barry BOWS AGAIN

[Steady Eddie]

I'll support him when he stops bowing to earthly Kings.

[jimby82]

Yeah ...... after bombing two of their cities with nuclear weapons and killing 100's of thousands of civilians (the only nation on this planet ever to do so) it certainly does say something that they would continue to remain our friends .......

Yes, I suppose it would have been much better to have waited and invaded in '46. We would have only lost an additional million or so allied military personnel. Wonder how many civilians would have perished during that? I'm guessing at least 100,000 or so. Then again, I've heard the Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child, so I suppose the count could have gone higher. But at least we wouldn't have that pesky "only nation on this planet ever to do so" atom bomb thingy.

I rather doubt that many here in this country would be able to rise to that level.

Right on the mark again! Sure, we helped rebuild their industrial and financial infrastructure, introduced democracy, educational and land reforms, as well as provided millions of dollars in emergency food aide in the years of the occupation, but were we really at that "friend" level?

Japanese are certainly to be admired for it - as well the other aspects of their unique culture which aristotle rightly points out.

Oh, lets not forget some of those other outstanding "cultural aspects" we should admire:

• Their willingness to share their "culture" with the residents of Manchuria during the 1930's.
• The outstanding hospitality shown to American and Filipino combatants in the many "camps" and aboard the transport ships. (Sounds like a summer vacations, don't it! Wow, camping and water sports!)
• The great advances made in medical and biological technology under Unit 731. That Shiro Ishii sure was a cultured guy!
• Universal employment in occupied areas. Yep, that's right! Everyone worked!
• Comfort Women! (Or is this simply a repeat of "everyone worked" from above?) What a wonderful example of culture!

I'm sure I forgot to mention several other "admirable cultural aspects", but the list is getting long as it is. Don't want to spread around too much culture. That would be too cultural.

Oh, and some "cultures" (ours comes to mind), would interpret the president's bow as a sign of submission and/or weakness. I wish the president had the time to check out Wikipedia. He'd probably realize his mistake.

Basic bows originate at the waist and are performed with the back straight and the hands at the sides (for men) or clasped in front (for women), and with the eyes down.Generally, the longer and deeper the bow, the stronger the emotion or the greater the difference in social standing.

Whoops, he probably just to meant to bow slightliy at the waist, as would be fitting for a greeting between equals. I'm sure he'll just have to work on it, after all, he seems to do quite a bit of bowing these days.

[RLENT]

Sorry Rlent, I would agree with your post but in the diplomatic world, bowing to a Japanese official of equal stature is done either to apologize or indicating servitude.

What's your source ?

Please, please tell me that it's not the author of the LA Time piece ..... or something else from the right-wing blogosphere ....

I mean, you aware that the guy that wrote the LA Times piece was ..... Laura Bush's former press secretary ... right ?

The agenda should have been evident from the portrayal in the "article" of the personalities mentioned in various lights and the inclusion of a comparision video from ..... the UConn College Republicans (heheheh ...... you couldn't make this crap up ..... suckered again)

From the Protocol School of Washington DC:

"Japan: The Japanese greet with a bow and light handshake. Always return a bow with a bow. A light bow and nod of the head with eyes cast down is acceptable from Westerners. Western educated Japanese people often shake hands and make eye contact."

The correct diplomatic greeting would be to shake hands and nothing else.

Quite true - but I never said that it was correct diplomatic etiquette - I just elucidated the reasons why someone - perhaps one who had a simplistic and shallow knowledge, and was not fully informed of all the nuances of the custom - might attempt such a gesture.

You assume that the guy is not a clod and actually knows what he is doing. While he certainly should given his present occupation, I make no such assumption.

There's little doubt in my mind that it was done to show genuine, sincere respect .... of course, I'm quite sure to some, that it was completely nefarious and no doubt portends that Obama will be soon announcing our new status as a prefecture ..... right after the announcement of our inclusion in the caliphate ......

