R.IP. Capt. Theodore VanKirk

[Tedlark]

R.I.P. Capt. Theodore VanKirk, navigator, Enola Gay. You performed your duty and rest easy knowing that you saved more lives by doing your duty.

[BillyJoe]

Yes - the last surviving crew member.

[DaBurglar]

Dutch was 93 years old.....wow.    He had a good sense of Humor......I remember watching him on the History Channel and the way he described things was compelling and funny, often at the same time.He was hand picked By the leader, COlonel Paul Tibbets, to be part of this mission.....One thing that always bothered me is History revisionists who argue that Truman was trying to scare the Russians when he ordered the dropping of the Bomb, instead of trying to save lives by preventing an invasion......the truth is saving lives (American, British first but also Japanese) was Truman's foremost objective....it was not until AFTER he made this decision that some of his advisors (dean acheson first and foremost) introduced the possible "fringe benefit" of giving Stalin and the Soviets pause.The revisionists argue that there was still no guarantee that the Japanese would have surrendered even after the second bomb was dropped on August 9th......they claim the attempted coup by Junior Army officers to prevent the emperor's surrender recording from broadcasting proves that Japan was still not ready to quit.    The coup really had little chance of succeeding in the long run, and the 2 boms, combine with the August 9th Soviet declaration of war on Japan was enough to finally quell the japanese desire to go on fighting.I have a hard time comprehending the mentality of people like the japanese who STILL wanted to fight even after the bombs dropped......its inhuman, almost demonic.

[BillyJoe]

Dutch was 93 years old.....wow.    He had a good sense of Humor......I remember watching him on the History Channel and the way he described things was compelling and funny, often at the same time. He was hand picked By the leader, COlonel Paul Tibbets, to be part of this mission.....One thing that always bothered me is History revisionists who argue that Truman was trying to scare the Russians when he ordered the dropping of the Bomb, instead of trying to save lives by preventing an invasion......the truth is saving lives (American, British first but also Japanese) was Truman's foremost objective....it was not until AFTER he made this decision that some of his advisors (dean acheson first and foremost) introduced the possible "fringe benefit" of giving Stalin and the Soviets pause. The revisionists argue that there was still no guarantee that the Japanese would have surrendered even after the second bomb was dropped on August 9th......they claim the attempted coup by Junior Army officers to prevent the emperor's surrender recording from broadcasting proves that Japan was still not ready to quit.    The coup really had little chance of succeeding in the long run, and the 2 bombs, combine with the August 9th Soviet declaration of war on Japan was enough to finally quell the Japanese desire to go on fighting. I have a hard time comprehending the mentality of people like the Japanese who STILL wanted to fight even after the bombs dropped......its inhuman, almost demonic.
Well, maybe we in this country should learn something from this episode in our history, and apply it to our dealings with Islamic countries. Culture is a very strong thing, and the Japanese culture at that time would not tolerate surrendering.

[Tedlark]

  Geez I try to show a little respect to a hero and I get a history lesson in return. It's a wonder I didn't get a rundown of every Rockford episode ever aired when I mentioned another quiet american hero.

[DaBurglar]

  Well, maybe we in this country should learn something from this episode in our history, and apply it to our dealings with Islamic countries. Culture is a very strong thing, and the Japanese culture at that time would not tolerate surrendering. A lot of truth here Billyjoe and I agree with your point......but there is one problem:    When you say "maybe we should learn something", this becomes a HUGE problem when our erstwhile "leaders"  simply cannot, or will not, accept the actual "LESSON" being dispensed as history unfolds.In the case of the Muslim "cultures" as you cite, we are today faced squarely with several extremely unpleasant situations.....ISIS, or whatever the group in the swath of territory cutting through the middle of Syria and Iraq likes to call itself today, is now simply EXECUTING anyone who lives in "their" territory who does not (or will not) swear an oath of allegiance to them and convert to (their version) of ISLAM.   It is just plain Awful, evil and intolerable.   Any dissenting muslims, christians, jews or persons of other faiths are forced to renounce their religion or die!    ANd now, in the case of Hamas, and by extension the Palestinian Authority, we have a group that simply WILL not allow for the existence of ISrael in the same world as them (not region, or even continent.....but WORLD!)   They want Israel GONE......that's it.     And so does Hezbollah in Lebanon......and by extension Iran.....We wont even broach the topic of the new "Dick-tater" of the 21st century, Mr. Putin and what he is currently up to and brewing.....but clearly he is sensing some type of opportunity (as well as weakness on the part of the western powers) and wont back down until he gets what he wants!  But the Culture of Russia needs (even CRAVES) a strong, Authoritarian, almost Absolute ruler at the helm of the nation....its a recurrent theme in their history, going back to the very first Czars, through Stalin, Khruschev,  (followed by all the old commie tyrants who croaked in rapid succession...Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko) to Gorbachev & Yeltsin.    When Russia "Democratized" itself and "elected" Putin to be its "dictator", followed by Medevev (sp?) and then Back to Putin, it was simply Russia embracing its cultural yearning for a Strong Single authority!here is this all headed?  What is the solution?     I dunno but it makes me shudder   <Da Burglar shudders>   ~~~~SHUDDER~~~~

[Minn. Fatz]

The historical question over Truman's motivations for using the bomb on Japan is more complicated than "he wanted to scare Stalin" or "he just wanted to save GI's lives." The State Department Historian's office has put together a brief summary that may be enlightening.

imo the lesson to be learned is that nuclear weapons are terrible and should never be used. Other than the brutal, inhuman solution of attempting to resolve conflicts by exterminating the parties involved, they have no reasonable uses in today's world.

