View Full Version : Leaked memo shows Obama was denied opportunity to apologize
Streck-Fu
10-12-2011, 10:47
....to Japan for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bomb attacks. Note that he wanted to apologize in 2009.
LINK (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/587698/201110111829/Apologies-Not-Accepted.htm)
Apologies Not Accepted
Leaked cables show Japan nixed a presidential apology to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for using nukes to end the overseas contingency operation known as World War II. Will the next president apologize for the current one?
The obsessive need of this president to apologize for American exceptionalism and our defense of freedom continued recently when Barack Obama's State Department (run by Hillary Clinton) contacted the family of al-Qaida propagandist and recruiter Samir Khan to "express its condolences" to his family.
Khan, a right-hand man to Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed along with Awlaki in an airstrike in Yemen on Sept. 30. We apologized for killing a terrorist before he could help kill any more of us.
It's yet another part of the world apology tour that began with Obama taking the oath of office to protect and defend the United States and its Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, something he immediately felt sorry for.
One stop on his tour was Prague in August 2009. There he spoke of "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," ignoring that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure.
Another stop on the tour was in Japan, where Obama in November 2009 bowed to the emperor, something no American president had ever done. It could have been worse if plans to visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima to apologize for winning the war with the atom bombs had come to pass.
A heretofore secret cable dated Sept. 3, 2009, was recently released by WikiLeaks. Sent to Secretary of State Clinton, it reported Japan's Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka telling U.S. Ambassador John Roos that "the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a 'nonstarter.'"
The Japanese feared the apology would be exploited by anti-nuclear groups and those opposed to the defensive alliance between Japan and the U.S.
Whatever Tokyo's motive, Obama's motive was to once again apologize for defending freedom, this time for winning with devastating finality the war Japan started.
While Obama envisions a world without nuclear weapons, and moves steadily toward unilateral disarmament of our nuclear arsenal, we envision a world without tyrants and thugs willing to use them against us. We do not fear nuclear weapons in the hands of Britain or France, countries that share our love of freedom and democracy.
HHmmm, apologize to them for something THEY started...
What's wrong with that picture????...per sey...
greenberetTFS
10-12-2011, 11:40
Personally I think "O's" losing it,the job's getting to be to much for him..........:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
Personally I think "O's" losing it,the job's getting to be to much for him..........:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
I guess so...I wonder how he'd handle the Cuban missile crisis...or the cold war for that matter....
That's what we'd probably be now....matter..
We should also apologize for all the germans and italians that we killed at Anzio and Normandy...
...not to mention all of the englishmen we killed back in the 1700's.
...we should also apologize to president Mahmoud Ahmajimmyhat for interfering with his alleged attempt on the saudi diplomat.
...notice, I failed to capitalize some words in this post, and I didnt apologize for it.
...here is one to think about: should the 'North' apologize to the 'South' for Sherman's March to the Sea?
I want all the African (continent types) tribes to apologize for selling American blacks into slavery...:lifter
BTW...THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!:D
Stay safe.
When he apoligizes for the nation I love, the Condescender-in-chief of the most giving, self-sacrificing group of people to walk this earth is coincidently apologizing for our mothers, and sisters, and wives.
I'm old-fashioned enough (and old enough) that he makes me double-p*ssed.
I want all the African (continent types) tribes to apologize for selling American blacks into slavery...
I didn't know they did that - I've always thought that they sold other African tribesmen to Dutch slave trading agents who then arranged for their transport to places like the America's to be sold as slaves at auction. ;) :D
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I want all the African (continent types) tribes to apologize for selling American blacks into slavery...:lifter
BTW...THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!:D
Stay safe.
lolol :D
I believe you know what the man meant to say.:mad:
Green is not pink.
Blue
I didn't know they did that - I've always thought that they sold other African tribesmen to Dutch slave trading agents who then arranged for their transport to places like the America's to be sold as slaves at auction.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I couldn't bring myself too type African when referring to myself; I tried however--my subconscious said NO!!!!!!!!!!:o:D
Blue and Guy,
I took it to be along the lines of Rbt McCloskey's famous statement...
"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
...and the pink font to be directed at the demand for the 'apology' which we know won't be forthcoming in our lifetimes.
On that note, I'll apologize for whatever it is we need to be apologizing for around here today...but tomorrow it'll be somebody else's turn. :D
Richard
A quick comment and two quick questions.
The blog's discussion of the history of the Pacific War is an intellectually irresponsible oversimplification. At the very least, any discussion of America's entry into World War II should mention the nation's interests, not just its ideals.
