Obama's world

[Mister Moose]

The appearance of the President of the United States, embracing a Japanese citizen hurt in a war caused by his own countrymen, on the heel of Memorial Day weekend was unbecoming.

Wounds heal. Enemies can become allies/friends and even countrymen. Time moves on.

I agree Bubba. Both countries and individuals can forge friendship after conflict. I don't have a problem with a US president embracing a citizen of a past enemy. The sorrow of loss and the expression of our mutual humanity can forge bonds.

That is not the same as apologizing, or expressing that past actions were somehow lacking in morality. Self preservation and defense from aggression is unfortunate but necessary, and this President's choice of words indicates he doesn't understand that. Using your previous post as an example, I expect you would be happy to shake the hand of a German soldier who participated in the concentration camps, and who may have held objection but was powerless to be defiant, or who has since come to recognize how wrong it was. The soldier might have his own tale of loss you hadn't heard before. That is very different than you stating that you had a 'moral awakening' and we should never have liberated the camps in the first place, or that in the future we would not act in the same manner.

[Bubba]

The appearance of the President of the United States, embracing a Japanese citizen hurt in a war caused by his own countrymen, on the heel of Memorial Day weekend was unbecoming.

You're absolutely right. A US President should never embrace people, whether literally as Obama did, or figuratively (as FDR and many others have done) who were hurt in a war caused by their own countrymen. Veterans who tried to kill each other should not do it either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Gettysburg_reunion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 1938 Gettysburg reunion was an encampment of American Civil War veterans on the Gettysburg Battlefield for the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg. The gathering included approximately 25 veterans of the battle with a further 1,359 Federal and 486 Confederate attendees out of the 8,000 living veterans of the war. The veterans averaged 94 years of age, Transportation, quarters, and subsistence was federally funded for each veteran and their accompanying attendant. If an attendant was needed it was provided. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's July 3 reunion address preceded the unveiling of the Eternal Light Peace Memorial; a newsreel with part of the address was included in the Westinghouse Time Capsule for the 1939 New York World's Fair.

July 3, Sunday. Sunday morning memorial service in college stadium.
- Veterans shook hands across the stone wall at The Angle as during the 1913 Gettysburg reunion.
- Attendance for the Eternal Light Peace Memorial dedication was 250,000 (100,000 were "stuck on automobile-packed highways".
- As Roosevelt's 9 minute address ended at sunset, the Peace Memorial covered by a 50 foot flag[16] was unveiled by George N. Lockwood and Confederate A. G. Harris (both age 91) with 2 regular army attendants.
- Army aircraft staged a simulated air raid on Gettysburg[ at dusk, and searchlights were directed from the ground at the planes while they dropped flares.

And, if you go back to the 50th anniversary of the battle...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1913_Gettysburg_reunion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 1913 Gettysburg reunion was a Gettysburg Battlefield encampment of American Civil War veterans for the Battle of Gettysburg's 50th anniversary. The June 29–July 4 gathering of 53,407 veterans (~8,750 Confederate) was the largest ever Civil War veteran reunion, and "never before in the world's history [had] so great a number of men so advanced in years been assembled under field conditions" (Chief Surgeon). All honorably discharged veterans in the Grand Army of the Republic and the United Confederate Veterans were invited, and veterans from 46 of the 48 states attended). Despite concerns "that there might be unpleasant differences, at least, between the blue and gray" (as after England's War of the Roses and the French Revolution), the peaceful reunion was repeatedly marked by events of Union–Confederate camaraderie. President Woodrow Wilson's July 4 reunion address summarized the spirit: "We have found one another again as brothers and comrades in arms, enemies no longer, generous friends rather, our battles long past, the quarrel forgotten—except that we shall not forget the splendid valor."

Wounds heal. Enemies can become allies/friends and even countrymen. Time moves on.

You are purposely taking my words out of context to fit your argument. POTUS's appearance was unbecoming.

I don't see it as being out of context nor do I understand your objection to his appearance and why that was unbecoming. If, with the passage of time, we are now allies of Japan and the people he hugged were obviously pretty young at the time of the war, that is even more reason to speak about the horrors of war, nuclear in particular. Doing so on Memorial Day weekend and doing so at the site of the first use of nuclear weapons, to me seems very appropriate.

[Bubba]

The appearance of the President of the United States, embracing a Japanese citizen hurt in a war caused by his own countrymen, on the heel of Memorial Day weekend was unbecoming.

Wounds heal. Enemies can become allies/friends and even countrymen. Time moves on.

I agree Bubba. Both countries and individuals can forge friendship after conflict. I don't have a problem with a US president embracing a citizen of a past enemy. The sorrow of loss and the expression of our mutual humanity can forge bonds.

That is not the same as apologizing, or expressing that past actions were somehow lacking in morality. Self preservation and defense from aggression is unfortunate but necessary, and this President's choice of words indicates he doesn't understand that. Using your previous post as an example, I expect you would be happy to shake the hand of a German soldier who participated in the concentration camps, and who may have held objection but was powerless to be defiant, or who has since come to recognize how wrong it was. The soldier might have his own tale of loss you hadn't heard before. That is very different than you stating that you had a 'moral awakening' and we should never have liberated the camps in the first place, or that in the future we would not act in the same manner.

We disagree on the meaning of his speech as an apology and expressing that our (referencing only the US) actions somehow lacked morality so your premise, from where I sit, is incorrect although I don't disagree that his statement (unnecessarily) left room for interpretation..

I'm also not sure there is a parallel between hugging the very old victims of Hiroshima and shaking the hand of a German who participated in the concentration camps, even as a bystander. The still living victims of Hiroshima were obviously young, probably non-combatants at the time the bomb dropped because they were in Hiroshima, not off fighting somewhere like Okinawa. The parallel would be more like shaking the hand of an old German today who was in Dresden at the time of the firebombing.

[madhatter]

The appearance of the President of the United States, embracing a Japanese citizen hurt in a war caused by his own countrymen, on the heel of Memorial Day weekend was unbecoming.

Wounds heal. Enemies can become allies/friends and even countrymen. Time moves on.

I agree Bubba. Both countries and individuals can forge friendship after conflict. I don't have a problem with a US president embracing a citizen of a past enemy. The sorrow of loss and the expression of our mutual humanity can forge bonds.

That is not the same as apologizing, or expressing that past actions were somehow lacking in morality. Self preservation and defense from aggression is unfortunate but necessary, and this President's choice of words indicates he doesn't understand that. Using your previous post as an example, I expect you would be happy to shake the hand of a German soldier who participated in the concentration camps, and who may have held objection but was powerless to be defiant, or who has since come to recognize how wrong it was. The soldier might have his own tale of loss you hadn't heard before. That is very different than you stating that you had a 'moral awakening' and we should never have liberated the camps in the first place, or that in the future we would not act in the same manner.

We disagree on the meaning of his speech as an apology and expressing that our (referencing only the US) actions somehow lacked morality so your premise, from where I sit, is incorrect although I don't disagree that his statement (unnecessarily) left room for interpretation..

I'm also not sure there is a parallel between hugging the very old victims of Hiroshima and shaking the hand of a German who participated in the concentration camps, even as a bystander. The still living victims of Hiroshima were obviously young, probably non-combatants at the time the bomb dropped because they were in Hiroshima, not off fighting somewhere like Okinawa. The parallel would be more like shaking the hand of an old German today who was in Dresden at the time of the firebombing.

always, and THAT is why many simply do not trust him...say what ya mean, mean what ya say, leave nothing open to being misconstrued...only time he speaks in no uncertain term, is when he has a son or the police act stupidly, otherwise it's a whole bunch of vauge, thinly veiled, back handed insults, that leave him just enough wiggle room to get out of should a firestorm erupt yet still get a dig in on those he aims for..

[Mister Moose]

We disagree on the meaning of his speech as an apology and expressing that our (referencing only the US) actions somehow lacked morality so your premise, from where I sit, is incorrect although I don't disagree that his statement (unnecessarily) left room for interpretation..

I'm also not sure there is a parallel between hugging the very old victims of Hiroshima and shaking the hand of a German who participated in the concentration camps, even as a bystander. The still living victims of Hiroshima were obviously young, probably non-combatants at the time the bomb dropped because they were in Hiroshima, not off fighting somewhere like Okinawa. The parallel would be more like shaking the hand of an old German today who was in Dresden at the time of the firebombing.

So when I come burn your house down because I bought the house next door and want to expand my empire, that's "our" fault? "We" need to have a moral awakening afterwards? The passage of 50 plus years doesn't make that statement any less relevant. Obama's "Our" may not mean just the US, and probably doesn't, but it does not exclude the US either.

Words matter.

And yes, I see your Dresden distinction. The point was that those not directly responsible could find each others humanity.

We now have a friendly relationship with Japan because they went through their version of the reformation - from a warrior/emperor culture to a free market manufacturing non expansionist culture. Any of us Americans could hug any Japanese to affirm that relationship.

There is a great story* of a US pilot flying a crippled plane back to England, and the German fighter pilot who had him in his sights. Rather that shoot down the helpless struggling aircraft, the German pulled up alongside in view of the American and waved. The German then escorted the American to the border so no one else would shoot, saluted, and returned to Germany. Unknown to each other the German had moved to the Canada. Decades later the two were reunited, and hugged for a very long time. The German never apologized for the damage to the American's plane, and the American never apologized for the bombs that he dropped. The American did not need a "moral awakening". That particular German didn't need an awakening either, but his country did.

Do you need an awakening about the loss of your relatives? Would you object to being included in a global use of the word "our"?

When the US President hugs a bombing survivor at the site of the bombing, and lays a wreath with muddled ambiguous lollypops and rainbows language with the world watching, he does so as the Head of State. He left the door open to too much interpretation at a time of great sensitivity, and slipped in a few references of inclusivity. This is a time to be precise and compassionate, not ambiguous and vague.

But Obama has always (even as a Senator) fashioned himself to be a blank canvas, allowing each viewer to see his own different agenda confirmed.


*The full story can be read here
http://nypost.com/2012/12/09/amazing-ta ... lying-ace/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and is a great Memorial Day read. I remember reading in some other account that after the reunion they became close friends, and spent much time together getting to know each other's families and being buddies.

[Bubba]

To Moose, MH and XJ, the discussion and disagreement we're having is over the possibly ambiguous words of a politician. Is it a surprise that there is wiggle room left for people to interpret his words in different ways?

[Mister Moose]

To Moose, MH and XJ, the discussion and disagreement we're having is over the possibly ambiguous words of a politician. Is it a surprise that there is wiggle room left for people to interpret his words in different ways?

I'm chafing at the ambiguity and trying to explain why I see it the way I do. I don't see the use of "our" to be ambiguous though. It is inescapably inclusional. Consider the difference if he had said "... all of humanity's moral awakening...", or some other language to convey that an awakening is not complete until it is grasped by all. One takes responsibility, the other conveys the need for an entire community.

[madhatter]

To Moose, MH and XJ, the discussion and disagreement we're having is over the possibly ambiguous words of a politician. Is it a surprise that there is wiggle room left for people to interpret his words in different ways?

exactly, words spoken at a time and place where there was zero need for ambiguity...on the campaign trail? fine? there? not so much...not EVERYTHING needs to be, nor should be politicized...obama just continually picks at the scabs to be a nuisance and draw more blood...it's not one thing he does/has done it's nearly EVERY thing...professional agitator...

[Coydog]

So when I come burn your house down because I bought the house next door and want to expand my empire, that's "our" fault? "We" need to have a moral awakening afterwards? The passage of 50 plus years doesn't make that statement any less relevant. Obama's "Our" may not mean just the US, and probably doesn't, but it does not exclude the US either.

If “we” responded by, say, beheading your wife, relatives and anyone else associated with you but who had nothing to do with your act of burning down “our” house, then yes, perhaps “we” would be in need of some form of moral awaking too.

There were plenty of military personnel at the time who felt dropping the bomb was unnecessary, a mistake and even ethically questionable.

In particular,

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.

MacArthur, LeMay, Nimitz, Halsey and Leahy, expressed similar views.

The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

[Bubba]

So when I come burn your house down because I bought the house next door and want to expand my empire, that's "our" fault? "We" need to have a moral awakening afterwards? The passage of 50 plus years doesn't make that statement any less relevant. Obama's "Our" may not mean just the US, and probably doesn't, but it does not exclude the US either.

If “we” responded by, say, beheading your wife, relatives and anyone else associated with you but who had nothing to do with your act of burning down “our” house, then yes, perhaps “we” would be in need of some form of moral awaking too.

There were plenty of military personnel at the time who felt dropping the bomb was unnecessary, a mistake and even ethically questionable.

In particular,

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.

MacArthur, LeMay, Nimitz, Halsey and Leahy, expressed similar views.

The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

I find it interesting that the brass says that with a high degree of certainty in hindsight, yet at the same time continued to plan for the invasion of the home islands of Japan, estimated casualties, set at least tentative invasion dates, etc. Now, that could be considered contingency planning (something the military does every day) of course, but if they really felt at the time that Japan was ready to surrender, why did they require that contingency? They obviously couldn't be sure and, even if they were, they hadn't convinced Washington leadership, both military and civilian.

As for the "lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future" being frightening, one could conclude that the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, being visible for all to see, has kept the world from self-destruction ever since.

[madhatter]

So when I come burn your house down because I bought the house next door and want to expand my empire, that's "our" fault? "We" need to have a moral awakening afterwards? The passage of 50 plus years doesn't make that statement any less relevant. Obama's "Our" may not mean just the US, and probably doesn't, but it does not exclude the US either.

If “we” responded by, say, beheading your wife, relatives and anyone else associated with you but who had nothing to do with your act of burning down “our” house, then yes, perhaps “we” would be in need of some form of moral awaking too.

There were plenty of military personnel at the time who felt dropping the bomb was unnecessary, a mistake and even ethically questionable.

In particular,

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.

MacArthur, LeMay, Nimitz, Halsey and Leahy, expressed similar views.

The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

I find it interesting that the brass says that with a high degree of certainty in hindsight, yet at the same time continued to plan for the invasion of the home islands of Japan, estimated casualties, set at least tentative invasion dates, etc. Now, that could be considered contingency planning (something the military does every day) of course, but if they really felt at the time that Japan was ready to surrender, why did they require that contingency? They obviously couldn't be sure and, even if they were, they hadn't convinced Washington leadership, both military and civilian.

As for the "lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future" being frightening, one could conclude that the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, being visible for all to see, has kept the world from self-destruction SO FAR.

let's hope that continues...

[Dickc]

So when I come burn your house down because I bought the house next door and want to expand my empire, that's "our" fault? "We" need to have a moral awakening afterwards? The passage of 50 plus years doesn't make that statement any less relevant. Obama's "Our" may not mean just the US, and probably doesn't, but it does not exclude the US either.

If “we” responded by, say, beheading your wife, relatives and anyone else associated with you but who had nothing to do with your act of burning down “our” house, then yes, perhaps “we” would be in need of some form of moral awaking too.

There were plenty of military personnel at the time who felt dropping the bomb was unnecessary, a mistake and even ethically questionable.

In particular,

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.

MacArthur, LeMay, Nimitz, Halsey and Leahy, expressed similar views.

The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

I find it interesting that the brass says that with a high degree of certainty in hindsight, yet at the same time continued to plan for the invasion of the home islands of Japan, estimated casualties, set at least tentative invasion dates, etc. Now, that could be considered contingency planning (something the military does every day) of course, but if they really felt at the time that Japan was ready to surrender, why did they require that contingency? They obviously couldn't be sure and, even if they were, they hadn't convinced Washington leadership, both military and civilian.

As for the "lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future" being frightening, one could conclude that the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, being visible for all to see, has kept the world from self-destruction ever since.

The admirals statements were more voiced out of concern that the Air Force would make the Navy obsolete than anything else. Intragovernmental jealousy. Each service in 1945 was already in competition over post war funding that would dramatically dry up.

[madhatter]

[steamboat1]

[freeski]