posted
Published on Friday, August 5, 2005 by the Baltimore Sun The Hiroshima Cover-Up by Amy Goodman and David Goodman
A story that the U.S. government hoped would never see the light of day finally has been published, 60 years after it was spiked by military censors. The discovery of reporter George Weller's firsthand account of conditions in post-nuclear Nagasaki sheds light on one of the great journalistic betrayals of the last century: the cover-up of the effects of the atomic bombing on Japan.
On Aug. 6, 1945, the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima; three days later, Nagasaki was hit. Gen. Douglas MacArthur promptly declared southern Japan off-limits, barring the news media. More than 200,000 people died in the atomic bombings of the cities, but no Western journalist witnessed the aftermath and told the story. Instead, the world's media obediently crowded onto the battleship USS Missouri off the coast of Japan to cover the Japanese surrender.
A month after the bombings, two reporters defied General MacArthur and struck out on their own. Mr. Weller, of the Chicago Daily News, took row boats and trains to reach devastated Nagasaki. Independent journalist Wilfred Burchett rode a train for 30 hours and walked into the charred remains of Hiroshima.
Both men encountered nightmare worlds. Mr. Burchett sat down on a chunk of rubble with his Baby Hermes typewriter. His dispatch began: "In Hiroshima, 30 days after the first atomic bomb destroyed the city and shook the world, people are still dying, mysteriously and horribly - people who were uninjured in the cataclysm from an unknown something which I can only describe as the atomic plague."
He continued, tapping out the words that still haunt to this day: "Hiroshima does not look like a bombed city. It looks as if a monster steamroller has passed over it and squashed it out of existence. I write these facts as dispassionately as I can in the hope that they will act as a warning to the world."
Mr. Burchett's article, headlined "The Atomic Plague," was published Sept. 5, 1945, in the London Daily Express. The story caused a worldwide sensation and was a public relations fiasco for the U.S. military. The official U.S. narrative of the atomic bombings downplayed civilian casualties and categorically dismissed as "Japanese propaganda" reports of the deadly lingering effects of radiation.
So when Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter George Weller's 25,000-word story on the horror that he encountered in Nagasaki was submitted to military censors, General MacArthur ordered the story killed, and the manuscript was never returned. As Mr. Weller later summarized his experience with General MacArthur's censors, "They won."
Recently, Mr. Weller's son, Anthony, discovered a carbon copy of the suppressed dispatches among his father's papers (George Weller died in 2002). Unable to find an interested American publisher, Anthony Weller sold the account to Mainichi Shimbun, a big Japanese newspaper. Now, on the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings, Mr. Weller's account can finally be read.
"In swaybacked or flattened skeletons of the Mitsubishi arms plants is revealed what the atomic bomb can do to steel and stone, but what the riven atom can do against human flesh and bone lies hidden in two hospitals of downtown Nagasaki," wrote Mr. Weller. A month after the bombs fell, he observed, "The atomic bomb's peculiar 'disease,' uncured because it is untreated and untreated because it is not diagnosed, is still snatching away lives here."
After killing Mr. Weller's reports, U.S. authorities tried to counter Mr. Burchett's articles by attacking the messenger. General MacArthur ordered Mr. Burchett expelled from Japan (the order was later rescinded), his camera mysteriously vanished while he was in a Tokyo hospital and U.S. officials accused him of being influenced by Japanese propaganda.
Then the U.S. military unleashed a secret propaganda weapon: It deployed its own Times man. It turns out that William L. Laurence, the science reporter for The New York Times, was also on the payroll of the War Department.
For four months, while still reporting for the Times, Mr. Laurence had been writing press releases for the military explaining the atomic weapons program; he also wrote statements for President Harry Truman and Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. He was rewarded by being given a seat on the plane that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki, an experience that he described in the Times with religious awe.
Three days after publication of Mr. Burchett's shocking dispatch, Mr. Laurence had a front-page story in the Times disputing the notion that radiation sickness was killing people. His news story included this remarkable commentary: "The Japanese are still continuing their propaganda aimed at creating the impression that we won the war unfairly, and thus attempting to create sympathy for themselves and milder terms. ... Thus, at the beginning, the Japanese described 'symptoms' that did not ring true."
