Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleLetter to the editor:
An armed Iran can’t be trusted
Saturday, Jan. 28, 2012 | 2 a.m.
Just as the development and threatened use of a nuclear weapon by Iran against Israel to “wipe Israel from the map” is a blunt warning of impending terrorist acts against Israel, the assassination of Iranian scientists engaged in Iran’s nuclear program is certainly fair game for the Israelis.
The condemnation of these assassinations by the Obama administration is political nonsense. The destruction by the Israeli government of Iranian nuclear weapons assets is in the best interest of the United States.
Iran is an enemy of America. Their proxies Hezbollah and Hamas have murdered Americans for decades. Iran has manufactured IED explosives for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that have killed and maimed thousands of American troops. Iran now threatens American interests and security by developing a nuclear weapon that can be held over the heads of all nations in the Arabian Gulf. American arms sales to Arab nations in the Gulf region have recently been booming. These sales are intended to counter the Iranian nuclear threat.
The assertion of American naval assets in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf is positive and necessary. Standing up to Iran by threatened military aggression is the only thing that Iran will ultimately listen to. Iran is approaching the acquisition of a nuclear weapon that could have devastating consequences and tilt the balance of power in the entire greater Middle East. Iran is an active terrorist state that has America and Israel in the cross hairs.
Discussion: 38 comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Upset by new regulations, L.A. porn industry flirts with Nevada
- A secret of how Elizabeth Halseth won her state Senate seat — Democrats
- Sworn in as new DA, Wolfson promises to hit the ground running
- Grubb & Ellis files for bankruptcy, will be sold
- Judge: Settlements reached in 41 hepatitis C lawsuits
- UNLV’s Chace Stanback won’t use knee issue as an excuse for his recent struggles
- Families of 2010 slaying victims sue businesses
- Strip Scribbles: DJ Pauly D vs. Nikki Sixx (one takes the high road)
- Analysts weigh in on Wynn fight with board member
- PlayStation Vita’s rear pad a touchy subject for gamers
Blogs
High School Sports Scene
High School Basketball State Championship Picks
The Kats Report
Oscar Goodman goes Shecky as Mob Museum opening prompts a mob scene (2 Comments)
Elsewhere
MGM Resorts, Ameristar form marketing alliance to draw visitors
High School Sports Scene
High School Hoops Picks: Updated with Friday's regional finals (3 Comments)
The Kats Report
What a Whitney Houston residency in Las Vegas might have looked like (5 Comments)
Elsewhere
Caesars' unit extends term loan maturity
The Kats Report
Color from scene at Thomas & Mack: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
The murder of the Iran Scientists is the MO of Obama.
While Obama is in the process of eliminating the military in the next few years, Obama seem to need the military for his purpose every day.
Letter writer is right on.
Iran, without nuclear weapons, is a danger waiting to happen for any peace and harmony in the region. Especially to Israel our best and oldest ally.
With nuclear weapons, Iran is an imminent danger. Every effort by the free world must be taken to prevent Iran from getting them. On that point, President Obama was exactly right by saying during his State of the Union address that Iran must never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. We all agree with the President except perhaps Congressman Paul.
Carmine A. DiFazio
another reason to keep the republicans OUT of the white house. the Democrats took out bin laden and gaddafi, let them handle iran. we dont need more dead american soldiers and trillions wasted on a ghost hunt for WMDs.
:::::::::::::::::
I think this letter is possibly to some degree a tad correct on a few things
:::::::::
Of course the writer has his little jab at Obama whom he despises ... it has to happen - since the beginning of time the U.S. has taken public positions of denial when persons in other nations are assinated so its not an Obama thing ... of course the U.S. is involved in the assinations and the hacking and the spying as most informed folk surmise along with Israel , Germany and France
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The real threat should Iran obtain a nuclear weapon is they would shelve it off to various terrorists groups who would really use it ... and dirty bombs too .... like if Yucca for an example had an accident of leakage or a fire or something and a cloud of radiation eased up and out and headed to Sin City .... guess what - the city would be ended, period ... as like if this were to happen with a dirty bomb in Manhattan .... it would be over for New York and most knowledgable people would assume it was a bomb made in Iran
:::::::::::::::::::
This is the real fear of it ... and what the reaction would be since its not so easy to pick up where the thing was made like maybe N Korea or Pakistan .... so who would the U.S. hit? All three?
