[Vision2020] Subject change to "Was it Necessary to Use theAtomicBombs on Japan?" Former title Presidential Rankings
Warren Hayman
whayman at roadrunner.com
Mon Feb 23 18:13:36 PST 2009
So we can get rid of the DARE program in the school district? Great idea!
Warren Hayman
----- Original Message -----
From: "lfalen" <lfalen at turbonet.com>
To: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey at moscow.com>; <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>;
<vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Subject change to "Was it Necessary to Use
theAtomicBombs on Japan?" Former title Presidential Rankings
> Sue
> The mentality behind issuing a dare is harmful, just as is the mentality
> of casting shame on being an snitch, or stoolie. A dare is a challenge to
> some ones bravery, like you are a coward if you don't accept. This can get
> kids in a lot of trouble and should be something teachers are fighting
> against. In reality rejecting a dare takes more courage than accepting
> one.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: "Sue Hovey" suehovey at moscow.com
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:03:25 -0800
> To: "lfalen" lfalen at turbonet.com, donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com,
> vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Subject change to "Was it Necessary to Use the
> AtomicBombs on Japan?" Former title Presidential Rankings
>
>> I sent this to Donovan. I didn't dare you to do anything....I don't care
>> whether you read Hershey's book or not...And why, pray tell, is it
>> shameful
>> for me to issue a dare to him? Are your standards for teachers somewhat
>> more skewed than for other such ordinary folk? He didn't respond anyway,
>> so
>> we'll never know whether he decided to read it. And the word is
>> bearing.....
>>
>> Sue H.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "lfalen" <lfalen at turbonet.com>
>> To: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey at moscow.com>; <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>;
>> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 9:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Subject change to "Was it Necessary to Use the
>> AtomicBombs on Japan?" Former title Presidential Rankings
>>
>>
>> > Shame on you Sue as a teacher for issuing a dare. I may or may not
>> > read
>> > Hershey's book. A dare would have absolutely no baring on it.
>> > Roger
>> > -----Original message-----
>> > From: "Sue Hovey" suehovey at moscow.com
>> > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:12:03 -0800
>> > To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
>> > Subject: [Vision2020] Subject change to "Was it Necessary to Use the
>> > AtomicBombs on Japan?" Former title Presidential Rankings
>> >
>> >> 1. I agree, it did end the war quickly--in a matter of days.
>> >> 2. And if the bombs hadn't been dropped, how much less intact would
>> >> have
>> >> Japan been on Sep 1, 1945?
>> >> 3. It did that. And we had committed to the goal of unconditional
>> >> surrender.
>> >> 4. No, no, no....it did not.
>> >> 5. But they didn't back out of Germany....And they were already
>> >> developing nuclear weapons.
>> >> 6. Well you got me there & I was living in Texas then, but Bentson
>> >> wasn't the U.S. Senator from Texas until quite a bit later, so I
>> >> really
>> >> don't believe this happened. During the Korean war I think our
>> >> senators
>> >> were LBJ and Tom Connally.
>> >> 7. Maybe so, maybe not.
>> >>
>> >> Go ahead and read Hershey's book. I double dare you. You may not be
>> >> convinced, but you will have another perspective to chew on.
>> >>
>> >> Sue H.
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: Donovan Arnold
>> >> To: vision2020 at moscow.com ; Sue Hovey
>> >> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:45 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Presidential Rankings (2009)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sue,
>> >>
>> >> It was necessary to drop the bomb for several reasons.
>> >>
>> >> 1) It brought a quick end to the war
>> >> 2) It kept the rest of Japan intact
>> >> 3) It gave us an unconditional surrender, which is what the
>> >> Allies swore to do
>> >> 4) It limited Casualties on both sides of the war
>> >> 5) It showed Russia that we have the bomb, and will use it, so
>> >> back out of Germany and Western Europe.
>> >> 6) The aftermath of the A-Bomb, its horrible impact on people,
>> >> helped Senator Benston-D Texas, convince the Senate to block General
>> >> MacArthur's attempts to end the Korean War by dropping 50 A-Bombs on
>> >> China.
>> >> 7) It has prevented anyone from using a nuclear bomb again
>> >>
>> >> So, I have read the arguments. I don't think your friend,
>> >> Hershey, had any greater insight than Truman or his advisers. Hershey
>> >> was
>> >> just 31, Truman was President, he had more information and a bigger
>> >> picture of the issues at the time.
>> >>
>> >> The consequences of not dropping the bomb would have been
>> >> worse.
>> >> Hard to believe, but it would have been.
