# Lets apologize



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 5, 2010)

We had no choice, it was either use the bombs or invade, an invasion would probably seen millions of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians. It took 2 bombs to convince the Emperor to surrender. And even then his Army tried to stage a coup to prevent it.

U.S., allies to send first delegation to Hiroshima memorial - Yahoo! News

This President is an idiot.


----------



## Modbert (Aug 5, 2010)

Where is Obama apologizing? What exactly do you find wrong with this? Partisan hack much?


----------



## Kat (Aug 5, 2010)

You can apologize with gestures and not actually saying ''sorry''. Have to see what happens..


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 5, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Where is Obama apologizing? What exactly do you find wrong with this? Partisan hack much?



What is wrong? The sites are used to bash the US. The sponsors at those cites make the claim that the bombs never needed to be dropped. That the US was racist for dropping them. They ignore the fact they started the war and then when they lost refused to surrender, that they planned mass human wave bamboo spear attacks with civilians on any invasion that took place. That the bombs actually saved millions of lives. That it was a WAR. And the bombs were dropped on MILITARY Targets.

This President is sending our Ambassador to a site who's sole purpose is to attack the US.


----------



## ConHog (Aug 5, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We had no choice, it was either use the bombs or invade, an invasion would probably seen millions of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians. It took 2 bombs to convince the Emperor to surrender. And even then his Army tried to stage a coup to prevent it.
> 
> U.S., allies to send first delegation to Hiroshima memorial - Yahoo! News
> 
> This President is an idiot.



Sorry dude but sending a representative to the anniversary or whatever exactly it is who isn't even scheduled to speak is not apologizing.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 5, 2010)

ConHog said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > We had no choice, it was either use the bombs or invade, an invasion would probably seen millions of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians. It took 2 bombs to convince the Emperor to surrender. And even then his Army tried to stage a coup to prevent it.
> ...



Appearance wise it is. As I explained in my follow on post. That site is simply a means a attack the US. Always has been.


----------



## ConHog (Aug 5, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



As a senior in high school, I had a Japanese exchange student , in 1997 I visited her and her family in Japan, the Japanese people are very much a shame culture and are VERY ashamed of the actions of their ancestors, they are in noway like the Muslims who blame their bad behavior on others, they don't bash the US for dropping the bomb.


----------



## Modbert (Aug 5, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> What is wrong? The sites are used to bash the US.* The sponsors at those cites make the claim that the bombs never needed to be dropped. That the US was racist for dropping them. They ignore the fact they started the war and then when they lost refused to surrender, that they planned mass human wave bamboo spear attacks with civilians on any invasion that took place. That the bombs actually saved millions of lives. That it was a WAR. And the bombs were dropped on MILITARY Targets.
> *
> This President is sending our Ambassador to a site who's sole purpose is to attack the US.



Link as to where the people behind it support it?

From your own link:



> The memorial event will feature a minute of silence and the release of 1,000 white doves, AFP reported. The thousands of Japanese who survived the attack, but spent the rest of their lives suffering the affect-effects of injuries, illness and grief, will also be honored.
> 
> During a previous visit to the city, Ambassador Roos toured the Hiroshima Peace Museum and left a note in the guestbook that *read: "A visit to Hiroshima is a powerful reminder of the destructiveness of nuclear weapons, and underscores the importance of working together to seek the peace and security of a world without them.*"



What I bolded is my opinion on this.


----------



## ConHog (Aug 5, 2010)

There is no getting rid of nuclear weapons. The genie is out of the bottle. Only a fool would get rid of our arsenal.


----------



## Kat (Aug 5, 2010)

ConHog said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...




I think that is very true. Good point.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 5, 2010)

I'll give Obama a pass on this one.....I don't see it as "apologizing"

We did the right thing in dropping those bombs, enough was enough. No more american lives needed to be lost continuing to fight against a nation who was defeated, but was willing to continue fighting to the last man.....I see this more as an acknowledment that sadly, we had to do what we had to do and, show respect to those who died at the hands of their own governments unwillingness to simply admit defeat and surrender.....Obama deserves a pass on this one.


----------



## Yurt (Aug 5, 2010)

just curious....has any official japanese entourage ever visited pearl harbor on dec. 7?


----------



## Kat (Aug 5, 2010)

Yurt said:


> just curious....has any official japanese entourage ever visited pearl harbor on dec. 7?



hmmmm


----------



## Modbert (Aug 5, 2010)

Just put phrase through google, this came up:

U.S. Delegation will not offer apology at Hiroshima Ceremony - CafeMom



> The U.S. delegation will not offer an apology for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki when it attends a ceremony in Japan on Friday marking the 65th anniversary of the attacks, which brought World War II to an end.
> 
> State Department spokesman Noel Clay said no apology will be offered by the delegation, to be led by U.S. Ambassador John Roos, at the ceremony in Hiroshima.



Once again, RGS talking out of his ass.


----------



## ConHog (Aug 5, 2010)

Yurt said:


> just curious....has any official japanese entourage ever visited pearl harbor on dec. 7?



Several, several, several contingents of Japanese WWII vets have visited the site on various dates, including Dec, 7. I really don't know off the top of my head if there has been a government sponsored visit though.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 6, 2010)

I believe the Japanese emperor and his wife visited Pearl back in 2009.....I'm not in the mood to go searching but, if somebody else is, please do provide a link.

Japanese Navy ships have visited the site out of respect. And Many former pilots who participated in the attack have visited the site to pay their respects. Many have said they knew they awoke "a sleeping giant" even as they were dropping bombs and, were very critical of the emperors decision to attack.

They weren't there to apologize, they simply paid respect. And I fully believe that is what our visit will be about.


----------



## Modbert (Aug 6, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> *I believe the Japanese emperor and his wife visited Pearl back in 2009.....I'm not in the mood to go searching but, if somebody else is, please do provide a link.*
> 
> Japanese Navy ships have visited the site out of respect. And Many former pilots who participated in the attack have visited the site to pay their respects. Many have said they knew they awoke "a sleeping giant" even as they were dropping bombs and, were very critical of the emperors decision to attack.
> 
> They weren't there to apologize, they simply paid respect. And I fully believe that is what our visit will be about.



You'd be correct.

Japanese emperor to visit Pearl Harbor for first time since war - Telegraph



> The trip, which is likely to include a visit to the USS Arizona Memorial, is considered highly symbolic. No Japanese political leader has ever visited the site of the December 7, 1941, attack - an event that President Franklin D. Roosevelt described as a day of infamy.



I'm pretty sure he ended up going too.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 6, 2010)

For the record, neither nuking Japan nor an invasion of Japan was necessary to end the war.


----------



## elvis (Aug 6, 2010)

I'd love to hear those who call the US racist for dropping the bombs on Japan, considering we planned using an atomic bomb on Germany if the Battle of the Bulge had failed.


----------



## elvis (Aug 6, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> For the record, neither nuking Japan nor an invasion of Japan was necessary to end the war.



For the record, you're a stupid fuck.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 6, 2010)

elvis said:


> I'd love to hear those who call the US racist for dropping the bombs on Japan, considering we planned using an atomic bomb on Germany if the Battle of the Bulge had failed.


As far as I can tell, RGS is the only one that called the US racist for dropping the bombs.

RGS is a hate filled freak who forgets that we are now friends with Japan.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 6, 2010)

Kat said:


> You can apologize with gestures and not actually saying ''sorry''. Have to see what happens..



We really have zero to apologize for. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Have they every apologized?


