can we make racists jokes?

That’s September THE 11th, 2001, buddy.

Two droids walk into a bar. The barkeep says “We don’t serve your kind here.” The larger droid nudges the other and goes, “I knew converting to Scientology would cause problems.”

The trouble with conservative humor is they have to TELL you it’s funny (like Anne C “that’s a joke”, or Rush’s “I was only joking”) Maybe they can create a TV show called “I was only JOKING!” or “Can’t you Take a Joke?”

Um, just out of curiousity (and please note that this inot a condemnation of the Attack on Hiroshima, which unlike virtually all other bombing raids against civilian populaces by both Axis and Allied forces, is easily justifiable in both moral and human terms) how can the population of fascist state give consent (what with them virtually by definition being stripped of such authority).

can we make racists jokes?

Actually, I think the original “lacist” is correct and is a very amusing, albeit subtle play on the “they can’t say ‘L'” joke (See Christams Story, etal.)

As for the The Rant, as atrios says, the stupid, it burns!

On the other hand, Americans on Sept. 11th, 2001 were going about their daily lives with no thought of impending attacks. No war had been imagined declared and Americans had not the slightest clue that an attack was in the making.

Nope.

On the other hand, Iraqis on March 20th, 2003 were going about their daily lives with no thought of impending attacks. No war had been imagined declared and Iraqis had not the slightest clue that an attack was in the making.

Fixed!

The Times cannot tell the difference between acts during mutually agreed upon warfare, and those of a craven attack on an unsuspecting nation’s civilians.

Reckon so…

mikey

Socraticsilence,

Hiroshima, and I guess Nagasaki too, are easily justifiable in moral and human terms? Not if you see Japanese as humans. In terms of Truman’s political prospects and as the opening shot in the cold war,justifications abound but how do you justify incinerating 100s of 1000s of people in human or moral terms? Especially when Japan was ready to surrender which is pretty well documented.

What is, in fact, the contemporary Japanese view of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do they see them as atrocities that the U.S. ought to apologize for? I understand there are still deep divisions regarding Japan’s affirmative role in the war, but I don’t recall reading anything on this particular subject.

Steve,

I don’t know enough about Japanese public opinion to answer your questions but I do know that Michelle Malkin is an untalented, ignorant asshole.

Completely off topic, but if you boys haven’t read the NYTimes review of D’Souzaphone’s latest screed, be sure to take a look. Talk about shrill.

Ladioactive dly-creaning.

how do you justify incinerating 100s of 1000s of people in human or moral terms? Especially when Japan was ready to surrender which is pretty well documented.

…

What is, in fact, the contemporary Japanese view of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do they see them as atrocities that the U.S. ought to apologize for?

A major issue which this thread verges on ignoring is the nature of the weapon, the radiological nature of which resulted in more than just people being instantly incinerated. Several generations later, people were and are still suffering from high rates of birth defects and cancer directly related to the bombings. [/seriouspants]

“What is, in fact, the contemporary Japanese view of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?” — Steve

I’d guess they’re still ticked off. I can’t talk about now, but when I visited Hiroshima in the 1960’s I encountered mixed vibes from Hiroshima residents. Many were openly contemptuous and hostile on the streets, but not confrontational. In social and one-on-one situations, however, they were invariably polite and engaging.

I’d argue that Hiroshima (not Nagaski) is justifiable in human terms, not only vis a vis American lives, but in regards to the likely millions of Japanese who would have died in a full-scale invasion ( the Japanese populace may have been ready to surrender– though, I am unaware of any such indication, but considering the physical intimidation utilized by the Fascist regime in order to prevent the Emperor himself from offering a surrender, the succuess of a civilian peace movement seems unlikely at best. Nagaski, on the other hand is far more easiliy characterized in the terms you presented.

