Thread: USA cartoon

I don't think it is that funny, but I don't think it is in bad taste either.

Hiroshma was a tragedy, but one of which I don't know it could be avoided.
Still, laughing with tragedy is a human way to deal with it. ER doctors laugh with what they deal with, as do lawyers, undertakers, ...
It is simply a way of dealing with it.
The same goes for the Mohammed cartoon.

As for the bombings...
60 years later it is easy to take weeks pouring over information, and then deciding what the people of the day had only days for, with unreliable info to base their decision on.

The one good thing that flowed from the bombings of Hirsohima and Nagasaki -which were terribly inefficient, as far as nukes go- is that everyone became so scared of MAD that noone ever depolyed the real bad boys, like the megaton hydrogen bombs.

I also think that the pilots didn't know what they were going to drop.
They would've known it was out of the ordinary, but with the 'need to know' in the military, they would not have known what they were going to cause.

That gives a slanted view of it. In fairness, most political cartoons do. To frame it properly, mention which publication it was originally printed in.

The obvious omission is the beginning of the story. The cartoon, only takes the conclusion of the story for their attempt at making a point.

Regards,
Mitch

Originally Posted by SinglerM

That gives a slanted view of it. In fairness, most political cartoons do. To frame it properly, mention which publication it was originally printed in.

The obvious omission is the beginning of the story. The cartoon, only takes the conclusion of the story for their attempt at making a point.

Regards,
Mitch

Actually, "objective" is a better word to use than "slanted."

The kid in the cartoon (an innocent, whose mind is not clouded by any personal bias) presumably knows nothing about that particular bombing, which ultimately claimed over a hundred thousand lives. With the recent willingness to throw the word "terror" around quite a bit, the child is simply learning about another premeditated attack (which, frankly, was intended to destroy civilian life on a massive scale), and calling it what he assumes others around him would.

After having fire bombed many of Japan's wooden cities for quite some time, killing untold numbers of civilians, the US was frustrated that their enemy's will to fight was unbroken and as defiant as ever. In their desperation, a way to bring Japan's stubborn military brass to their knees was sought. Cold and calculated, the two famous bombs they dropped did exactly that, which brought on the unconditional surrender. Was it an effective decision that saved many Allied lives? You better believe it. When asked to recall their memories, do the Japanese describe it in those words? Absolutely not. They will describe terror in graphic detail - a word more commonly used by those who are terrorized, as opposed to those who unleash terror.

The 9/11 attackers obviously didn't underline "terror" on a whiteboard during their planning stages; they set out to do as the Enola Gay pilots did, and bring a defiant enemy to its knees in a fell swoop. The civilian lives lost on that day were a fraction of those lost to the many bombings in Japan. The point is, each attacker viewed their actions as "necessary," and neither thought of themselves as "terrorists" in the undertaking.

Originally Posted by Blade Wielder

Actually, "objective" is a better word to use than "slanted." ...The 9/11 attackers... set out to ...bring a defiant enemy to its knees in a fell swoop. The civilian lives lost on that day were a fraction of those lost to the many bombings in Japan. The point is, each attacker viewed their actions as "necessary," and neither thought of themselves as "terrorists" in the undertaking.

also words of truth

[quote=Blade Wielder;164941]Actually, "objective" is a better word to use than "slanted."

**Objectivity remains to be seen. I am curious where this was originally published.
**

The kid in the cartoon (an innocent, whose mind is not clouded by any personal bias) presumably knows nothing about that particular bombing, which ultimately claimed over a hundred thousand lives. With the recent willingness to throw the word "terror" around quite a bit, the child is simply learning about another premeditated attack (which, frankly, was intended to destroy civilian life on a massive scale), and calling it what he assumes others around him would.

**The cartoon makes a statement to the effect that America is a terrorist organization. It ignores the fact that the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese Government of the day, resulted in us being at war with them. I am not a historian, but I don't believe it's accurate to portray the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as two single attacks by us. To frame everything properly, you would have to acknowledge the events leading up to it, starting with Pearl Harbor. These events are related. I do not know what information America's leaders had available to them at at time. Nor do I presume to know what information the Japanese leadership of the day had available to them either. Perhaps the Japanese felt that Pearl Harbor was a preemptive attack. It's possible they acted on intelligence of some sort.
**

Regards,
Mitch

[QUOTE=SinglerM;165932]

Originally Posted by SinglerM

**Objectivity remains to be seen. I am curious where this was originally published.
**

I was talking about the kid in the cartoon; someone with (presumably) no knowledge of the bombings in Japan. Through his eyes, it was simply a premeditated attack which resulted in an enormous loss of civilan lives.

**The cartoon makes a statement to the effect that America is a terrorist organization. It ignores the fact that the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese Government of the day, resulted in us being at war with them. I am not a historian, but I don't believe it's accurate to portray the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as two single attacks by us. To frame everything properly, you would have to acknowledge the events leading up to it, starting with Pearl Harbor. These events are related. I do not know what information America's leaders had available to them at at time. Nor do I presume to know what information the Japanese leadership of the day had available to them either. Perhaps the Japanese felt that Pearl Harbor was a preemptive attack. It's possible they acted on intelligence of some sort.
**

Regards,
Mitch

By that rationale, every political cartoon would have to be prefaced by a detailed, written history on whatever topic it addressed. The events that preceded the bombings are inconsequential - the reader doesn't need a play by play of who hit who first. Radical muslims who hate the US and fly planes into buildings obviously feel they too have been wronged and that their actions are justified - but do you want them to list exactly how? Of course not.

Everyone knows that at this point in history, it was a war time situation. The author obivously isn't stating that America is a terrorist organization as you suggest, but simply noting a highly controversial attack not on a military base, as was the case with Pearl Harbor, but on cities, which turned thousands upon thousands of civilians into charcoal. So forget that there was a war going on and that the powers at be dropped those bombs to bring a speedy end to the war -- a not-so-subtle hint that the rest of the island could be wiped off the map just as easily. As I already pointed out, the people who carried out the attacks on 9/11 obviously had their reasons too, since they were willing to die in the act, but I'm sure their motives don't matter to you. They're simply terrorists.

That's the point this cartoon is making: it wants you to ignore what inspires any "terrorist" attack and look at the event for what it caused -- a lot of dead innocent people.

By the way, if you click the "quote" button beneath someone's post, you can manipulate what they've typed in the reply box without having to type asterisks.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I also think that the pilots didn't know what they were going to drop.
They would've known it was out of the ordinary, but with the 'need to know' in the military, they would not have known what they were going to cause.

They knew, a member of the black powder shooting club in Arizona that I was in was the reserve navigator for the Enloa Gay. He said they were told to wear special goggles when the bomb dropped. They were also training intensely what he referred to as the "drop and scoot". They had to drop the bomb and get as much air speed as they could to get out of the blast area. I remember hearing Paul Tibbets (the pilot) stating he felt like his seat was hit with a sledge hammer with the shock wave hit the plane. I also remembering him saying he had no regrets of dropping the bomb. It shaved hundreds of thousands of lives for all countries concerned by helping the war conclude.

I also remember reading that the pilot has publicly stated many times that he had no regrets whatsoever. I can imagine that almost anybody in his place will feel the same though - if you want to remain sane, you better view what you did as 'saving lives'.

As far as how many lives were saved by the bombings that's just speculation anyways. It precipitated unconditional surrender, however, most of that summer the japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender. Obviously the unconditional part of it was more important to the US politicians than the 'hundreds of thousands of lives'. And then clearly its better that those deaths are born by the enemy, even if you have to trade for civilians, than by both militaries in continued fighting.

But I'll be really surprised if the only consideration was the surrender of Japan. I just can't imagine how a demonstration to to rest of the world of the new military capability of US hasn't been just as important. But perhaps Bruno is right, if using a nuclear weapon just to see how it works in real life was unavoidable due to our human nature, it is best that you use a small one early on and get over with it.

Originally Posted by gugi

But I'll be really surprised if the only consideration was the surrender of Japan. I just can't imagine how a demonstration to to rest of the world of the new military capability of US hasn't been just as important.

maybe even more important

Originally Posted by Kenrup

.... It shaved hundreds of thousands of lives for all countries concerned by helping the war conclude...

Kenrup ia absoloutly correct, and any honest review of history will show this.

The dropping of the A-Bomb was no more of a terrorist act than the invasion of Manchuria or the Blitz. Anyone who feels that Japan was the unfortunate victim of Imperial US agression should review the events at Pearl Harbor, the Philipines, and Nanking. And if you've a strong stomach, google Unit 731.

Wat the dropping of an A-Bomb horrible? Yes, of course it was, but so is every aspect of war. It is homicide on an industrial scale. For those of you who stil think that it was wrong to use that particular weapon,ask yourself honestly, would the Japanese have used it if they had it?