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 6, 2010)

Ravi said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > I'd love to hear those who call the US racist for dropping the bombs on Japan, considering we planned using an atomic bomb on Germany if the Battle of the Bulge had failed.
> ...



you are incorrect,, I believe Tom Hanks did.  

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/j...r-war-in-pacific-driven-by-racism-and-terror/


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 6, 2010)

Kat said:


> You can apologize with gestures and not actually saying ''sorry''. Have to see what happens..



Why should be apologize???

They attacked us. I don't remember them apologizing for Pearl Harbor???


----------



## hylandrdet (Aug 6, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We had no choice, it was either use the bombs or invade, an invasion would probably seen millions of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians. It took 2 bombs to convince the Emperor to surrender. And even then his Army tried to stage a coup to prevent it.
> 
> U.S., allies to send first delegation to Hiroshima memorial - Yahoo! News
> 
> This President is an idiot.



Is that what you call an excuse? The end justifies the means...? Pathetic!!!

1. If you were alive at the time, you were nothing more than a kid!!! Don't act like you were there!!!

2. We successfully drop a second bomb; this means that we had air supremacy; we could had drop a "warning bomb", just outside of Hiroshima for the emperor to see.

3. It was dropped on civilians, not on a REAL military target. You saw how we were angered at the idea of our civilians being killed. We only lost +3000 at 9/11, they lost 70,000.

I support any President Obama's willingness to admit that the decision as to where to drop the bomb was ill advised. However, as always with you conservatives, I still don't see in your link, a quote from President Obama supporting your claim. I don't see a quote from him offering an official apology. Figures start to lie when liars start to figure

President Obama is smart enough to understand the idea of apologizing for the *way* an action was carried out versus apologizing for *why* the action was carried out. 

You could understand if you would care to listen; but before you can listen, you must dig the poop out of your ears; but before you you dig the poop out of your ears, you must first pull your head out of your a...

Food for thought.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 6, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> For the record, neither nuking Japan nor an invasion of Japan was necessary to end the war.



Good point.  We could have surrendered.  That would have ended the war immediately.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 6, 2010)

Was it this despicable?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Aug 6, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> For the record, neither nuking Japan nor an invasion of Japan was necessary to end the war.


My wife is from Okinawa so obviously she's Japanese. Her grandmother and grandfather were at Hiroshima the day it was bombed.

Her grandfather was too small to join the Japanese Army (imagine that) so he worked as an engineer for the government. He actually had a hand in designing some of the suicide planes. As an aircraft nut, he and I had some interesting conversations, limited by my poor Japanese and his Okinawan dialect. My wife translated for us most of the time. He said the F6F Hellcat turned the tide in the Pacific as most war buffs would agree.

The week of the bombing he and his wife attended a meeting in Hiroshima. The day of the bombing he fell sick and stayed at the little apartment on the outskirts of the city. His wife saw the B-29 fly over and witnessed the mushroom cloud.

The next day he walked into the city and said "It was hell on hearth". But he also said this: "*America had to do it*.* Japan was under Military rule and was never going to surrender*". He never showed any animosity toward Americans and in fact, encouraged his grand daughters to marry Americans and move to America. 

Whenever I hear people talk about how terrible America was for dropping the bomb I tell them this story. I have a few pictures of him I'll post later if I can find them.


----------



## konradv (Aug 6, 2010)

Mad Scientist said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, neither nuking Japan nor an invasion of Japan was necessary to end the war.
> ...



Great story.  This memorial was billed as way to bring people together in hopes that nukes will never be used again.  I haven't heard anything about apologies, except from the haters.


----------



## theHawk (Aug 6, 2010)

hylandrdet said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > We had no choice, it was either use the bombs or invade, an invasion would probably seen millions of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians. It took 2 bombs to convince the Emperor to surrender. And even then his Army tried to stage a coup to prevent it.
> ...



It was very much dropped on a "real" military target.  Hiroshima was an industrial city manufacturing military assests.  The PEOPLE making them were the enemy, just as much as the soldiers using the weapons that they were making.  There were several army headquarters there and it was a supply shipping hub.  It was a HUGE military target.

Carry on with your re-writing history.


----------



## ekrem (Aug 6, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> (...)
> This President is sending our Ambassador to a site who's sole purpose is to attack the US.



The sad part is: Probably you're a father/grandpa and will pass your shitty morale standards to them over.


----------



## Yukon. (Aug 6, 2010)

I will only accept the apology of CornHole and Hairy Dristan. Until such time they have been condemed to Yukon's purgatory which means I will not offer any spiritual guidance to them nor will I respond to their direct posts.


----------



## Samson (Aug 6, 2010)

Yurt said:


> just curious....has any official japanese entourage ever visited pearl harbor on dec. 7?



Does any official _US entourage_ visit Pearl Harbor on December 7th?


----------



## cad (Aug 6, 2010)

hylandrdet said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > We had no choice, it was either use the bombs or invade, an invasion would probably seen millions of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians. It took 2 bombs to convince the Emperor to surrender. And even then his Army tried to stage a coup to prevent it.
> ...



so Japan rapes, tortures, performs scientific experiements on TENS OF MILLIONS of Chinese, Cambodians, Vietnamese and Indonesians and we are supposed to somehow feel guilty about putting an end to that?  why?  

so bombing an actual city doesn't cause japan to surrender, but a warning bomb near the city would have worked?

why does Japan get such a pass when it comes to their actions leading up to and during WWII?  everyone knows, Nazis are evil.  you ask the average American about Japan's actions, and all they'll be able to tell you is Pearl Harbor and Hirsohima.  Why is that?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 6, 2010)

The most humane war possible is one fought with overwhelming force and with as much savagery as is necessary to bring it to a speedy and absolute conclusion with the side that wants peace being the victor.  And then require your vanquished foe to behave decently and make him your friend as we did with Germany and Japan.  That saves the most lives possible and accomplishes a satisfactory outcome.

Only wars that just stop and aren't won leave enemies firmly in place for decades or centuries.

And the absence of war is not necessarily peace.



> Think back to the 1930s when the Japanese murdered an estimated 3 million to 10 million people in China, Indonesia, Korea, Philippines and Indochina; and on December 7, 1941 when they attacked Pearl Harbor, killing over 2,400 Americans. I'm betting that most of Japan's at-the-time 60 million population were peace-loving people and would have wanted nothing to do with the brutal slaughter in China and the attack on the U.S. In formulating our response to the attack, should President Roosevelt have taken into account the fact that most Japanese are peace-loving people ruled by fanatics? Should our military have only gone after the Japanese pilots and their naval armada? I'd also wager that most Germans were peace-loving people and not part of the Nazi sadists wanting to wage war on their neighbors and exterminate the Jews. Again, should Roosevelt and Churchill have taken that into account in their response to German militarism? My answer is no and thank God it was their answer as well. Whether most Germans, Italians or Japanese were peace-loving or not was entirely irrelevant in formulating the Allied response to their militarism.
> 
> Horrible acts can be committed in countries where most of the people are peace-loving and simply want to be left alone to attend to their affairs. I imagine that described most of the people in the former Soviet Union; however, that did not stop the killing of an estimated 62 million people between 1917 and 1987. The same can be said of the Chinese people, but it didn't stop the killing of 35 million of their countrymen during Mao Zedong's reign. Whether most people of a country are peace-loving or not is not nearly as important as who's calling the shots.   --  Walter Williams
> 
> Townhall - Walter E. Williams - Peace-loving Muslims


----------



## Yukon. (Aug 6, 2010)

Really now. Who cares who visits Pearl Harbour on Dec 7th or any other date for that matter ? Get serious. The Japs attacked Pearl Harbour 69 years ago, who cares? WWII is over. The little "bendy legged" Japs were vapourized in Aug 1945 and good riddence too. If the US had a leader with testicles they would vapourize those Arab fucks in KIran and do the same with the stone age cocksucking ball licking Afhans. Afghanistan is not worth one American, Canadian, or British soldiers life. Fuck 'em all.

ex- FR. YUKON


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 6, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, neither nuking Japan nor an invasion of Japan was necessary to end the war.
> ...



