# Ethics and The A-Bomb



## Madeline

Was it ethical to use the A-bomb on the Japanese?

If so, was it ethical to bomb both Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

And if so, why did we not use the A-bomb on Berlin?

Are these questions still relevant for use in deciding the ethics of nuclear weapons deployment today?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

First thing. The Atomic Bombs were not ready until Summer 1945. Germany surrendered in April. We had no reason to drop said bombs on Germany.

The reality is that it took BOTH bombs to get the Emperor of Japan to over ride his Army Controlled Government and order an immediate surrender. With those bombs we would have starved Japan through the winter killing untold thousands followed by an Invasion of a Home Island which would have seen MILLIONS of dead Japanese civilians and soldiers.

Japan was teaching her civilians to arm themselves with Bamboo spears and human wave charge any invasion. The continued invasion of Japan could have seen the potential elimination of the Japanese race.

The lie that Japan was ready to surrender is revisionist history. Japan under the Army had no intention of surrender. What they "offered" through the Soviet Union was a cease fire with Japan keeping everything she still possessed and the return of Japanese home possessions like Saipan and Okinawa. Japan was offering to let us just stop attacking them. They would retain all of their Chinese, Korean and other possessions and we would return their home island captures.

Here is a link to SOURCE documents verifying that Japan was NOT offering a meaningful surrender, that even after two atomic Bombs the Army controlled government refused to surrender, that the Emperor failed to act until after the second atomic bomb and that the Army attempted a Coup to prevent the Emperor from surrendering.

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

The atomic bombs were necessary unless one thinks we should have just let Japan keep everything from before the war and not disarm. They SAVED millions of lives.


----------



## JW Frogen

Despite the Germans having already surrendered I think we should have dropped an A bomb on Berlin, or at least Hamburg, simply as a gesture of good will to the Japanese, to prove to them that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a racist attack.


----------



## Madeline

So, in the future, will military leaders be guided by the ethics of the A-Bombing of Japan, or has it become irrelevant now that there may be suitcase boms, etc.?


----------



## Dr Gregg

War, especially WWII was horrible. 50 million people died, most of them civilians.

I have absolutely no problem with dropping the bomb. The Japanese were sick fucks during WWII. What they did to other people they conquered, POWs, etc was deplorable. THey fought to the death, never surrendering, even committing suicide rather than surrender.  They even told civilians, women and children, to kill themselves because the Americans were going to do bad things to them. Despicable. As much as monday morning QBs want to claim they would of surrendered, the Japanese showed no signs throughout the war of ever doing such a thing. And an invasion likely would of caused much more death, and more suffering. THere were bombing campaigns that killed as many as the A bombs did.

Second reason why I think it was a good thing, is it showed the world the horrors of the A-Bomb and the nastiness of radioactive fallout, which was not fully appreciated until after the bombs were dropped. Imagine if they never dropped the much weaker A bomb, and later during the Cold War, with weapons much stronger than the A bomb, what would of happened? Imagine the first use was US vs USSR, which much more powerful weapons, how devastating that would be? 

We did other bad things during WWII, like firebomb Dresden, which killed more people than the A bombs, and likely more horrible deaths.


----------



## Dr Gregg

Madeline said:


> Was it ethical to use the A-bomb on the Japanese?
> 
> If so, was it ethical to bomb both Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
> 
> And if so, why did we not use the A-bomb on Berlin?
> 
> Are these questions still relevant for use in deciding the ethics of nuclear weapons deployment today?



Why not Berlin? Because we had the Germans beat, we were already in Germany, and they were much less fanatical during the war than the crazy Japanese, who never showed signs they would surrender. Not sure when the A bomb was even available, and they only had 3 of them

NO nuclear weapons should ever be used again, they are so powerful, and the radiation fallout can reach vast areas. Plus, with other nuclear powers, it would spell our doom

And as much as we destroyed a lot of Japan, we built them up to be a technological and economic superpower.WHat other countries treat their enemies like that? they benefitted greatly from not having a emperor that thought he was god, not having a military to spend money on, all while getting protection if needed. This allowed them to have strong education and build up their economy and technological skills.


----------



## namvet

Madeline said:


> Was it ethical to use the A-bomb on the Japanese?
> 
> If so, was it ethical to bomb both Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
> 
> And if so, why did we not use the A-bomb on Berlin?
> 
> Are these questions still relevant for use in deciding the ethics of nuclear weapons deployment today?



wow Madeline did you open a can a worms . I can hear the clicking of liberal keyboards. we were murderers.

it saved the lives of millions of American servicemen. all who were grateful (and their families) it ended the war. my opinion

they did consider using it on the Nazi's. but it would have killied allied soldiers and civilians. fortunatley the war there ended.


----------



## Madeline

namvet said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it ethical to use the A-bomb on the Japanese?
> 
> If so, was it ethical to bomb both Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
> 
> And if so, why did we not use the A-bomb on Berlin?
> 
> Are these questions still relevant for use in deciding the ethics of nuclear weapons deployment today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow Madeline did you open a can a worms . I can hear the clicking of liberal keyboards. we were murderers.
> 
> it saved the lives of millions of American servicemen. all who were grateful (and their families) it ended the war. my opinion
> 
> they did consider using it on the Nazi's. but it would have killied allied soldiers and civilians. fortunatley the war there ended.
Click to expand...


I don't think they knew, really, what radiation poisoning would be like.  I have never been all that conflicted about what happened myself...my Daddy served in the Pacific.  But the _second_ bomb has always given me pause, and I sorta like asking folks who seem to know their military history.

Worms, shurmes.  How many topics are so off-limits we cannot ever speak of them? In my mind its shame and silence that harms us, not an airing of POVs.


----------



## Quatermass

*Madeline* asks if the unbridled slaughter of old men, women and little children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was 'ethical'. One has to realise here that barbarity is the ethical standard which defines of the International Capitalist system. Just as we can recognise a tree by its fruits so can we determine a socio-economic method by its historical consequences. 

The colours of Capitalism the world over are brutal and primitive. Chaos ensues from an extension of a system of class division and institutionalised greed, along with the protection of private property; the fierce competition for new markets, the subjugation and exploitation of international indigenous populations for super profits and the inevitable wars the ruling class demand in order to maintain their established hierarchies of Imperialist stranglehold. 






Nothing in History is the result of 'accident' and everything a consequence of  the fundamental economic and social structures we maintain by our political choices, or lack of therein. 

So it is important to recognise that the ethic of an exploitative system is social chaos and war. And 'Behold', the societies in which Humanity now languish reflect this truth abundantly.

More specifically, in the context of Japan and the Nuclear attacks America unleashed upon the Japanese civilian population, the consensus of independent rational opinion realises that these atrocities were completely unnecessary, and the result of a malevolent Capitalist superpower besotted with displaying its aggressive abilities to the World so it could dominate post-war affairs with an iron fist, in a climate of fear.  And it has. As is evidenced by America's exhaustive plethora of post WW2 invasions, interventions, all out wars and both covert and explicit funding of terrorism.  

*RetiredGySgt *is, as usual, blinkered to any reality which shows up the nefarious nature of his beloved terrorist nation. Perhaps his own complicity as a servile military tool is too much to bear, if he were to ever open his eyes to the harsh light of day. And so it is his ilk that in fact revise history with Pavlovian synergy, every time the truth begins to dawn upon a new generation.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force and later president of the U.S., when informed of the decision to drop Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki stated:

"I voiced my 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."

Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Truman, revealed to his biographer Jonathan Daniels:

"they went ahead and killed as many women and children as they could which was just what they wanted all the time."
[Alperovitz, Decision, p. 326.]





(Shinichi Tetsutani, almost 4 years old, was playing on his tricycle when the brave U.S.A.F. atomic-bombed his home. Such was the intensity of the nuclear glare all but the metallic frame melted.) 

And in his autobiography, Admiral Leahy states:

"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."
[Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima & Potsdam , by Gar Alperovitz, p. 14.]

General Douglas MacArthur, officer in charge of Pacific operations, questioned the military usefulness of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. His consultant Norman Cousins wrote in 1987:

 "The war might have ended weeks earlier, [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
[Hoover and Cousins quoted in Alperovitz, Decision, pp. 349-50.]

Many military and government officials under Truman failed to fathom his decision to pursue the bombings when surrender was within their grasp. Joseph Grew, Under Secretary of State; John McCloy, Assistant to the Secretary of War; Ralph Bard, Under Secretary of the Navy; and Lewis Strauss, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy, to name but a few. 





(ghostly shadows created by incinerating radiance are all that remained of some anonymous Japanese victims of American atomic-war barbarity.)

After the carnage was unleashed U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded:

"certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 [the date U.S. forces were to invade.], Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
[, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima & Potsdam , by Gar Alperovitz, pp. 10-11.]


----------



## Madeline

Quatermass wrote:



> After the carnage was unleashed U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded:
> 
> "certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 [the date U.S. forces were to invade.], Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
> [, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima & Potsdam , by Gar Alperovitz, pp. 10-11.]



Okay, this apparently is the POV you hold.  The rest of the post you made contains the regrets and hindsight of men and women involved in the decision to use the A-Bomb on Japan....and I have no trouble believing they carried a powerful sense of conflict and regret over that choice till they died.  They would not have been human if they did not.  I seem to recall even Einstein regretted invention of the A-Bomb. 

But emotion alone does not control the questions of ethics and the A-Bomb.

Personally I think it is irrelevant whether or not Japan had a "superior economic/political system" to the US's in 1945.  I don't happen to believe that they did, but either side in a war seeks conquest.  I like to think at least some military people place ethical limits on their warfare behavior. 

In that vein, what I am asking is this:

*  Was the A-Bomb a useful weapon?  Did the war end faster because we unleashed it on Japan?

*  Why was it necessary to drop TWO A-Bombs?

And most urgently:

*  Did humans learn anything from the A-Bombing of Japan that military types today can or should reflect upon before firing off the nuclear weapons in _their_ arsenals?


----------



## rightwinger

In the context of the time and the number of people who had already been killed on both sides, I would say the first bomb was ethical to end the war.

I still can't understand why it was necessary to drop a second bomb only three days later. We had already made our point with Hiroshima...Nagasaki was overkill


----------



## namvet

Madeline said:


> Quatermass wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the carnage was unleashed U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded:
> 
> "certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 [the date U.S. forces were to invade.], Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
> [, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima & Potsdam , by Gar Alperovitz, pp. 10-11.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, this apparently is the POV you hold.  The rest of the post you made contains the regrets and hindsight of men and women involved in the decision to use the A-Bomb on Japan....and I have no trouble believing they carried a powerful sense of conflict and regret over that choice till they died.  They would not have been human if they did not.  I seem to recall even Einstein regretted invention of the A-Bomb.
> 
> But emotion alone does not control the questions of ethics and the A-Bomb.
> 
> Personally I think it is irrelevant whether or not Japan had a "superior economic/political system" to the US's in 1945.  I don't happen to believe that they did, but either side in a war seeks conquest.  I like to think at least some military people place ethical limits on their warfare behavior.
> 
> In that vein, what I am asking is this:
> 
> *  Was the A-Bomb a useful weapon?  Did the war end faster because we unleashed it on Japan?
> 
> *  Why was it necessary to drop TWO A-Bombs?
> 
> And most urgently:
> 
> *  Did humans learn anything from the A-Bombing of Japan that military types today can or should reflect upon before firing off the nuclear weapons in _their_ arsenals?
Click to expand...


ill bet your dad was relieved it was over. if Truman had not dropped it and he (your dad) died then your family found he had a weapon that could have ended it,  they would have wanted Truman drawn and quatered. also you wouldn't be here today !!!!

the Jap Army did not believe we had more that one weapon. also they were starving their own people to stay in the fight.


----------



## namvet

rightwinger said:


> In the context of the time and the number of people who had already been killed on both sides, I would say the first bomb was ethical to end the war.
> 
> I still can't understand why it was necessary to drop a second bomb only three days later. We had already made our point with Hiroshima...Nagasaki was overkill



they refused to surrender after the first one.


----------



## Madeline

namvet said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quatermass wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the carnage was unleashed U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded:
> 
> "certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 [the date U.S. forces were to invade.], Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
> [, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima & Potsdam , by Gar Alperovitz, pp. 10-11.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, this apparently is the POV you hold.  The rest of the post you made contains the regrets and hindsight of men and women involved in the decision to use the A-Bomb on Japan....and I have no trouble believing they carried a powerful sense of conflict and regret over that choice till they died.  They would not have been human if they did not.  I seem to recall even Einstein regretted invention of the A-Bomb.
> 
> But emotion alone does not control the questions of ethics and the A-Bomb.
> 
> Personally I think it is irrelevant whether or not Japan had a "superior economic/political system" to the US's in 1945.  I don't happen to believe that they did, but either side in a war seeks conquest.  I like to think at least some military people place ethical limits on their warfare behavior.
> 
> In that vein, what I am asking is this:
> 
> *  Was the A-Bomb a useful weapon?  Did the war end faster because we unleashed it on Japan?
> 
> *  Why was it necessary to drop TWO A-Bombs?
> 
> And most urgently:
> 
> *  Did humans learn anything from the A-Bombing of Japan that military types today can or should reflect upon before firing off the nuclear weapons in _their_ arsenals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ill bet your dad was relieved it was over. if Truman had not dropped it and he (your dad) died then your family found he had a weapon that could have ended it,  they would have wanted Truman drawn and quatered. also you wouldn't be here today !!!!
> 
> the Jap Army did not believe we had more that one weapon. also they were starving their own people to stay in the fight.
Click to expand...


Japanese generals did not believe we had more than one A-Bomb?  That seems incredible...almost suicidal.  If I were Japanese, I'd be hating on those generals.   Civilians should not be cannon fodder without reason.

Isn't surrender required (ethically) when civilian lives are at stake?


----------



## Si modo

Yeah, we should drop the bomb on those with whom we are no longer at war.