Why does the writer of the blog get a free pass for using information from Wikileaks?
Does one nation's initation of hostilities against another justify vertical escalation?
............... Does one nation's initation of hostilities against another justify vertical escalation?
[/LIST]
Hmmm, swing at me with a beer bottle and I'll likely be swinging a chair back at you.
But.........back on the thought..........on this issue lots of folks like to boil it down to "Oh, what the heck, the evil gringos dropped the bomb just to test it out on the little folk".
I like to think a bit more thought was put into it.
I just have to get mad at you once a year or I don't feel right. :D
Blue
How would Zero's apology have gone in theory?
" Uh we are sorry we used every means necessary, to end a war you treacherously started at Pearl Harbor. We are also sorry we didn't have to invade Japan in a military campaign which would have dwarfed Normandy and the ETO in scale and bloodshed, particularly amongst civilians, since the Japanese had correctly anticipated our invasion beaches.....uhh wait that unfortunately might not get me re-elected.....uh this is unfortunate, I am flabbergasted, can I get a Mulligan on this whole apology thing and a new teleprompter?"
Streck-Fu
10-12-2011, 15:39
Does one nation's initation of hostilities against another justify vertical escalation?
[/LIST]
Yes.
Arguably, anyone initiating hostility should expect to receive the full measure in response.
It is only reasonable to end a fight as quickly and decisively as possible. Tempered battle only sets you up for failure.
Personally I think "O's" losing it,the job's getting to be to much for him..........:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
By saying he's losing it', you're inferring he had it in the first place.....um....notsomuch. :p ;)
Lotta babies left to die on the abortion table he'll never get a chance to apologize to...
http://www.nrlc.org/obamabaipa/obamacoverup.html
mark46th
10-12-2011, 16:14
I think Obama should talk to the people in Nanking, China. Maybe he can apologize for the Japanese for the Rape of Nanking. The Japanese only murdered 600,000 men, women and childen....
I just have to get mad at you once a year or I don't feel right. :D
Blue
SAD - Seasonal Affective Disease, right? Hey, I know the feeling - I get mad at me periodically, too...but not nearly as often as my wife does. :D
As for the current POTUS, he would've fared well in occupied France's Vichy Government.
Richard :munchin
Yes.
Arguably, anyone initiating hostility should expect to receive the full measure in response.
It is only reasonable to end a fight as quickly and decisively as possible. Tempered battle only sets you up for failure.Mahan might agree, but would GEN David C. Jones, GEN Edward C. Meyer, CAPT Peter Swartz, GEN Brent Scowcroft, and others who have wrestled with the role of nuclear weapons in modern warfare?
Mahan might agree, but would GEN David C. Jones, GEN Edward C. Meyer, CAPT Peter Swartz, GEN Brent Scowcroft, and others who have wrestled with the role of nuclear weapons in modern warfare?
.....................but if push comes to shove some battlefield commander (might not be our side) could just pull the trigger if he thinks he needs to.
Streck-Fu
10-12-2011, 18:10
Mahan might agree, but would GEN David C. Jones, GEN Edward C. Meyer, CAPT Peter Swartz, GEN Brent Scowcroft, and others who have wrestled with the role of nuclear weapons in modern warfare?
I do not mean to imply the first action should be to nuke them.
I do not mean to imply the first action should be to nuke them.FWIW, I was more focused on your emphasis on the concept of a decisive battle at the earliest possible moment and the political implications of such a choice.
FWIW, I was more focused on your emphasis on the concept of a decisive battle at the earliest possible moment and the political implications of such a choice.
Yeah, I'm still waiting for Armageddon - the battle, that is - I've been to the plains but they're under irrigated cultivation and posted with 'NO TRESPASSING' signs printed in Hebrew. Timing seems to be everything on this planet.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Ambush Master
10-12-2011, 21:01
I couldn't bring myself too type African when referring to myself; I tried however--my subconscious said NO!!!!!!!!!!:o:D
Guy!!
You are TRUELY a BROTHER fom a Different Mother!!!
Do take care!!
Martin
GratefulCitizen
10-12-2011, 22:25
One has to wonder how many Japanese lives were saved because the mainland invasion was avoided.
The bombing made surrender feasible to the Japanese.
"The atom bomb was no 'great decision.' It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness."
-Harry S. Truman
Due to my interest in Akita dogs, I read Dog Man (http://www.amazon.com/Dog-Man-Uncommon-Faraway-Mountain/dp/1594201242) a couple of years ago. At the end of the book, he tells of the Japanese citizens having been lied to about the progress of the war. They were told that they were winning. After the war was over, they were surprised at the civility of the American occupiers.
