Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
paji2 wrote on Aug 14
Very true; in his first letter, John makes that point very clear."Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." (1 John 4;7& 8, NKJ)
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 14
In the first place I thought God is far and exists beyond our comprehension. It was just the objective of admiration. As I heard his explanation I feel him much closer to me. I can simply believe in God if God is the representation of those virtues.
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Aug 14
What does that mean for those who know only unrequited love? :-/
reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Aug 14
Than you only have half a God. ;-)Cheers,Ethelred
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 14
I don't know about religious belief. But if God is the personification of these virtues, we have nothing for it but to believe in God.
I think love is in essence a requited one, never mind.
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Aug 14
A little bit of Les Miserables you might appreciate:We are equally far removed from the hosanna of Joseph de Maistre, who wound up by anointing the executioner, and from the sneer of Voltaire, who even goes so far as to ridicule the cross.An illogical act on Voltaire's part, we may remark, by the way; for Voltaire would have defended Jesus as he defended Calas; and even for those who deny superhuman incarnations, what does the crucifix represent? The assassinated sage.
reply
controlgroup wrote on Aug 14
I'm sorry but I don't think this makes sense. Are you saying that if you don't believe in God you can't love, or have wisdom? Because that's silly. Lots of people love without God. Lots of people have loved so much that they forgive Christians who tortured them to death because they didn't believe; for example, the cathars did exactly this during the inquisition.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 14
Of course you can love without believing in any God or gods. It's the other way around, I think: if you don't love, you don't really believe in a higher being. Or you think you believe because you've been taught certain things, but you don't know God.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 14
You can believe in love - and love others - without absolutely having to personify the concept. It's a personal choice.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
paji2 wrote on Aug 14
If my understanding is correct, Moses did cross the Red Sea - however not the Red Sea as we know it today. Be it an arm of it, long gone, or the Red Sea shifted, I do not know.But I think you are essential correct that the route as we might imagine it today would be out of the way, and even with God parting the sea, the bed would have been too deep and almost impassable.
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 14
This type of replacement sometimes occurs when the name remains but where the exact place was untraceable. I guess Red Sea was called so because of the colour of numerous sands carried from upper river, which must have been a big river and judging from surrounding geographical situations, See of Reeds might be one of the proper candidates.
reply
paji2 wrote on Aug 14
mercedo saidSee of Reeds might be one of the proper candidates. There is a weight of evidence suggesting this to be so.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 14
I'd be interested to know how similar - if at all - the Hebrew words for "red" and "reed" are. This sounds a bit strange. There's not much difference between ebb and flood in the Mediterranean, for instance.Personally I think the whole story is a myth made by people who had only heard about Egypt and the Red Sea.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 7:52 AM
My Bible footnote says in Hebrew Yam Suph, that is the Sea of Reeds.
Probably this Hebrew words mean the Sea of Reeds, but New International Version followed the traditional translation, which was the Red Sea though it was not exactly the Red Sea judging from Hebrew words.
There's not much difference between ebb and flood in the Mediterranean, for instance.
I saw Mediterranean Sea one time in Venice. If there had been ebb and flood there, the whole city of Venice would not have survived.
Personally I think the whole story is a myth made by people who had only heard about Egypt and the Red Sea.
I think the whole story of Genesis is mythical. Many people live slightly less than 1 millennium, for instance, and there's no description between the event Joseph invited his 11 brothers and the beginning of Exodus though there must have several hundred years time.
As to crossing the sea, there might have appeared the passage had the direction of flow in the lower part of Nile changed. It might have been a complete fiction to emphasise the miraculous power of their God.
reply
paji2 wrote on Aug 14
If my understanding is correct, Moses did cross the Red Sea - however not the Red Sea as we know it today. Be it an arm of it, long gone, or the Red Sea shifted, I do not know.But I think you are essential correct that the route as we might imagine it today would be out of the way, and even with God parting the sea, the bed would have been too deep and almost impassable.
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 14
This type of replacement sometimes occurs when the name remains but where the exact place was untraceable. I guess Red Sea was called so because of the colour of numerous sands carried from upper river, which must have been a big river and judging from surrounding geographical situations, See of Reeds might be one of the proper candidates.
reply
paji2 wrote on Aug 14
mercedo saidSee of Reeds might be one of the proper candidates. There is a weight of evidence suggesting this to be so.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 14
I'd be interested to know how similar - if at all - the Hebrew words for "red" and "reed" are. This sounds a bit strange. There's not much difference between ebb and flood in the Mediterranean, for instance.Personally I think the whole story is a myth made by people who had only heard about Egypt and the Red Sea.
reply
mercedo wrote today at 7:52 AM
My Bible footnote says in Hebrew Yam Suph, that is the Sea of Reeds.
Probably this Hebrew words mean the Sea of Reeds, but New International Version followed the traditional translation, which was the Red Sea though it was not exactly the Red Sea judging from Hebrew words.
There's not much difference between ebb and flood in the Mediterranean, for instance.
I saw Mediterranean Sea one time in Venice. If there had been ebb and flood there, the whole city of Venice would not have survived.
Personally I think the whole story is a myth made by people who had only heard about Egypt and the Red Sea.
I think the whole story of Genesis is mythical. Many people live slightly less than 1 millennium, for instance, and there's no description between the event Joseph invited his 11 brothers and the beginning of Exodus though there must have several hundred years time.
As to crossing the sea, there might have appeared the passage had the direction of flow in the lower part of Nile changed. It might have been a complete fiction to emphasise the miraculous power of their God.
My Bible footnote says in Hebrew Yam Suph, that is the Sea of Reeds.
Probably this Hebrew words mean the Sea of Reeds, but New International Version followed the traditional translation, which was the Red Sea though it was not exactly the Red Sea judging from Hebrew words.
There's not much difference between ebb and flood in the Mediterranean, for instance.
I saw Mediterranean Sea one time in Venice. If there had been ebb and flood there, the whole city of Venice would not have survived.
Personally I think the whole story is a myth made by people who had only heard about Egypt and the Red Sea.
I think the whole story of Genesis is mythical. Many people live slightly less than 1 millennium, for instance, and there's no description between the event Joseph invited his 11 brothers and the beginning of Exodus though there must have several hundred years time.
As to crossing the sea, there might have appeared the passage had the direction of flow in the lower part of Nile changed. It might have been a complete fiction to emphasise the miraculous power of their God.
Re:Ah, but...(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.15 4:13 (#20228541) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.15 0:08)
God was personified as a representation of those virtues. He was as good as a person, but not a person itself. In any novels, all characters are somehow a personification of good, evil, love, hate, etc. Personification is one of the most effective ways to persuade people. We don't normally think heroes of actual people. They only live in a world of fictions.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.15 4:13 (#20228541) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.15 0:08)
God was personified as a representation of those virtues. He was as good as a person, but not a person itself. In any novels, all characters are somehow a personification of good, evil, love, hate, etc. Personification is one of the most effective ways to persuade people. We don't normally think heroes of actual people. They only live in a world of fictions.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:heh(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.15 3:11 (#20227465) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.15 0:08)
That's why we call you Captain Splendid!
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.15 3:11 (#20227465) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.15 0:08)
That's why we call you Captain Splendid!
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:Love(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.15 3:08 (#20227419) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.15 0:08)
Love is strong, but fragile.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.15 3:08 (#20227419) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.15 0:08)
Love is strong, but fragile.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:Ah, but...(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.15 3:04 (#20227359) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.15 0:08)
Epicurus was a prolific writer, yet only scarce pieces were left. It was unknown how all his writings were banished. His thought was very acceptable from today's materialistic worldview, but his thought must have been quite unacceptable from Platonic worldview and Christian worldview. Both allowed spiritual aspects, immortality of soul or eternal life. From Epicurian point of view those terms meant nothing.
Today we know Epicurus is the father of materialism. He was the first person that was able to steer clear of any fog covered above our mind.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.15 3:04 (#20227359) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.15 0:08)
Epicurus was a prolific writer, yet only scarce pieces were left. It was unknown how all his writings were banished. His thought was very acceptable from today's materialistic worldview, but his thought must have been quite unacceptable from Platonic worldview and Christian worldview. Both allowed spiritual aspects, immortality of soul or eternal life. From Epicurian point of view those terms meant nothing.
Today we know Epicurus is the father of materialism. He was the first person that was able to steer clear of any fog covered above our mind.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
mercedo wrote today at 2:27 AM
This type of replacement sometimes occurs when the name remains but where the exact place was untraceable. I guess Red Sea was called so because of the colour of numerous sands carried from upper river, which must have been a big river and judging from surrounding geographical situations, See of Reeds might be one of the proper candidates.
This type of replacement sometimes occurs when the name remains but where the exact place was untraceable. I guess Red Sea was called so because of the colour of numerous sands carried from upper river, which must have been a big river and judging from surrounding geographical situations, See of Reeds might be one of the proper candidates.
mercedo wrote today at 2:13 AM
He was a Jew born in Taurus, he was a tent-maker, he used to be a Pharisee and converted to Christian. He didn't ask help of God, or probably he did in private. But above all of things he was a Roman citizen. It was his citizenship not his faith that saved him in the face of great difficulty that threatened even to his life.
He was a Jew born in Taurus, he was a tent-maker, he used to be a Pharisee and converted to Christian. He didn't ask help of God, or probably he did in private. But above all of things he was a Roman citizen. It was his citizenship not his faith that saved him in the face of great difficulty that threatened even to his life.
mercedo wrote today at 1:25 AM
In the first place I thought God is far and exists beyond our comprehension. It was just the objective of admiration. As I heard his explanation I feel him much closer to me. I can simply believe in God if God is the representation of those virtues.
In the first place I thought God is far and exists beyond our comprehension. It was just the objective of admiration. As I heard his explanation I feel him much closer to me. I can simply believe in God if God is the representation of those virtues.
mercedo wrote today at 1:12 AM
I don't know about religious belief. But if God is the personification of these virtues, we have nothing for it but to believe in God.
I think love is in essence a requited one, never mind.
I don't know about religious belief. But if God is the personification of these virtues, we have nothing for it but to believe in God.
I think love is in essence a requited one, never mind.
I believe in God
One of my best friends pointed out pointing one of the famous Bible account that is God is love. He said God is love, not God has love. That means God is a personification of love as well as wisdom, power, justice.
We must believe in God or at least we ought to.
We must believe in God or at least we ought to.
Re:Ah, but...(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.15 0:56 (#20225661) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.15 0:08)
Wisdom, power, love, justice...these attributes are all virtues. If God is the personification of those features, I thought we have no way other than believing in those virtues, just in short we call those virtues God.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.15 0:56 (#20225661) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.15 0:08)
Wisdom, power, love, justice...these attributes are all virtues. If God is the personification of those features, I thought we have no way other than believing in those virtues, just in short we call those virtues God.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:Or a natural phenomenon(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.15 0:51 (#20225599) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.15 0:08)
I checked the map again and I found a strait narrow enough to cross with the help of those astronomical knowledges. It might be hard to determine where actual crossing was taken place, but I think this was a real event.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.15 0:51 (#20225599) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.15 0:08)
I checked the map again and I found a strait narrow enough to cross with the help of those astronomical knowledges. It might be hard to determine where actual crossing was taken place, but I think this was a real event.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Did St Paul meet Caesar?
He insisted he meet Caesar when he was talking to local authority or he asked this local ruler to make him see Caesar. But I think he didn't see Caesar. There's no direct description as to him seeing Caesar.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Where is the Red Sea?
I read Exodus in New International Version and in the description of crossing the Red Sea the note says that is the Sea of Reed located at the lower Nile that has an ebb, so I understand Moses was well versed in astronomy and he made use of his knowledge and he crossed the Sea when the land appeared from above the sea.
But one of best Christian friends insisted that he as well as Jewish people crossed the Red Sea and he thinks it is well in accordance with Bible descriptions. But I think it's hard to cross the Red Sea, because it's too deep the seabed lies. Do you really think Moses really crossed the Red Sea or Sea of Reeds? Also it's too circumnavigating way to take the root across the Red Sea when Canaan is just next to lower Niles.
See you again on line!
http://mercedo.multiply.com/
http://mercedo.multiply.com/journal
Hi, x...
You are about to leave Japan and it's going to be much harder to see one another.
I would like to visit you sometime in the Philippines, till then let's keep in touch.
The best way to keep in touch is make a comment in my blog, you can do it from your religious point of view.
See you soon.
Mer
http://mercedo.multiply.com/journal
Hi, x...
You are about to leave Japan and it's going to be much harder to see one another.
I would like to visit you sometime in the Philippines, till then let's keep in touch.
The best way to keep in touch is make a comment in my blog, you can do it from your religious point of view.
See you soon.
Mer
Monday, August 13, 2007
Hi!
We came back from Mt Aso yesterday.
I'm not sure if I can come though -my job tends to get late on Tuesday, I intend to attend the ministry school on Thursday. See you soon Mer〓
I'm not sure if I can come though -my job tends to get late on Tuesday, I intend to attend the ministry school on Thursday. See you soon Mer〓
Suggestion
For me discussion is very important. If I can't come would you please hold the discussion as the same theme either on Thursday or on Sunday. I think that'll work 〓
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Dacha in Mt Aso
Aug 12, '07 11:20 PMfor everyone
I took holiday from 8th of August to 11th and I spent a couple of days in dacha, I mean second house. I must emphasise I don't have a second house, I rent it for one night.
Mt Aso is 1500 metre high and it was of course cool. I went there by my car via express way.
Nice refreshing time.
Aug 12, '07 11:20 PMfor everyone
I took holiday from 8th of August to 11th and I spent a couple of days in dacha, I mean second house. I must emphasise I don't have a second house, I rent it for one night.
Mt Aso is 1500 metre high and it was of course cool. I went there by my car via express way.
Nice refreshing time.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
The only thing I can say is that it was the most horrible deed ever done by humans to other humans.Perhaps they didn't quite know what they were doing. Perhaps they didn't know that survivors would have deformed children and die slowly and painfully. I hope they didn't. My respect to the Japanese people on this sorrowful anniversary.
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 6
At that time all Japanese people were determined to die in the event of US army landing. In fact people of Okinawa where actual US landing were taken place almost all people in Okinawa killed themselves in the event of war against US invasion.
Atomic bomb made Japanese people realise the resistance is in vain. I don't mind which nationality the victims were. I think the lesser the number of casualties the better no matter who.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 6
Here's a repost of something I pasted for the history discussion group, called "An opportunity to impress the world -- by using the atomic bomb":An article called "Atomic Diplomacy" by Gar Alperovitz describes the thinking of many American and British leaders in 1945 concerning the option of using the atomic bomb on real cities.When General Eisenhower was advised by U.S. Secretary of State Stimson that the bomb would be used on Japan, he described his response as follows:"During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first of the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnessary, and secondly because I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. ... It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."Before the bomb was dropped, each of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff advised that it was highly likely that Japan would surrender unconditionally without either use of the atomic bomb or an invasion of the Japanese mainland. General Marshall, for example, said "The impact of the Russian entry on the already hopeless Japanese may well be the decisive action levering them to capitulation."Admiral Leahy later advised, "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."British General Ismay said he was sure Japan was "tottering", and when he heard plans for use of the atomic bomb his response was "revulsion".And Winston Churchill later wrote, "It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell ...".After the war the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported: "Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."Why was it done over all these voices? In June 1945 the U.S. Interim Committee Panel debated the idea of exploding the bomb as a "demonstration" in an unpopulated area, as a warning on what could be used unless Japan surrendered. But panel member A.H. Compton persuaded most members that it must be a "combat demonstration" on an actual population center. Otherwise it would be the "loss of the opportunity to impress the world". Robert Oppenheimer said the State Department seemed mainly concerned about "the effect of our actions on the stability, on our strength, and the stability of the postwar world". He also said that much of this debate revolved around whether the atomic bomb might be of help in influencing Russia. As Secretary of State Stimson put it, "We have got to regain the lead and perhaps do it in a pretty rough and realistic way. ... We have coming into action a weapon which will be unique. Now the thing [to do is] ... let our actions speak for themselves".One atomic scientist spoke with President Truman's secretary Jimmy Byrnes in May 1945, and said, "Mr. Byrnes did not argue that it was necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order to win the war. ... Mr. Byrnes's ... view [was] that our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable in Europe."from pages 234-237, "An Age of Conflict: Readings in Twentieth-Century European History", Editor, Leslie Derfler
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
mercedo saidI don't mind which nationality the victims were. I think the lesser the number of casualties the better no matter who. I might agree if there hadn't been those terrible late effects. Unborn children as casualties of war? It's too horrible for words. And after I've seen what Brian just posted - my God!
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Aug 6
For all of this, I must offer up two points that seem overlooked in all this:1) The military leadership actually attempted to depose the Emperor once they realized he was going to offer surrender. The Japanese military may have been defeated, but they would not willingly surrender. To say invasion was unnecessary misunderstands the nature of the Japanese military leadership (and thus by extension, the entire Japanese military, given the level of obedience required).2) As much as an invasion of the islands may not have been necessary, the willingness of the Japanese populace to sacrifice and suffer for the Emperor was enoromous. The MILLION MAN army still in China was barely under control of the Emperor, it never entirely quite was from the beginning. Would this army have continued resisting if they hadn't been made aware of the atomic bomb through its actual use? As it was in the actual event, a number of Japanese soldiers continued resisting, in a few cases even for DECADES, after the war concluded. Without this awesome display of firepower, perhaps more would have been encouraged to resist, especially if they felt out of reach of the Americans by virtue of being on the Asian mainland. How much longer should the Chinese (and Koreans and Vietnamese and Burmese and Siamese, etc.) be asked to suffer just so Ike wouldn't feel so bad about using the atomic bomb? How many more civilians raped and murdered? How many villages razed and treasures looted? Just to satisfy one man's ego? From the extremely narrow perspective of the US military leadership, I suppose the atomic bomb may not have been particularly necessary, but when you look beyond that to the entire picture world wide, the case is much less clear.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 6
When the Russians attacked the Japanese army in Manchuria and Korea in the summer of 1945, they encountered little serious resistance and were surprized to receive large-scale surrenders of Japanese troops. The Chinese communist army was also making good headway against an increasingly feeble and demoralized enemy. Same goes for the Vietnamese resistance.I think we should believe the US Joint Chiefs of Staff when they said the bomb was militarily unneeded. And the fact that it was used (not just on an unpopulated area as a "demonstration", and not once, but twice) means that the military leaders were overridden by politicial considerations. Where the Nazis and Japanese had hoped to terrify their enemies into submission through horrific massacres of civilians or prisoners of war, the US government sought to do the same thing to all future enemies by an act even more horrifying
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
And the cold war followed. Brian and I grew up with it."You've thrown the worst fear that can ever be hurledThe fear to bring children into the world,For threatening my baby - unborn and unnamed -You ain't worth the blood that runs in your veins."Bob Dylan: Masters of War.
reply
mikemol wrote on Aug 6
ullangoo saidI might agree if there hadn't been those terrible late effects. Unborn children as casualties of war? It's too horrible for words. And after I've seen what Brian just posted - my God! I don't believe atomic bombs were thought to produce much fallout at the time. Not to mention that there hadn't been much research into the effects of radiation on non-target generations until after the results of those two bombs were seen.
reply
mikemol wrote on Aug 6
briangriffith saidWhere the Nazis and Japanese had hoped to terrify their enemies into submission through horrific massacres of civilians or prisoners of war, the US government sought to do the same thing to all future enemies by an act even more horrifying I thought the Nazis tried to keep those activities quiet. Sure, knowledge of them could be spread by word of mouth, but they kept a lid on them as far as broadcast media was concerned. (I imagine they didn't want their ghetto populations to riot.)I'm inclined to agree with you, though, that the decision to drop the bomb was politically motivated. Perhaps the war could have been concluded in a conventional manner. Bringing it to an abrupt close immediately set the US up as a superpower. Either you did what the US asked, or you faced the big stick.If plans for the atomic bomb hadn't been leaked to the Soviet Union, the Cold War might not have been fought via proxy wars. Instead, hostilities might have quickly reignited, turning Europe into a hot front line, rather than a cold one. No telling which side would have won; atomic bombs were expensive, and effective delivery mechanisms were lacking. (The advent of nuke-carrying missiles changed that, of course, though the B-52 certainly made putting bombs on their targets easier.)
reply
ahfeiko wrote today at 2:14 AM
till today,are there or is there anymore "left-behind" Japanese soldiers in the Pacific islands ?
reply
corporatetroll wrote today at 5:27 AM
Probably not... Considering that the last one surrendered in 1974. An 18 year old in 1945 would be 80 now. It's possible, but quite unlikely by now.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
The only thing I can say is that it was the most horrible deed ever done by humans to other humans.Perhaps they didn't quite know what they were doing. Perhaps they didn't know that survivors would have deformed children and die slowly and painfully. I hope they didn't. My respect to the Japanese people on this sorrowful anniversary.
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 6
At that time all Japanese people were determined to die in the event of US army landing. In fact people of Okinawa where actual US landing were taken place almost all people in Okinawa killed themselves in the event of war against US invasion.
Atomic bomb made Japanese people realise the resistance is in vain. I don't mind which nationality the victims were. I think the lesser the number of casualties the better no matter who.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 6
Here's a repost of something I pasted for the history discussion group, called "An opportunity to impress the world -- by using the atomic bomb":An article called "Atomic Diplomacy" by Gar Alperovitz describes the thinking of many American and British leaders in 1945 concerning the option of using the atomic bomb on real cities.When General Eisenhower was advised by U.S. Secretary of State Stimson that the bomb would be used on Japan, he described his response as follows:"During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first of the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnessary, and secondly because I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. ... It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."Before the bomb was dropped, each of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff advised that it was highly likely that Japan would surrender unconditionally without either use of the atomic bomb or an invasion of the Japanese mainland. General Marshall, for example, said "The impact of the Russian entry on the already hopeless Japanese may well be the decisive action levering them to capitulation."Admiral Leahy later advised, "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."British General Ismay said he was sure Japan was "tottering", and when he heard plans for use of the atomic bomb his response was "revulsion".And Winston Churchill later wrote, "It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell ...".After the war the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported: "Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."Why was it done over all these voices? In June 1945 the U.S. Interim Committee Panel debated the idea of exploding the bomb as a "demonstration" in an unpopulated area, as a warning on what could be used unless Japan surrendered. But panel member A.H. Compton persuaded most members that it must be a "combat demonstration" on an actual population center. Otherwise it would be the "loss of the opportunity to impress the world". Robert Oppenheimer said the State Department seemed mainly concerned about "the effect of our actions on the stability, on our strength, and the stability of the postwar world". He also said that much of this debate revolved around whether the atomic bomb might be of help in influencing Russia. As Secretary of State Stimson put it, "We have got to regain the lead and perhaps do it in a pretty rough and realistic way. ... We have coming into action a weapon which will be unique. Now the thing [to do is] ... let our actions speak for themselves".One atomic scientist spoke with President Truman's secretary Jimmy Byrnes in May 1945, and said, "Mr. Byrnes did not argue that it was necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order to win the war. ... Mr. Byrnes's ... view [was] that our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable in Europe."from pages 234-237, "An Age of Conflict: Readings in Twentieth-Century European History", Editor, Leslie Derfler
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
mercedo saidI don't mind which nationality the victims were. I think the lesser the number of casualties the better no matter who. I might agree if there hadn't been those terrible late effects. Unborn children as casualties of war? It's too horrible for words. And after I've seen what Brian just posted - my God!
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Aug 6
For all of this, I must offer up two points that seem overlooked in all this:1) The military leadership actually attempted to depose the Emperor once they realized he was going to offer surrender. The Japanese military may have been defeated, but they would not willingly surrender. To say invasion was unnecessary misunderstands the nature of the Japanese military leadership (and thus by extension, the entire Japanese military, given the level of obedience required).2) As much as an invasion of the islands may not have been necessary, the willingness of the Japanese populace to sacrifice and suffer for the Emperor was enoromous. The MILLION MAN army still in China was barely under control of the Emperor, it never entirely quite was from the beginning. Would this army have continued resisting if they hadn't been made aware of the atomic bomb through its actual use? As it was in the actual event, a number of Japanese soldiers continued resisting, in a few cases even for DECADES, after the war concluded. Without this awesome display of firepower, perhaps more would have been encouraged to resist, especially if they felt out of reach of the Americans by virtue of being on the Asian mainland. How much longer should the Chinese (and Koreans and Vietnamese and Burmese and Siamese, etc.) be asked to suffer just so Ike wouldn't feel so bad about using the atomic bomb? How many more civilians raped and murdered? How many villages razed and treasures looted? Just to satisfy one man's ego? From the extremely narrow perspective of the US military leadership, I suppose the atomic bomb may not have been particularly necessary, but when you look beyond that to the entire picture world wide, the case is much less clear.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 6
When the Russians attacked the Japanese army in Manchuria and Korea in the summer of 1945, they encountered little serious resistance and were surprized to receive large-scale surrenders of Japanese troops. The Chinese communist army was also making good headway against an increasingly feeble and demoralized enemy. Same goes for the Vietnamese resistance.I think we should believe the US Joint Chiefs of Staff when they said the bomb was militarily unneeded. And the fact that it was used (not just on an unpopulated area as a "demonstration", and not once, but twice) means that the military leaders were overridden by politicial considerations. Where the Nazis and Japanese had hoped to terrify their enemies into submission through horrific massacres of civilians or prisoners of war, the US government sought to do the same thing to all future enemies by an act even more horrifying
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
And the cold war followed. Brian and I grew up with it."You've thrown the worst fear that can ever be hurledThe fear to bring children into the world,For threatening my baby - unborn and unnamed -You ain't worth the blood that runs in your veins."Bob Dylan: Masters of War.
reply
mikemol wrote on Aug 6
ullangoo saidI might agree if there hadn't been those terrible late effects. Unborn children as casualties of war? It's too horrible for words. And after I've seen what Brian just posted - my God! I don't believe atomic bombs were thought to produce much fallout at the time. Not to mention that there hadn't been much research into the effects of radiation on non-target generations until after the results of those two bombs were seen.
reply
mikemol wrote on Aug 6
briangriffith saidWhere the Nazis and Japanese had hoped to terrify their enemies into submission through horrific massacres of civilians or prisoners of war, the US government sought to do the same thing to all future enemies by an act even more horrifying I thought the Nazis tried to keep those activities quiet. Sure, knowledge of them could be spread by word of mouth, but they kept a lid on them as far as broadcast media was concerned. (I imagine they didn't want their ghetto populations to riot.)I'm inclined to agree with you, though, that the decision to drop the bomb was politically motivated. Perhaps the war could have been concluded in a conventional manner. Bringing it to an abrupt close immediately set the US up as a superpower. Either you did what the US asked, or you faced the big stick.If plans for the atomic bomb hadn't been leaked to the Soviet Union, the Cold War might not have been fought via proxy wars. Instead, hostilities might have quickly reignited, turning Europe into a hot front line, rather than a cold one. No telling which side would have won; atomic bombs were expensive, and effective delivery mechanisms were lacking. (The advent of nuke-carrying missiles changed that, of course, though the B-52 certainly made putting bombs on their targets easier.)
reply
ahfeiko wrote today at 2:14 AM
till today,are there or is there anymore "left-behind" Japanese soldiers in the Pacific islands ?
reply
corporatetroll wrote today at 5:27 AM
Probably not... Considering that the last one surrendered in 1974. An 18 year old in 1945 would be 80 now. It's possible, but quite unlikely by now.
mercedo wrote today at 4:14 AM
But at least they need to mind the eyes of men incessantly if they only wear a mini-skirt in an office. Leg-ins perfectly protect their legs and hips safely from the curious eyes of opposite sex. They can and probably their opposite sex too can concentrate only on their works.
But at least they need to mind the eyes of men incessantly if they only wear a mini-skirt in an office. Leg-ins perfectly protect their legs and hips safely from the curious eyes of opposite sex. They can and probably their opposite sex too can concentrate only on their works.
mercedo wrote today at 4:03 AM
If men started wear their white shirts very roughly without putting the rim in upper part of trousers, men look very similar to women wearing a leg-ins.
If men started wear their white shirts very roughly without putting the rim in upper part of trousers, men look very similar to women wearing a leg-ins.
In this summer I saw for the first time them wearing tights inside their mini-skirt. Many women wear like this combination. This is a fashion trend up-to-date. Long skirt is too hot for them to wear, mini-skirt is suitable for them to wear in summer, but it is not permissible for them to wear a mini-skirt only in an office, so they combined to wear tights inside their mini-skirt. They were able to fulfill their desire to wear mini-skirt and body-conscious looking, that are in anyway sexy from the eyes of opposite sex, with sacrificing a bit of cool touch.
mercedo wrote today at 3:21 AM
Mostly agreed. His teaching were not particularly religious, though, his followers made him an objective of worship. So it's no wonder many people call his idea a religion.
Mostly agreed. His teaching were not particularly religious, though, his followers made him an objective of worship. So it's no wonder many people call his idea a religion.
mercedo wrote today at 3:08 AM
I learned many basic notions of philosophy in minor ages. So I tend to think some philosophical concept rather narrower than ordinary use of word. So religion must be something that is believed firmly by their followers. Civilisation must be related to materialistic development in human culture and culture must be related to spiritual development in human civilisation. So according to my definitions, airplane, computer, tools are civilisation. Language, religion, are cultures. I cannot easily change my definition of religion in a similar way.
I noticed one point in your post. Confucius doesn't have to believe firmly his thought, but the followers of Confucius, kind of Confucius-ians do. Of course they believe firmly his thought, idea, etc. The followers of Confucius formed a religion. What I was saying was his teachings themselves. I daren't deny we call the practice of the followers of Confucius a religion.
I learned many basic notions of philosophy in minor ages. So I tend to think some philosophical concept rather narrower than ordinary use of word. So religion must be something that is believed firmly by their followers. Civilisation must be related to materialistic development in human culture and culture must be related to spiritual development in human civilisation. So according to my definitions, airplane, computer, tools are civilisation. Language, religion, are cultures. I cannot easily change my definition of religion in a similar way.
I noticed one point in your post. Confucius doesn't have to believe firmly his thought, but the followers of Confucius, kind of Confucius-ians do. Of course they believe firmly his thought, idea, etc. The followers of Confucius formed a religion. What I was saying was his teachings themselves. I daren't deny we call the practice of the followers of Confucius a religion.
mercedo wrote today at 2:40 AM
paji2 said followers of Confucius have a "religion", for it has all the writings, decrees, rituals which belong to religions. Now I realised fundamental difference between my scope of application defined in religion and other people's. I meant the teachings of Confucius have very few point that is regarded as particularly 'religious'. He himself didn't want to be called his teachings a religion. But the followers of Confucius have a religion, because they enthusiastically tried to learn, write down his words and edit a codex and practise his teachings, they went to far to make a temples and shrines so that they worship him. This is a religion.
paji2 said followers of Confucius have a "religion", for it has all the writings, decrees, rituals which belong to religions. Now I realised fundamental difference between my scope of application defined in religion and other people's. I meant the teachings of Confucius have very few point that is regarded as particularly 'religious'. He himself didn't want to be called his teachings a religion. But the followers of Confucius have a religion, because they enthusiastically tried to learn, write down his words and edit a codex and practise his teachings, they went to far to make a temples and shrines so that they worship him. This is a religion.
Re:We were not there. (Wrong again)(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.08 2:12 (#20143937) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.07 3:42)
Many years ago I read tens of English articles about the initial target prior to Nagasaki, and many suggested it was Kokura and only poor visibility prevented them to drop it under the sky of Kokura.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.08 2:12 (#20143937) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.07 3:42)
Many years ago I read tens of English articles about the initial target prior to Nagasaki, and many suggested it was Kokura and only poor visibility prevented them to drop it under the sky of Kokura.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:No justification(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.08 1:53 (#20143665) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.07 3:42)
Sufferers from this bomb still alive. They are all already very old. No survivers will be here after more ten or twenty years. Does someone intend to make another new victims after no living witnesses exist?
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.08 1:53 (#20143665) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.07 3:42)
Sufferers from this bomb still alive. They are all already very old. No survivers will be here after more ten or twenty years. Does someone intend to make another new victims after no living witnesses exist?
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:Some more information...(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.08 1:44 (#20143531) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.07 3:42)
'400 thousand people were terminated at one second'
As you pointed out 70 thousand people were dead instantly as a result of the first blast in both cities. 400 thousand people are the aggregated number of death toll caused by this bomb from 1945 to the present. One second poetically meant half a century judging from the eternal time line of human history.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.08 1:44 (#20143531) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.07 3:42)
'400 thousand people were terminated at one second'
As you pointed out 70 thousand people were dead instantly as a result of the first blast in both cities. 400 thousand people are the aggregated number of death toll caused by this bomb from 1945 to the present. One second poetically meant half a century judging from the eternal time line of human history.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Re:Some more information...(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.08 1:29 (#20143305) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.07 3:42)
We tend to think people who speak different languages are different from themselves, or different animal other than themselves. World War II was the war over the hegemony who is to rule the world. In Europe Germans and Russians fought over it, in Asia Chinese and Japanese, in Pacific Americans and Japanese. Winners became the permanent member of UN Security council, and their influences have been determining the fate of the world in the 21st century.
Such massacres took place before the unity of Japan around 16c. They acquired their identity after unification of Japan. Likewise now we are about to have one strong identity to be cosmopolitan rather than merely nationals of some countires. We will stop killing one another only after we form one strong identity.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.08 1:29 (#20143305) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.07 3:42)
We tend to think people who speak different languages are different from themselves, or different animal other than themselves. World War II was the war over the hegemony who is to rule the world. In Europe Germans and Russians fought over it, in Asia Chinese and Japanese, in Pacific Americans and Japanese. Winners became the permanent member of UN Security council, and their influences have been determining the fate of the world in the 21st century.
Such massacres took place before the unity of Japan around 16c. They acquired their identity after unification of Japan. Likewise now we are about to have one strong identity to be cosmopolitan rather than merely nationals of some countires. We will stop killing one another only after we form one strong identity.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
HomeBlogPhotosLinks
Atomic Bomb
Aug 6, '07 12:19 PMfor everyone
62 years ago today one atomic bomb was dropped under the sky of Hiroshima. 400 thousand people were terminated at one second.
Many US articles justify dropping the atomic bomb saying it accelerated the end of war and made lessen the number of casualties both in US army and Japanese nationals who were likely to resist in the event of US army landing and they also introduced the number of casualties who were dead at the time of Tokyo incendiary carpet bombing, that is 100 thousand civilians.
Many Japanese people and newspapers accused of dropping the atomic bomb in humanity perspective. But I think it was inevitable to use the ultimate force to put an end to the war no matter how many people were victimised by this act.
Prev: Excursion IINext: Psychology of wearing leg-ins
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
The only thing I can say is that it was the most horrible deed ever done by humans to other humans.Perhaps they didn't quite know what they were doing. Perhaps they didn't know that survivors would have deformed children and die slowly and painfully. I hope they didn't. My respect to the Japanese people on this sorrowful anniversary.
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 6
At that time all Japanese people were determined to die in the event of US army landing. In fact people of Okinawa where actual US landing were taken place almost all people in Okinawa killed themselves in the event of war against US invasion.
Atomic bomb made Japanese people realise the resistance is in vain. I don't mind which nationality the victims were. I think the lesser the number of casualties the better no matter who.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
mercedo saidI don't mind which nationality the victims were. I think the lesser the number of casualties the better no matter who. I might agree if there hadn't been those terrible late effects. Unborn children as casualties of war? It's too horrible for words. And after I've seen what Brian just posted - my God!
reply
mikemol wrote on Aug 6
ullangoo saidI might agree if there hadn't been those terrible late effects. Unborn children as casualties of war? It's too horrible for words. And after I've seen what Brian just posted - my God! I don't believe atomic bombs were thought to produce much fallout at the time. Not to mention that there hadn't been much research into the effects of radiation on non-target generations until after the results of those two bombs were seen.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 6
Here's a repost of something I pasted for the history discussion group, called "An opportunity to impress the world -- by using the atomic bomb":An article called "Atomic Diplomacy" by Gar Alperovitz describes the thinking of many American and British leaders in 1945 concerning the option of using the atomic bomb on real cities.When General Eisenhower was advised by U.S. Secretary of State Stimson that the bomb would be used on Japan, he described his response as follows:"During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first of the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnessary, and secondly because I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. ... It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."Before the bomb was dropped, each of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff advised that it was highly likely that Japan would surrender unconditionally without either use of the atomic bomb or an invasion of the Japanese mainland. General Marshall, for example, said "The impact of the Russian entry on the already hopeless Japanese may well be the decisive action levering them to capitulation."Admiral Leahy later advised, "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."British General Ismay said he was sure Japan was "tottering", and when he heard plans for use of the atomic bomb his response was "revulsion".And Winston Churchill later wrote, "It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell ...".After the war the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported: "Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."Why was it done over all these voices? In June 1945 the U.S. Interim Committee Panel debated the idea of exploding the bomb as a "demonstration" in an unpopulated area, as a warning on what could be used unless Japan surrendered. But panel member A.H. Compton persuaded most members that it must be a "combat demonstration" on an actual population center. Otherwise it would be the "loss of the opportunity to impress the world". Robert Oppenheimer said the State Department seemed mainly concerned about "the effect of our actions on the stability, on our strength, and the stability of the postwar world". He also said that much of this debate revolved around whether the atomic bomb might be of help in influencing Russia. As Secretary of State Stimson put it, "We have got to regain the lead and perhaps do it in a pretty rough and realistic way. ... We have coming into action a weapon which will be unique. Now the thing [to do is] ... let our actions speak for themselves".One atomic scientist spoke with President Truman's secretary Jimmy Byrnes in May 1945, and said, "Mr. Byrnes did not argue that it was necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order to win the war. ... Mr. Byrnes's ... view [was] that our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable in Europe."from pages 234-237, "An Age of Conflict: Readings in Twentieth-Century European History", Editor, Leslie Derfler
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Aug 6
For all of this, I must offer up two points that seem overlooked in all this:1) The military leadership actually attempted to depose the Emperor once they realized he was going to offer surrender. The Japanese military may have been defeated, but they would not willingly surrender. To say invasion was unnecessary misunderstands the nature of the Japanese military leadership (and thus by extension, the entire Japanese military, given the level of obedience required).2) As much as an invasion of the islands may not have been necessary, the willingness of the Japanese populace to sacrifice and suffer for the Emperor was enoromous. The MILLION MAN army still in China was barely under control of the Emperor, it never entirely quite was from the beginning. Would this army have continued resisting if they hadn't been made aware of the atomic bomb through its actual use? As it was in the actual event, a number of Japanese soldiers continued resisting, in a few cases even for DECADES, after the war concluded. Without this awesome display of firepower, perhaps more would have been encouraged to resist, especially if they felt out of reach of the Americans by virtue of being on the Asian mainland. How much longer should the Chinese (and Koreans and Vietnamese and Burmese and Siamese, etc.) be asked to suffer just so Ike wouldn't feel so bad about using the atomic bomb? How many more civilians raped and murdered? How many villages razed and treasures looted? Just to satisfy one man's ego? From the extremely narrow perspective of the US military leadership, I suppose the atomic bomb may not have been particularly necessary, but when you look beyond that to the entire picture world wide, the case is much less clear.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 6
When the Russians attacked the Japanese army in Manchuria and Korea in the summer of 1945, they encountered little serious resistance and were surprized to receive large-scale surrenders of Japanese troops. The Chinese communist army was also making good headway against an increasingly feeble and demoralized enemy. Same goes for the Vietnamese resistance.I think we should believe the US Joint Chiefs of Staff when they said the bomb was militarily unneeded. And the fact that it was used (not just on an unpopulated area as a "demonstration", and not once, but twice) means that the military leaders were overridden by politicial considerations. Where the Nazis and Japanese had hoped to terrify their enemies into submission through horrific massacres of civilians or prisoners of war, the US government sought to do the same thing to all future enemies by an act even more horrifying
reply
mikemol wrote on Aug 6
briangriffith saidWhere the Nazis and Japanese had hoped to terrify their enemies into submission through horrific massacres of civilians or prisoners of war, the US government sought to do the same thing to all future enemies by an act even more horrifying I thought the Nazis tried to keep those activities quiet. Sure, knowledge of them could be spread by word of mouth, but they kept a lid on them as far as broadcast media was concerned. (I imagine they didn't want their ghetto populations to riot.)I'm inclined to agree with you, though, that the decision to drop the bomb was politically motivated. Perhaps the war could have been concluded in a conventional manner. Bringing it to an abrupt close immediately set the US up as a superpower. Either you did what the US asked, or you faced the big stick.If plans for the atomic bomb hadn't been leaked to the Soviet Union, the Cold War might not have been fought via proxy wars. Instead, hostilities might have quickly reignited, turning Europe into a hot front line, rather than a cold one. No telling which side would have won; atomic bombs were expensive, and effective delivery mechanisms were lacking. (The advent of nuke-carrying missiles changed that, of course, though the B-52 certainly made putting bombs on their targets easier.)
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
And the cold war followed. Brian and I grew up with it."You've thrown the worst fear that can ever be hurledThe fear to bring children into the world,For threatening my baby - unborn and unnamed -You ain't worth the blood that runs in your veins."Bob Dylan: Masters of War.
reply
ahfeiko wrote today at 2:14 AM
till today,are there or is there anymore "left-behind" Japanese soldiers in the Pacific islands ?
reply
corporatetroll wrote today at 5:27 AM
Probably not... Considering that the last one surrendered in 1974. An 18 year old in 1945 would be 80 now. It's possible, but quite unlikely by now.
Atomic Bomb
Aug 6, '07 12:19 PMfor everyone
62 years ago today one atomic bomb was dropped under the sky of Hiroshima. 400 thousand people were terminated at one second.
Many US articles justify dropping the atomic bomb saying it accelerated the end of war and made lessen the number of casualties both in US army and Japanese nationals who were likely to resist in the event of US army landing and they also introduced the number of casualties who were dead at the time of Tokyo incendiary carpet bombing, that is 100 thousand civilians.
Many Japanese people and newspapers accused of dropping the atomic bomb in humanity perspective. But I think it was inevitable to use the ultimate force to put an end to the war no matter how many people were victimised by this act.
Prev: Excursion IINext: Psychology of wearing leg-ins
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
The only thing I can say is that it was the most horrible deed ever done by humans to other humans.Perhaps they didn't quite know what they were doing. Perhaps they didn't know that survivors would have deformed children and die slowly and painfully. I hope they didn't. My respect to the Japanese people on this sorrowful anniversary.
reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 6
At that time all Japanese people were determined to die in the event of US army landing. In fact people of Okinawa where actual US landing were taken place almost all people in Okinawa killed themselves in the event of war against US invasion.
Atomic bomb made Japanese people realise the resistance is in vain. I don't mind which nationality the victims were. I think the lesser the number of casualties the better no matter who.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
mercedo saidI don't mind which nationality the victims were. I think the lesser the number of casualties the better no matter who. I might agree if there hadn't been those terrible late effects. Unborn children as casualties of war? It's too horrible for words. And after I've seen what Brian just posted - my God!
reply
mikemol wrote on Aug 6
ullangoo saidI might agree if there hadn't been those terrible late effects. Unborn children as casualties of war? It's too horrible for words. And after I've seen what Brian just posted - my God! I don't believe atomic bombs were thought to produce much fallout at the time. Not to mention that there hadn't been much research into the effects of radiation on non-target generations until after the results of those two bombs were seen.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 6
Here's a repost of something I pasted for the history discussion group, called "An opportunity to impress the world -- by using the atomic bomb":An article called "Atomic Diplomacy" by Gar Alperovitz describes the thinking of many American and British leaders in 1945 concerning the option of using the atomic bomb on real cities.When General Eisenhower was advised by U.S. Secretary of State Stimson that the bomb would be used on Japan, he described his response as follows:"During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first of the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnessary, and secondly because I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. ... It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."Before the bomb was dropped, each of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff advised that it was highly likely that Japan would surrender unconditionally without either use of the atomic bomb or an invasion of the Japanese mainland. General Marshall, for example, said "The impact of the Russian entry on the already hopeless Japanese may well be the decisive action levering them to capitulation."Admiral Leahy later advised, "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."British General Ismay said he was sure Japan was "tottering", and when he heard plans for use of the atomic bomb his response was "revulsion".And Winston Churchill later wrote, "It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell ...".After the war the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported: "Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."Why was it done over all these voices? In June 1945 the U.S. Interim Committee Panel debated the idea of exploding the bomb as a "demonstration" in an unpopulated area, as a warning on what could be used unless Japan surrendered. But panel member A.H. Compton persuaded most members that it must be a "combat demonstration" on an actual population center. Otherwise it would be the "loss of the opportunity to impress the world". Robert Oppenheimer said the State Department seemed mainly concerned about "the effect of our actions on the stability, on our strength, and the stability of the postwar world". He also said that much of this debate revolved around whether the atomic bomb might be of help in influencing Russia. As Secretary of State Stimson put it, "We have got to regain the lead and perhaps do it in a pretty rough and realistic way. ... We have coming into action a weapon which will be unique. Now the thing [to do is] ... let our actions speak for themselves".One atomic scientist spoke with President Truman's secretary Jimmy Byrnes in May 1945, and said, "Mr. Byrnes did not argue that it was necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order to win the war. ... Mr. Byrnes's ... view [was] that our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable in Europe."from pages 234-237, "An Age of Conflict: Readings in Twentieth-Century European History", Editor, Leslie Derfler
reply
eglamkowski wrote on Aug 6
For all of this, I must offer up two points that seem overlooked in all this:1) The military leadership actually attempted to depose the Emperor once they realized he was going to offer surrender. The Japanese military may have been defeated, but they would not willingly surrender. To say invasion was unnecessary misunderstands the nature of the Japanese military leadership (and thus by extension, the entire Japanese military, given the level of obedience required).2) As much as an invasion of the islands may not have been necessary, the willingness of the Japanese populace to sacrifice and suffer for the Emperor was enoromous. The MILLION MAN army still in China was barely under control of the Emperor, it never entirely quite was from the beginning. Would this army have continued resisting if they hadn't been made aware of the atomic bomb through its actual use? As it was in the actual event, a number of Japanese soldiers continued resisting, in a few cases even for DECADES, after the war concluded. Without this awesome display of firepower, perhaps more would have been encouraged to resist, especially if they felt out of reach of the Americans by virtue of being on the Asian mainland. How much longer should the Chinese (and Koreans and Vietnamese and Burmese and Siamese, etc.) be asked to suffer just so Ike wouldn't feel so bad about using the atomic bomb? How many more civilians raped and murdered? How many villages razed and treasures looted? Just to satisfy one man's ego? From the extremely narrow perspective of the US military leadership, I suppose the atomic bomb may not have been particularly necessary, but when you look beyond that to the entire picture world wide, the case is much less clear.
reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 6
When the Russians attacked the Japanese army in Manchuria and Korea in the summer of 1945, they encountered little serious resistance and were surprized to receive large-scale surrenders of Japanese troops. The Chinese communist army was also making good headway against an increasingly feeble and demoralized enemy. Same goes for the Vietnamese resistance.I think we should believe the US Joint Chiefs of Staff when they said the bomb was militarily unneeded. And the fact that it was used (not just on an unpopulated area as a "demonstration", and not once, but twice) means that the military leaders were overridden by politicial considerations. Where the Nazis and Japanese had hoped to terrify their enemies into submission through horrific massacres of civilians or prisoners of war, the US government sought to do the same thing to all future enemies by an act even more horrifying
reply
mikemol wrote on Aug 6
briangriffith saidWhere the Nazis and Japanese had hoped to terrify their enemies into submission through horrific massacres of civilians or prisoners of war, the US government sought to do the same thing to all future enemies by an act even more horrifying I thought the Nazis tried to keep those activities quiet. Sure, knowledge of them could be spread by word of mouth, but they kept a lid on them as far as broadcast media was concerned. (I imagine they didn't want their ghetto populations to riot.)I'm inclined to agree with you, though, that the decision to drop the bomb was politically motivated. Perhaps the war could have been concluded in a conventional manner. Bringing it to an abrupt close immediately set the US up as a superpower. Either you did what the US asked, or you faced the big stick.If plans for the atomic bomb hadn't been leaked to the Soviet Union, the Cold War might not have been fought via proxy wars. Instead, hostilities might have quickly reignited, turning Europe into a hot front line, rather than a cold one. No telling which side would have won; atomic bombs were expensive, and effective delivery mechanisms were lacking. (The advent of nuke-carrying missiles changed that, of course, though the B-52 certainly made putting bombs on their targets easier.)
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
And the cold war followed. Brian and I grew up with it."You've thrown the worst fear that can ever be hurledThe fear to bring children into the world,For threatening my baby - unborn and unnamed -You ain't worth the blood that runs in your veins."Bob Dylan: Masters of War.
reply
ahfeiko wrote today at 2:14 AM
till today,are there or is there anymore "left-behind" Japanese soldiers in the Pacific islands ?
reply
corporatetroll wrote today at 5:27 AM
Probably not... Considering that the last one surrendered in 1974. An 18 year old in 1945 would be 80 now. It's possible, but quite unlikely by now.
Psychology of wearing leg-ins
Aug 6, '07 12:53 PMfor everyone
Psychology of wearing leg-ins is obscure. They wear a mini-skirt, they don't have to wear tights to hide their legs, yet they do probably because of shame they tend to feel when they wear the mini-skirt. This is, I think, a sign of another movement of women's lib. They are eager to wear the same cloths as man's so that they feel they all are the same as men in appearance as well as the work they usually do.
Prev: Atomic Bomb
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
paji2 wrote on Aug 6
Now, that is so typically male chauvinistic outlook!Shame? Why? Do you profess to get into the women's minds?My guess would be they are more eager to earn the same pay for the same work .. something that has been denied them. The work the "usually" do? What work is that? 9 to 5 in an office being harassed, then rush home and be the "good little woman" and take care of her man?Unfortunately, there are just too many like you ..
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
In Denmark, they wear leg-ins because it's freezing cold. They aren't ashamed of their legs in summer.
reply
iambmetammy wrote on Aug 6
What? As a female I completely disagree with that. I wear short skirts because I like they way they look. I have no desire to hide my legs. Tights are mostly to make the legs look completely smooth and cover any variations in skin pigmentation. Or if they're colored or opaque tights they can be a fashion accessory. I don't know any women (other than female to male transexuals) that want to have the same appearance in men. As far as being similar in the work that is done, you will find variations across the genders. Weak men or women, strong females or males, people with a strong work ethic, lazy people, etc.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
I suppose the mini skirts were connected to women's lib originally, or rather to the "sexual revolution" in the '60es. On the other hand: they wore pretty short skirts in the '20es too.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
Actually, back around 1970, you might have had a point. Then we had the "unisex" look which was a kind of statement that the sexes were equal. I think Communist China had something like it even earlier.But leg-ins are not like men's clothes unless you mean Medieval men.
Aug 6, '07 12:53 PMfor everyone
Psychology of wearing leg-ins is obscure. They wear a mini-skirt, they don't have to wear tights to hide their legs, yet they do probably because of shame they tend to feel when they wear the mini-skirt. This is, I think, a sign of another movement of women's lib. They are eager to wear the same cloths as man's so that they feel they all are the same as men in appearance as well as the work they usually do.
Prev: Atomic Bomb
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
reply
paji2 wrote on Aug 6
Now, that is so typically male chauvinistic outlook!Shame? Why? Do you profess to get into the women's minds?My guess would be they are more eager to earn the same pay for the same work .. something that has been denied them. The work the "usually" do? What work is that? 9 to 5 in an office being harassed, then rush home and be the "good little woman" and take care of her man?Unfortunately, there are just too many like you ..
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
In Denmark, they wear leg-ins because it's freezing cold. They aren't ashamed of their legs in summer.
reply
iambmetammy wrote on Aug 6
What? As a female I completely disagree with that. I wear short skirts because I like they way they look. I have no desire to hide my legs. Tights are mostly to make the legs look completely smooth and cover any variations in skin pigmentation. Or if they're colored or opaque tights they can be a fashion accessory. I don't know any women (other than female to male transexuals) that want to have the same appearance in men. As far as being similar in the work that is done, you will find variations across the genders. Weak men or women, strong females or males, people with a strong work ethic, lazy people, etc.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
I suppose the mini skirts were connected to women's lib originally, or rather to the "sexual revolution" in the '60es. On the other hand: they wore pretty short skirts in the '20es too.
reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 6
Actually, back around 1970, you might have had a point. Then we had the "unisex" look which was a kind of statement that the sexes were equal. I think Communist China had something like it even earlier.But leg-ins are not like men's clothes unless you mean Medieval men.
mercedo wrote today at 4:08 AMAt that time all Japanese people were determined to die in the event of US army landing. In fact people of Okinawa where actual US landing were taken place almost all people in Okinawa killed themselves in the event of war against US invasion.
Atomic bomb made Japanese people realise the resistance is in vain. I don't mind which nationality the victims were. I think the lesser the number of casualties the better no matter who.
Atomic bomb made Japanese people realise the resistance is in vain. I don't mind which nationality the victims were. I think the lesser the number of casualties the better no matter who.
Psychology of wearing leg-ins
Aug 7, '07 1:53 AMfor everyone
Psychology of wearing leg-ins is obscure. They wear a mini-skirt, they don't have to wear tights to hide their legs, yet they do probably because of shame they tend to feel when they wear the mini-skirt. This is, I think, a sign of another movement of women's lib. They are eager to wear the same cloths as man's so that they feel they all are the same as men in appearance as well as the work they usually do.
Aug 7, '07 1:53 AMfor everyone
Psychology of wearing leg-ins is obscure. They wear a mini-skirt, they don't have to wear tights to hide their legs, yet they do probably because of shame they tend to feel when they wear the mini-skirt. This is, I think, a sign of another movement of women's lib. They are eager to wear the same cloths as man's so that they feel they all are the same as men in appearance as well as the work they usually do.
Atomic Bomb
Aug 7, '07 1:19 AMfor everyone
62 years ago today one atomic bomb was dropped under the sky of Hiroshima. 400 thousand people were terminated at one second.
Many US articles justify dropping the atomic bomb saying it accelerated the end of war and made lessen the number of casualties both in US army and Japanese nationals who were likely to resist in the event of US army landing and they also introduced the number of casualties who were dead at the time of Tokyo incendiary carpet bombing, that is 100 thousand civilians.
Many Japanese people and newspapers accused of dropping the atomic bomb in humanity perspective. But I think it was inevitable to use the ultimate force to put an end to the war no matter how many people were victimised by this act.
Aug 7, '07 1:19 AMfor everyone
62 years ago today one atomic bomb was dropped under the sky of Hiroshima. 400 thousand people were terminated at one second.
Many US articles justify dropping the atomic bomb saying it accelerated the end of war and made lessen the number of casualties both in US army and Japanese nationals who were likely to resist in the event of US army landing and they also introduced the number of casualties who were dead at the time of Tokyo incendiary carpet bombing, that is 100 thousand civilians.
Many Japanese people and newspapers accused of dropping the atomic bomb in humanity perspective. But I think it was inevitable to use the ultimate force to put an end to the war no matter how many people were victimised by this act.
Atomic Bomb
Aug 7, '07 1:19 AMfor everyone
62 years ago today one atomic bomb was dropped under the sky of Hiroshima. 400 thousand people were terminated at one second.
Many US articles justify dropping the atomic bomb saying it accelerated the end of war and made lessen the number of casualties both in US army and Japanese nationals who were likely to resist in the event of US army landing and they also introduced the number of casualties who were dead at the time of Tokyo incendiary carpet bombing, that is 100 thousand civilians.
Many Japanese people and newspapers accused of dropping the atomic bomb in humanity perspective. But I think it was inevitable to use the ultimate force to put an end to the war no matter how many people were victimised by this act.
Aug 7, '07 1:19 AMfor everyone
62 years ago today one atomic bomb was dropped under the sky of Hiroshima. 400 thousand people were terminated at one second.
Many US articles justify dropping the atomic bomb saying it accelerated the end of war and made lessen the number of casualties both in US army and Japanese nationals who were likely to resist in the event of US army landing and they also introduced the number of casualties who were dead at the time of Tokyo incendiary carpet bombing, that is 100 thousand civilians.
Many Japanese people and newspapers accused of dropping the atomic bomb in humanity perspective. But I think it was inevitable to use the ultimate force to put an end to the war no matter how many people were victimised by this act.
mercedo wrote today at 2:43 AMWikipaedia articles related to Confucius, Confucianism states clearly that this thought is based on non-religious secular ethics, morals and I think so too.
Of course any thoughts have religious aspects, but especially when it comes to Confucianism there's very scarce point that is regarded as 'religious'. Perhaps the term 'mandate of heaven' is religious if any. But it's too weak for us to call Confucianism a religion only pointing to this one point.
The term 'religion' is used in 'religion' in Western values. Please examine again thoroughly to exclude any thoughts that is unnecessary for us to 'believe firmly'.
Of course any thoughts have religious aspects, but especially when it comes to Confucianism there's very scarce point that is regarded as 'religious'. Perhaps the term 'mandate of heaven' is religious if any. But it's too weak for us to call Confucianism a religion only pointing to this one point.
The term 'religion' is used in 'religion' in Western values. Please examine again thoroughly to exclude any thoughts that is unnecessary for us to 'believe firmly'.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Right, the path of philosopher, in the shrine of noble ship.
Huge rocks supposed to be used to fasten the ship rope.
Tags: shrine, ship, path of philosopher
edit
reply share
Excursion
Aug 6, '07 1:24 AMfor everyone
I found this figure in front of the house located at the next to my girlfriend's house. This is very similar to Seraphim.
Left, in front of the gate I found those famous gatekeeper called Hoo Dog. This is so similar to Cherubim in role.
Huge rocks supposed to be used to fasten the ship rope.
Tags: shrine, ship, path of philosopher
edit
reply share
Excursion
Aug 6, '07 1:24 AMfor everyone
I found this figure in front of the house located at the next to my girlfriend's house. This is very similar to Seraphim.
Left, in front of the gate I found those famous gatekeeper called Hoo Dog. This is so similar to Cherubim in role.
Religion is derived from religio in Greek which means believe in something firmly. There is a fundamental difference between Confucianism and religions. In religions, usually we have to believe in something that is impossible for us to confirm its existence unless we believe it firmly. God and Buddha falls on this objective, but in Confucianism there's no such objectives. All his teachings are understandable in line with our ordinary daily life. Confucianism is ethics at best, it's far from religion.
Religion is not merely the sum total over a persons view of the universe, his sense of the goal in life, and his means of moving toward that goal. But it requires objective of admiration.
Some people use the word religion very roughly like thought, morals, ethics, so I am not in the least opposing to the use of the word in many senses
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Friday, August 03, 2007
Mudflow, deluge, bridge collapse
Aug 2, '07 11:03 AMfor everyone
We are alarmed by mudflow, deluge. This is not a drill. All our news are about typhoon No.5 except the news from Minnesota bridge.
Tags: mudflow, deluge
reply share
Natural disasters
Aug 2, '07 10:52 AMfor everyone
Only several weeks ago intermediate quake hit northern Japan. Some weeks ago one typhoon, typhoon No, 4 hit our area. Now we are under severe attack from typhoon No.5. In south Sakhalin, intermediate quake hit the area. Lots of people stay in refugee shelter. As if our country were cleansed. IAEA is coming to investigate whether nuclear power plant in northern Japan was safe on 5th of August. They will stay in the area for four days. We can't easily get out of the house.
Tags: quake, typhoon, refugee
reply share
Letter from Noah's Ark
Aug 2, '07 10:44 AMfor everyone
Now typhoon hit our region. Our region is under very heavy rainfall. It will be clear tomorrow. I'm on a short trip tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. See you on Sunday night.
Tags: typhoon, noah's ark
reply share
Aug 2, '07 11:03 AMfor everyone
We are alarmed by mudflow, deluge. This is not a drill. All our news are about typhoon No.5 except the news from Minnesota bridge.
Tags: mudflow, deluge
reply share
Natural disasters
Aug 2, '07 10:52 AMfor everyone
Only several weeks ago intermediate quake hit northern Japan. Some weeks ago one typhoon, typhoon No, 4 hit our area. Now we are under severe attack from typhoon No.5. In south Sakhalin, intermediate quake hit the area. Lots of people stay in refugee shelter. As if our country were cleansed. IAEA is coming to investigate whether nuclear power plant in northern Japan was safe on 5th of August. They will stay in the area for four days. We can't easily get out of the house.
Tags: quake, typhoon, refugee
reply share
Letter from Noah's Ark
Aug 2, '07 10:44 AMfor everyone
Now typhoon hit our region. Our region is under very heavy rainfall. It will be clear tomorrow. I'm on a short trip tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. See you on Sunday night.
Tags: typhoon, noah's ark
reply share
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)