Japan was willing to end hostilities before we dropped the bomb.

"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon." - Dwight D. Eisenhower


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 6, 2010)

theHawk said:


> hylandrdet said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



So if Japan or Germany had bombed Detroit that would have simply been a military target, right?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > *I believe the Japanese emperor and his wife visited Pearl back in 2009.....I'm not in the mood to go searching but, if somebody else is, please do provide a link.*
> ...



I can find no mention of him actually being there, which leads me to believe he never actually followed through for some reason. My guess would be security concerns of some type. Even if he had gone, the visit would not have been on the anniversary of the attack, because that would send a political message that he did not want to send.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> For the record, neither nuking Japan nor an invasion of Japan was necessary to end the war.



Quite true. I just believe that the alternative would have been worse, and we would probably still be in a state of war with them, just like we are with North Korea.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2010)

Ravi said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > I'd love to hear those who call the US racist for dropping the bombs on Japan, considering we planned using an atomic bomb on Germany if the Battle of the Bulge had failed.
> ...



You are a complete idiot.

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 6, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, neither nuking Japan nor an invasion of Japan was necessary to end the war.
> ...



I find that unlikely since they were willing to surrender, which North Korea never did.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2010)

hylandrdet said:


> Is that what you call an excuse? The end justifies the means...? Pathetic!!!



Nice to see that rdean is not the only idiot on the board.



hylandrdet said:


> 1. If you were alive at the time, you were nothing more than a kid!!! Don't act like you were there!!!



Do you say the same to everyone who talks about slavery in America? I can guarantee that no one who is complaining about that was alive back then. 



hylandrdet said:


> 2. We successfully drop a second bomb; this means that we had air supremacy; we could had drop a "warning bomb", just outside of Hiroshima for the emperor to see.



We had already been fire bombing Tokyo for most of the war, and air supremacy had made no impression on them yet. The rationale for actually hitting cities was to demonstrate that we were willing to use the bomb on targets that would hurt the Japanese. If we had dropped it outside the city all it would demonstrate is that we had bad aim.



hylandrdet said:


> 3. It was dropped on civilians, not on a REAL military target. You saw how we were angered at the idea of our civilians being killed. We only lost +3000 at 9/11, they lost 70,000.



WWII was a total war, and everything was a valid target. Besides, civilians support the military with food and supplies, as well as being the source of personnel. Attacking the supply chain is a valid military strategy, which is why the North won the civil war. Something I am sure you support.



hylandrdet said:


> I support any President Obama's willingness to admit that the decision as to where to drop the bomb was ill advised. However, as always with you conservatives, I still don't see in your link, a quote from President Obama supporting your claim. I don't see a quote from him offering an official apology. Figures start to lie when liars start to figure



All that proves is that you are as qualified to make that decision as the all the other idiots who think that war can be fought with rules. I thin they should have hit Tokyo, but Roosevelt was softer than that and chose targets that would send a message while killing the fwest number of people.



hylandrdet said:


> President Obama is smart enough to understand the idea of apologizing for the *way* an action was carried out versus apologizing for *why* the action was carried out.



Funny, he claims he is not apologizing, yet you claim he is. I guess that makes the OP correct, and you wrong.

See what happens when you try to reason and apply logic and you have no idea how to do either. You should get your parents money back that they wasted on your education.



hylandrdet said:


> You could understand if you would care to listen; but before you can listen, you must dig the poop out of your ears; but before you you dig the poop out of your ears, you must first pull your head out of your a...



That was almost funny.



hylandrdet said:


> Food for thought.



I prefer meat and potatoes to cotton candy, so I think I will skip the meal you are offering.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2010)

Mad Scientist said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, neither nuking Japan nor an invasion of Japan was necessary to end the war.
> ...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 6, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We had no choice, it was either use the bombs or invade, an invasion would probably seen millions of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians. It took 2 bombs to convince the Emperor to surrender. And even then his Army tried to stage a coup to prevent it.
> 
> U.S., allies to send first delegation to Hiroshima memorial - Yahoo! News
> 
> This President is an idiot.



That was a good story thanks for the link.

I dont see us apologizing in the link though, just attending the memorial with 75 other country's representatives.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 6, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Where is Obama apologizing? What exactly do you find wrong with this? Partisan hack much?
> ...



Lotsa talk, but no walk.  Give us a site that cites what you allege, gunny.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2010)

Samson said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > just curious....has any official japanese entourage ever visited pearl harbor on dec. 7?
> ...



Every year.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 6, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Except they were going to surrender.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > hylandrdet said:
> ...



Just like the V-2s in London were.

Amazing how being intellectually consistent works.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 6, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



No, they were not going to surrender.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 6, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Well I very consistently say that that was a war-crime as well.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Why did we have to bomb Nagasaki then? Did we just ignore any attempts to surrender during those 3 days? Or maybe we just ignored the attempts during the previous six months that we were fire bombing 67 cities in Japan.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 6, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We had no choice, it was either use the bombs or invade, an invasion would probably seen millions of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians. It took 2 bombs to convince the Emperor to surrender. And even then his Army tried to stage a coup to prevent it.
> 
> U.S., allies to send first delegation to Hiroshima memorial - Yahoo! News
> 
> This President is an idiot.



We had no choice?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 6, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Actually they were.  They were reaching out to the Soviet Union after Germany surrendered because they didn't want the Soviets to turn their attention towards Japan.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 6, 2010)

Don't worry, QWB: KK is never consistent with his arguments, because he can't make the evidence fit them, no matter how much he twists a square peg to fit in a round hole.  Talk to him about the Civil War some time.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 6, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



They were not looking to surrender but to secure the North East so they could devote all resources to the Final Battle with the U.S.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2010)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > We had no choice, it was either use the bombs or invade, an invasion would probably seen millions of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians. It took 2 bombs to convince the Emperor to surrender. And even then his Army tried to stage a coup to prevent it.
> ...



You ever wonder why we are the first to send a delegation to any ceremony marking a memorial like that? You would think that we would wait until Japan sent a delegation first, which is probably why no other US administration has ever done this before. All this does is reinforce the perception of Obama as weak in the eyes of the world, even if it is not an apology.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 6, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



We ignored the attempts to surrender before Hiroshima, let alone before Nagasaki.  We wanted an unconditional surrender, and were willing to drop as many bombs as necessary for that to happen.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 6, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Just the opposite.  It enhances the U.S. in the eyes of the world and diminishes the GOP, Boehner, and McConnell.  Rightfully so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Then you are consistently wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



I get it, they were willing to surrender, if they could keep the military and rebuild so they could try again later, and not give up anything they took away from anyone else.

News flash, that is not surrender, that is regrouping so you can try again. That makes the bomb necessary to get a real surrender, and not one where they get to stab us in the back.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Really?

Did you know the Japanese press refused to print the photo of Obama "not bowing" to the emperor of Japan because it was shameful? Or that Obama's approval numbers are going down worldwide?

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 6, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Why should Obama bow to the Emperor, QWB?  Who cares if the Japanese press did not print that photo?  And you have no evidence that BHO and the U.S. approval ratings are going down dramatically.  Bet you can find it is much higher than in 2005.

Keep worshiping in the First Reactionary Church of the United States with Bishop Boehner and Cardinal McConnell.

