Yeah right. You still won’t answer the question. You win the title as the biggest liberal on this thread. Say hey to Obama for me.
What do you think it means when Admiral Leahy called it a barbarous weapon? when he said he had not been trained to make war in this fashion? When he said that the point of the exercise was to kill women and children?
What do you think it means when Admiral Nimitz disclosed that the Joint Chiefs had no part in the decision?
What do you think it means when the Under-Secretary of the Navy contends that the bomb is contrary to America’s understanding of itself as humanitarian and a champion of fair play?
What do you think it meant that Admiral Strauss and others urged a demonstration in an unpopulated area?
What do you think it means when the chief of naval operations says he doesn’t want any part of it?
What do you think it means when Gen. Spaatz insisted on a written order to go ahead with the Nagasaki bombing — and Genn. Handy, in giving him that order called himself a fall guy?
You are playing at sophistry, as if Gen. Spaatz said something like “Col. Tibbets, we have a spectacular war crime we’d like to have committed. Are you interested?” — and then Tibbets (in your cloudcuckooland version of how the world works, says: “Sure General; I’d love to. Wait’ll the boys hear about this!”
That’s not how war crimes get committed. That’s not how the Jews were murdered in Europe. People about to do dirty work are damn careful not to call it by its right name. They are guilty all the same. Some of them — not enough — got hanged all the same. Even if they got a nice medal and a handshake from the boss to help sell the thing as a proud success.
We can’t discuss this anymore because you and I are from two different worlds. I advise you not to sling around terms like liberal or conservative because it’s clear your understanding is so debauched and your mind so darkened that you’ve lost all contact with what they mean.