:::::::::::::::::::::::
One question would be why Russia, Pakistan or China would be supportive of Iran getting a bomb when they themselves might be the ones targeted mistakenly for retaliation from Obama and wiping them off the face of the planet ... is this possible? Ask Steven King or perhaps Salmon Rushdie or maybe Gore Vidal ... I think what they thing would be very interesting
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ola - Certainly Grandma thinks it would be insane for Iran to be able to make nuclear weapons and since she is from the old school of thought she would permeate Iran with thousands of spies along with Israel , France and Germany and make sure of what's going on .... and lets say engineer the attack from within ... Grandma is smart.
Not sure if anyone sees this, but Mr. Jack's letter, sounds exactly like some speech that President Bush Jr. would have given to whip up enthusiasm to go to war.
All indications show that America is right now war weary.
We participated to help Libya, but only after the Arab League asked for it. Even then our help was limited and done in conjunction with NATO and the Libyan freedom fighters.
We finally got out of Iraq. Thank God.
Right now, steps are being taken to extricate our troops from Afghanistan.
Now you want to beat the war drums loudly about Iran, cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war?
Enough of this nonsense. Let diplomacy do its thing first. Because all indications show right now it is working to send a clear message to Iran. America is not the only one worried about a nuclear Iran. Other nations are also. We are participating in a united front about the problem.
The way it's supposed to work is if, and only if, the politicians fail in negotiations, then, and only then, is military action needed. BUT NOT ONE SECOND EARLIER.
Those carefree Bush Jr. years where he just used us (I'm a retired veteran) only for political purposes, to get reelected, are OVER. We are not cannon fodder.
We have a President that understands fully what his job is and he has done a damn fine job at it to keep America safe. Turn off the television and actually pay attention to fact, and not Fox News fiction, you'll learn something, right wing nutballs.
I'm so tired of this knee jerk reaction mindset to always reach for the gun first, forget all other avenues available.
Bush Jr. didn't know what he was doing and ALWAYS resorted to the military option first; mostly for political purposes. I still believe to my soul that he (as well as others in that corrupt administration) should all be tried for the murder of about 4,400 American troops for getting us involved in a war under false pretenses (Iraq). He KNEW what he was doing when he snowed America into a war. He created his own intelligence about Iraq and rejected known reliable sources (CIA and other national agencies) who told him otherwise. He wanted war.
Our military is valuable and shouldn't be used carelessly as an ends to a means without using other avenues that should be explored first. The idea to just fling troops putting them at the tip of the spear is a thing of the past. Because it's downright criminal to use them recklessly. Any good politician knows this. That's why President Obama and his administration have met with success so far. They get it. Bush Jr. didn't.
Ignore the right wing rhetoric, people. They'll tell you anything they want you to hear to hijack us back to those eight years of incompetence and misery.
Colin; I agree with you and other Democrats on a multitude of subjects, but not this one. Don't pose yourselves as extremists accusing Bush II of being a war criminal. I've never said Bush II was the smartest cookie in the jar, but a war criminal, never. Remember when the big American push was on to invade and support a war with Iraq? I believe it was 93% of Americans. Don't be the type of drivers that are always looking in the rear view mirror. Makes you all very dangerous on the roads.