----------



## namvet

the Japs were more brutal than the Nazi's

[youtube]bAp8bSdE5MQ[/youtube]​


----------



## namvet

Madeline said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quatermass wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, this apparently is the POV you hold.  The rest of the post you made contains the regrets and hindsight of men and women involved in the decision to use the A-Bomb on Japan....and I have no trouble believing they carried a powerful sense of conflict and regret over that choice till they died.  They would not have been human if they did not.  I seem to recall even Einstein regretted invention of the A-Bomb.
> 
> But emotion alone does not control the questions of ethics and the A-Bomb.
> 
> Personally I think it is irrelevant whether or not Japan had a "superior economic/political system" to the US's in 1945.  I don't happen to believe that they did, but either side in a war seeks conquest.  I like to think at least some military people place ethical limits on their warfare behavior.
> 
> In that vein, what I am asking is this:
> 
> *  Was the A-Bomb a useful weapon?  Did the war end faster because we unleashed it on Japan?
> 
> *  Why was it necessary to drop TWO A-Bombs?
> 
> And most urgently:
> 
> *  Did humans learn anything from the A-Bombing of Japan that military types today can or should reflect upon before firing off the nuclear weapons in _their_ arsenals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ill bet your dad was relieved it was over. if Truman had not dropped it and he (your dad) died then your family found he had a weapon that could have ended it,  they would have wanted Truman drawn and quatered. also you wouldn't be here today !!!!
> 
> the Jap Army did not believe we had more that one weapon. also they were starving their own people to stay in the fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Japanese generals did not believe we had more than one A-Bomb?  That seems incredible...almost suicidal.  If I were Japanese, I'd be hating on those generals.   Civilians should not be cannon fodder without reason.
> 
> Isn't surrender required (ethically) when civilian lives are at stake?
Click to expand...


no they didn't. they were determined to fight to last man, woman and child if need be. surrender was not an option.


----------



## Madeline

Si modo said:


> Yeah, we should drop the bomb on those with whom we are no longer at war.



You may not have noticed this small person has joined our convo, gentlemen.  He has elsewhere stated that our discussion here is without value and we are wrong for holding it.

Si modo wrote:



> Oh yeah. That's a real brilliant OP you have there, with your wondering why we didn't also drop the bomb on a country with whom we were no longer at war.
> 
> Just freakin' brilliant.
> 
> Good God.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/echo-zulus-rep-fest-zone/116926-remedial-neg-repping-101-the-one-class-dude-has-to-attend-10.html#post2303402

Would anyone like to correct his error in thinking?  I could explain about learning from history, but I don't think Si modo can take in any data from chicks.


----------



## Madeline

namvet wrote:



> no they didn't. they were determined to fight to last man, woman and child if need be. surrender was not an option.



I have heard this before, namvet.  I don't know if it's cultural bias on the part of non-Asians, or has a basis in fact.  I can't understand why the tenacity of the Japanese Army would be attributed to Japanese civilians...especially children.  How could they even have a POV?

Were the Japanese any more or less willing to "fight to the death" than Germans?


----------



## Si modo

Madeline said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we should drop the bomb on those with whom we are no longer at war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may not have noticed this small person has joined our convo, gentlemen.  He has elsewhere stated that our discussion here is without value and we are wrong for holding it.
> 
> Si modo wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah. That's a real brilliant OP you have there, with your wondering why we didn't also drop the bomb on a country with whom we were no longer at war.
> 
> Just freakin' brilliant.
> 
> Good God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/echo-zulus-rep-fest-zone/116926-remedial-neg-repping-101-the-one-class-dude-has-to-attend-10.html#post2303402
> 
> Would anyone like to correct his error in thinking?  I could explain about learning from history, but I don't think Si modo can take in any data from chicks.
Click to expand...


OMG.  It's in full-blown meltdown.


----------



## Madeline

Go away, little person.  The adults are talking.


----------



## Si modo

Madeline said:


> Go away, little person.  The adults are talking.


Yeah. Some adults are discussing.  Then, there there are those 'adults' who wonder why we didn't drop  the bomb on the Germans after they surrendered then link to their epic meltdown thread about a neg rep they got.


----------



## Madeline

namvet wrote:



> the Japs were more brutal than the Nazi's



HBO is running its series "The Pacific" now, and I can hardly bear to watch.  But really, namvet, how can we judge the Japanese Army as having been "more brutal" than the Nazi Army?  The Japanese did not engage in systematic genocide with _their_ army.

I know -- a little -- about things such as the Bataan Death March.  Thank God, Daddy was not a POW and came home in one piece, at least physically.  But are you really saying the Japanese Army deserved brutality from the US in a way that the German Army did _not_?  

It's just hard to imagine any human evil will ever rival the Death Camps.


----------



## namvet

Madeline said:


> namvet wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no they didn't. they were determined to fight to last man, woman and child if need be. surrender was not an option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard this before, namvet.  I don't know if it's cultural bias on the part of non-Asians, or has a basis in fact.  I can't understand why the tenacity of the Japanese Army would be attributed to Japanese civilians...especially children.  How could they even have a POV?
> 
> Were the Japanese any more or less willing to "fight to the death" than Germans?
Click to expand...


its a fact they were going to be forced to fight. and were very relieved when it came to an end. 

tenacity was what the IJA/IJN was based on. more willing to fight to the death. its was it their code and honor to die in battle. surrender was a disgrace. as well as those around them. who were killed if they didn't kill themselves.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

Truman based his decision on the actions of the Japanese at okinawa, Iwo, and Tarawa.    Civilian casualties were respectively 60%,  95% and 90%.    US casualties, while lower than Japanese casualties, were severe and the battles protracted.     Iwo is a very small rock, but it took two months to clear.

They were budgeting 2 US deaths per square mile.

I have no problem with using the bomb to end it.

The original target was Germany because there was good reason to believe the Germans would come up with the bomb if we didn't.   (The were too pig headed and blinded by ideology to do so, lucky for us)   It was in Germany that the first big breakthroughs came.   

I think the Manhatten project was a waste of resources.   They should have spent the resources more wisely.   but having built it, and given the goofiness and intransigence of the Japanese government, using it was the best way to end the war.


----------



## namvet

Madeline said:


> namvet wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Japs were more brutal than the Nazi's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HBO is running its series "The Pacific" now, and I can hardly bear to watch.  But really, namvet, how can we judge the Japanese Army as having been "more brutal" than the Nazi Army?  The Japanese did not engage in systematic genocide with _their_ army.
> 
> I know -- a little -- about things such as the Bataan Death March.  Thank God, Daddy was not a POW and came home in one piece, at least physically.  But are you really saying the Japanese Army deserved brutality from the US in a way that the German Army did _not_?
> 
> It's just hard to imagine any human evil will ever rival the Death Camps.
Click to expand...


ive been watching it to. as you can see they fought to the last man.

the Japs were more brutal because they didn't care about race, creed color, sex or anything as the vid showed. 

over 10,000 were murdered on the death march. there's your clue. 

the Nazi's gave up. they surrendered. Japan had NO such thoughts.


----------



## namvet

Baruch Menachem said:


> Truman based his decision on the actions of the Japanese at okinawa, Iwo, and Tarawa.    Civilian casualties were respectively 60%,  95% and 90%.    US casualties, while lower than Japanese casualties, were severe and the battles protracted.     Iwo is a very small rock, but it took two months to clear.
> 
> They were budgeting 2 US deaths per square mile.
> 
> I have no problem with using the bomb to end it.
> 
> The original target was Germany because there was good reason to believe the Germans would come up with the bomb if we didn't.   (The were too pig headed and blinded by ideology to do so, lucky for us)   It was in Germany that the first big breakthroughs came.
> 
> I think the Manhatten project was a waste of resources.   They should have spent the resources more wisely.   but having built it, and given the goofiness and intransigence of the Japanese government, using it was the best way to end the war.



the Japs were trying to build their own Abomb. what if they had suceeded???


----------



## Dr Gregg

Madeline said:


> namvet wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Japs were more brutal than the Nazi's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HBO is running its series "The Pacific" now, and I can hardly bear to watch.  But really, namvet, how can we judge the Japanese Army as having been "more brutal" than the Nazi Army?  The Japanese did not engage in systematic genocide with _their_ army.
> 
> I know -- a little -- about things such as the Bataan Death March.  Thank God, Daddy was not a POW and came home in one piece, at least physically.  But are you really saying the Japanese Army deserved brutality from the US in a way that the German Army did _not_?
> 
> It's just hard to imagine any human evil will ever rival the Death Camps.
Click to expand...


American POWs were treated well by the Germans. They didn't' go on suicide missions, and they would surrender. What was happening to the Jews was separate from other war efforts, which the german soldiers likely didn't even know about while they were fighting the war.

Japanese tortured and abused POWs, if not straight up kill them. THey killed and brutalized so many civilians in the lands they captured. They were by far much more fucked up than the germans. holocaust aside


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> In the context of the time and the number of people who had already been killed on both sides, I would say the first bomb was ethical to end the war.
> 
> I still can't understand why it was necessary to drop a second bomb only three days later. We had already made our point with Hiroshima...Nagasaki was overkill



READ the source documents. After the first Bomb the Generals that ran the Government REFUSED to surrender. The Emperor refused to act after the first bomb also. It is all there. The second bomb is what convinced the Emperor to order a surrender.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Quatermass said:


> *Madeline* asks if the unbridled slaughter of old men, women and little children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was 'ethical'. One has to realise here that barbarity is the ethical standard which defines of the International Capitalist system. Just as we can recognise a tree by its fruits so can we determine a socio-economic method by its historical consequences.
> 
> The colours of Capitalism the world over are brutal and primitive. Chaos ensues from an extension of a system of class division and institutionalised greed, along with the protection of private property; the fierce competition for new markets, the subjugation and exploitation of international indigenous populations for super profits and the inevitable wars the ruling class demand in order to maintain their established hierarchies of Imperialist stranglehold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in History is the result of 'accident' and everything a consequence of  the fundamental economic and social structures we maintain by our political choices, or lack of therein.
> 
> So it is important to recognise that the ethic of an exploitative system is social chaos and war. And 'Behold', the societies in which Humanity now languish reflect this truth abundantly.
> 
> More specifically, in the context of Japan and the Nuclear attacks America unleashed upon the Japanese civilian population, the consensus of independent rational opinion realises that these atrocities were completely unnecessary, and the result of a malevolent Capitalist superpower besotted with displaying its aggressive abilities to the World so it could dominate post-war affairs with an iron fist, in a climate of fear.  And it has. As is evidenced by America's exhaustive plethora of post WW2 invasions, interventions, all out wars and both covert and explicit funding of terrorism.
> 
> *RetiredGySgt *is, as usual, blinkered to any reality which shows up the nefarious nature of his beloved terrorist nation. Perhaps his own complicity as a servile military tool is too much to bear, if he were to ever open his eyes to the harsh light of day. And so it is his ilk that in fact revise history with Pavlovian synergy, every time the truth begins to dawn upon a new generation.
> 
> Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force and later president of the U.S., when informed of the decision to drop Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki stated:
> 
> "I voiced my 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."
> 
> Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Truman, revealed to his biographer Jonathan Daniels:
> 
> "they went ahead and killed as many women and children as they could which was just what they wanted all the time."
> [Alperovitz, Decision, p. 326.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Shinichi Tetsutani, almost 4 years old, was playing on his tricycle when the brave U.S.A.F. atomic-bombed his home. Such was the intensity of the nuclear glare all but the metallic frame melted.)
> 
> And in his autobiography, Admiral Leahy states:
> 
> "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."
> [Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima & Potsdam , by Gar Alperovitz, p. 14.]
> 
> General Douglas MacArthur, officer in charge of Pacific operations, questioned the military usefulness of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. His consultant Norman Cousins wrote in 1987:
> 
> "The war might have ended weeks earlier, [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
> [Hoover and Cousins quoted in Alperovitz, Decision, pp. 349-50.]
> 
> Many military and government officials under Truman failed to fathom his decision to pursue the bombings when surrender was within their grasp. Joseph Grew, Under Secretary of State; John McCloy, Assistant to the Secretary of War; Ralph Bard, Under Secretary of the Navy; and Lewis Strauss, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy, to name but a few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (ghostly shadows created by incinerating radiance are all that remained of some anonymous Japanese victims of American atomic-war barbarity.)
> 
> After the carnage was unleashed U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded:
> 
> "certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 [the date U.S. forces were to invade.], Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
> [, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima & Potsdam , by Gar Alperovitz, pp. 10-11.]



Absolute BULLSHIT. READ the source documents. Japan was NOT going to surrender even if it meant starving the civilian population. That is revisionist crap. The Army ran the Government and even after 2 ATOMIC Bombs REFUSED to surrender. They even tried a coup to stop the Emperor from surrendering.

READ the SOURCE Documents. There is absolutely no reason to assume that Japan would have surrendered if we had not dropped the Bombs, nor any reason to believe even after they lost the first Home Island they would surrender.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Madeline said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we should drop the bomb on those with whom we are no longer at war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may not have noticed this small person has joined our convo, gentlemen.  He has elsewhere stated that our discussion here is without value and we are wrong for holding it.
> 
> Si modo wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah. That's a real brilliant OP you have there, with your wondering why we didn't also drop the bomb on a country with whom we were no longer at war.
> 
> Just freakin' brilliant.
> 
> Good God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/echo-zulus-rep-fest-zone/116926-remedial-neg-repping-101-the-one-class-dude-has-to-attend-10.html#post2303402
> 
> Would anyone like to correct his error in thinking?  I could explain about learning from history, but I don't think Si modo can take in any data from chicks.
Click to expand...


Si Modo IS a CHICK.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Madeline said:


> namvet wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no they didn't. they were determined to fight to last man, woman and child if need be. surrender was not an option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard this before, namvet.  I don't know if it's cultural bias on the part of non-Asians, or has a basis in fact.  I can't understand why the tenacity of the Japanese Army would be attributed to Japanese civilians...especially children.  How could they even have a POV?
> 
> Were the Japanese any more or less willing to "fight to the death" than Germans?
Click to expand...


I provided source documents. The Army Command in Japan was not going to surrender even after 2 atomic bombs. They attempted a Coup to prevent the Emperor from surrendering.


----------



## Madeline

I believe you, RetiredGySgt.  And it does help resolve the issue for me...but why did the Japanese Army do that, sir?  Why rain down hellfire on your_ own_ people?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Madeline said:


> I believe you, RetiredGySgt.  And it does help resolve the issue for me...but why did the Japanese Army do that, sir?  Why rain down hellfire on your_ own_ people?



Entirely different culture. The people were there to serve the Emperor. And the Army ran the Government for said Emperor. So what the Army wanted, the people had to do for the Emperor.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

The Japanese of the 40s were one really goofy culture. (For that matter, they still are, but the goofy is better)  Nowdays we think of Sanrio, electronics and the like.   That is nothing like what they were in the 40s.

The Japanese would have been wiped out if we had invaded.   They were more and more irrational the closer in we got.   The Bomb saved the Japanese nation from extinction.


----------



## Madeline

That's just hard for me to wrap my pea brain around.  I guess I know almost nothing about Japan except that they have terrific gardens and crappy cartoons.

An entire nation enslaved to serve just one man?  The idea is repulsive..it's _evil_.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

Hey, the cartoons are great!  Especially Nodame Cantabile.   GTO is pretty good, and Maison Ikkoku is the cat's pajamas.  

But seriously, you should check out what they were doing during the 30's and 40's.  But not on a full stomach.

