"We don't want the military ruining our civilian institutions," said Sandra Schwartz of the American Friends Service Committee, an organization actively opposing JROTC nationwide. "In a healthy democracy ... you contain the military. You must contain the military."

The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), is a Religious Society of Friends (Quaker) affiliated organization. Because Quakers traditionally oppose violence in all of its forms and therefore refuse to serve in the military, the AFSC's original mission was to provide conscientious objectors (COs) to war with a constructive alternative to military service. Its stated purpose is "to confront, non-violently, powerful institutions of violence, evil, oppression, and injustice." To this end, the organization has supported the most brutal, repressive and corrupt regimes in world history. The AFSC, which is revered by the Left for its history of actively opposing U.S. "aggression," has defended the Viet Cong and the P.L.O. These seekers of social justice have repeatedly turned a blind eye toward modern slaveholding nations while keeping their finger perpetually pointed at the United States.

While not founded by Communists, the AFSC quickly developed a cozy relationship with both the Communist Party USA and various socialist and revolutionary groups of the fifth column. The AFSC does not see Communism as presenting an Evil Empire, as did those who suffered under its persecution, nor even does it see socialist totalitarianism as an alternate economic system. They view Communism as a desirable state. While not Communist in name, they espouse and endorse every plank of the Communist party platform, all the while hiding behind the religious shield of Quakerism and non-violence. The American Friends Service Committee is and has always been committed to undermining Western democracy, propping up Communist regimes and working for the total disarmament of the United States in the face of her enemies. Removing the JROTC from San Francisco schools is but a single goal of this pro-Communist group - and therefore makes them a darling to the local San Francisco Socialist elite.

I agree with the general principle that war is not necessarily a bad thing, and the military is an institution of high honour. But nuking the nips was a violation of a higher principle which is that the end does not justify the means. The whole business of not becoming like your enemy comes in to play here. It also draws in embryo research, abortion etc.

Even in war some self-restraint is needed, and sacrifice. It would have been better to have had another 5 years of bloody fighting and strife than do what Truman did. He made the unthinkable possible, and so the Soviets had no reason not to point their missiles at US cities; they may have anyway, but after Truman they could not do otherwise. Even now the US can not argue against all sorts of horrible possibilities because Truman/the-american-people justified the means by looking at the end.

In the future the enemies of the US may develop a weapon of greater power and flexibility than nukes and, following the example of Truman, they will quickly have the surrender of the USA.

I forgot to add that in anycase it is all the fault of ducks. You should know that, being a conservative; I'm surprised at you.

Get that gun out and shoot those ducks before the global Duck conspiracy succeeds in the subjection of the human race.

(quack, quack) BANG! thud!

Whether or not the dropping of the atomic bomb on japan was needed to end the war is far from clear. The US blockade was very effective at cutting japan off from needed supplies though there were losses on a very nearly regular basis (due to japanese submarines mostly). The atomic bombs very likely shortened the war but a land invasion, in my opinion, wouldn't have been needed to end it. That, of course, is just guess work because it is impossible to know what the japanese generals would have done, and they mostly controlled the government.

From what I've read on the matter (primary sources and talking with my professors) I believe that the bombs were dropped on japan to scare the russians. Further blaming Truman is impossible, he didn't know what the atomic bomb was, how could anyone that didn't watch the first test explosion know what an atomic bomb really was?

I further find it ironic that people condemn the dropping of atomic bombs while little is said of the horrors felt in england, france, germany, russia (and the rest of europe) at conventional bombings. It was impossible in that day and age to limit deaths to military targets. Condemn it all you want but that was how war was felt.

And before we start thinking that only two japanese cities were destoryed by american bombs do some reading on the fire bombing of Tokyo some time. The descriptions of that chilled me to the bone and were far more horrifying then anything I've read on atomic warfare.

War is harsh, war is cruel, civilians will die. And sadly war is also essencial to the continued existance of civilization. Maybe some day we can over come that need but that day is not today. We can either become soft and decadent as the Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, and chinese before us (and how many others?) or we can continue to train our young men and women to fight the wars that need to be fought.

What some of you fail to realize was how far Japan was prepared to go if fighting WWII. The homeland was sacred; not to be trampled upon by, what they considered, inferiors and barbarians. Every man, woman, and child was told that American soldiers would slaughter/rape/etc. them all if they invaded, and trained to fight to the death. Schools handed out brochures to students on close combat fighting with knives, swords, and hands. Anyone who could get a hold of a gun, did and learned how to use it. The entire country was ready to be slaughtered rather than allow their soil to be touched by invaders.

Not to mention the sheer nightmare of logistics involved in invading Japan. The Normandy invasion was bad enough, and that was a toddler's step compares to the distance needed to travel to invade Japan. Hawaii was hundreds, if not thousands of miles away. The Philippines weren't much better. And Russia was not about to let America on their soil either. Soldiers would have to be on transports for days or weeks and then expect to fight desperately for every inch of Japanese soil. The Normandy invasion had some 10,000 casualties. The projected casualties of the invasion of Japan at the time was close to 2,000,000. and that's just American casualties. The casualty ratio at that time was 10:1, Japan:USA. Dropping the Atomic Bombs of Japan, while horrific, saved millions of lives and an entire nation.

>Within six weeks, the Japanese Instrument of
>Surrender was signed, EFFECTIVELY ENDING WORLD
>WAR 2

yep, and EFFECTIVELY starting:

cold war
cuba crisis
nuclear weapon dissemination
rush to the Weapon of mass destruction (remember somthing?)

anyway i agree: pacifism not necessarily means anti-militarism BUT stop and think about your sentence: "To secure peace is to prepare for war." how do you think this is possible?