American Right Wing beats up on grieving war mother

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Oh, and why would anyone be scared of Iran and nuclear plants and military programs when the ONLY country that's EVER killed with the atomic bomb is :


USA

Japan bombed us first at Pearl Harbor. We used the bomb so we wouldn`t have to invade Japan, posibly losing tens of thousands of american soldiers. We just diddn`t kill people because we diddn`t like them or what they believed in. Osama Bin LAden did that on 9/11.

[Jessica]

Oh, and why would anyone be scared of Iran and nuclear plants and military programs when the ONLY country that's EVER killed with the atomic bomb is :


USA

Japan bombed us first at Pearl Harbor. We used the bomb so we wouldn`t have to invade Japan, posibly losing tens of thousands of american soldiers. We just diddn`t kill people because we diddn`t like them or what they believed in. Osama Bin LAden did that on 9/11.

That's EXACTLY what i mean !

I9nstead of having a " clean" " normal" war, you push a button and kill one generation, making sure the two or three that follows is abnormal.

GREAT, and yar proud ?

You felt it was necssary to bomb a TINY island so you wouldnt lose men the NORMAL way ?

When they didn't menace your territory directly ? ( yeah, all of japan wouldn't even have invaded New York area!!)  When the USA is how many times bigger than their island ?

Nutters!

[pilferk]

Oh, and why would anyone be scared of Iran and nuclear plants and military programs when the ONLY country that's EVER killed with the atomic bomb is :


USA

Japan bombed us first at Pearl Harbor. We used the bomb so we wouldn`t have to invade Japan, posibly losing tens of thousands of american soldiers. We just diddn`t kill people because we diddn`t like them or what they believed in. Osama Bin LAden did that on 9/11.

As did we, in Iraq, in a less horrible way? ?Isn't that how we're not justifying our occupation of Iraq? ?We didn't like their government so we decided to bring them "freedom". ?Granted, not the same thing by a long shot...but, looking purely at motivation...not too far off.

I agree, the bombing or Hiroshima was an unfortunate, but necessary, way to end a very long bloody war without risking a huge number of US casualties. ?Some historians say NOT using the bomb would have extended the war by 3 to 5 YEARS (not changing the outcome, just the duration). ?The Japanese, after all, committed an unprecedented act of war with the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

[Jessica]

Still, the US led the way in showing the rest of the world how to mass massacre , and this, 60 years ago.

[gilld1]

Nutters is your logic, Jessica. ?Your arguement is foolish at best downright stupid at worst. ?I don't think that GnRFL had anything to do with the bombing of Japan, which was the right thing to do. ?That "tiny"sland had managed to overtake most of the Pacific and was very brutal in their tactics. ?There are no clean wars thats a pipedream.

[Rob]

A conventional attack on Japan in WWII would have meant the lives of hundreds of thousands of American troops.? It would have been the most costly part of the war for us in terms of lives lost.? The war needed to come to an end, and te US did what we had to do.

[pilferk]

Oh, and why would anyone be scared of Iran and nuclear plants and military programs when the ONLY country that's EVER killed with the atomic bomb is :


USA

Japan bombed us first at Pearl Harbor. We used the bomb so we wouldn`t have to invade Japan, posibly losing tens of thousands of american soldiers. We just diddn`t kill people because we diddn`t like them or what they believed in. Osama Bin LAden did that on 9/11.

That's EXACTLY what i mean !

I9nstead of having a " clean" " normal" war, you push a button and kill one generation, making sure the two or three that follows is abnormal.

GREAT, and yar proud ?

You felt it was necssary to bomb a TINY island so you wouldnt lose men the NORMAL way ?

When they didn't menace your territory directly ? ( yeah, all of japan wouldn't even have invaded New York area!!)? When the USA is how many times bigger than their island ?

Nutters!

Not exactly an accurate historical portrait.

The Japanese DID invade US soil...Hawaii. ?As such, their goverment committed an act of war. ?And they WERE a threat to us, made obvious by Pearl Harbor's aftermath.