Mr. Laurence won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the atomic bomb, and his faithful parroting of the government line was crucial in launching a half-century of silence about the deadly lingering effects of the bomb. It is time for the Pulitzer board to strip Hiroshima's apologist and his newspaper of this undeserved prize.
Sixty years late, Mr. Weller's censored account stands as a searing indictment not only of the inhumanity of the atomic bomb but also of the danger of journalists embedding with the government to deceive the world.
Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now!, and David Goodman, a contributing writer for Mother Jones, are co-authors of The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers, and the Media That Love Them.
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by salexian: "Reporters and Journalists nevr tell the truth?" That a rather sweeping statement.
Oh - and what is it they say about history being written by the victors?
You left out the other part of my sentence.
Also, if you know anything about the events in World War II (and I'm sure you don't otherwise you wouldn't even be asking this question), then History being written by victors or victims is inconsequential.
World War II was such a calamity, that its impossible to deny, hide or distort the facts or evidence.
Much in the same way, that it's impossible to deny that the Japanese through their abominable actions, fully deserved those two Atomic bombs.
posted
Everyone knew what atomic weapons would do when dropped. Everyone also understands what happens to civilians in the aftermath of such an event. Further, sometimes such an event is LESS cruel than allowing the war to drag on and on and on. This may end up being the case in Iran as well at some point in the future.
-------------------- The spirit of Horemheb lives on within us all. Posts: 1023 | From: The spirit of Horemheb lives within us all | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I visited Hiroshima this summer and I can tell nothing anyone has done deserves the atomic bomb. We had a talk given to us by a survivor who was 16 years old. what had a 16 year old done.
The reason the atomic bomb was dropped instead of trying to use conventional weapons was that the Americans were afraid of Russia getting control of a post war Japan. Conventional weapons would have prolonged the war and now the war in Europe had finished Russia could put those european forces in the Far East and gain control.
To her this man talk about what is like to be a young boy and see skin dripping off survivors and the linger painful death of women and children was awful.
Still today people are suffering, there is no legitimate reason for using such a dreadful weapon
Posts: 2791 | From: www.flatsinluxor.co.uk, Luxor, Egypt | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have an elderly family member who was IN the attack on Pearl Harbor and he states there are some things absolutely NOT true in the history books, embellished to make America look better. It sickens him. History books don't always give you the real picture.
Posts: 13440 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was no real danger of Russia taking control of Japan. The United states had far too many military assets in the area for that to happen. The decision was made to drop the bomb to save American lives. Estamates of American deaths in an invasion of Japan ranged from 250,000 to half a million. President Truman (a Democrat) made the decision based on the idea that it was far better in the long run to end the war quickly and thus SAVE lives. Sometimes in history people have to make the hard choices and this was one of those times. Smuckers, when you trash the United States it would be helpful if you would be specific. Just exactly what did your uncle say was distorted?
-------------------- The spirit of Horemheb lives on within us all. Posts: 1023 | From: The spirit of Horemheb lives within us all | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
No recent papers released under the freedom of information act stated that the reason was the one I gave. The reason you gave was the cover up one. there was a news article on the release of these papers within the last 5 months but I can not remember when. I remember thinking at the time that the freedom of information act was so much better than the British equivalent and how did they get away with it. I now know, people like you don't read these things so it does not matter
-------------------- Jane Akshar UK Co-owner of www.flatsinluxor.co.uk Appartments and Tours in Luxor Posts: 2791 | From: www.flatsinluxor.co.uk, Luxor, Egypt | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I question your ability to interpret the information. There is no cover up because none was needed. If the Russians would have attacked in japan the bomb would have been used on them not to mention the fact that millions of American troops faced them in western europe. Keep in mind that the Russians did not have atomic weapons until 1949 and thus would have been soundly beaten had they threatened Japan. reading real history and not the views of left wing political blogs would be helpful, wouldn't you say.
