Glad to. As it applies to a comparison to the bin Laden suggestion which was meant to be a deliberate exaggeration of the popular right-wing inference that confederate monuments are worthy of preservation in public venues in order that they might be celebrated in the United States of America....yes, in that specific context I think it is a ridiculous analogy. Kindly tell me how you think it is appropriate and I'll reconsider.
OK. Your suggestion is totally legitimate in theory but was rightfully rejected in practice for very specific reasons. If one considers the circumstances at the time and framed against those of the recent past (if you want a reference to the many atrocities that the Japanese committed during the war, I'd be happy to provide them), to have responded in such an acquiescent and pacifist manner would have failed to deliver a very brutal but also very necessary message not only to the government of Japan but, more specifically as it applied to future geopolitical concerns, the Soviet government as well. Even though we ultimately allowed Japan to keep their emperor as they desired, we made it clear to them that the decision to do so was absolutely and completely ours, not theirs. We had also made it clear to the Japanese government via back-channels that nothing short of unconditional surrender was acceptable to us. They refused the offer even though their situation was completely hopeless from a military standpoint. They knew they faced certain annihilation if they continued the conflict and yet they persisted. The responsibility for what followed was therefore theirs in every respect. It must be remembered that they were the ones who attacked us and started the war so the responsibility for the ramifications on their end rested completely with them. I will freely concede that using the bombs was unquestionably a measure of absolute extremity but, unfortunately but necessarily for them, the Japanese were the media by which the message to never again attempt to fuck with the United States was delivered to the entire world. There was no reason to "sweeten the deal". On the contrary, the more bitter the lesson being taught, the better (and I am not a war hawk at all! :banger
.
The question of morality, if that forms the basis of your argument, is not being debated. I simply maintain that the decision was the right one as it pertained to the safety, security and overall well-being of the United States...literally one where the ends justified the means. Hence, that is the reason that commemorations to Truman (or Tibbets or Oppenheimer or Einstein for that matter) in public places in the United States are not only completely appropriate but most certainly would stand in stark contrast to those of figures like Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, not to mention the tongue-in-cheek reference to Osama bin Laden in the OP.
I look forward to any response....I enjoy this type of discussion very much. :thumbsup:
