Somehow, about 90% of this didn't get delivered to my young skull full of mush when I was going to government schools.

Use of Atomic Bombs On Japan: Not For Nothing.

 

Didn't know children were taught liberal ideals in schools, probably should've known.

Growing up in Southern VA, I guess I wasn't subjected to liberal bias in the schoolbooks. My schooling was actually fairly independent actually.

Going back and calling Truman a war criminal is just silly. WWII was fought the same by all sides - civilian casualties were the norm, because technology limited it to be so. I sometimes wonder what the world would be like if the current US mentality existed back then - if we have ANY civilian casualties or ANY military deaths, the media massacres the war and calls it atrocious and unnecessary. Go back 50 years when there were tens of millions of civilian casualties and tens of millions of military deaths, yet the unity in the country was much stronger.

 

Anyone who complains about the 200k people who were sacrificed to end the war needs to go check and see how many Chinese civilians were killed by the Japanese in the war.. hint: it's about 16 MILLION

 

Revisionist history is really a pain in the butt. It's amazing that folks try to change facts, outcomes, and motives, this long after everything is over.

But it's the internet generation, you can do a search, read one site, and think you have all the info.

I'm a historian, both in my work and education, and knowing what really went down and why makes a huge difference.


Obama is now a war criminal, he authorized the shooting of those 3 pirates without giving them warning.

Rightttt.....

 

Ah, well as long as we're stretching definitions a bit wink1.gif he should be impeached for not having them shot sooner.

 

Good article but doesn't the late line make all his ranting seem a bit silly?



All I remember from school about the bombings was that "It was awful and we really didn't want to do it but we knew it would stop the war so we had too."

 

No, the late line just means Stewart's face on the tube won't make every right-thinking person in the country turn the channel immediately. The man's attitude and dire lack of education are demonstrated by the initial comment. Some trace of political self-preservation is demonstrated by the apology. The article I linked was directed at the attitude.

It doesn't matter quite as much for a TV personality as for a dude on the street, if you apologize AFTER you put your foot in it, otherwise fewer people would have less of a problem with our current Vice-President. Is it just fine & dandy if you get an apology from a policeman AFTER he kicks your teeth in?

 

I don't know but a think a slip up or two is acceptable. 125 hours a year of live television is a lot. If you watch his show much you'll notice he says a lot to get a response from the people he interviews. Much of it he takes back shortly afterwards. I watch every episode and I don't seem to remember this part of the conversation. Must have been in the extended online version or something.

 

He's a comedian cracking wise about the news. Of course he's going to say offensive and/or dumb things from time to time. He's also going to put his personal spin on the stories. 2 more reasons to get your news from other sources. No I don't mean Colbert!

 

...

Jon Stewart is a comedian?

haha.gif