>> >>
>> >> Best Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Donovan
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --- On Thu, 2/19/09, Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> From: Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com>
>> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Presidential Rankings (2009)
>> >> To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
>> >> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 8:10 PM
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Donovan,
>> >>
>> >> For an interesting and opposing view, you might take a look
>> >> at
>> >> John Hershey's Hiroshima, the Aftermath, published in the 1980s. It's
>> >> one thing to have had to make that call, as Truman did, for a nation
>> >> weary of war, and quite another to quote as fact today the idea that
>> >> the
>> >> dropping of the atom bombs was necessary to save a million lives.
>> >>
>> >> Sue H.
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: Donovan Arnold
>> >> To: vision2020 at moscow.com ; Kenneth Marcy
>> >> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:27 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Presidential Rankings (2009)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> People that were against the dropping of the atom
>> >> bombs
>> >> on Japan in WWII were obviously ignorant of the larger number of
>> >> causalities it would have cost both Japan and the US in its place, and
>> >> were insensitive to massive suffering and loss of life that the US and
>> >> others had already endured.
>> >>
>> >> Truman only had two options. 1) To kill one million
>> >> more people, both Japanese and Americans, or 2) Kill 100,000 Japanese
>> >> that started the war and end it.
>> >>
>> >> To me, the choice is obvious. I am sure Truman would
>> >> have dropped 12 billion roses instead if it ended the war, but it
>> >> wouldn't, so he did what had to do to end the war. And dropping the
>> >> bomb
>> >> barely did end the war as Japan still didn't want to surrender
>> >> initially
>> >> after that.
>> >>
>> >> Best Regards.
>> >>
>> >> Donovan
>> >>
>> >> --- On Thu, 2/19/09, Kenneth Marcy
>> >> <kmmos1 at verizon.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> From: Kenneth Marcy <kmmos1 at verizon.net>
>> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Presidential Rankings
>> >> (2009)
>> >> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> >> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 12:45 PM
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wednesday 18 February 2009 14:03:26 Kai Eiselein wrote:> Sooooo,
>> >> would
>> >> this apply to those who condemn the use of nuclear bombs on>
>> >> Japan?Yes. I
>> >> think that the Allies, and the Americans specifically, were war-weary
>> >> from large social and industrial reorganizations to support a war
>> >> effort
>> >> then beyond all those previous. The prospect of any necessity of
>> >> taking a
>> >> land war from the Allies into Asia implied such huge additional losses
>> >> that any way to end the Nipponese war, and prevent its spread more
>> >> generally to Asia, was seen as a useful effort.More so than any
>> >> subsequent major conflict, World War II was seen as a just war; the
>> >> Allied cause was worth winning for good reasons, and all efforts
>> >> toward
>> >> that end were justified.Yes, the atomic destruction was horrific, no
>> >> doubt about it, and on sight of the test blast, the
>> >> decision makers all knew it. Oppenheimer said in New Mexico "I am
>> >> become
>> >> death." And the chain of command, from Groves upto Marshall and then
>> >> to
>> >> Truman, presumably had some idea of the much larger magnitude of the
>> >> atom
>> >> bombs, so the decision to use them was in service of ending the
>> >> Nipponese
>> >> war sooner rather than later.> Or the fire bombing of Germany?Without
>> >> reviewing the technical details, I will just say that after the U.S.
>> >> joined the Allied cause then underway, there was a strong
>> >> determination
>> >> to see the war effort through to a victorious decision. No one doubted
>> >> the justness of the Allied cause, nor did anyone doubt that the awful
>> >> destruction was beneath the dignified preferences of civil societies.
>> >> However, the Axis aggression had to be stopped, and the prosecution of
>> >> the European efforts continued until that goal was reached. Whether
>> >> the
>> >> goal could have been achieved more
>> >> optimally with less destruction was a judgment call; second guessing
>> >> and
>> >> arm-chair quarterbacking more than half a century later won't change
>> >> their determination then to get the job done with what was available.>
>> >> Or, the actions Europeans took in the Americas after stumbling upon
>> >> the>
>> >> contintents?Considering that Europeans first began attempting
>> >> permanent
>> >> North American settlements centuries ago, it is even more important
>> >> for
>> >> us not to impose our mind-set on their attitudes and motivations. Some
>> >> of
>> >> the earliest were explorers, somewhat later they were escaping
>> >> religious
>> >> differences. Yes, they had racist attitudes. Yes, they felt their
>> >> technologies and their old-world civilization gave them a sense of
>> >> entitlement to what they saw before them. There was no North American
>> >> parliament with proportional representation of the indigenous peoples,
>> >> and if anyone had been so foolish as
>> >> to suggest one, they would have been laughed, or worse, out of the
>> >> colony.>From our contemporary understandings we can easily and glibly
>> >> say
>> >> that the Europeans should have accepted the natives as human equals.
>> >> But
>> >> not all of them were willing to accept the "savages" as fully human.