I also know the use of the Bomb was an agonizing decision that was made, ultimately, by Truman. ?It came down to approximate casualty estimates, and the "cost" of not using the bomb was deemed to far outweigh the "cost" of using the bomb. ?A callous way to evaluate the situation? Perhaps. ?But the explanation I've always heard used by Truman is that he couldn't justify NOT using the bomb..couldn't fathom the loss of hundreds of thousands of his troops by NOT using the bomb when he had it. ?In addition, he had intel saying that Germany and Japan were both working on similar weapons, and they would NOT hesitate to use them vs the US. ?So, he was left with a tough decision...one I'm very glad I wouldn't have to make.

On one hand, killing tens of thousands of "innocent" people, but potentially ending a war and saving hundreds of thousands of soldiers AND taking the country you're responsible for out of danger OR not using the bomb, thereby saving those tens of thousands, but putting hundreds of thousands more at risk, and risking the safety of the people of your country. ?No matter which decision Truman makes, the results are not pretty.

So, it's not quite as cut and dry as you portray it....

[Jessica]

which war are YOu talking about ?

"The United States, which had important political and economic interests in East Asia, was alarmed by these Japanese moves. The U.S. increased military and financial aid to China, embarked on a program of strengthening its military power in the Pacific, and cut off the shipment of oil and other raw materials to Japan."

(http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm)

I quote : POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC INTERESTS

Why does that remind me of NOW ?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

maybe you should read the paragraph before that one:

In 1931 Japan conquered Manchuria, which until then had been part of China. In 1937 Japan began a long and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to conquer the rest of China. In 1940, the Japanese government allied their country with Nazi Germany in the Axis Alliance, and, in the following year, occupied all of Indochina.

I don`t think the Chinese appreciated being conquered by Japan.

And we all know how "fair" the Nazis were.

I see no similarity between WW2 and the events leading up to it and Iraq.

[pilferk]

which war are YOu talking about ?

"The United States, which had important political and economic interests in East Asia, was alarmed by these Japanese moves. The U.S. increased military and financial aid to China, embarked on a program of strengthening its military power in the Pacific, and cut off the shipment of oil and other raw materials to Japan."

(http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm)

I quote : POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC INTERESTS

Why does that remind me of NOW ?

From your own link:

"The road to war between Japan and the United States began in the 1930s when differences over China drove the two nations apart. In 1931 Japan conquered Manchuria, which until then had been part of China. In 1937 Japan began a long and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to conquer the rest of China. In 1940, the Japanese government allied their country with Nazi Germany in the Axis Alliance, and, in the following year, occupied all of Indochina."

And an embargo (ie: refusing to do business with a country based on their actions) is not an attack.? ?Any actions we took against Japan were "peaceful" right up until they flew onto our doorstep and dropped bombs.

As for having political and economic interests in other parts of the world...so what?  Should be detail French colonozation, too?  It has as much bearing on the subject at hand....

[SLCPUNK]

Oh, and why would anyone be scared of Iran and nuclear plants and military programs when the ONLY country that's EVER killed with the atomic bomb is :


USA

 We just diddn`t kill people because we diddn`t like them or what they believed in. Osama Bin LAden did that on 9/11.

That is over simplifying it, to say the least.

[Prometheus]

Oh, and why would anyone be scared of Iran and nuclear plants and military programs when the ONLY country that's EVER killed with the atomic bomb is :


USA

Japan bombed us first at Pearl Harbor. We used the bomb so we wouldn`t have to invade Japan, posibly losing tens of thousands of american soldiers. We just diddn`t kill people because we diddn`t like them or what they believed in. Osama Bin LAden did that on 9/11.

That's EXACTLY what i mean !

I9nstead of having a " clean" " normal" war, you push a button and kill one generation, making sure the two or three that follows is abnormal.

GREAT, and yar proud ?

You felt it was necssary to bomb a TINY island so you wouldnt lose men the NORMAL way ?

When they didn't menace your territory directly ? ( yeah, all of japan wouldn't even have invaded New York area!!)  When the USA is how many times bigger than their island ?

Nutters!

Not exactly an accurate historical portrait.

The Japanese DID invade US soil...Hawaii.  As such, their goverment committed an act of war.  And they WERE a threat to us, made obvious by Pearl Harbor's aftermath.

I also know the use of the Bomb was an agonizing decision that was made, ultimately, by Truman.  It came down to approximate casualty estimates, and the "cost" of not using the bomb was deemed to far outweigh the "cost" of using the bomb.  A callous way to evaluate the situation? Perhaps.  But the explanation I've always heard used by Truman is that he couldn't justify NOT using the bomb..couldn't fathom the loss of hundreds of thousands of his troops by NOT using the bomb when he had it.  In addition, he had intel saying that Germany and Japan were both working on similar weapons, and they would NOT hesitate to use them vs the US.  So, he was left with a tough decision...one I'm very glad I wouldn't have to make.