As to current Japanese attitude towards the attack, I am unsure you can cahracterize it broad terms, other than by pointing the cessation of Nuclear Powerplant construction in the 1980’s (Nuclear, due to Japan’s lack of significant petroleum or coal reserves, combined with their high population density, is one of the few currently viable methods of achieving greater Japanese energy independence), as well as more general constitutionally mandated pacificism ( see Article 9 and subsuquent modifictions in the 80’s to today) though this can’t be entirely attributed to the Nukes (both a term of surrender and a result of the war today). But Japanese reaction to the War itself is highly controversial and complex subject (far more so than Germany, where war guilt is far more readily accepted).

Lawnguylander,

I might not say easily justified; but I’m ready to call it justifiable. And, yes, for the record, I do see Japanese people as…people.

I’ve just, after years of thinking of Hiroshima/Nagasaki as a crime against humanity, lately come to realize what a blood-bath the Pacific theater was.

And doubts about Japan really surrendering were also pretty well documented.

The problem of course with trying to asses a “man on the street” thing is well you can’t tell why they’re hostile, it could be the War, or heck it could be flat out racism (Japan, is, and I realize that as an American I don’t have much room to talk, the most instutionally racist of the major industrialized nations).

The best/worst example of this (institutional racism) being their treatment of Korean immigrant workers (honestly, I’m more than a bit worried that this is the model Bush wants to follow with his “guest worker program.”

I guess a better way to put what I was trying to say about the use of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima, is that it in the end saved Japanese as well as American lives.

Ahem. At 3:06, Socraticsilence, I was kinda talking to you, too.

OT, but I think I found that Ted Haggerty/Haggerdy’s degayification has been amply covered by Bob and Dave on Mr. Show:

It’s not an area where I have strong expertise, but I DO know a couple things, and to me they form a damning case against trumans nukes. First, the vaunted invasion of Kyushu was going to take six to eight months to put in place. All that time the B-29s would have been pounding them daily. I do not believe the invasion would ever have happened, as the entire nation would have collapsed before December.

Second, we know that Truman had talked about a “demonstration” atomic bomb, ostensibly to scare the japanese into surrendering. But that homocidal maniac LeMay, among others, pointed out that the only way to actually impress the Russians with our newfound atomic dominance was to demonstrate to THEM the damage one of these thangs can do to a city.

Put ’em together, and it was an unnecessary massacre, a war crime verging on genocide…

mikey

Well when you consider that the United States began unethical and illegal human trials with Radioactive subtances among its own populace post-WW2 I’d have to say that they probably didn’t know the full-scale effects of the device.

Mikey-
Um, I’d say it likely that round the clock conventional bombing as well as Ship Bombardment in the the lead up to the invasion would have caused at least as many casualties as the bombing of Hiroshima, this becomes apparent when one considers that neither the blast in Hiroshima nor the second in Nagasaki (at least in initial blast and after effects not including secondary cancers) killed as many people as the Firebombing of Tokyo did in a single night.

Look, I’m not saying that the dropping of the Atomic Bomb is a laudable achievement in human history, but, it appears (especially if one only goes by the information availible to those who made the decision) to a have been the least bad of all possible options.

I guess a better way to put what I was trying to say about the use of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima, is that it in the end saved Japanese as well as American lives.

Yuk.

I realize this is one of those topics over which good people will disagree but the very notion that killing civilians is justified because doing so may have averted greater bloodshed makes me sick.

“Sorry, pal. I know you’re just trying to raise a family and all but we’re going to turn you (and them) into ash in order to send a message to your leaders. Hopefully killing you will mean that maybe we won’t have to kill more people like you, later on. I’m sure you understand.”

Fuck. That. Shit.

Christ, someone make a poop joke. Its been getting depressing up in this joint.

d say it likely that round the clock conventional bombing as well as Ship Bombardment in the the lead up to the invasion would have caused at least as many casualties as the bombing of Hiroshima

Sorry, youngster. There is a reason why we classify conventional weapons and Weapons of Mass Destruction differently. Nobody doubts that you can kill millions with conventional munitions, hell, man, you can kill millions with small arms. Is waging war immoral? I’d go with yes. But the difference between conventional strategic bombing and atomic weapons stands on it’s own, my friend…

mikey

If you want some cheering up, check the Mr. Show clip that gordonsowner linked.