You loons are funny, but you are not dangerous at all because you don't have the political power to drive the American bus into the economic ditch again.


----------



## elvis (Aug 6, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



No, they weren't you stupid fuckhead.  

If it were up to you, the Japs would have made it to Chicago.


----------



## SW2SILVER (Aug 6, 2010)

There is certainly more than one way to interpret this action. It isn't an apology. It is a recognition of the effects of nuclear weapons. Not a condemnation of the decision to use them. Of that, there little room for debate, there was an imperative to use that weapon at that time. It was unavoidable. It was inevitable.  Unlike Japans decision  to attack the US. Every time the anniversary  of Hiroshima arrives,  this debate  rears its ugly head.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 6, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So long as I'm consistent.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 6, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Yeah, we wouldn't want to make any concessions to end hostilities and save thousands of lives. 

Much better to vaporize innocent civilians.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 6, 2010)

KK, in this case, since the Emperor and the military were not ready to offer sincere offers of surrender, yes, then the vaporization of innocents became necessary.

Your head, Kevin, is in the clouds of theory and 'what should be.'  Ask any military personnel here, retired or active or former, how they feel about war?  I doubt you will find anyone that really wants to say "let's go" unless it is necessary.

Sometimes war is necessary.  Imperialism is wrong, but some forms are worse than others, and the Japanese imperialism of the first half of the 20th century was barbaric, catastrophic, revealing a terrible ethnic supremacism in the Japanese nation that threatened the eastern world with disaster.  As it was from 1910 to 1945, the price the prey of the Japanese paid was unimaginable.

You simply don't comprehend of what you talk.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2010)

That is because he was taught that America is always wrong since he was first in school, and has never even attempted to overcome the conditioning.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 6, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> That is because he was taught that America is always wrong since he was first in school, and has never even attempted to overcome the conditioning.



What a moronic comment above.  The mind that produces it cannot objectively, rationally, critically evaluate evidence.  Absolutely stunning, just stunning.

Want to give us some evidence for your statement, QWB?  And, please, your opinion is not evidence.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 6, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> That is because he was taught that America is always wrong since he was first in school, and has never even attempted to overcome the conditioning.





Right, because the public school system definitely teaches that dropping two atomic bombs on Japan was a war crime.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 6, 2010)

Not true, KK, not true.  I  imagine some schools do, but the majority do not. Why?  Because you can't prove it with evidence.  Remember, Kevin, try taking your head out of the clouds.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 6, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Not true, KK, not true.  I  imagine some schools do, but the majority do not. Why?  Because you can't prove it with evidence.  Remember, Kevin, try taking your head out of the clouds.



I was being sarcastic, Jake.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 6, 2010)

I know you were, but I was funning with wind bag.  I mean conhog and bigreb aren't here, so I gotta make do with what I got.


----------



## haileydavey (Aug 6, 2010)

This is not an apology in my opinion. I see nothing wrong with sending a contingent to Japan. The people of Japan will not see this as weakness in my opinion nor will they see us in a negative light. Even if it is seen as an apology it is not sorry we did it but sorry it had to come to this.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 6, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> That is because he was taught that America is always wrong since he was first in school, and has never even attempted to overcome the conditioning.


Really...is that what you were taught? Where did you go to school AQU?

What a moron you are.


----------



## elvis (Aug 6, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > That is because he was taught that America is always wrong since he was first in school, and has never even attempted to overcome the conditioning.
> ...



It wasn't a war crime, you traitorous piece of shit.


----------



## hylandrdet (Aug 6, 2010)

theHawk said:


> hylandrdet said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



I'm still standing by my position. WE HAD AIR SUPREMACY!!! We could had easily attacked the military installations and factories there with conventional bombs; deaths recorded at those spots would had been acceptable. But come on man!!! Women and children!!! What kind of animal are you???


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 6, 2010)

hylandrdet, the U.S. Airforce had destroyed 61 cities, had killed more than 1.2 million citizens by August 1 in just the previous 12.5 months, and the Japanese had not surrendered and were not going to surrender.

You have a fail.


----------



## SW2SILVER (Aug 6, 2010)

Sorry to interrupt. Yes , we had to nuke Japan. There was so many pounds of fissionable plutonium in 1945. We had enough for three bombs. Test one. Drop another on Hiroshima, and the Japanese wanted  ignore  Hiroshima  at the time. Onward with the war progress! Please. Japanese government didnt care  THEN. Well now, they  want make it a monument to human suffering. Please, its about Pearl  Harbor,  Remember THAT?


----------



## Zona (Aug 6, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Where is Obama apologizing? What exactly do you find wrong with this? Partisan hack much?



This question is rhetorical....no matter what he does..NO MATTER WHAT...they will say its wrong...NO MATTER WHAT.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 6, 2010)

Zona said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Where is Obama apologizing? What exactly do you find wrong with this? Partisan hack much?
> ...


I guess you completely ignored mine, and a couple o' other con's post up here, eh Zona?

Typical lib!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 6, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > That is because he was taught that America is always wrong since he was first in school, and has never even attempted to overcome the conditioning.
> ...



Neither is yours, the difference is I know that about myself, and you do not.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 7, 2010)

QWB has nothing to offer other than he hates the president.


----------



## Douger (Aug 7, 2010)

ConHog said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...


That's exactly right. I did business with them for years. They are humble and realize they were ruled by an idiocracy, just like you currently are.
I wonder how murkins will react when a few of your cities go up in smoke ?
My bet is a different reaction completely.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 7, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> That is because he was taught that America is always wrong since he was first in school, and has never even attempted to overcome the conditioning.



Pure nonsense.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We had no choice, it was either use the bombs or invade, an invasion would probably seen millions of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians. It took 2 bombs to convince the Emperor to surrender. And even then his Army tried to stage a coup to prevent it.
> 
> U.S., allies to send first delegation to Hiroshima memorial - Yahoo! News
> 
> This President is an idiot.



Your ignorant lack of grace is mind numbing.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Just put phrase through google, this came up:
> 
> U.S. Delegation will not offer apology at Hiroshima Ceremony - CafeMom
> 
> ...



Already addressed that retard. Just showing up is an apology all by itself. Ohh and I won't be linking anything from the Holocausts site as this is my opinion and won't change.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, neither nuking Japan nor an invasion of Japan was necessary to end the war.
> ...



Kennedy is an idiot, as anyone else that claims Japan intended to surrender. I have a link to source documents that clearly show all the Japanese offered before the first bomb was for a cessation of hostilities with a return from both sides of land captured after Dec 7 1941.

Further those documents clearly show that the Army lead Military Government and the Emperor refused to surrender after the first bomb, instead making demands for terms. Only after the second bomb did the Emperor OVERRULE the Army which STILL refused to surrender. And even then the Army staged a coup to steal the tape of the Emperor making the announcement. Fortunately for Japan the Coup failed.

As to the spurious claim that neither site was a military target... both were Headquarters of Army Groups gearing up for the coming Invasion, both were production facilities, both I believe are ports ( could be wrong haven't looked at a map.  You don't want your cities bombed in war time, don't put any of those things IN the city.

As for dead, we killed many more fire bombing Tokyo.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Eisenhower was wrong and the only thing you got right is, YES Japan wanted the war to stop, in place with an exchange of property seized since Dec 7 1941.

The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources

Dumb ass.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > hylandrdet said:
> ...



