Deeper examination of Rev. Wright's infamous sermons

[OldNewby 27]

You are a living and breathing example of what is wrong with our politics.

Sort of like your current sig.

[RunInRed 16,494]

You are a living and breathing example of what is wrong with our politics.

Sort of like your current sig.

Pointing out the fact that McCain's proposed policies are basically an extension of those implemented by Bush the past 8 years is hardly "distractive" politics. It is called transparency on the issues that matter to this country.

[Tigermike 3,055]

You are a living and breathing example of what is wrong with our politics.

Sort of like your current sig.

Pointing out the fact that McCain's proposed policies are basically an extension of those implemented by Bush the past 8 years is hardly "distractive" politics. It is called transparency on the issues that matter to this country.

What he is really saying is it's OK for dims but not for the other side.

No it's called being a hypocrite of the highest order and you are the poster boy.

Just when I think you have the capability to host rational thought, you come back with more stupidity. You are a living and breathing example of what is wrong with our politics.

I'm stupid for pointing out the obvious? What is wrong with politics is Obamaphiles who are happy with meaningless platitudes.

[OldNewby 27]

So… you are figuratively saying President Bush and Senator McCain are joined at the hip.

Just because the two men agree on some policies, does not mean they are clones. John McCain is very much his own man, several times to my chagrin.

[GoAU 1,603]

....

The point is not that the Japanese or Germans were so humane, it's that if you're going to take the moral high ground and assert your way of life and philosophy as superior, it would help not to employ the same methods your enemies do to achieve your end.

I never tried taking the moral high ground - I believe we have been right and just in all of the wars listed here, and although I regret civillian losses there is no way to avoid it - especially back then. But to liken losses such as these to "murder" is wrong, plain and simple.

....

I'm taking the bigger view of killing innocents under the excuse of "collateral damage" in principle. I don't care what Rev. Wright's motivations are for specific examples.

"Killing of innocents" and "murder" sure seem to convey an intent or motivation to target civillians to me. I don't feel this is the case at all. If you want to look into the battleplan for the invasion of mainland japan (Operation Downfall) you can read about it here. I'll throw out a quick quote here though

Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties,[1] and tens of millions for Japanese casualties.

....

I'm now firmly convinced that you are not even attempting to read the article and consider the implications of what was really going on. It was not the lesser of two evils. One was negotiate a surrender which we knew the Japanese were more than willing to do and the other option was to incinerate 200,000 innocent civilians just to show off to the Soviets. That's choosing evil over non-evil.

I did read the article - I'll even quote part of it back for you:

In passing up this possible opportunity for an earlier and less deadly peace, Truman was not deliberately trying to prolong the war so the atomic bomb could be used on Japan to intimidate the Soviets. Briefly stated, it is likely that Truman believed the use of atomic bombs on Japan was necessary primarily for the reasons he always gave: "We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans"

....

First, I want to have an intelligent discussion with you on this, but if you're only kneejerk reaction is to swing wildly between extremes that no one is advocating because of an inability or unwillingness to deal with the stuff in-between those options, then this is a waste of time. I'm neither a pacifist nor do I think you have to resort to savagery. Ya think, one might occupy the middle ground somewhere?

You can fight wars justly and for the right things without resorting to evil.

Second, I didn't mention Pearl Harbor because my concern is not with Japan. You sound like the kid that gets a spanking for smarting off to Mom and justifies it by pointing out that other kids cuss out their parents or even hit them back. That's not the point. Your mom is not their mother, she's yours and she's dealing with what you did, not what they did.

You are correct that I became somewhat heated in my reponse, but I feel very strongly about my country, and particularly the military. I think that although we have made significant errors along the way, the majority of the decisions of our nation are made with the best intentions. I have had to make decisions in very short periods of time, under intense pressure and with dire consequences and it does irk me to see people use a "hoiler than thou" point of view with the clarity that only hindsight has to offer. For the personal nature of my posts I offer my apologies.

....

I don't believe what Jeremiah says at all - he is more of a politician than a preacher, just like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. You can join their congregations if you would like to, but I will continue to support MY country. 9/11 happened because of Muslim radicals and our failure to take proactive steps to stop them.

Again, you jump to wild conclusions because someone digs a bit deeper and doesn't dismiss everything a man says simply because he disagrees with the tone or certain points of it. I don't think any of us, until we get to heaven and can ask God, know exactly why He allowed something like 9/11 to happen. He obviously could have stopped it as He has foiled other evil plots, but chose not to. The question is, "why?" If you can look at the history of our government and the specifics kinds of things we've done from the CIA, to interrogating and torturing innocent people, to tactics of war such as nuking two Japanese cities, to the propping up of horrible dictators who tortured and oppressed their people and say that you believe none of that stuff could possibly add up to God allowing us to reap some of what we've sown (violence begetting violence), then I really have to question whether you pay attention when you read your Bible.

Again, as I said earlier but seems to be getting lost in the kneejerks reactions, I know our country has done many wonderful things too. But God isn't playing "count the hash marks" where as long as 50.1% of our actions are just and good He'll wink at the evil. That is my point and that is the bigger picture of what Wright is saying that I cannot disagree with.

These are valid points, but you also must consider other possibles such as God getting fed up with our nation allowing political correctness and liberalism to reign free and erode the solid moral foundation our country was founded on. Over 80% of our country claims to be Christian, but we allow the vocal minority to set the stage out of fear of sounding politically incorrect or *gasp* "intolerant". Maybe our nation needed a wake up call because the Muslims would have done something bigger, or worse, if we didn't pull our heads out of......... the sand.

It is impossible for any of us to understand God's plans - from the death of an infant to 9/11, God works in mysetrious ways and the best we can do is to study the Bible and let the Holy Spirit guide us. if you believe 9/11 was God punishing us for things in the past so be it, I highly doubt I will be able to sway your thoughts. But there are alternatives to consider as well, and I choose to believe them over some militant that has his whole livlyhood staked on continuing racial tension in our country.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I never tried taking the moral high ground - I believe we have been right and just in all of the wars listed here, and although I regret civillian losses there is no way to avoid it - especially back then. But to liken losses such as these to "murder" is wrong, plain and simple.

"Killing of innocents" and "murder" sure seem to convey an intent or motivation to target civillians to me. I don't feel this is the case at all. If you want to look into the battleplan for the invasion of mainland japan (Operation Downfall) you can read about it here. I'll throw out a quick quote here though

Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties,[1] and tens of millions for Japanese casualties.

There was no desperate need to carpet bomb cities even back in WWII. It was a tactic designed to break the will of the citizenry and turn them against their government. And nuking 200,000 unarmed civilians in Japan is murder, period. You make an erroneous assumption that our options were either a land invasion or dropping the bomb. There was a third option that wasn't even attempted even though we had full knowledge of its existence.

I did read the article - I'll even quote part of it back for you:

In passing up this possible opportunity for an earlier and less deadly peace, Truman was not deliberately trying to prolong the war so the atomic bomb could be used on Japan to intimidate the Soviets. Briefly stated, it is likely that Truman believed the use of atomic bombs on Japan was necessary primarily for the reasons he always gave: "We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans"

But you dismiss the part that came right before it?

July 1945 - Japan's peace messages

Still, the messages from Togo to Sato, read by the U.S. at the time, clearly indicated that Japan was seeking to end the war:

* July 11: "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".

* July 12: "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".

* July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs to communicate to the [soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for above items, see: U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).

* July 18: "Negotiations... necessary... for soliciting Russia's good offices in concluding the war and also in improving the basis for negotiations with England and America." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/18/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

* July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

* July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).

* July 26: Japan's Ambassador to Moscow, Sato, to the Soviet Acting Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lozovsky: "The aim of the Japanese Government with regard to Prince Konoye's mission is to enlist the good offices of the Soviet Government in order to end the war." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/26/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

President Truman knew of the messages' content, noting, for instance, in his diary on July 18, "Stalin had told P.M. [Prime Minister Churchill] of telegram from Jap [sic] Emperor asking for peace" (Robert Ferrell, ed., Off the Record - the Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, pg. 53).

So you have an enemy that has been decimated. Our own military reported that there were no military or industrial targets left in Japan to bomb. We'd taken them all out. We had a naval blockade that was choking off their ability to get supplies. They couldn't import oil or other vital raw materials to produce war machinery to the point that "Admiral William Leahy, the Chief of Staff to President Roosevelt and then to President Truman, wrote, "By the beginning of September [1944], Japan was almost completely defeated through a practically complete sea and air blockade." (William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 259)." In addition, Germany had surrendered so the Allies could focus all their attention on Japan alone.

On top of all that, for weeks leading up to the Hiroshima bombing, we're intercepting messages and getting word from the Soviets that Japan is ready to negotiate a surrender.

And you come away from that with the idea that our only viable options were to engage in some kind of bloody land invasion of mainland Japan or annihilate 200,000 civilians? That's why I call it "murder" and "killing of innocents"...because that's precisely what it was.

