[Vision2020] Presidential Rankings (2009)

[Sue Hovey]

Donovan, 

For an interesting and opposing view, you might take a look at John Hershey's Hiroshima, the Aftermath, published in the 1980s.  It's one thing to have had to make that call, as Truman did, for a nation weary of war, and quite another to quote as fact today the idea that the dropping of the atom bombs was necessary to save a million lives.

Sue H. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Donovan Arnold 
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com ; Kenneth Marcy 
  Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:27 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Presidential Rankings (2009)


        People that were against the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan in WWII were obviously ignorant of the larger number of causalities it would have cost both Japan and the US in its place, and were insensitive to massive suffering and loss of life that the US and others had already endured. 

        Truman only had two options. 1) To kill one million more people, both Japanese and Americans, or 2) Kill 100,000 Japanese that started the war and end it. 

        To me, the choice is obvious. I am sure Truman would have dropped 12 billion roses instead if it ended the war, but it wouldn't, so he did what had to do to end the war. And dropping the bomb barely did end the war as Japan still didn't want to surrender initially after that. 

        Best Regards.

        Donovan

        --- On Thu, 2/19/09, Kenneth Marcy <kmmos1 at verizon.net> wrote:

          From: Kenneth Marcy <kmmos1 at verizon.net>
          Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Presidential Rankings (2009)
          To: vision2020 at moscow.com
          Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 12:45 PM


On Wednesday 18 February 2009 14:03:26 Kai Eiselein wrote:> Sooooo, would this apply to those who condemn the use of nuclear bombs on> Japan?Yes. I think that the Allies, and the Americans specifically, were war-weary from large social and industrial reorganizations to support a war effort then beyond all those previous. The prospect of any necessity of taking a land war from the Allies into Asia implied such huge additional losses that any way to end the Nipponese war, and prevent its spread more generally to Asia, was seen as a useful effort.More so than any subsequent major conflict, World War II was seen
 as a just war; the Allied cause was worth winning for good reasons, and all efforts toward that end were justified.Yes, the atomic destruction was horrific, no doubt about it, and on sight of the test blast, the decision makers all knew it. Oppenheimer said in New Mexico "I am become death." And the chain of command, from Groves upto Marshall and then to Truman, presumably had some idea of the much larger magnitude of the atom bombs, so the decision to use them was in service of ending the Nipponese war sooner rather than later.> Or the fire bombing of Germany?Without reviewing the technical details, I will just say that after the U.S. joined the Allied cause then underway, there was a strong determination to see the war effort through to a victorious decision. No one doubted the justness of the Allied cause, nor did anyone doubt that the awful destruction was beneath the
 dignified preferences of civil societies. However, the Axis aggression had to be stopped, and the prosecution of the European efforts continued until that goal was reached. Whether the goal could have been achieved more optimally with less destruction was a judgment call; second guessing and arm-chair quarterbacking more than half a century later won't change their determination then to get the job done with what was available.> Or, the actions Europeans took in the Americas after stumbling upon the> contintents?Considering that Europeans first began attempting permanent North American settlements centuries ago, it is even more important for us not to impose our mind-set on their attitudes and motivations. Some of the earliest were explorers, somewhat later they were escaping religious differences. Yes, they had racist attitudes. Yes, they felt their technologies and their
 old-world civilization gave them a sense of entitlement to what they saw before them. There was no North American parliament with proportional representation of the indigenous peoples, and if anyone had been so foolish as to suggest one, they would have been laughed, or worse, out of the colony.>From our contemporary understandings we can easily and glibly say that the Europeans should have accepted the natives as human equals. But not all of them were willing to accept the "savages" as fully human. They didnot have the advantage of knowing about Darwinian science, Mendelian genetics, and contemporary molecular biology that illustrates our closer human kinship than their observations of skin color, physiognomy, and social culture allowed. Even today not all of us have learned these lessons sufficiently well, so who are we to suggest that those early colonists were incompletely
 informed?> After all, there are those who do the same in those instances.> My comment wasn't so much anti-war as it was historical fact. For some> reason Vietnam and Kennedy are kept conspicuously separated in history> textbooks, even though Kennedy's actions led the U.S. directly intothe> Vietnam war.Yes, it is true that many Americans are a soft-hearted bunch, preferring polite conversation and gentle reminiscences of how nice the Kennedy family looked, how cute and adorable the children were, and on and on. Oh my, wouldn't it be fun to sail with Jack and the boys, or ride English side-saddle with Jackie and the ladies? How wonderful we could feel about ourselves, fantasizing ourselves into a far-away Camelot!As the older generations fade into memory, younger generations of historians will probably have sharper things to say about how close we came to a Soviet
 American war near Cuba, and how lucky we were for back-channel communication between the nonagenarian English Lord Russell and Nikita Khrushchev, and some other fortunate military command communications incidents that forestalled active engagement.> On another note, it was Kennedy who signed legislation allowing U.S.> companies to set up shop in foriegn countries without having to pay U.S.> income taxes on their profits from those units. The idea was that by> bringing jobs into countries that were at risk of falling to the commies,> it would make communism less appealing. It was a logical move.There probably were multiple reasons for allowing tax-free foreign commerce by American organizations. Profits likely were a part of it, as was the opportunity to extend the de facto American intelligence network abroad, but outside of the usual military and diplomatic channels. And I would
 not be surprised to learn that the administration found it convenient to allow certain organizations to operate profitably without any necessity for their books to be examined by anyone in an official sphere. The darker corners of commercial activity can benefit more than just capitalists, as many have noted since then.> Unfortunately, an unintended consequence has been the wholesale migration> of U.S. companies abroad.Companies have been operating for profit internationally since ancient trading times, so international business is nothing new. Consequences, unintended or not, can be changed if the courage and collective will are marshalled to change laws and behaviors to more desirable patterns. This is a question of needed leadership, not of the horses irrevocably having escaped the barn.> How much howling from big biz do you think there would be if the law was> repealed
 and they had to pay taxes on their foreign income?How much howling is there over any contentious tax issue? Capital gains, for example? Too often, the lobbyists and the committee chairmen decide their answer,  and that's that. Powerless citizens may howl all they wish, to little avail. Powerful interests need not howl at all; they pay their agents and their will is carried out via gallons of ink printed on paper mountains.Fundamental tax reform, as opposed to rearrangement of regulations, is relatively rare in the United States. For example, the US does not have a national property tax on large holdings of private property, specifically land. Why do not corporations and individuals who own millions of acres of land pay no federal property taxes on those large holdings? Exemptions for a few thousand acres of actively farmed, or recently fallowed, land could easily be arranged, so working farm
 families would be exempted. So, for the remaining land hoarders, why should they not pay some small rate of property tax to help offset the government expenses of their national defense and liberties preservation? Jefferson bought the Louisiana Purchase from the French to enlarge the United States. Don't we all have an obligation to periodically re-examine who owns what land, and to re-evaluate how to keep that land optimally productive, financially and environmentally?Ken======================================================= List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.                  http://www.fsr.net                                 mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com======================================================= 




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  =======================================================
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090219/99c2d03b/attachment-0001.html