For a different view, check out Oliver Stone's documentary: Untold History of the United States

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Oliver-Stones-Untold-History-of-the-United-States-3-10

Indeed, history repeats itself as now Obama is claiming to be able to save Syrian lives by bombing away the evil, while critics point to the political and economical interests of USA and it's allies as the real reasons for the urge to drop the bombs. What would Jesus do? Take the (drone) joystick, of course.

The alternative, as far as I am familiar with the counterargument to this viewpoint, would have been to loosen the requirement of "unconditional surrender" of Japan, and possibly to demonstrate the bomb by dropping it on an unpopulated area. Inviting Japanese scientists to a staging ground for a controlled demonstration was also on the books.

Now, assuming the US top brass were convinced Japan was not going to surrender, the argument presented here is quite valid. Bombing a live target certainly had the most shock value, and the bombs were likely in quite limited supply. (I confess, I don't know how many there were at the time.) A continued conventional war would have been horrendous.

But... Were the Japanese really unwilling to surrender, and if so, why? According to what I've read... Well, let me just quote the story, I've seen this in a number of texts:

"At the conclusion of the conference, Roosevelt and Churchill held a press conference. Roosevelt said that he and Churchill…

…were determined to accept nothing less than the unconditional surrender of Germany, Japan, and Italy…

Churchill said later that he was surprised by this statement. Churchill adds that he was told by Harry Hopkins that the President said to him:

…then suddenly the Press Conference was on, and Winston and I had had no time to prepare for it; and the thought popped into my mind that they had called Grant “Old Unconditional Surrender,” and the next thing I knew I had said it."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/04/jonathan-goodwin/roosevelt-demands-unconditionalsurrender/

It was Jonathan Glover who I first read giving this account of events, but I don't remember what his source was. The argument he and others make, though, is that the Japanese did signal their willingness to surrender, but were not willing to do so unconditionally. This is because they feared the emperor might have been deposed and put to trial, which was simply unthinkable to them. If this is true, then dropping the bombs may have been unnecessary and even before the bombs, the war effort in the Pacific could have been ended through diplomatic means.

All this does leave one with some disconcerting questions. Would Allied leaders really have refused to reconsider their demands of Japan simply due to prestige and the need to show resolve? Was there no diplomatic backchannel? Certainly the fog of war must have played a part in the decisions made. I haven't been able to find a source beyond hearsay for what, exactly, the Japanese diplomatic position on surrender was. Considering this debate still goes on, no such source is likely to surface.

What stands out here, to me, as the saddest thing is: it seems countless lives were lost for lack of solid information and communication between enemies. Had Japan and the Allies been able to negotiate further, had the allies dared show their nuclear hand, had they made it possible for the emperor (while not a nice guy by any means) to be protected, how many lives could have been saved? Unfortunately, no-one has the benefit of hindsight when it's most needed.

I can't help but think of the Cuban missile crisis - what would have happened, had a similar failure to communicate occurred at that time? It was very close...

You could also blame books and homing pigeons -- Encyclopedia sets? Libraries? I spent many hours of my time as a child reading in these original information databases. I feel like the internet just brought a bunch of base fucks into a spectrum of reality that has always existed. Fucks that normally wouldn't spend their time consuming information in a database. Fucks that would market the shit out of every aspect of it. The perception of this video is a direct result of our internet being ground into dust.

At its mid-range potential, the internet is not much different than a library. I recall a lot of book-learned facts which are plain WRONG, including false and biased information, and unlabeled, incorrectly scaled maps being fairly constant. Yay Christopher Columbus! Yay happy natives! Yay dropping nuclear bombs on people! Yayyyyyyyyyyyyy

The internet brings ourselves closer and closer to instant, multi-perspective, peer-reviewed information, because we no longer need to thumb through catalogs, shelves, and pages, and everyone can contribute in a trusted, merit-based environment. Identify the fuckers of the internet. They pollute us with their bullshit. (I posit that I am not a fucker, I am merely disgruntled.)

One of my best friends is a librarian and the major difference he sees between Wikipedia and published books is that published books require new editions to replace outdated and incorrect information, potentially screwing over human memory for as long as that book isn't burned. (Sorry, rofl, I thought it was a funny way to phrase that. Plz don't burn books.)

The key is to avoid nonstop popular culture and focus on the vast educational potential of the internet.

And don't use social media.

And keep your mobile device's sound and vibration OFF. I love technology but don't let it reverse your human potential, let it augment. Focus on augmentation and factual checks & balances of the information you take in.

No to the conclusions from this video. No. No. NO! The net doesn't make us more superficial, we do and we always have.

OMG - I'm watching this and I'm thinking there's no way he'd align himself with Glen Beck so I felt assured that's not possibly who he is talking about. Then he drops the bomb and blam, I'm wondering what planet he is part of because he is so out of touch with the people of your country, I'm completely mystified.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^gwiz665:
There's a philosophical difference between a downvote on a video and a downvote on a comment.
On a video it's either "this does not belong on videosift" or by extension "this is so bad i don't want this on videosift", while a comment is close to "i don't like/agree with what was written here"

Hmmm, as someone who only recently gained the ability to downvote, I do it differently. A downvote on a video to me is just "this video isn't very good", regardless of the stance it's taking. Similarly a downvote on a comment has more to do with the merit of the argument rather than the position. I've upvoted people I disagree with who argued their point well, and downvoted because the comment is irrelevant, pointless, fallacious, etc.
Much as he annoys me, I try not to downvote @shinyblurry, because I believe he genuinely believes in what he's saying (regardless of how factually incorrect it might be).


That's exactly it.

People don't downvote shinyblurry or bobknight33 or etc's videos/comments because of political idealogy (well i'm sure some do) They downvote because they commit numerous logical fallacies over and over again that are demonstrably incorrect. Shinyblurry's argument of having a personal experience, thus equating god as fact may work for him, but that does not give him grounds for him to make his evangelical "it's my faith, therefore it's also fact" arguments. I can't downvote myself, but I would if I could.

Just the other day, bobknight33 made his comment about how we're the ones who don't really know what the founders believed and they were all devout christians. This is a provably false statement. It has nothing to do with idealogy.

As i've stated in the past, people like them drop their bombs and run away. The vast majority of the time they never stick around to argue/defend their position. They just wait for the next controversial sift so they can drop their bomb again and run away. Sure shinyblurry will actually attempt to argue his position so he's one of the exceptions, but it's that same "I believe, therefore it's true" argument over and over again and it's a fallacy.

As an aside, I'm super excited about the inevitable outcome of this discussion, where we all hold hands and proudly proclaim that "We Solved Abortion!" It's gonna be so cool, guys. So cool.

@oritteropo
That's a very reasoned approach to the issue. (To me, it seems "mean" even earlier in development, but that's an individual value judgement.) Obviously "avoidance of meanness" isn't your entire justification, but setting the mark at "theoretical biological independence" hints at the underlying logic. On its face, it sounds like an extension of the "it's her body" argument, i.e. "It's her body...until the fetus doesn't need her anymore".

@packo @acidSpine
"I refuse to discuss this issue because Republicans\Christians are hypocrites" is a misdirection, and it's a dead-end. The argument is just as easily flipped: "Those liberals cry foul every time we drop a bomb on a terrorist, but they don't blink an eye killing unborn babies here at home," and it's just as fallacious that way.
BUT, it gives us both a common enemy: moral relativism. Moral relativism is why we need legislation, standards, and guidelines. Moral relativism is also where we dive into the "increase happiness/decrease suffering" balance that's frequently referenced in these debates.
Is it OK to kill an innocent person if that's what it takes to kill the terrorist mastermind who will kill (or incite the killing of) dozens later? What if it's five innocents? A dozen? What if we're only fairly certain he's a terrorist?
Is it OK to terminate a pregnancy (developing human, "kill a baby", etc) if it avoids the theoretical suffering of the mother and child later? Or if it avoids compounding the poverty crisis, or the healthcare crisis?
acidSpine, you claim this is "a moral issue, not a legislative one," but many moral issues get legislated because morals are obviously not enough by themselves, because perspectives and emotions cloud our judgement on moral issues. @VoodooV is right, we kill sometimes. Sometimes we feel it is necessary, and sometimes we feel it is the best, or at least most expedient course of action. Killing is a moral issue as well, but we legislate it because morals aren't adequate.
"Your honor, as you can see, the young Mr Jones was a dick. We have shown evidence of his abuse of animals and callous disregard for the emotions of others. These traits have been shown reliability to lead to sociopathic tendencies, child and spousal abuse, and criminal behavior in adulthood, so his death will lead to an overall decrease in suffering in the world. I have done us all a favor. You're welcome. The defense rests."

>> ^MonkeySpank:

As much as I don't like Hannity; I don't think he was at fault here.


Fault? What fault? The point, at least in my mind, is that there should be no "fault" in saying fuck. Prior restraint is nonsense, and a well-placed expletive can emphasize any point when used appropriately.

@ChaosEngine that's why God gave us GPS, so we know where to drop the bombs.

>> ^The_Ham:

>> ^criticalthud:
i'm not sure any of them really knew the implications of what they were doing. Dropping that bomb was also very much about the future war between capitalism and communism...between two schools of economic dominance. At the time, Soviet divisions in Europe outnumbered American by a staggering amount.


Government: Dr. Feynman, we're going to need you to make a huge bomb.
Feynman: I wonder what the implications of making this huge bomb are? Oh well, der de derrrrr.


Forgive me if I fail to pass judgment on this man, who has contributed so much to science.

>> ^criticalthud:

i'm not sure any of them really knew the implications of what they were doing. Dropping that bomb was also very much about the future war between capitalism and communism...between two schools of economic dominance. At the time, Soviet divisions in Europe outnumbered American by a staggering amount.



Government: Dr. Feynman, we're going to need you to make a huge bomb.

Feynman: I wonder what the implications of making this huge bomb are? Oh well, der de derrrrr.

i'm not sure any of them really knew the implications of what they were doing. Dropping that bomb was also very much about the future war between capitalism and communism...between two schools of economic dominance. At the time, Soviet divisions in Europe outnumbered American by a staggering amount.

The only reason a significant portion of the population believe that crap is because it's repeated so many times, people actually think there's legitimacy in their arguments. So, I take a few minutes out of my day to prove how obviously wrong their arguments are.

>> ^VoodooV:

At what point do you accept that Winston and QM are trolling you guys.
They don't have anything worthwhile to contribute. They're not arguing their case. They just drop their bomb and leave.

At what point do you accept that Winston and QM are trolling you guys.

They don't have anything worthwhile to contribute. They're not arguing their case. They just drop their bomb and leave.

Pearl Harbor thrust the US into the war, though it had little to no bearing on the decision of whether or not to drop the bomb. Throughout the island-hopping Pacific campaign, it was noticed that the Japanese would never (or very rarely) surrender. Even if a soldier was the last man alive on an overrun island, he would fight. If he ran out of bullets, he would charge with a sword. In a few places, civilians threw themselves along with their children off of cliffs by the thousands because the Japanese government had told them that American troops would rape and torture them.

So the question was, what's going to be the human cost of a land invasion of Japan? They assumed they would have to fight not just entrenched enemy soldiers fighting for their homes, but the civilian population as well. It was also assumed this would mean the war would drag on for much longer.

Hindsight is 20/20 and we can look at this in comfy chairs from an academic setting. They didn't have such privilege.