You are correct that I became somewhat heated in my reponse, but I feel very strongly about my country, and particularly the military. I think that although we have made significant errors along the way, the majority of the decisions of our nation are made with the best intentions. I have had to make decisions in very short periods of time, under intense pressure and with dire consequences and it does irk me to see people use a "hoiler than thou" point of view with the clarity that only hindsight has to offer. For the personal nature of my posts I offer my apologies.

I think most of our fighting men and women do what they do with the best intentions. And they follow orders and they trust that the people giving them those orders are making hard decisions and trying to do things the right way. The shame of it is, that latter part is not always the case and sometimes it has been spectacularly not the case. My gripe is not with the people out there dodging bullets and fighting for their lives. It's with the people that make such decisions and then have the temerity to spin or lie about the reasons and not own up to what they've done.

These are valid points, but you also must consider other possibles such as God getting fed up with our nation allowing political correctness and liberalism to reign free and erode the solid moral foundation our country was founded on.

I do consider them. My problem is that such things seem to be the ONLY things many conservative Christians will consider as offense enough to God to cause Him to act. Meanwhile all the things I've mentioned either get spinned or explained away or outright ignored as if God doesn't give a damn about a bunch of innocent people being vaporized and the hundreds of thousands more that contracted all sorts of cancers from the leftover radiation, but HOLY CRAP THEY DON'T POST THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN THE COURTHOUSE ANYMORE! I'm being sarcastic to make a point. We're never even commanded to hang those in government buildings. We're commanded to follow them. Sure, God isn't pleased with the distorting of sexuality, but wouldn't he be at least as concerned with innocent people being killed? If anything I think that if He's got a ranking system in his pocket, that's gonna rank a tad higher.

[GoAU 1,603]

There was no desperate need to carpet bomb cities even back in WWII. It was a tactic designed to break the will of the citizenry and turn them against their government. And nuking 200,000 unarmed civilians in Japan is murder, period. You make an erroneous assumption that our options were either a land invasion or dropping the bomb. There was a third option that wasn't even attempted even though we had full knowledge of its existence.

You are incorrect about there being no "need" to carpet bomb - look at the historical accuracy of the number of bombs dropped and their hit percentages in WW2, and compare them through the years . Sure many times people assumed there was an attempt to break the will of the civillian population, but it typically had the opposite effect.

So you have an enemy that has been decimated. Our own military reported that there were no military or industrial targets left in Japan to bomb. We'd taken them all out. We had a naval blockade that was choking off their ability to get supplies. They couldn't import oil or other vital raw materials to produce war machinery to the point that "Admiral William Leahy, the Chief of Staff to President Roosevelt and then to President Truman, wrote, "By the beginning of September [1944], Japan was almost completely defeated through a practically complete sea and air blockade." (William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 259)." In addition, Germany had surrendered so the Allies could focus all their attention on Japan alone.

On top of all that, for weeks leading up to the Hiroshima bombing, we're intercepting messages and getting word from the Soviets that Japan is ready to negotiate a surrender.

And you come away from that with the idea that our only viable options were to engage in some kind of bloody land invasion of mainland Japan or annihilate 200,000 civilians? That's why I call it "murder" and "killing of innocents"...because that's precisely what it was.

What they are saying, and what they are doing were two different things. If they were so eager and anxious for peace, why were they talking to the Russians and not us? If, in your own words, they had no military targets left - did our ground invasion predict literally MILLIONS of casualties? Obviously you didn't read my link either. Believe what you want, but I am through debating it - it's like pounding my head against a wall.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

First of all, Jeremiah's sermons or commentary are his alone. He's certainly entitled to them although it does seem just a bit hypocritical & counterproductive to damn the very country which guarantees his right to criticize the government. And for someone to criticize politicians for dealing in soundbites and provocative phrases well ... ain't that like the pot calling the kettle black? Let's examine a sampling of his "views":

AIDS/CIA plot, etc.

Wow. Just wow. I'll take Paranoid Conspiracy Theories for $100, Alex.

Chickens Coming Home to Roost/All past US actions are "terroristic" by definition, therefore we should not be surprised that terrorists attacked us on 9/11.

Specious logic at best. The purpose of the atomic bombings of Japan was to quickly END the war with the country that started it. Mission accomplished. For a good synopsis of the rationale for dropping the bombs to end the war please see: this article which appeared in American Heritage magazine in 1995 -- on the 50th anniversary. General Marshall's sober assessment puts it best: “It is a grim fact,” Marshall said, “that there is not an easy, bloodless way to victory in war.” The two invasions planned for the home islands of Japan were scheduled for 1 Nov 45 (Operation Olympic) for the southernmost island of Kyushu, and then for 1 Mar 46 (Operation Cornet) for the main island of Honshu. Just to give you an idea of the number of people that would have been involved: the D-Day invasion of Normandy was the largest amphibious invasion ever attempted in the history of the world until the invasion of Okinawa surpassed it slightly in the total number of troops, ships & tons of supplies. Operation Olympic was scheduled to be larger in every aspect than the combined invasions of D-Day & Okinawa. And then, Operation Cornet would have been twice the size of Olympic still(!) Fully 40% of all US armed forces in WWII would have been involved in both invasions. Around 17M Americans were in uniform during WWII -- you do the math. Estimates of American casualties expected during the invasions & subsequent conquest of Japan were anywhere from 200k to 1M. Estimated Japanese casualties? I would guess conservatively that they would be equal to or greater than US casualties. The peace feelers sent out were by a small faction in the Japanese government. There were many more hardliners that were determined to fight to the bitter end. Indeed, every single battle the Japanese fought bears this out with the last two before the dropping of the atomic bombs (Iwo Jima & Okinawa) ending with the most US casualties. One can look at the results of Hiroshima & Nagasaki today and argue that Truman's decision 60+ years ago was that of a mass murderer. But you would do so without any historical context. The decision to drop the bombs was barbaric -- no other word for it. However, the paradox of his actions also means Truman's decison was truly courageous at the same time because he most assuredly prevented an even greater calamity between US forces and the population of Japan.

Slavery

Not one African slave would have left the continent without the assistance of dominant tribes enslaving other tribes and selling these slaves to white slave traders. Also, 600k Americans died in the Civil War which resulted in slavery as an institution in the US being abolished forever. The US government could issue an apology today to descendents of slaves, true. A more meaningful gesture though, might be for each descendent of slaves today to visit a Civil War cemetary and give a silent prayer of thanks to the inhabitants.

Indian tribes such as the Sioux, Cheyenne, Commanche, Navajo, Apache, etc.

It's a great misconception that things were all peaceful & harmonious and then the white man showed up & ruined everything. Truth be told, the Spaniards introduced horses & guns which these tribes then used to dominate one another through a long standing culture of warfare & raiding. The Sioux became the dominant plains tribe in the Missouri River valley largely through trade with the white man. The Navajo were raiding (& dominating) neighboring tribes and Mexican settlements 150 years before the US declared war with Mexico in 1846. The US Army put a stop to all the thieving & enslaving practices of the Navajo & Apache once the Western lands were annexed.

[arnaldoabru 11]

First of all, Jeremiah's sermons or commentary are his alone. He's certainly entitled to them although it does seem just a bit hypocritical & counterproductive to damn the very country which guarantees his right to criticize the government. And for someone to criticize politicians for dealing in soundbites and provocative phrases well ... ain't that like the pot calling the kettle black? Let's examine a sampling of his "views":

AIDS/CIA plot, etc.

Wow. Just wow. I'll take Paranoid Conspiracy Theories for $100, Alex.

Chickens Coming Home to Roost/All past US actions are "terroristic" by definition, therefore we should not be surprised that terrorists attacked us on 9/11.

Specious logic at best. The purpose of the atomic bombings of Japan was to quickly END the war with the country that started it. Mission accomplished. For a good synopsis of the rationale for dropping the bombs to end the war please see: this article which appeared in American Heritage magazine in 1995 -- on the 50th anniversary. General Marshall's sober assessment puts it best: “It is a grim fact,” Marshall said, “that there is not an easy, bloodless way to victory in war.” The two invasions planned for the home islands of Japan were scheduled for 1 Nov 45 (Operation Olympic) for the southernmost island of Kyushu, and then for 1 Mar 46 (Operation Cornet) for the main island of Honshu. Just to give you an idea of the number of people that would have been involved: the D-Day invasion of Normandy was the largest amphibious invasion ever attempted in the history of the world until the invasion of Okinawa surpassed it slightly in the total number of troops, ships & tons of supplies. Operation Olympic was scheduled to be larger in every aspect than the combined invasions of D-Day & Okinawa. And then, Operation Cornet would have been twice the size of Olympic still(!) Fully 40% of all US armed forces in WWII would have been involved in both invasions. Around 17M Americans were in uniform during WWII -- you do the math. Estimates of American casualties expected during the invasions & subsequent conquest of Japan were anywhere from 200k to 1M. Estimated Japanese casualties? I would guess conservatively that they would be equal to or greater than US casualties. The peace feelers sent out were by a small faction in the Japanese government. There were many more hardliners that were determined to fight to the bitter end. Indeed, every single battle the Japanese fought bears this out with the last two before the dropping of the atomic bombs (Iwo Jima & Okinawa) ending with the most US casualties. One can look at the results of Hiroshima & Nagasaki today and argue that Truman's decision 60+ years ago was that of a mass murderer. But you would do so without any historical context. The decision to drop the bombs was barbaric -- no other word for it. However, the paradox of his actions also means Truman's decison was truly courageous at the same time because he most assuredly prevented an even greater calamity between US forces and the population of Japan.