Good letter to the editor Bob Jack. Only one slight disagreement. Just as evidence and simple practicality proves that George W. Bush is not a war criminal, President Obama is only using good political strategy in condemning the assassination of that Iranian nuclear scientist. Its just a shield to what the real facts are underneath. And, those facts need to always remain secret. No matter whether a Republican or Democrat is in the White House, no president can ever admit to, or publicly support covert operations that take out any portion of a civilian sector, or even that of a government official who is classified, as the enemy. To do so, would be an act of war. It's just a simple, basic diversionary tactics on the part of President Obama that every one of his predecessors has utilized.
Iran Has to be taken seriously.What country would put their own people in jeopardy, with sanctions and the possibility of an military attack from Isreal and the west. One simple way to end all this is for Iran to open up to inspections of it's nuclear sites,which it claims is for peacefull use only.If Iran has nothing to hide, step forward and end the b.s.
Frank Simmons--I do not depise Obama--I believe that his progressive policies are taking America in the wrong direrction. I agree with his most recent policy to cut back on support to those colleges that continue to raise tuitions. I prefer that our young people be given access to higher learning at tax supported institutions without the need to be buried in debt. We must provide edcucational opportunity to our lower and middle classes without the burden of debt hanging over their heads.
@Sam: Actually Iran has done that. Its' nuclear facilities are open to inspection. That isn't the answer to the problem. (I wish it were that easy.)
@Bradly: You should look at the Indictments and Judgments at the Nuremberg Trials some time. Look closely at Counts 1 and 2 of those Indictments. Then look at what was used as Evidence to support convictions on those Counts.
@Bob Jack: This is OUR problem. WE, created it. So why should we turn to Israel to deal with OUR mess?
(And does that fix things, or just turn it into a bigger mess?)
bchap; i disagree again. bush and cheney should be tried for treason and fraternizing with the enemy. bush wont hold my hand but he will hold the hand of the people behind the 9/11 attack.
"Iran now threatens American interests and security by developing a nuclear weapon that can be held over the heads of all nations in the Arabian Gulf."
Jack -- what hypocrisy. Never forget the country represented by the flag you're waving in our faces is the ONLY one ever to actually use nuclear weapons in war. And both bombs were targeted at civilians.
Iran is a sovereign and is as entitled to its weapons as much as the USA, limited only the treaties it's signed.
I'd be more concerned about the police state America has become than what the headlines are shouting about what's going on halfway around the globe.
"Not sure if anyone sees this, but Mr. Jack's letter, sounds exactly like some speech that President Bush Jr. would have given to whip up enthusiasm to go to war."
Colin -- excellent post! Always amazing to me how few recognize we have this planet's biggest, baddest military machine roaming the globe looking for missions.
"@Bradly: You should look at the Indictments and Judgments at the Nuremberg Trials some time. Look closely at Counts 1 and 2 of those Indictments. Then look at what was used as Evidence to support convictions on those Counts."
lericgoodman -- another excellent post. I'd take it one step further and encourage all to reread the Declaration of Independence. Then contemplate how much this country has become what our Founders fought a revolution for.
"I am for a government rigorously frugal & simple ... I am for relying, for internal defence, on our militia solely, till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace, which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy, which, by it's own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, grind us with public burthens, & sink us under them." -- from Thomas Jefferson's letter to Elbridge Gerry, Jan 26, 1799
Obama and Biden have double down on warmongering and murdering of scientists in Iran versus the days of Bush. Yet no outcry from the ACLU or others about Obama being a war criminal.
Must be a double standard -murder by a Democrat is okay and murder by a conservative is not
Saif al-Arab Gaddafi, 29, was hosting a gathering of family and friends when three missiles struck his Suburban Tripoli house just after 8 p.m., on April 30' 2011.
Saif al-Arab Gaddafi died along with three of his children all under twelve years old. What was the cause Obama's cowboy war on Libya. Despite American laws against assassinations the attack was described by many countries that the attack as an assassination attempt.
Obama has a propensity to murder people rather than capture them. This because he and Holder have campaigned on giving US citizen rights in courts to terrorists. So to avoid that he has sign a lot of shoot on sight executive orders and grossly increased drone in the dead of night attacks which increases civilian dead.