-------------------- The spirit of Horemheb lives on within us all. Posts: 1023 | From: The spirit of Horemheb lives within us all | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I think reading papers released under the freedom of information act is reading history. I think talking to survivor about the impact of the atomic bomb and seeing the city where it happened is experiencing history. I haven't read any blogs on this
-------------------- Jane Akshar UK Co-owner of www.flatsinluxor.co.uk Appartments and Tours in Luxor Posts: 2791 | From: www.flatsinluxor.co.uk, Luxor, Egypt | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats not what the freedom of inormation act said. You are typical left wing turd thrower. That some political leader considered the Russians a potential threat in the far east is light years from being the center for the policy decision. What is known is the process that President truman went through in reaching his decision to drop the bomb. ALL of that is WELL documented by EVERY PERSON involved including the President himself. Russia had no ability to attack the United States in Japan. Its one of the nuttiest ideas I have heard on this board in awhile. You might want to expalin to us all exactly how they would have done that. 1. The United States had a massive naval fleet around Japan, the Russians at that time had almost none. 2. The United States was a nuclear power in 1945, Russia was not.
The last thing Stalin would have wanted to do was provoke a war with the United States and RISK everything he gained. If you wish to read American history for that period I highly recommend David McCollough's biography of Harry S. Truman. It deals extensively with the subjects you mentioned using the latest research.
-------------------- The spirit of Horemheb lives on within us all. Posts: 1023 | From: The spirit of Horemheb lives within us all | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
How polite, I always think when someone resorts to abuse they are losing the argument. I notice you made no comment about my actual visit to Hiroshima and meeting with a survivor.
You are going off on one about America and Russia going to war with each other when that is not what was said at all. The documents revealed that America wanted a quick resolution to the war in Japan before Russia could help them out because their experience in Germany had shown that if the Russians got there first then they would hold onto the territory. It was not a case of them fighting each other but the spoils of war. If Russia helped defeat Japan then it would want a share of the proceeds.
As for the book you recommeded being as it was published in 1992 I fail to see how it could contain documents released this year, some 15 years later.
Posts: 2791 | From: www.flatsinluxor.co.uk, Luxor, Egypt | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact is we were already there. Secondly, the information you cited was known to historians years ago but was NOT central to president truman's decision. As for the survivors of the blast I fail to see the point. Obviously a nuclear attack is horrific to those at ground zero. Truman's decision was based primarily on the desire to AVOID a land invasion of Japan and the American deaths that would follow. The choice was American lives in a land invasion or Japanese lives in an atomic attack. He correctly chose to save American lives.
-------------------- The spirit of Horemheb lives on within us all. Posts: 1023 | From: The spirit of Horemheb lives within us all | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
America was not there in Japan. It was in the pacific but Russia was just about to announce that it was going to join that war and did so a couple of days later. so it would have been a race for Tokyo just like the race for Berlin.
Well at least you are honest saying Japanese lives didnt matter, brutal, callous and inhuman but honest. You would have done great as a concentration camp guard dealing with sub human Jews.
Actually I feel all human lives matter
Well there is none so blind as those that will not see. I will leave you to your prejudices, I can not debate with someone who does not believe in the sanctity of human life.
-------------------- Jane Akshar UK Co-owner of www.flatsinluxor.co.uk Appartments and Tours in Luxor Posts: 2791 | From: www.flatsinluxor.co.uk, Luxor, Egypt | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Akshar, you are woefully ignorant of World War II, and Hammer is making you look really bad.
You twist yourself over the Japanese that died from the Atomic weapon, but you completely ignore the MILLIONS that died from Japanese atrocities commited across Asia.
For every month that the War was prologned, hundreds of thousands of people were dying all over Asia in forced slavery and POW camps.
What about these people? Do their lives matter less than that of the Japanese?
You have no idea of the level of bloodshed that the Japanese inflicted all over Asia.
quote:Actually I feel all human lives matter
Bullshit. You are either biased towards the Japanese, or you are so ignorant of World War II, that you don't even know many of the basic facts which forced Truman to use the A-bomb on the Japanese.
quote:Originally posted by With a name like Smuckers: I don't see how anyone can defend an atomic bomb being dropped on civillians.
It can be absolutely justified. World War II was no ordinary War, it was more like a CATASTROPHE.
If you knew what kind of atrocities and carnage the Japanese were inflicting all across Asia, then perhaps you'd understand why the Bomb was used against them.