Slavery

Not one African slave would have left the continent without the assistance of dominant tribes enslaving other tribes and selling these slaves to white slave traders. Also, 600k Americans died in the Civil War which resulted in slavery as an institution in the US being abolished forever. The US government could issue an apology today to descendents of slaves, true. A more meaningful gesture though, might be for each descendent of slaves today to visit a Civil War cemetary and give a silent prayer of thanks to the inhabitants.

Indian tribes such as the Sioux, Cheyenne, Commanche, Navajo, Apache, etc.

It's a great misconception that things were all peaceful & harmonious and then the white man showed up & ruined everything. Truth be told, the Spaniards introduced horses & guns which these tribes then used to dominate one another through a long standing culture of warfare & raiding. The Sioux became the dominant plains tribe in the Missouri River valley largely through trade with the white man. The Navajo were raiding (& dominating) neighboring tribes and Mexican settlements 150 years before the US declared war with Mexico in 1846. The US Army put a stop to all the thieving & enslaving practices of the Navajo & Apache once the Western lands were annexed.

What about the Creeks and the Cherokee's?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Let's examine a sampling of his "views":

AIDS/CIA plot, etc.

Wow. Just wow. I'll take Paranoid Conspiracy Theories for $100, Alex.

Well, yes and no. First, he has no proof of this specifically so it's just speculation and he should quit stating it as fact. Then again, our government had purposely infected black men with syphilis in the Tuskegee Study from 1932-1972, so it's not like suspecting such a thing would be just completely out of left field.

Chickens Coming Home to Roost/All past US actions are "terroristic" by definition, therefore we should not be surprised that terrorists attacked us on 9/11.

Specious logic at best. The purpose of the atomic bombings of Japan was to quickly END the war with the country that started it. Mission accomplished. For a good synopsis of the rationale for dropping the bombs to end the war please see: this article which appeared in American Heritage magazine in 1995 -- on the 50th anniversary. General Marshall's sober assessment puts it best: “It is a grim fact,” Marshall said, “that there is not an easy, bloodless way to victory in war.” The two invasions planned for the home islands of Japan were scheduled for 1 Nov 45 (Operation Olympic) for the southernmost island of Kyushu, and then for 1 Mar 46 (Operation Cornet) for the main island of Honshu. Just to give you an idea of the number of people that would have been involved: the D-Day invasion of Normandy was the largest amphibious invasion ever attempted in the history of the world until the invasion of Okinawa surpassed it slightly in the total number of troops, ships & tons of supplies. Operation Olympic was scheduled to be larger in every aspect than the combined invasions of D-Day & Okinawa. And then, Operation Cornet would have been twice the size of Olympic still(!) Fully 40% of all US armed forces in WWII would have been involved in both invasions. Around 17M Americans were in uniform during WWII -- you do the math. Estimates of American casualties expected during the invasions & subsequent conquest of Japan were anywhere from 200k to 1M. Estimated Japanese casualties? I would guess conservatively that they would be equal to or greater than US casualties. The peace feelers sent out were by a small faction in the Japanese government. There were many more hardliners that were determined to fight to the bitter end. Indeed, every single battle the Japanese fought bears this out with the last two before the dropping of the atomic bombs (Iwo Jima & Okinawa) ending with the most US casualties. One can look at the results of Hiroshima & Nagasaki today and argue that Truman's decision 60+ years ago was that of a mass murderer. But you would do so without any historical context. The decision to drop the bombs was barbaric -- no other word for it. However, the paradox of his actions also means Truman's decison was truly courageous at the same time because he most assuredly prevented an even greater calamity between US forces and the population of Japan.

Just like I told GoAU, despite the spin on this for the last 50 years, our options were not limited to "bloody land invasion" vs "nuke civilians." We knew Japan was ready to negotiate a surrender weeks before dropping the bomb. They were conveying such messages through the Soviets (whom they had a neutrality pact with). We had a near total air and sea blockade in place and had already bombed them into submission. Invasion was not necessary.

And it's not just looking at it with the benefit of hindsight:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. --Eisenhower, Dwight D. (1963). The White House Years; Mandate For Change: 1953-1956. Doubleday & Company, pp. 312–313.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman

"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs." --Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.

[General Douglas] MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

The truth of the matter is that the only reason this wasn't considered a war crime is that we were the victors. Leo Szilard who worked on the Manhattan Project stated it clearly and truthfully:

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"

You and I both know how such an event would have been viewed. The fact that we won the war doesn't change the nature of such a decision.

Not one African slave would have left the continent without the assistance of dominant tribes enslaving other tribes and selling these slaves to white slave traders. Also, 600k Americans died in the Civil War which resulted in slavery as an institution in the US being abolished forever.

What the African tribe did has no bearing on our own moral culpability. I could just as easily say that not one African slave would have left the continent, even if they were being boxed and lined up on the beaches waiting for us, if we hadn't created a market for them and come to get them. The point is...it doesn't matter what the Africans tribes did. We were the ones that enslaved them, took them back here, broke up families and treated them like property. We were the ones that refused to give them the rights of US citizens in our constitution, but callously allowed them to count as 3/5ths of a person so that the Southern states could bolster their population figures and get more representatives in Congress. We were also the ones that after the Civil War and Reconstruction immediately found new ways to discriminate, intimidate and otherwise suppress a whole race of people for another 100 years.

It's a big deal and we've still not fully come to grips with the seriousness of what it was. And as long as we point fingers at African tribes or act as if the Union fighting a war to keep the Southern states from seceding acts as some kind of complete atonement, we're still not getting it.

Indian tribes such as the Sioux, Cheyenne, Commanche, Navajo, Apache, etc.

It's a great misconception that things were all peaceful & harmonious and then the white man showed up & ruined everything. Truth be told, the Spaniards introduced horses & guns which these tribes then used to dominate one another through a long standing culture of warfare & raiding. The Sioux became the dominant plains tribe in the Missouri River valley largely through trade with the white man. The Navajo were raiding (& dominating) neighboring tribes and Mexican settlements 150 years before the US declared war with Mexico in 1846. The US Army put a stop to all the thieving & enslaving practices of the Navajo & Apache once the Western lands were annexed.

This is similar to the African tribe excuse. The issue is not that the Native Americans were a bunch of peace-loving hippies. The point is, we came here and did rotten things to move them off of their land. We negotiated treaties, trading one territory for another, then broke those treaties and took even more land from them. We can't go back and undo what we did, but we didn't exactly have the "right" to just annex land and kick or kill them off of it. I know that fights over territory have happened since the beginning of time, but even if you just look at the treaties and other agreements we made, we lied, cheated and stole from them. As a so-called "Christian nation" that viewed them as heathen savages and ourselves as enlightened moral people, that's inexcusable.

[DKW 86 7,444]

Well, since we are going to allow Wright to tie politics and religion together:

Joshua 8

Ai Destroyed

1 Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. 2 You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city."

3 So Joshua and the whole army moved out to attack Ai. He chose thirty thousand of his best fighting men and sent them out at night 4 with these orders: "Listen carefully. You are to set an ambush behind the city. Don't go very far from it. All of you be on the alert. 5 I and all those with me will advance on the city, and when the men come out against us, as they did before, we will flee from them. 6 They will pursue us until we have lured them away from the city, for they will say, 'They are running away from us as they did before.' So when we flee from them, 7 you are to rise up from ambush and take the city. The LORD your God will give it into your hand. 8 When you have taken the city, set it on fire. Do what the LORD has commanded. See to it; you have my orders."

9 Then Joshua sent them off, and they went to the place of ambush and lay in wait between Bethel and Ai, to the west of Ai—but Joshua spent that night with the people.

10 Early the next morning Joshua mustered his men, and he and the leaders of Israel marched before them to Ai. 11 The entire force that was with him marched up and approached the city and arrived in front of it. They set up camp north of Ai, with the valley between them and the city. 12 Joshua had taken about five thousand men and set them in ambush between Bethel and Ai, to the west of the city. 13 They had the soldiers take up their positions—all those in the camp to the north of the city and the ambush to the west of it. That night Joshua went into the valley.