An UNARMED IRAN can't be trusted!
No country in the middle east wants Iran armed with nuclear weapons so it could just as well be a country like Saudi Arabia that is behind these assasinations.
Dennis, you wrote, "Bush and Cheney should be tried for treason and fraternizing with the enemy. Bush wont hold my hand but he will hold the hand of the people behind the 9/11 attacks."
Dennis, that is pure conjecture and poppycock!!!
Just because you disagree with someone and his policies does not mean that person is a war criminal.
Harry Truman, a Democrat, dropped two atomic bombs on a island nation which in reality at the juncture of this war with Japan really had no actual military means left to threaten anyone beyond their own shores. Did these acts make him a war criminal?
I am not defending Bush or Cheney, but I think calling them "war criminals" is extremely exaggerated.
"KillerB", This statement of yours had to be the most over the cliff comment you have made yet. You say, "Iran is a sovereign nation and is as entitled to its weapons as much as the USA, limited only by the treaties it's signed."
That, as well as, "Dipsticks" comment is pure conjecture and poppycock.
Iran is the enemy, pure and simple. You don't allow your enemy to gain weaponry that can cost you your existence.
Have you been hanging around those medical marijuana clinics?
"Obama ... and Holder have campaigned on giving US citizen rights in courts to terrorists."
Future -- campaigned? It's called the Fifth Amendment -- "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Not just citizens. Something both Obama and Holder swore oaths to defend.
Your mention of that assassinated family is extremely disturbing. Since it was all done in our names, under the pretense of keeping us "safe," it becomes even more disturbing. No wonder the world hates US!
"No country in the middle east wants Iran armed with nuclear weapons..."
RHG58 -- your post nails it. It's a regional problem.
"That, as well as, "Dipsticks" comment is pure conjecture and poppycock."
BChap -- in this instance your ignorance is underwhelming. Your personal insult is not only childish, it strains the rules of this Discussion. You're better than that.
"We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check . . . when it comes to the rights of th[is] Nation's citizens" -- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, 536 (2004)
bchap; harry truman SAVED american lives dropping nuclear weapons on japan during WWII. bush/cheney WASTED american lives looking for ' mushroom clouds' and WMDs that were never found. never use their names in the same sentence again.
Dipstick, again your lame words, "Harry Truman saved American lives dropping nuclear weapons on Japan during WWII."
Really? Those surely were not the documented words of General Douglas MacArthur? Do you ever wonder why old "Foul Mouthed Harry" didn't like the good General? Apparently not.
I have documented Internet proof, date and time stamped that I was one of the seven percent of Americans who did not support the invasion and subsequent war with Iraq. I would not hesitate to say you were one of the ninety-three percent who did support the war with Iraq in its beginning stages. However, this is not the question. The question is whether Bush and Cheney are war criminals. The answer is, unequivocally, NO! You have, "Dipstick", walked into the territory of extremism, and it doesn't paint a good picture of yourself.
And, as for you, "KillerB", as well as "Dipstick", if you don't want comments that paint a negative picture of you, then don't make such absurd comments on others who post here. Stick to posting your own personal opinions so the rest of us can ignore both of you.
Iran is NOT entitled to possess nuclear weapons or any other weapon that threatens the well-being of the United States and/or Israel. That's the way it is, whether Obama is reelected or whether a Republican takes over the White House.
I'm more in line with Ron Paul's thinking on foreign policy. I saw the other day that we give Egypt $1.5 billion a year in aid. How many more billion do we give others? I'd like to see us keep our money and let the middle east work it out between themselves.
Bob Jack: Based on President Obama's track record of dealing with terrorists, (his administration has orchestrated the killing or capture of more than 20 terrorist leaders and field commanders of al Qaeda, including bin Laden, the Haqqani network and the Taliban), and his handling of pirates, kidnappers, etc., I'll go with his judgement on your bogyman de jour, Iran.