The Nazis were bad, but the Japanese were arguably much worse when it came to commiting War crimes.
It is estimated that MILLIONS of Asians were killed by the Japanese over the course of the War, most of them Chinese.
Have you ever heard of the Rape of Nanking, wherein the Japanese murdered and raped more than 400,000 Chinese men and women?
Or what about the Massacre of Manila, where 100,000 civilians were similarly murdered and raped?
The Bataan death march?
Should I go on?
This was why the bomb was used.
The War HAD TO BE STOPPED AT ANY COST!!
Time was of the essence, and for every month the War waged on, it is estimated that 100,000 people (mostly civilians) were dying across Asia in slave labor and POW camps.
The 200,000 Japanese that were sacrificed to stop the War and force and unconditional surrender were NOTHING compared to what the Japanese did to other people.
Like I said, the usage of the bomb was completely and utterly justified.
This was no ordinary War, not by a long shot.
If I had been President, I would have done the same thing.
posted
Sounds like you've got this bomb thing all figured out then...let me know when you run for office. Posts: 13440 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by With a name like Smuckers: Sounds like you've got this bomb thing all figured out then...let me know when you run for office.
Smuckers, this isn't a joke.
OK, what would YOU have done if you had been President?
People like you and Akshar are perfectly willing to criticize another's actions under severe stress and scrutiny, but when asked themselves what they would have done, they have no better solution.
posted
LOL What did I say except I don't see how dropping an atomic bomb on innocent civilians could be justified?
Honestly I don't know what I would have done in the situation as it were during WWII, I really don't know every detail there is to know, and neither do you...I actually thought that was a rhetorical question until I read the last line you typed.
Posts: 13440 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I was being dead serious, and I knew you would be unable to come up with a better solution.
Lets see, what other option was there?
Invade Japan..
Something which would take months to plan and execute, thus prolonging the War even further resulting in more lives wasted, both Japanese and American, aswell as countless Asians.
Yes, this was a better option was it not?
There is a lesson to be learned from this Smuckers, and it's that in life, you don't always get to choose between right and wrong.
Sometimes, you can only choose between bad and worse.
~Alistair
-------------------- Lies fade like smoke when uncovered..but Truth, burns like fire. Posts: 1221 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A better solution? Any solution would have been better IMO. I guess this is just a difference of opinion thing...
Posts: 13440 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Prince of Nothing: So, is it safe to say that if you had been President, you would opted for invasion?
~Alistair
Me too, the atomic bomb was a cruel and inhumane weapon. It should never had been used.
Posts: 2791 | From: www.flatsinluxor.co.uk, Luxor, Egypt | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's amazing how people's aversion to the Atomic bomb would cause them to sacrifice their own Soul and commit an act that would destroy even more lives; simply due to an illogical aversion.
The Atomic bomb is just a weapon. Does it truly matter whether people die from an Atomic bomb, or from regular fire bombs?
Death is death, but by opting for invasion, you would be killing even more people.
~Alistair
-------------------- Lies fade like smoke when uncovered..but Truth, burns like fire. Posts: 1221 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meet a survivor, hear the stories, see the A bomb dome and the peace park, see the museum as i have done and you will exactly the same.
-------------------- Jane Akshar UK Co-owner of www.flatsinluxor.co.uk Appartments and Tours in Luxor Posts: 2791 | From: www.flatsinluxor.co.uk, Luxor, Egypt | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have skimmed all posts on this topic and first of all ; before anyone says "you are ignorant" I will say it myself I am IGNORANT about the WW's. I had a few history courses at university but it was the history of the Netherlands and of the UK. So I do not know a lot about this issue, just remember what my historybooks at (secondary) school said. "Rape of nanking" , never heard of.
Two questions ; 1) the Japanese were going to surrender anyway because the US would get help from the Russians ??
2) right or wrong ; the second bomb (Nagasaki) was not necessary at all. US got what they want after throwing the first one.
You (Alistair) talk about one-dimensional perspective (in history books) so my question to you is : What do you think 16-18 years old students (my students) in Europe should know about this issue ?? Is there an unbiased movie you recommend ? (don't mention a book cause only a very small minority of students likes to read about these things) Maybe the ones studying history at university and that's it ...
