Luiz 4,253 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Barack Obama said on Sunday his visit to Hiroshima, the first city to suffer an atomic bombing, would emphasize friendly ties between former enemies. But the US president reiterated he would not apologize for the devastating attack. Obama will become the first sitting US president to tour the site of the world’s first nuclear bombing this Friday, accompanied by Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe. In an interview with Japanese national broadcaster NHK, Obama said the reality is that leaders often have to make hard choices during times of conflict and no apologies would be included in brief remarks he is expected to make in the western Japanese city. “It’s important to recognize that in the midst of war, leaders make all kinds of decisions, it’s a job of historians to ask questions and examine them,” Obama said. “But I know, as somebody who’s now sat in this position for the last seven and half years, that every leader makes very difficult decisions, particularly during wartime.” The bomb dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945 killed thousands instantly and about 140,000 by the end of the year. Nagasaki was hit on 9 August and Japan surrendered six days later. A majority of Americans see the bombings as having been necessary to end the war and save US and Japanese lives, although many historians question that view. Most Japanese believe the bombings were unjustified. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/obama-japan-hiroshima-interview-no-apology I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juvi 1,639 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 not suprising considering he is an american. (#sorrynotsorry) (#GetOverIt) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sizzily 14,571 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Not surprising. Inside my head I have the best time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serendipity 7,821 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 I can understand what he feels. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, so US bombed Japan. honestly the one who should apologize is the one who started the World War. See talent here-->http://bit.ly/2eqeUxK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlepotter 76,610 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Turkey-Armenia teas Then again at least Pearl Harbor happened. chaeri pls Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear 7,515 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 No one should have to apologize for their ancestors, just as you shouldn't hold the actions of the past generations on the new. Feel empathy for what happened, learn from the mistakes and prevent them happening again together. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uo111 5,282 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, Baby Blue said: I can understand what he feels. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, so US bombed Japan. honestly the one who should apologize is the one who started the World War. Not equivocal at all. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor unprovoked, with regular bombs, to start a war. The US nuked Hiroshima during a war in order to stop it, killing many more people at one time. The only thing people actually question is whether or not the second nuke was necessary. They think the emeperor just didn't know what happened and that's why he didn't surrender. But that sounds like bullshit to me if you know the Japanese culture at the time, and read the descriptions of what they were prepared to do. To me, the fact that they didn't surrender after the first one is proof that the nukes saved lives on both sides. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonkers 30,860 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 15 minutes ago, Hooker said: No one should have to apologize for their ancestors, just as you shouldn't hold the actions of the past generations on the new. Feel empathy for what happened, learn from the mistakes and prevent them happening again together. Well, I don't quite agree. For example, it is appropriate the US has apologized for mistreatment of blacks, it's apologizied for treatment of Japanese Americans for their treatment on US soil during the war. It's appropraite for Pope's to apologize for sins of the church. But in this case, visiting Hiroshima is a historic step, and an apology is not appropriate, especially for a country still involved in wars. Remember to like and subscribe, and click on the bell icon to get the latest updates Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luiz 4,253 Posted May 23, 2016 Author Share Posted May 23, 2016 10 minutes ago, uo111 said: Not equivocal at all. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor unprovoked, with regular bombs, to start a war. The US nuked Hiroshima during a war in order to stop it, killing many more people at one time. The only thing people actually question is whether or not the second nuke was necessary. They think the emeperor just didn't know what happened and that's why he didn't surrender. But that sounds like bullshit to me if you know the Japanese culture at the time, and read the descriptions of what they were prepared to do. To me, the fact that they didn't surrender after the first one is proof that the nukes saved lives on both sides. i've always heard that military people did the estimates and they say a ground war would have killed much more people but its all speculation. another reason was that the USA wanted to end the war with japan quickly before russia turned its attention to japan and possibly defeated japan themselves and influence its government to be communist. and then there are all the stories about how ruthless the japanese were to china and the philippines. the idea that the japanese emperor didnt want to surrender even after the first bomb kinda makes sense if they really were that ruthless. I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinsey 313 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 16 minutes ago, uo111 said: Not equivocal at all. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor unprovoked, with regular bombs, to start a war. The US nuked Hiroshima during a war in order to stop it, killing many more people at one time. The only thing people actually question is whether or not the second nuke was necessary. They think the emeperor just didn't know what happened and that's why he didn't surrender. But that sounds like bullshit to me if you know the Japanese culture at the time, and read the descriptions of what they were prepared to do. To me, the fact that they didn't surrender after the first one is proof that the nukes saved lives on both sides. To my understanding from my history class, he did not surrender because he believed the U.S. was bluffing when they said they had more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LanasNerfGun 4,679 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Is an apology necessary? There was violence on both parts. The U.S. being the most powerful nation at that time (and arguably still is) had other nations counting on them to react in a manner that would dampen the likelihood of a full out war. The U.S. also helped the Japanese in rebuilding after the bombings. Like someone else brought up, it's not up to Obama to apologize he's isn't responsible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanripley 86,575 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 well obama didn't do it so https://goo.gl/xMgMvJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uo111 5,282 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Just now, Kinsey said: To my understanding from my history class, he did not surrender because he believed the U.S. was bluffing when they said they had more. That's also speculation. It's very likely that some Japanese didn't believe we had a second one, but as far as how much that influenced the decision to hold off, who knows. 6 minutes ago, Luiz said: i've always heard that military people did the estimates and they say a ground war would have killed much more people but its all speculation. another reason was that the USA wanted to end the war with japan quickly before russia turned its attention to japan and possibly defeated japan themselves and influence its government to be communist. and then there are all the stories about how ruthless the japanese were to china and the philippines. the idea that the japanese emperor didnt want to surrender even after the first bomb kinda makes sense if they really were that ruthless. Russia had already declared war on Japan before the bombs were even dropped. I'm sure the US would've preferred to keep Japan for themselves, but Russia was already weak, I find it hard to believe the US really felt threatened by their influence in Japan. On the other hand, the Cold War was filled with delusional thoughts and ideas. Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos all still hate Japan to this day for their actions before and during the WWII. It's a very stark contrast to the Japanese culture we know now. It's hard to believe the country was ever so violent. It wasn't just the emperor, a lot of Japanese military leaders never wanted to surrender. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 60,888 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Good, we shouldn't have to "apologize." This kitten over here (meow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear 7,515 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, Bonkers said: Well, I don't quite agree. For example, it is appropriate the US has apologized for mistreatment of blacks, it's apologized for treatment of Japanese Americans for their treatment on US soil during the war. It's appropriate for Pope's to apologize for sins of the church. But in this case, visiting Hiroshima is a historic step, and an apology is not appropriate, especially for a country still involved in wars. I understand what you mean, but I think on a personal level it makes no sense for people to apologize . i.e I don't think the current pope should have to apologize for the failings of the church in the past (ignoring the present for a second) because it wasn't his fault. He can definitely acknowledge the mistakes the church as a whole made and talk about how he can prevent them happening again, but it isn't his blame on a personal level that needs to be apologized for. Likewise, I can't apologize for the mistreatment of black people if I'm not guilty of doing it. I wouldn't expect Obama to apologize on behalf of the US for this when he is not the united voice of agreement, since it's clear a large majority of the US are not sorry for it happening (which is reasonable). I agree with your examples that as a whole that united groups of people can show remorse for what happened (i.e the US, the church) but for me that isn't the same as an apology, since to apologize is to admit wrong doings for every member in that group, and the grand majority of the US today are not responsible for the aforementioned incidents. I think it's just a case of what you define as an apology. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.