I'm sure the administration's formal denunciation of assassinations is to satisfy world opinion, but the fact that he is so successful at eliminating and destabilizing our enemies gets him my confidence, and vote. Saber rattling and spending American lives has been a total failure in the Middle East. Worry about Pakistan if you need something to carp about.
Cleaning up the mess left by Bush hasn't been easy.
Bchap--Been reading your comments above;good job!!
"Harry Truman, a Democrat, dropped two atomic bombs on a island nation which in reality at the juncture of this war with Japan really had no actual military means left to threaten anyone beyond their own shores. Did these acts make him a war criminal?"
"harry truman SAVED american lives dropping nuclear weapons on japan during WWII."
I am a fan of Harry S. Truman.
He was wrong to make the decision to use atomic bombs on the Japanese in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Almost 300,000 INNOCENT Japanese men, women and children died instanstaneously and more later from the fallout. Their only war crime was that their country was at war with the USA.
I've said this before here and will say it again. Harry S. later regretted the decision to use the bombs on innocent Japanese. And said afterwards if he had to do it again, he would not. Yes, he said at the time, that his decisions saved the lives of American soldiers by ending the war sooner rather than later. The question I have in my mind is whether Harry S. really believes in his heart of hearts that this justification is true.
Harry S. will have had to make that argument to his maker on judgment day. Only they [Harry and his maker] know if he [Harry] was condemned/forgiven for it.
To his credit, and I admire him for it, Harry took the blame. Never deferring/diverting to his military chiefs for his decision. When he said the buck stops here, he meant it.
Carmine A. DiFazio
carmine; never heard that harry regretted dropping the bombs on japan. where did you get your sources?
Harry's personal diaries and journals made by him as the events of the days and times of the bombings before/during/after unfolded. You can research and read on-line if you take the time.
Also, when the Smithsonian Museum in Wash DC exhibited the plane that dropped the bomb, the Enola Gay, there were huge photos accompanied by narratives that were displayed. One of which stated Harry's subsequent reservations and regrets about his decisions to drop the two bombs.
PS: The US gov't formally apologized to the Japanese gov't for the bombings. An admission in my view of the wrongdoing.
Carmine A. DiFazio
carmine; i went to his presidential library web site; no regrets, all that was said was he'd do it again. same with wikipedia and google. too bad you dont have a source that can be verified.
Bchap
Do you think we should take out north Korea since they possess nuclear weaponry? I agree that we may very well have to engage in warfare with Iran, but if they do successfully build a uranium or plutonium bomb that would not be reason enough to take them out. Pakistan is a far more worrisome problem then Iran as they do possess nuclear weaponry and I question there integrity a lot more then Iran considering there M.V.P. hosting osama Ben laden and denying being supporters of the Taliban. My grandfather who took part in the Okinawa campaign just before the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks was a firm believer that those bombings saved a lot of lives American and Japanese. Due to the fanatical resistance the Japanese put up in his own experience.
Actually Dick Cheney and Donald rumsfeld are legitimate targets of a war criminal trial as they did facilitate the sale and use of chemical agents in the deaths of 100s of thousands of Iranians and Iraqis.
Iran is going to be a problem for whoever is in the White House next year. The only thing we can really hope for is that when (not if) Iran does something stupid it will have as much negative impact on Russian interests as ours.
North Korea is China's tar baby.
Where due you think China gets there tar(oil)?
"too bad you dont have a source that can be verified."
Harry was conflicted about the decision, as well a God-fearing man should be. Even his diaries and journals reflect his conflict if you actually take the time to read. As I said, you can do a search and pull them up on line and read exactly what harry S. wrote in his own words. That is unless you are lazy and/or too afraid to admit that I'm right by reading it for yourself. Obviously, you can't go to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Wash DC and view the exhibit of the Enola Gay, as I was invited to do, when it was featured years ago. So all you have is my word, like it or not, and/or the words of others who went too and noted the photos and Harry's words as I did.