It really is a close contest between them and the Germans over which were more horribly psycho.   German's win by a nose (Even the Japanese thought the Germans were nuts) but it was a very close contest.


----------



## Madeline

Baruch Menachem said:


> Hey, the cartoons are great!  Especially Nodame Cantabile.   GTO is pretty good, and Maison Ikkoku is the cat's pajamas.
> 
> But seriously, you should check out what they were doing during the 30's and 40's.  But not on a full stomach.
> 
> It really is a close contest between them and the Germans over which were more horribly psycho.   German's win by a nose (Even the Japanese thought the Germans were nuts) but it was a very close contest.



There are subjects that disturb me so much I don't make it a point to inquire further, Baruch Menachem.  I'm having trouble watching a full episode of "The Pacific".  I have never seen "Schindler's List" and never will.  "Sophie's Choice" traumatized me permanently.

But I will admit I know virtually nothing about any Asian culture.  Mebbe I will try. Is there a book or film you can recommend on the WW II era Japanese?


----------



## rightwinger

namvet said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the time and the number of people who had already been killed on both sides, I would say the first bomb was ethical to end the war.
> 
> I still can't understand why it was necessary to drop a second bomb only three days later. We had already made our point with Hiroshima...Nagasaki was overkill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they refused to surrender after the first one.
Click to expand...


Three days is not alot of time to make a decision. After Hiroshima we still could have bombed the shit out of them with conventional weapons while we pressured the Japanese leadership to surrender or we would drop more atomic weapons. They did not know we only had two at that time.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the time and the number of people who had already been killed on both sides, I would say the first bomb was ethical to end the war.
> 
> I still can't understand why it was necessary to drop a second bomb only three days later. We had already made our point with Hiroshima...Nagasaki was overkill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they refused to surrender after the first one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three days is not alot of time to make a decision. After Hiroshima we still could have bombed the shit out of them with conventional weapons while we pressured the Japanese leadership to surrender or we would drop more atomic weapons. They did not know we only had two at that time.
Click to expand...


All I can tell you is read the documents.The Army did not care at all about the atomic Bomb, it meant nothing. The Emperor got interested but refused to get involved after the first bomb. Waiting would have just extended the war that much longer.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

The atom bomb was a statement, not a piece of ordinance.   Tokyo was taking nightly raids that had equivalent or worse casualties.   (This is partly due to the nature of Japanese construction)  The unfortunate reality is that bombing cities stiffens resistance for some reason.  Just more conventional bombing would have been counterproductive.  We were setting fires every night that killed off people by the hundred thousand.


----------



## Madeline

The devastation is shocking.  And the aftermath, the radiation poisoning....gruesome.  But the average American might not have known.  There wasn't any short film footage, and they did not have television.  It just is not the kind of thing radio could adequately convey.

It's hard to believe that just a few years later, Americans were driving out the the desert to watch A-Bombs being tested.  Not if they really did know what had happened in Japan.


----------



## midcan5

Under the circumstances the question of ethics and morality almost have no place. The Japanese were not ready to surrender even after the bombs were dropped. The Samurai worldview was that the only noble thing to do was fight to the death. Look at the island battles as a harbinger of the death that would have occurred had Japan not surrendered. Many generals and soldiers committed hara-kiri after the decision was finally made at the very last moment to surrender.

OT What moral magic counts death and then concludes that the less is better. If I am one of the dead the argument has little meaning.

OT2  now their cars dominate our landscape and many have semper fi stickers attached. When ever I read about the island battles that irony always amazes me. My father served on a carrier in the Pacific during the war.


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> they refused to surrender after the first one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three days is not alot of time to make a decision. After Hiroshima we still could have bombed the shit out of them with conventional weapons while we pressured the Japanese leadership to surrender or we would drop more atomic weapons. They did not know we only had two at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I can tell you is read the documents.The Army did not care at all about the atomic Bomb, it meant nothing. The Emperor got interested but refused to get involved after the first bomb. Waiting would have just extended the war that much longer.
Click to expand...


Extended it how long?  A week? Two weeks?

How would waiting more than three days to allow the impact to sink in have altered the ultimate outcome of the war?

Why not give a deadline to surrender and threaten an A bomb a day till they did?  They did not know how many bombs we had


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three days is not alot of time to make a decision. After Hiroshima we still could have bombed the shit out of them with conventional weapons while we pressured the Japanese leadership to surrender or we would drop more atomic weapons. They did not know we only had two at that time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I can tell you is read the documents.The Army did not care at all about the atomic Bomb, it meant nothing. The Emperor got interested but refused to get involved after the first bomb. Waiting would have just extended the war that much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Extended it how long?  A week? Two weeks?
> 
> How would waiting more than three days to allow the impact to sink in have altered the ultimate outcome of the war?
> 
> Why not give a deadline to surrender and threaten an A bomb a day till they did?  They did not know how many bombs we had
Click to expand...


Read the documents.


----------



## peach174

Perfect example's right here of how badly broken our school system has become.
Can't teach true american history because true education means too many individuals having a mind of there own. Ohhhhhh!!!! no more robots? NO,NO,No, only socialism.
What ever happened to plain ol reading, writing, arithmatic, and History and keeping politics out of the schools?


----------



## Dr Gregg

peach174 said:


> Perfect example's right here of how badly broken our school system has become.
> Can't teach true american history because true education means too many individuals having a mind of there own. Ohhhhhh!!!! no more robots? NO,NO,No, only socialism.
> What ever happened to plain ol reading, writing, arithmatic, and History and keeping politics out of the schools?



Right, as you put forth no argument relevant to the thread, no logic behind your attacks. I guess this is your idea of brilliance?


----------



## peach174

Have you not read what is being said about the a bomb? The comment's that have been made show that they have not been taught the truth about WWII. One said that they did not know why the 2nd bomb was dropped. 
We were all taught this in the 50's before govenmnet took over the schools.


----------



## Quatermass

*RetiredGySgt*, in a rather lazy fashion repeatedly points to *The National Security **Archive *'s collection of 77 documents on the atomic bomb and end of world war 2 saying 'the proof is in there'. Rather like tossing a dictionary at a newspaper editor and saying 'here's tomorrow's front page story'.

So where in the comprehensive 77 lengthy sections could that magical, much sought-after golden fleece-like 'good reason' to consign the 350,000 civilian population of Hiroshima and the 250.000 civilian population of Nagasaki to the horrors of a nuclear blood bath be hiding? 

Perhaps it was Document 29, where on 11 of July Foreign Minister Togo sent the following 'extremely urgent' message to Ambassador Sato:

"We are now secretly giving consideration to the termination of the war because of the pressing situation which confronts Japan both at home and abroad Therefore, when you have your interview with Molotov [ in accordance with previous instructions] you should not confine yourself to the objective of a rapprochement between Russia and Japan but should also sound him out on the extent to which it is possible to make use of Russia in ending the war." 

and then on the same day:

".. Japan- as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace - has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf

These Documents reveal many desperate attempts by Japans envoys to establish a surrender up to the very end and on August 5th (Document 52). All the while U.S. interceptors secretly listened in, and made Truman's office aware of the full content of these Japanese attempts yet they went ahead anyway, choosing to test one of each type of their new atomic devices, first Uranium, then Plutonium on the living Human guinea pigs; the old  men, the helpless women and innocent children behind enemy lines, away from the theatre of war, away from where the soldiers were. America sneaked in, from a safe height and in cowards fashion dropped their devastating bombs on non combatants then ran away. 

And as President Harry Truman ate his lunch on the Augusta with fellow mass murderers Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin, news of the bombing of Hiroshima came in. Jubilantly, he announced to the retinue of sailors around him..

"This is the Greatest thing in History!"





(Heaped bodies after Hiroshima atomic-bombing of civilian area.)


----------



## namvet

Quatermass said:


> *RetiredGySgt*, in a rather lazy fashion repeatedly points to *The National Security **Archive *'s collection of 77 documents on the atomic bomb and end of world war 2 saying 'the proof is in there'. Rather like tossing a dictionary at a newspaper editor and saying 'here's tomorrow's front page story'.
> 
> So where in the comprehensive 77 lengthy sections could that magical, much sought-after golden fleece-like 'good reason' to consign the 350,000 civilian population of Hiroshima and the 250.000 civilian population of Nagasaki to the horrors of a nuclear blood bath be hiding?
> 
> Perhaps it was Document 29, where on 11 of July Foreign Minister Togo sent the following 'extremely urgent' message to Ambassador Sato:
> 
> "We are now secretly giving consideration to the termination of the war because of the pressing situation which confronts Japan both at home and abroad Therefore, when you have your interview with Molotov [ in accordance with previous instructions] you should not confine yourself to the objective of a rapprochement between Russia and Japan but should also sound him out on the extent to which it is possible to make use of Russia in ending the war."
> 
> and then on the same day:
> 
> ".. Japan- as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace - has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war."
> 
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> These Documents reveal many desperate attempts by Japans envoys to establish a surrender up to the very end and on August 5th (Document 52). All the while U.S. interceptors secretly listened in, and made Truman's office aware of the full content of these Japanese attempts yet they went ahead anyway, choosing to test one of each type of their new atomic devices, first Uranium, then Plutonium on the living Human guinea pigs; the old  men, the helpless women and innocent children behind enemy lines, away from the theatre of war, away from where the soldiers were. America sneaked in, from a safe height and in cowards fashion dropped their devastating bombs on non combatants then ran away.
> 
> And as President Harry Truman ate his lunch on the Augusta with fellow mass murderers Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin, news of the bombing of Hiroshima came in. Jubilantly, he announced to the retinue of sailors around him..
> 
> "This is the Greatest thing in History!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Heaped bodies after Hiroshima atomic-bombing of civilian area.)








the bottom line sign here​


----------



## Baruch Menachem

Midcan makes a good point.   If you are one of the dead, how it happened is no longer of any interest.

We did have the history of the way the Japanese were fighting.  We were looking at civilian casualties in the range of 65-95%   For the living on both sides, the bomb was a lifesaver.   But we aren't ever going to fight a war with an enemy like that again.  And we have never fought a war in that manner since.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

And the cool thing is, Hiroshima is back, and bigger and better.   There is a baseball stadium right near ground zero.

There were heaps of corpses in Mindanao, Nanjing, Shanghai, Canton, New Guinea, Indonesia, Okinawa... That is the nature of war.   And the Japanese were particularly brutal.  None of the people that were under them have any love for them, or any sympathy for what happened to them.  The Chinese sometimes give lip service to the idea of evil racist Americans, but at the same time, the attitude is it couldn't have happened to a better set of folks.   Watching Korean media, the Koreans haven't forgiven or forgotten either.


----------



## rightwinger

peach174 said:


> Perfect example's right here of how badly broken our school system has become.
> Can't teach true american history because true education means too many individuals having a mind of there own. Ohhhhhh!!!! no more robots? NO,NO,No, only socialism.
> What ever happened to plain ol reading, writing, arithmatic, and History and keeping politics out of the schools?



Ummm....do you have any points to make in your posts?

I can't find any


----------



## Madeline

peach174 said:


> Perfect example's right here of how badly broken our school system has become.
> Can't teach true american history because true education means too many individuals having a mind of there own. Ohhhhhh!!!! no more robots? NO,NO,No, only socialism.
> What ever happened to plain ol reading, writing, arithmatic, and History and keeping politics out of the schools?



peach, no one can write a history book for an American classroom without political considerations, no matter how pure their heart.  What is EXCLUDED is as important in judging textbooks as what is INCLUDED.  I knew more than the average kidlet about the settlement of the Hudson River Valley because I attended school in New York.  But I was NOT taught anything about the A-Bombing of Japan, apart from the one liner: We bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki because we had to, to end the war.  Period.

Now mebbe this is because I was a grade school less than a decade after the bombings occurred.  But somehow I doubt today's kidlets are getting the education either...as you can see, some folks think the entire subject has become irrelevant.


----------



## Madeline

peach174 said:


> Have you not read what is being said about the a bomb? The comment's that have been made show that they have not been taught the truth about WWII. One said that they did not know why the 2nd bomb was dropped.
> We were all taught this in the 50's before govenmnet took over the schools.



I attended a parochial school peach, and the government was involved in my education *up to its ears*.  For starters, the textbooks we got had to be approved by the Board of Regents.  What "government take over of (public?) schools" are you referring to?  When was this supposed to have happened?

One function of a public school system in any nation is to inculcate a shared vision of history in young people -- this is also known as propagandizing.  Or as China calls it, "patriotic retraining".  If the kidlets are ALSO taught to make inquiry, think for themselves, do research, etc. it can be okay.  If not, this "group think" can lead to a generation of sheeple.


----------



## Madeline

Quatermass said:


> *RetiredGySgt*, in a rather lazy fashion repeatedly points to *The National Security **Archive *'s collection of 77 documents on the atomic bomb and end of world war 2 saying 'the proof is in there'. Rather like tossing a dictionary at a newspaper editor and saying 'here's tomorrow's front page story'.
> 
> So where in the comprehensive 77 lengthy sections could that magical, much sought-after golden fleece-like 'good reason' to consign the 350,000 civilian population of Hiroshima and the 250.000 civilian population of Nagasaki to the horrors of a nuclear blood bath be hiding?
> 
> Perhaps it was Document 29, where on 11 of July Foreign Minister Togo sent the following 'extremely urgent' message to Ambassador Sato:
> 
> "We are now secretly giving consideration to the termination of the war because of the pressing situation which confronts Japan both at home and abroad Therefore, when you have your interview with Molotov [ in accordance with previous instructions] you should not confine yourself to the objective of a rapprochement between Russia and Japan but should also sound him out on the extent to which it is possible to make use of Russia in ending the war."
> 
> and then on the same day:
> 
> ".. Japan- as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace - has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war."
> 
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> These Documents reveal many desperate attempts by Japans envoys to establish a surrender up to the very end and on August 5th (Document 52). All the while U.S. interceptors secretly listened in, and made Truman's office aware of the full content of these Japanese attempts yet they went ahead anyway, choosing to test one of each type of their new atomic devices, first Uranium, then Plutonium on the living Human guinea pigs; the old  men, the helpless women and innocent children behind enemy lines, away from the theatre of war, away from where the soldiers were. America sneaked in, from a safe height and in cowards fashion dropped their devastating bombs on non combatants then ran away.
> 
> And as President Harry Truman ate his lunch on the Augusta with fellow mass murderers Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin, news of the bombing of Hiroshima came in. Jubilantly, he announced to the retinue of sailors around him..
> 
> "This is the Greatest thing in History!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Heaped bodies after Hiroshima atomic-bombing of civilian area.)



It has always bothered me that we bombed cities full of non-whites, but not Germany, where the Death Camps existed.  Maybe the A-Bomb was not finished before VE Day.  Maybe.