In the culture, the superiors do not bow to inferior people,

Yeah - so what's your point ? I mean, we're not talking about an employee and a corporate manager here ..... they are equals - both heads of state.

it is not an open greeting

What is an "open greeting" ?

but a complex greeting base on station in life, your job and even gender. Equals will bow outside of the diplomatic world, it is a very shallow bow.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ..... it is very complex, owing to the complexities of their cultural traditions .... but of course you assume that Obama has full knowledge of the practice and customs, and their nuances.

In fact, if the whole thing had been done properly, someone would have set it up and choreographed it, with all the correct pomp and circumstance .....

Like I said previously, the gesture was made, I think, to show respect ...... although based on the fact I pointed out at the beginning of my original post it certainly could be said that we have plenty to apologize for .......

The degree of bowing also matters, Obama there is a "I am so sorry for what I did" bow, a seriously deep and horrific bow.

Horrific ? ..... pulease ...... gimme a break .....

Perhaps you would have preferred that he vomit on the Emperor instead, as did one of his predecessors ?

Now that was indeed horrific .......

In the end, this is really much ado about nothing ..... it's a diplomatic gaffe, probably done with good intentions ..... no harm, no foul.

Now, if one wanted to talk about something that was really significant, or that really mattered, the fact that the guy can't seem to make a decision about Afghanistan would be a matter of some import worth discussing .....

[RLENT]

Yes, I suppose it would have been much better to have waited and invaded in '46.

Why invade at all ?

Let's see:

1. It's a small island nation (roughly the size of Montana), with very limited natural resources (very little in the way of ores and petroleum), largely dependent on outside resources.

2. Near the end of the war it's navy and air force was largely destroyed, and they lacked the industrial capability to replenish their increasing losses.

3. The other two Axis powers, who were it's allies, had basically already been defeated, and so could be of no material help.

4. They were facing additional forces and another enemy with the prospect of Soviet entry into the Pacific War.

5. A naval blockade and bombing targeted specifically at industrial production for the war effort could have forced a surrender.

So now explain to me - why was it that we had to invade ?

It's a strawman, or false argument, set up merely to justify what was a horrific act.

[RLENT]

Right on the mark again! Sure, we helped rebuild their industrial and financial infrastructure, introduced democracy, educational and land reforms, as well as provided millions of dollars in emergency food aide in the years of the occupation, but were we really at that "friend" level?

Friends ? No .... subjugators, certainly.

As to what we did as mentioned above, it's not really surprising in the light of what we did in terms of dropping of the bomb - when one sins, atonement is often sought ......

BTW, you seek to justify our (horrific) actions and condemn theirs ...... I, on the otherhand, condemn them both:

Allied war crimes during World War II

[Tennesseahawk]

You've got to be kidding about not finishing the war with Japan, Rlent! Are you some French tactical genius or something? Not everything is touchy-feely, ya know. War is hell!

[OntarioVanMan]

You've got to be kidding about not finishing the war with Japan, Rlent! Are you some French tactical genius or something? Not everything is touchy-feely, ya know. War is hell!

I can assure you Rlent is not kidding...

The Coalition ad Japan beat down..they were short of food, short of supplies..their industries crushed..Russians were closing in from the west..

It was a very tough call...

It is like saying we should have done the same to Berlin in the spring of 45..

Now there's a situation...

Why didn't we nuke Berlin?

[jimby82]

BTW, you seek to justify our (horrific) actions and condemn theirs ...... I, on the otherhand, condemn them both:

Allied war crimes during World War II

Live by the sword, die by the sword.
WE did not start the war, but WE did end it.

And to the estimated costs of NOT invading Japan? Upwards of 250,000 additional estimated deaths PER MONTH for each month the war continued.

Supporters of the bombing also argue that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option. "For China alone, depending upon what number one chooses for overall Chinese casualties, in each of the ninety-seven months between July 1937 and August 1945, somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 persons perished, the vast majority of them noncombatants. For the other Asians alone, the average probably ranged in the tens of thousands per month, but the actual numbers were almost certainly greater in 1945, notably due to the mass death in a famine in Vietnam. Newman concluded that each month that the war continued in 1945 would have produced the deaths of 'upwards of 250,000 people, mostly Asian but some Westerners."