As a matter of fact yes.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



RETARD ALERT. They never offered to surrender. All they offered was a cessation of Hostilities. They would give back the land they seized since Dec 7 1941 and we would do the same. You are a retard. Even after the first bomb they REFUSED to surrender and after the second one the Army staged a Coup against the Emperor, a living God according to them, to stop the surrender. Want me to link to the SOURCE documents AGAIN?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



LIAR. once again for the slow all they offered was a cessation of Hostilities. They would give back what they still had seized since Dec 7 1941 and we would do the same. Even after the first bomb they refused to surrender, making demands. After the second the Army staged a Coup to thwart their living God Emperor to keep from surrendering.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



I have the source documents, all the offered to discuss was a cessation of hostilities with an exchange of still controlled property and land seized since Dec 7 1941. You have been provided the link several times in the past.

The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 7, 2010)

The Allies made it clear that they would only accept an unconditional surrender.  That policy is what forced the issue and made the nuclear bombings, "necessary."   Without the strict unconditional surrender policy the bombings wouldn't have been, "necessary."


----------



## xotoxi (Aug 7, 2010)

elvis said:


> I'd love to hear those who call the US racist for dropping the bombs on Japan, considering we planned using an atomic bomb on Germany if the Battle of the Bulge had failed.



I agree.  Anyone who thinks that America is racist for bombing a country against whom we were at war, should be exposed to nuclear waste.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 7, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > I'd love to hear those who call the US racist for dropping the bombs on Japan, considering we planned using an atomic bomb on Germany if the Battle of the Bulge had failed.
> ...



Agreed.

Internments camps were the true display of America's racism during WWII.


----------



## Samson (Aug 7, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > I'd love to hear those who call the US racist for dropping the bombs on Japan, considering we planned using an atomic bomb on Germany if the Battle of the Bulge had failed.
> ...



Americans hated the British Race, and that's really what caused the revolution.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> The Allies made it clear that they would only accept an unconditional surrender.  That policy is what forced the issue and made the nuclear bombings, "necessary."   Without the strict unconditional surrender policy the bombings wouldn't have been, "necessary."



History proves that incorrect. The Army controlled the Government and were more then willing to die to the last man rather then surrender. Their defense plan was to command all civilians to equip themselves with bamboo spears and human wave attack any invasion site until all the civilians were dead or the invaders were driven back into the sea.

After months of fire bombing which crippled their industry and killed over a million civilians they were prepared to issue the above orders. KNOWING they could not feed the population or provide adequate fuel sources for winter they REFUSED to surrender.

After one Atomic Bomb the Army refused to surrender demanding ridiculous terms. After a second they still refused and were over ruled by the Emperor. The Army staged a Coup to seize the tape of the surrender, fortunately for the Japanese people that Coup failed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



You are aware that the US all interned thousands of Germans and held some until 1946?


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



And?


----------



## Samson (Aug 7, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



They weren't Asian.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Last I checked the German race is predominately white. And in the 1940's this would have been especially true. Claiming that we only interned the Japanese because they were Asian is simply not true. Now how we wenr about it might make your case. Giving them one day to get rid of property and such.

No Japanese were held past the end of the war and a Supreme Court case ordered the Government to release them. Last I checked all 9 of the Supremes were white as well. At least in the 1940's.

We held Germans for over a year after Germany surrendered. American citizens.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > The Allies made it clear that they would only accept an unconditional surrender.  That policy is what forced the issue and made the nuclear bombings, "necessary."   Without the strict unconditional surrender policy the bombings wouldn't have been, "necessary."
> ...



Without the "unconditional surrender" policy the war could have been ended without nuking Japan.  Call it "ceasing hostilities" or what you will but the fighting would have stopped and the nukes would not have been dropped.  The Japanese were cornered,  decimated, and up against the wall.  What might have happened after is speculation.  

I'm not saying it wasn't necessary based on the situation we put ourselves in because it was, IMO, just that if things were a little different than it wouldn't have been.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



The evidence is clear, all the Japanese Army would have accepted is a cessation of the war. And you think that would have been a good idea?


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



I didn't claim we only interned the Japanese.  That we interned them and Germans shows our racism.   We stereotyped, and in this case, imprisoned people based solely on their ethnic background.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Maybe, maybe not.  But who knows?  Not you or I.  Japan was annihilated at the time.  What do you think the chances were of them rebuilding and becoming a legit threat to the world?  They failed the first go around and they had the Wehrmacht raising hell in Europe to help them out.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Another broad statement that simply is not borne out by the facts. In Hawaii 3 Japanese American citizens who had been loyal to the US helped a captured Japanese pilot try to escape, they helped him murder Hawaiian nationals. In the Case of Germans we had numerous cases of attempted sabotage on the East Coast.

The decision to intern was made partly on race or ethnicity and partly on the facts as evidenced by the REALITIES of 1941/42 World.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 7, 2010)

Samson said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



And?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Ya, North Korea is a prime example of what that attitude leads to.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



A bunch of innocent people got rounded up and put into prison camps because of where they were from, yes?


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Sixty years of stalemate and no fighting while they remain inept and poor and we prosper?  Sounds cool to me.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



You make the claim the only reason they got rounded up was their race, that simply is not true or rather not the whole true picture. The reality in 1941 was that the Japanese DID have a NATIONAL tendency to defer to the Emperor even those that had changed Countries, that Germans were in fact loyal to the Home land as well even over their new Country.

I am pointing out there WERE valid military reasons to worry about both groups.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



SO poor they now have at least one or more nukes and the means to deliver them at least in their part of the world. Ya great plan.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Where is Obama apologizing? What exactly do you find wrong with this? Partisan hack much?
> ...



A city is a military target? The aiming point in Hiroshima was the Aioi Bridge


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



And that's fine.  I'm pointing out that a lot of innocent people got caught up in that net and it was because of where they were from/the language they spoke/what they looked like.  That's racism, RGS.  I don't know why it's so hard for you to acknowledge that when you consider our own armed forces were segregated at the time.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



Yes as a matter of fact. Cities in WW2 were all valid targets. In this case, it had production facilities and several Army Headquarters were troops were being marshaled for the defense of the Island. Further since the Japanese intended to arm all civilians with bamboo spears and mass human wave attack any landing, that makes civilians military targets as well.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Right.

Because surely possessing one nuclear bomb this day and age = wealthy and a real threat.

Don't be silly.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



If the people that have the bomb are CRAZY, yes it is a threat.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



They are under China's thumb and China wants to win it all without firing a shot.  No. Korea may be pain in the ass sometimes but they aren't going to launch nukes any time soon.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 7, 2010)

Let history inform you about China's influence on North Korea.  North Korea came across the border in June 1950 despite the wishes of the USSR and Red China.  Go read up on it.  President Rhee of the South opened he Tiger Cages and released the POWs at war's end regardless of the U.S.and the U.N. having agreed to repatriation.  

What I am stating here is that Koreans on either side really don't give a darnn what anyone else thinks about how their country should be run.  Any of us who have served in Korea will tell you that those folks, on either side of the DMZ, intend to reunify that country under their particular brand of government and society.

Yeah, those bombs in NK are important in the region there, and it is silly to think they aren't.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



How about a Japan that was never actually beaten in WW2? One that still had Bushido as their main spiritual military and an unrepentant Emperor and Government? One bent on revenge, where we never used an atomic bomb so there were no examples of what would happen?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Cities, unfortunately, were military targets as well as terror targets against industry and civilians in WWII.  General LeMay told later Secretary of Defense McNamara, who was on the general's staff, that if the other side won the war that they in the USAF would be tried for war crimes.