As to current Japanese attitude towards the attack, I am unsure you can cahracterize it broad terms, other than by pointing the cessation of Nuclear Powerplant construction in the 1980’s…

Don’t be silly.
The kind of link anyone could find with the most basic of internet search.

“The first ABWRs (of 1315 MWe) were Tokyo Electric Power Co’s (Tepco’s) Kashiwazaki-Kariwa units 6 and 7 which started up in 1996-97 and are now in commercial operation. These were built by a consortium of General Electric (USA), Toshiba and Hitachi. Three further ABWRs – Hamaoka-5, Shika-2 and Shimane-3 – are currently being commissioned or are under construction. ”

Hamaoka-5
Shika-2

Miss Emily and SS, if you think it was OK to use nucular weapons in the past against a country that was no longer any military theat to the US does that mean you’re OK with us using them in a similar situation in the future? The near future? Because make no mistake about it, Japan was, as Mikey pointed out, on the verge of collapse by Aug. 1945. Eisenhower and MacArthur both saw the A-bombs as militarily unecessary.

I come here for the dick jokes and would much rather mock conservatives but in an age when the wingnut wing of the blogosphere is ready for a mass ejaculation over the idea of using one or a few hundred in the middle east it would be helpful if people who I presume oppose mass murder would look a little more closely at the historical myths that have grown up around Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of casually accepting what you’ve been told. Those myths are part of a greater mythology that allows disasters like Vietnam and Iraq to get started in the first place.

one or a hundred nucular bombs that is. Not one or a hundred dick jokes.

The “April 1st” post appears to be borken . . . .

I don’t feel like Nanking, no sir, no Nanking today.

I guess a better way to put what I was trying to say about the use of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima, is that it in the end saved Japanese as well as American lives.

I do not believe that demonstrating that you have mastered a force of nature requires dropping the bomb in the midst of a city.

War crime.

Mikey-
So if I’m to understand you correctly, despite the fact that the the bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed 40,000 or so less people than the Firebombing of Tokyo (again in a single night, this was not repeated raids) , you feel that the widespread carpet bombing (something you yourself raised the issue of) is morally superior to using an Atomic weapon, despite the almost undeniably higher death toll carpet bombing would have inflicted on the Japanese populace.

Lawnguylander-
If Japan posed no military threat, what would your alternate solution to ending the war have been (honestly the only answer here that I’ve heard of as an alternate to the A-Bomb and outright invasion, is blockade, and quite frankly I’m unconvinced that blockading Japan would have succeeded in doing anything other than deepening the misery of the Japanese civilian population). Japan was not Iraq after the Gulf War, we as a nation, quite honestly couldn’t follow a policy of containment (which in the case of Iraq, worked, but also caused untold Human Suffering, not that what were doing now is better) , that is to say, I’m not sure how we could have achieved unconditional Japanese surrender, without either an invasion dropping the Atomic Bomb.

tm-
You’re right my bad, (though I would argue that power plant construction is opposed for non-toxic waste reasons to a degree unseen in other Nuke countries). My recall’s a little fuzzy in that area (ask my about LDP postions and inter party factionalism) or the usage of Koenkai, etc.

the Attack on Hiroshima, […] unlike virtually all other bombing raids against civilian populaces by both Axis and Allied forces, is easily justifiable in both moral and human terms

So, are you a troll, or just an idiot?

Or is my sarcasm detector on the fritz?

I’m not sure how we could have achieved unconditional Japanese surrender

Well, what was stopping us from accepting the rather reasonable conditional surrender which the apanese were willing to make?

Oh, right, we had those bombs burning a hole in our pocket.

War crime.

