Originally Posted By Sachiko
Well you certainly haven’t offended me anyway – actually, I found you comments quite enlightening!

That’s a relief. When I originally posted this was at the end of a very long workday and sometimes, especially when I posted regularly on other sites, I’m not thinking straight and what I’m thinking doesn’t come out on the page when I type it and has lead to some invigorating conversations online ’till we realized we were actually agreeing with each other.

Originally Posted By mmcquown

Originally Posted By JohnFourtyTwo
As for the Manhattan Project, according to a book I’m reading about Naval Warfare in World War II by Nathan Miller, had it not been for General MacArthur’s insistence to retake the Philippines (which all the other Chiefs of Staff opposed), WWII would’ve ended sooner, less lives lost on all sides, the Philippines would’ve been released by default, and no nukes being dropped on Japan.

There has been tons of speculation about the end of the war in the Pacific. Granted, MacArthur was a supreme egotist, but I am not sure how not retaking the Phillipines would have avoided the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The usual logic has been that the Japanese would resist to the last man once the homeland was invaded, unless something drastic was done to destroy the will to resist. Given that the last Japanese holdout in the Phillipines did continue activity until 1975, and surrendered only after his former commander was brought in to convince him that the war was truly over, it may have been true. If there can be said to be an up side to it, the effect was so horrifying, nobody has actually used the bomb since, but the proliferation of countries with nuclear capability makes it imperative that. like the Holocaust, Hiroshima and Nagasaki must never be allowed to be forgotten, nor the internment of Japanese-Americans in that same war.

@mmcquown -

Admirals Nimitz and King favored taking Formosa which is on the Chinese coast and closer to Japan than MacArthur’s Luzon Plan from Mindinao to Luzon or the Basement to Attic Plan as the admirals called it.

Unfortunately after Japan destroyed most of the American airbases in China the Formosa Plan was dropped. The Luzon Plan was still strategically unnecessary because of the capture of the Marianas Islands from where the B-29s almost ready for deployment would be launched for the final assault on Japan.

Had the U.S. ignored MacArthur’s pleas for saving face with the Philippines and concentrated their forces on Japan’s merchant shipping and remaining naval forces thereby denying Japan of basic essentials and resources, then the use of the atomic bomb might not have been necessary since Japan depended very heavily on imports of everything from food and fuel and most everything else in between.

I don’t think a land assault on Japan was in the plans basically because of the huge amount of manpower needed to carryout such a plan which the U.S. didn’t have from fighing a war on two fronts and taking heavy casualties on both sides, and the Luzon Campaign was very heavy on loss of life also.

I’ve also read that had an invasion occured it would’ve been fought to the last man plus the Japanese commanders of all the POW camps had orders to execute all POWs if an invasion occured since they would be needed to defend the homeland and not guarding prisoners.

As for MacArthur being an egotist, I had an uncle who served under him in the New Guinea Campaigns and he had a different set of adjectives he used to describe him, none of which I can write here because of a special Lady present here, but they will make a sailor blush.

Originally Posted By JohnFourtyTwo
As for the Manhattan Project, according to a book I’m reading about Naval Warfare in World War II by Nathan Miller, had it not been for General MacArthur’s insistence to retake the Philippines (which all the other Chiefs of Staff opposed), WWII would’ve ended sooner, less lives lost on all sides, the Philippines would’ve been released by default, and no nukes being dropped on Japan.

I’m getting off my soapbox now. Hopefully I haven’t offended anyone, if so then I do must apologize.

There has been tons of speculation about the end of the war in the Pacific. Granted, MacArthur was a supreme egotist, but I am not sure how not retaking the Phillipines would have avoided the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The usual logic has been that the Japanese would resist to the last man once the homeland was invaded, unless something drastic was done to destroy the will to resist. Given that the last Japanese holdout in the Phillipines did continue activity until 1975, and surrendered only after his former commander was brought in to convince him that the war was truly over, it may have been true. If there can be said to be an up side to it, the effect was so horrifying, nobody has actually used the bomb since, but the proliferation of countries with nuclear capability makes it imperative that. like the Holocaust, Hiroshima and Nagasaki must never be allowed to be forgotten, nor the internment of Japanese-Americans in that same war.

Originally Posted By mmcquown
Perhaps we should try a new approach — anyone who wants to can be President, but at the end of his/her second term, will be publicly executed. That should eliminate all but the most sincere.

Yes, I’m sure it would.

- Must be a natural born citizen
- Must be at least 35 years old
- Must have lived in the U.S. at least 14 years prior to running for president

So according to that, most Americans are eligible for the job if they so desired. I meet the requirements but I have no desire for that job.

The perks are great, such as:

- Free room and board in a mansion in the heart of Washington D.C. for you and your family for four to eight years
- A getaway retreat and Camp David, just a few miles from Washington, D.C. when things get too hectic at the White House
- A very efficient office staff who can get you anything or anyone in the world
- A 24/7 fully staffed kitchen
- No hassle with airline security because you travel all over the world on your own custom built 747 (Air Force 1) for you, your family, and staff
- A personal helecopter (Marine 1) to get you and your family to and from the White House, Camp David, Reagan International Airport, and other places
- A motorcade for you, your family, and staff to get around town at home and abroad
- A $200,000.00 a year salary (for life)
- The best personal security company in the world (which you get to keep after your term(s) is/are up)
- Your personal signature plate collection

Those were just a few I could pull off the top of my head.

But seriously, throughout U.S. history most if not all presidents have had serious connections one way or another to get elected. As for Democrats and Republicans, there isn’t much if any difference between the two. I’ve been disatisfied with both parties for years now and have been getting more and more invovlved with the Libertarian Party which from my understanding adopts the good parts of liberalism and conservatism.

Unfortunately third parties/independents aren’t very well at getting their agenda together like Democrats and Republicans and as a result don’t do too well in elections. The Libertarian Party is 30 years old and has been gaining ground for years now but not enough to topple or replace one of the two favorites. This year they basically committed suicide with their selection of a Republican as the Libertarian Party nominee for president and the party is severely fractured. Thirty years of progress down the tubes.

As for the Manhattan Project, according to a book I’m reading about Naval Warfare in World War II by Nathan Miller, had it not been for General MacArthur’s insistence to retake the Philippines (which all the other Chiefs of Staff opposed), WWII would’ve ended sooner, less lives lost on all sides, the Philippines would’ve been released by default, and no nukes being dropped on Japan.

I’m getting off my soapbox now. Hopefully I haven’t offended anyone, if so then I do must apologize.

I don’t think there is much of a risk in having some parts of the world hating the US just because of our politics. We are not going to change our views and for good reason. There are lots of conflicting opinions in the world and it is impossible to make them all happy. We are not here to appease the ill feelings of everyone with a bad temper, and we should not even try. Besides, those some people in those same countries are not likely to lift a finger except maybe the middle one, if it were suggested that perhaps they modify thier behaviour based on my suggest.

I see nothing inherently wrong with voting in the direction of my special interests. I have few and my voice is small. It is the strength of many voices doing the same that sets the direction of our country.

And just like trying futilely to change the world opinion, it is equally unlikely that all the special interst will get satisfied as many of those interests are in conflict with each other.

For example, Otis has some words I agree with but I assume if I look carefully, I will see that there are other voices he speaks that I disagree with whole heartedly. I don’t think one person can have the so called “right” opinion for everyone.