Saturday, March 13, 2010

Glenn Beck on Tom Hanks' Military Annihilation Accusations

First, a word from Tom Hanks:

Pacific, now, is coming out where it represents a war of racism and terror. It seemed as though the only way to complete one of these battles on a small speck of rock, in the middle of nowhere, is to, I'm sorry, Kill them all. Does that sound familiar with what we are going through today.
Is this what schools teach today? Is this what young adults believe the War in the Pacific was all about?

Japan was set to expand into Asia to countries that did not welcome her. She needed oil. No one  assumed she would not find the oil and take it. There were many complexities in Japan's relations with Britain and France, which complicated matters in the U.S.  Once Japan replaced the Peace Party with their War Party, the stage was set. The plan was to seize the oil fields in the Indies, and they saw the U.S. as an enemy in that endeavor. So they attacked Pearl Harbor.  How is this argued any other way?

America had two choices to end the war. Invade Japan or drop the bombs. An invasion was estimated to leave 35% of our landing forces dead - at least, depending on the size of the Japanese forces greeting us. Civilians were in training to join the fighting forces. Estimates of the dead including both Japanese and American forces were estimated at 250,000 to five million. Some 105,000 people perished in the explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The original purpose of the atomic bomb was to clear the beaches for a land invasion, so had the war not ended with the bombings of two cities, the bombs would likely have been used on the beaches. And Americans would have died.

Is Hanks' case that after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, American soldiers should have, in the end, laid down their lives for the Japanese, rather than ending the war. Apparently, that is what he thinks.

Had we wanted to "kill them all," we could have killed them all. Instead we killed fewer, while they were killing us. If we wanted to "kill them all" today, we could do so. Obviously, that is not our goal. We are building schools, hospitals, electrical grids and water plants. None of which worked for the people under Saddam Hussein.

It deeply offends me that Tom Hanks says the war with Japan was about racism and terror, and that today, we want to "kill them all," as our own soldiers have been blown apart trying to make Iraqi towns safe for the people.

These days, Sean Penn is more palatable than Tom Hanks.

More from Hanks:
Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as 'yellow, slant-eyed dogs' that believed in different gods. They were out to kiss us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what's going on today?"
I read a comment saying that Tom Hanks' had more in common with Forrest Gump than we could imagine, but Forrest was a patriot. He didn't make stuff up. It was what it was, and it wasn't what Tom Hanks says it was.

The video below is Glenn Beck with radio sidekicks Pat and Stu. This is a longer discussion but one worth having and listening to. Beck makes the point that America must begin looking out for herself. The way we do that is strike a lethal blow when we are struck, get back to our lives as quickly as possible - and in the main, quit protecting those able to protect themselves.

Watch the video here or go over to RightScoop and read the commentary there before watching the video.

Glenn Beck -America's Military Might and Tom Hank's Annihilation Accusations (video)

©2007-2012copyrightMaggie M. Thornton