And no, I’m not supporting the firebombing of Tokyo, or the firebombing of Dresden, or the use of Agent Orange in later Asian misadventures, or anything else you care to draw some sort of false comparison to.

This myth that no one expected the September 11th attack is on my last nerve. Most thinking people had been expecting another attack on the WTC ever since the first attack in 1993. We were simply foolish enough to expect those better informed than we would attempt to prevent it.

Socraticsilence,
You are mistaken about the circumstances that prevailed at the time. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was in an effort to prevent a Soviet brokered surrender by the Japanese. Never neglect the political posturing for power. It often drives decisions to commit atrocities that ought to be unthinkable.

(though I would argue that power plant construction is opposed for non-toxic waste reasons to a degree unseen in other Nuke countries)

And I would argue that Japanese opposition to nuclear power was rare and local until the 1990’s Monju and Tokaimura accidents. Now opposition is mostly about health and safety.

My recall’s a little fuzzy in that area (ask my about LDP postions and inter party factionalism) or the usage of Koenkai, etc.

Don’t see what that has to do with the suggestion that Japanese opposition to nuclear power is related to WW2 nuclear bombs, but what the hell, “What about those LDP positions and inter party factionalism?”

The problem with racist Asian jokes is that Asians tend to make Ls sounds like Rs, not vice versa. The jokes get it wrong, in that they make Ls that sound like Rs, and not Rs that sounds like Ls. I grew up around a lot of Asians, and I heard the former, but I’ve never heard the latter, except from people making racist jokes.

For example: “Living Room” does not become “Living Loom”, nor does it become “Riving Loom”. It would be “Riving Room”. If we’re gonna make racist jokes, they should at least be accurate. No offense, Seb.

And it’s good to have you back.

Sorry to interrupt The Bomb question, but imo the far more dishonest statement is this:

Such a ridiculous comparison. WWII, a standard, symmetrical war, bears little resemblance to this threat we face today. The Russians were under arms facing Hitler. It wasn’t a “nice” war, surely, but it was a standard war none-the-less. Hitler invaded and the Russians resisted.

Standard war stuff, really.

This is a guy who, as a civilian, has had to make zero sacrifice in the “war on terror.” Undoubtedly, he expects not to have to make any sacrifice in the future. Yet what the Russians endured was “standard” as in a “fair fight.” This transcends the shake your head at how ignorant, small minded and self-absorbed some people are reaction. It is the sobering fact that because Mr. Huston has to live with the remote fear that he may suffer some loss at the hands of a terrorist he can justify the taking of how many innocents in Iraq and elsewhere? no price is too much for others to pay with their lives for a extra sliver of safety for Walter. And, sadly, we all know the many people who share this belief. It is pathological. You can blame the politicians, and it’s far more than just the president and his administration, but there’s no getting around the fact that every pro-war person knows or chooses to ignore what is done in our name. But for the fact that so many millions of Americans truly believe that their fear of a terrorist attack is not just going to happen, but happen to them to them, tens of thousands of innocents would not have died in the “war on terror.” So yeah, Mr. Huston, I’d say that overreacting is exactly what it is.

Well, back to your cheery debate. Where’s that href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFo8NGO4nTA”>Mr. Show link again?

Ladies and Gentleman, witness the Holocaustus Justificus, a close relative of the Holocaustus Denyis as it ventures outside it’s native habitat.

Standard war stuff, really.

I’m loathe to question free lance writer and graphic designer Warner Todd Huston’s definition of “standard war stuff,” but the war on the Eastern Front was anything but standard:

The Eastern Front was unparalleled for its high intensity, ferocity, and brutality. The fighting involved millions of German and Soviet troops along a broad front. It was by far the deadliest single theatre of war in World War II, with over 5 million deaths on the Axis Forces; Soviet military deaths were about 10.6 million (out of which 3.6 million Soviets died in German captivity), and civilian deaths were about 14 to 17 million.

