No, and not really akin to committing genocide against the amalekytes; to destroy all men, women, children, and animals-- the failure of which to do with completeness cost a man and his family line the throne. We are talking about the same God here, ain't we?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Hiroshima: will Obama apologize and lick boot straps?
- Thread starter righteousdude2
- Start date
No, and not really akin to committing genocide against the amalekytes; to destroy all men, women, children, and animals-- the failure of which to do with completeness cost a man and his family line the throne. We are talking about the same God here, ain't we?
dad1
Member
You are mixing apples and oranges. The ancient battle with specific very wicked people was not some model for the behavior of mankind in general in any way. That is obvious. Neither do we know all the details of how wicked the wicked group of people were. You seem to accuse God of not making the right choice, and then turn around and use that ancient single battle for some excuse to actually burn children with fire today.
Absurd.
Before you go there remember, the Nanking Massacre and the Japanese action during the Battle of Manila in 1945. As for the other, hind sight is all well and good. I'm going by what the American leadership knew or believed at the time.
dad1
Member
So what? When wicked nations war with each other, bad things happen, look at the fire bombing of Japan and Germany. No one was a saint in this. The point I bring out is that what would we tell some little girl in Hiroshima say, whose family was burned beyond recognition, and maybe some of whom died from radiation after the fact? I would tell her Jesus loves you and He doesn't like the horrible things evil men did. Those evil men include the US.
I wouldn't erroneously conflate the issues.
dad1
Member
Jesus showed us exactly what God was like in case some had any wrong ideas. Jesus loved the little children. Those that burn cities and inflict hell on people are not of God. Period. Those that support them cannot do so with Scripture.
I see many Baptists like John Macarther support war. Example:
"Those verses indicate that God gives governments the responsibility of carrying out punishment on those who commit deadly atrocities--like those perpetrated on September 11. And that responsibility includes waging war when necessary against nations or groups that carry out such actions."
http://www.gtycanada.org/resources/...-about-war-is-there-ever-a-just-reason-for-it
Whoah! Like those who committed 911? Who, praytell was that?? Iraq? Afghanistan? Syria, Lyibia? Insiders..? Etc...
It is one thing John, to punish killers, which many nations hardly even do these days, but another to drone terrorize and wipe out countries.
Last edited:
For those who believe that the Japanese were on the verge of surrender before the bombs were dropped, I suggest they read John Toland's "The Rising Sun." Togo and the militarists were willing to fight to the bitter end (much as Jefferson Davis was willing to do had he not been overruled by Lee, Johnson and Breckinridge). Millions of civilians were being trained to become suicide bombers.
How many Allied soldiers would have died? We don't know. Those who argue for relatively light casualties, it seems to me, assumed too much. I was an acquaintance of an officer who was on MacArthur's staff who had seen the estimates. He wouldn't disclose them but said they were substantial. (He also told me that he had, in fact, learned MacArthur's florid Victorian prose style to respond to letters, which ran counter to William Manchester's assertion that MacArthur responded to all letters personally. But that's another story.)
MacArthur's contention that the bombs were unnecessary should be considered in light of his hubris — no good idea could come from someone who wasn't Douglas MacArthur — and his bitter hatred of Truman, who had cashiered him in Korea. Mac, in fact, didn't much like any president, since he was obviously more gifted than they (despite his bungling of the defense of the Philippines). He disobeyed orders from Hoover and smashed the Bonus March camps in the Depression, and he hated FDR with a passion.
Eisenhower apparently offered no objection to the use of the bombs beforehand, and in his administration tactical commanders were allowed to decide whether to use nuclear weapons if they were out of contact with higher command. He also let loose his secretary of state to threaten repeated use of nuclear weapons.
Those who argued for an extended blockade of Japan ignore the fact that the Japanese civilian population would have suffered prolonged agony and death from a prolongation of the war. Starvation and disease aren't as dramatic as a mushroom cloud, perhaps, but they are lethal nonetheless.
