Setting Stewart Straight

John Stewart gets his comeuppance when Bill Whittle on PJTV sets the record straight regarding necessary force and the nature of human-inflicted necessary tragedy in times of war for the  “snowy standards of (this) liberal’s Olympian intellect and morality.”

The video is 16 mins long but oh so very worthwhile.

18 thoughts on “Setting Stewart Straight”

  1. I would like to assume you've read history and seen Mr. Whittle's statements regarding the war across the Pacific are accurate and completely contravene Mr. Stewarts uninformed pontificating on that subject.

    However, the question seems to reveal you haven't.

    1. Mr Bill Whittle's criticism of Jon Stewart has been discussed at :

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Whittle

      And after reading the discussion at wikipedia, I came to the conclusion that the reasons behind the atom bombing of hiroshima is the same reasoning employed by terrorist groups and that is to collectively punish the civilians including children and babies for the "greater good"

      1. You're welcome to your opinion. I'm thankful for the millions of lives saved by tough decisions by the military and civilian leadership of our nation at that time.

        Your equating the actions and decisions of WWII US leadership and modern terrorists is disgusting and shows only the warped nature of your own moral compass.

    2. From the video, Mr Whittle pointed out the following which might or might not be true and i will get into the details later in this discussion.

      Lets just assume what Mr Whittle is saying is true and that :

      (1) Hiroshima was given adequate warning

      (2) Hiroshima was of military value

      (3) Japanese resistance was not crumbling

      (4) Japan was not trying to surrender

      And lets say Al-Qaeda had the same policy of the Truman Administration and Al-Qaeda did the following :

      (1) Warned the Pentagon of a pending attack

      (2) Only targeted the Pentagon

      (3) US government's resistance to withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia was not crumbling

      (4) the US government was not wanting to surrender its bases in Saudi Arabia

      My Question is : Would the US government then say that Al-Qaeda was not a terrorist organization if all four points above took place ? off course not.

  2. Ok, but please explain how you can say that unless you believe both of the following:

    1. The World Trade Center, foreign embassy, restaurant, or shopping center qualifies as a military target.
    2. A torpedo, munitions, or bomb factory doesn't qualify as a military target.

    Alternately, supposing that you do believe both of the above, I'd like to hear your defense of that position.

    1. the atom bombs were dropped over schools and churches;

      there is no difference between terrorism and the atom bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki but with one exception, the atom bombing burned alive hundreds of thousands of civilians, women, children and babies and in that sense the atom bombing was worse than any non-state terrorist attack man has seen

      1. Where, or would, you have dropped the bombs at all?

        If you were a GI at that time stationed in the Pacific theatre, would you have supported the bomb?

        If you were a military leader tasked with deciding whether or not to drop the bombs and at what point there was a balance between the expected toll of allied soldiers, enemy soldiers, and civilians who are always caught up in the fighting that would justify the use of extreme force to convince as committed an enemy as the Japanese were?

      2. Yes, but not _exclusively_ over schools and churches, and that I feel is a critical distinction. There are also a couple other points to consider:

        1. Can you reasonably demonstrate that any terrorist attack in the history of the world, saved so much as single life on either side that would otherwise have been lost? Even if you want to take the (imho short-sighted) position that the atomic bombing of Japan was a selfish act that only saved allied lives (as was stated in the article you referenced), it still _saved lives_.

        2. If Japan had not surrendered, we would have preceded our invasion with massive shelling and bombing in an attempt to take out as much of Japan's war machine as possible. These missions were usually conducted at night and so the target was first marked with flares, and then the bombers released their payload over the area marked. A significant percentage of these bombs would explode over structures other than the intended target.

        100,000 thousand or so died from the 2 atomic bombs dropped, and two cities were destroyed. Conventional bombing would arguably have killed at least that many and decimated nearly every major city in Japan.

        1. All this and more is clearly outlined in the video linked.

          Brian has either a) not watched and doesn't care to inform himself, or b) watched and yet remained, now willfully, ignorant.

          He is not a student of history nor a pupil of fact, but rather chooses to stay enfolded in his own blindness and coddled in the sycophantic echo-chamber of his own plugged ears.

      1. I don't make any excuse for the killing of any innocent human being.

        Do you claim it is ok to kill more soldiers so long as it saves babies lives?

        Humans are equally important, every one.

        What I do say is that, given the information available at that time to the people responsible for making that decision, we have factual historical data that they chose the best course of action available to them at that time.

  3. From the video, Mr Whittle pointed out the following which might or might not be true and i will get into the details later in this discussion.

    Lets just assume what Mr Whittle is saying is true and that :

    (1) Hiroshima was given adequate warning

    (2) Hiroshima was of military value

    (3) Japanese resistance was not crumbling

    (4) Japan was not trying to surrender

    And lets say Al-Qaeda had the same policy of the Truman Administration and Al-Qaeda did the following :

    (1) Warned the Pentagon of a pending attack

    (2) Only targeted the Pentagon

    (3) US government's resistance to withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia was not crumbling

    (4) the US government was not wanting to surrender its bases in Saudi Arabia

    My Question is : Would the US government then say that Al-Qaeda was not a terrorist organization if all four points above took place ? off course not.

  4. Background to the atom bombing :

    Even though the US government forced Japan at the "point of a gun" to sign unequal treaties in the late 1800s, the Japanese people, even as late as 1937, were sympathetic to the plight of five American civilians who were wounded due to an unintentional attack by a Japanese naval aircraft on a US gunboat in China.

    Numerous christian Japanese students sent christmas cards including letters, profusely apologizing for the unfortunate incident, on top of the millions ( in today's dollars) sent by the Japanese government to compensate the US government. Other letters from Japanese individuals and organizations contained gifts of money along with expressions of regret.

    Even the people of Nagasaki (recipients of the second atom bomb) were sending money to the US embassy in Nagasaki for the USS Panay incident.

    It is apparent that radical elements within Japanese society who wanted to drive the US out of China, due to US gun boat diplomacy, were behind the attack on USS Panay and other incidents in order to draw the US into greater conflict with Japan.

  5. Addressing Mr Whittle's points :

    (1) Hiroshima was given adequate warning.

    No matter how many warnings Hiroshima was supposedly given, the US government should have known, as in the case of Katrina, thousands of people might not be able to move due to illness, being handicapped and the poor and destitute would not have been able to evacuate or realize the seriousness of an atomic attack because no warnings were given about radiation poisoning.

  6. (2) Hiroshima was of military value.

    Hiroshima was of military value ? while Tokyo which planned the Pearl Harbor attack was not ?

    The reason Hiroshima was spared conventional bombing is because it did not have prime military installations; and having the bomb explode above the city was to cause maximum damage to as much of the city as possible where school children were in school learning while the bomb was dropped and the Nagasaki bomb was dropped over a church: St. Mary’s Cathedral.

    In April 1945, US General Groves was instructed to pick targets for the nuclear bombs. "To enable us to assess accurately the effects of the bomb, the targets should not have been previously damaged by air raids." Four cities were chosen, including Hiroshima and Kyoto. War Secretary Stimson vetoed Kyoto, and Nagasaki was substituted. ( Leslie Groves, Now it Can be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project, 1962 : Page 267 )

  7. I really enjoy watching the likes of the Jon Stewart and Colberts squirm. Is there a video on Youtube of this particular interchange of ideas? I don't get to watch very much biased television any longer.

Leave a Reply