kingbee kingbee

Hiroshima...The Gift That Keeps On Giving?

Hiroshima...The Gift That Keeps On Giving?

Paranoia Strikes Deep

sixty years ago this saturday--august 6, 1945--the first atomic bomb ever used as a weapon of war exploded about 2000' above the city of hiroshima, japan. 

in an instant, the city was flattened; 80,000 of the estimated 250,000 people located there were killed instantly.  another 60,000 would eventually fall victim to radiation produced by the bomb.

three days later, a similar bomb was exploded over the japanese city of nagasaki.

at the time, the usa was the only nation on earth to construct atomic weaponry.  20 years later, the world was divided into two major geopolitical factions, both of which had much more powerful and sophisticated nuclear devices.  there were also several nations capable and willing to build their own atomic weapons.  45 years later, one of the two factions began crumbling into oblivion.  still other nations were determined to possess nuclear bombs.  60 years later, 9 nations now possess nuclear weapons.

so far, somehow, mankind has managed to avoid using another one  of these weapons.

as more nations--as well as groups of seemingly apocalyptic terrorists--seek to possess them--we come ever closer to the day when the next nuclear device is used to wreak the horror of instant mass destruction somewhere in the world.  we're as likely target as any other people or place.

terrorists--whether domestic or foreign--have demonstrated a penchant for action on dates of historical relevance.

the murrah federal building was bombed on april 19 for example;  april 19 being both  the day our revolution began when  minutemen first attacked colonial britain.  it's also the anniversary of the destruction of the self-styled lamb of god, david koresh and a great many of his followers.  

september 11 marked the 79th anniversary of the british mandate in palestine.

i could be just paranoid...or perhaps i'm reading too much into this, but i can't think of a more auspicious and relevant date than august 6 for al-quaeda or some similar group to try and bring it all back home to us. 

11,580 views 33 replies
Reply #26 Top
As with other historical figures "Democratically elected" doesn't necessarily guarantee Democratic rule.


What exactly does 'democratic rule' mean? If it means rule by the oligarchy chosen by the people in democratic elections, then I'm afraid democratic elections do guarantee it. At least for the first term. If it goes over without another election then it becomes tyranny.

Otherwise it's still extremely democratic.

In any case the US did support the assassination of the democratically elected ruler of Chile. It's hardly a contentious point just because you believe, that he acted against the wishes of the vast majority o his country. His supporters can say that he acted in accordance with their wishes with just as much evidence as you, particularly considering how primitive statistical analysis was in the 70s.
Reply #27 Top
LOL, love how you use the word "US_supported" there, as if that really means much. We've been down the Allende path before. As with other historical figures "Democratically elected" doesn't necessarily guarantee Democratic rule. Hitler claimed to be socialist at first too, though all the 'nationalizing' he did oddly didn't seem to end up 'socializing' much...


How can you compare Allende to Hitler with a straight face?

Are you saying that had Allende, a President with respect for the constitution, lived, he would have dismantled the democratic system in Chile? That is just plain ridiculous. Had there not been a coup, there would be new elections in 1976, and Allende would not have run because he would be ineligible (can't serve 2 consecutive terms). Why are you claiming he was ruling undemocratically and comparing him to Hitler? Is it simply because you disagree with him? I'll remember that the next time someone compares Bush to Hitler and you criticize him for it.
Reply #28 Top
"Are you saying that had Allende, a President with respect for the constitution, lived, he would have dismantled the democratic system in Chile?"


Respect for the consitution... because you say so?

Are you saying that there weren't people in Chile, including the CHILEANS who deposed him, who believed that? You like to paint this as a covert US mission, but in reality many people in Chile were aghast at the means Allende was using for 'reform'. It wasn't the US military that deposed him, so I think your homogenous characterization of Chile is a tad off. Many feared he was going to be the Castro of Chile.

My point about Hitler was that people who get voted into office often don't obey the spirit of the instutitions that put them there. I don't think the nationalization of private property against the will of legitimate owners is in line with the spirit of democracy. My opinion, of course.
Reply #29 Top
Fortunately you were wrong..probably because the Japanese no longer have evil intentions against us


i don't know if fortune played a part in it tho i gotta admit to regularly attempting to alter pro ball games by betting against my preferred outcome. in any event, this is one time i'm really happy to have been wrong.

i wasn't really concerned about the japanese. despite its shameful refusal to take responsibility for the death and destruction it inflicted attempting to conquer asia and the pacific--not to mention the consequences we're still dealing with ie, north korea--japan has shown no desire to involve itself with nuclear weapons.

hopefully it won't ever happen. i'm not optimistic (for a lotta reasons). about the best i can say is this: at least we made it thru one more day.
Reply #30 Top
Respect for the consitution


we know how pinochet dealt with the chilean constitution. he wrote a new one and fixed the plebiscite to ensure it was adopted.

of course there were chileans who were opposed to having land to which they held title redistributed. oligarchs generally hold title to a lotta land. that's what makes em oligarchs.

for a time i was friends with a chilean chick who once told me chile had been largely unoccupied until the spanish showed up...and that there were no indigenous peoples still living there. i'm sure she believed it. her parents were wealthy landowners.

considering the way they governed the us, nixon and kissinger had no business ordering the cia to interfere in chile's domestic affairs.
Reply #31 Top
"
considering the way they governed the us, nixon and kissinger had no business ordering the cia to interfere in chile's domestic affairs."


As I said on the other Allende discussion, that I agree with. I don't think we really had any business being involved. What burns my ass is when people try to portray it as some dark US intervention against a unified Chilean people.

In reality a lot of people didn't like Allende. I mean, those were Chileans that deposed him, right? Did we breed programmed clones, or were those US citizens in disguise?
Reply #32 Top
I don't think the nationalization of private property against the will of legitimate owners is in line with the spirit of democracy. My opinion, of course.


If you are referring to the copper mines, he nationalized those with the support of the Chilean people and unanimous support in Congress. Of course, my opinion is that democracy and socialism go hand is hand, and increasing worker control of their workplaces is an important aspect of that.
Reply #33 Top
Not to bait you with another Hitler analogy, but nationalization and "worker control" DON'T necesarily go hand in hand. Who in the end gets to dole out that control? It was my understanding, though I don't have a link to provide, that part of the copper industry was just handed over to be "managed" by other foreign companies. I wonder if such influence was free?

Allende also didn't just nationalize copper. He undertook the same kind of "resettlement" that we see now in Zimbabwe, where ancestral estates were snatched away from their owners and given to "the people", which enevitably ends up meaning "flunkies". He nationalized banks and all sorts of other industries.

Didn't he also eventually make some sort of decree that allowed him to sieze such without congressional approval? Do you see a pattern? Evidently the people of Chile did, since enough of them were concerned that they successfully changed things. I mean, if I recall, weren't there mass strikes and CALLS for intervention?