The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[mrdannyg 274]

So it's an either/or decision? Either we invade Japan conventionally or we drop 2 atomic bombs on unarmed civilians? That's an odd type of logic.Um, what's your point. Do I really have to explain to you guys why the use of atomic weapons (particularly on civilian populations) is uniquely frightening and threatening to the general stability of human civilization on our planet? I guess I do. A full-on nuclear war (which nearly came to pass during the Bay of Pigs fiasco, to name just one instance during the 50+ yearlong Cold War) probably means the end of most human life on earth, and most animal and plant life as well. Even if a few isolated areas got lucky and some organisms (and even human populations) survived, a nuclear war with the USSR would have likely meant the death of nearly every single American person. I can't believe I have to explain to you and BG why nuclear bombs are "scarier" or "worse" than conventional bombs and why, even if we agree that it was militarily justifiable and prudent, we should mourn the civilians who we killed with the 2 that we dropped.

Tim, I normally love you, but I think you're off-base here. Everything is solid until the last sentence. Just doesn't flow. Yes, the nuclear bombs are scarier and worse. That should make us question the military justification even more fiercely (even if the direct loss of life was less than the fire bombs), and take additional precaution to avoid the steps that could lead to such a situation being justifiable again in the future.However, if we accept it was militarily justifiable and prudent, then there is no more reason to mourn the casualties than you would mourn any other person (as required by their level of innocence). They're just war casualties, they just died in a more historically important/scary way than others.

[timwakefield 68]

Tim, I normally love you, but I think you're off-base here. Everything is solid until the last sentence. Just doesn't flow. Yes, the nuclear bombs are scarier and worse. That should make us question the military justification even more fiercely (even if the direct loss of life was less than the fire bombs), and take additional precaution to avoid the steps that could lead to such a situation being justifiable again in the future.However, if we accept it was militarily justifiable and prudent, then there is no more reason to mourn the casualties than you would mourn any other person (as required by their level of innocence). They're just war casualties, they just died in a more historically important/scary way than others.

I didn't say we should mourn them more than other civilian, or even military casualties. Like you suggested, we just happen to think about them more than other civilian casualties because of how historically important/scary the use of atomic weaponry is/was.

[mrdannyg 274]

I didn't say we should mourn them more than other civilian, or even military casualties. Like you suggested, we just happen to think about them more than other civilian casualties because of how historically important/scary the use of atomic weaponry is/was.

Guess I felt that was implied by your suggestion that we mourn those victims...since we don't otherwise do much mourning of WWII victims of other countries.

[akoff 0]

So it's an either/or decision? Either we invade Japan conventionally or we drop 2 atomic bombs on unarmed civilians? That's an odd type of logic.Um, what's your point. Do I really have to explain to you guys why the use of atomic weapons (particularly on civilian populations) is uniquely frightening and threatening to the general stability of human civilization on our planet? I guess I do. A full-on nuclear war (which nearly came to pass during the Bay of Pigs fiasco, to name just one instance during the 50+ yearlong Cold War) probably means the end of most human life on earth, and most animal and plant life as well. Even if a few isolated areas got lucky and some organisms (and even human populations) survived, a nuclear war with the USSR would have likely meant the death of nearly every single American person. I can't believe I have to explain to you and BG why nuclear bombs are "scarier" or "worse" than conventional bombs and why, even if we agree that it was militarily justifiable and prudent, we should mourn the civilians who we killed with the 2 that we dropped.

i don't disagree that they are scarier..or worse...but the fact is they exist and if we hadn't invented them Germany would have. The timing of the events changed human history but at least it was us dropping them and having them land on us! We didn't start and of the world wars we just finished them.Am i happy to see anyone die? no of course not but it is a war...you don't fight a war on a limited basis in my opinion. if it is good enough reason to be there, you do what you feel needs to be done and you go home and back to living. Was is a shame 2 jap cites needed to eliminated - sure it was - was it better then losing 1m American kids on top what we had already lost - of course. We didn't ask to be in the either of the WW's but we weren't given a choice.Both Germany and Japan got off easy as far as i am concerned. the fact that they walked away from WW2 with a population and their own country was very generous. You should pay more attention as to why we were FORCED to enter these wars then how we ended them. it was a different time and the fact is it made our nation great...at least for a couple of generations that understood nothing in this world free.