You who have never served have no earthly idea what you are talking about concerning these matters.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



My guess is that Japan would resemble North Korea today.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Sarge, you need to moderate your thirst for blood. Yes, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved lives of American soldiers and Japanese citizens compared to an invasion of the mainland. But it did not save the lives of 130,000 human beings, mostly civilian women and children that day. The lucky one were vaporized, leaving ONLY their shadows. The unlucky suffered the skin burned off their bodies before they died. Others survived only to die a painful death from radiation poisoning.

The commemoration of those horrible events is not to apologize, it to honor the human beings that perished and to remind mankind why war and the use of nuclear weapons must be avoided. 

Japan has become a good friend and ally. Let's celebrate a good ending to the story.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 7, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Let history inform you about China's influence on North Korea.  North Korea came across the border in June 1950 despite the wishes of the USSR and Red China.  Go read up on it.  President Rhee of the South opened he Tiger Cages and released the POWs at war's end regardless of the U.S.and the U.N. having agreed to repatriation.
> 
> What I am stating here is that Koreans on either side really don't give a darnn what anyone else thinks about how their country should be run.  Any of us who have served in Korea will tell you that those folks, on either side of the DMZ, intend to reunify that country under their particular brand of government and society.
> 
> Yeah, those bombs in NK are important in the region there, and it is silly to think they aren't.



Ok 

That was 1950 ... it's 2010 now.

The Koreans can have their own issues amongst themselves but as far as North Korea being a global threat or a threat to us?  That's bunch of malarkey.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 7, 2010)

Don't dismiss history; you know better, A15.  North Korea is a threat with global implications, and it reflects an ideological naivete that it could be anything else.

Six players are involved: North and South Korea, China, Russia, Japan, and the U.S.  Four of those players have nuke.  If North Korea invades South Korea, nukes Seoul or tries to nuke Japan, the major powers are going to destroy North Korea.  That puts 25 million screaming North Koreans trying to cross the Yalu into Red China who does not want them.

The situation has global issues of war and humanitarianism.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 7, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Don't dismiss history; you know better, A15.  North Korea is a threat with global implications, and it reflects an ideological naivete that it could be anything else.
> 
> Six players are involved: North and South Korea, China, Russia, Japan, and the U.S.  Four of those players have nuke.  If North Korea invades South Korea, nukes Seoul or tries to nuke Japan, the major powers are going to destroy North Korea.  That puts 25 million screaming North Koreans trying to cross the Yalu into Red China who does not want them.
> 
> The situation has global issues of war and humanitarianism.



When you add it all together you get what we have now.  Decades of "peace" and North Korea only piping up every now and again to remind everyone they are still there.  I'm a fan of MAD and a people's desire for self preservation so I have little reason to believe that North Korea will use a nuke.  Nobody wants a nuclear war in that region, including the North Koreans, and especially the Chinese.  Nobody.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 7, 2010)

I pray you are right, but you are basing your position on the sanity of the North Korean leadership.  If that leadership feels threatened enough to believe the leaders will be removed from power, the state will go to war.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 7, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Let history inform you about China's influence on North Korea.  North Korea came across the border in June 1950 despite the wishes of the USSR and Red China.  Go read up on it.  President Rhee of the South opened he Tiger Cages and released the POWs at war's end regardless of the U.S.and the U.N. having agreed to repatriation.
> ...



In 2001, if somebody had told you that a poorly understood and little known bunch of radical Islamic extremists based in Afghanistan would create the mayhem that occurred on 9/11, that no doubt would have been dismissed as a bunch of malarkey too.  But it happened.

Adolph Hitler would not have been able to create the world havoc that he did if the world had not underestimated his intentions and ambitions.

Japan would never have been so successful in bombing Pearl Harbor if their intentions had not been underestimated by U.S. high command.

History should teach us to be wary of ambitions and intentions of mad men, most especially those in possession of nuclear weapons.  In a world as interconnected as ours now is, and with a global economy such as we now have, and with the alliances in place that now exist, nobody has to attack the USA directly in order to directly involve us.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 7, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



But asking for forgiveness?????

Should the Japanese ask for forgiveness for their Imperialist aggressions? You bet.

Maybe if they ask for forgiveness for their invasions of Australia, Manchuria, Indonesia, Korea, China, and every little island in the Pacific they could get their hands on. How bout apologizing for murdering millions of innocent men, women, and children in the Philippines and elsewhere. How bout apologizing for the Batan Death March for starters.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 7, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Yes, there are lessons to be learned in history. 

My opinion on the threat North Korea poses remains unchanged.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 7, 2010)

Everybody put your fauxrage away....the US isn't apologizing for anything in regards to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 7, 2010)

Come on, radio man, the faxurage righties want to make points that somehow the sending of the delegation is "apologetic", and the fauxrage lefties believe the bombs were war crimes.  Both positions, when the facts are examined, fail.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 7, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Here's what you need to do...READ the article linked in the OP, then bring me back anything that talks about, hints about or refers to 'asking for forgiveness'... just because pea brain Sarge titled the thread ' Lets apologize' doesn't mean it has anything to do with the US sending a delegation to Hiroshima memorial.

Get back to me...OK?


----------



## Yukon. (Aug 7, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



You are a LIAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## elvis (Aug 7, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



You are too stupid for words.


----------



## Liberty (Aug 7, 2010)

The United States for the first time in American history since WWII sent an ambassador to Japan to memorialize the bombing of Hiroshima. Now, here is something that really bothers me. There has been nothing but a combination of historical illiteracy and moral bankruptcy going on about this. Lets go through how we got into WWII with Japan. 

We were originally trading partners with Japan for decades. Then Japan decides to invade China, known as the nanking massacre. Japan invades Indochina and literally starts massacring the entire population. It was also known as the "rape of nanking." why was it called this? Because they literally had systematic gang rapes of THOUSANDS of people. The people that were there that witnessed this estimated there were about a thousand rapes a night. It was one of the most discusting atrocities in world history. 

They massacred the population, they tortured the people to death. It made the Sudan and Rowanda look like a girls' lacrosse game. It was absolutely sickening. So the United States decided: You know what? We are not going to facilitate any more of these invasions; any more of these massacres. So the United States put up an embargo with Japan to encourage them to stop the war with China. 

Then Japan started negotiating with the United States to lift the embargo and the United States said we will lift the embargo if you stop these invasions,s, massacres, and wars. Before the negotiations could end, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and then goes and invades MORE islands. This brings the United States into this war with Japan and it was a brutal war along the pacific islands. Then, in order to end this war the United States realized it would actually have to invade Japan (known as "operatoin downfall" and "x-day"). It would have to invade Japan for the reason that the Japanese were not going to surrender.

So Japan actually trained its' men, its' women and children to fight with bamboo sticks until the end. They were not going to surrender in any instance. So to end the war the US realized they would have to invade Japan and kill every man, woman, and child there because the Japanese were not going to surrender and simply continue the war. 

So, then we found out that we had the Atomic Bomb and we decided you know what? We're not going to invade Japan because it would simply be a massacre and not only that, a lot of Americans would get killed along the way. So we dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then the soviet union declared war on Japan from the north and Japan finally surrendered. 

That is how it happened. They always say you can't compare any country to nazi germany. You can absolutely compare imperialist Japan with the nazis.  Why? Because they were a racist civilization that believed that their race was superior to all the other asian nations and that justified all of the massacres and killings. And they were racially superior to Americans because they thought America would never have the resolve to attack Japan. Or, never have the resolve to actually fight Japan because America was a diverse nation while Japan was a homogeneous society. 

So, this nonsense that we should start memorializing Hiroshima and make America look like the bad guy because we dropped the bomb is absurd. All of the total deaths from Hiroshima are much less than what they would have been if the United States had actually invaded Japan which would have been required to end the war.  