14 When the king of Ai saw this, he and all the men of the city hurried out early in the morning to meet Israel in battle at a certain place overlooking the Arabah. But he did not know that an ambush had been set against him behind the city. 15 Joshua and all Israel let themselves be driven back before them, and they fled toward the desert. 16 All the men of Ai were called to pursue them, and they pursued Joshua and were lured away from the city. 17 Not a man remained in Ai or Bethel who did not go after Israel. They left the city open and went in pursuit of Israel.

18 Then the LORD said to Joshua, "Hold out toward Ai the javelin that is in your hand, for into your hand I will deliver the city." So Joshua held out his javelin toward Ai. 19 As soon as he did this, the men in the ambush rose quickly from their position and rushed forward. They entered the city and captured it and quickly set it on fire.

20 The men of Ai looked back and saw the smoke of the city rising against the sky, but they had no chance to escape in any direction, for the Israelites who had been fleeing toward the desert had turned back against their pursuers. 21 For when Joshua and all Israel saw that the ambush had taken the city and that smoke was going up from the city, they turned around and attacked the men of Ai. 22 The men of the ambush also came out of the city against them, so that they were caught in the middle, with Israelites on both sides. Israel cut them down, leaving them neither survivors nor fugitives. 23 But they took the king of Ai alive and brought him to Joshua.

24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed [a] all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua.

28 So Joshua burned Ai and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day. 29 He hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take his body from the tree and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate. And they raised a large pile of rocks over it, which remains to this day.

The Covenant Renewed at Mount Ebal

30 Then Joshua built on Mount Ebal an altar to the LORD, the God of Israel, 31 as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded the Israelites. He built it according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses—an altar of uncut stones, on which no iron tool had been used. On it they offered to the LORD burnt offerings and sacrificed fellowship offerings. 32 There, in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua copied on stones the law of Moses, which he had written. 33 All Israel, aliens and citizens alike, with their elders, officials and judges, were standing on both sides of the ark of the covenant of the LORD, facing those who carried it—the priests, who were Levites. Half of the people stood in front of Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of the LORD had formerly commanded when he gave instructions to bless the people of Israel.

34 Afterward, Joshua read all the words of the law—the blessings and the curses—just as it is written in the Book of the Law. 35 There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded that Joshua did not read to the whole assembly of Israel, including the women and children, and the aliens who lived among them.

I think some alot more reading of the bible should be done before this discussion goes further. In the OT it was not uncommon at all to see the men all killed, the women and children, and even the livestock all put to death. Now, we do live in NT times but some of you guys are just laughable in condemning a govt made up of intensely flawed men because they didnt deal perfectly with every person or group that govt dealt with. To say "GD America" in Wright's context is okay by me. What I have problems with the Michelle Obama idea that the entire history of the US, freeing the slaves, the Constitution, freeing the Jews in WWII, all that can be thrown away because someone, somewhere wasnt dealt with in a 100% perfect manner. Hell our govt cant even deal with its own enlisted people in a decent manner. To site every flaw in a nation's history is, at some level, silly. All govts are flawed because they are made up of silly men and women.

Having said all that, I still see millions flocking to our country for the last 300 years and still flocking today. Maybe we arent as bad as Wright and some of you believe we are...

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Two things are missing from citing that passage:

1. Jesus directly abrogated the notion of "eye for an eye" (as I mentioned earlier) and we are now called to a higher law.

2. Any evidence that America as a nation is God's chosen people and that he directly speaks to us through the prophets.

God didn't even give Israel carte blanche authorization to do everywhere and in all wars what He ordered them to do in Ai. Ai had been judged and condemned by God Himself. It certainly doesn't even come close to justifying Truman leaving an opportunity to negotiate Japan's surrender on the table so we could play God and incinerate 200,000 civilians.

St. Augustine's formulation of the Just War Doctrine embodies the higher understanding we now have. Once war has begun, this is how it is to be handled from a Christian moral perspective:

Distinction

Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create.The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary civilians.

Proportionality

Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. The force used must be proportional to the wrong endured, and to the possible good that may come. The more disproportional the number of collateral civilian deaths, the more suspect will be the sincerity of a belligerent nation's claim to justness of a war it fights.

Military necessity

Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only don't meet all three criteria, they fail all three in spectacular fashion.

That said, I've mentioned at least a couple of times that this doesn't mean that America has not done or continues to do a lot of good things or that this country is some horrible monster overall. But this isn't an either/or proposition. You can believe there is much good about this country yet still speak truthfully about her sins.

[CCTAU 3,350]

I'm with GoAU. You mess with the bull, you get the horns.

I am still upset about the bombing of Libya. I thought they should have killed the whole damn family.

Too many people in this country want to sit back and claim Jesus without wanting to do the ugly work it takes to be free to sit back and do that. So while you all get together and song Kumbaya, kids like my son are traipsing all over the world killing terrorists so they don't blow you up here.

So when the good rev. starts blabbing, I get upset. I think all descendants of slaves should pay my family for the blame they put on us when we never even owned a slave.

There has to come a time when everyone is responsible for their life NOW, not what happened to granpapa. The good rev is a racist bastard who is hiding behind Jesus to preach his hate. No matter how you look at the sermon, it is unacceptable...unless you are black. If a white man even come close to that, the cross and nails would have been already bought.

So defend him if you will. But don't expect mainstream America to sing along. And achmed can say what he wants, but to sit under that man for 20 years shows a lot about the lack of character that is needed to lead my country.

I'm so happy that the left has applauded all of this free thinking. Especially the way they have conducted political business the last 10 years. Hypocrites....the whole lot.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I'm with GoAU. You mess with the bull, you get the horns.

I am still upset about the bombing of Libya. I thought they should have killed the whole damn family.

Too many people in this country want to sit back and claim Jesus without wanting to do the ugly work it takes to be free to sit back and do that. So while you all get together and song Kumbaya, kids like my son are traipsing all over the world killing terrorists so they don't blow you up here.

So when the good rev. starts blabbing, I get upset. I think all descendants of slaves should pay my family for the blame they put on us when we never even owned a slave.

There has to come a time when everyone is responsible for their life NOW, not what happened to granpapa. The good rev is a racist bastard who is hiding behind Jesus to preach his hate. No matter how you look at the sermon, it is unacceptable...unless you are black. If a white man even come close to that, the cross and nails would have been already bought.

So defend him if you will. But don't expect mainstream America to sing along. And achmed can say what he wants, but to sit under that man for 20 years shows a lot about the lack of character that is needed to lead my country.

I'm so happy that the left has applauded all of this free thinking. Especially the way they have conducted political business the last 10 years. Hypocrites....the whole lot.

Way to argue against a point no one here has made.

[Auburn85 432]

i wonder how white homosexuals the last 20-25 years with AIDS feel about Wright's comment about AIDS being injected into the black community?

That was one hell of a government smokescreen.

[CCTAU 3,350]

I'm with GoAU. You mess with the bull, you get the horns.

I am still upset about the bombing of Libya. I thought they should have killed the whole damn family.

Too many people in this country want to sit back and claim Jesus without wanting to do the ugly work it takes to be free to sit back and do that. So while you all get together and song Kumbaya, kids like my son are traipsing all over the world killing terrorists so they don't blow you up here.

So when the good rev. starts blabbing, I get upset. I think all descendants of slaves should pay my family for the blame they put on us when we never even owned a slave.

There has to come a time when everyone is responsible for their life NOW, not what happened to granpapa. The good rev is a racist bastard who is hiding behind Jesus to preach his hate. No matter how you look at the sermon, it is unacceptable...unless you are black. If a white man even come close to that, the cross and nails would have been already bought.

So defend him if you will. But don't expect mainstream America to sing along. And achmed can say what he wants, but to sit under that man for 20 years shows a lot about the lack of character that is needed to lead my country.

I'm so happy that the left has applauded all of this free thinking. Especially the way they have conducted political business the last 10 years. Hypocrites....the whole lot.

Way to argue against a point no one here has made.

Which one? I thought I was so random that you might never figure out what I was arguing for.....or against.

There is no defense for the good rev. He who tries, looks to be the bigger fool than Wright.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

If the world were simpler, you'd seem a lot smarter.

[DKW 86 7,444]

Distinction

Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create.The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary civilians.

Proportionality

Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. The force used must be proportional to the wrong endured, and to the possible good that may come. The more disproportional the number of collateral civilian deaths, the more suspect will be the sincerity of a belligerent nation's claim to justness of a war it fights.

Military necessity

Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.

Titan, the Germans and many other combatants moved their arms and munitions manufacture into civilian areas just so we would leave them alone. I know this is going to sound very harsh but... War is Hell. In "Blackhawk Down" the Somlais hid behind women and kids because they thought we would not shoot. We did anyway. In combat, you try to act like a gentleman and a human being. I feel sure that even our enemies want it that way. However, in the heat of battle, all that goes out the window as the impulse to survive and revenge a comrade's death take over.

Mahan's Theory of Naval Combat, taught at every naval school on the planet says attack with overwhelming force. Win quicklly and get the fighting over. Rommel's Theories were read and used by Patton.