Source: Wikipedia

So if Japan would have been able to hold on for an additional year, would you have traded those killed in the bombings for the 3 million or so who would have perished by our inaction? What if they would have held on for 2, 3 years or even longer? Would starvation, disease and conventional bombing have been better ways to die?

[jimby82]

OVM , you asked:

Why didn't we nuke Berlin?

We didn't have a working atomic bomb before the end of the war in Europe. Would we have used it if we did? Probably not.

[dieseldiva]

[chefdennis]

To the average American on the street, the President of America does not bow to any other world leader...and barry is continuing to show the weakness of America and making apologies for our country....that don't need to be made...he is nothing more then disassemblig our country from the inside out....from the top down...he is a weak coward...

Oh and the fact Dwight did in more then once, WAS a show of respect. has he had ALREADY proven that he had no problem going to war and killing and breaking things as we train our military to do, barry hasn't shown any such thing...all he has shown is his total weakness when it comes to dealing with world leaders and a total disregard for our military...he is weak....

[Pilgrim]

Don't forget that Bill Clinton got ridiculed in 1994 for sort of bowing to the Japanese Emporer: you don't suppose there's a double standard at work in the MSM is there?

THE WORLD; The President's Inclination: No, It Wasn't a Bow-Bow - The New York Times

We didn't have a working atomic bomb before the end of the war in Europe. Would we have used it if we did? Probably not.

Instead of the atomic bomb the allies had to use firebombs, which in many ways were just as deadly. The firebombing of Dresden destroyed much of the city and killed 40,000 or more people by some estimates. Hamburg was also firebombed with many casualties and tremendous damage. And don't forget the firebombing of Tokyo that came before the atomic bombs were dropped. The firebombs were particularly effective in this large Japanese city due to so many of the structures being make of wood. The death toll this exercise was in excess of 100,000, which was comparable to that of each atom bomb dropped. Kobe and Osaka were also firebombed, as were about 66 other Japanese cities. The Nazis also firebombed London and other British cities, so these weapons weren't exclusively used by the Allies.

[jimby82]

After viewing the video online here, one word came immediately to mind: Amateur.

How many times did he have to bow to the Empress? Reminds me of one of those old fluid-filled toys you used to see that was shaped like a bird and would rock back and forth, eventually dipping its "bill" in a glass of water, then starting the whole process all over again.

[dieseldiva]

After viewing the video online here, one word came immediately to mind: Amateur.

How many times did he have to bow to the Empress? Reminds me of one of those old fluid-filled toys you used to see that was shaped like a bird and would rock back and forth, eventually dipping its "bill" in a glass of water, then starting the whole process all over again.

Now that's funny there!! Thanks for the visual.

[greg334]

What's your source ?

Please, please tell me that it's not the author of the LA Time piece ..... or something else from the right-wing blogosphere ....

I mean, you aware that the guy that wrote the LA Times piece was ..... Laura Bush's former press secretary ... right ?

The agenda should have been evident from the portrayal in the "article" of the personalities mentioned in various lights and the inclusion of a comparision video from ..... the UConn College Republicans (heheheh ...... you couldn't make this crap up ..... suckered again)

Okamoto Takeru, my Japanese protocol instructor. Go argue with him with your sources. He was one of the diplomats who represented the Japanese Imperial House in the 1960's here in the US and I think his experience speaks for itself. I think he is still teaching.

I have no clue what you are talking about with some article. I guess assumptions are dangerous.

From the Protocol School of Washington DC:

"Japan: The Japanese greet with a bow and light handshake. Always return a bow with a bow. A light bow and nod of the head with eyes cast down is acceptable from Westerners. Western educated Japanese people often shake hands and make eye contact."

I already know that, it is a given but the difference is we are talking about the president.

Quite true - but I never said that it was correct diplomatic etiquette - I just elucidated the reasons why someone - perhaps one who had a simplistic and shallow knowledge, and was not fully informed of all the nuances of the custom - might attempt such a gesture.

You assume that the guy is not a clod and actually knows what he is doing. While he certainly should given his present occupation, I make no such assumption.

There's little doubt in my mind that it was done to show genuine, sincere respect .... of course, I'm quite sure to some, that it was completely nefarious and no doubt portends that Obama will be soon announcing our new status as a prefecture ..... right after the announcement of our inclusion in the caliphate ......