Pat
One has to wonder how many Japanese lives were saved because the mainland invasion was avoided.
The bombing made surrender feasible to the Japanese.
"The atom bomb was no 'great decision.' It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness."
-Harry S. TrumanIs wondering about the history of what did not happen an adequate substitute for a detailed examination of the history of what actually happened?
(Were the only viable alternatives to use the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or to invade the Japanese home islands? What were the recommendations of America's best strategist? Was President Truman as sure of his decision to use the bomb as he later conveyed? Were the Americans only concerned with winning the war or were they also considering how the politics of conflict termination would shape the post-war world?)
Is wondering about the history of what did not happen an adequate substitute for a detailed examination of the history of what actually happened?
(Were the only viable alternatives to use the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or to invade the Japanese home islands? What were the recommendations of America's best strategist? Was President Truman as sure of his decision to use the bomb as he later conveyed? Were the Americans only concerned with winning the war or were they also considering how the politics of conflict termination would shape the post-war world?)
No, it's not. Sig, you've frequently make excellent points over the years I've known you in your sparsely-worded arguments, but this is one of your best.
Is wondering about the history of what did not happen an adequate substitute for a detailed examination of the history of what actually happened?
(Were the only viable alternatives to use the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or to invade the Japanese home islands? What were the recommendations of America's best strategist? Was President Truman as sure of his decision to use the bomb as he later conveyed? Were the Americans only concerned with winning the war or were they also considering how the politics of conflict termination would shape the post-war world?)
Time to add George C. Marshall's memoirs to the reading pile. ;)
Richard :munchin
Streck-Fu
10-13-2011, 06:09
(Were the only viable alternatives to use the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or to invade the Japanese home islands? What were the recommendations of America's best strategist? Was President Truman as sure of his decision to use the bomb as he later conveyed? Were the Americans only concerned with winning the war or were they also considering how the politics of conflict termination would shape the post-war world?)
Considering that the Russians were working to develop an nuclear weapon as well, post war posturing was part of the discussion. But that was secondary to ending the war.
As to the confidence of Truman's decision, it is perfectly reasonable that he become more confident with a successful decision afterward.
As to the confidence of Truman's decision, it is perfectly reasonable that becomes more confident with a successful decision afterward.
lol What?:confused:
Streck-Fu
10-13-2011, 06:54
lol What?:confused:
I'm still working on my coffee, let me rephrase.
Truman always took ownership of his decision and believed it to be the best alternative.
But that was secondary to ending the war.Notwithstanding the fact that this interpretation remains an issue of enduring debate among diplomatic historians,* if this interpretation is accurate, what does it say about the wisdom of American grand strategy at the end of World War II?
__________________________________________________ ___
* J. Samuel Walker provides a concise overview of the decade's long debate in his "Recent Literature on Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground, Diplomatic History 29:2 (April 2005): 311-334.
GratefulCitizen
10-14-2011, 20:19
Is wondering about the history of what did not happen an adequate substitute for a detailed examination of the history of what actually happened?
(Were the only viable alternatives to use the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or to invade the Japanese home islands? What were the recommendations of America's best strategist? Was President Truman as sure of his decision to use the bomb as he later conveyed? Were the Americans only concerned with winning the war or were they also considering how the politics of conflict termination would shape the post-war world?)
Not the point I was trying to make.
The Truman quote was for the "merely another powerful weapon" part, not for the "arsenal of righteousness" part.
If the president wanted to apologize for civilian casualties and excessive force, then an apology for the bombing of Tokyo would be more appropriate.
Apologizing for Hiroshima and Nagasaki is apologizing for victory.
Japan lost.
Their people fared much better than the Chinese and Soviet "victors".
My point is: the war ended quickly, they were treated well, and they went on to tremendous freedom and prosperity.
By using atomic weapons, the United States chose to spend more treasure and less blood in seeking victory.
IMO, this does not warrant an apology.
Utah Bob
10-15-2011, 06:58
I'm sorry. Should we not have dropped those bombs? I gotta tell you if anyone had said that was frowned upon...
George Costanza
Not the point I was trying to make.Okay, but you proceed to repeat a central point of your previous post. Specifically:
My point is: the war ended quickly, they were treated well, and they went on to tremendous freedom and prosperity.
By using atomic weapons, the United States chose to spend more treasure and less blood in seeking victory.Bluntly, I don't believe that "And they lived happily after" is a viable approach to the global history of U.S.-Japan relations in the twentieth century.
