Something just hit me.

[UdoKier]

Some of the people who thought that the internment of Japanese-American citizens was one of the most heinous crimes ever - are the same people who CONDONE Truman's totally unnecessary terrorist atomic bombings of the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I wonder how people can square away those two thoughts in their heads.

Not that I condone the Japanese internment, but it was relatively humane compared to our treatment of many other groups of people throughout history...

[imenja]

1. Like who?

Lately I've noticed a strange tend for conservatives to justify Japanese internment.
I really don't like comparative discussions of which atrocity was worse. I don't see a need to make such judgments. Both were awful, neither remotely humane.

[UdoKier]

2. Nobody in particular.

Conservatives have always justified the internment. They objected to Clinton's apology.

I'm talking about progressives who excuse the Hrioshima bombing.

Also, the internment cannot be defined as an "atrocity". It was an injustice, not an atrocity.

[imenja]

3. a minor point

Only a minor point, but since you've focused on language, I provide below a definition from Websters. Of the possible meanings for atrocity, I think Japanese internment fits ( extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel : BARBARIC).



Main Entry: atroc·i·ty
Pronunciation: &-'trä-s&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : the quality or state of being atrocious
2 : an atrocious act, object, or situation <the ... sufferings and atrocities of trench warfare -- Aldous Huxley>

WebMain Entry: atro·cious
Pronunciation: &-'trO-sh&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin atroc-, atrox gloomy, atrocious, from atr-, ater black + -oc-, -ox (akin to Greek Ops eye) -- more at EYE
1 : extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel : BARBARIC
2 : APPALLING, HORRIFYING <the atrocious weapons of modern war>
3 a : utterly revolting : ABOMINABLE <atrocious working conditions> b : of very poor quality <atrocious handwriting>ster's.

[laheina]

5. Yes.

They seem to have a tendency to rewrite history to suit their current needs. (1984 anybody?) Notice how they seem to think these days that McCarthy was victimized in some way? Yuck.

[JI7]

4. we were at war with Japan , even after the first bomb they didn't

surrender. i think we probably should have waited longer before decision to drop the 2nd one.

but the fact they did not surrender after the first says a lot. and japan did attack us first .

[lgardengate]

6. Thats right and the bombs saved us lives AFTER...

Japan attacked perl harbor in peace time and killed thousands of unsuspecting men/women.No one likes war or bombs but i would c hoose my people's lives first...espec when we didn't start it.Roosevelt tried to stay out of war.He couldn't in the end.

[UdoKier]

7. "No one likes war or bombs"

How many right-wingers did I hear that from as a preface to their lame excuses for Bush's phony-ass war on Iraq?

The wholesale bombing SPECIFICALLY of civilians, NOT "collateral damage" is by definition TERRORISM of the most barbaric kind.

There is no possible way of justifying those bombings, and those who attempt to are merely too blinded by nationalism and decades of conditioning to even realize it.

You have no idea how many would have been saved, but if it was to save lives, I wonder why the joint chiefs of staff opposed it?

I guess, by your logic, the Iraqis would be justified in dropping a nuke on LA and New York, since we leveled much of Baghdad and killed 100,000 civilians there in our unprovoked and illegal invasion.

[UdoKier]

8. By the way, the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor...

killed 2400 Americans, the vast majority of whom were military personnel. The target was the Pacific fleet, not civilian homes, and it was a very successful attack, sinking 8 battleships.

It was a dirty attack, and very unwise in the long run, but it is not comparable on any level to the atomic bombings. The innocent civilians in Hiroshima were no more at fault for the actions of their military dictatorship than were the Innocent Iraqis killed in 'shock and awe', supposedly in retaliation for the SAUDI attack on 9-11.

[NuttyFluffers]

9. i used to support it, until i read more Vidal.

it's a lie, we didn't need to drop those nuclear bombs. we did it specifically to show Russia that we had a 'brand new toy' and not to take over china and the rest of asia. japan had been petitioning for almost a year before to surrender talks. they went to almost every neutral country there was at the time it seems like, at least 7 easily, somewhere like 11 possibly. they were willing to surrender, and as much as it took, all they asked was to leave them their emperor. we kepted harping on unconditional surrender. finally we drop those bombs, we get unconditional surrender, we let them keep their emperor. stupid. it was all to show that we were 'big, bad' america' and not to be messed with. those people were murdered in vain.

at first i didn't agree with Vidal, cultural myth being ingrained so hard, but then i decided to follow his bibliography, and then follow the works of those historical writers as well. there's some damning footnotes from our leaders' own mouths and hands out there about this part of our history, but i'm not gonna get all into it. but hiroshima and nagasaki were needless from the perspective of stopping the war with japan. only in the context of curtailing USSR influence in asia could it be justified, but i won't take that argument.

what we did there was wrong, and we were lied to, and the lie is going to end up being our history...

[rooboy]

10. I have come to believe that the key point in dropping the A-bombs...

was that they DIDN'T have to drop them on cities to prove their effectiveness. I understand that people argue the Nagasaki bomb was dropped because the Japanese didn't respond to the Hiroshima bomb, but my question is why was the first bomb dropped on a city? Couldn't the US have tried dropping it on Japanese troops or ships somewhere to minimize deaths and send the same message?

[UdoKier]

11. Because the Japanese were guinea pigs

An unbelievable racist and cynical test to see firsthand what the various effects would be in the concentric rings around ground zero.

It also served as that much more of a threat to the Soviets.

[davidwhite0570]

12. I don't agree with

dropping the bomb or the internment.....

now they have us by the short hairs because we have to borrow money from them to finance *'s war.

[UdoKier]

13. Neither do I.

But If I was given the choice of instant incineration or horrible keloid burns and cancer and leukemia -OR- a couple of years in a dusty camp in the desert, I'd TAKE THE CAMP!

The scale of injustice is altogether different.

[Swamp Rat]

14. I'm sure Homeland Security will gladly 'blige you with that choice.

After all, They may be foisting nasty choices upon us in the near future.

[JI7]

15. self defense

one has to do with war of survival the other doesn't.

[Pepperbelly]

16. after Pearl Harbor ...

the A-bombings were written in stone. Pearl Harbor STILL pisses me off and I wasn't born until '53. But I did spend a lot of time there when in the Navy. While in transit and doing shit-work details, I had to help paint the Arizona Memorial and the markers of the battleships that were sank.

The Arizona STILL trails an oil slick. Or did in the mid-70s.

[UdoKier]

17. You're too steeped in nationalist fervor to see clearly, then.

Visit ground zero in Hiroshima. Meet the hibakusha. Live in Japan for a few years until the people there are no longer "mysterious orientals" but your friends and neighbors and just like you and me. Pearl Harbor is nothing compared to 150,000 civilians roasted instantly.

Oil slick? Big whoop. Hundreds of A-Bomb survivors are still dealing with blindness, cancers, leukemia, keloids and other agonizing maladies.

Again, by the logic you people are using, the Iraqis fighting our illegal occupation would be well within their rights to nuke New York and Atlanta. Let's hope they don't (and can't) do the same.