On one hand, killing tens of thousands of "innocent" people, but potentially ending a war and saving hundreds of thousands of soldiers AND taking the country you're responsible for out of danger OR not using the bomb, thereby saving those tens of thousands, but putting hundreds of thousands more at risk, and risking the safety of the people of your country.  No matter which decision Truman makes, the results are not pretty.

So, it's not quite as cut and dry as you portray it....

 i guess i totally missed that part where they actualy invaded "Hawaii" i do recall the attack on the state.... though if the Japs had to have invaded it would have put the west coast of teh US under long range bomber threat from japan...... not to mention that a huge aamount of the US fleet was left crippled and destroyed. Such a move would have forced ship construction to be limited to the US and Canadian east coast leaving he westren coast a virtural fortress of air and naval guns to prevent a full invasion of main land NA. that would ahve resulted in a rather lower amount of resources going toward the european theater until such time as the US was able to drive Japan from hawaii and regan control ove r the eastren Pacific. Meaning a protracted war in Europe and most likely the bomb being used there before hand.

However the actual invasion of US soil was within the Aleutian Island chain off of alaska that was the NA foot hold that Japan had, complete with airbase. it was meant to stifle movment of supplies from the US into east asia through a northren route and into russia via the pacific. it was one of the most unknown battles ever fought, high losses on both sides, with both fighting hand to hand after all ammo had been lost. soilders were give 2 bullets 1 for the rifle an one for the pistol.

[Prometheus]

hang on... how are we back to this WW2 arguement? with nukes and japan?.....i though that it was clearly argued in another thread

[D]

I have one question


Did she give a fuck when other people's kids were getting blown to hell?    NOOOOOOOOOOO



So why is her kid so special that only after he gets killed she protests.


Just goes back to the old "I dont give a fuck till it happens to me syndrome"

I think this woman is disgracing and dishonoring her son by doing this but hey she has the right to do whatever she wants.


I just guarantee that before her son got killed, she was proud and a flag waving american, but now due to this she changes her tune.

I dont really agree with what she is doing, I find her quite ridiculous to be honest but hey that is her right!

[Eazy E]

I just guarantee that before her son got killed, she was proud and a flag waving american, but now due to this she changes her tune.

Uhh... why can't she be a proud American now?  Because she wants to know why her son died?  Are you saying that if you don't agree with the troops being in Iraq, you are "Un-american"?

Considering the number of people opposed to the war, I think the "I don't give a fuck till it happens to me" syndrome is a crock of shit.

[Vicious Wishes]

WE HATE AMERICA! AMERICA IS THE DEVIL! Thread #427

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Her son joined the millitary. No one forced him, I`m sure he knew the risks.  She talkes about her son like he was a 5 year old little boy.

[D]

no now Eazy dont get ahead of yourself, this is what Im saying


Lets say for example I have a son serving in the military and I am one of these proud parents who supports my son being brave and defending his country, I rave about it to all my friends and support what he is doing etc etc etc


now he gets killed and I all of a sudden camp out and bitch and moan about it and do a total 360 just because my son gets killed.

I mean it was cool and I was proud before and didnt blink twice when someone else's son or daughter was killed but now since my son, whose life is worth more than those other soldiers lives is dead, Im gonna only now make a fuss over how bad the war is.

its not unamerican or what have you, its her right but I just find her ridiculous and feel she is desecrating not only her son but all soliders who have been killed over there.


Great Point GNRFL, Thank You!

[journey]

I think what she's doing is courageous. Many people today in the U.S. are reluctant to speak openly and publicly against the war for fear of being branded anti-American. She seems to be speaking for all families affected by the war, not just her own. And there's nothing wrong with that.

[D]

I think what she's doing is courageous. Many people today in the U.S. are reluctant to speak openly and publicly against the war for fear of being branded anti-American. She seems to be speaking for all families affected by the war, not just her own. And there's nothing wrong with that.

there would be nothing wrong with it if she protested before her son got killed.To do so only after he gets killed just makes it seem disingenious and kind of pathetic.