Sorry again, actually Obama doesn't know what he is doing, he is immature on the diplomatic front and foreign affairs. His bow was an apology and indication of servitude, he lost face with his people.

Yeah - so what's your point ? I mean, we're not talking about an employee and a corporate manager here ..... they are equals - both heads of state.

AND that's why he doesn't bow. The comment was to show a difference within the culture.

What is an "open greeting" ?

Open greeting is something that has to do with body language. If you ever watched diplomats in their environment, then you can see the difference, arm extended our, hand open, other arm by their side, positive posture, etc...

Yeah, yeah, yeah ..... it is very complex, owing to the complexities of their cultural traditions .... but of course you assume that Obama has full knowledge of the practice and customs, and their nuances.

In fact, if the whole thing had been done properly, someone would have set it up and choreographed it, with all the correct pomp and circumstance .....

Like I said previously, the gesture was made, I think, to show respect ...... although based on the fact I pointed out at the beginning of my original post it certainly could be said that we have plenty to apologize for .......

I don't think he is being advise well, that's the problem. The point can be illustrated by the DVD debacle and how that was handled. There are a core group who's job is to advise the pres on how to act and they would set this all up but he can take their advice or ignore it, or better yet he can listen to new advisors which I think he is doing. You don't give DVDs to a leader of a country, as much as your secretary of state doesn't give a red button to someone who isn't culturally in tune with what it means.

Horrific ? ..... pulease ...... gimme a break .....

Perhaps you would have preferred that he vomit on the Emperor instead, as did one of his predecessors ?

Now that was indeed horrific .......

In the end, this is really much ado about nothing ..... it's a diplomatic gaffe, probably done with good intentions ..... no harm, no foul.

Now, if one wanted to talk about something that was really significant, or that really mattered, the fact that the guy can't seem to make a decision about Afghanistan would be a matter of some import worth discussing .....

Actually that was the wrong spelling thanks to my lack of proof reading and this spell check which I hate.

But anywho, his lack of a decision on Afghanistan also shows me his immaturity. His delay shows our enemy the inability to make quick decisions to stop them and I think in the next coming months if there isn't a troop deployment of some sizable amount, we will be bled.

Now as for ending the war, you are taking the pacifist point of view that the war was lost - they would surrender and all that cr*p.

Are you clueless to what was going on at the top?

The Emperor was divided on trying to find a way to continue to fight to appease the Tojo and other "everyone dies in the end" cabinet members and the people who knew the war was lost. Go read "Hirohito" to start with and see what the author had written about, it tells a pretty good side of what was going on.

The only one who could have ended the war was the Emperor. It took those two bombs to push him to a decision, the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities form 1943 on didn't. It was the warning from the US through the swiss, the dropping of on bomb and then not waiting for a reply but dropping the second bomb that convinced him to stop the war.

If you want to frickn' kid yourself that we didn't do the right thing, learn about the fanatical attitude of the present day terrorist and than apply that to the Japanese because it was nearly the same. Why would 100 men who knew they would be dead decide to getup and run across a field only to get killed within feet of where they started?

Because they died for the Emperor.

Your attempt to equalize atrocities is sad. I mean we didn't have state sponsored medical experiments on prisoners, or civilians. Our biggest crime is Dresden which there was no reason for it AT ALL but the short list of 'crimes' that we committed didn't compare to the raping of Nanking and what happened in other Chinese cities, the live vivisection of POWs and civilians alike, the mass executions of civilians on some of the islands, the extermination of people based on religious beliefs and a great number of other horrible things. Oh I forgot to mention the medical experiments that were done in Tokyo at the Tokyo hospital on Chinese and Koreans children that were like the same ones Mengele did in German.

Trying to say we were in the wrong about our methods to stop a horrible war by any means, cheapens the lives lost on both sides during a war of aggression. To stop this aggression it took countless lives and so much material, that most today can't grasp the size of it. Instead we have idiots trying to say we were wrong, they ignore the fact that today the only reason that they can speak openly is the fact that those who faced evil, fought evil and won.