harry truman on "socialism"

the union did win the civil war, i am a peaceful liberal of the 70s but i recognize mans brutality

 

The Thatcher quote begs the question what is ‘other people’s money’.

 

I hold that it wasn't necessary. Ultimately, the only example we have was the use of the weapons. And the surrender that happened. The US didn't have to target a city. Just didn't, in my opinion. The choice to use it was unnecessary. The choice to target civilians wasn't necessary. It was punitive. Again, it was a choice to do this. The deployment wasn't the only choice. But it was the one chosen. That choice, in my view, is a war crime. This isn't, hasn't been disputed, has it? The progressive world are all enraged as Putin et al target civilians. Folks are calling him a war criminal. And yet, here, Truman isn't? That seems irreconcilable. I'm simply pointing it out. And I am making a value judgement given the man himself, who seems vastly more petty and less noble than many here have suggested.

 

That's what so many 'socialists' miss when it comes to state socialism. It won't matter if they're too lazy ... they won't have a choice.

 

You either have state socialism, or you have capitalsm. There's no in between.

 

Both house of congress and a president. Not to be confused with a single house of legislature. But you knew that.

 

Taking no sides here mind u! But a lot went in to the creation of the bomb(s) and everyone in volved from Oppenheimer to President and Generals ALL wanted to test it beyond ground squirrel's! I can see how the first ONE was sanctioned, but the second, well that was some low down bullshit there

 

The state was stunted for decades because of his brutality. It has literally taken a century for them to recover from it. And yes, the Union did win. The question is, at what cost?

 

Yeah right. Lol.

 

So far nothing in this thread has anything to do with socialism.

 

BTW, Einstein was an advocate of socialism and Einstein urged the development and use of the nuclear bomb to end the war. He said it was the most difficult and conflicted thing he ever did.

 

Holy ****. Your post REEKS of hate.

 

Sure. But targeting civilians was made a crime in the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1950.

 

LMAOROG, Super majority? Senate is tied 50-50

I'll note you didn't respond to my post on Clinton/Biden increasing taxes on the richest

 

A nation is socialist if its economic system is socialism. Otherwise it's propaganda. The world is not a matter of your opinion.

 

Socialism eliminates capitalism. Who is calling for that?

 

Both houses huh?
lol

 

Japanese used "cottage" industry methods, meaning production was parted out to mom and pop operations during ww2....common sense shows the Japanese were stopped from importing anything, so japan would have lost either way...prolonging the war meant more civilian death from starvation...i think its a tragedy the bomb was used but firebombing killed many more and i feel was more of a tragedy, man has never invented a weapon and not used it, i feel if not japan then korea a few years later perhaps
all of this has nothing to do with trumans character, as any president in that situation would have done the same thing

 

It's pretty scary how fast fascism became popular since Trump came on the scene. And now they criticize the use of an atomic bomb to end a war before Germany developed and used one. Egad.

 

Socialism is not an economic system, instead, it is a political system that re-distributes the profits of the only economic system there is...capitalism.

 

This post of yours, got me to rethink my view; since broadening my understanding, is something I had hoped for, when I came to this site-- I thank you, for that. I cannot even be sure if, in school, we covered the U.S.S.R. declaring war on Japan; but if it had been mentioned, it certainly was not emphasized, so it wasn't a fact I had retained, if I'd ever learned it.

But let me now go over this equation again, with you, because when you talk of all the American lives saved by dropping that 2nd bomb, it doesn't seem to me as if you have accommodated your view, to the information you provided. This will hopefully simplify your correcting of wherever my interpretation of your comment, may be going wrong.

Specifically, your words, "they knew they couldn't fight on two flanks"-- in which the first they appears to be the U.S.S.R. (and the 2nd one, obviously Japan)-- suggests that we "knew" this, as well. Yet, if you mean to suggest that, therefore, it was anticipated that Japan would soon surrender, I don't think that conclusion is warranted. We knew, after all, that Japan "couldn't fight" off defeat by us, from even one flank, yet we were sure they would fight, nonetheless. Therefore, the only way that I see the Soviet entry into the war as significantly cutting our casualty count, would be if we'd decided to let Stalin be the one to carry out the invasion of the Japanese mainland, on his own, while our own military only compelled Japan to keep some of her forces away, in countering our position. However, had this happened, and the Soviets had captured Japan, this could have dramatically altered world politics, afterward. So, it seems your view would be that Truman dropped the bomb on Nagasaki, it could be said, to have prevented the Soviet Union from expanding to include Japan, as part of herself.

IOW, this new strategic option, would have given Truman an alternative to either additional masses of U.S. casualties, or an unbowed Japan. Nevertheless-- though it would have meant that Truman was ahead of the curve, in realizing the threat to world stability which the U.S.S.R. would pose in the future-- if he had understood that, I really cannot continue holding my opinion, as clearly as I had stated it to @Cybred , that ending the war was the only valid justification for dropping another nuke. It would have been a very gutsy call, as it would have been based on speculation, but world events do not occur in a vacuum. What I mean, is that future ramifications must be part of any wise leader's calculus, with the additional burden upon a U.S. leader, in this case, of knowing -- had things in the world turned out terribly, in the long term, due to his choosing the more passive course, at this juncture-- that he'd had the power, if he'd chosen to use it, which could have made a huge difference.

 

Actually showing the russians that we had more than one IS a valid justification.

 

That, I definitely reject, as a sufficient reason to kill 100,000 civilians, by dropping an atomic bomb.

 

Well since it probably one of the things that kept Stalin from steam rolling Europe I think it was.

 

Well, since you have no basis for that belief, and I am 100% sure you are wrong, that the only way Stalin could discover we had more than one atomic bomb, was for us to drop a second on somebody (which then, btw, did leave us without any more nukes), your thinking would have killed all those people unnecessarily, had circumstances set the right scenario, with you as the American Head of State.

I am equally sure, however, that you would, afterward, much like Dick Cheney, never doubt your decision or suffer any pangs of guilt or regret, over it. This is the kind of psychology, IMO, which is dangerous to invest with that sort of power.