But the US confined Japanaese Americans to internment camps and did NOT do so as to Italian Americans or German Americans.

It seems to me there must have been a tremendous temptation to drop the A-Bomb SOMEPLACE, just to show the world what we had.  Without using it in warfare, who would ever believe this gruesome weapon even existed?

All these things, together with the second bombing, have made me uneasy.  I WANT to believe Truman's decisions were ethically defensible.  His comments to those around him do not offend me.  It's understandable that he wanted VJ Day at any cost.  

But still the doubts persist -- that we bombed a couple of Asian cities and killed millions, instantly or later by radiation poisoning, because we COULD and not because we had no other choice.

I don't know what my Daddy saw or knew.  I lost him when I was quite young, and like most WW II vets, he would never discuss what he'd been through.  But my Mommy and Daddy were pinkos.  They sympathesized with or actually joined the American Communist Party.  I rather think if he'd been all good with Truman's decisions, Daddy would not have been such a radical after the war.


----------



## namvet

Madeline said:


> Quatermass said:
> 
> 
> 
> *RetiredGySgt*, in a rather lazy fashion repeatedly points to *The National Security **Archive *'s collection of 77 documents on the atomic bomb and end of world war 2 saying 'the proof is in there'. Rather like tossing a dictionary at a newspaper editor and saying 'here's tomorrow's front page story'.
> 
> So where in the comprehensive 77 lengthy sections could that magical, much sought-after golden fleece-like 'good reason' to consign the 350,000 civilian population of Hiroshima and the 250.000 civilian population of Nagasaki to the horrors of a nuclear blood bath be hiding?
> 
> Perhaps it was Document 29, where on 11 of July Foreign Minister Togo sent the following 'extremely urgent' message to Ambassador Sato:
> 
> "We are now secretly giving consideration to the termination of the war because of the pressing situation which confronts Japan both at home and abroad Therefore, when you have your interview with Molotov [ in accordance with previous instructions] you should not confine yourself to the objective of a rapprochement between Russia and Japan but should also sound him out on the extent to which it is possible to make use of Russia in ending the war."
> 
> and then on the same day:
> 
> ".. Japan- as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace - has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war."
> 
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> These Documents reveal many desperate attempts by Japans envoys to establish a surrender up to the very end and on August 5th (Document 52). All the while U.S. interceptors secretly listened in, and made Truman's office aware of the full content of these Japanese attempts yet they went ahead anyway, choosing to test one of each type of their new atomic devices, first Uranium, then Plutonium on the living Human guinea pigs; the old  men, the helpless women and innocent children behind enemy lines, away from the theatre of war, away from where the soldiers were. America sneaked in, from a safe height and in cowards fashion dropped their devastating bombs on non combatants then ran away.
> 
> And as President Harry Truman ate his lunch on the Augusta with fellow mass murderers Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin, news of the bombing of Hiroshima came in. Jubilantly, he announced to the retinue of sailors around him..
> 
> "This is the Greatest thing in History!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Heaped bodies after Hiroshima atomic-bombing of civilian area.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has always bothered me that we bombed cities full of non-whites, but not Germany, where the Death Camps existed.  Maybe the A-Bomb was not finished before VE Day.  Maybe.
> 
> But the US confined Japanaese Americans to internment camps and did NOT do so as to Italian Americans or German Americans.
> 
> It seems to me there must have been a tremendous temptation to drop the A-Bomb SOMEPLACE, just to show the world what we had.  Without using it in warfare, who would ever believe this gruesome weapon even existed?
> 
> All these things, together with the second bombing, have made me uneasy.  I WANT to believe Truman's decisions were ethically defensible.  His comments to those around him do not offend me.  It's understandable that he wanted VJ Day at any cost.
> 
> But still the doubts persist -- that we bombed a couple of Asian cities and killed millions, instantly or later by radiation poisoning, because we COULD and not because we had no other choice.
> 
> I don't know what my Daddy saw or knew.  I lost him when I was quite young, and like most WW II vets, he would never discuss what he'd been through.  But my Mommy and Daddy were pinkos.  They sympathesized with or actually joined the American Communist Party.  I rather think if he'd been all good with Truman's decisions, Daddy would not have been such a radical after the war.
Click to expand...


waste of time on that asshat.


----------



## Madeline

Quartermass has not given opinion in that last post, namvet.  He recited facts. Either he has the facts right or he doesn't.

If he's right, what use is it to go on pretending it was all good?


----------



## namvet

Madeline said:


> Quartermass has not given opinion in that last post, namvet.  He recited facts. Either he has the facts right or he doesn't.
> 
> If he's right, what use is it to go on pretending it was all good?



that's the point. no reply to back up what he says. he's using the ole copy and paste trick. 



> And as President Harry Truman ate his lunch on the Augusta with fellow mass murderers Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin, news of the bombing of Hiroshima came in. Jubilantly, he announced to the retinue of sailors around him..
> 
> "This is the Greatest thing in History!"



come on. he's a troll.


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> First thing. The Atomic Bombs were not ready until Summer 1945. Germany surrendered in April. We had no reason to drop said bombs on Germany.
> 
> The reality is that it took BOTH bombs to get the Emperor of Japan to over ride his Army Controlled Government and order an immediate surrender. With those bombs we would have starved Japan through the winter killing untold thousands followed by an Invasion of a Home Island which would have seen MILLIONS of dead Japanese civilians and soldiers.
> 
> Japan was teaching her civilians to arm themselves with Bamboo spears and human wave charge any invasion. The continued invasion of Japan could have seen the potential elimination of the Japanese race.
> 
> The lie that Japan was ready to surrender is revisionist history. Japan under the Army had no intention of surrender. What they "offered" through the Soviet Union was a cease fire with Japan keeping everything she still possessed and the return of Japanese home possessions like Saipan and Okinawa. Japan was offering to let us just stop attacking them. They would retain all of their Chinese, Korean and other possessions and we would return their home island captures.
> 
> Here is a link to SOURCE documents verifying that Japan was NOT offering a meaningful surrender, that even after two atomic Bombs the Army controlled government refused to surrender, that the Emperor failed to act until after the second atomic bomb and that the Army attempted a Coup to prevent the Emperor from surrendering.
> 
> The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources
> 
> The atomic bombs were necessary unless one thinks we should have just let Japan keep everything from before the war and not disarm. They SAVED millions of lives.




You're full of shit.  The proof is not in what you stated, it is what you completely avoided.  There are two simple yet often overlooked fundamental aspects that prove the bombs were not meant to get Japan to surrender.  

(1) We had their offer to surrender before we dropped the bombs.  It was the same offer we accepted after we targeted civilians with the A-bombs and dropped them.

(2) The bombs were not dropped to intimidate Japan.  There were dropped to intimidate Russia.


----------



## CurveLight

Baruch Menachem said:


> Midcan makes a good point.   If you are one of the dead, how it happened is no longer of any interest.
> 
> We did have the history of the way the Japanese were fighting.  We were looking at civilian casualties in the range of 65-95%   For the living on both sides, the bomb was a lifesaver.   But we aren't ever going to fight a war with an enemy like that again.  And we have never fought a war in that manner since.



The reasons the cliche "The bombs saved lives" are many of the same reasons Bush supporters were reduced to defending Bush by saying "History will prove him correct."


----------



## Madeline

CurveLight said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midcan makes a good point.   If you are one of the dead, how it happened is no longer of any interest.
> 
> We did have the history of the way the Japanese were fighting.  We were looking at civilian casualties in the range of 65-95%   For the living on both sides, the bomb was a lifesaver.   But we aren't ever going to fight a war with an enemy like that again.  And we have never fought a war in that manner since.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reasons the cliche "The bombs saved lives" are many of the same reasons Bush supporters were reduced to defending Bush by saying "History will prove him correct."
Click to expand...


Well, it's been a year.  What say you?  He still seems like a lying fuckwhit to me.

And the sad thing is, while he lied about Iraq having the A-Bomb, it now appears he failed to stop IRAN from getting it.  Oh joy.


----------



## Madeline

namvet said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quartermass has not given opinion in that last post, namvet.  He recited facts. Either he has the facts right or he doesn't.
> 
> If he's right, what use is it to go on pretending it was all good?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's the point. no reply to back up what he says. he's using the ole copy and paste trick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as President Harry Truman ate his lunch on the Augusta with fellow mass murderers Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin, news of the bombing of Hiroshima came in. Jubilantly, he announced to the retinue of sailors around him..
> 
> "This is the Greatest thing in History!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> come on. he's a troll.
Click to expand...


It's been a few years.  Do we _still _need undiluted jingoism in everyone or else they're a troll?


----------



## Madeline

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> First thing. The Atomic Bombs were not ready until Summer 1945. Germany surrendered in April. We had no reason to drop said bombs on Germany.
> 
> The reality is that it took BOTH bombs to get the Emperor of Japan to over ride his Army Controlled Government and order an immediate surrender. With those bombs we would have starved Japan through the winter killing untold thousands followed by an Invasion of a Home Island which would have seen MILLIONS of dead Japanese civilians and soldiers.
> 
> Japan was teaching her civilians to arm themselves with Bamboo spears and human wave charge any invasion. The continued invasion of Japan could have seen the potential elimination of the Japanese race.
> 
> The lie that Japan was ready to surrender is revisionist history. Japan under the Army had no intention of surrender. What they "offered" through the Soviet Union was a cease fire with Japan keeping everything she still possessed and the return of Japanese home possessions like Saipan and Okinawa. Japan was offering to let us just stop attacking them. They would retain all of their Chinese, Korean and other possessions and we would return their home island captures.
> 
> Here is a link to SOURCE documents verifying that Japan was NOT offering a meaningful surrender, that even after two atomic Bombs the Army controlled government refused to surrender, that the Emperor failed to act until after the second atomic bomb and that the Army attempted a Coup to prevent the Emperor from surrendering.
> 
> The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources
> 
> The atomic bombs were necessary unless one thinks we should have just let Japan keep everything from before the war and not disarm. They SAVED millions of lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit.  The proof is not in what you stated, it is what you completely avoided.  There are two simple yet often overlooked fundamental aspects that prove the bombs were not meant to get Japan to surrender.
> 
> (1) We had their offer to surrender before we dropped the bombs.  It was the same offer we accepted after we targeted civilians with the A-bombs and dropped them.
> 
> (2) The bombs were not dropped to intimidate Japan.  There were dropped to intimidate Russia.
Click to expand...


CurveLight, if this is the truth, then why has no bright lawyer ever sued the US on behalf of Japan for damages of one sort or another?


----------



## CurveLight

Madeline said:


> Quatermass said:
> 
> 
> 
> *RetiredGySgt*, in a rather lazy fashion repeatedly points to *The National Security **Archive *'s collection of 77 documents on the atomic bomb and end of world war 2 saying 'the proof is in there'. Rather like tossing a dictionary at a newspaper editor and saying 'here's tomorrow's front page story'.
> 
> So where in the comprehensive 77 lengthy sections could that magical, much sought-after golden fleece-like 'good reason' to consign the 350,000 civilian population of Hiroshima and the 250.000 civilian population of Nagasaki to the horrors of a nuclear blood bath be hiding?
> 
> Perhaps it was Document 29, where on 11 of July Foreign Minister Togo sent the following 'extremely urgent' message to Ambassador Sato:
> 
> "We are now secretly giving consideration to the termination of the war because of the pressing situation which confronts Japan both at home and abroad Therefore, when you have your interview with Molotov [ in accordance with previous instructions] you should not confine yourself to the objective of a rapprochement between Russia and Japan but should also sound him out on the extent to which it is possible to make use of Russia in ending the war."
> 
> and then on the same day:
> 
> ".. Japan- as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace - has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war."
> 
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> These Documents reveal many desperate attempts by Japans envoys to establish a surrender up to the very end and on August 5th (Document 52). All the while U.S. interceptors secretly listened in, and made Truman's office aware of the full content of these Japanese attempts yet they went ahead anyway, choosing to test one of each type of their new atomic devices, first Uranium, then Plutonium on the living Human guinea pigs; the old  men, the helpless women and innocent children behind enemy lines, away from the theatre of war, away from where the soldiers were. America sneaked in, from a safe height and in cowards fashion dropped their devastating bombs on non combatants then ran away.
> 
> And as President Harry Truman ate his lunch on the Augusta with fellow mass murderers Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin, news of the bombing of Hiroshima came in. Jubilantly, he announced to the retinue of sailors around him..
> 
> "This is the Greatest thing in History!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Heaped bodies after Hiroshima atomic-bombing of civilian area.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has always bothered me that we bombed cities full of non-whites, but not Germany, where the Death Camps existed.  Maybe the A-Bomb was not finished before VE Day.  Maybe.
> 
> But the US confined Japanaese Americans to internment camps and did NOT do so as to Italian Americans or German Americans.
> 
> It seems to me there must have been a tremendous temptation to drop the A-Bomb SOMEPLACE, just to show the world what we had.  Without using it in warfare, who would ever believe this gruesome weapon even existed?
> 
> All these things, together with the second bombing, have made me uneasy.  I WANT to believe Truman's decisions were ethically defensible.  His comments to those around him do not offend me.  It's understandable that he wanted VJ Day at any cost.
> 
> But still the doubts persist -- that we bombed a couple of Asian cities and killed millions, instantly or later by radiation poisoning, because we COULD and not because we had no other choice.
> 
> I don't know what my Daddy saw or knew.  I lost him when I was quite young, and like most WW II vets, he would never discuss what he'd been through.  But my Mommy and Daddy were pinkos.  They sympathesized with or actually joined the American Communist Party.  I rather think if he'd been all good with Truman's decisions, Daddy would not have been such a radical after the war.
Click to expand...



Germany surrendered before the nukes were ready but even if that were not the case we would not have used them in Europe because Russia did not pose the same threat for post-War in Europe as in Japan.

Regarding death camps, we didn't bomb those because as a Nation we were anti-Semitic to the point that many quietly thanked the implementation of the final solution.  We even turned away Jewish refugees seeking asylum in the US who were eventually killed by Germany.  Some claimed we didn't know about them and even if we knew we had no way to get bombers to their locations due to distance.  Bullshit.  There are ariel photos showing we were bombing around the gas chambers.

There are two main reasons we suddenly became pro-Israel in 1945.  The first was creating a nation in the ME the West could use as an entry point to resources in the region.  Keep in mind, about two generations before WW2 the British Empire created the nation of Iraq.  Literally, both by borders and name.  Maintaining control was very difficult with so much geographical isolation.  Enter Israel.  

The West now has a geographical advantage but more importantly, it obtained a geopolitical goldmine that is still in use today.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

The Japanese had several negotiated settlements on the table.    None of them conformed to the conditions set out and agreed to by the allies.


