Senate Majority Leader: I wish the segregationist had won!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Bull****. He meant to say '******' and he did. And that's not the only time he's used that word.

He said "White ******," actually, so was referring to white people.

And the man is 84 and has demonstrated bouts with senility on several occasions.

Regardless, yes his use of the word was horrible and he shouldn't have done it. It's not something to be defended. But he was also quick to apologize (unlike Lott), has demonstrated through his legislative legacy a repudiation of racism (unlike Lott), has admitted to and apologized for his involvement with a racist organization in the past (unlike Lott), and is (most importantly) not the Democratic senate leader and ergo not the voice of senate Democrats. Lott, however, is the official leader of the Senate Republicans. His words carry far more weight, as his responsibilities are greater.

No one here has said Lott should resign from the Senate. It's up to the people of Mississippi to have who they want represent them, just like those of WV. I do think he is unfit for his leadership role, as Byrd would be.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Robert Byrd is the HIGHLY respected Democrat Senator from West Virginia. When he was young he joined the Klu Klux Klan, and he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act and opposing the nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court simply because he was black.

He said he changed (though it seems like a purely political change), but earlier this year he used the term '******' on national TV.

The Dems and blacks let it slide. If ANYTHING, Senator Byrd is much more racist than Senator Lott, but no one calls for his ouster.

[Carver]

Originally posted by Joseph
I was in Japan in 1963 and 1964 and had a chance to talk to a Gentleman who was a Commander in the Japanese Navy during the war. I asked him if they would have surrender and he said NO. Only when the Emperor spoke up did they the Military stop the fighting.
My brother who was in the Army in the Philippine said his squad had to kill a lot of Japanese solder who would not surrender. Several member of his squad were killed by Japanese after the war was over.
I wonder about some of you kids and your knowledge of WWII.

Just before the nuke attacks against Japan, the Emperor had appointed a new Prime Minister whose sole mission was to secure peace with the US. The Emperor had already decided Japan would have to surrender. We all know the Japanese soldiers weren't going to just mutiny and disobey orders, that's not the point. The country was on the verge of surrender already, especially after the Soviets entered the war against Japan, as they had agreed to do after Germany was defeated.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Now who told you the bombs were necessary to end the war? Some stupid American politician?

No, just some stupid vets who fought in the Pacific during the war, like my brother and all of the other vets who worked with me at Mare Island when I started there in 1965. Age does have it advantage.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Joseph
I was in Japan in 1963 and 1964 and had a chance to talk to a Gentleman who was a Commander in the Japanese Navy during the war. I asked him if they would have surrender and he said NO. Only when the Emperor spoke up did they the Military stop the fighting.

Yup. And the Emperor was the one who gave the order to surrender. Unless you're psychic, I don't think you can say the Emperor wouldn't have given such an order without the A-bombs or an invasion. He had, after all, approached Stalin about brokering a peace with the U.S. in May of 1945. He knew the war was lost.

My brother who was in the Army in the Philippine said his squad had to kill a lot of Japanese solder who would not surrender. Several member of his squad were killed by Japanese after the war was over.
I wonder about some of you kids and your knowledge of WWII.

All of that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Japan would have surrendered without the A-bombs.

And once again, just because you're older doesn't give you any more knowledgeable position. From my perspective, it just means you've had more time to have the traditional propaganda sink into you and make you unwilling to look at it objectively.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Joseph

No, just some stupid vets who fought in the Pacific during the war, like my brother and all of the other vets who worked with me at Mare Island when I started there in 1965. Age does have it advantage.

I respect vets highly for their courage and service. Both of my grandfathers fought in the war.

However, unless they had more knowledge and access to information than men like Admiral Leahy and Gen. Eisenhower (among others), and unless they have intelligence to contradict that U.S. bombing survey from 1946 that is heretofore unknown to the world, their opinion on the matter is not particularly relevant.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Carver
Learn some history dipsh_t.

Disagree respectfully or leave my thread.

[Sava]

Well Imran, thanks for informing me. I think Byrd should be gone as well then. Don't worry, I'm not going to favor people from the Democratic party. Both have their problems, its just I think there are more racists and such in the R's than the D's.

Actually, Byrd and Lott shouldn't just be summarily dismissed, they should just be honest about their beliefs. I think that this country and this government really needs a no-confidence voting system. I think there should be longer terms but elections could be held as the result of public petitions based upon a certain percentage of registered voters. But that's another topic.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Robert Byrd is the HIGHLY respected Democrat Senator from West Virginia. When he was young he joined the Klu Klux Klan, and he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act and opposing the nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court simply because he was black.

Highly respected by whom? Most Democrats I know think he's a senile codger.

He said he changed (though it seems like a purely political change), but earlier this year he used the term '******' on national TV.