I said when I posted above it's between Harry S. and his maker now.
What you choose to believe is a moot point.
It's not the first time I've encountered differences of opinions from you and hopefully for me not the last. When you do agree with me, please be sure to let me know. So I can begin to worry.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"all that was said was he'd do it again."
If I recall correctly, this quote is not directly from Harry S. Truman but actually attributed to another who wrote/opined that Harry S. would do it again. Correct me if I'm wrong. Please!
Carmine A. DiFazio
I took a sec and excerpted this from on-line. FYI
"Truman Diary Entry, August 10 1945
Ate lunch at my desk and discussed the Jap offer to surrender which came in a couple of hours earlier. They wanted to make a condition precedent to the surrender. Our terms are 'unconditional'. They wanted to keep the Emperor. We told 'em we'd tell 'em how to keep him, but we'd make the terms.
8/10/45: Having received reports and photographs of the effects of the Hiroshima bomb, Truman ordered a halt to further atomic bombings. Sec. of Commerce Henry Wallace recorded in his diary on the 10th, Truman said he had given orders to stop atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like the idea of killing, as he said, 'all those kids'.
Doesn't sound like Harry S. would do it again.
Carmine A. DiFazio
carmine; i went to the harry s truman presidential library web site. he does not regret dropping nuclear weapons on japan and he would do it again to save american lives. in a letter to irv kupcinet, chicago tribune columnist, written in 1963, he re-iterates to the writer that he has NO regrets and would do it again. i did NOT find anything to the contrary. sorry, carmine, looks like its your turn in the bucket. let us know if you find any evidence to the contrary that can be verified.
General MacArthur - "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."
Admiral William Leahy - "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."
~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
Need I quote more from military history? The debates on this issue from the Democratic side are unfounded, and full of lies. Each one of you really disappoints me.
Bchap
I will stick with the word of a marine who experienced the the hell of Okinawa over a com. Any day. Sorry to disappoint you. Another thing my grandfather pointed out was a disturbing behavior of a Japanese combatants in faking a surrender to kill our people.
and I find Mac Arthur's statement in regards to president Truman use of nuclear bombs to be quite hypocritical considering 5 years later Mac Arthur was requesting the use of tactical nukes against the Chinese in the Korean war. It seems the Republican party has a history of denigrating Democratic president's at least going back to world war two.
I would certainly not dispute the words of a Marine who fought against the Japanese. However, as a former Marine, myself, with a vast amount of experience from both the Far and Middle East regions, there were many facts that I could not possibly know until years later and after each conflict was all said and done. Your grandfather, like myself, in my situations, had a restricted scope to the entire circumstances of the wars each of us were involved in. The same applies here. Those statements made by General MacArthur, Admiral Leahy and Dwight D. Eisenhower on Harry Truman's unnecessary use of nuclear weapons against Japan are absolutely accurate and true.
You would serve your loyalties to the Democratic party more honorably if you kept your biases in proper perspective. It is just not right to call former President George W. Bush and Vice-President Cheney war criminals.
For, if there should ever have been a United States President that should have stood in front of allegations of being a war criminal, it was Democratic President Harry S. Truman. The detonation of these two nuclear bombs against Japan and approved by Harry S. Truman came against the strong recommendations of every top military commander.
In General Douglas MacArthur's implied use of nuclear weapons against the Chinese during the Korean war, American forces had just been overrun. The situation with Japan was the exact opposite when the two nuclear bombs were denoted against the Japanese people.
It lacks all forms of common sense for Democratic party supporters to throw a few shovels of dirt on the Republican party on this issue. For, the pile of dirt stands in your backyard this time, not the Republicans.