----------



## CurveLight

Madeline said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> First thing. The Atomic Bombs were not ready until Summer 1945. Germany surrendered in April. We had no reason to drop said bombs on Germany.
> 
> The reality is that it took BOTH bombs to get the Emperor of Japan to over ride his Army Controlled Government and order an immediate surrender. With those bombs we would have starved Japan through the winter killing untold thousands followed by an Invasion of a Home Island which would have seen MILLIONS of dead Japanese civilians and soldiers.
> 
> Japan was teaching her civilians to arm themselves with Bamboo spears and human wave charge any invasion. The continued invasion of Japan could have seen the potential elimination of the Japanese race.
> 
> The lie that Japan was ready to surrender is revisionist history. Japan under the Army had no intention of surrender. What they "offered" through the Soviet Union was a cease fire with Japan keeping everything she still possessed and the return of Japanese home possessions like Saipan and Okinawa. Japan was offering to let us just stop attacking them. They would retain all of their Chinese, Korean and other possessions and we would return their home island captures.
> 
> Here is a link to SOURCE documents verifying that Japan was NOT offering a meaningful surrender, that even after two atomic Bombs the Army controlled government refused to surrender, that the Emperor failed to act until after the second atomic bomb and that the Army attempted a Coup to prevent the Emperor from surrendering.
> 
> The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources
> 
> The atomic bombs were necessary unless one thinks we should have just let Japan keep everything from before the war and not disarm. They SAVED millions of lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit.  The proof is not in what you stated, it is what you completely avoided.  There are two simple yet often overlooked fundamental aspects that prove the bombs were not meant to get Japan to surrender.
> 
> (1) We had their offer to surrender before we dropped the bombs.  It was the same offer we accepted after we targeted civilians with the A-bombs and dropped them.
> 
> (2) The bombs were not dropped to intimidate Japan.  There were dropped to intimidate Russia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CurveLight, if this is the truth, then why has no bright lawyer ever sued the US on behalf of Japan for damages of one sort or another?
Click to expand...



You mean like we've been paying off civilians in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc?  Or like how Japan is paying off A-Bomb survivors?  (not a typo--yes.  Japan has been paying A-bomb survivors)

I would guess because it wouldn't get any traction.  A recent example is how a Federal court rejected a lawsuit based on "national security."  A German Citizen was kidnapped by the US, taken to secret prisons, and tortured before it was discovered he was completely innocent.  His whole hellish nightmare lasted for months.  Upon his release he sued the US for the above crimes and the case was dismissed for "National Security Reasons."

Without fact checking, I'm confident in saying lawsuits have been attempted and denied.


----------



## CurveLight

Baruch Menachem said:


> The Japanese had several negotiated settlements on the table.    None of them conformed to the conditions set out and agreed to by the allies.




The surrender offered by Japan prior to the bombs is the same surrender we accepted after the bombs.


----------



## Madeline

CurveLight said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quatermass said:
> 
> 
> 
> *RetiredGySgt*, in a rather lazy fashion repeatedly points to *The National Security **Archive *'s collection of 77 documents on the atomic bomb and end of world war 2 saying 'the proof is in there'. Rather like tossing a dictionary at a newspaper editor and saying 'here's tomorrow's front page story'.
> 
> So where in the comprehensive 77 lengthy sections could that magical, much sought-after golden fleece-like 'good reason' to consign the 350,000 civilian population of Hiroshima and the 250.000 civilian population of Nagasaki to the horrors of a nuclear blood bath be hiding?
> 
> Perhaps it was Document 29, where on 11 of July Foreign Minister Togo sent the following 'extremely urgent' message to Ambassador Sato:
> 
> "We are now secretly giving consideration to the termination of the war because of the pressing situation which confronts Japan both at home and abroad Therefore, when you have your interview with Molotov [ in accordance with previous instructions] you should not confine yourself to the objective of a rapprochement between Russia and Japan but should also sound him out on the extent to which it is possible to make use of Russia in ending the war."
> 
> and then on the same day:
> 
> ".. Japan- as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace - has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war."
> 
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> These Documents reveal many desperate attempts by Japans envoys to establish a surrender up to the very end and on August 5th (Document 52). All the while U.S. interceptors secretly listened in, and made Truman's office aware of the full content of these Japanese attempts yet they went ahead anyway, choosing to test one of each type of their new atomic devices, first Uranium, then Plutonium on the living Human guinea pigs; the old  men, the helpless women and innocent children behind enemy lines, away from the theatre of war, away from where the soldiers were. America sneaked in, from a safe height and in cowards fashion dropped their devastating bombs on non combatants then ran away.
> 
> And as President Harry Truman ate his lunch on the Augusta with fellow mass murderers Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin, news of the bombing of Hiroshima came in. Jubilantly, he announced to the retinue of sailors around him..
> 
> "This is the Greatest thing in History!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Heaped bodies after Hiroshima atomic-bombing of civilian area.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has always bothered me that we bombed cities full of non-whites, but not Germany, where the Death Camps existed.  Maybe the A-Bomb was not finished before VE Day.  Maybe.
> 
> But the US confined Japanaese Americans to internment camps and did NOT do so as to Italian Americans or German Americans.
> 
> It seems to me there must have been a tremendous temptation to drop the A-Bomb SOMEPLACE, just to show the world what we had.  Without using it in warfare, who would ever believe this gruesome weapon even existed?
> 
> All these things, together with the second bombing, have made me uneasy.  I WANT to believe Truman's decisions were ethically defensible.  His comments to those around him do not offend me.  It's understandable that he wanted VJ Day at any cost.
> 
> But still the doubts persist -- that we bombed a couple of Asian cities and killed millions, instantly or later by radiation poisoning, because we COULD and not because we had no other choice.
> 
> I don't know what my Daddy saw or knew.  I lost him when I was quite young, and like most WW II vets, he would never discuss what he'd been through.  But my Mommy and Daddy were pinkos.  They sympathesized with or actually joined the American Communist Party.  I rather think if he'd been all good with Truman's decisions, Daddy would not have been such a radical after the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Germany surrendered before the nukes were ready but even if that were not the case we would not have used them in Europe because Russia did not pose the same threat for post-War in Europe as in Japan.
> 
> Regarding death camps, we didn't bomb those because as a Nation we were anti-Semitic to the point that many quietly thanked the implementation of the final solution.  We even turned away Jewish refugees seeking asylum in the US who were eventually killed by Germany.  Some claimed we didn't know about them and even if we knew we had no way to get bombers to their locations due to distance.  Bullshit.  There are ariel photos showing we were bombing around the gas chambers.
> 
> There are two main reasons we suddenly became pro-Israel in 1945.  The first was creating a nation in the ME the West could use as an entry point to resources in the region.  Keep in mind, about two generations before WW2 the British Empire created the nation of Iraq.  Literally, both by borders and name.  Maintaining control was very difficult with so much geographical isolation.  Enter Israel.
> 
> The West now has a geographical advantage but more importantly, it obtained a geopolitical goldmine that is still in use today.
Click to expand...


Yes, I know.  And here's another nugget for those of you desperately clinging to Catholicism.  The Nazis never invaded the Vatican and plundered its treasurers in exchange for the Pope's decision to look the other way as Italian Jews were sent to the camps.  If ever you get to see the Sistine Chapel, bear in mind it has been paid for in Jewish blood and Catholic evil.

http://users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html

Pope Pius XII even went on to become the most famous of all the Holocaust Deniers.  What a religion...I'm sure if there was a Jesus Christ, he's very proud of the Catholic Church.


----------



## namvet

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> First thing. The Atomic Bombs were not ready until Summer 1945. Germany surrendered in April. We had no reason to drop said bombs on Germany.
> 
> The reality is that it took BOTH bombs to get the Emperor of Japan to over ride his Army Controlled Government and order an immediate surrender. With those bombs we would have starved Japan through the winter killing untold thousands followed by an Invasion of a Home Island which would have seen MILLIONS of dead Japanese civilians and soldiers.
> 
> Japan was teaching her civilians to arm themselves with Bamboo spears and human wave charge any invasion. The continued invasion of Japan could have seen the potential elimination of the Japanese race.
> 
> The lie that Japan was ready to surrender is revisionist history. Japan under the Army had no intention of surrender. What they "offered" through the Soviet Union was a cease fire with Japan keeping everything she still possessed and the return of Japanese home possessions like Saipan and Okinawa. Japan was offering to let us just stop attacking them. They would retain all of their Chinese, Korean and other possessions and we would return their home island captures.
> 
> Here is a link to SOURCE documents verifying that Japan was NOT offering a meaningful surrender, that even after two atomic Bombs the Army controlled government refused to surrender, that the Emperor failed to act until after the second atomic bomb and that the Army attempted a Coup to prevent the Emperor from surrendering.
> 
> The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources
> 
> The atomic bombs were necessary unless one thinks we should have just let Japan keep everything from before the war and not disarm. They SAVED millions of lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit.  The proof is not in what you stated, it is what you completely avoided.  There are two simple yet often overlooked fundamental aspects that prove the bombs were not meant to get Japan to surrender.
> 
> (1) We had their offer to surrender before we dropped the bombs.  It was the same offer we accepted after we targeted civilians with the A-bombs and dropped them.
> 
> (2) The bombs were not dropped to intimidate Japan.  There were dropped to intimidate Russia.
Click to expand...


and your full of it. they refused any offer to surrender. they were negotiating with Russia for one.

the bombs were dropped to end the war. using science instead of American blood.


----------



## Madeline

One of you is right and the other is wrong...on the facts.

Is there no good source document to go look-see who's right, namvet?  Has there never been a proceeding in the Hague or any sort of international court?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Quatermass said:


> *RetiredGySgt*, in a rather lazy fashion repeatedly points to *The National Security **Archive *'s collection of 77 documents on the atomic bomb and end of world war 2 saying 'the proof is in there'. Rather like tossing a dictionary at a newspaper editor and saying 'here's tomorrow's front page story'.
> 
> So where in the comprehensive 77 lengthy sections could that magical, much sought-after golden fleece-like 'good reason' to consign the 350,000 civilian population of Hiroshima and the 250.000 civilian population of Nagasaki to the horrors of a nuclear blood bath be hiding?
> 
> Perhaps it was Document 29, where on 11 of July Foreign Minister Togo sent the following 'extremely urgent' message to Ambassador Sato:
> 
> "We are now secretly giving consideration to the termination of the war because of the pressing situation which confronts Japan both at home and abroad Therefore, when you have your interview with Molotov [ in accordance with previous instructions] you should not confine yourself to the objective of a rapprochement between Russia and Japan but should also sound him out on the extent to which it is possible to make use of Russia in ending the war."
> 
> and then on the same day:
> 
> ".. Japan- as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace - has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war."
> 
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> These Documents reveal many desperate attempts by Japans envoys to establish a surrender up to the very end and on August 5th (Document 52). All the while U.S. interceptors secretly listened in, and made Truman's office aware of the full content of these Japanese attempts yet they went ahead anyway, choosing to test one of each type of their new atomic devices, first Uranium, then Plutonium on the living Human guinea pigs; the old  men, the helpless women and innocent children behind enemy lines, away from the theatre of war, away from where the soldiers were. America sneaked in, from a safe height and in cowards fashion dropped their devastating bombs on non combatants then ran away.
> 
> And as President Harry Truman ate his lunch on the Augusta with fellow mass murderers Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin, news of the bombing of Hiroshima came in. Jubilantly, he announced to the retinue of sailors around him..
> 
> "This is the Greatest thing in History!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Heaped bodies after Hiroshima atomic-bombing of civilian area.)



You are a MORON. Japan wanted the war ended by just stopping it. She wanted to maintain all her prewar territories and have returned to her all her lost prewar territories. That was never acceptable. Anyone that thinks it was is a fool and an idiot. The ONLY thing they proposed, as you highlighted, was to simply stop the war, Japan would pull what was left of her Armies out of Conquered territories since Dec 1941 and have RETURNED to her all original lands she controlled prior to the start of the war. This would include maintaining control of China, Korea and Manchuria. It would include nothing done to Japan about the war she started. No surrender documents. No foreign presence in Japan ever. No dismantling of their military and reorganizing their Government.

Japan had no intent of Surrendering.

As for the dead civilians, ask the Japanese Army leaders why they did not care about dead civilians. Long before we dropped an atomic bomb on Japan they had lost. They refused to surrender. Even after one atomic attack they REFUSED surrender. Even after 2 ATOMIC attacks the Army that ran the Government REFUSED to surrender. It took a DIRECT order from the Emperor to surrender and even then the Army attempted a Military Coup to stop that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Madeline said:


> Quatermass said:
> 
> 
> 
> *RetiredGySgt*, in a rather lazy fashion repeatedly points to *The National Security **Archive *'s collection of 77 documents on the atomic bomb and end of world war 2 saying 'the proof is in there'. Rather like tossing a dictionary at a newspaper editor and saying 'here's tomorrow's front page story'.
> 
> So where in the comprehensive 77 lengthy sections could that magical, much sought-after golden fleece-like 'good reason' to consign the 350,000 civilian population of Hiroshima and the 250.000 civilian population of Nagasaki to the horrors of a nuclear blood bath be hiding?
> 
> Perhaps it was Document 29, where on 11 of July Foreign Minister Togo sent the following 'extremely urgent' message to Ambassador Sato:
> 
> "We are now secretly giving consideration to the termination of the war because of the pressing situation which confronts Japan both at home and abroad Therefore, when you have your interview with Molotov [ in accordance with previous instructions] you should not confine yourself to the objective of a rapprochement between Russia and Japan but should also sound him out on the extent to which it is possible to make use of Russia in ending the war."
> 
> and then on the same day:
> 
> ".. Japan- as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace - has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war."
> 
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf
> 
> These Documents reveal many desperate attempts by Japans envoys to establish a surrender up to the very end and on August 5th (Document 52). All the while U.S. interceptors secretly listened in, and made Truman's office aware of the full content of these Japanese attempts yet they went ahead anyway, choosing to test one of each type of their new atomic devices, first Uranium, then Plutonium on the living Human guinea pigs; the old  men, the helpless women and innocent children behind enemy lines, away from the theatre of war, away from where the soldiers were. America sneaked in, from a safe height and in cowards fashion dropped their devastating bombs on non combatants then ran away.
> 
> And as President Harry Truman ate his lunch on the Augusta with fellow mass murderers Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin, news of the bombing of Hiroshima came in. Jubilantly, he announced to the retinue of sailors around him..
> 
> "This is the Greatest thing in History!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Heaped bodies after Hiroshima atomic-bombing of civilian area.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has always bothered me that we bombed cities full of non-whites, but not Germany, where the Death Camps existed.  Maybe the A-Bomb was not finished before VE Day.  Maybe.
> 
> But the US confined Japanaese Americans to internment camps and did NOT do so as to Italian Americans or German Americans.
> 
> It seems to me there must have been a tremendous temptation to drop the A-Bomb SOMEPLACE, just to show the world what we had.  Without using it in warfare, who would ever believe this gruesome weapon even existed?
> 
> All these things, together with the second bombing, have made me uneasy.  I WANT to believe Truman's decisions were ethically defensible.  His comments to those around him do not offend me.  It's understandable that he wanted VJ Day at any cost.
> 
> But still the doubts persist -- that we bombed a couple of Asian cities and killed millions, instantly or later by radiation poisoning, because we COULD and not because we had no other choice.
> 
> I don't know what my Daddy saw or knew.  I lost him when I was quite young, and like most WW II vets, he would never discuss what he'd been through.  But my Mommy and Daddy were pinkos.  They sympathesized with or actually joined the American Communist Party.  I rather think if he'd been all good with Truman's decisions, Daddy would not have been such a radical after the war.
Click to expand...