Posts: 2932 | From: Just now and then | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I came across this post when it started, and could not help but to think how can anyone justify the use of such weapons? I've read the debates for and against the use of such weapons, and ask how are you calling for either? The call for human suffering should not be justified in any capacity. I cant' believe we'd even like to think we're 'civilized' when we're not even learning from what 'history' has shown us.
-------------------- Disclaimer: My posts are not meant to personally offend anyone. If you find yourself reading my posts repeatedly, you are kindly asked to seek the help of a professional Posts: 483 | From: cairo | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by desertgirl: Two questions ; 1) the Japanese were going to surrender anyway because the US would get help from the Russians ??
Before the first bomb was dropped, the Japanese had no intention to surrender.
quote:2) right or wrong ; the second bomb (Nagasaki) was not necessary at all. US got what they want after throwing the first one.
You're right. The Japanese did want to surrender, but only on THEIR terms.
Their terms included:
1) The preservation of their Emperor's divine status
2) The responsibility of disarmament on the Japanese gov't.
3) No occupation
4) Punishment of War criminals delegated to the Japanese gov't.
These terms were unacceptable to the U.S, because it would still enable the Japanese to re-build their War machine, and the Japanese would not view the War as a complete loss for them.
Instead, the U.S wanted an unconditional surrender, and given the unimaginable death, suffering and destruction caused by Japan upon the rest of Asia, the U.S was well within it's rights to ask for one.
So why is an unconditional surrender so important?
Because it would guarantee that the U.S would destroy Japan's ability to wage war PERMANENTLY.
The Japanese would never again be allowed to build a War machine the likes of which they had before World War II, and given the death, suffering and damage they inflicted on the rest of the World (they murdered MILLIONS OF PEOPLE), they SHOULD NEVER be allowed to.
quote:What do you think 16-18 years old students (my students) in Europe should know about this issue ?? Is there an unbiased movie you recommend ? (don't mention a book cause only a very small minority of students likes to read about these things) Maybe the ones studying history at university and that's it ...
I think it's important for people to realize WHY the bomb was used.
The Japanese weren't a bunch of peace loving hippies. They were extremely warlike and did not believe in surrender! Even after the second bomb was dropped, they still would not surrender unconditionally; atleast not completely.
They still wanted to preserve their Emperor's divine status, and the U.S acceded.
If the U.S had not used the bomb, the invasion that would have followed would have resulted in many more deaths, because the War would be prolonged by months, or even YEARS!
As for movies, I'm sorry I have no recommendations.
Everything I've learned about the War, I've read from books.
Books are the best way to understand what truly happened in the greatest, and most terrifying War in human history.
quote:Originally posted by cairobug: I came across this post when it started, and could not help but to think how can anyone justify the use of such weapons? I've read the debates for and against the use of such weapons, and ask how are you calling for either? The call for human suffering should not be justified in any capacity. I cant' believe we'd even like to think we're 'civilized' when we're not even learning from what 'history' has shown us.
Cairobug, it's obvious you are a blind idealist.
Unfortunately, things don't work that way in the real World.
It's easy to say things like, "The call for human suffering should not be justified in any capacity," because you have never been put in any situation even remotely close to the suffering and devastation that was seen in World War II.
What if your people were slaughtered like animals, and enslaved?
What if your mother and sister were raped, and used as "comfort women?"
What if YOU were used for experimentation with biological and chemical weapons?
What would you say then I wonder?
These things, and more, happened in both Europe and Asia in those times.
You never had to suffer any of that, and to hear you now speaking as if you're so damn holy and above everything, is galling me beyond belief..
posted
It used to be that if you were accused of treason you could be racked, nowadays you are just sent to prison. The crime is the same but we have decided the punishment is wrong.
When we hear of adulterers in Saudi Arabia being stoned to death we take the view the punishment is cruel and unusual.
That is what we are saying the atomic bomb is wrong no matter what the country in question has done or is proposing to do,
A civilised country has to accept that some forms of retaliation or punishment are inhuman
-------------------- Jane Akshar UK Co-owner of www.flatsinluxor.co.uk Appartments and Tours in Luxor Posts: 2791 | From: www.flatsinluxor.co.uk, Luxor, Egypt | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Unfortunately, things don't work that way in the real World.