As Patton REALLY said: http://www.pattonhq.com/speech.html

"Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bull****. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight. When you, here, everyone of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players. Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American."

The General paused and looked over the crowd. "You are not all going to die," he said slowly. "Only two percent of you right here today would die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Death, in time, comes to all men. Yes, every man is scared in his first battle. If he says he's not, he's a liar. Some men are cowards but they fight the same as the brave men or they get the hell slammed out of them watching men fight who are just as scared as they are. The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared. Some men get over their fright in a minute under fire. For some, it takes an hour. For some, it takes days. But a real man will never let his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood. Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base. Americans pride themselves on being He Men and they ARE He Men. Remember that the enemy is just as frightened as you are, and probably more so. They are not supermen."

"All through your Army careers, you men have bitched about what you call "chicken s*** drilling". That, like everything else in this Army, has a definite purpose. That purpose is alertness. Alertness must be bred into every soldier. I don't give a **** for a man who's not always on his toes. You men are veterans or you wouldn't be here. You are ready for what's to come. A man must be alert at all times if he expects to stay alive. If you're not alert, sometime, a German son-of-an-a**hole-bitch is going to sneak up behind you and beat you to death with a sockful of s***!" The men roared in agreement.

Patton's grim expression did not change. "There are four hundred neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily", he roared into the microphone, "All because one man went to sleep on the job". He paused and the men grew silent. "But they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before they did". The General clutched the microphone tightly, his jaw out-thrust, and he continued, "An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is pure horse s***. The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about *******!"

The men slapped their legs and rolled in glee. This was Patton as the men had imagined him to be, and in rare form, too. He hadn't let them down. He was all that he was cracked up to be, and more. He had IT!

"We have the finest food, the finest equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world", Patton bellowed. He lowered his head and shook it pensively. Suddenly he snapped erect, faced the men belligerently and thundered, "Why, by God, I actually pity those poor sons-of-bitches we're going up against. By God, I do". The men clapped and howled delightedly. There would be many a barracks tale about the "Old Man's" choice phrases. They would become part and parcel of Third Army's history and they would become the bible of their slang.

"My men don't surrender", Patton continued, "I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. That's not just bull s*** either. The kind of man that I want in my command is just like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Luger against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand, and busted the hell out of the Kraut with his helmet. Then he jumped on the gun and went out and killed another German before they knew what the hell was coming off. And, all of that time, this man had a bullet through a lung. There was a real man!"

Patton stopped and the crowd waited. He continued more quietly, "All of the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters, either. Every single man in this Army plays a vital role. Don't ever let up. Don't ever think that your job is unimportant. Every man has a job to do and he must do it. Every man is a vital link in the great chain. What if every truck driver suddenly decided that he didn't like the whine of those shells overhead, turned yellow, and jumped headlong into a ditch? The cowardly bastard could say, "Hell, they won't miss me, just one man in thousands". But, what if every man thought that way? Where in the hell would we be now? What would our country, our loved ones, our homes, even the world, be like? No, Goddamnit, Americans don't think like that. Every man does his job. Every man serves the whole. Every department, every unit, is important in the vast scheme of this war. The ordnance men are needed to supply the guns and machinery of war to keep us rolling. The Quartermaster is needed to bring up food and clothes because where we are going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last man on K.P. has a job to do, even the one who heats our water to keep us from getting the 'G.I. sh**s'."

Patton paused, took a deep breath, and continued, "Each man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him. We don't want yellow cowards in this Army. They should be killed off like rats. If not, they will go home after this war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the Goddamned cowards and we will have a nation of brave men. One of the bravest men that I ever saw was a fellow on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of a furious fire fight in Tunisia. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at a time like that. He answered, "Fixing the wire, Sir". I asked, "Isn't that a little unhealthy right about now?" He answered, "Yes Sir, but the Goddamned wire has to be fixed". I asked, "Don't those planes strafing the road bother you?" And he answered, "No, Sir, but you sure as hell do!" Now, there was a real man. A real soldier. There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time, no matter how great the odds. And you should have seen those trucks on the road to Tunisia. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting all around them all of the time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of those men drove for over forty consecutive hours. These men weren't combat men, but they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it, and in one hell of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without team effort, without them, the fight would have been lost. All of the links in the chain pulled together and the chain became unbreakable."

The General paused and stared challengingly over the silent ocean of men. One could have heard a pin drop anywhere on that vast hillside. The only sound was the stirring of the breeze in the leaves of the bordering trees and the busy chirping of the birds in the branches of the trees at the General's left.

"Don't forget," Patton barked, "you men don't know that I'm here. No mention of that fact is to be made in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell happened to me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this Army. I'm not even supposed to be here in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the Goddamned Germans. Some day I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, 'Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Third Army again and that son-of-a-*******-bitch Patton'."

"We want to get the hell over there", Patton continued, "The quicker we clean up this Goddamned mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple pissing Japs and clean out their nest, too. Before the Goddamned Marines get all of the credit."

The men roared approval and cheered delightedly. This statement had real significance behind it. Much more than met the eye and the men instinctively sensed the fact. They knew that they themselves were going to play a very great part in the making of world history. They were being told as much right now. Deep sincerity and seriousness lay behind the General's colorful words. The men knew and understood it. They loved the way he put it, too, as only he could.

Patton continued quietly, "Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin", he yelled, "I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!"

"When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a German will get to him eventually. The hell with that idea. The hell with taking it. My men don't dig foxholes. I don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don't give the enemy time to dig one either. We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-*******-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it's the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you'll know what to do!"

"I don't want to get any messages saying, "I am holding my position." We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living s*** out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like s*** through a tin horn!"

"From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don't give a good damn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that."

The General paused. His eagle like eyes swept over the hillside. He said with pride, "There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again. You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you WON'T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, "Well, your Granddaddy shoveled s*** in Louisiana." No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, "Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Georgie Patton!"

Patton has it right I think. You make war in such a fashion that NO ONE in his right mind wants to ever re-live it again by starting another one. You make it SSSOOO bad no one ever thinks about it again. Afterall, "all fair in Love and War."

[TexasTiger 13,031]

Distinction

Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create.The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary civilians.

Proportionality

Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. The force used must be proportional to the wrong endured, and to the possible good that may come. The more disproportional the number of collateral civilian deaths, the more suspect will be the sincerity of a belligerent nation's claim to justness of a war it fights.

Military necessity

Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.

Titan, the Germans and many other combatants moved their arms and munitions manufacture into civilian areas just so we would leave them alone. I know this is going to sound very harsh but... War is Hell. In "Blackhawk Down" the Somlais hid behind women and kids because they thought we would not shoot. We did anyway. In combat, you try to act like a gentleman and a human being. I feel sure that even our enemies want it that way. However, in the heat of battle, all that goes out the window as the impulse to survive and revenge a comrade's death take over.

Mahan's Theory of Naval Combat, taught at every naval school on the planet says attack with overwhelming force. Win quicklly and get the fighting over. Rommel's Theories were read and used by Patton.

As Patton REALLY said: http://www.pattonhq.com/speech.html

"Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bull****. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight. When you, here, everyone of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players. Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American."

The General paused and looked over the crowd. "You are not all going to die," he said slowly. "Only two percent of you right here today would die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Death, in time, comes to all men. Yes, every man is scared in his first battle. If he says he's not, he's a liar. Some men are cowards but they fight the same as the brave men or they get the hell slammed out of them watching men fight who are just as scared as they are. The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared. Some men get over their fright in a minute under fire. For some, it takes an hour. For some, it takes days. But a real man will never let his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood. Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base. Americans pride themselves on being He Men and they ARE He Men. Remember that the enemy is just as frightened as you are, and probably more so. They are not supermen."

"All through your Army careers, you men have bitched about what you call "chicken s*** drilling". That, like everything else in this Army, has a definite purpose. That purpose is alertness. Alertness must be bred into every soldier. I don't give a **** for a man who's not always on his toes. You men are veterans or you wouldn't be here. You are ready for what's to come. A man must be alert at all times if he expects to stay alive. If you're not alert, sometime, a German son-of-an-a**hole-bitch is going to sneak up behind you and beat you to death with a sockful of s***!" The men roared in agreement.

Patton's grim expression did not change. "There are four hundred neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily", he roared into the microphone, "All because one man went to sleep on the job". He paused and the men grew silent. "But they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before they did". The General clutched the microphone tightly, his jaw out-thrust, and he continued, "An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is pure horse s***. The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don't know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about *******!"

The men slapped their legs and rolled in glee. This was Patton as the men had imagined him to be, and in rare form, too. He hadn't let them down. He was all that he was cracked up to be, and more. He had IT!

"We have the finest food, the finest equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world", Patton bellowed. He lowered his head and shook it pensively. Suddenly he snapped erect, faced the men belligerently and thundered, "Why, by God, I actually pity those poor sons-of-bitches we're going up against. By God, I do". The men clapped and howled delightedly. There would be many a barracks tale about the "Old Man's" choice phrases. They would become part and parcel of Third Army's history and they would become the bible of their slang.

