| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Dennis Prager: Some on the Right Are Having a Moral Meltdown |
| 2024-05-03 |
| [HotAir] |
| Posted by:Elmerert Hupens2660 |
| #6 Your answer is here. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2024-05-03 17:35 |
| #5 @4 The Western/Soviet line of contact in 1945 was significantly east of what would become the Iron Curtain. In 1945 the US withdrew to the previously agreed upon zone borders in exchange for the Soviets permitting the also previously agreed upon establishment of the Western sectors of Berlin. West-Berlin of course was not militarily defensible while the withdrawal from Thuringia, and other parts of future East Germany weakened Western Europe's strategic posture. Which is why Churchill, by then freshly out of office, was opposed to this exchange. |
| Posted by: Elmerert Hupens2660 2024-05-03 14:14 |
| #4 People on my side ... on the Right, you know, have spent 80 years defending dropping nuclear weapons on civilians. Like, are you joking? That's just like prima facie evil. ... It's wrong to drop nuclear weapons on people. And if you find yourself arguing that it's a good thing to drop nuclear weapons on people, then you are evil. I read a book called The Court of the Red Tsar which is an unauthorized biography of Joe Stalin. In it, the opinion is expressed that Truman dropped those bombs on Japan more as a warning to Stalin than anything else. If you look at it that way, it may have been effective in preventing the Red Army from advancing any further into Western Europe after they sacked Berlin. Further, and I'm not certain about the correct numbers, when Curtis LeMay dropped napalm on Tokyo, it killed more people than both of the atomic bombs. The argument is made that the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki convinced the Japanese to surrender unconditionally thereby preventing the loss of millions of lives that would have resulted from an American invasion of Japan. But I wonder about a few things. Why did we have to invade Japan when their navy was defeated and we could have just blockaded them until they were willing to make some kind of a deal? Why did Roosevelt even care about what Japan was doing in Manchuria? What business was it of his and what were the Japanese doing in Manchuria that the British, French, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese hadn't done with their colonies in Asia? Isn't is possible that the Japanese could have prevented Mao Tse Tung from getting control of China? I hate communism as much as anybody, Democrats scare the crap out of me and I think Joe Biden is more likely to get us into a nuclear war than any president we've had since Truman. When I think about these things I wonder if Tucker might be right. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2024-05-03 13:21 |
| #3 Tucker went from pretty sharp scalpel to "Joe Rogan does all my thinking" in record time. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2024-05-03 09:26 |
| #2 Tucker should look up the Sack of Manila in 1945 which killed more than either of the bombs. The Philippines were scheduled for independence before the Japanese conquered it in 1942. The same Japanese military that told its own citizens to kill themselves rather than be take alive on Saipan. Tucker is of the mushy mind set that war can be made 'nice' and 'manageable'. How many conflicts have we resolved since 1945? War is brutal, destructive, barbaric. Try avoid. If not, win and don't hold back. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2024-05-03 09:18 |
| #1 "Apparently, however, killing far fewer people with an atom bomb is more immoral than killing far more people with conventional bombs." |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2024-05-03 07:52 |