[brvheart 1,752]

So it's an either/or decision? Either we invade Japan conventionally or we drop 2 atomic bombs on unarmed civilians? That's an odd type of logic.Um, what's your point. Do I really have to explain to you guys why the use of atomic weapons (particularly on civilian populations) is uniquely frightening and threatening to the general stability of human civilization on our planet? I guess I do. A full-on nuclear war (which nearly came to pass during the Bay of Pigs fiasco, to name just one instance during the 50+ yearlong Cold War) probably means the end of most human life on earth, and most animal and plant life as well. Even if a few isolated areas got lucky and some organisms (and even human populations) survived, a nuclear war with the USSR would have likely meant the death of nearly every single American person. I can't believe I have to explain to you and BG why nuclear bombs are "scarier" or "worse" than conventional bombs and why, even if we agree that it was militarily justifiable and prudent, we should mourn the civilians who we killed with the 2 that we dropped.

Why are you trying to re-write history?The US was very concerned about the civilians. We warned the Japanese several times prior to the first drop and it's baffling that the egoists in charge of the war allowed the 2nd bomb to fall. It's really sad that they are so stupid. They should have all been publicly tortured for allowing the 2nd bomb to fall.Also, it was very kind of us to wait as long as we did, and not drop it on Tokyo.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Both Germany and Japan got off easy as far as i am concerned. the fact that they walked away from WW2 with a population and their own country was very generous. You should pay more attention as to why we were FORCED to enter these wars then how we ended them. it was a different time and the fact is it made our nation great...at least for a couple of generations that understood nothing in this world free.

The War between Japan and the US was really nothing but a traditional War between two competing Colonial Empires.The US cut off Japan's oil supply which at that time was basically being at War without firing your guns. Don't believe the propaganda that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and formal declaration of War was some great sneaky evil thing. As long as the US was blocking Japan from it's oil supplies War was inevitable between the US and Japan.Don't get me wrong, Japan was an expansionary Empire who had no problem with committing all sorts of atrocities on countries that they conquered, just look at what they did in China. The US at that point wasn't looking to expand in the Pacific but there are historians who think that many in the American military and government felt that War between Japan and the US was inevitable and by blocking their oil supplies it would force the Japanese into making the first move which is exactly what happened.The Nazis were very stupid to declare War on the US after Pearl Harbor. If they hadn't of done that it's hard to know how long it would have taken the US if ever to have entered the War against them.

[akoff 0]

The War between Japan and the US was really nothing but a traditional War between two competing Colonial Empires.The US cut off Japan's oil supply which at that time was basically being at War without firing your guns. Don't believe the propaganda that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and formal declaration of War was some great sneaky evil thing. As long as the US was blocking Japan from it's oil supplies War was inevitable between the US and Japan.Don't get me wrong, Japan was an expansionary Empire who had no problem with committing all sorts of atrocities on countries that they conquered, just look at what they did in China. The US at that point wasn't looking to expand in the Pacific but there are historians who think that many in the American military and government felt that War between Japan and the US was inevitable and by blocking their oil supplies it would force the Japanese into making the first move which is exactly what happened.The Nazis were very stupid to declare War on the US after Pearl Harbor. If they hadn't of done that it's hard to know how long it would have taken the US if ever to have entered the War against them.

i can't argue argue every detail, i wouldn't claim to know. You may be 100 percent correct...but if you want to fight have a fight. you don't sucker punch sombody from behind and then expect mercy. it doesn't work that way. If Japan had declared war and then we started fighting well it is a shame but at least it was done properly...they attacked US soil at 8AM on a sunday morning with no notice! Fine i guess that is your choice to act in such a fashion but if you don't suceed your ass is going to be in a bind...which it was. The fact that those cities had to burn....sorry but that is better them then our boys dying. Keep in mind the choices they presented - it was us or them, they showed no mercy, they chose to fight to the death on every island rather then surrender and now after kicking their asses all over the pacific for 4 years it was either another 1m American lives or a couple of cities. It is no a brainer and any nation in that position would have made the same and the correct choice to blow them up.The fact that any American could sit here 65yrs later and 2nd guess this is sad and speaks very clearly about what kind of person they are...there are few areas of black and white in life, most are shades of grey but our actions in WW2 were forced on us by 2 hostile attacking empires that didn't realize who they were poking and both of those empires paid the price...i just wish the price had been higher.