Over 5000 German Americans were arrested and confined, several thousand were not released until 1946.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Madeline said:


> Quartermass has not given opinion in that last post, namvet.  He recited facts. Either he has the facts right or he doesn't.
> 
> If he's right, what use is it to go on pretending it was all good?



His facts SUPPORT what I told you. The Japanese simply offered to end the war in place. They would evacuate all territory captured after December 7 1941 and we would return all Territory held by them prior to Dec 7 1941. That simply was not going to happen. It is idiotic to think it would happen.

Once again we did not have a functioning A bomb to drop on Germany before she surrendered and to tell you the truth we had no need to do so, they were not unreasonable fools like the Japanese.

We did however FIREBOMB most of their cities killing hundreds of thousands of Civilians.


----------



## namvet

Madeline said:


> One of you is right and the other is wrong...on the facts.
> 
> Is there no good source document to go look-see who's right, namvet?  Has there never been a proceeding in the Hague or any sort of international court?



how about documents on this. from the Truman library archives.  there is no doc that says we offered or agreed to any surrender prior to the bombs. it was still unconditional surrender !!!!

https://trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/index.php


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> First thing. The Atomic Bombs were not ready until Summer 1945. Germany surrendered in April. We had no reason to drop said bombs on Germany.
> 
> The reality is that it took BOTH bombs to get the Emperor of Japan to over ride his Army Controlled Government and order an immediate surrender. With those bombs we would have starved Japan through the winter killing untold thousands followed by an Invasion of a Home Island which would have seen MILLIONS of dead Japanese civilians and soldiers.
> 
> Japan was teaching her civilians to arm themselves with Bamboo spears and human wave charge any invasion. The continued invasion of Japan could have seen the potential elimination of the Japanese race.
> 
> The lie that Japan was ready to surrender is revisionist history. Japan under the Army had no intention of surrender. What they "offered" through the Soviet Union was a cease fire with Japan keeping everything she still possessed and the return of Japanese home possessions like Saipan and Okinawa. Japan was offering to let us just stop attacking them. They would retain all of their Chinese, Korean and other possessions and we would return their home island captures.
> 
> Here is a link to SOURCE documents verifying that Japan was NOT offering a meaningful surrender, that even after two atomic Bombs the Army controlled government refused to surrender, that the Emperor failed to act until after the second atomic bomb and that the Army attempted a Coup to prevent the Emperor from surrendering.
> 
> The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources
> 
> The atomic bombs were necessary unless one thinks we should have just let Japan keep everything from before the war and not disarm. They SAVED millions of lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit.  The proof is not in what you stated, it is what you completely avoided.  There are two simple yet often overlooked fundamental aspects that prove the bombs were not meant to get Japan to surrender.
> 
> (1) We had their offer to surrender before we dropped the bombs.  It was the same offer we accepted after we targeted civilians with the A-bombs and dropped them.
> 
> (2) The bombs were not dropped to intimidate Japan.  There were dropped to intimidate Russia.
Click to expand...


Straight up LIE. Provide a single source to your claim the Japanese offered unconditional Surrender before the Emperor ordered it AFTER 2 Atomic Bombs.

I have in the source documents the actual meetings of the Japanese Government and their refusal to surrender after the first bomb and their refusal after the second until the Emperor intervened.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Madeline said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Midcan makes a good point.   If you are one of the dead, how it happened is no longer of any interest.
> 
> We did have the history of the way the Japanese were fighting.  We were looking at civilian casualties in the range of 65-95%   For the living on both sides, the bomb was a lifesaver.   But we aren't ever going to fight a war with an enemy like that again.  And we have never fought a war in that manner since.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reasons the cliche "The bombs saved lives" are many of the same reasons Bush supporters were reduced to defending Bush by saying "History will prove him correct."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's been a year.  What say you?  He still seems like a lying fuckwhit to me.
> 
> And the sad thing is, while he lied about Iraq having the A-Bomb, it now appears he failed to stop IRAN from getting it.  Oh joy.
Click to expand...


Bush never claimed Iraq had a bomb. That is left wing lying at its finest. As for stopping Iran, are you saying we were wrong for stopping Iraq from returning to research on the bomb by invading but we should have invaded Iran?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese had several negotiated settlements on the table.    None of them conformed to the conditions set out and agreed to by the allies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The surrender offered by Japan prior to the bombs is the same surrender we accepted after the bombs.
Click to expand...


You are a LIAR. Provide a source document. I have provided a SOURCE document of the Japanese Governments meetings and then did not offered to surrender at all before either bomb was dropped. They offered through the Soviets to end the war in place exchanging territory they captured for territory we captured. After the first bomb they offered much the same.

Provide us a link to a source document.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Madeline said:


> One of you is right and the other is wrong...on the facts.
> 
> Is there no good source document to go look-see who's right, namvet?  Has there never been a proceeding in the Hague or any sort of international court?



I GAVE you a link to SOURCE DOCUMENTS. They INCLUDE the Japanese Governments meetings involving just this. READ them.


----------



## namvet

*After Japanese leaders flatly rejected the Potsdam Declaration* President Truman authorized use of the atomic bomb anytime after August 3, 1945.

Atomic Bomb-Truman Press Release-August 6, 1945


----------



## Madeline

CurveLight said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit.  The proof is not in what you stated, it is what you completely avoided.  There are two simple yet often overlooked fundamental aspects that prove the bombs were not meant to get Japan to surrender.
> 
> (1) We had their offer to surrender before we dropped the bombs.  It was the same offer we accepted after we targeted civilians with the A-bombs and dropped them.
> 
> (2) The bombs were not dropped to intimidate Japan.  There were dropped to intimidate Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight, if this is the truth, then why has no bright lawyer ever sued the US on behalf of Japan for damages of one sort or another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like we've been paying off civilians in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc?  Or like how Japan is paying off A-Bomb survivors?  (not a typo--yes.  Japan has been paying A-bomb survivors)
> 
> I would guess because it wouldn't get any traction.  A recent example is how a Federal court rejected a lawsuit based on "national security."  A German Citizen was kidnapped by the US, taken to secret prisons, and tortured before it was discovered he was completely innocent.  His whole hellish nightmare lasted for months.  Upon his release he sued the US for the above crimes and the case was dismissed for "National Security Reasons."
> 
> Without fact checking, I'm confident in saying lawsuits have been attempted and denied.
Click to expand...


Well now I feel sorta dumb.  I thought this sort of thing was what The Hague was developed to handle?


----------



## Madeline

CurveLight said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese had several negotiated settlements on the table.    None of them conformed to the conditions set out and agreed to by the allies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The surrender offered by Japan prior to the bombs is the same surrender we accepted after the bombs.
Click to expand...


This is what I mean.  Either this is an accepted, established historical fact or it isn't.  We shouldn't be debating WHAT happened.  I thought we KNEW what happened.  I'm very confused by these different scenarios you guys present.

If we A-Bombed Japan needlessly, it was not ethical.  Or was it?  Do we agree on that much?

I say no.  Even though we benefitted from the object lesson/demonstration of US military power, the use of the A-Bomb -- TWICE -- just to flex our post-war muscles was not ethical, if it was not ALSO necessary to force Japan to surrender.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Madeline said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese had several negotiated settlements on the table.    None of them conformed to the conditions set out and agreed to by the allies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The surrender offered by Japan prior to the bombs is the same surrender we accepted after the bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what I mean.  Either this is an accepted, established historical fact or it isn't.  We shouldn't be debating WHAT happened.  I thought we KNEW what happened.  I'm very confused by these different scenarios you guys present.
> 
> If we A-Bombed Japan needlessly, it was not ethical.  Was it?  Do we agree on that much?
Click to expand...


He is LYING. I have provided you with SOURCE documents. The actual conversations that occurred in the Japanese Governments meetings about Surrender, and after the A bombs.

The ONLY thing the Japanese offered before the A Bombs was a cease fire to move their troops from captured territory while we removed our troops from captured territory.

We demanded an unconditional Surrender just as we did in Germany. The Only concession we final relinquished on was allowing the Emperor to remain the Emperor.

Go ahead, I have provided the actual conversations of the Japanese Government, he has offered nothing. Ask him for evidence.


----------



## JW Frogen

Personally, I don&#8217;t think without the dramatic blow of the atomic drops many Japanese military units would have surrendered even if the Emperor had told them to. The military often dictated terms to the government, they had large armies undefeated in China, mass killing civilians every day, they might have just fought on dragging the war out and costing everyone more life, (an invasion of Japan would have cost far more life than the drops on both sides) and allowing the Soviets to expand their sphere of influence in Asia. 

Indeed there was a plot to Kamikaze attack the surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri that was stopped by the Emperor&#8217;s son, (John Toland, The Rising Sun) so even after the drops there were hard core elements willing to fight on. The drops (Japan did not know how many more bombs we had) made resistance of any kind almost unthinkable.

Also, how does President Truman tell a parent your son died, even in a war prolonged by days or weeks, and I had a weapon that could have ended the war immediately but did not use it. 

He couldn&#8217;t.

The drops also certainly put a break on Soviet ambitions, they had to think and be cautious about gobbling up territory in the direct post war chaos. 

They probably stopped an immediate military conflict with the Soviet Union.


----------



## namvet

Madeline said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese had several negotiated settlements on the table.    None of them conformed to the conditions set out and agreed to by the allies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The surrender offered by Japan prior to the bombs is the same surrender we accepted after the bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what I mean.  Either this is an accepted, established historical fact or it isn't.  We shouldn't be debating WHAT happened.  I thought we KNEW what happened.  I'm very confused by these different scenarios you guys present.
> 
> If we A-Bombed Japan needlessly, it was not ethical.  Or was it?  Do we agree on that much?
> 
> I say no.  Even though we benefitted from the object lesson/demonstration of US military power, the use of the A-Bomb -- TWICE -- just to flex our post-war muscles was not ethical, if it was not ALSO necessary to force Japan to surrender.
Click to expand...


Madeline there were millions of American lives at stake here. you make the call. kill the enemy or you own?. then YOU have to face the the suriving families. who will call you a murderer. which is it????


----------



## namvet

JW Frogen said:


> Personally, I dont think without the dramatic blow of the atomic drops many Japanese military units would have surrendered even if the Emperor had told them to. The military often dictated terms to the government, they had large armies undefeated in China, mass killing civilians every day, they might have just fought on dragging the war out and costing everyone more life, (an invasion of Japan would have cost far more life than the drops on both sides) and allowing the Soviets to expand their sphere of influence in Asia.
> 
> Indeed there was a plot to Kamikaze attack the surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri that was stopped by the Emperors son, (John Toland, The Rising Sun) so even after the drops there were hard core elements willing to fight on. The drops (Japan did not know how many more bombs we had) made resistance of any kind almost unthinkable.
> 
> Also, how does President Truman tell a parent your son died, even in a war prolonged by days or weeks, and I had a weapon that could have ended the war immediately but did not use it.
> 
> He couldnt.
> 
> The drops also certainly put a break on Soviet ambitions, they had to think and be cautious about gobbling up territory in the direct post war chaos.
> 
> They probably stopped an immediate military conflict with the Soviet Union.




agreed !!!! ests were a million American dead in the invasion. ests were always wrong. probably more like 3 or 4 times that number. this weighed heavily on Trumans mind. drop em.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

namvet said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The surrender offered by Japan prior to the bombs is the same surrender we accepted after the bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I mean.  Either this is an accepted, established historical fact or it isn't.  We shouldn't be debating WHAT happened.  I thought we KNEW what happened.  I'm very confused by these different scenarios you guys present.
> 
> If we A-Bombed Japan needlessly, it was not ethical.  Or was it?  Do we agree on that much?
> 
> I say no.  Even though we benefitted from the object lesson/demonstration of US military power, the use of the A-Bomb -- TWICE -- just to flex our post-war muscles was not ethical, if it was not ALSO necessary to force Japan to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Madeline there were millions of American lives at stake here. you make the call. kill the enemy or you own?. then YOU have to face the the suriving families. who will call you a murderer. which is it????
Click to expand...


You are arguing the wrong point. There was no surrender on the table before the A Bombs were dropped. The ONLY thing the Japanese offered was a cease of hostilities and the return of captured territory. They would hand over what ever they still had from after Dec 7 and we would hand over what ever of theirs we had from before Dec 7.

It is a bald faced LIE that the same surrender existed before as after and that we ignored it to bomb them.

My link is to SOURCE documents. We have the actual conversations from the Japanese Government.


----------



## CurveLight

namvet said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The surrender offered by Japan prior to the bombs is the same surrender we accepted after the bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I mean.  Either this is an accepted, established historical fact or it isn't.  We shouldn't be debating WHAT happened.  I thought we KNEW what happened.  I'm very confused by these different scenarios you guys present.
> 
> If we A-Bombed Japan needlessly, it was not ethical.  Or was it?  Do we agree on that much?
> 
> I say no.  Even though we benefitted from the object lesson/demonstration of US military power, the use of the A-Bomb -- TWICE -- just to flex our post-war muscles was not ethical, if it was not ALSO necessary to force Japan to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Madeline there were millions of American lives at stake here. you make the call. kill the enemy or you own?. then YOU have to face the the suriving families. who will call you a murderer. which is it????
Click to expand...



Pure horseshit.  At first the line by Truman was "It saved lives."  As it was getting revealed the bombs were not necessary it was "They saved 100,000 lives."  As more facts were revealed it became "They saved over 200,000 lives."  When Truman's book came out it was "They saved 500,000 lives."

Anyone see a pattern here?  Now that we have a lot more facts the number gets increased to "They saved millions of American lives."

All the top military leaders including Fleet Admiral Leah, said the bombs were not necessary.  