Nobody seems to talk about the massacre or rape of nanking. It's a combination of moral bankruptcy and historic illiteracy. It seems like every day everyone is talking about in school this anti-american stuff or the peoples' history of the united states from howard zinn or noam chomsky or a fake history of the United States that is simply not true. The real history is that Japan started this war and the United States didn't even want to be a part of it. We simply wanted to be trading partners with Japan and Japan left us no choice. We took every option possible and ended up dropping the bombs.

 And now the United States is sending ambassadors to Japan...to what? To appologize for the bombing of Japan? It's abject nonsense and historical illiteracy.


----------



## Modbert (Aug 7, 2010)

Threads Merged


----------



## Liberty (Aug 7, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Threads Merged



another nazi mod acting all nazi-like. i remember when this board wasn't controlled by nazis. it was good times.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Aug 7, 2010)

OMG!!! NAAAAAAHHHTZEEEEEEEESSSSSSSsssss....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 7, 2010)

Liberty,  your comments are that of a reactionary right winger without a clue, period.  You are in PoliticalChic's class among others.  There is absolutely nothing that is apologetic about the trip.  For you to suggest it clearly identifies as an enemy of American values.


----------



## Modbert (Aug 7, 2010)

Liberty said:


> another nazi mod acting all nazi-like. i remember when this board wasn't controlled by nazis. it was good times.



If you have a problem with moderation action, which includes merging two threads of the exact same topic, please PM that mod.

Thanks.


----------



## Liberty (Aug 7, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > another nazi mod acting all nazi-like. i remember when this board wasn't controlled by nazis. it was good times.
> ...



No, Thank you. The mods on this site are the reason i will never donate.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 7, 2010)

Liberty said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...



Then go to stormfront or hannitty if you don't want to be American and support free speech.


----------



## Liberty (Aug 7, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



What the fuck are you talking about?


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 7, 2010)

Liberty said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Threads Merged
> ...



Yeah, you could tell he was wearing jackboots when he merged those two threads on the same topic.

Tard.


----------



## Liberty (Aug 7, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 7, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> QWB has nothing to offer other than he hates the president.



Yet I claim this is not an apology. Amazing how some people think they are superior while clearly demonstrating their basic inferiority.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 7, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> The Allies made it clear that they would only accept an unconditional surrender.  That policy is what forced the issue and made the nuclear bombings, "necessary."   Without the strict unconditional surrender policy the bombings wouldn't have been, "necessary."



Without the strict unconditional surrender Japan would have rebuilt and again tried to expand its empire.


----------



## hylandrdet (Aug 7, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> hylandrdet, the U.S. Airforce had destroyed 61 cities, had killed more than 1.2 million citizens by August 1 in just the previous 12.5 months, and the Japanese had not surrendered and were not going to surrender.
> 
> You have a fail.



So you do admit that we had the air supremacy to bomb them into submission, without the necessary need to nuke every man, woman and child, while contaminating our atmosphere with radiation.

Fair enough.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

hylandrdet said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > hylandrdet, the U.S. Airforce had destroyed 61 cities, had killed more than 1.2 million citizens by August 1 in just the previous 12.5 months, and the Japanese had not surrendered and were not going to surrender.
> ...



RETARD ALERT. retard alert. They were not going to surrender because of fire bombing. They ALREADY lost 61 cities and simply refused to surrender. The Government knew they could not feed the population come winter, they knew they could not provide fuel sources for winter. They did NOT care. Hirohito did not order a surrender after the first Atomic Bomb. And after the second when he did order a surrender his Army attempted a Coup to stop it.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 7, 2010)

Yurt said:


> just curious....has any official japanese entourage ever visited pearl harbor on dec. 7?



Yes...and there was a party of Japanese vets that were planning to go to Pearl Harbor on the 50th anniversary and they were DISinvited by their American counterparts.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> hylandrdet said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



So, there were no peace overturns sent out by the Japanese government before the bombs were dropped?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



So what you're essentially saying is, I was right when I said that Japan was willing to surrender before either bomb was dropped.  And that I was once again right when I said that the only reason we dropped those bombs is because we wanted an unconditional surrender.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Then you're out of your mind.  It would have loudly been proclaimed a war-crime by all Americans, including myself, and it would still be condemned to this day.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You can if you want.  All they show is that what I said was right all along.  You also keep saying the same thing I have, though in your own words, while proclaiming me to be wrong.  It makes little to no sense.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 7, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> The Allies made it clear that they would only accept an unconditional surrender.  That policy is what forced the issue and made the nuclear bombings, "necessary."   Without the strict unconditional surrender policy the bombings wouldn't have been, "necessary."



Which has been my point the entire time, and which RGS has continually proven despite claiming it to be wrong.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



An impoverished nation that poses no discernible threat to the greatest military power the world has ever seen?


----------



## elvis (Aug 7, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



kind of like how people operating from caves are no threat to the greatest military power in the world?


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 7, 2010)

*Lets apologize *

Let's not and say we did!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



WRONG again. Japan never offered to surrender. They offered to stop Hostilities. And they demanded all their lost territory back. Further they would not allow any foreign troops on their soil. ALL they offered was for the hostilities to end ON THEIR TERMS.

After the first bomb they repeated the demand that no foreign troops would be allowed on Japanese soil. They did not offer to surrender.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 7, 2010)

elvis said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



If we leave they won't be.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Ya that worked on September 11 2001 didn't it?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 7, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



And we were over there weren't we?


----------



## rdean (Aug 8, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



NOT "unconditional" surrender.  Americans could not agree to the terms.  Would we have left "Hitler" in power simply to end the war?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 8, 2010)

hylandrdet said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > hylandrdet, the U.S. Airforce had destroyed 61 cities, had killed more than 1.2 million citizens by August 1 in just the previous 12.5 months, and the Japanese had not surrendered and were not going to surrender.
> ...



You admit then the U.S. had to use nukes because the Japanese would  not surrender despite your inaccurate contention that normal air power would force surrender.

Fair enough.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 8, 2010)

The facts remain:

(1) the Japanese never offered to surrender, but did want a truce to stop hostilities, regroup, and hang onto their gains.

(2) conventional air bombing, as horrible as the results were, did not force the Japanese to surrender.

(3) planning documents from 1945 revealed the Japanese military and civilians would inflict unimaginable casualties on themselves and the invader, with the real possibility the invasion force being unable to secure bridgeheads on the Japanese home islands.

Conclusion: the atomic bombs caused the Japanese Emperor, his government, and a reluctant military to surrender.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 8, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We had no choice, it was either use the bombs or invade, an invasion would probably seen millions of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians. It took 2 bombs to convince the Emperor to surrender. And even then his Army tried to stage a coup to prevent it.
> 
> U.S., allies to send first delegation to Hiroshima memorial - Yahoo! News
> 
> This President is an idiot.



You're insane.  Get help before you hurt someone, God is not pleased with the hate you hold in your heart.


----------



## rdean (Aug 8, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We had no choice, it was either use the bombs or invade, an invasion would probably seen millions of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians. It took 2 bombs to convince the Emperor to surrender. And even then his Army tried to stage a coup to prevent it.
> 
> U.S., allies to send first delegation to Hiroshima memorial - Yahoo! News
> 
> This President is an idiot.



Dropping the bombs was a necessary evil.  There is nothing wrong with morning the dead and memorializing the innocents who have do die to end a terrible war.

Your problem is you're awful.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 8, 2010)

Nah, RGS is not awful or evil, merely unstable and _uber _patriotic.  The bombs had to be dropped.  The American delegation is no way is an apology for the dropping of the bombs.  RGS merely went overboard.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 8, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



How many Hawaiian Japanese Americans were interned during WWII?