[akoff 0]

The War between Japan and the US was really nothing but a traditional War between two competing Colonial Empires.The US cut off Japan's oil supply which at that time was basically being at War without firing your guns. Don't believe the propaganda that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and formal declaration of War was some great sneaky evil thing. As long as the US was blocking Japan from it's oil supplies War was inevitable between the US and Japan.Don't get me wrong, Japan was an expansionary Empire who had no problem with committing all sorts of atrocities on countries that they conquered, just look at what they did in China. The US at that point wasn't looking to expand in the Pacific but there are historians who think that many in the American military and government felt that War between Japan and the US was inevitable and by blocking their oil supplies it would force the Japanese into making the first move which is exactly what happened.The Nazis were very stupid to declare War on the US after Pearl Harbor. If they hadn't of done that it's hard to know how long it would have taken the US if ever to have entered the War against them.

Yes Adolf ****ed up huge on that one...but we'll never know for sure.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

The fact that any American could sit here 65yrs later and 2nd guess this is sad and speaks very clearly about what kind of person they are...there are few areas of black and white in life, most are shades of grey but our actions in WW2 were forced on us by 2 hostile attacking empires that didn't realize who they were poking and both of those empires paid the price...i just wish the price had been higher.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have the discussion about the morality of using the A-Bomb in WWII.In WWII Chemical weapons weren't used even though every country had large supplies of them. There were treaties against using them but the main reason was that no country wanted to let that Genie out of the bottle since they knew the other side would retaliate in kind. The Japanese used Chemical weapons in China where there was no risk of having chemical weapons used against them but they didn't use them against the US even under the most dire circumstances and they could have.Also all the countries since the turn of the century agreed not to used dum-dum bullets in warfare and that ban was also adhered to for all of WWI and WWII. The reason for the ban was that the wounds that they caused were thought to be inhumane.

[timwakefield 68]

Why are you trying to re-write history?

Can you explain what you mean a bit better? I linked to one article that, you could claim, describes one author's attempt to "re-write history," but that's not what you quoted. What part of my post that you quoted do you believe is historically inaccurate, and further why does that inaccuracy lead you to determine that I'm "trying to re-write history?"

The fact that any American could sit here 65yrs later and 2nd guess this is sad and speaks very clearly about what kind of person they are...there are few areas of black and white in life, most are shades of grey but our actions in WW2 were forced on us by 2 hostile attacking empires that didn't realize who they were poking and both of those empires paid the price...i just wish the price had been higher.

Pretty sure Bob's Canadian. Either way, I agree with you that it's not often that one side is clearly "right" and the other "wrong" in a war. WWII however did have a lot of black and white - the Nazi leaders were straight-up evil, and the Japanese straight-up attacked us. However I think it's ridiculous to imply that those "black and white" scenarios therefore mean that every action we took in response was unimpeachably moral or good, and was "forced on us," and shouldn't be questioned. Entrance into the war was forced on us. That's about it.

[mrdannyg 274]

Either way, I agree with you that it's not often that one side is clearly "right" and the other "wrong" in a war. WWII however did have a lot of black and white - the Nazi leaders were straight-up evil, and the Japanese straight-up attacked us without provocation. However I think it's ridiculous to imply that those "black and white" scenarios therefore mean that every action we took in response was unimpeachably moral or good, and was "forced on us," and shouldn't be questioned. Entrance into the war was forced on us. That's about it.

I don't care if I'm Canadian, American, or from Mars. Hearing Americans talk like this, and use ugly pressure tactics on each other to force more of it is absolutely terrifying. Do you guys really see things this black and white? Broad-shouldered American heroes protecting the innocent and the good, destroying the evil foreigners who are looking to destroy everything?I'm glad the Americans got poked, and I'm thankful every day they saved the ****ing world. They did that. You did that. You saved the world. But thinking it was that black and white is just asking for the corrupt stupid politicians we all complain about to scare you into another war.

[Shia LaBeouf 0]

The fact that those cities had to burn....sorry but that is better them then our boys dying.

what exactly makes an american life more valuable than a japanese life?

[AmScray 355]

So you've read his book? Frankly I don't think you even read the whole newspaper article I linked, if what you took away from it is that leftists all totally agree with him. Did you even read my link-title? Maybe I should have bolded the word "may."

I did read the article, I didn't read his book, no more than I'd feel compelled to read a book written by the cast of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, announcing that by way of careful historical analysis, they've 'discovered' the US was founded by cross-dressing cocksuckers. Revisionist history is pretty obvious, when you know what to look for. In this case, it's risen to "blinking neon sign' level of apparent'ness.Do I need the article to affirm that leftists agree with this? LOL. ****ing stupid to even propose that.This is clearly leftist revisionist history 101. Textbook example shit. Next up, Sociology Professor Dick Jones discovers the Deceleration of Independence contains a secret alpha-numeric code embedded into the text by our founding fathers, warning us about the dangers of global warming and the horrors of agribusiness.