>> >> They
>> >> didnot have the advantage of knowing about Darwinian science,
>> >> Mendelian
>> >> genetics, and contemporary molecular biology that illustrates our
>> >> closer
>> >> human kinship than their observations of skin color, physiognomy, and
>> >> social culture allowed. Even today not all of us have learned these
>> >> lessons sufficiently well, so who are we to suggest that those early
>> >> colonists were incompletely informed?> After all, there are those who
>> >> do
>> >> the same in those instances.> My comment wasn't so much anti-war as it
>> >> was historical fact. For some> reason Vietnam and Kennedy are kept
>> >> conspicuously separated in
>> >> history> textbooks, even though Kennedy's actions led the U.S.
>> >> directly
>> >> intothe> Vietnam war.Yes, it is true that many Americans are a
>> >> soft-hearted bunch, preferring polite conversation and gentle
>> >> reminiscences of how nice the Kennedy family looked, how cute and
>> >> adorable the children were, and on and on. Oh my, wouldn't it be fun
>> >> to
>> >> sail with Jack and the boys, or ride English side-saddle with Jackie
>> >> and
>> >> the ladies? How wonderful we could feel about ourselves, fantasizing
>> >> ourselves into a far-away Camelot!As the older generations fade into
>> >> memory, younger generations of historians will probably have sharper
>> >> things to say about how close we came to a Soviet American war near
>> >> Cuba,
>> >> and how lucky we were for back-channel communication between the
>> >> nonagenarian English Lord Russell and Nikita Khrushchev, and some
>> >> other
>> >> fortunate military command communications incidents that
>> >> forestalled active engagement.> On another note, it was Kennedy who
>> >> signed legislation allowing U.S.> companies to set up shop in foriegn
>> >> countries without having to pay U.S.> income taxes on their profits
>> >> from
>> >> those units. The idea was that by> bringing jobs into countries that
>> >> were
>> >> at risk of falling to the commies,> it would make communism less
>> >> appealing. It was a logical move.There probably were multiple reasons
>> >> for
>> >> allowing tax-free foreign commerce by American organizations. Profits
>> >> likely were a part of it, as was the opportunity to extend the de
>> >> facto
>> >> American intelligence network abroad, but outside of the usual
>> >> military
>> >> and diplomatic channels. And I would not be surprised to learn that
>> >> the
>> >> administration found it convenient to allow certain organizations to
>> >> operate profitably without any necessity for their books to be
>> >> examined
>> >> by anyone in an official sphere. The
>> >> darker corners of commercial activity can benefit more than just
>> >> capitalists, as many have noted since then.> Unfortunately, an
>> >> unintended
>> >> consequence has been the wholesale migration> of U.S. companies
>> >> abroad.Companies have been operating for profit internationally since
>> >> ancient trading times, so international business is nothing new.
>> >> Consequences, unintended or not, can be changed if the courage and
>> >> collective will are marshalled to change laws and behaviors to more
>> >> desirable patterns. This is a question of needed leadership, not of
>> >> the
>> >> horses irrevocably having escaped the barn.> How much howling from big
>> >> biz do you think there would be if the law was> repealed and they had
>> >> to
>> >> pay taxes on their foreign income?How much howling is there over any
>> >> contentious tax issue? Capital gains, for example? Too often, the
>> >> lobbyists and the committee chairmen decide their
>> >> answer, and that's that. Powerless citizens may howl all they wish,
>> >> to
>> >> little avail. Powerful interests need not howl at all; they pay their
>> >> agents and their will is carried out via gallons of ink printed on
>> >> paper
>> >> mountains.Fundamental tax reform, as opposed to rearrangement of
>> >> regulations, is relatively rare in the United States. For example, the
>> >> US
>> >> does not have a national property tax on large holdings of private
>> >> property, specifically land. Why do not corporations and individuals
>> >> who
>> >> own millions of acres of land pay no federal property taxes on those
>> >> large holdings? Exemptions for a few thousand acres of actively
>> >> farmed,
>> >> or recently fallowed, land could easily be arranged, so working farm
>> >> families would be exempted. So, for the remaining land hoarders, why
>> >> should they not pay some small rate of property tax to help offset the
>> >> government expenses of their national defense and liberties
>> >> preservation? Jefferson bought the Louisiana Purchase from the French
>> >> to
>> >> enlarge the United States. Don't we all have an obligation to
>> >> periodically re-examine who owns what land, and to re-evaluate how to
>> >> keep that land optimally productive, financially and
>> >> environmentally?Ken=======================================================
>> >> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>> >> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> >> http://www.fsr.net
>> >> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> =======================================================
>> >> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> >> http://www.fsr.net
>> >> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> >> =======================================================
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list