It is easy to Monday morning quarter back the decision to use nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We were in a state of war with a ferocious and fanatical enemy who fought us tooth and nail. And as horrible as the nuclear attacks was on Japan there were actually bombing attacks using incendiaries on Tokyo, Japan and Dresden, Germany that inflicted more casualties. War is hell and for some of these commenters and the letter writer all seem to happy to start another one.
Mike, your calling General Douglas MacArthur, Admiral Leahy and Dwight D. Eisenhower "Monday Morning Quarterbacks"? How absurd is that???
Please, don't wander into the same sewers of extremism that "Dipstick", "KillerB" and some others slosh around in. Your much too intelligent to stoop to their levels of political obliviousness.
Bchap
I was referring to us commentators as the arm chair quarterbacks not Ike, Leahy or Mac Arthur. I am sure that you are aware of N.B.C. I had the most unfortunate experience of surveying a site in the Sudan back in the 90s the aftermath of a blister agent incident. A most terrifying and horrible sight I have never would like to see again. Men,women and children were victims. This is why I am critical of Cheney and rumsfelds involvement in the sale of the chemical agents to Saddam Hussein in the Iraq and Iranian war and later on his own people. The same agents that was the excuse for the Iraq war. I still respect your opinion but were going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I promise you never would like to see what a blister agent can do to a infant ever.
BChap -- "sewers of extremism"?? For stating a basic truth, Iran is a sovereign nation? I misstated your ignorance. It isn't underwhelming, it's profoundly advanced.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." -- Barry Goldwater in his acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican Convention (he paraphrased Cicero)
Bob Jack......
President Obama said that everything will be left
on the table in dealing with Iran.
Iran knows this.
I do not believe Iran wants a war with us,
with or without nuclear weapons.
And President Obama has done a great job in
keeping us safe.
Those points that you made about the effects of blister agents are well-taken, Mike. Yes, sadly enough I'm lightly aware of what these chemical agents of similarity do to people. Based on the fact of your first- hand knowledge and experience from the Sudan, I will respectfully withdraw from this personal debate and leave our disagreements to lay in peace between us.
"KillerB"; you state, "I misstated your ignorance. It isn't underwhelming, it's profoundly advanced."
Unlike Mike Kerns, your opinions are solely based on computer search engines rather than real life experiences. My words concerning you, "KillerB", stand!!!
Here's the letter. Exactly what I would expect a President concerned about his historical legacy to say to a newspaper columnist. He defers to his Memoirs. From which I presume he used his diaries/journals as the source. One I excerpted and posted for you.
" Letter on the Dropping of the Bomb
From: Harry S. Truman, President of the United States of America
To: Irv Kupcinet
Date:August 5, 1963
Letter from Truman to Irv Kupcinet
Dear Kup:
I appreciated most highly your column of July 30th, a copy of which you sent me.
I have been rather careful not to comment on the articles that have been written on the dropping of the bomb for the simple reason that the dropping of the bomb was completely and thoroughly explained in my Memoirs, and it was done to save 125,000 youngsters on the American side and 125,000 on the Japanese side from getting killed and that is what it did. It probably also saved a half million youngsters on both sides from being maimed for life.
You must always remember that people forget, as you said in your column, that the bombing of Pearl Harbor was done while we were at peace with Japan and trying our best to negotiate a treaty with them.
All you have to do is to go out and stand on the keel of the Battleship in Pearl Harbor with the 3,000 youngsters underneath it who had no chance whatever of saving their lives. That is true of two or three other battleships that were sunk in Pearl Harbor. Altogether, there were between 3,000 and 6,000 youngsters killed at that time without any declaration of war. It was plain murder.
I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war that would have killed a half million youngsters on both sides if those bombs had not been dropped. I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again - and this letter is not confidential.
Sincerely yours,
Harry Truman
Mr. Irv Kupcinet
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago, Illinois"
Carmine A. DiFazio
The consensus of history is that Truman's justification for the bombs in his letter to Kup was unfactual.