[akoff 0]

what exactly makes an american life more valuable than a japanese life?

nothing but in a war when it is either ours or yours the choice is easy - sadly the value of life has already been determined by the time you have to make that choice.

[akoff 0]

I don't care if I'm Canadian, American, or from Mars. Hearing Americans talk like this, and use ugly pressure tactics on each other to force more of it is absolutely terrifying. Do you guys really see things this black and white? Broad-shouldered American heroes protecting the innocent and the good, destroying the evil foreigners who are looking to destroy everything?I'm glad the Americans got poked, and I'm thankful every day they saved the ****ing world. They did that. You did that. You saved the world. But thinking it was that black and white is just asking for the corrupt stupid politicians we all complain about to scare you into another war.

In the case of WW2 yes i think it was that clear. People forget so fast what made us great and how we got here – very sad. Go to Pearl Harbor sometime and see what it looks like – watch the video of what happened there – visit the Arizona and see the ship, oil still leaking to the surface – read the wall of names of the 1500 men entombed in it who were sleeping that morning…yes this war was that black and white and my only real regret is that Japan still exists in any fashion. I do believe that nobody should ever think about attacking US soil…the price should be so high in response that it isn’t even considered as a possibility. That is just my opinion – but I would even go as far to include Canada and Mexico to a lesser degree in that. I don’t care who you are, what your problems with the US may be it is a deal breaker and your world will never be the same – I don’t care who or what you are – if you hide in a church or hospital or anywhere else – you don’t ever touch US soil because it won’t be worth it to them.

[akoff 0]

I don't think it's unreasonable to have the discussion about the morality of using the A-Bomb in WWII.In WWII Chemical weapons weren't used even though every country had large supplies of them. There were treaties against using them but the main reason was that no country wanted to let that Genie out of the bottle since they knew the other side would retaliate in kind. The Japanese used Chemical weapons in China where there was no risk of having chemical weapons used against them but they didn't use them against the US even under the most dire circumstances and they could have.Also all the countries since the turn of the century agreed not to used dum-dum bullets in warfare and that ban was also adhered to for all of WWI and WWII. The reason for the ban was that the wounds that they caused were thought to be inhumane.

This was the difference…there were no treaties existing for Atomic bombs…only we had them and they were new! So it was ended up a numbers game of lives – ours or theirs. Again if little Japan had just stayed on their own rocky little island and left us alone none of this would have happened…stupid mistake by an Empirical government that didn’t give a damn about their own people or any others.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

nothing

see that's what i thought, but you make it seem so obvious that an american life is more valuable than any other life and therefore moral choices are quite simple in regard to dropping a-bombs. i mean i dont see how you can be so obviously and unquestionably behind instantly killing 70,000 people - civilians moreover. did it need to be done? maybe. did it save more lives in the end? probably? i dont know. but it is surely not something you can say they absolutely were right to do. and not only that, you wished they'd paid a higher price. i find that sad. but hey, keep on drinking that miller light and living the american high life.

[Balloon guy 158]

see that's what i thought, but you make it seem so obvious that an american life is more valuable than any other life and therefore moral choices are quite simple in regard to dropping a-bombs. i mean i dont see how you can be so obviously and unquestionably behind instantly killing 70,000 people - civilians moreover. did it need to be done? maybe. did it save more lives in the end? probably? i dont know. but it is surely not something you can say they absolutely were right to do. and not only that, you wished they'd paid a higher price. i find that sad. but hey, keep on drinking that miller light and living the american high life.

You are truly cluelessFirst they were not pure civilians, the cities were production facilities for making war materials, as was much of the island. And when you put your production facility in the middle of a population center, then the fault lies with the government of that country, not ours for not having technology that allows us to have laser guided bombs yet.And if it saved more lives in the end, then it absolutely can be called right, moral, good, the best. Trying to hide behind some make up morality based on feelings 60 years later can only be 'right' if you base your idea of right or wrong on stupidity.You are so busy trying to be enlightened and fair that you instead are nothing but a spineless fool without a remotely viable thought.Next tell us why police having guns is bad because people don't kill people, guns kill people.Make sure you go into criminal defense law, your perfect for lying to yourself about helping criminals being good