Furthermore, why didn't we drop the bombs where the highest concentration of Japanese troops were located?  We purposefully targeted civilians which made our use of the A-Bombs terrorism defined.  You don't target areas that are predominantly civilian.  Yeah yeah...I've heard it before the cities were military targets because japanese military socks were made in the cities....or something as fucking silly.


----------



## Madeline

RetiredGySgt said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I mean.  Either this is an accepted, established historical fact or it isn't.  We shouldn't be debating WHAT happened.  I thought we KNEW what happened.  I'm very confused by these different scenarios you guys present.
> 
> If we A-Bombed Japan needlessly, it was not ethical.  Or was it?  Do we agree on that much?
> 
> I say no.  Even though we benefitted from the object lesson/demonstration of US military power, the use of the A-Bomb -- TWICE -- just to flex our post-war muscles was not ethical, if it was not ALSO necessary to force Japan to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline there were millions of American lives at stake here. you make the call. kill the enemy or you own?. then YOU have to face the the suriving families. who will call you a murderer. which is it????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing the wrong point. There was no surrender on the table before the A Bombs were dropped. The ONLY thing the Japanese offered was a cease of hostilities and the return of captured territory. They would hand over what ever they still had from after Dec 7 and we would hand over what ever of theirs we had from before Dec 7.
> 
> It is a bald faced LIE that the same surrender existed before as after and that we ignored it to bomb them.
> 
> My link is to SOURCE documents. We have the actual conversations from the Japanese Government.
Click to expand...


Call me selfish, but if it saved even just one American life, I'd have dropped the A-Bomb myself.  I am not asking for a pie-in-the-sky ethical debate.  

I merely want to know, was it necessary or not?  Had Japan surrendered BEFORE we bombed there?

RetiredGySgt says he can prove they did NOT, that he has source documents to back up his position.  Well, is there any doubt that he does?  Is there some question about these documents?  

This is why there should have been a court proceeding.  I am just mystified as to why none was ever conducted.


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The surrender offered by Japan prior to the bombs is the same surrender we accepted after the bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I mean.  Either this is an accepted, established historical fact or it isn't.  We shouldn't be debating WHAT happened.  I thought we KNEW what happened.  I'm very confused by these different scenarios you guys present.
> 
> If we A-Bombed Japan needlessly, it was not ethical.  Was it?  Do we agree on that much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is LYING. I have provided you with SOURCE documents. The actual conversations that occurred in the Japanese Governments meetings about Surrender, and after the A bombs.
> 
> The ONLY thing the Japanese offered before the A Bombs was a cease fire to move their troops from captured territory while we removed our troops from captured territory.
> 
> We demanded an unconditional Surrender just as we did in Germany. The Only concession we final relinquished on was allowing the Emperor to remain the Emperor.
> 
> Go ahead, I have provided the actual conversations of the Japanese Government, he has offered nothing. Ask him for evidence.
Click to expand...



You just admitted we accepted a conditional surrender from Japan.  If we were willing to accept a conditional surrender, the same one offered prior to the bombs, then why didn't we?  Here are some links for you to ignore:

Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html

Http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur Reports/MacArthur V2 P2/index.htm


----------



## CurveLight

Madeline said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline there were millions of American lives at stake here. you make the call. kill the enemy or you own?. then YOU have to face the the suriving families. who will call you a murderer. which is it????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are arguing the wrong point. There was no surrender on the table before the A Bombs were dropped. The ONLY thing the Japanese offered was a cease of hostilities and the return of captured territory. They would hand over what ever they still had from after Dec 7 and we would hand over what ever of theirs we had from before Dec 7.
> 
> It is a bald faced LIE that the same surrender existed before as after and that we ignored it to bomb them.
> 
> My link is to SOURCE documents. We have the actual conversations from the Japanese Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me selfish, but if it saved even just one American life, I'd have dropped the A-Bomb myself.  I am not asking for a pie-in-the-sky ethical debate.
> 
> I merely want to know, was it necessary or not?  Had Japan surrendered BEFORE we bombed there?
> 
> RetiredGySgt says he can prove they did NOT, that he has source documents to back up his position.  Well, is there any doubt that he does?  Is there some question about these documents?
> 
> This is why there should have been a court proceeding.  I am just mystified as to why none was ever conducted.
Click to expand...



Http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/W...l/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/truman.html

I posted that link because it has a compilation from MAGIC that tells a different story from the Trumanesque Romanticism of using the bombs.  


Apologists say it was necessary to use the bombs to get Japan to surrender unconditionally.  That's bullshit because even after the bombs Japan did not give an unconditional surrender.  After using the bombs it was not Japan that compromised on the conditions of surrender.  It was the US.  Think about it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I mean.  Either this is an accepted, established historical fact or it isn't.  We shouldn't be debating WHAT happened.  I thought we KNEW what happened.  I'm very confused by these different scenarios you guys present.
> 
> If we A-Bombed Japan needlessly, it was not ethical.  Was it?  Do we agree on that much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is LYING. I have provided you with SOURCE documents. The actual conversations that occurred in the Japanese Governments meetings about Surrender, and after the A bombs.
> 
> The ONLY thing the Japanese offered before the A Bombs was a cease fire to move their troops from captured territory while we removed our troops from captured territory.
> 
> We demanded an unconditional Surrender just as we did in Germany. The Only concession we final relinquished on was allowing the Emperor to remain the Emperor.
> 
> Go ahead, I have provided the actual conversations of the Japanese Government, he has offered nothing. Ask him for evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted we accepted a conditional surrender from Japan.  If we were willing to accept a conditional surrender, the same one offered prior to the bombs, then why didn't we?  Here are some links for you to ignore:
> 
> Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html
> 
> Http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur Reports/MacArthur V2 P2/index.htm
Click to expand...


Dumb ass. Go argue your retarded lies somewhere else. Once again I have source documents of the JAPANESE Government and the US Government. The Japanese never offered to surrender. Further the Emperor surrendered unconditionally, WE made the choice to allow him to remain Emperor.


----------



## Madeline

RetiredGySgt said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reasons the cliche "The bombs saved lives" are many of the same reasons Bush supporters were reduced to defending Bush by saying "History will prove him correct."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's been a year.  What say you?  He still seems like a lying fuckwhit to me.
> 
> And the sad thing is, while he lied about Iraq having the A-Bomb, it now appears he failed to stop IRAN from getting it.  Oh joy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush never claimed Iraq had a bomb. That is left wing lying at its finest. As for stopping Iran, are you saying we were wrong for stopping Iraq from returning to research on the bomb by invading but we should have invaded Iran?
Click to expand...


RetiredGySgt, I watched Bush on television saying that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction".  I HOPED he meant the A-Bomb....chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction scared me stiff.  HE LIED about that and sat around twiddling his thumbs whilst IRAN acquired nuclear technology.  

I despise Bush.  I think he and Cheney should be arrested as traitors.  Some of my friends have kidlets in active duty over in Iraq and Afganistan...all because of GWB's lies and Cheney's greed to score big contracts from the Dept. of Defense.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY]YouTube - George: Saddam Hussein Has Weapons of Mass Destruction[/ame]

How can _any_ patriot defend GWB?


----------



## Madeline

RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is LYING. I have provided you with SOURCE documents. The actual conversations that occurred in the Japanese Governments meetings about Surrender, and after the A bombs.
> 
> The ONLY thing the Japanese offered before the A Bombs was a cease fire to move their troops from captured territory while we removed our troops from captured territory.
> 
> We demanded an unconditional Surrender just as we did in Germany. The Only concession we final relinquished on was allowing the Emperor to remain the Emperor.
> 
> Go ahead, I have provided the actual conversations of the Japanese Government, he has offered nothing. Ask him for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted we accepted a conditional surrender from Japan.  If we were willing to accept a conditional surrender, the same one offered prior to the bombs, then why didn't we?  Here are some links for you to ignore:
> 
> Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html
> 
> Http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur Reports/MacArthur V2 P2/index.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb ass. Go argue your retarded lies somewhere else. Once again I have source documents of the JAPANESE Government and the US Government. The Japanese never offered to surrender. Further the Emperor surrendered unconditionally, WE made the choice to allow him to remain Emperor.
Click to expand...


I still do not understand how such a HUGELY significant historical fact can be in doubt, this many years later.  

CurveLight:  what exactly about RetiredGySgt's documents makes them less than reliable in your view?

RetiredGySgt:  why are CurveLight's documents unreliable?

Are you claiming they have been altered?  They are not authentic?  What?

You just CANNOT both be right on the FACTS.  It's logically impossible.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Madeline said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's been a year.  What say you?  He still seems like a lying fuckwhit to me.
> 
> And the sad thing is, while he lied about Iraq having the A-Bomb, it now appears he failed to stop IRAN from getting it.  Oh joy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush never claimed Iraq had a bomb. That is left wing lying at its finest. As for stopping Iran, are you saying we were wrong for stopping Iraq from returning to research on the bomb by invading but we should have invaded Iran?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt, I watched Bush on television saying that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction".  I HOPED he meant the A-Bomb....chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction scared me stiff.  HE LIED about that and sat around twiddling his thumbs whilst IRAN acquired nuclear technology.
> 
> I despise Bush.  I think he and Cheney should be arrested as traitors.  Some of my friends have kidlets in active duty over in Iraq and Afganistan...all because of GWB's lies and Cheney's greed to score big contracts from the Dept. of Defense.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY]YouTube - George: Saddam Hussein Has Weapons of Mass Destruction[/ame]
> 
> How can _any_ patriot defend GWB?
Click to expand...


Bush was right. According to everything we and the rest of the world knew Saddam Hussein HAD Biological and Chemical weapons. He never accounted for them and we knew he had them. Further his dual use facilities allowed him the ability to make more.

Provide a single clip ANYWHERE where Bush EVER made a claim Saddam Hussein had nukes. You won't find one. What we were worried about and rightfully so, was that once sanctions were lifted he would only be a couple years away from a bomb. Captured documents PROVE that is true.

Bush nor Cheney lied to anyone, that is left wing propaganda and outright lies. Read the Congressional consent to use force. Bush was very clear why we were going into Iraq.

We have had Democrats in control of both houses of Congress since Jan 2007, they PROMISED if we elected them they would provide proof Bush lied and that he broke laws. It is now 2010 and no such charges have ever been brought forward. In fact EVERY Commission Republican and Democrat that investigated the issue has ruled Bush did NOT LIE.


----------



## namvet

CurveLight said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are arguing the wrong point. There was no surrender on the table before the A Bombs were dropped. The ONLY thing the Japanese offered was a cease of hostilities and the return of captured territory. They would hand over what ever they still had from after Dec 7 and we would hand over what ever of theirs we had from before Dec 7.
> 
> It is a bald faced LIE that the same surrender existed before as after and that we ignored it to bomb them.
> 
> My link is to SOURCE documents. We have the actual conversations from the Japanese Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call me selfish, but if it saved even just one American life, I'd have dropped the A-Bomb myself.  I am not asking for a pie-in-the-sky ethical debate.
> 
> I merely want to know, was it necessary or not?  Had Japan surrendered BEFORE we bombed there?
> 
> RetiredGySgt says he can prove they did NOT, that he has source documents to back up his position.  Well, is there any doubt that he does?  Is there some question about these documents?
> 
> This is why there should have been a court proceeding.  I am just mystified as to why none was ever conducted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/W...l/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/truman.html
> 
> I posted that link because it has a compilation from MAGIC that tells a different story from the Trumanesque Romanticism of using the bombs.
> 
> 
> Apologists say it was necessary to use the bombs to get Japan to surrender unconditionally.  That's bullshit because even after the bombs Japan did not give an unconditional surrender.  After using the bombs it was not Japan that compromised on the conditions of surrender.  It was the US.  Think about it.
Click to expand...


FDR SCANDAL PAGE from your scandal link
FDR Scandal Page

more hysterical reading
PEARL HARBOR MOTHER OF ALL CONSPIRACIES
Pearl Harbor - Mother of All Conspiracies

Halarious JFK SCANDAL PAGE
JFK Scandal Page with Assassination Notes

where's the one on Bush kid???? seems you don't read what you post.  its obvious you deal in fiction and theories. im finished with you


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is LYING. I have provided you with SOURCE documents. The actual conversations that occurred in the Japanese Governments meetings about Surrender, and after the A bombs.
> 
> The ONLY thing the Japanese offered before the A Bombs was a cease fire to move their troops from captured territory while we removed our troops from captured territory.
> 
> We demanded an unconditional Surrender just as we did in Germany. The Only concession we final relinquished on was allowing the Emperor to remain the Emperor.
> 
> Go ahead, I have provided the actual conversations of the Japanese Government, he has offered nothing. Ask him for evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted we accepted a conditional surrender from Japan.  If we were willing to accept a conditional surrender, the same one offered prior to the bombs, then why didn't we?  Here are some links for you to ignore:
> 
> Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html
> 
> Http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur Reports/MacArthur V2 P2/index.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb ass. Go argue your retarded lies somewhere else. Once again I have source documents of the JAPANESE Government and the US Government. The Japanese never offered to surrender. Further the Emperor surrendered unconditionally, WE made the choice to allow him to remain Emperor.
Click to expand...



The fact you are either ignorant or dishonest about such a well known fact shows your gross inability to debate the issue.  Japan did not offer an unconditional surrender after the bombs:

"On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."
Http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Madeline said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted we accepted a conditional surrender from Japan.  If we were willing to accept a conditional surrender, the same one offered prior to the bombs, then why didn't we?  Here are some links for you to ignore:
> 
> Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html
> 
> Http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur Reports/MacArthur V2 P2/index.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass. Go argue your retarded lies somewhere else. Once again I have source documents of the JAPANESE Government and the US Government. The Japanese never offered to surrender. Further the Emperor surrendered unconditionally, WE made the choice to allow him to remain Emperor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still do not understand how such a HUGELY significant historical fact can be in doubt, this many years later.
> 
> CurveLight:  what exactly about RetiredGySgt's documents makes them less than reliable in your view?
> 
> RetiredGySgt:  why are CurveLight's documents unreliable?
> 
> Are you claiming they have been altered?  They are not authentic?  What?
> 
> You just CANNOT both be right on the FACTS.  It's logically impossible.
Click to expand...


He is playing with words. The Japanese made the following offer through the Soviet Union... They would cease hostilities and we would cease hostilities. They would evacuate all territory captured since Dec 7 1941 and we would evacuate all territory that was Japanese before Dec 7 1941. Further no other action would occur to Japan. No foreign presence in Japan, no reorganization of their Government, no dismantling of their military. We refused.

After the First Atomic Bomb they floated a similar plan and we again refused.

After the second Bomb the Emperor intervened in the Governments deliberations. The Army which controlled the Government absolutely REFUSED to surrender. Even after 2 Atomic Bombs. The Emperor over ruled them and ordered an immediate UNCONDITIONAL Surrender.