"What finally forced the Japanese to surrender? Was it air bombardment, naval power, the atomic bomb, or Soviet entry? The United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that Japan would have surrendered by the end of the year, without invasion and without the atomic bomb. [90] Other equally informed opinion maintained that it was the atomic bomb that forced Japan to surrender. "Without its use," Dr. Compton asserted, "the war would have continued for many months." [91] Admiral Nimitz believed firmly that the decisive factor was "the complete impunity with which the Pacific Fleet pounded Japan," and General Arnold claimed it was air bombardment that had brought Japan to the verge of collapse. [92] But Maj. Gen. Claire L. Chennault, wartime air commander in China, maintained that Soviet entry into the Far Eastern war brought about the surrender of Japan and would have done so "even if no atomic bombs had been dropped." [93]
Russia declared war on Japan on August 9, 1945. Japan surrendered August 10.
Carmine A. DiFazio
By all accounts of civilization, use of bombs on non-military targets to kill and maime innocents is a barbaric act of inhumanity. All the words in the world doesn't change that fact. That is the dilemma that Harry S. Truman faces when he met his maker.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"carmine, looks like its your turn in the bucket."
And yours in the well. How's the water?
Carmine A. DiFazio
carmine; truman didnt pick the targets, the MILITARY did. as far as generals complaining about harry using the A bomb against japan, thats too bad! did ' dugout doug' macarthur want another newsreel of him getting on the beach in honshu? screw the generals! they're not the ones who have to die for their country, its the regular GIs that do.
"Unlike Mike Kerns, your opinions are solely based on computer search engines rather than real life experiences."
BChap -- you really should leave this one alone. Sovereignty isn't something I need Google for -- it's a bedrock principle of our founding documents and Constitutions. Go to class or review your USMC oath, whatever. I decline to educate you further on this.
"To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable." -- Barry Goldwater (1909-1998), Republican Senator from Arizona, 1964 candidate for President
"carmine; truman didnt pick the targets, the MILITARY did."
Really...Commander-in-Chief, isn't that the President.
I highly recommend you read Truman's diaries/journals.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"KillerB" writes, "BChap", "Go to class or review your USMC oath, whatever. I decline to educate you further on this."
You educate me "KillerB"??? What a joke. Go drive back down in your unlicensed "hippie wagon" to your local illegal medical marijuana clinic and talk your extremist crap there to the other 60's "burn-outs". "Wow man, far-out", would be responses from those losers you should be comfortable with.
"Dipstick" Dennis Williams writes, "Truman didnt pick the targets, the MILITARY did. As far as generals complaining about Harry using the A bomb against Japan, thats too bad!"
Wrong again, "Dipwad"! General Groves, in command of the Manhattan Project did. The targets were subject to approval from the Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. Groves also formed a Target Committee in April 1945 chaired by himself, that included his deputy, Brigadier General Thomas Farrell; one of his staff, Major John A. Derry; Colonel William P. Fisher, Joyce C. Stearns and David M. Dennison from the USAAF; and scientists John von Neumann, Robert R. Wilson and William C. Penney also from the Manhattan Project.
Kind of a one-sided target decision team wasn't it? But, then again, you extremists like it that way.
bchap; youre just as clueless as carmine. killerb hit the nail on the head.
"Dipstick"; just sit back there in Illinois in the land of "greased palms" and collect your government handouts while you can. You and "KillerB", two losing, oozing, boozing liberal bums.
There's only one person who will be judged for the 2 bombs on the innocent Japanese which killed and maimed more than 300,000 innocent men women and children. It's Harry S. Truman, just as he said it should be. The buck stopped with him. Sadly, prior to WW2 bombing of civilian targets was deemed a barbaric act. Along the way, the thinking changed and hence Nagasaki and Hiroshima. They were dark days and a huge blemish on the USA and our history. One man bears the blame. President Truman. He would never ever do it again. Just as no President has since.
Carmine A. DiFazio