"My men don't surrender", Patton continued, "I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. That's not just bull s*** either. The kind of man that I want in my command is just like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Luger against his chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand, and busted the hell out of the Kraut with his helmet. Then he jumped on the gun and went out and killed another German before they knew what the hell was coming off. And, all of that time, this man had a bullet through a lung. There was a real man!"

Patton stopped and the crowd waited. He continued more quietly, "All of the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters, either. Every single man in this Army plays a vital role. Don't ever let up. Don't ever think that your job is unimportant. Every man has a job to do and he must do it. Every man is a vital link in the great chain. What if every truck driver suddenly decided that he didn't like the whine of those shells overhead, turned yellow, and jumped headlong into a ditch? The cowardly bastard could say, "Hell, they won't miss me, just one man in thousands". But, what if every man thought that way? Where in the hell would we be now? What would our country, our loved ones, our homes, even the world, be like? No, Goddamnit, Americans don't think like that. Every man does his job. Every man serves the whole. Every department, every unit, is important in the vast scheme of this war. The ordnance men are needed to supply the guns and machinery of war to keep us rolling. The Quartermaster is needed to bring up food and clothes because where we are going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last man on K.P. has a job to do, even the one who heats our water to keep us from getting the 'G.I. sh**s'."

Patton paused, took a deep breath, and continued, "Each man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him. We don't want yellow cowards in this Army. They should be killed off like rats. If not, they will go home after this war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the Goddamned cowards and we will have a nation of brave men. One of the bravest men that I ever saw was a fellow on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of a furious fire fight in Tunisia. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at a time like that. He answered, "Fixing the wire, Sir". I asked, "Isn't that a little unhealthy right about now?" He answered, "Yes Sir, but the Goddamned wire has to be fixed". I asked, "Don't those planes strafing the road bother you?" And he answered, "No, Sir, but you sure as hell do!" Now, there was a real man. A real soldier. There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time, no matter how great the odds. And you should have seen those trucks on the road to Tunisia. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting all around them all of the time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of those men drove for over forty consecutive hours. These men weren't combat men, but they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it, and in one hell of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without team effort, without them, the fight would have been lost. All of the links in the chain pulled together and the chain became unbreakable."

The General paused and stared challengingly over the silent ocean of men. One could have heard a pin drop anywhere on that vast hillside. The only sound was the stirring of the breeze in the leaves of the bordering trees and the busy chirping of the birds in the branches of the trees at the General's left.

"Don't forget," Patton barked, "you men don't know that I'm here. No mention of that fact is to be made in any letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell happened to me. I'm not supposed to be commanding this Army. I'm not even supposed to be here in England. Let the first bastards to find out be the Goddamned Germans. Some day I want to see them raise up on their piss-soaked hind legs and howl, 'Jesus Christ, it's the Goddamned Third Army again and that son-of-a-*******-bitch Patton'."

"We want to get the hell over there", Patton continued, "The quicker we clean up this Goddamned mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple pissing Japs and clean out their nest, too. Before the Goddamned Marines get all of the credit."

The men roared approval and cheered delightedly. This statement had real significance behind it. Much more than met the eye and the men instinctively sensed the fact. They knew that they themselves were going to play a very great part in the making of world history. They were being told as much right now. Deep sincerity and seriousness lay behind the General's colorful words. The men knew and understood it. They loved the way he put it, too, as only he could.

Patton continued quietly, "Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin", he yelled, "I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!"

"When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a German will get to him eventually. The hell with that idea. The hell with taking it. My men don't dig foxholes. I don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don't give the enemy time to dig one either. We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-*******-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it's the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you'll know what to do!"

"I don't want to get any messages saying, "I am holding my position." We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living s*** out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like s*** through a tin horn!"

"From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don't give a good damn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that."

The General paused. His eagle like eyes swept over the hillside. He said with pride, "There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again. You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you WON'T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, "Well, your Granddaddy shoveled s*** in Louisiana." No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, "Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Georgie Patton!"

Patton has it right I think. You make war in such a fashion that NO ONE in his right mind wants to ever re-live it again by starting another one. You make it SSSOOO bad no one ever thinks about it again. Afterall, "all fair in Love and War."

War is hell. That doesn't necessarily tell us what Christ would do. Preachers aren't supposed to be generals. Generals have a perspective. Preachers are certainly free to have a different one.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Yet amazingly after all those words from Patton, none of them has any bearing on annihilating two entire cities with an atomic bomb. It's still just as immoral as ever.

Also, the Just War Doctrine takes into account military targets in residential areas in the first point, last sentence. That doesn't mean that all bets are off and you can take no concern for civilians and bomb the hell out of the place simply because there's a military target there, but it does provide for taking out military targets in residential areas.

[AUTiger1 0]

Not that I am agreeing or disagreeing, but you keep saying that we had evidence to prove that Japan was ready to surrender. And while that is true, I don't think that is the full truth.

No one has mentioned the fact that the Emperor and the cabinet might have wanted to surrender, but their were many Japanese citizens that were calling for death before dishonor and to surrender to them was the most dishonorable thing. They were ready to fight for the death. When the cabinet and the Emperor drafted the "Imperial Rescript ending the War" and he informed his family, his uncle asked him if they were to continue the war if the national polity could not be preserved he yes.

There was also a coup d`etat on the Imperial Palace, by some very high ranking military officials, the night before the surrender speech was aired and it was almost successful. So to say the Japanese were just ready to lay down and just give up is not exactly the way it went down. You can say the Emperor and his cabinet were ready but I still don't think they were exactly convinced either as the coup d`etat was also successful in reaching some of the cabinet members in helping them plan their overthrow.

Anywho.

I still find it is wrong for Wright to preach his "judgment" of America from the pullpit. Matt 7:1-5;James4:11-12 is the scripture that I reference for that comment. You don't preach politics from the pulpit and he has done it on a number of occasions. You preach on issues that might be political such as abortion and homosexuality and other topics, but that is the extent of it. You don't GD the government, no matter the context, you don't say that it created AIDS to kill people of color, you don't call Hillary the N-word and tell the congregation that the ex-pres did "us" like he was doing Monica, you don't call Condi a whore, which in slang is what he did and you don't accuse your government of distribuiting out drugs to keep certain peoples down trodden. I am sorry, but I do not agree.

He wants to say what he did about Hillary (not a Clinton supporter), but yet, I wonder how many times that Hillary has been called a B**** or Whore, or N-lover for all the work she has done with them. No, she doesn't know what race discrimination is like, but I can guarantee you that she knows what discrimination is and has went thorough it herself. So for him to act like she has never been discriminated against is wrong. He calls Condi a whore which blew me away, once again he is bashing for no good reason and with no evidence, knocked Colin Powell and then knocked Tiger Woods and pokes fun at his heritage and no one sees that as racist?

He talks about Oprah and the money she makes, well I would ask him this, "For every Jeremiah Wright that has a line to $10 million dollars of credit through his church, how many blacks are working themselves to the bone and barely getting by?" or "For every Jeremiah Wright that is having a 10K sqft, $1 million home built, how many blacks are in urban population centers living in rundown housing projects or in Rural America, living in subpar housing?"

Our government has done some terrible things, no doubt and no argument there. We have done some great things as well. God deems our government necessary (Rom13:1-7), but that doesn't mean that governments always follow the will of God nor does it's citizens. But to say that 9/11 happened b/c it was God judging America is a stretch in my honest opinion. If we are to go that far then why aren't we saying that natural disasters, such as Katrina, is God passing judgment on a sinful nation. I never once heard Wright claim anything like that. Just my two cents worth, take it or leave it, but I will leave this discussion as I fear I will get too passionate and upset to have a rational thought.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Not that I am agreeing or disagreeing, but you keep saying that we had evidence to prove that Japan was ready to surrender. And while that is true, I don't think that is the full truth.

No one has mentioned the fact that the Emperor and the cabinet might have wanted to surrender, but their were many Japanese citizens that were calling for death before dishonor and to surrender to them was the most dishonorable thing. They were ready to fight for the death. When the cabinet and the Emperor drafted the "Imperial Rescript ending the War" and he informed his family, his uncle asked him if they were to continue the war if the national polity could not be preserved he yes.

There was also a coup d`etat on the Imperial Palace, by some very high ranking military officials, the night before the surrender speech was aired and it was almost successful. So to say the Japanese were just ready to lay down and just give up is not exactly the way it went down. You can say the Emperor and his cabinet were ready but I still don't think they were exactly convinced either as the coup d`etat was also successful in reaching some of the cabinet members in helping them plan their overthrow.

This is not an accurate assessment, neither of the mindset of the vast majority of Japanese citizens, nor of the vast majority of the military. The citizenry and the military, aside from a small minority, would follow the lead of the emporer. If he said surrender, that's what they would do.