----------



## bodecea (Aug 8, 2010)

Liberty said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Threads Merged
> ...



Ah...another Martyr.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 8, 2010)

rdean said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



From what I remember...the sticking point was that the U.S. REFUSED to promise to leave their God-Emperor on the throne if Japan surrendered.   Ironically, we did that very thing anyways at the end.

In reality...dropping the bombs was PARTLY a message to the Soviet Union...."look what we've got...don't even think about messing with us and Western Europe".


----------



## elvis (Aug 8, 2010)

rdean said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Kevin would have. Sieg heil!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 8, 2010)

*Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces, President of United States*:
"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

*William D. Leahy, Five-Star Fleet Admiral, Chief of Staff under Presidents Roosevelt & Truman*:
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

*Herbert Hoover, President of the United States*:
"The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."

"I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

*General Douglas MacArthur*:
"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." - Norman Cousins

What we have here are the words of many prominent Americans saying that the atomic bombing of Japan was unnecessary and disgusting.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 8, 2010)

And they were, in retrospect, wrong, just like you are, KevinKennedy, on this issue.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 8, 2010)

Will somebody remind me of the moron in the spring here on the board who was carrying repeatedly the monotone "I am right you are wrong, it was not unconditional surrender" chord until he started screaming and blood was coming out of his eyes?

You, KevinKennedy, as misguided as your political and cultural philosophy may be (in my opinion), you are invariably polite and at times gracious.  I appreciate that very much.


----------



## germanguy (Aug 9, 2010)

I do personally not see, what Obama did wrong by sending his ambassador to the ceremony in Hiroshima. (Well, there are obviously enough people around here who are against everything this president does. Those people will be in opposition to Obama whatever he does, even if he is telling the date and time of day.)
The ambassador gave no apology and nothing alike, so what the heck did he wrong ?

We should ALL mourn the dead of this war. For the dead are beyond guilt and our conflicts.

Also, any war has the tendency to kill more innocent men, woman and children, instead killing the responsible ones.
So, after hostilities ended, hostility should end. 

When in my home country the old and beautiful city Dresden was destroyed, the Frauenkirche (a church) was destroyed as well. The cross on the top of the newly reconstructed church was made anew by a son of a british bomber pilot who helped to destroy the city. It was financed by a trust of the british people and to me it symbolizes the power of reconciliation. No one in Britain had to excuse for this, but as the british went through the Blitz, they knew what Dresden meant.  

And, never forget what Churchill, the Old Lion wrote: 
In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity.


regards
ze germanguy


----------



## topspin (Aug 9, 2010)

There is always a choice other than murdering innocent woman and children tough guy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 9, 2010)

topspin said:


> There is always a choice other than murdering innocent woman and children tough guy.



Yep, you could always fold up and let them their husbands and fathers murder your family.


----------



## topspin (Aug 9, 2010)

We could hire less redneck killers in the services.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 9, 2010)

topspin said:


> We could hire less redneck killers in the services.



RETARD ALERT retard alert.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 9, 2010)

topspin said:


> There is always a choice other than murdering innocent woman and children tough guy.



In a perfect world, topspin, which this is not.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 9, 2010)

topspin said:


> We could hire less redneck killers in the services.



The most stone cold killer I knew in the service had a doctorate from Kentucky.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 9, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> topspin said:
> 
> 
> > There is always a choice other than murdering innocent woman and children tough guy.
> ...



Japanese women were not innocent nor were children about 12 and up. The Japanese Government intended to arm them with Bamboo spears and have them human wave attack any landings.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 9, 2010)

I disagree with your definition of "innocent", RGS, but not with the fact that the Japanese government brought on the destruction from the skies.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 10, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > topspin said:
> ...



Something our own people would not have done in defense of our homeland...I guess.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 10, 2010)

Hell, no, bodacea, all the GOP women would in the streets waving little flags with a red meatball centered on each of them, and inciting the warriors into their homes for "refreshment."  They all would have become yoboes.


----------



## elvis (Aug 10, 2010)

It's true the Japanese civilians were armed with bamboo and were preparing for hand-to-hand combat for the coming INVASION.  Doesn't sound like the government was preparing them for surrender, does it?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 10, 2010)

You are right, Elvis.  The Japanese civilians would have done what they were told to do.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 10, 2010)

We had a choice.  We're the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons in war.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 10, 2010)

Sky Dancer, the right decision was made.

It's time to move on.


----------



## Natsumi (Aug 11, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Just put phrase through google, this came up:
> 
> U.S. Delegation will not offer apology at Hiroshima Ceremony - CafeMom
> 
> ...



I saw something on the news about the whole apology thing to Japan in Hiroshima. It's war. There shouldn't have to be an apology. Not even after 65 years. It happened well before most of anyone's time on this message board. Being my grandpa is a WWII vet he even told me "This country (Japan) had it coming" and very well so deserved it. The atrocities that were done to people in China, and multiple areas Japan was in control of at the time.. in the past has done, I think that served them right.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 11, 2010)

Natsumi said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Just put phrase through google, this came up:
> ...



I agree.  And since there was no apology given this thread, and whatever news story about the "apology" that you heard, is bunk.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 11, 2010)

Natsumi said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > Just put phrase through google, this came up:
> ...



As far as the whole "apology" thing goes, of course there shouldn't be an apology.  Those who ordered the bombs are long dead, and nobody has the right to apologize on their behalf.  Nor are the victims here to accept any such apology.  Of course, this whole "apology" issue is partisan politics, so it's really not even worth acknowledging.

Japan certainly committed atrocities, but that was the Japanese government and military.  Innocent Japanese civilians should not have been punished for that.


----------



## Natsumi (Aug 11, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Japan certainly committed atrocities, but that was the Japanese government and military.  Innocent Japanese civilians should not have been punished for that.



There's a reason why I live in the U.S. now and not Japan. I have a lot of animosity for that place.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 11, 2010)

Natsumi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Japan certainly committed atrocities, but that was the Japanese government and military.  Innocent Japanese civilians should not have been punished for that.
> ...



Which is fine.  However, I fail to see the relevance to my post?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 11, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Natsumi said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



You are a moron, no one need explain anything to you since you keep claiming the Japanese would have suddenly surrendered out of the blue when all the ACTUAL facts, which I have documented prove that the Japanese Government REFUSED to surrender even after 2 Atomic bombs, forcing the Emperor to over rule them and THEN the Army tried a Coup to stop that.


----------



## Natsumi (Aug 11, 2010)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Which is fine.  However, I fail to see the relevance to my post?



I could sit here all day and explain if you'd care to hear, but you wouldn't want to. Which is why I said they deserved that and the animosity I have. I'm from there, so I know.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 11, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Natsumi said:
> ...



The only thing you've proven is that everything I said was true, and that you're unable to carry on a conversation without the words "moron" or "retard."


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 11, 2010)

Natsumi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Which is fine.  However, I fail to see the relevance to my post?
> ...



So innocent Japanese civilians from the year 1945 deserved to be vaporized because you don't like Japan today?


----------



## psikeyhackr (Aug 11, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We had no choice, it was either use the bombs or invade, an invasion would probably seen millions of dead Japanese soldiers and civilians. It took 2 bombs to convince the Emperor to surrender. And even then his Army tried to stage a coup to prevent it.



No, they could have implemented a naval blockade and destroyed the Japanese fishing fleet.

But the Russians were threatening to get involved and they didn't want the same situation as in Germany.

I would have let the Russians invade Japan and enjoyed the show.  Let it cost them more than it was worth.  

psik


----------

