innocent civilians.  It was a mortal sin."

Obviously, my father's view may very easily represent an incredibly small minority among soldiers; I've sure heard for more voices from that generation than his justify the dropping of the bombs than criticize it.  But that conversation with my dad always deeply moved me, and moves me to this day, even though I am no longer religious in any way.  My dad's faith transcended nationalism, even in the throes of the deadliest of wars.  It transcended numbers and hypothetical calculations.  It transcended the political ends that wars are meant to achieve.  His sense of duty, morality, obedience to God meant more to him than all that, meant more to him than his own life on this earth.  And that sense of duty told him that killing innocent civilians is wrong...period, end of story, no addendum, no excuses, no self-interested exceptions.  

You may agree or disagree with my dad's view, and either way, I entirely respect your right to believe what you do.  After all, a society where people respect one another's right to believe what they do, even though they may vehemently disagree with one another, was precisely the kind of society our soldiers, then and now, fight to defend and preserve.  But, in my own experience, I can't say I've ever heard an expression of faith, and what it categorically demands from human beings, that impressed me more then my dad's answer to my question.