As the many quotes I've shown demonstrate, this was the opinion of Eisenhower, MacArthur, and many people in the Truman Administration that were certainly better versed on the situation than you or me.

And the real tragedy is again, not that we tried this option and it didn't work...it's that we didn't even attempt it. We knew it to be a viable option, we utterly ignored it and didn't make any moves whatsoever to give it a chance, and instead vaporized 200,000 people. That's just messed up.

Anywho.

I still find it is wrong for Wright to preach his "judgment" of America from the pullpit. Matt 7:1-5;James4:11-12 is the scripture that I reference for that comment. You don't preach politics from the pulpit and he has done it on a number of occasions. You preach on issues that might be political such as abortion and homosexuality and other topics, but that is the extent of it. You don't GD the government, no matter the context, you don't say that it created AIDS to kill people of color, you don't call Hillary the N-word and tell the congregation that the ex-pres did "us" like he was doing Monica, you don't call Condi a whore, which in slang is what he did and you don't accuse your government of distribuiting out drugs to keep certain peoples down trodden. I am sorry, but I do not agree.

Isaiah, Jeremiah and many other Old Testament prophets spoke openly about God's judgment on Israel. There's nothing in Scripture to suggest that such topics are off-limits in the pulpit. Where do you get the idea that a pastor can't bring the principles of Scripture to bear on a nation's conduct?

Our government has done some terrible things, no doubt and no argument there.

Not according to a whole lot of American apologists. They'll wave the flag and explain away virtually anything we've done in various ways.

We have done some great things as well.

Which I've said. Repeatedly now.

God deems our government necessary (Rom13:1-7),

Well, I certainly wasn't advocating for anarchy.

but that doesn't mean that governments always follow the will of God nor does it's citizens.

But when it does, the role of the Christian and the church is to call the government to acknowledge its sins, repent of them, make restitution where necessary and determine not to repeat them.

But to say that 9/11 happened b/c it was God judging America is a stretch in my honest opinion.

Why? Do you not believe the Bible is true when it tells us that violence begets violence? Are we exempt from this law of reaping and sowing?

We certainly don't seem to have any problem believing that one day God will judge this nation for killing the unborn or turning sexual morality upside down. Why do we think God will wink at these other kinds of sins?

If we are to go that far then why aren't we saying that natural disasters, such as Katrina, is God passing judgment on a sinful nation. I never once heard Wright claim anything like that. Just my two cents worth, take it or leave it, but I will leave this discussion as I fear I will get too passionate and upset to have a rational thought.

The point I've actually made is not that I *know* this or that catastrophe was God passing judgment. It's that it is certainly possible, and therefore not loony or ridiculous, to think He might be doing so. People have dismissed Wright's comments out of hand as if it's just preposterous that our government has ever done anything in this realm of violence and unjust actions in war that would warrant some chastisement from the Almighty.

That simply doesn't withstand Scriptural scrutiny.

[AUTiger1 0]

The citizenry and the military, aside from a small minority, would follow the lead of the emporer. If he said surrender, that's what they would do.

As the many quotes I've shown demonstrate, this was the opinion of Eisenhower, MacArthur, and many people in the Truman Administration that were certainly better versed on the situation than you or me.

And the real tragedy is again, not that we tried this option and it didn't work...it's that we didn't even attempt it. We knew it to be a viable option, we utterly ignored it and didn't make any moves whatsoever to give it a chance, and instead vaporized 200,000 people. That's just messed up.

You could be right, they may have followed the Emperor, just saying that there are those that did not want to surrender and maybe would have still fought. We just don't know, b/c it didn't go down that way.

Isaiah, Jeremiah and many other Old Testament prophets spoke openly about God's judgment on Israel. There's nothing in Scripture to suggest that such topics are off-limits in the pulpit. Where do you get the idea that a pastor can't bring the principles of Scripture to bear on a nation's conduct?

Political topics are not off limits from the pulpit. Preach about abortion, homosexuality, how living in sin and causing others to do so will bring around the wrath of God and so forth, but to pass judgment against one or a group is. A preachers job is not pass judgment, which is what I think Wright is doing. Preachers are not the judge nor are they lawgiver. Are preachers above what the bible teaches that they can pass judgment? Nor do you preach support for a candidate, which Wright has also done. Once again, not his job. Preach the political topics and hope that the members support the candidates whose stances line up with what the Bible teaches. You also don't call people whore's, say they have never been called a N, you don't bash someone b/c their nationality. Once again he was judging them, based on what? The fact that he didn't think they did enough for the good of people, does he know what is in their hearts? I don't think that a preacher has the right to say something like the AIDS comment or the drug comments without proof. If he has the proof then he by all means needs to preach and speak out about it, but he doesn't have that proof. That can be what he honestly believes, but without proof, it is wrong to tell your congregation that.

Not according to a whole lot of American apologists. They'll wave the flag and explain away virtually anything we've done in various ways.

That they will do exactly that and they are wrong. I am not saying that America is holier than thou.

Which I've said. Repeatedly now.

Good, we agree.

Well, I certainly wasn't advocating for anarchy.

I wasn't saying that you were, it was going to what I was saying below

But when it does, the role of the Christian and the church is to call the government to acknowledge its sins, repent of them, make restitution where necessary and determine not to repeat them.

You're right, we should. But the fact is a lot of Christians will not and that is why I said that governments and citizens don't always do the will of God. We should but we don't. Kinda of like 9/11, I was ready to annihilate Afganistian with our military. I didn't want God's judgment to take place, I wanted man's judgment. I was bitter and I was angry and sometimes people don't look to God first, they want what they want. We all do that at times.

Why? Do you not believe the Bible is true when it tells us that violence begets violence? Are we exempt from this law of reaping and sowing?

We certainly don't seem to have any problem believing that one day God will judge this nation for killing the unborn or turning sexual morality upside down. Why do we think God will wink at these other kinds of sins?

Yes, I believe it, and we are not exempt from God's judgment, but sometimes when tragedy happens, it is not God passing judgment, sometimes it is a test from him to see how loyal we are to wanting his will carried out. Look at Job.

I do think that God will judge us for what you mentioned above, along with many other things. God doesn't wink at sin, I don't believe that for one second. God hates sin.

The point I've actually made is not that I *know* this or that catastrophe was God passing judgment. It's that it is certainly possible, and therefore not loony or ridiculous, to think He might be doing so. People have dismissed Wright's comments out of hand as if it's just preposterous that our government has ever done anything in this realm of violence and unjust actions in war that would warrant some chastisement from the Almighty.

That simply doesn't withstand Scriptural scrutiny.

I don't "know" either, no one does except God. We don't know if he is testing us or if he is passing judgement. Why haven't any of the religious loons ever preached that instead of preaching automatically that it is God's judgment. Did God specifically tell them that by some devine revelation? I think not.

All I am saying that we are quick to say that it is God judging us, when we don't know if it is or not.

[tiger88 934]

How about some "straight talk": the only reason any of this ever was an issue was not because people were "offended" by what Wright said...there are tons of crazy in this world who spew stupidity. Rather, people (including many on this board) tried to make hay out of the issue because they do not want to see Obama President and they saw this an opportunity to tear him down. Period. Of course we are now seeing that most Americans are smarter than that, can see through the bs and that their efforts have failed.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. This could and possibly should play a role in the main election should obama get the nomination as currently expected.

If this plays a role it will be due to the fact that obama denies any knowledge whatsoever that he knew that wright held these beliefs when the election began. That is a rather large pill for any rationally thinking adult to swallow. If he was put on the spot when asked if he knew and jumped to the "i never knew" defense, it will be nearly impossible for him to recant on that defense no matter how obvious to many that it may become that he really had to have known to some degree. It could get extremely uncomfortable for him.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

This is not an accurate assessment, neither of the mindset of the vast majority of Japanese citizens, nor of the vast majority of the military. The citizenry and the military, aside from a small minority, would follow the lead of the emporer. If he said surrender, that's what they would do.

Yes. It is an accurate assessment. The Japanese military had been indoctrinated in the “death before dishonor” code of Bushido. The Kamikaze attacks, the Banzai charges, and the fighting until the last man & then blowing themselves up with a hand grenade or urging civilians to commit suicide by throwing themselves off a cliff as they did on the island of Saipan are all well documented. Your assertion that it was only “a small minority” that wanted to continue the fighting does not square with the facts: Link

... In early 1945, in the wake of the loss of Leyte, Emperor Shōwa began a series of individual meetings with senior government officials to consider the progress of the war. All but one advised continuing. The exception was ex-Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe, who feared a communist revolution even more than defeat and urged a negotiated surrender. According to some accounts, the Emperor apparently took the view that peace was essential, but that the armed forces would have to engineer a conspicuous military victory somewhere in order to provide a stronger bargaining position. With each passing week this became less likely. In April the Soviet Union issued notice that it would not renew its neutrality agreement. Japan's ally Germany surrendered in early May 1945. In June (note: the Battle for Okinawa lasted from 1 April -- 21 June,) the cabinet reassessed the war strategy, only to decide more firmly than ever on a fight to the last man. This was officially affirmed at a brief Imperial Council meeting, to which the emperor listened in stony-faced silence. ...