There is a separate but equally important lesson to be learned from the late unpleasantness in the Middle East, but one not unconnected to the Cold War era; that is that containment, where possible -- and it almost always is possible -- is much preferable to "regime change." The near-complete chaos that is Iraq, and to a lesser extent Syria, today is a direct result of the US invading that country and overthrowing its government without being able to commit to the considerable effort needed to establish something stable to leave behind. That would have taken tens of thousands more troops, trillions of dollars more treasure and a modicum of sacred honor: an investment W, Cheney and Co. were unwilling to make before 2008 and one that became impossible to make afterwards. And it would have taken an Administration more interested in providing real security than in showing how hard it could swing the world's biggest Johnson for its own, probably pathological, reasons.

Under some kind of containment regime, Saddam might still be in power in Iraq and his people still suffering, but more of them would be alive today; there would be fewer refugees, hence less unrest; Iran would not be the prominent power in the region it is today; and though the housing bubble might still have burst, it might not have threatened the global economy and engendered the greatest economic downturn since before WW2.

I for one am glad that we have an Administration that seems able to respond to multiple crises overseas in a measured way, but still one that puts the interests of the US uppermost, and certainly before the need to salve anyone's ego or show how tough anyone is.

As for Palestine, there are no easy solutions (since we can't go back and unrecognize the state of Israel, another Truman decision made with insufficient thought), but Israel could do worse than to stop overreacting to everything from inaccurate rocket attacks to kidnappings by making Gaza a living Hell for its residents, which only serves to strengthen their mortal enemies.

Enough of that for one day I think.

[chattycattty]

Well said Minn. Fatz.

[BillyJoe]

The historical question over Truman's motivations for using the bomb on Japan is more complicated than "he wanted to scare Stalin" or "he just wanted to save GI's lives." The State Department Historian's office has put together a brief summary that may be enlightening.

imo the lesson to be learned is that nuclear weapons are terrible and should never be used. Other than the brutal, inhuman solution of attempting to resolve conflicts by exterminating the parties involved, they have no reasonable uses in today's world.

There is a separate but equally important lesson to be learned from the late unpleasantness in the Middle East, but one not unconnected to the Cold War era; that is that containment, where possible -- and it almost always is possible -- is much preferable to "regime change." The near-complete chaos that is Iraq, and to a lesser extent Syria, today is a direct result of the US invading that country and overthrowing its government without being able to commit to the considerable effort needed to establish something stable to leave behind. That would have taken tens of thousands more troops, trillions of dollars more treasure and a modicum of sacred honor: an investment W, Cheney and Co. were unwilling to make before 2008 and one that became impossible to make afterwards. And it would have taken an Administration more interested in providing real security than in showing how hard it could swing the world's biggest Johnson for its own, probably pathological, reasons.

Under some kind of containment regime, Saddam might still be in power in Iraq and his people still suffering, but more of them would be alive today; there would be fewer refugees, hence less unrest; Iran would not be the prominent power in the region it is today; and though the housing bubble might still have burst, it might not have threatened the global economy and engendered the greatest economic downturn since before WW2.

I for one am glad that we have an Administration that seems able to respond to multiple crises overseas in a measured way, but still one that puts the interests of the US uppermost, and certainly before the need to salve anyone's ego or show how tough anyone is.

As for Palestine, there are no easy solutions (since we can't go back and unrecognize the state of Israel, another Truman decision made with insufficient thought), but Israel could do worse than to stop overreacting to everything from inaccurate rocket attacks to kidnappings by making Gaza a living Hell for its residents, which only serves to strengthen their mortal enemies.

Enough of that for one day I think.
I know that this is not a proper platform for political discourse, but a couple of points:

A Department of State assessment? Are these the same folks that were in charge of securing American personnel in Benghazi?

As far as Hamas and Gaza, what would you do if someone vowed to wipe YOUR race and culture off the face of the earth, and attempt to do so by lobbing rockets into your cities? Hamas is funded by Qatar, purchases the rockets from Islamic states, and then smuggles them into Gaza through Egypt. They do not even represent Gaza politically, but this has not stopped them from using Gaza, and it's civilians, to their own ends. I think Israel has shown remarkable restraint in not applying a 'scorched earth' approach to Hamas.     

[Lucky Larry]

R.I.P. Capt. Theodore VanKirk, navigator, Enola Gay. You performed your duty and rest easy knowing that you saved more lives by doing your duty.



Thanks for honoring Capt. VanKirk. He along with thousands of other veterans deserve our appreciation and thanks. I really enjoyed talking to an old WWII Navy vet last week at Coushatta. He and my dad had both served in the Pacific. I'm glad to see how many vets are now wearing caps so I can thank them for their service.