(Do you honestly believe that the tens of thousands of Asians who remained slaves in Japan after the war's end would agree with the generalization that "they were treated well"?:confused:)
MOO, I am no historian, and don't intend to portray myself as one, that said...
The projected death toll for a mainland invasion was based on many experiences, primarily Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Our enemies have used, and sometimes to great success, the "death by a thousand cuts" strategy of incrementally drawing as much blood as possible to bleed off(pun intended) as much steam as possible from the "Shock and Awe" machine all while wearing down the public opinion at home; Japan was no different, in fact one could argue they mastered the art and wrote part of the book. Now combine that with the fact that the nuclear "cat" was "out of the bag", Russia wasn't that far behind, Germany and Japan were collaborating on their own(U-234 etc.).
Bearing in mind that hindsight is always 20-20, IMHO, I believe that many at that point felt that the horrors of the weapon would be unleashed at some point in time, and it was a matter of the world needing to see what the bomb was capable of as well as ensuring that the US would never be the site for that test. Yes, we ushered in the nuclear age, and in a horrific way, maybe we are guilty of opening the door for old man nuclear winter, and standing behind it so we don't get trampled, while others are steamrolled; in defense of Truman, his responsibility as CiC was to ensure WE don't get steamrolled, and had we waited, someone else would have opened that door...
My .02
Paragrouper
10-17-2011, 14:36
Okay, but you proceed to repeat a central point of your previous post. Specifically:
Bluntly, I don't believe that "And they lived happily after" is a viable approach to the global history of U.S.-Japan relations in the twentieth century.
(Do you honestly believe that the tens of thousands of Asians who remained slaves in Japan after the war's end would agree with the generalization that "they were treated well"?:confused:)
Heres the money question; do you believe America owes Japan an apology for using nuclear weapons on them?
...do you believe America owes Japan an apology for using nuclear weapons on them?
Does the Pope s**t in the woods?
Richard :munchin
Heres the money question; do you believe America owes Japan an apology for using nuclear weapons on them?No.
IMO, the very notion that an American president would consider such an option is even more appalling than the "They got what was coming to them. Period." sensibility that is often conveyed in the discussions about the decisions to use atomic weapons.
My $0.02.
Iraqgunz
10-17-2011, 15:37
One thing I can say for sure. All of my elders (uncles, grandfathers, etc..) served during WW II. There is a good possibilty that with the projected death tolls and the time it would have taken to beat Japan by conventional means, some of us wouldn't be here right now.
It was a shitty thing, but I wonder why no one raises a stink when we think back about how many Germans were killed in the daily bombing raids of Hamburg, Dresden, Pfortzheim and others?
There are times now when I sit in my hooch that I wish we would have used something nuclear on A'stan and Iraq.
greenberetTFS
10-17-2011, 16:11
Help refresh my memory,did Japan ever apologize to us about Pearl Harbor,I don't think so?...:mad: :mad::mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
Help me refresh my memory but did Japan ever apologize to us about Pearl Harbor, I don't think so!
Why should they - they pretty much own Oahu now...but don't worry because and we've got them down on the mat in a sub-prime mortgage headlock. ;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Paragrouper
10-17-2011, 17:31
No.
IMO, the very notion that an American president would consider such an option is even more appalling than the "They got what was coming to them. Period." sensibility that is often conveyed in the discussions about the decisions to use atomic weapons.
My $0.02.
Thanks for clearing that up. Your questions and statements in the thread left your position somewhat unclear. myself, I am seriously concerned with why our POTUS would contemplate an apology and I wonder at what he hoped to achieve by that course of action.
Whether the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the best option at the time--who truly knows? Presuming that the primary goal was to end the war quickly, the Nuclear option certainly achieved that goal rather quickly.
The Reaper
10-17-2011, 18:28
...I am seriously concerned with why our POTUS would contemplate an apology and I wonder at what he hoped to achieve by that course of action...
Appeasement.
TR
Roguish Lawyer
10-17-2011, 19:29
Note that the use of nuclear weapons resulted in surrender by people crazy enough to blow themselves up to kill the enemy. Hmmmm . . . :munchin
GratefulCitizen
10-18-2011, 12:57
The POTUS wanted to apologize for victory.
He wants to apologize all over the world for any success ever demonstrated by the USA.
This reflects his zero-sum thinking.
(already quite evident when he discusses economics)
The expansion of American influence has spread prosperity and freedom.
America has prospered for the interaction, and so have those who chose to engage in peaceful relations.
America's gain is not everyone else's loss.