And ... Army intelligence at the time supported the "fight to the last man" mindset: Link

... General Marshall reported on July 24 that there were “approximately 500,000 troops in Kyushu” and that more were on the way. ULTRA identified new units arriving almost daily. MacArthur’s G-2 reported on July 29 that “this threatening development, if not checked, may grow to a point where we attack on a ratio of one (1) to one (1) which is not the recipe for victory.” By the time the first atomic bomb fell, ULTRA indicated that there were 560,000 troops in southern Kyushu (the actual figure was closer to 900,000), and projections for November 1 placed the number at 680,000. A report, for medical purposes, of July 31 estimated that total battle and non-battle casualties might run as high as 394,859 for the Kyushu operation alone. This figure did not include those men expected to be killed outright, for obviously they would require no medical attention. Marshall regarded Japanese defenses as so formidable that even after Hiroshima he asked MacArthur to consider alternate landing sites and began contemplating the use of atomic bombs as tactical weapons to support the invasion. ...

The huge number of anticipated American casualties resulted in a production run of 500,000 Purple Heart medals which were only recently all used up by 2003: Link

... The veterans came under heavy criticism for insisting that the bomb had ended the war quickly and ultimately saved countless thousands of American—and Japanese—lives. Their opponents maintained that military men had later invented projected casualty numbers in order to justify the use of the weapon on a wholly beaten nation.

Bill Rooney, a former intelligence officer with the B-29s, said that if the information about Purple Heart production had been more widely known during the controversy, “the notion that Truman simply made up huge casualty estimates after the fact to justify dropping the bombs would have been more effectively countered.” James Pattillo, then president of the 20th Air Force Association, stated that “detailed information on the kind of casualties expected would have been a big help in demonstrating to modern Americans that those were very different times.” Medical and training information in “arcanely-worded military documents can be confusing,” said Pattillo, “but everyone understands a half-million Purple Hearts.” ...

As the many quotes I've shown demonstrate, this was the opinion of Eisenhower, MacArthur, and many people in the Truman Administration that were certainly better versed on the situation than you or me.

And the real tragedy is again, not that we tried this option and it didn't work...it's that we didn't even attempt it. We knew it to be a viable option, we utterly ignored it and didn't make any moves whatsoever to give it a chance, and instead vaporized 200,000 people. That's just messed up.

Again, the facts do not support your opinion: Link

... Against this background, while fighting on Okinawa still continued, the President had his naval chief of staff, Adm. William D. Leahy, notify the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and the Secretaries of War and Navy that a meeting would be held at the White House on June 18. The night before the conference Truman wrote in his diary that “I have to decide Japanese strategy—shall we invade Japan proper or shall we bomb and blockade? That is my hardest decision to date. But I’ll make it when I have all the facts.” Truman met with the chiefs at three-thirty in the afternoon. Present were Army Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall, Army Air Force’s Gen. Ira C. Eaker (sitting in for the Army Air Force’s chief of staff, Henry H. Arnold, who was on an inspection tour of installations in the Pacific), Navy Chief of Staff Adm. Ernest J. King, Leahy (also a member of the JCS), Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, and Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy. Truman opened the meeting, then asked Marshall for his views. Marshall was the dominant figure on the JCS. He was Truman’s most trusted military adviser, as he had been President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s.

Marshall reported that the chiefs, supported by the Pacific commanders Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Adm. Chester W. Nimitz, agreed that an invasion of Kyushu “appears to be the least costly worthwhile operation following Okinawa.” Lodgment in Kyushu, he said, was necessary to make blockade and bombardment more effective and to serve as a staging area for the invasion of Japan’s main island of Honshu. The chiefs recommended a target date of November 1 for the first phase, code-named Olympic, because delay would give the Japanese more time to prepare and because bad weather might postpone the invasion “and hence the end of the war” for up to six months. Marshall said that in his opinion, Olympic was “the only course to pursue.” The chiefs also proposed that Operation Cornet be launched against Honshu on March 1, 1946.

Leahy’s memorandum calling the meeting had asked for casualty projections which that invasion might be expected to produce. Marshall stated that campaigns in the Pacific had been so diverse “it is considered wrong” to make total estimates. All he would say was that casualties during the first thirty days on Kyushu should not exceed those sustained in taking Luzon in the Philippines—31,000 men killed, wounded, or missing in action. “It is a grim fact,” Marshall said, “that there is not an easy, bloodless way to victory in war.” Leahy estimated a higher casualty rate similar to Okinawa, and King guessed somewhere in between.

King and Eaker, speaking for the Navy and the Army Air Forces respectively, endorsed Marshall’s proposals. King said that he had become convinced that Kyushu was “the key to the success of any siege operations.” He recommended that “we should do Kyushu now” and begin preparations for invading Honshu. Eaker “agreed completely” with Marshall. He said he had just received a message from Arnold also expressing “complete agreement.” Air Force plans called for the use of forty groups of heavy bombers, which “could not be deployed without the use of airfields on Kyushu.” Stimson and Forrestal concurred.

Truman summed up. He considered “the Kyushu plan all right from the military standpoint” and directed the chiefs to “go ahead with it.” He said he “had hoped that there was a possibility of preventing an Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other,” but “he was clear on the situation now” and was “quite sure” the chiefs should proceed with the plan. Just before the meeting adjourned, McCloy raised the possibility of avoiding an invasion by warning the Japanese that the United States would employ atomic weapons if there were no surrender. The ensuing discussion was inconclusive because the first test was a month away and no one could be sure the weapons would work. ...

Truman's main concern was avoiding the kind of bloodbaths that Iwo & Okinawa produced. As for Admiral Leahy’s comments:

... Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman’s top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral’s memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had “said up to the last that it wouldn’t go off.”

What about MacArthur & Nimitz – the two principal commanders in the Pacific Theater?

... Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward. Nimitz, from whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. “This sounds fine,” he told the courier, “but this is only February. Can’t we get one sooner?” Nimitz later would join Air Force generals Carl D. Spaatz, Nathan Twining, and Curtis LeMay in recommending that a third bomb be dropped on Tokyo. ...

And then finally, Eisenhower’s supposed opinions on the subject:

... Only Dwight D. Eisenhower later claimed to have remonstrated against the use of the bomb. In his Crusade in Europe, published in 1948, he wrote that when Secretary Stimson informed him during the Potsdam Conference of plans to use the bomb, he replied that he hoped “we would never have to use such a thing against any enemy,” because he did not want the United States to be the first to use such a weapon. He added, “My views were merely personal and immediate reactions; they were not based on any analysis of the subject.”

Eisenhower’s recollections grew more colorful as the years went on. A later account of his meeting with Stimson had it taking place at Ike’s headquarters in Frankfurt on the very day news arrived of the successful atomic test in New Mexico. “We’d had a nice evening at headquarters in Germany,” he remembered. Then, after dinner, “Stimson got this cable saying that the bomb had been perfected and was ready to be dropped. The cable was in code . . . ‘the lamb is born’ or some damn thing like that.” In this version Eisenhower claimed to have protested vehemently that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” “Well,” Eisenhower concluded, “the old gentleman got furious.”

The best that can be said about Eisenhower’s memory is that it had become flawed by the passage of time. Stimson was in Potsdam and Elsenhower in Frankfurt on July 16, when word came of the successful test. Aside from a brief conversation at a flag-raising ceremony in Berlin on July 20, the only other time they met was at Ike’s headquarters on July 27. By then orders already had been sent to the Pacific to use the bombs if Japan had not yet surrendered. Notes made by one of Stimson’s aides indicate that there was a discussion of atomic bombs, but there is no mention of any protest on Eisenhower’s part. Even if there had been, two factors must be kept in mind. Eisenhower had commanded Allied forces in Europe, and his opinion on how close Japan was to surrender would have carried no special weight. More important, Stimson left for home immediately after the meeting and could not have personally conveyed Ike’s sentiments to the President, who did not return to Washington until after Hiroshima. ...

Anyways, sorry for the length of this post but I did want to be accurate. Getting back to Rev Wright’s assertion about the ‘chickens coming home to roost’ comment: the main thing that doesn’t square with that worldview is this: if the Japanese were the victims of a purely terrorist atomic bomb attack, then shouldn’t they be attempting to attack America with atomic bombs? Similarly, how come the Germans have no interest in retaliating against US or UK cities with terrorist attacks using incendiary bombs? I want someone to ‘splain it to me with a straight face how Muslim fanatics can possibly be justified in their terrorist attacks on US interests because of Hiroshima or Dresden when Germany & Japan happen to be two of our staunchest allies today. How many here think Muslim fanatics give a hoot about 'Just War Doctrine'?