[akoff 0]

see that's what i thought, but you make it seem so obvious that an american life is more valuable than any other life and therefore moral choices are quite simple in regard to dropping a-bombs. i mean i dont see how you can be so obviously and unquestionably behind instantly killing 70,000 people - civilians moreover. did it need to be done? maybe. did it save more lives in the end? probably? i dont know. but it is surely not something you can say they absolutely were right to do. and not only that, you wished they'd paid a higher price. i find that sad. but hey, keep on drinking that miller light and living the american high life.

you make is sound like the it would have been a better option to send ground troops...this was not a conflict, we were fighting for 4 years against a hostile abusive enemy, who had raped and murdered the conquored countries and the POW's they had captured, attacked without any warning and fought to the death across the south pacific and now as we are going to finish off the fight that we didn't start....you question the bombing...because 70k or 250k lost their lives....as opposed to 1m plus of our boys? I can certainly can say it was right, there shouldn't be any doubt in a reasonable mind it was right and i would go as far as to argue and country that was put in the same postion we were would, have and should have made the same choice. Honestly you are telling me a better alternative would have been have landing a fight it out over the ground? With all of the loss of life that would have created...and you are assume that more citizens wouldn't have died fighting the landing. Remember they were going to have civilians waiting on the beach with sharpened bamboo sticks. The more i think about it was damn near a humanitarian effort to drop the bomb as it may have saved lives on both sides.This is like the most clear cut thing in the world...Japan got what they had coming to them - it was well earned - nobody felt bad for them at the time and I don't see what has changed in the 65 years to start now.

[CaneBrain 95]

Make sure you go into criminal defense law, your perfect for lying to yourself about helping criminals being good

without worrying about the rest of your drivel, I will take the integrity of the average defense lawyer over the average prosecutor every day and twice on Saturday.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

You are truly cluelessFirst they were not pure civilians, the cities were production facilities for making war materials, as was much of the island. And when you put your production facility in the middle of a population center, then the fault lies with the government of that country, not ours for not having technology that allows us to have laser guided bombs yet.

This is one of the most rediculous and embarrassing arguments you've ever made. The people in Hiroshima were guilty because there was a factory somewhere in their city? What the hell?

And if it saved more lives in the end, then it absolutely can be called right, moral, good, the best. Trying to hide behind some make up morality based on feelings 60 years later can only be 'right' if you base your idea of right or wrong on stupidity.

But this is simultaneously begging the question and creating a false dichotomy. If one were set on using the Atomic bomb to end the war, isn't it possible that there were ways to use it other than bombing cities? Couldn't one have, for example, bombed remote bases or islands, or pretty much any other target? Or done it only once? Second, it's not obvious at all that it would have taken more total lives to end the war conventionally, and no one knows for certain the answer to this. It was an extremely difficult choice to balance the guaranteed death of 200,000+ against a hypothetical number of dead in another scenario. akoff is crazy when he says that the choice is "easy." I'm frightened of a person who thinks that's an easy choice, frankly.

This is like the most clear cut thing in the world...Japan got what they had coming to them - it was well earned - nobody felt bad for them at the time and I don't see what has changed in the 65 years to start now.

This is frightening, too. You do realize that there are individual people in this world, right? I hope your view of this world extends past false labels, such as country. Or is it always your belief that any person who was born in a particular region of the Earth is morally responsible for what other people did who were born in neighboring regions?How many people in Nagasaki bombed Pearl Harbor or planned the bombing of Pearl Harbor?

[akoff 0]

without worrying about the rest of your drivel, I will take the integrity of the average defense lawyer over the average prosecutor every day and twice on Saturday.

lofty comparision - you could say the same about a rapist being better then a child molestor

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

Honestly you are telling me a better alternative would have been have landing a fight it out over the ground?

i never said that. i simply commented on you calling the decision to drop the atomic bombs easy and obviously moral. i dont know the answer to every moral question, but i sure as shit know that the answers are complex.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

You are so busy trying to be enlightened and fair...

i'm going to ignore most of your nonsense becuase LLY handled it. i just wanted to quote this because it made me laugh. i never thought someone would insult me for "trying to be enlightend and fair." WHAT A TERRIBLE THING TO TRY TO DO.

[akoff 0]

i never said that. i simply commented on you calling the decision to drop the atomic bombs easy and obviously moral. i dont know the answer to every moral question, but i sure as shit know that the answers are complex.

ok, then we are just not in agreement on the complexity of the situationm, morally it is fine - correct?