And you're taking what he said out of context. Here's an article about it from a Republican site:

http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS3-01MQC/3-5-2001.1.html

The Dems and blacks let it slide. If ANYTHING, Senator Byrd is much more racist than Senator Lott, but no one calls for his ouster.

Much more? BS alert.

Not many have called for Lott's ouster from the Senate, only from the leadership role. And again...Lott is the GOP Senate leader, Byrd is not the leader of the Dems. He's not even within the Dem mainstream.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Highly respected by whom? Most Democrats I know think he's a senile codger.

Just about all Democrats I know believe he is a wonderful Senator. Everything I've head of him is that he is the elder statesman of the Senate and most knowledgable on the Constitution.

And you're taking what he said out of context.

He said 'white ******', but still the word '******'. How much you want to bet if a Republican said the same thing Byrd did, the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson would be calling for his head.

Much more? BS alert.

Lott never joined the KKK. IMO, that is the one of the most racist acts you can do. In order to beat that, Lott would have to kill a black man with a gun, yelling "Die ******" as he shot him.

Not many have called for Lott's ouster from the Senate, only from the leadership role. And again...Lott is the GOP Senate leader, Byrd is not the leader of the Dems. He's not even within the Dem mainstream.

But highly respected in the party. I don't know who you've been talking to, but he is considered one of the great statesmen of the Democratic Party, along with Ted Kennedy and Walter Mondale.

Also some have called for Lott's ouster from the Senate. Mostly though, they tend to be black.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Sava
Well Imran, thanks for informing me. I think Byrd should be gone as well then.

We had at Mare Island one of Byrd nephew and he was in one of my classes one day and I saw his name on my sign in and asked if he was related to Byrd and he said yes. So I asked him about his uncle and he said the Byrd lied so much about so much that most of the family no longer believed any thing he said. The nephew said he saw him two to three time a year.

[Carver]

Joseph, I apologize. That wasn't necessary.

[Sava]

While the use of the N word is not appropriate for any public official, it seems to me that Byrd's use of the phrase "white n***er" is not as bad as the obvious racist views of Lott. And Boris has a good point... Lott is the Senate Majority leader. Byrd is low on the D totem pole. But if the Republicans want Lott in such a position of leadership, where his views are representing the party, hey, that's their decision. Personally, I think it would be a bad political move to have a racist representing the majority of my party's Senators (if I had a party, or Senators for that matter).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Highly respected by whom? Most Democrats I know think he's a senile codger.

Just about all Democrats I know believe he is a wonderful Senator. Everything I've head of him is that he is the elder statesman of the Senate and most knowledgable on the Constitution.

Let me talk to them. Cuz I've never heard any Democrat saying anything remotely like that about Byrd. Mostly he's a joke like Helms and Thurmond.

He said 'white ******', but still the word '******'. How much you want to bet if a Republican said the same thing Byrd did, the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson would be calling for his head.

Byrd's staff was smart--they headed it off right away with profuse apologies. And Byrd's age and the doddering way in which he delivered it (have you seen the clip? He looks incredibly dazed) added to the sense it was more senility than anything else.

Lott never joined the KKK. IMO, that is the one of the most racist acts you can do. In order to beat that, Lott would have to kill a black man with a gun, yelling "Die ******" as he shot him.

Byrd joined in the late 40s and wasn't a member long, and has acknowledged he did it and apologized, calling it the stupidest thing he ever did. Lott has yet to explain fully his connections to the CCC and has certainly not apologized for his fraternity shenanigans. How do you explain that away?

But highly respected in the party. I don't know who you've been talking to, but he is considered one of the great statesmen of the Democratic Party, along with Ted Kennedy and Walter Mondale.

I don't know who you've been talking to, but that's not how I or anyone I know perceived Byrd. Senile codger is about the sum of it.

Also some have called for Lott's ouster from the Senate. Mostly though, they tend to be black.

But most have not. A day doesn't go by someone doesn't call for someone else's ouster from something.

[David Floyd]

No, just some stupid vets who fought in the Pacific during the war, like my brother and all of the other vets who worked with me at Mare Island when I started there in 1965. Age does have it advantage.

As Boris pointed out, their opinion is not particularly relevant to the overall topic. Naturally they're going to support dropping the atomic bomb - it meant they didn't have to invade Japan.

Further, whether or not Japan would have surrendered is also irrelevant. Surrender or not, intentionally bombing civilians is WRONG. What, invading Japan would have cost a lot of lives? Well, then, let's not invade Japan! Or better yet, we shouldn't have put an embargo on various resources in the first place, hence, no war. Or even better than that, we should never have acquired Guam, the Philippines, Hawaii, etc., in imperialistic actions. That would have solved the problem right there - no major US presence in the Pacific, no war with Japan.