This is not to say that the United States did not make horrific mistakes before, during and after the war. Toland contends that a semantic mistake scuttled pre-war negotiations. American policy toward Japan was rife with a mixture of romanticism (Chinese good, Japanese bad) and racism ("We're gonna have to slap the dirty little Jap" and the popular stereotype of Japanese solders as small, weak, buck-toothed and visually challenged).
Those who consider World War II the last "good war" should consider the horrific toll taken upon civilian populations. The bombing in Europe destroyed scores of German cities. The firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities was as deadly, in fact, as the atomic bombs. Perhaps the escalation of violence made the decision to use the atomic bombs a natural step. Those who want to romanticize World War II should perhaps consider that the bombings of German and Japanese cities — as opposed to factories and other targets that specifically aided the war effort — would be considered war crimes today.
And it's an open question as to whether the United States would have, had the war in Europe continued, used the atomic bomb against Germany, i.e., white people. Maybe.
And there is a good question as to the morality of the decision to drop the bombs. I have often thought it was wrong, but I was not of the generation that had seen hundreds of thousands of its young men fall in a war to stop fascism from dominating the world; the Western democracies had many sins to account for, but can any of us say we would rather live under uncompromising fascism than under the messy democratic ideals we cherish?
I wish the bomb had not been used. I am ambivalent about its legacy. I will not overly criticize those who thought it necessary.
How many Allied soldiers would have died? We don't know. Those who argue for relatively light casualties, it seems to me, assumed too much. I was an acquaintance of an officer who was on MacArthur's staff who had seen the estimates. He wouldn't disclose them but said they were substantial. (He also told me that he had, in fact, learned MacArthur's florid Victorian prose style to respond to letters, which ran counter to William Manchester's assertion that MacArthur responded to all letters personally. But that's another story.)
MacArthur's contention that the bombs were unnecessary should be considered in light of his hubris — no good idea could come from someone who wasn't Douglas MacArthur — and his bitter hatred of Truman, who had cashiered him in Korea. Mac, in fact, didn't much like any president, since he was obviously more gifted than they (despite his bungling of the defense of the Philippines). He disobeyed orders from Hoover and smashed the Bonus March camps in the Depression, and he hated FDR with a passion.
Eisenhower apparently offered no objection to the use of the bombs beforehand, and in his administration tactical commanders were allowed to decide whether to use nuclear weapons if they were out of contact with higher command. He also let loose his secretary of state to threaten repeated use of nuclear weapons.
Those who argued for an extended blockade of Japan ignore the fact that the Japanese civilian population would have suffered prolonged agony and death from a prolongation of the war. Starvation and disease aren't as dramatic as a mushroom cloud, perhaps, but they are lethal nonetheless.
This is not to say that the United States did not make horrific mistakes before, during and after the war. Toland contends that a semantic mistake scuttled pre-war negotiations. American policy toward Japan was rife with a mixture of romanticism (Chinese good, Japanese bad) and racism ("We're gonna have to slap the dirty little Jap" and the popular stereotype of Japanese solders as small, weak, buck-toothed and visually challenged).
Those who consider World War II the last "good war" should consider the horrific toll taken upon civilian populations. The bombing in Europe destroyed scores of German cities. The firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities was as deadly, in fact, as the atomic bombs. Perhaps the escalation of violence made the decision to use the atomic bombs a natural step. Those who want to romanticize World War II should perhaps consider that the bombings of German and Japanese cities — as opposed to factories and other targets that specifically aided the war effort — would be considered war crimes today.
And it's an open question as to whether the United States would have, had the war in Europe continued, used the atomic bomb against Germany, i.e., white people. Maybe.
And there is a good question as to the morality of the decision to drop the bombs. I have often thought it was wrong, but I was not of the generation that had seen hundreds of thousands of its young men fall in a war to stop fascism from dominating the world; the Western democracies had many sins to account for, but can any of us say we would rather live under uncompromising fascism than under the messy democratic ideals we cherish?