Perhaps some of Mr. Huston’s all night Civ games have approached this level of carnage, but fortunately the U.S. has never come close to having this many casualties in any of its wars.

The problem with racist Asian jokes is that Asians tend to make Ls sounds like Rs, not vice versa.

And it’s so so long between elections.

You don’t hear many dead people talking about the sanctity of life.

— George Carlin

The problem with racist Asian jokes is that Asians tend to make Ls sounds like Rs, not vice versa. The jokes get it wrong…

Heh. Not to mention the problems inherant in defining race.

Socraticsilence,
At present, in accordance with the Imperial will, there is unanimous determination to seek the good offices of the Russians in ending the war…
Intercepted missive
Foreign Minister Togo to Ambassador Sato
August 2, 1945

We believe that a considerable portion of the Japanese population now consider absolute military defeat probably… An entry of the Soviet Union into the war would finally convince the Japanese of the inevitability of complete defeat.
U.S. British Combined Intelligence Committee

I’d refer you to Gar Alperovitz’s book “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bombâ€? , which exhaustively examines much of the primary documents.

Most U.S. citizens believe that our government conducted a rigorous cost-benefit analysis on whether or not to use nuclear weapons against Japan. Listed prominently on the benefit side was the belief that many lives would be saved that would otherwise be spent pounding Japan into submission via invasion. As horrific as nuclear holocaust was, the alternative, fighting Japan to the last man, would have been worse. The reality is that this was not at all a part of the decision making process at the time, according to the internal documentary record.

Alperovitz dissects the declassified internal documents, memorandum, notes, minutes, and personal journals of all relevant decision makers during the summer of 1945. He notes that all the top civilian and military planners knew that Japan was all but defeated and on the brink of surrender. He cites a number of intelligence reports, military reports, and the personal beliefs of high ranking politicians in the Truman administration. The only sticking point for Japanese surrender was ensuring Emperor Hirohito, a demigod-like figure to the Japanese, would not be prosecuted in war crimes trials. Virtually all U.S. planners advocated and recognized that dropping the term “unconditional surrender� from U.S. demands and explicitly allowing for Hirohito to remain on the throne would immediately end the war.

The U.S. had cracked the Japanese encryption codes and had numerous transmissions from highly placed Japanese officials, including Hirohito, to other Japanese and the Russians indicating they were ready to surrender and acknowledging their defeat. Many military planners in the U.S. knew that Japan would surrender without an invasion because they were so devastated by aerial bombing and embargo. Nor did the Japanese harbor any pretenses about holding on to their acquired territory.

One common misconception about the Japanese was that they were going to fight to the last man, ensuring heavy casualties on all sides. The allies knew that this was only true if the Japanese thought Hirohito would be killed or imprisoned. On several occasions, they offered to surrender immediately if Hirohito would remain unharmed.

So what was the decision to drop the bomb based on if not on saving massive amounts of casualties? Alperovitz’s narrative details the geo-political factors involved. The allies were already looking ahead to the post war period and reasoned that the game at that point was minimizing the influence and power of the Russians in the aftermath of the war. (Truman, the noted poker player, called it a “royal flush.”) The British, U.S., and Russia were already dividing up the world, the U.S. wanted to keep Russia from having any “legitimate” claims in East Asia. It would also be an incredible show of force to use as leverage against the Russians elsewhere and serve as a frightful reminder of who had the decisive military advantage. Russia was planning to declare war on Japan in mid August; we dropped the bombs in the first week of August.

Um, I’d say it likely that round the clock conventional bombing as well as Ship Bombardment in the the lead up to the invasion would have caused at least as many casualties as the bombing of Hiroshima…

Um, hello, am I talking to myself here???

“the very notion that killing civilians is justified because doing so may have averted greater bloodshed makes me sick.”

A-Fucking-Men.

Once you’ve justified the killing of civilians, even on the ludicrous and ahistorical pretext that we’re slaughtering civilians to avoid slaughetring civilians, you’ve ceased to be a human being.