Who Won WWII, Anyway?
-By Warner Todd Huston
As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, here are a few pictures that makes me wonder who the heck won World War II?
Hiroshima, Japan at the close of WWII
Hiroshima, Japan today
Detroit Today
Also Detroit Today
So, did we win, or not?
Well, we certainly won the battles of WWII. But, thanks to the American left, we’ve lost the war… so far. Now if only we can defeat liberalism and win another battle!
(Updated. I used the wrong picture in my stack of photos yesterday for Hiroshima today. Apologies)
Email This
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on September 27, 2009 7:47 pm
» Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Anti-Capitalism, Communism, Delusional Dupes and DUmmies, Democrats, Economy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government corruption, Liberal World, News, liberalism
Trackback URL:
Comments
12 Responses to “Who Won WWII, Anyway?”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
They are also considerably more liberal than the US. So by your argument we should be moving more in that direction?
It’s American liberals that have ruined the USA. Not Japanese liberals.
If only we could rewind time two years, so we could get back to the days of the shimmering, futuristic Detroit of 2007.
Frankly, I think it’s the liberals and conservatives of this country that live in some world of absolutism where they blame everything on the other side. Those are the ones who are ruining this country.
Well, Jason, your premise would presume that neither side is wrong. But, in my opinion, THAT is an attitude that contributes to the troubles. That sort of moral equivalence, that nothing is right or wrong, has led to our problems. It is a denial that principles and ideas matter.
Actually, his point is that both sides are wrong. You have to be able to compromise and work with the other side (which NEITHER side is willing to do) for any meaningful progress to be made.
The term you’re looking for is moral relativism. Moral equivalence is what you do. Perhaps you should not engage your commenters if you are not prepared to stand toe-to-toe with them intellectually.
No one has denied that ideas matter. This is a strawman. It is also not true that principles do not matter. The key issue is which principles: are we defined by our actions, or who we are?
I believe that we are defined by our actions, and are judged by how we treat the least among us, as well as how we treat our enemies. This is a principle that was violated by the reprehensible spread of torture during recent history. Obama looks poised to continue in this vein (at least insofar as he is shamefully willing to continue the practice of indefinite retention).
Moral equivalence is the belief that we are defined by who we are: America. To wit: “because we are America, we are intrinsically Good, and so our actions are correct.”
On topic, Japan’s rapid industrialization and liberalization are aided by an extremely high worker ethic and homogeneity. Over 99% of the population is Japanese, Shinto, and literate. A constitutional provision (put in place by the Americans) restricts their defense spending (limiting it to, I believe, 2.5% of the previous year’s GDP, and only to be used for a defensive army). It is little wonder that such a small, dense nation has channeled its spending and efforts into becoming an economic superpower instead of a military one.
Your position on this point is muddled. What would you rather have: economic protectionist policies to defend the jobs of domestic working class Americans (save the jobs of Detroiters), or laissez-faire policies to promote the frictionless globalization of the workforce (aka outsource the jobs to maximize profits for the companies and minimize car prices for consumers).
So what is it: Small, non-interventionalist government that leads to workers losing jobs (buh-bye Detroit), or large, invasive policies that keep American jobs (but allow more competitive pricing by foreign automakers)?
Oh yeah, and showing a picture of Hiroshima and claiming all is fine and dandy totally glosses over the whole damn lost decade.
I know our financial system is in shambles, but at least we haven’t had to make interest rates negative (I think, correct me if I’m wrong).
Jason,
Touchy lil fella, ain’tcha? I said what I meant when I said moral equivalence. The left “does” this, if you will. But, yes, it is moral relativism. It is amusing to me that you’ve come here to present yourself as the smartest, most grown up guy in the room and lead with name calling, though. Good for thee yet not for me, eh? It seems like you are engaging in some “equivalence”-like behavior, no? Or maybe its just good old hypocrisy?
Still, let’s take on your premise: “Moral equivalence is the belief that we are defined by who we are: America. To wit: ‘because we are America, we are intrinsically Good, and so our actions are correct.’”
That is way offbase. I do NOT believe everything the U.S. does is “correct” because we are “intrinsically good.” As a nation we prove our fallibility every time we vote a Democrat into office. Regardless, though, your definition of moral equivalence is incorrect in the first place. Moral relativism is the assumption that moral or ethical principles do not exist, that no universal standards exist. That everything is equal in essence.
So, where you get your rather unique definition is a mystery. But, perhaps I’m just not as smart as you. I mean, since your opinion of yourself is so high… heck, it MUST be based on SOMETHING!? Right?
Further, if you believe that only our nation’s economic policies led to the fall of Detroit I’d have to say you know enough to spell Detroit correctly and not much of anything else. Detroit has been in decline for much longer than these tough economic times have existed! In fact, by a matter of decades longer.
“Great Society” liberalism is what has led to Detroit’s downfall. Not trade protectionism or lack thereof. If it was our national economic policy, every city would look like Detroit. Yet they don’t.
Finally, to Chris. You said “both sides are wrong” and then went on to seem to assume that only “compromise” can make things right. Let me just leave you with one thing: The North “compromised” with the South and allowed slavery. Was that good? Was it a good thing that the North were “able to compromise and work with the other side” back then? Well?
I live in Hiroshima, have for ten years. It’s a nice city, but nothing like the picture you have here, which is actually a huge waterfront development near Yokohama, hundreds of miles away. And I don’t know a large city in the world where you couldn’t find a single, forlorn old building to photograph. This really the best you could do? [edited]…
Btw, that picture of the modern hiroshima isnt. Thats Yokohama, queens square. Where commodore perry opened up japan to the world.
It was “free trade” policies that exported jobs from Detroit and ruined the city. Those are not liberal policies.