I wish the bomb had not been used. I am ambivalent about its legacy. I will not overly criticize those who thought it necessary.
dad1
Member
Well, you got me there. I have no idea what Rome has to do with it. I am not cheerleading for anyone. War is a nasty, brutal business. It creates hardship and catastrophe. But I cannot repent from sins that are not mine and I will not try to pretend that I am holier than they were.
Dad, you seem to be taking the historic pacifist position. That's all well and good. However, in the Anglo-American Baptist thread, the non-pacifist position is also a historic one.
dad1
Member
Simple equation.. kids and women and old people and men saw a fiery horrible death. Does Jesus like this? It was not a holy thing to do.
Rome persecuted Christians they went underground. Rome fell. God took car of it. That is not the same as supposed christians nuking a population to avoid what they think is an evil government. Look what they ended up with!
dad1
Member
If I knew what that meant I might disagree. However, I have yet to see anyone support modern war with Scripture here. You know what that means.
dad1
Member
Yes Christians who fought and died for their country. I have relatives in Flanders fields. Now they want to ban crosses and prayer and bibles from schools. The germans would have been worse?
Like it or not eh?
So? All countries are wicked, and when they get the chance, we usually see aggression. They are armed again, and have at least access to US nukes...no?
No. I am saying that believers are not of this world and should not wipe out cities and countries and terrorize and torture folks.
Well, they don't have access to U.S. nukes. And yes, I think it's a good thing Japan is a modern democracy, thanks mostly to the U.S. occupation. Japan was a "democracy" after World War I, but it was a democracy in the same way that Wilhelmine Germany was a democracy.
On your larger point that Christians should not wipe out cities and countries and torture and terrorize folks, I agree with that. But I have not been asked to make the hard decisions that the World War II generation was asked to make. As a nation we've been asked to make many difficult choices and we've often made the wrong choice. I disagree with many of those decisions.
I can respect pacifism. I'm not sure I can respect all the aspersions cast upon our fathers because they were not pure enough for you.
On your larger point that Christians should not wipe out cities and countries and torture and terrorize folks, I agree with that. But I have not been asked to make the hard decisions that the World War II generation was asked to make. As a nation we've been asked to make many difficult choices and we've often made the wrong choice. I disagree with many of those decisions.
I can respect pacifism. I'm not sure I can respect all the aspersions cast upon our fathers because they were not pure enough for you.
Last edited:
As to the OP, no, I don't think Obama will "lick the bootstraps" of the Japanese. BTW: Wouldn't "boots" have been more appropriate for someone who considers himself a writer? (A Trumpism if there ever was one.) He will try to draw some larger picture of the conflict and the decisions that were made.
dad1
Member
They are protected by the US. They also have the capacity to make some real fast. Who knows what they already may have that is secret?
" government officials and proliferation experts say Japan is happy to let neighbors like China and North Korea believe it is part of the nuclear club, because it has a “bomb in the basement” -– the material and the means to produce nuclear weapons within six months, according to some estimates. "
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fu...nuclear-bomb-basement-china-isnt-happy-n48976
Of course there are rumors and reports..so who really knows?
"According to the report, paraphrased by the Want China Times, “With the capability to build at least 2,000 nuclear warheads, Japan has recently demanded the United States return 300 kilograms of plutonium. A Japanese military analyst told Yazhou Zhoukan that Washington has paid close attention to the potential development of nuclear weapons in Japan.”
http://www.infowars.com/report-japan-secretly-developing-nuclear-weapons/
Yes I take that site with a grain of sand...but I do that with CNN, and CBS etc also.
What's to decide? They should not have done it. No one could have told a dying child in Nagasaki that fateful day that Jesus wanted the bomb to fall.
Forget fathers! Look at the torture and country smashing and village blowing up and drone terrorism today!
My fathers never blew anyone up. Ever!
dad1
Member
They did plenty wrong. Nothing to do with how supposedly pure you or I may be. I do not need to be pure to tell some little boy in Yemen or somewhere that the drone that killed his mom and dismembered him was not from God.
Matt 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.