It's easy to say things like, "The call for human suffering should not be justified in any capacity," because you have never been put in any situation even remotely close to the suffering and devastation that was seen in World War II.
What if your people were slaughtered like animals, and enslaved?
What if your mother and sister were raped, and used as "comfort women?"
What if YOU were used for experimentation with biological and chemical weapons?
What would you say then I wonder?
These things, and more, happened in both Europe and Asia in those times.
You never had to suffer any of that, and to hear you now speaking as if you're so damn holy and above everything, is galling me beyond belief..
~Alistair
You make a great point, and forgive my ignorance if you are a refugee--I did not know this. I'm sure my views may or may not change depending on if I went through this, but I'm not sure if I advocate violence even for self defense. I can only say that based on the needless suffering that I have encountered (in my limited experience) at work. Life is precious, and it hard to hold on to for many. I don't see the point of unnecessary harm for any reason, including self defense. I completely agree with you, being comfortable and not being in such a position--it is not my place to judge, but I'm only speaking from the position of someone who is not a refugee, as I thought you were not one.
My intent was never to pass any judgement on people in such situations, but my assumption was that you are not the product of an enslaved, or tortured group of people who was directly impacted by this. My post was never meant to sound holy, or above anything--but astonishment at some views from people who are not refugees. I stand corrected, if you are a refugee.
Posts: 483 | From: cairo | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akshar: It used to be that if you were accused of treason you could be racked, nowadays you are just sent to prison. The crime is the same but we have decided the punishment is wrong.
When we hear of adulterers in Saudi Arabia being stoned to death we take the view the punishment is cruel and unusual.
That is what we are saying the atomic bomb is wrong no matter what the country in question has done or is proposing to do,
A civilised country has to accept that some forms of retaliation or punishment are inhuman
Akshar, why don't you admit you're biased towards the Japanese, and don't hold the lives of the people of China, Korea, America, Phillipines, Indonesia etc in the same regard?
The Japanese War machine slaughtered millions of people.
When you slaughter that many people, you yourself deserve to be slaughtered.
It's just Karma.
Your fixation on the A-Bomb as an inhumane weapon is silly.
The German city of Dresden was practically destroyed by fire bombs..
quote:Originally posted by cairobug: You make a great point, and forgive my ignorance if you are a refugee--I did not know this. I'm sure my views may or may not change depending on if I went through this, but I'm not sure if I advocate violence even for self defense. I can only say that based on the needless suffering that I have encountered (in my limited experience) at work. Life is precious, and it hard to hold on to for many. I don't see the point of unnecessary harm for any reason, including self defense. I completely agree with you, being comfortable and not being in such a position--it is not my place to judge, but I'm only speaking from the position of someone who is not a refugee, as I thought you were not one.
My intent was never to pass any judgement on people in such situations, but my assumption was that you are not the product of an enslaved, or tortured group of people who was directly impacted by this. My post was never meant to sound holy, or above anything--but astonishment at some views from people who are not refugees. I stand corrected, if you are a refugee.
What made you think I'm a refugee?
I'm an American citizen.
Anyway, my point still stands. It doesn't matter whether I myself have suffered or not.
The fact is, these things happened in World War II.
It seems you are a pacifist, but I wonder, how would your pacifism hold up when faced against inhuman brutalization?
posted
You're right, that's why I mentioned that--my views may change given the circumstance. But from my experiences to date, in dealing with people who are really sick, it has to say the least shaped my views on unnecessary harm. It's just my view, and I respect your right to disagree.
-------------------- Disclaimer: My posts are not meant to personally offend anyone. If you find yourself reading my posts repeatedly, you are kindly asked to seek the help of a professional Posts: 483 | From: cairo | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact is that every human being deserves freedom and during WWII the United States brought freedom to tens of millions, including the Japanese.
-------------------- The spirit of Horemheb lives on within us all. Posts: 1023 | From: The spirit of Horemheb lives within us all | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
History books don't always give you the real picture.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic