Powerful Tribute By Japanese Prime Minister Shinzu Abe Visiting Pearl Harbor…

When you accept how intensely sensitive a visit to Pearl Harbor by the Japanese Prime Minister is… When you pause and think about the scope of trepidation that follows such a tenuously emotional diplomatic mission… It is proper to give credit where it is deserved.

abe-pearl-harbor-2

President Obama and Prime Minister Shinzu Abe together delivered a moving, historic and stunning moment of thoughtful condolence.

Speaking to the gathered audience in Pearl Harbor Hawaii, Prime Minister Shinzu Abe delivered an eloquent and honorable tribute. The first six and a half minutes of his speech below is remarkable in its historic value.

It is important we do not allow politics to cloud our recognition of history. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit is powerful proof that former enemies can transcend recriminatory impulses that often weigh down generational relationships long after war.

Although Japanese leaders have visited Pearl Harbor before, Prime Minister Abe is the first to visit the hallowed memorial resting atop the sunken USS Arizona.

…””As nations and as people, we cannot choose the history we inherit. But we can choose what lessons to draw from it.”…

~ President Barack Obama December 27th, 2016.

abe-pearl-harbor-1

For President Obama, it’s likely the last time he will meet with a foreign leader as president. It’s a bookend of sorts for the president, who nearly eight years ago invited Abe’s predecessor to be the first leader that Obama hosted at the White House.

For Prime Minister Abe, it’s an act of reconciliation and symbolic reciprocity, coming six months after Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to visit Hiroshima in Japan, where the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb in hopes of ending the war.

They both did an exceptional and very respectful job.

Thank you.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Christian Values, Culture, History, Military, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

207 Responses to Powerful Tribute By Japanese Prime Minister Shinzu Abe Visiting Pearl Harbor…

  1. M. Mueller says:

    It is always uplifting when adults behave like adults and all come out looking honorable.

    Liked by 11 people

    • lastinillinois says:

      Obama couldn’t pull off looking honorable even if he wore his most high cut evening gown.

      Liked by 7 people

      • mister549 says:

        That’s right; after all, we know too much about Obama to give him even a small pass in looking honorable. Just ask the people of Israel how honorable this man is. I’m ashamed and saddened by Obama’s actions. Period.

        Like

    • JAS says:

      Credit where credit is due. Well done Sundance!

      Liked by 4 people

    • Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

      (10) The Prime Minister’s fabulous speech was enticingly poetic
      and his interpreter gave an almost hypnotic emotional rendition.

      (4) The President’s reading performance was pedantic and contrived, as usual.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Dixie says:

        As a result of the Prime Minister’s wonderfully sincere and emotional speech, wonder if obama felt any emotion at all…..for the shame he has perpetuated on this honorable country the entire 8 years of his administration while trying to destroy it.

        Liked by 1 person

        • JAS says:

          The mark of a true honest person. What else would you say, unless you were a lying politico, when he and everyone in Japan knows that we decimated them, using every possible metric.

          True, the casualties on our side were extreme, but nothing even close in comparison to theirs. Their whole society ceased to exist – period. That is decimation in the extreme, much more so than what we the Germans went trough.

          It saddens me greatly and it taught me a great history lesson, that the Japanese people could not overturn what was a military complex that grew from a religious belief that welcomed death before any reason or logic.

          Identical, and another lesson obviously unlearned by Islam and their radical factions. The clear and present danger that they represent to our way of life is identical, and devoid of any logic on their part. Same thing all over again. Seems it never ends with these truly deranged psychopaths that never seem to go away.

          Liked by 6 people

  2. J Miller says:

    I agree. Not common these days, by people on either side of the political aisle.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. James Crawford says:

    While the American fleet at Pearl Harbor was a legitimate military target, it was a sneak attack launched prior to a declaration of war.

    While the use of atomic bombs used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki were primarily targeted at civilians, WW-2 had firmly established that targeting civilians had become acceptable if not justified.

    The conventional firebombing raids on Tokyo and other cities killed more people. The artillery bombardments by US battleships were escalating and had the potential to be more devastating.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Earl Smith says:

      The instructions to the note were delivered encrypted over several days. We had broken their code and could see that it was a Declaration of War but pretended otherwise until delivered. We had the last part hours before the scheduled delivery time but human error in the form of no typist cleared for security level was available so the Ambassador had to hunt and peck., and ultimately delivered long after delivery time and even after the attack.

      Hiroshima WAS a military target. It was the HQ of the Army group defending the invasion beaches due to be hit in 3 months. Nagasaki was the port from which I believe the attack fleet for Pearl Harbor sailed.

      It would have been most appropriate if the visit started with the Arizona memorial, and ended with the Missouri memorial across the harbor.

      As for the idea of targeting civilians. Germany designed its planes to be flying artillery, all short range close air combat support (hence why they lost the Battle of Britain). The UK and the US designed their planes for long range heavy loads to go after the general civilian population. The average bomb that the US dropped missed its target by 2 miles. Even the H-bombs that I was ready to launch had far better accuracy – about 1/10 the error for a bomb almost a million times the explosion.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

        Nagasaki was the secondary target on that B-29 mission. The initial heavily defended industrial city of Kokura was covered in smokescreen and clouds. After three passes the B-29 was getting low on fuel and Zeros were coming up. The pilot finally decided to fly 95 miles south and found an opening for their last chance to drop Fat man . . . where it exploded midair at about 1,800 ft. alt.

        Like

      • Garrison Hall says:

        “We had broken their code and could see that it was a Declaration of War but pretended otherwise until delivered.”

        The Japanese commanders in the carrier force had been assured that a formal declaration of war would be delivered before their attack. This was in keeping with their Bushido warrior’s code. A “sneak attack” was considered dishonorable and so the commanders and pilots in the attacking force were reportedly humiliated and angered that the formal declaration was not made before their began their attack.

        Liked by 3 people

    • scott says:

      Japan was on the verge of mass starvation. That would have been much worse than the nukes dropped.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Bull Durham says:

        Allen Dulles was negotiating a surrender of Japan.
        He’s on film detailing that history. As I recall, the negotiations took place secretly in Switzerland.
        He also wrote a book about negotiating a massive Nazi surrender in 194r in Italy, Operation Sunrise.
        “The Secret Surrender” is the book title.

        Like

        • jello333 says:

          As in many long wars, ALL sides committed their share of terrible acts. Whether any of the ones committed by the “good guys” were the only option… well, that’s still open to debate in my opinion. One thing I’ve always wondered, is why the first Bomb needed to be dropped on the city. I mean I fully understand that the intent was partly to “shock and awe” the enemy into surrender. But could that not have also been accomplished by announcing, in advance…

          “In 2 hours we will demonstrate what we are capable of doing to your country. But in an effort to end this war with as little additional death as possible, our demonstration will take place in the un-populated region of [wherever]. After you see what we are about to do, we are confident you will agree with us that it’s time for this war to end. If however you fail to surrender, we will be left with no other choice than to utterly destroy you… which can now be accomplished in a matter of days.”

          Liked by 1 person

          • Andrew says:

            No, it could not. This was a war where literally Japan was arming everyone for a final battle. Planes and fast motor boats outfitted as bombs, mines ready to be laid down at the last minute or even after an area was pacified, huge amounts of artillery and explosives, all were dedicated to the final defense. Women and children were taught to use sharpened bamboo weapons for final strikes against US troops. And many were going to suicide, like civilians did at Saipan.

            US proposed casualties were huge. Preparations were made, Purple Heart medals were minted and prepared. Upwards of 1 million wounded and dead.

            Afterwards, post-surrender analysis shot the casualty figures up to 6-10 million dead and wounded on the American side. Analysis also shows that Admiral Halsey’s statement that
            “Before we’re through with them, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell.” (spoken December 8th, 1941 as the 4 US carriers passed by battleship row in Pearl Harbor.)

            The two atomic bombs achieved what firebombing Japanese cities could not achieve. The singular destruction shocked the Japanese people and most especially Emperor Hirohito into submission.

            Then there’s the point about the number of devices we had available, which was two – Little Boy and Fat Man. Two total. Wasting one in a ‘destructiveless demonstration’ would have achieved nothing. The bombs needed to hit major industrial and military centers.

            By the way, the US is still issuing Purple Hearts minted for the invasion of Japan. Still. That is how many US casualties were expected (not to mention the loss of material – ships, planes, tanks, trucks, food, medicine.)

            Never, ever, ever apologize for nuking the Japanese. It was the turning point of the war, shutting it down almost immediately, rather than dragging on for years and years as the Japanese islands burned in a Shinto Ragnarok, leaving nothing and no-one alive on both sides.

            Liked by 4 people

            • jello333 says:

              That all makes sense, but the fact is that they DID surrender. Yes, it was after two nukes, but the Japanese still had PLENTY of fighting capability left, both militarily and (as you noted) among the civilian population. So I guess what I’m saying/asking is, if the cause of surrender was not just the impressive power of the bombs themselves, but the DEATHS caused by those bombs, then I don’t quite get that…. seeing as how the Japanese had already experienced massive levels of death (including civilian) before H & N took place.

              And while you’re of course right about the U.S. only have two bombs, I think that fact was as big/important a secret as was the existence of ANY such bombs. So yes, had we used the first as a “demonstration”, and then used the second on a city, we would have been “wasting” one. But what made anyone think that if ONE didn’t do the trick, that TWO would? There was no guarantee that two would do any better than one… and it was entirely possible that the Japanese could have called our bluff (that we had many more bombs where those came from). In which case, the war would have continued as before, and probably necessitated even worse (like an invasion?)

              Hmm… now that I think about it, I suppose that if that HAD happened, the use of the two nukes (NOT ending the war) would now just be another episode of many other episodes in that war, rather than the world-changing events it became.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Earl Smith says:

                The problem with your statements is that it is the result of anti nuke propaganda.

                We HAD two nukes on Tinian. We had a THIRD casing being delivered and the physics package was at Los Alamos ready for air shipment. Our production rate was ramping up.to FOUR bombs a month expected for September. For the INVASION planned for NOVEMBER the war plan was to hit the invasion area with TWELVE atom bombs!

                We had all the bombs we needed. Not that the Air Force actually wanted to use them. We had given up bombing the cities in June as just an effort in bouncing the rubble. The bombers were on a systematic effort to destroy the rails and bridges so that the food would not get to the cities. The basic strategy was to starve them into submission, which given their national beliefs was going to be a deadly task. If we waited until 1947 to invade there would be no one left to fight. But the pressure back home was to end the war NOW. So invasions were planned for November and February which would cost millions of lives. So the use of the bombs actually saved lives.

                Oh, by the way. With the surrender the US took over the problem of feeding the population. So the ships started bringing in massive amounts of food. But as always, too little, too late. The ration for an adult worker was set by McArthur for 1946 at 1000 Calories, about what you would provide a person on a starvation diet to rapidly lose weight, not a worker weighing 100 pounds already malnourished.

                Liked by 1 person

              • dayallaxeded says:

                “[T]he cause of surrender was not just the impressive power of the bombs themselves, but [also] the DEATHS caused by those bombs” in one brief period, on the Japanese home island. FIFY.

                A significant problem created by our degenerating educational system and public discourse is the attempt to focus on one, facile “cause” for events that plainly have multiple causes, in order to make some agenda hay out of that one “cause.” The standard prog alternative, when they don’t like or won’t accept the real, singular or multiple “cause[s]” of events is to pretend that none of the “causes” were/are essential, so those they dislike can be abandoned or villified, again, for agenda hay making.

                It’s obvious that you’re trying to marginalize and set up the argument that use of the atomic bombs against population centers was unjustified/unnecessary. Yet history absolutely proves you wrong. As you, yourself, note–Japs had already sustained massive casualties and hardships. They had to know their end was near, yet they weren’t backing down or changing their tune–it was still, right to the last, banzai all the way.

                Accept reality. It’s not pretty or easy, but at least it’s true and if heeded, will not lead you or our nation into repetition of stupid choices and bad results (though for a good 2 decades and probably more, we have been seeing the same mistakes made re: the Axis played out before our eyes re: Islam).

                Like

                • jello333 says:

                  “It’s obvious that you’re trying to marginalize and set up the argument that use of the atomic bombs against population centers was unjustified/unnecessary.”

                  Now there you’re wrong. For one thing, I’m not saying that attacks on population centers ARE always inherently “unjustified/unnecessary”. I’m just questioning, leaving open to debate, whether it’s justified or not, on a case-by-case basis. I’m personally not certain where I stand on the use of the H & N bombs. If, as others have said, that was necessary to prevent even worse (invasion, etc) then fine.

                  The other thing I think you’re misunderstanding about me is that I have a special opposition to nukes, as opposed to other “weapons of mass destruction”…. I don’t. I consider fire-bombing a WMD, I consider napalming WMD, or conventional “carpet bombing”, or many other types of weaponry/attacks. And by the way, just because I call something a “WMD” doesn’t mean I’m always and forever opposed to their use… again, I’m not.

                  Oh, just thought of something that might convince you of where I stand. Remember when Trump suggested the way to handle ISIS might be to find their most concentrated presence, and then NUKE the place? Remember how most people totally freaked? Well I for one, even though I fear nukes as much as anyone… I kinda LIKE Donald’s idea.

                  Like

          • Andrew says:

            And, just as a sidenote, had a friend who took a Naginata (Japanese sword on a stick) class from a little old Japanese lady. She originally learned the techniques as a 10 year old, to be used against US troops.

            Her school picture, kimono, obi, sharpened spear, was sobering. This was not a school picture celebrating heritage, but one of a society preparing for death, complete and utter death.

            Sweet little old lady, but I would not want to cross her.

            Liked by 3 people

          • dmi60ex says:

            They had a limited number of bombs and we not really 100 % that the bomb would detonate.A dud demonstration would have been disastrous

            Like

            • jello333 says:

              Good point.

              That reminds me of something I’ve read about the first bomb tests. If the story is true, then some of the scientists weren’t so much worried that it wouldn’t work… they were concerned that the chain reaction might not STOP. I mean, literally expanding, and expanding, and… Yeah, I don’t know if that’s true (that people were worried about that possibility), but if it is, then wow…. that’s pretty scary! 😉

              Like

    • ChicagoMom says:

      Not much was ever stated about the atrocities the Japanese performed on the Islanders; they were civilians! My dad was a Marine and spent part of the war on various South Pacific Islands. He had a photo album from there; color had not yet been invented, thank God, because the murders of Japanese on Islanders were horribly gory. Japanese also took Islanders for prisoners; when Marines invaded the Islands, they all hid in caves and the Islanders were used as shields. My dad, as a flame thrower, had to get them out. You can’t even imagine the hell he went through for the rest of his life and the effects it had on family. I relate this to you only so that you realize the Japanese DID torture and murder civilians, not just military or prisoners of war.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Patriot Lady says:

        Chicago Mom,
        Please read the book, “Ghost Soldiers” by Hampton Sides, a true account that validates much of what you just wrote

        Liked by 1 person

        • Andrew says:

          For a complete picture of what went on in fighting in the Pacific, the US Army did basically a post-mortem of the whole action. Dealing with strategy, tactics, preparation, logistics, the actual fighting, the follow-up, lessons learned, and preparation for the next campaign. Also dealt with the civilian populations on those islands, what was, what happened to them, what the US did to worsen or better the situation.

          They can be found at http://www.history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/collect/ww2-ap.html

          They aren’t rollicking, action packed accounts that read like preparation for a movie. These are in-depth, heart-breaking works that give the whole picture of the horrors of war.

          The book dealing with the seizure of the Gilberts and Marshalls has the attack on Tarawa in it. 1st of the Island Hopping campaigns, there is a reason the battle was called ‘Bloody Tarawa.’

          Like

        • maiingankwe says:

          I own the book, and it explains in good detail of what happened. It was a difficult book to read in parts, but it’s best to know and understand our history and at the time, of our enemies.
          Thank you for sharing the title. I hope others choose to pick it up and give it a good read.

          Like

    • trad55 says:

      It helps to read the book Flyboys to get a perspective on some background to the atomic bombings. While still a terrible response, it was a last resort and felt to be the only way to end the war. The Japanese citizenry had been mobilized to fight to the end as their culture demanded. They would never give up. It was either annihilate the entire country and everybody in it or focus on those two areas and hope that would be enough to stop them. Terrible as the solution was, it achieved the end result needed.

      Like

      • On June 16, 1944 the US sank Japanese submarine I-52 entering harbor at Loreint, France to take delivery of 800 kg of Uranium Oxide. This was to be fashioned into dirty “Bombs for Now” weapons and delivered by I-300 and I-400 submarine aircraft carriers against NYC, DC, LA, SF and Panama Canal. On May 14, 1945, German U-234 submarine surrendered to the US Navy with 550 kg of Uranium bound for Japan. Truman knew Japan would use dirty nukes on us.

        More in “Overthrowing the Kit & Kaboodle”

        Like

    • Keln says:

      The targets of the nuclear weapons we dropped on Japan were never Japanese civilians, who we warned to leave the targeted cities by dropping leaflets over the potential targets well prior to the bombings (these did not specify the type of weapon to be used, merely to tell people to evacuate their city).

      The point of the nuclear weapons being deployed was twofold: to destroy major military production sites, and to display the power of nuclear weapons in order to force surrender. The US was not even sure that Japan would surrender even after multiple bombings, but that they would be severely hobbled by wiping out their ability to produce weapons and ammunition, thus shortening an invasion.

      Neither were firebombing raids about killing civilians. They were about burning down infrastructure; especially factories, command centers, military installations, communications, and defenses. That civilians were killed was an undesirable, but unavoidable consequence. The US dropped leaflets before these raids as well. Japanese citizens had every opportunity to evacuate cities prior to attacks and many of them did so.

      In all, the US dropped leaflets on 33 Japanese cities warning civilians to evacuate to avoid being killed in the raids and the nuclear weapon attacks.

      We wanted to destroy their ability to make war, not their people. The same was true in our bombings of Germany. People who cry foul about the civilian casualties simply do not understand the realities of war. Had the Allies not bombed Germany to smithereens, the war would have gone on far longer and resulted in far more casualties. The same was true about the war with Japan.

      For the same reasons, even as a patriotic American who is disgusted by the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, from a strategic point of view it was a necessity. Japan could never have lasted long in a war with the US in the Pacific with the American fleet intact. As it was, the attack was a failure since it missed the primary objective of destroying our carriers. The war would have gone on far longer had they got them. The battleships really didn’t matter as much.

      Their failure was completed at the Battle of Midway, and the rest is history. The final defeat of Japan minus nuclear weapons would have been a bloody, unparalleled conflict to invade Japan. Millions would have died, and millions more wounded in that scenario.

      Like

  4. All American Snowflake says:

    I see Obama poking his mug into the bottom pic.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. jsbachlover says:

    His empathy was touching. I mean that. But he spoke for many minutes before even hinting at the fact that it was JAPAN that had killed all these people about whom he was waxing eloquent. I found that jarring.

    Liked by 4 people

    • lastinillinois says:

      He was hoping everyone had forgotten, as he has due to all the ganja.

      Title could read:
      “Ganja Boy waxes eloquent over many American deaths – nearly brings fake tear to Ganja Boy eye”

      Like

    • Andrew says:

      I found it to be very beautiful, said in the way the Japanese tend to speak. Setting the scene, dealing with what has happened, then getting to the point. Much better than anything President Obama said.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Southern Son says:

    I said in another thread, I hoped they would fram their noggin’s, when they both bowed.
    I didn’t understand why they were meeting.
    OboMao likely didn’t author his words, and only did the right thing, because it was PC.
    imo

    Like

  7. All American Snowflake says:

    The Japanese didn’t accomplish a note-worthy attack on Pearl Harbor. They did not destroy the gas and oil reserves in Pearl Harbor, nor did the Japanese disable the modern US Navy aircraft carriers which were not in port at the time of the raid. The ships sunk on December 7, 1941 were old WWI ships.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Sandra-VA says:

    I watched that speech when it was aired live. I thought it was an incredibly emotional speech by the Japanese President. Very powerful.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. Skip says:

    I assume Obama felt as if he had to be there and is already ‘vacationing’ in Hawaii. We visited the memorial in 1982 on the day of the memorial. It is very touching to say the least. When we came back to land and through the gift shop there was a Japanese sailor in uniform there. I guess I was down from our visit and when I saw him I felt anger…like, what the hell are you doing here on this day of all days? Perhaps I am sharing too much of myself.

    Liked by 2 people

    • RedBallExpress says:

      I saw a famous German ace signing autographs at a Blue Angles show. I almost went over there and beat the hell out of this 80 year old man. I couldn’t believe the feelings I had. He was just a boy at the start of the war and had little to say about his involvement. But that is what I felt.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Those feelings are not uncommon. I met a Dutch man on a ferry between Holland and England. Near us was a troop of German Girl Scouts. He turned his back on them and toward me and said, “It has been 20 years since the war ended. Those girls weren’t even born when it was over. Yet, I can’t help feeling intense hatred when I hear them speak.”

        We left the top deck, came inside where it was warm and had a coffee.

        Like

        • RedBallExpress says:

          It’s hard to explain. Your mind knows they are good people but your heart needs some convincing. I never dreamed I would feel that way until I saw that German ace.

          Like

    • Andrew says:

      I visited the memorial when I was 8 years old. I, too, heard the voices of the dead, the lost futures, the weight of the dead still trapped in that hallowed tomb.

      Many Japanese visit the memorial each year. They tend to be, well, Japanese tourists, until they get aboard the shuttles. Then the get quiet. Many cry openly as they walk the hall, and read the names inscribed. Some of the most struck, from what I have heard, have been Japanese navy personnel.

      Ancestor worship is very much rooted in the heart of the Japanese people.

      I hate what happened 75 years ago. But I do not hold a grudge against the Japanese people. Hate specific Japanese, oh, heck yeah, but not the people or the uniforms of their military. Prime Minister Abe quoted Lincoln as to how to handle the defeated. They admitted defeat, admitted their crimes and failures, and paid for it, bitterly, for years.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Very well said, Sundance. Credit where credit is due.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Rudy Bowen says:

    0zero gets zero credit from me, for anything. I’d sure appreciate it if he dropped dead. though. As for Shinzu, we already made it right, in 1945.

    Liked by 7 people

  12. Some Huy says:

    As an American who lived in Japan for a long time, I can comfortably say most of us would be very impressed by the decency, reserve, sobriety and persistence with which the typical Japanese lives his life. Despite past mistakes, they are generally able to respect others because they value and are secure in their own culture and traditions, which are profound and beautiful. In that way, Americans sorely need to be more like the Japanese. We have a tradition and culture worth preserving, too. We just need to recognize that again.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Dixie says:

      We just need to be allowed to recognize that again.

      Liked by 1 person

      • John Denney says:

        To be “allowed” is at odds with Liberty.
        As a kid in Iowa, I admired the Confederate Battle Flag not because it represented slavery, but because it was The Rebel Flag, as exemplified by it being emblazoned on the top of the General Lee in The Dukes of Hazzard, who rebelled against the corrupt establishment represented by Boss Hawg.
        Up with Rightful Liberty; down with “being allowed”.

        Like

    • Michael Yon has written extensively about the Japanese occupation of the nations in the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” during World War II.

      He asserts that contrary to US propaganda, by and large Japanese soldiers were every bit as kind and decent to the local population as they are in Japan. Many older people who were children at the time remember the Japanese soldiers very fondly. Koreans and Filipinos in particular.

      Experiences in China differ.

      Like

      • Deb says:

        I’m sure many individual Japanese soldiers were kind and decent. Many were not. And this was acceptable, because of the Japanese belief of their superiority over other people and their destiny to rule over world of the Pacific. I’m sure many people did not buy into these cultural and religious beliefs, but they were the justification behind many atrocities none the less.

        This is not “American propoganda.” Besides the civilian casualties, prisoners of war were tortured and mistreated as well. This is simply what happened.

        Like

    • achemking says:

      Very well said. I’m an American of very old stock who married Japanese and I feel the same way. We have a culture and tradition worth preserving just like they do.

      Like

  13. El Torito says:

    Sundance i completely respect your opinion and learn from every word you type. With that I must state that you are a better person than I, because I cannot separate my contempt and total distrust of Obama and I am convinced that everything he says, does, does not do, or touches is designed to hurt the USA. I find his words about history laughable and worthless, since he’s attempted to erase our history at every turn. While I am glad that this ceremony took place for the sake of those who paid the price, I wish Barack Hussein was not a part of it. He is poison to everything he touches imo.

    Liked by 12 people

    • JAS says:

      I don’t disagree with you, at all. But in this particular moment he behaved, and credit is given from my end for that. It is what it is, a moment in the long space / time of history where someone, if never before, does something right.

      Open mind, open mind, open, mind. That is me.

      Liked by 1 person

      • El Torito says:

        Name one time in the last 8 years that we haven’t paid a price for having an open mind with the traitor.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Could it be that president Trump taught him a thing or two about decorum? Is it possible that he’s trying to be more presidential now that the nation has a true leader to compare him to?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Bert Darrell says:

          No, it could not. Obama is and has always been a miserable traitor to the country that has given him all he’s ever had (except his -again miserable- radical Islamic upbringing).
          He hates America and has not wasted an opportunity to prove it. I hope he rots in exile if our justice system does not try or succeed at getting a hold of him first.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Deb says:

          The point is that any decorum he displays is just that, a hollow display. I’m glad he managed to put on an appropriate show, but it in no way is indicitive of who Obama truly is. He has spent the last 8 years showing us who he truly is, one good speech doesn’t change that.

          Like

      • Dixie says:

        ……particular moment he behaved…….

        What did you expect him to do, JAS, shove the Prime Minister in the water?

        Disclaimer: Sorry treepers, I have a personal connection to this event.

        Like

    • AFVet says:

      One does question his sincerity in matters such as these.

      Liked by 2 people

    • flova says:

      He does everything for political expediency. He started saying ‘Merry Christmas’ after PE Trump said we would be saying it again. Now he can say his vacation was official business and put some of the extras on the taxpayer tab.

      This man should never be praised no matter how un-phony he sounds.

      He and Holder okayed Fast and Furious which left Mexicans dead as well as Americans. Remember Brian Terry and Jamie Zapata!

      He allowed the guys in Benghazi and the ambassador to die while he and Hillary watched.

      So many police officers are wounded and dead because he started the war on cops in 2009 calling out the Cambridge police department. He met and invited BLM members who were marching saying ‘what do we want? dead cops’ into the White House.

      He gave Iran $150 billion to essentially continue their war against Israel.

      Middle class families have been economically raped with Obamacare and his communist agenda.

      Working class families are now on food stamps and are working 2 or 3 jobs.

      Coal mines have been shut down. Veterans can’t get healthcare while illegals have more access to medicine. Small businesses are drowning in regulations and young adults over 26 without health insurance have to pay an unconstitutional fine! That’s criminal
      How do they pay it? From what job? And meanwhile the human moochers in the inner city get Medicaid, welfare and food from our dime.

      I don’t care if his speech is touching and he has found a way to show empathy(he probably took an acting class from his buddies in Hollywood) he is a murderous thug just like his BLM pals.

      Liked by 7 people

    • sundance says:

      Liked by 5 people

    • Agree, I think he got some better than average coke before the ceremony ………….Such a loser.

      Like

  14. rsg says:

    I just don’t believe anything the Indonesian Moooooslim says.

    Liked by 6 people

  15. Paco Loco says:

    Japan and the US are true allies now. The world is a very changed place and both sides have forgiven each other for what happened during “the war”. The Japanese are very humble people and will stand by the US in Asia if China or North Korea get rambunctious. Trump will re enforce the US positive relationship with Japan and Abe knows that.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. Bubba says:

    The jerk, Obama took verbal shots at Trump (us) in his speech though.

    Here’s the clip: ‘It is here that we remember, even when a hatred burns, a tug of tribalism at the most primal, we must resist the urge to turn inward and resist the urge to demonize those who are different’

    Link: https://news.grabien.com/story-unlike-obama-hiroshina-abe-does-not-condemn-japanese-ww2-pol

    Liked by 5 people

    • Sentient says:

      demonizing those who are different – like talking about a “whitelash” or “those who cling to guns and religion” or a “basket of irredeemable deplorables” or an election won with “angry white men”.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Dixie says:

      THAT should be required reading along with the comments.

      Like

    • nimrodman says:

      “The jerk, Obama took verbal shots at Trump (us) in his speech though.”

      Yeah, Bubba, I was half-listening to Fox News while reading Treehouse and that’s the one excerpt that my ear caught and I immediately took offense that it was more “that’s not who we are” and “we need to resist tribalism and distrust of others, those who are different, yadda yadda”.

      In other words: “… and I’m looking at YOU, you racists and hicks.”

      Maybe Abe was eloquent, I’ll have to go back and listen or read the transcript.

      And maybe Barky was somewhere in the ballpark of being “well-behaved”, as a few on here have characterized.

      But I heard that one excerpt and it was just more of the same “Hussein castigating the great unwashed and not-nearly-sophisticated-enough-to-appreciate-my-great-wisdom-and-judgment.”

      Had enough of it. Long ago.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Yes, definitely go back and listen to P.M. Abe’s speech. Very eloquent and will make you YUGELY proud to be an American!

        Like

      • dayallaxeded says:

        Just as the disgusting behavior of the so-called “protester” thugs during and immediately after the campaign confirmed that we were right to reject every scintilla of the past administrations, every single thing this admin has done and will do before Jan 20 will further prove how incredibly important and even miraculous Mr. Trump’s victory is!

        Like

  17. Kerry Gimbel says:

    Thank God our aircraft carriers were not at Pearl. Their loss would have been devastating. Although they continued to be made and used throughout the war, battleships were already obsolete. Aircraft carriers were now the queen of the seas. But I must say the aircraft carriers in 1941 were old. The Essex class Carriers didn’t come out till 1943, like the new Iowa class battleships. It would be the aircraft carriers that would utterly destroy the Japanese Navy.

    Liked by 2 people

    • scott says:

      Japan always envisioned a classic sea battle with the American Fleet like when they destroyed the Russian fleet. They never really used their carriers correctly. They wanted that surface ship battle and to slug it out, and they were good at that.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sam says:

      That was proven at the Battle of Midway some months later. Admiral Chester Nimitz won that one and needed to so the U.S. got a foothold closer to Japan than Hawaii.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Rudy Bowen says:

      Actually, it was the old line battleships and heavy cruisers damaged at Pearl Harbor and re-furbished that dealt the fatal blow to the Imperial Japanese Navy, at a place called Leyte Gulf. My father was there.

      Liked by 1 person

      • nimrodman says:

        I’ll chime in here, I posted this info a couple weeks ago but bears repeating here.

        At Punchbowl National Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu, there is a white marble façade and columns, and inside in the shade on the walls are beautiful tile mosaics of the great naval battles of the Pacific Theater. It’s been 25 years since I’ve been (I should go again soon), but I think I recall that the individual tiles are about the size of a quarter. Pale blue expanses of sea, with darker colors making up important islands and the various ships in position of battle.

        Breathtaking and sobering. Much attention and zillions more visitors descend on the Pearl Harbor Memorial, as well they should. But Punchbowl is the sleeper, with a real understated elegance.

        Highly recommended to anyone visiting.

        Liked by 2 people

  18. M33 says:

    Think of the kind if “history” Obama is making daily on his way out that Trump is forced to inherit…

    Liked by 4 people

  19. Howie says:

    Four years to win WW2 and here we still dither 16 years after 911.

    Liked by 6 people

  20. jeans2nd says:

    Thank you.

    Like

  21. Sam says:

    Prime Minister Abe spoke very movingly. Presisent Obama performed adequately, which is all that can be expected of him.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. no-nonsense-nancy says:

    I thought he sounded condescending as usual. He just can’t help that.

    Like

  23. pjb535i says:

    The Japanese Prime Minister’s words and their delivery were certainly poignant and powerful.

    As the Prime Minister was driving home his sentiments about American “tolerance, tolerance, tolerance”, I could not help to think about President Obama looking on – a committed leftist for whom there is one and only one commandment: “Thou Shall Be Tolerant” – notwithstanding the fact that the Left is anything but tolerant themselves (after all, if it weren’t for double standards, the Left wouldn’t have any standards at all).

    Measured by Obama and the American Left’s standards, the Japanese are a racist society. They very very few refugees. Their population remains 98%+ ethnic Japanese. So I’m curious just how Prime Minister Shinzo Abe would define the word tolerance, for it is as plain and the nose on his face that Japanese tolerance bears no comparison to the politically correct version that American’s have been forced to practice in recent decades.

    In the words of the philosopher Karl Popper: “Unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”

    We American’s need more of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s brand of tolerance, and a whole lot less of President Obama’s.

    Liked by 3 people

  24. Uh-oh! New Zealand just introduced a Security Council resolution condemning the United States for its aggression against the Japanese airmen at Pearl Harbor.

    Samantha Powers abstained and the resolution passed.

    Like

  25. I am surprised. I really expected Obama to apoligized to Japan for the USA embargo of oil and steel that “forced” them to attack us.

    Glad to see he acted like an adult.

    Like

  26. tommylotto says:

    The Japanese of WWII were religious fanatics, and their young men needlessly threw away their lives in suicidal attacks as acts of religious devotion. The US was forced to drop two nuclear bombs on them, occupy their homeland, and literally force changes upon their religious doctrine. (See the Shinto Directive and the end of State Shintoism).

    After thoroughly defeating them, nuking them, occupying them, and changing their religion — they are now wonderful people that we can truly consider our friends and allies.

    Food for thought…

    Liked by 2 people

    • Illegal says:

      Oh, have you been to Japan?
      There are many ancient and modern Buddhist and Taoist temples across the country. The war did not change them.

      Like

      • Bull Durham says:

        Shinto is their main religious belief system.

        Like

        • Illegal says:

          Yes, I accidently typed Taoist which is Chinese. I think their main religion is Zen Buddhism. Buddhist statues and temples are everywhere I went. Shinto is a more ancient religion, but it is mixed with Buddhism by the Japanese people.

          Like

          • In any event, no religions are “state religions” in Japan at this time. Japanese are very religious, which may explain their calm, soothing culture (when the religion hasn’t been hijacked by the State.
            THIS is why the USA Constitution forbids a state religion – meaning supported with taxpayer money and forbidding existence of all other religions.

            Like

      • tommylotto says:

        Prior to the Shinto Directive, State Shintoism was the official state sponsored religion and its religious dogma was used for purposes of propaganda. (Think of it as Sharia Law in Saudi Arabia). It taught that the Japanese race was superior, that the emperor was descended from the sun, and gave rise to a whole host of pathologies that encouraged the rape of Asia, suicide banzai charges and kamikaze bombings.

        After we defeated Japan, we recognized that their religion was the root of the problem. So, we changed it.

        Like

  27. Illegal says:

    We are using our western values to assess PM Abe’s speech, but we need to known some background about PM Abe.

    “As a historical revisionist, Abe consistently maintains a warped view of history that justifies Japanese wartime aggression and glorifies militancy. To this end, Abe’s visit and tributes by proxy to the notorious Yasukuni Shrine, which honors Japan’s war dead, including 14 Class-A convicted criminals of World War II, perfectly reflect his political stance and revisionist view of history.”

    He is a Japanese nationalist who wants to restore the country’s military. He and his party have been working to revise the Japanese constitution to remove the restriction on militarization.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ron says:

      I’m not trying to be insensitive, but I’m not going to get angry at the Prime Minister of Japan for being a Japanese “Nationalist”, nor am I going to get upset that he wants to build up his military.

      Japan should have a military. I’m also happy he visited the memorial today. They did what they did, and then we retaliated and made sure they don’t even look at us cross for the next century. The whole thing was horrible, it’s great that we can be on friendly peaceful terms with them again.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Bull Durham says:

      The US should reverse his Imperialist moves.
      But, we love their aggressiveness and reward it.
      It’s what a Hegemon does. Uses vassals states for its domination of others.
      Our East China Sea, Sea of Japan ring of steel to enclose that passage of China’s ships (and Russian fleet also), is dependent on Japan’s vassalage.

      Like

  28. kinthenorthwest says:

    That picture of Obama and the prime minister is almost funny. Looks like Obama is trying to make sure he is in the shot and that everyone in America think that Japan likes him.
    Not that many days and we can fumigate the White House…(probably the real reason Melania is holding off permanently moving into the house.(wink wink)>

    Liked by 2 people

  29. Dixie says:

    Did anybody else notice the announcement scrolling across the bottom of the screen during the video about the impending announcement of obama penalties for the Russian interference in the election? He is such a disgusting individual. There is absolutely nothing he could do to redeem himself in my estimation.

    Liked by 2 people

  30. rsg says:

    I like Japan a lot but it is perhaps the most race conscious country in the world. Exclusive with a capital X. Don’t get me wrong, I approve of that. But when Japanese speak of tolerance and diversity……don’t make me laugh.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Bull Durham says:

      Yes, ask the Koreans about the Japanese treatment of them in Japan’s society.

      And check out how the Ainu people of Japan were treated.

      Like

      • Son of Rusty Shackleford says:

        And don’t forget the Okinawans; they’re looked down upon by many if not most Japanese. I lived in Japan for eight years and came away thinking they were the most racist people on Earth; even the word for foreigners, gaijin, literally means “outsiders.” As I realized after a few months, you can become an American or Canadian, but you can never become Japanese—-you either are born one or you aren’t. Period.

        Like

  31. In AZ says:

    My mother’s two older brothers served in WWII ( my mother had two older brothers and two younger brothers. The brother born after my mother died at age three. The very youngest brother fought in Vietnam. He was an Air Force pilot) The very oldest brother fought in Europe. He was able to make contact with relatives in Europe during the war and after.
    The second oldest served in the Pacific Theater and fought the Japanese. The one who fought the Japanese never got rid of his anger towards the Japanese because he witnessed how atrocious and brutal the Japanese were against their enemies.

    So then the oldest brother serves in the Korean war and when the war is over he shows up, back home, with a Japanese wife who had two children. Her husband was killed in WWII fighting for Japan. They met and married in Korea. No warning, no announcement, nothing. The marriage caused great heartache. The second brother never spoke to or had anything to do with the oldest brother for the rest of their lives. When the oldest brother died, the other brother refused to attend the funeral. There were other things in play also going back to their entire childhood. I have never forgotten the anger the second oldest brother had towards the war, Japan, and the oldest brother. My poor mother was caught in the middle, trying to keep peace.

    My daughter became good friends with a female Japanese exchange student. I showed the exchange student a photo of my Uncle with his Japanese wife. She was very surprised that an American soldier would marry a Japanese and that a Japanese would marry an American soldier so soon after WWII.

    She said today it is not a problem for a marriage like my oldest Uncle had, but back then it had to have caused problems on both sides. I told her it caused major problems.
    The exchange student loves America and my daughter and her are in contact almost daily.
    My daughter asks her Japanese friend what she would like to have from America, things that can be easily mailed, and we send a package twice a year. It is expensive to mail heavy packages overseas! And the Japanese friend sends things from Japan.

    Liked by 2 people

  32. eksothen says:

    I cannot accept this, hypocrisy.

    Yes the Japanese were and behaved barbarous, but dropping TWO nuclear weapons i the middle of CIVILIAN CITIES with out military significance is HUMAN GENOCIDE, against the Japanese people.

    No sane and NORMAL human being would celebrate that they murdered overall, in two days more than 300thousanfd CIVILIANS.

    hospitals, schools, pregnant mothers the elderly the sick, and newly born babies.

    That is a BLACK mark on the soul of America. You should NOT celebrate but be ashamed, of what the then US government actions accomplished. Outright cold blooded MURDER !

    I’m not sorry. I have to say what I believe. SHAME SHAME.

    Like

    • Rudy Bowen says:

      Yeah, well, shame on YOU. Millions of lives were saved by dropping those bombs. Including mine, as my father was in the first wave for the invasion of Japan. People like you who don’t have the brains or the decency to look at the whole picture make me physically ill.
      SHOVE YOUR ‘SHAME’ UP YOUR ASS.

      Liked by 2 people

    • BobW462 says:

      Sure, eksothen. Like the Japanese didn’t murder any civilians, and they wouldn’t have ever nuked US cities if they could have. Give us a break, please.

      Like

      • eksothen says:

        You’re forgetting something.

        The Japanese upon their attack on the Naval base at Perl Harbor, could have hit civilian targets, if they wanted to since there was no air defense. But they DIDN’T.

        So if you want to use a hypothetical, then it stands a good chance that even if they had the use of nuclear bombs. More likely they would not have used such a`weapon against civilians.

        So let that sink in for a while.

        Like

        • BobW462 says:

          The Pear Harbor attack was specifically planned to destroy or cripple American naval power in the Pacific. The mission had a finite capability, and all available resources were allocated to military targets; but, only because there was no perceived “value” in targeting civilians in lieu of capital warships – NOT because the Japanese were somehow morally opposed to killing civilians.

          The Japanese didn’t care one bit about civilian deaths, and proved it over and over again throughout the war. If they had nukes, they would have surely used them – at any cost – to save the “Emperor’s honor”.

          So, let that sink in for a while.

          Like

          • eksothen says:

            I have.

            People like you are justifying, the use of weapons of mass destruction against civilians.

            Then it is reasonable to say thst when Saddam was gassing the Kurds, he saw a “valuable” military advantage too.

            Just imagine, if such an atrocity, occured in American cities.

            Let that sink in !

            Like

            • BobW462 says:

              Your position on this subject is weak, at best; and, your use of false analogies and passive-aggressive verbiage to bolster it serves as a clear indication that further pursuit of this topic with you is unlikely to result in any substantive discourse. Accordingly, I must bid you adieu, for now.

              Oh… and, just for the record, the attack on Pearl resulted in approx. 100 civilian casualties (60 dead, 40 wounded). So, nobody should ever pretend that these casualties did not occur – at Pearl Harbor, or anywhere else the Japanese war machine operated.

              Liked by 1 person

              • eksothen says:

                ” any substantive discourse “, meaning what?? That I must agree with your point of view??

                You show an arrogance in your writing, since you exclude the possibility that the other person might be right.

                I’m talking on points yet you see it as a competitions on who is right and who is wrong.

                Question: Did the US administration use a weapon of mass destruction, on CIVILIANS, on an area with NO military or strategic value???

                YES.

                Justify that. If your conscience allows you to!!!

                Like

    • Bull Durham says:

      It serves as a great moral lesson that helps all nations who possess nuclear weapons to “use” them as deterrents in the MAD military strategy.

      Perhaps, that “good” came from the actual use.

      I, too, have always felt we did use the bombs for quasi-geopolitical purposes that had nothing to do with forcing the end to the war. The fact that one was uranium and one was plutonium indicates a malevolence of intent. If we had an earlier development of our hydrogen bomb, no doubt we would have dropped that as a third target totally destroyed. And later still, our neutron bomb, if it had come early also, we would have used one of those. All for strategic purpose? I think not. Never have. We kept those cities pristine so we could see the total damage our bombs would do.

      It’s done. It’s a fact of history. Most think we did the correct military thing.
      We did bring their nation back from the depths.
      But we can see why now. To contain China which inevitably, Communist or Republican (the opponents who lost and fled to Formosa and made it Taiwan), would rise and challenge our hegemony over Asia Pacific.

      One reason why we kept the administrative rights of the Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea away from both Taiwan and China and gave the rights to Japan in 1972, even though the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 should have followed the Potsdam agreement and given them to China.

      The US has played mischief for decades using Japan as a foil.
      And what was the news the other day? Japan has been educating North Korean scientists and engineers in nuclear sciences and technologies. How’s that figure out for an ally who is supposedly threatened by North Korean nukes and missiles?

      http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/2056680/north-koreas-atomic-training-college-tokyo-activist-says-nuclear

      This SCMP is a Hong Kong news outlet very anti-Beijing. So you can be certain as source, they are not anti-US.

      Like

      • eksothen says:

        I agree, It is done and is part of history. As you say. if anything “good” came out of that hellfire which was the use of this weapon, was, the MAD, principle.

        Like

    • Ron says:

      With all fairness, you should become a litlte more educated about what actually happened. The Japanese never would have surrendered, and neither would we, so we would have killed many, many more if those bombs weren’t dropped.

      You can’t sit here and complain about morals in a WAR. WAR is horrible, if you don’t want your children murdered, don’t start a damn war with another country, and most certainly don’t start a war with the USA.

      Since we dropped those bombs, there’s been no more bloodshed for 70 years. We are good friends with the Japanese people, and the Japanese people respect the USA.

      This isn’t a blackmark, it was WAR. War’s aren’t pretty, and they started it. Dropping those bombs was the HUMANE way to end the war.

      Liked by 1 person

      • eksothen says:

        “Dropping those bombs was the HUMANE way to end the war. ”

        You would make a fine communist working on the politburo, in the Propaganda dept.

        Like

    • fred5678 says:

      You should really read up on history. Think about the insanity of the Japanese leaders who refused to surrender during a year of firebombing their cities, and the first atom bomb. It took a second shock to convince them to surrender, otherwise we would have had to kill another 2 million Japanese by firebombing, then lose 1 to 2 million of our citizens invading Japan, killing another 2 or 3 million Japanese. The atom bombs SAVED millions of American lives AND Japanese lives.

      Like

    • ZurichMike says:

      .1. Don’t attack us, and we won’t need to attack you.
      .2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.
      .3. Rather than surrender to US forces, Japanese women threw their children, and then themselves, to death from Banzai Cliff.
      .4. War is hell. Ending it sooner rather than later is preferable.

      Like

      • OTOH, when WW II in Europe was ending, both civilians and military did everything they could to surrender to Americans or British. They had a horror, born of experience, of what would happen if they fell into the hands of the Russians.
        What does that tell you about Americans? or the British, for that matter? Tolerant and observing the rule of law.

        Liked by 1 person

        • eksothen says:

          Yeah, very observant to the rule of & convention of war.

          Lets not forget the Bombing of Dresden. Another “military” rich area, where soldiers were disguised as women and children and old man.

          Like

          • ZurichMike says:

            Oh, boo hoo. War’s bad. People get hurt, sometimes innocent people get hurt. Here’s an idea: don’t gas Jews, don’t kill priests, gays, gypsies, and political dissidents, don’t invade your neighbors, don’t declare war, don’t bomb Coventry or London. Then maybe we won’t have to attack you and your cities.

            My God, the depth of your stupidity abut WWII is unfathomable.

            Like

            • eksothen says:

              That’s right people do get hurt. As someone once said about elections.

              ” Wars have consequences. “

              Then, the consequences of the labour camps in Germany, Poland and elsewhere, should be dually understood and ACCEPTED, right???

              do we soo, “boo hoo ” now???

              Like

              • ZurichMike says:

                We accept the reality that death camps existed. We do not condone it. In fact, thousands of Americans died to free Europe from tyranny.

                War is hell. We liberated death camps and ended a war that would have claimed tens of millions of more lives had we not destroyed Germany Nazism, Italian fascism, and Japanese imperialism.

                It’s best when you are digging yourself into a hole to stop.

                Like

                • eksothen says:

                  Have I spoken about American service man in any of my posts??

                  I’ve been referring to the US government and the US administration. It was they that made these decisions. Like it was the Executive branch, in fact the Chief Executive officer of the Executive, that ORDERED to go “silent”, on the far reaching, listening & info gathering posts in the Pacific. Days before the “Tora Tora Tora”.

                  have you ever wondered why??

                  p.s.
                  keep on being ignorant and arrogant. You are only putting your self in the wrong spotlight.

                  Like

                • ZurichMike says:

                  You need to settle down. You started with atomic bombs, now are into conspiracy theories. You are way beyond your ken.

                  Like

      • eksothen says:

        “Military Targets”?????

        Really???

        Could you name those “military” targets, please??

        ” 3. Rather than surrender to US forces, Japanese women threw their children, and then themselves, to death from Banzai Cliff. ”

        So by your logic, you imply that, the US administration approved the use, TWICE. of a nuclear weapon, in civilian areas, in order to stop women committing suicide, with their children??

        p,s
        The unfortunate part is that people like you vote.

        Like

        • ZurichMike says:

          This is well-known fact, which, as your posts prove, show you incredibly poor education. You could have Googled this and found any number of reputable website with documentation and proof of this:

          Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata’s 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. It was also a communications center, a storage point, an assembly area for troops, and was a military-industrial center powered by the mass-scale forced labour of Koreans known as hibakusha. The Hiroshima island of Edajima hosted the Navy Elite Academy. Kure, around 20 km from Hiroshima, was also known for a military port and navy factories. The famous giant warship, Yamato, was constructed in Kure. The material and labour for Kure came from Hiroshima.

          Nagasaki was one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and had wide-ranging industrial importance. Ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials were manufactured there. The Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works was located there. Mitsubishi produced over 10,000 Zero fighters and the battleship Musashi.

          You have to wonder about a people, who, having failed to surrender being warned of destruction and ruin the likes of which would not be seen (Truman’s statement in July 1945), and after one of their cities was wiped off the face of the earth, that they CONTINUED to fight, showing a total disregard for their own people.

          The unfortunate part of this is that people like you pretend to be so smart, flinging emotions as facts, and failing to have any regard for facts, law, logic, consequences, and common sense.

          Liked by 2 people

          • GSR says:

            You are exactly correct and the modern day “limp wrists” who cry about the bomb are not even worth the time it takes to debate and educate them.

            They are just like “Professor Jug Ears” from Indonesia, who back in the ’08 campaign constantly compared Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima. Whaaaaat? Only shows historical ignorance.

            Liked by 1 person

          • eksothen says:

            Ok, there was significant military presence and activity.

            But,
            A-Did it warrant a weapon of Mass Destruction, to achieve a military objective goal??
            OR
            B- Was the use of this weapon of MASS DESTRUCTION, aimed toward CIVILIANS in order to break the will and the morale, determination of the Japanese people??

            It is obvious that we will not see eye to eye on this matter.

            I believe that the US government at that time, committed a war crime. I have no doubt about it.

            You, on the other hand. See that event, as a compromise between the consciences INTENT of “collateral” murder of a few hundred thousand CIVILIANS in order to save possibly 1 or 2 million COMBAT – military personnel.

            To me, it is clear that you equate the life of a CIVILAN with the WILLING combatant participant/military personnel, in a war.

            There is a clear distinction between combatants and CIVILIANS in the Geneva convention of war. Which by the way was SIGNED by the US, as well.

            I’ll leave you with a piece of writing that represents my position on this specific matter, in a more articulated form:

            ========
            http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/08/1485/
            ” The Abiding Significance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

            Americans must still wrestle with what it means to take the lives of innocent civilians intentionally.

            This August marks the sixty-fifth anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In those two blasts and their atomic afterglow over 200,000 Japanese died. The devastation in both cases was overwhelming. Faced with this threat of “prompt and utter destruction,” Japan unconditionally surrendered within a week.

            While technologically the atomic bombs marked a departure from earlier bombing raids in Japan and in Europe, which had required many bombers and tons of ordinance, strategically, these two raids were of a piece with earlier allied actions. The American firebombing of Tokyo, for example, killed roughly 100,000 people. The Allied bombings of Dresden and Hamburg, meanwhile, deliberately targeted “built up” residential areas and killed tens of thousands of German citizens. These bombing raids were part of a strategy of demoralization in which military facilities and armament production were not the main targets. By deliberately attacking civilian populations the Allies hoped to teach their enemies a lesson and bring them to their knees.

            Some few Catholic scholars, notably Elizabeth Anscombe and Fr. John Ford, S.J. argued at the time that the Allied approach was immoral. Their argument, which drew from a moral tradition dating back to St. Augustine, was based on the premise that intentionally killing the “innocent” was always a grave wrong. Both Anscombe and Ford noted that, despite occasional confusion, the meaning of “innocent” could not be “morally innocent,” but rather must mean “not posing a threat.” For it is a threat that justifies the use of defensive force in war, not the moral character of individual civilians who might be morally at fault in their support of, say, the Nazi government, yet be engaged only the in same tasks they would have been working on in peacetime: growing and distributing food, caring for their families, working in the medical profession, and so on. Given this approach to the distinction, Ford estimated that as much as two thirds of the city of Boston would, during World War Two, have been “innocents,” when women, children, and the aged were factored in.

            The Allied bombings in Europe, then, and the firebombing and atomic bombing in Japan, seem to have been deliberate targeting of civilian populations: in other words, intentional attacks on innocent human life. And, if Anscombe’s and Ford’s premise about intentional killing of the innocent is correct, then the conclusion is inescapable: these Allied actions constituted murder on a vast scale, running to hundreds of thousands of lives.

            Two possible justifications might be offered for these actions. One is that German forces had also, and earlier, attacked British citizens, thus initiating the targeting of non-combatants. Something like this seems to have been foreseen by the British, for, in 1939, President Roosevelt had asked for assurances from the warring parties that there would be no targeting of civilians. The British had agreed, but added a condition saying that they reserved the right to adopt “appropriate measures” in the event that Germany should attack civilians. Yet the right not to be murdered, and the obligation not to murder, are not conditional on what other persons might or might not be doing. Those attacking may, of course, be defended against; but their moral wrongs do not, as such, provide a license to any party to abandon moral norms themselves. Nor, as noted, were German civilians themselves the ones attacking. So the “reprisal” justification fails.

            Similarly, the outright consequentialist justifications that were offered then, and continue, in some cases, to be offered today, fail, for two reasons. First, there are inevitable epistemic limitations to our knowledge about what would have been the case without these Allied attacks. Would the war really have lasted longer and cost many more lives? What were the long-term, as opposed to the short-term, consequences of dropping the bomb? There is much speculation on these questions but little, if any, real knowledge…/…”

            Like

            • jeans2nd says:

              “A-Did it warrant a weapon of Mass Destruction, to achieve a military objective goal??”
              Yes.

              “B- Was the use of this weapon of MASS DESTRUCTION, aimed toward CIVILIANS in order to break the will and the morale, determination of the Japanese people??”
              Yes.

              Like

            • ZurichMike says:

              What you believe, versus the facts of what happened, are miles apart. You are angry and confused, and your posts show this.

              Stopping Japan through atomic bombs saved the lives of millions had the war in the Pacific gone from island to island, country to country. I am less interested in the lives of others than I am in the lives of Americans who spilled their blood to maintain our freedoms and way of life — including your right to persist in a state of abject ignorance about military history.

              Like

    • Earl Smith says:

      You think using the bombs was cold, you really have never studied wars and war planning.

      More people were killed in a single fires storm bombing (one night not two) than at Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

      The INVASIONS in November and February would have resulted in more dead than those two cities.

      The Air Force in June ceased bombing cities (except for the Four “lucky” unscathed cities used as nuke effects evaluation) in order to implement the real long term solution. The nation of 100 million would be starved to death. (not to leave the Navy out, there was not a single fishing vessel floating, and one submarine was so disgusted with no available targets that she “sank” a train.) So successful were they that McArthur had to work like a demon to scrape up a starvation 1000 Calories a day in 1946 to feed the workers.

      War is hell, it is meant to be.

      Like

      • eksothen says:

        A war crime is a WAR CRIME.

        Anyone can use legalese, to justify the devil himself.

        But murdering civilians in cold blood, so as to brake the will of the Japanese people that constitutes a WAS CRIME.

        It is not hard to read the Geneva Convention of war and the conduct of it. And what it clarifies as war crimes!!

        It will be an interesting read I assure you.

        Like

        • Earl Smith says:

          I assure you that as a Naval Officer, in charge of nuclear weapons I have read the many versions of the Geneva Convention (you do know that there are many versions, only some of which we have signed) . Likewise the various “Laws of Marine Warfare”

          That said, I would have been tried for violating the Geneva Convention, IF WE LOST THE WAR. Only the losers stand before the Court — if they survive.

          It was in the very nature of how we build our defense systems that dictate how we fight wars. We put our military bases out in the boonies, away from the cities where land is cheap. The Soviets put them in the boonies, then build a city around them to provide the manpower to support the installation. So the Soviets can nuke a wheat field, while we have to nuke a major urban area to achieve the same objective – take out the military defenses. (submarine missiles are small and short range – designed to take out command centers, airfields and radar installations so that the bombers could get through with the Big Stuff)

          I would point out that the very “Hero” of modern warfare and resistance was a war criminal.- Winston Churchill !!. He was a big proponent of the use of Concentration Camps in the Boer War (around 50% casualties in those Death Camps – but the Brits were the “Good Guys”), Gassing civilians to quell an uprising in Iraq (in the 20s), and as the civilian in charge of the Navy instituted TWO specific acts that only affected civilians.

          Until his orders to have all civilian ships ram submarines the standard policy was to stop ships suspected of carrying contraband, search it and because of circumstance if found put the crew in lifeboats and sink her. The Churchill orders had the effect of converting EVERY civilian into a combatant and thus eligible of sinking without warning. There were NO INNOCENT parties in modern warfare.

          A second act was to install a general minefield in the North Sea and approaches to starve the civilian population of Germany (and also the neutrals in adjacent countries like the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden). This was to be war on the cheap rather than the expensive close in blockade of the Continent like in the Napoleonic Wars (which established the Laws of Warfare)

          And as a by the way, he also instituted a policy of having civilian liners carry munitions in violation of all the war treaties – see Lusitania.

          So the very idea of laws on how to fight a war were thrown out at the beginning, by the West !! The Geneva Convention was a empty concept in WW1 and WW2 by the acts of the West. It should be pointed out the side most likely to honor the rules was the Central Powers and later the Axis.

          Like

          • eksothen says:

            Thanks for that historical walk down memory lane.

            You do have a point about the concept that War crimes apply only to losers and not winners. And that the G C is, in the final count, is a hollow agreement.

            At the same time your historical account, just goes to prove, that a War crime is still a war crime, no matter what. Even when there are no consequences to follow, when such a crime has taken place.

            Lets all hope that such an illegal and immoral act never again takes place.

            American people do not deserve to carry such a black stigma, in their collective souls.

            Like

  33. i'm just sayin'.. says:

    A thoughtful piece……
    My father was wounded as a 19 year old Marine in Guam leaving him with a permanent disability. He was awarded a Bronze Star w/ V and a Purple Heart. He like most warriors never spoke about what he did, what he saw and what happened to him, but when my sister befriended a Japanese girl, who became her lifelong best friend, my father accepted her as if she was his own daughter. My late father battled various demons in his life, largely I think, as a result of the war, and it has always been a wonder to me that in spite of a deep inner darkness he was able reconcile life in such a way to allow him to be sincerely kind and caring to my sister’s friend.
    Thanks Sundance, your piece helped me remember

    Liked by 4 people

  34. relictele says:

    Sorry to be a cynic but cynical politicians did it to me. Would I be wrong to assume the Marine honor guard was of Japanese descent and chosen/assigned on that basis? Did the powers-that-be decide that we would engage in a bit of racial virtue signaling even during a somber state visit and remembrance?

    Like

    • jeans2nd says:

      You may decide for yourself who made the decision, and the decision-maker’s motivation. That United States Marine was chosen because she was the BEST.

      Like

  35. md070264 says:

    The Japanese killed 3,000,000 to 10,000,000 people from 1937 to the end of the war. Chinese , Indonesians , Koreans , Filipinos and Americans. They estimated ( probably high ) that if we invaded , we would lose another 1,000,000 GIs. They believed their Emperor was a deity and fought to the last man. No surrender.
    Truman was correct to bring Hell to their god.
    They started the war.
    Truman brought it to an end the best way he thought he could with the least amount of American deaths.
    If I was President with those numbers of atrocities that Japan committed, I would do the same.
    I would stand in front of God and receive His judgement for dropping those bombs.
    The Bataan death march is something you should read. Read about their Chinese invasions and what they did.
    Only God knows and will judge us all on the last day.
    May God have mercy on all of us.

    Liked by 2 people

  36. Illegal says:

    Truman was also worried the Red Army would capture Japan. Militarily Russia was in a better position to invade Japan from the north and west. Plus Russia had a score to settle with Japan.

    Like

    • I didn’t know that, Illegal! I keep learning more and more good stuff about Truman. If only my mother had known. Truman, whether with full knowledge or not, did much to stop Communism’s expansion all over the world apparently. Who knew?

      Like

      • rsanchez1990 says:

        The Soviets declared war on Japan soon after Hiroshima was bombed. The Soviets had previously agreed to help the United States in the Pacific after the fall of Germany. The atomic bombing supposedly had no effect on hastening Soviet intervention, the Soviets were supposed to have been planning an invasion for months, but you have to imagine that Hiroshima forced Stalin’s hand.

        The Soviets only agreed to help with Japan after the US (under Roosevelt) promised them territory in the Far East, so even if Truman wanted to stop the Soviets, Roosevelt already gave territory away. As a result, the Soviets annexed Sakhalin and the Kurils, which are still part of Russia (and for which Japan still resents Russia, even more than the Democrats do), and formed North Korea, which invaded South Korea and led to the Korean War a few years later (which was Truman trying to stop the communists).

        Like

        • Earl Smith says:

          You do not move armies all the way across Asia over night. The Soviets had promised to invade the Japanese Empire within 90 days of Germany’s surrender and they did. There were over a million men in the attacks on 4 fronts that crumpled the Japanese.

          Oh, by the way. Truman also precipitated the Korean war by installing a military dictatorship in the South (like in Viet Nam) after promising unification for the country. And then “mistakenly” leaving Korea out of the area where he would resist Communism (sort of like Bush administration giving the go ahead for Iraq to invade Kuwait).

          Wars start when nations are not clear and frank in their diplomacy.

          Liked by 1 person

    • tommylotto says:

      The Russians had the army to overrun the Japanese possessions in Asia, but did not have the navy, landing craft, or experience in amphibious warfare to take the home islands. We gave them the naval assets to make the in roads that they made. See Project Hula.

      Like

  37. ZurichMike says:

    Next up: John Kerry will pivot this Japanese/American “apology and condolence” tour to the Middle East, where he will lay the groundwork for “If the US and Israel apologize to the Palestinians, there will be peace.” Mark my words.

    Liked by 2 people

  38. way2opinionated says:

    For those of you who claim Pearl was a legitimate military target while Hiroshima was not, implying the US is Evil and Japan honorable and wronged…

    The oil embargo that pushed the Japanese to move into the South Pacific* was imposed because of the Japanese invasion of China. The Rape of Nanking was in 1937. The Japanese Army and Navy had different standards of honor. The World knew of the 600,000 dead there and throughout occupied China. Roosevelt was responding to Japanese Imperialism writ large. Total War in WW II had stared years before the Blitz or even the invasion of Poland.

    The destruction of the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl was to protect the flank of the long supply lines between Japan and the oil fields in Indonesia.

    Like

  39. rsanchez1990 says:

    I have to disagree regarding politics. After seeing what Obama, Rice, and Kerry have done to Israel over the past week, I can’t imagine Obama being sincere about anything regarding foreign policy. No credit given, because none is deserved.

    Like

  40. GSR says:

    Professor Jug Ears, aka, our Indonesian Mooooslim Boy in Chief, is the typical mis-educated, college campus iimp-wrist and hater of all things American, Western, Caucasian and Christian.

    Since back in the 2008 campaign, Jug Ears has been going on and on comparing Hiroshima with Pearl Harbor, as if the two are equivalent. He reflects his 1970’s education.

    Japan of the 1920’s, 30’s, and 40’s was a nasty, totalitarian place imbued with not only fanatical Shintoism but “the way of the warrior” – Bushido. Japan would never have surrendered; a US invasion which would have made the D-Day in Normandy look like a picnic was planned for November 1945 (Operation Downfall).

    But the truth is even today, Japan is “quietly” proud of what they did in those years, they just keep in to themselves because they were so thoroughly defeated. They wreaked havoc across Asia and the Pacific. They deserved to be humiliated. And they were.

    Like

  41. SSI01 says:

    Of all the times when we needed a 6’4″, not-an-ounce-of-fat Marine Sgt, positively dominating that spot in front of the Japanese PM – we get this . . . . .

    Like

  42. bitterlyclinging says:

    Stunning image of today’s absurd political correctness, female Marine in dress blues, definitely far out of place in the climb up the 556 ft Mt Suribachi, Japanese prime Minister Abe, and Obama, who, had he been in office December 7, 1941 would likely have sent Hideki Tojo the keys to the cities of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, throwing in the keys to Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Phoenix for good measure after the attack.

    Like

    • GSR says:

      Spot on. Female Marine? LoL. Give me a break. I’m surprised Ol’ Jug Ears didn’t put a Spanish speaking, hijab wearing lesbian Marine there for the photo op.

      Like

  43. wasntme says:

    He should have visited the Missouri where he could reminisce about his surrender.
    Not the Arizona.

    Like

  44. dreadnok89 says:

    Was going good till obama had to throw race into it. The japanese prime minister should apologize to his own people for the ensuing wrath that happened after pear harbor

    Like

  45. Paul B. says:

    I found obama utterly unconvincing, as usual, and could not continue listening. Abe’s speech had a couple of moments, but in the end, a politician’s promises are expendable.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s