Curvelight is pretending that the offer to a cease of hostilities was a offer to surrender. He is further claiming that because we eventually allowed the Emperor to remain as a figure head in Japan we should not have dropped the bombs.

He is using the same intercepts as my source documents and claiming they do not clearly say what they say. Further I have in my source documents the actual meetings of the Japanese Government and what was and was not agreed to. Who wanted and did not want Peace. The Army ran the Government and was not going to surrender. Even after the Emperor agreed to surrender the Army staged a coup and tried to seize the voice recording where the Emperor ordered the surrender and prevent the Emperor from further addressing the Nation.


----------



## namvet

RetiredGySgt said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush never claimed Iraq had a bomb. That is left wing lying at its finest. As for stopping Iran, are you saying we were wrong for stopping Iraq from returning to research on the bomb by invading but we should have invaded Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt, I watched Bush on television saying that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction".  I HOPED he meant the A-Bomb....chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction scared me stiff.  HE LIED about that and sat around twiddling his thumbs whilst IRAN acquired nuclear technology.
> 
> I despise Bush.  I think he and Cheney should be arrested as traitors.  Some of my friends have kidlets in active duty over in Iraq and Afganistan...all because of GWB's lies and Cheney's greed to score big contracts from the Dept. of Defense.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY]YouTube - George: Saddam Hussein Has Weapons of Mass Destruction[/ame]
> 
> How can _any_ patriot defend GWB?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush was right. According to everything we and the rest of the world knew Saddam Hussein HAD Biological and Chemical weapons. He never accounted for them and we knew he had them. Further his dual use facilities allowed him the ability to make more.
> 
> Provide a single clip ANYWHERE where Bush EVER made a claim Saddam Hussein had nukes. You won't find one. What we were worried about and rightfully so, was that once sanctions were lifted he would only be a couple years away from a bomb. Captured documents PROVE that is true.
> 
> Bush nor Cheney lied to anyone, that is left wing propaganda and outright lies. Read the Congressional consent to use force. Bush was very clear why we were going into Iraq.
> 
> We have had Democrats in control of both houses of Congress since Jan 2007, they PROMISED if we elected them they would provide proof Bush lied and that he broke laws. It is now 2010 and no such charges have ever been brought forward. In fact EVERY Commission Republican and Democrat that investigated the issue has ruled Bush did NOT LIE.
Click to expand...


BUT he did drop the Abombs !!!!!!!!


----------



## Madeline

RetiredGySgt said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush never claimed Iraq had a bomb. That is left wing lying at its finest. As for stopping Iran, are you saying we were wrong for stopping Iraq from returning to research on the bomb by invading but we should have invaded Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt, I watched Bush on television saying that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction".  I HOPED he meant the A-Bomb....chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction scared me stiff.  HE LIED about that and sat around twiddling his thumbs whilst IRAN acquired nuclear technology.
> 
> I despise Bush.  I think he and Cheney should be arrested as traitors.  Some of my friends have kidlets in active duty over in Iraq and Afganistan...all because of GWB's lies and Cheney's greed to score big contracts from the Dept. of Defense.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY]YouTube - George: Saddam Hussein Has Weapons of Mass Destruction[/ame]
> 
> How can _any_ patriot defend GWB?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush was right. According to everything we and the rest of the world knew Saddam Hussein HAD Biological and Chemical weapons. He never accounted for them and we knew he had them. Further his dual use facilities allowed him the ability to make more.
> 
> Provide a single clip ANYWHERE where Bush EVER made a claim Saddam Hussein had nukes. You won't find one. What we were worried about and rightfully so, was that once sanctions were lifted he would only be a couple years away from a bomb. Captured documents PROVE that is true.
> 
> Bush nor Cheney lied to anyone, that is left wing propaganda and outright lies. Read the Congressional consent to use force. Bush was very clear why we were going into Iraq.
> 
> We have had Democrats in control of both houses of Congress since Jan 2007, they PROMISED if we elected them they would provide proof Bush lied and that he broke laws. It is now 2010 and no such charges have ever been brought forward. In fact EVERY Commission Republican and Democrat that investigated the issue has ruled Bush did NOT LIE.
Click to expand...


A quality debate on GWB would take some digging on my part -- flinging POVs won't do any good without facts.  If you'd like to, we can start a new thread on him.  I didn't mean to hijack this one..I was enjoying the tutoring by you guys on WW II and VJ Day.

My apologies.


----------



## CurveLight

namvet said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Call me selfish, but if it saved even just one American life, I'd have dropped the A-Bomb myself.  I am not asking for a pie-in-the-sky ethical debate.
> 
> I merely want to know, was it necessary or not?  Had Japan surrendered BEFORE we bombed there?
> 
> RetiredGySgt says he can prove they did NOT, that he has source documents to back up his position.  Well, is there any doubt that he does?  Is there some question about these documents?
> 
> This is why there should have been a court proceeding.  I am just mystified as to why none was ever conducted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/W...l/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/truman.html
> 
> I posted that link because it has a compilation from MAGIC that tells a different story from the Trumanesque Romanticism of using the bombs.
> 
> 
> Apologists say it was necessary to use the bombs to get Japan to surrender unconditionally.  That's bullshit because even after the bombs Japan did not give an unconditional surrender.  After using the bombs it was not Japan that compromised on the conditions of surrender.  It was the US.  Think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR SCANDAL PAGE from your scandal link
> FDR Scandal Page
> 
> more hysterical reading
> PEARL HARBOR MOTHER OF ALL CONSPIRACIES
> Pearl Harbor - Mother of All Conspiracies
> 
> Halarious JFK SCANDAL PAGE
> JFK Scandal Page with Assassination Notes
> 
> where's the one on Bush kid???? seems you don't read what you post.  its obvious you deal in fiction and theories. im finished with you
Click to expand...



You're quite the dumbass for ignoring what I said:

"I posted that link because it has a compilation from MAGIC that tells a different story from the Trumanesque Romanticism of using the bombs."

I don't know and don't care what else is on the site.  The information for MAGIC is independently verifiable.  Looks to me like you know you cannot defend your position so you seek a way out, however dishonest, rather than stand your ground.


----------



## Madeline

RetiredGySgt said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass. Go argue your retarded lies somewhere else. Once again I have source documents of the JAPANESE Government and the US Government. The Japanese never offered to surrender. Further the Emperor surrendered unconditionally, WE made the choice to allow him to remain Emperor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still do not understand how such a HUGELY significant historical fact can be in doubt, this many years later.
> 
> CurveLight:  what exactly about RetiredGySgt's documents makes them less than reliable in your view?
> 
> RetiredGySgt:  why are CurveLight's documents unreliable?
> 
> Are you claiming they have been altered?  They are not authentic?  What?
> 
> You just CANNOT both be right on the FACTS.  It's logically impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is playing with words. The Japanese made the following offer through the Soviet Union... They would cease hostilities and we would cease hostilities. They would evacuate all territory captured since Dec 7 1941 and we would evacuate all territory that was Japanese before Dec 7 1941. Further no other action would occur to Japan. No foreign presence in Japan, no reorganization of their Government, no dismantling of their military. We refused.
> 
> After the First Atomic Bomb they floated a similar plan and we again refused.
> 
> After the second Bomb the Emperor intervened in the Governments deliberations. The Army which controlled the Government absolutely REFUSED to surrender. Even after 2 Atomic Bombs. The Emperor over ruled them and ordered an immediate UNCONDITIONAL Surrender.
> 
> Curvelight is pretending that the offer to a cease of hostilities was a offer to surrender. He is further claiming that because we eventually allowed the Emperor to remain as a figure head in Japan we should not have dropped the bombs.
> 
> He is using the same intercepts as my source documents and claiming they do not clearly say what they say. Further I have in my source documents the actual meetings of the Japanese Government and what was and was not agreed to. Who wanted and did not want Peace. The Army ran the Government and was not going to surrender. Even after the Emperor agreed to surrender the Army staged a coup and tried to seize the voice recording where the Emperor ordered the surrender and prevent the Emperor from further addressing the Nation.
Click to expand...


Well, CurveLight, what say you?  If RetiredGySgt is right then the POV you and Quartermass have posted here seems less than completely intellectually honest to me.

If RetiredGySgt is correct on the FACTS, then as far as I am concerned, he is right on the ETHICS as well.


----------



## Madeline

CurveLight said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/W...l/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/truman.html
> 
> I posted that link because it has a compilation from MAGIC that tells a different story from the Trumanesque Romanticism of using the bombs.
> 
> 
> Apologists say it was necessary to use the bombs to get Japan to surrender unconditionally.  That's bullshit because even after the bombs Japan did not give an unconditional surrender.  After using the bombs it was not Japan that compromised on the conditions of surrender.  It was the US.  Think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR SCANDAL PAGE from your scandal link
> FDR Scandal Page
> 
> more hysterical reading
> PEARL HARBOR MOTHER OF ALL CONSPIRACIES
> Pearl Harbor - Mother of All Conspiracies
> 
> Halarious JFK SCANDAL PAGE
> JFK Scandal Page with Assassination Notes
> 
> where's the one on Bush kid???? seems you don't read what you post.  its obvious you deal in fiction and theories. im finished with you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're quite the dumbass for ignoring what I said:
> 
> "I posted that link because it has a compilation from MAGIC that tells a different story from the Trumanesque Romanticism of using the bombs."
> 
> I don't know and don't care what else is on the site.  The information for MAGIC is independently verifiable.  Looks to me like you know you cannot defend your position so you seek a way out, however dishonest, rather than stand your ground.
Click to expand...


This business of flinging URLs around isn't getting us anywhere, CurveLight.  WHAT exactly is defective about the documents relied on by RetiredGySgt and namvet?  Why are THEY not good evidence of what transpired?

Are the doctored?

Are they incomplete?

Is there doubt about their authenticity?


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass. Go argue your retarded lies somewhere else. Once again I have source documents of the JAPANESE Government and the US Government. The Japanese never offered to surrender. Further the Emperor surrendered unconditionally, WE made the choice to allow him to remain Emperor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still do not understand how such a HUGELY significant historical fact can be in doubt, this many years later.
> 
> CurveLight:  what exactly about RetiredGySgt's documents makes them less than reliable in your view?
> 
> RetiredGySgt:  why are CurveLight's documents unreliable?
> 
> Are you claiming they have been altered?  They are not authentic?  What?
> 
> You just CANNOT both be right on the FACTS.  It's logically impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is playing with words. The Japanese made the following offer through the Soviet Union... They would cease hostilities and we would cease hostilities. They would evacuate all territory captured since Dec 7 1941 and we would evacuate all territory that was Japanese before Dec 7 1941. Further no other action would occur to Japan. No foreign presence in Japan, no reorganization of their Government, no dismantling of their military. We refused.
> 
> After the First Atomic Bomb they floated a similar plan and we again refused.
> 
> After the second Bomb the Emperor intervened in the Governments deliberations. The Army which controlled the Government absolutely REFUSED to surrender. Even after 2 Atomic Bombs. The Emperor over ruled them and ordered an immediate UNCONDITIONAL Surrender.
> 
> Curvelight is pretending that the offer to a cease of hostilities was a offer to surrender. He is further claiming that because we eventually allowed the Emperor to remain as a figure head in Japan we should not have dropped the bombs.
> 
> He is using the same intercepts as my source documents and claiming they do not clearly say what they say. Further I have in my source documents the actual meetings of the Japanese Government and what was and was not agreed to. Who wanted and did not want Peace. The Army ran the Government and was not going to surrender. Even after the Emperor agreed to surrender the Army staged a coup and tried to seize the voice recording where the Emperor ordered the surrender and prevent the Emperor from further addressing the Nation.
Click to expand...



I just posted the evidence Japan did not offer an unconditional surrender but you want to claim I'm ignorant of the facts? Lol...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Madeline said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR SCANDAL PAGE from your scandal link
> FDR Scandal Page
> 
> more hysterical reading
> PEARL HARBOR MOTHER OF ALL CONSPIRACIES
> Pearl Harbor - Mother of All Conspiracies
> 
> Halarious JFK SCANDAL PAGE
> JFK Scandal Page with Assassination Notes
> 
> where's the one on Bush kid???? seems you don't read what you post.  its obvious you deal in fiction and theories. im finished with you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're quite the dumbass for ignoring what I said:
> 
> "I posted that link because it has a compilation from MAGIC that tells a different story from the Trumanesque Romanticism of using the bombs."
> 
> I don't know and don't care what else is on the site.  The information for MAGIC is independently verifiable.  Looks to me like you know you cannot defend your position so you seek a way out, however dishonest, rather than stand your ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This business of flinging URLs around isn't getting us anywhere, CurveLight.  WHAT exactly is defective about the documents relied on by RetiredGySgt and namvet?  Why are THEY not good evidence of what transpired?
> 
> Are the doctored?
> 
> Are they incomplete?
> 
> Is there doubt about their authenticity?
Click to expand...


No to all those questions. He even uses magic intercepts for his claims. He is twisting the information and in some cases outright lying.

But what is the point if you refuse to even read the documents?


----------



## Madeline

RetiredGySgt said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're quite the dumbass for ignoring what I said:
> 
> "I posted that link because it has a compilation from MAGIC that tells a different story from the Trumanesque Romanticism of using the bombs."
> 
> I don't know and don't care what else is on the site.  The information for MAGIC is independently verifiable.  Looks to me like you know you cannot defend your position so you seek a way out, however dishonest, rather than stand your ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This business of flinging URLs around isn't getting us anywhere, CurveLight.  WHAT exactly is defective about the documents relied on by RetiredGySgt and namvet?  Why are THEY not good evidence of what transpired?
> 
> Are the doctored?
> 
> Are they incomplete?
> 
> Is there doubt about their authenticity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No to all those questions. He even uses magic intercepts for his claims. He is twisting the information and in some cases outright lying.
> 
> But what is the point if you refuse to even read the documents?
Click to expand...


I have glanced through all the URLs, sir.  Each seems to support the factual allegations the posters have claimed they would. But BOTH scenarios cannot have occurred, and at this point, I am kinda sorta thinking this is as far as I'm gonna get.

I'm heavily inclined to believe what you have posted, RetiredGySgt, but I still have some doubts. More or less the same place I was in when this thread started.


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass. Go argue your retarded lies somewhere else. Once again I have source documents of the JAPANESE Government and the US Government. The Japanese never offered to surrender. Further the Emperor surrendered unconditionally, WE made the choice to allow him to remain Emperor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still do not understand how such a HUGELY significant historical fact can be in doubt, this many years later.
> 
> CurveLight:  what exactly about RetiredGySgt's documents makes them less than reliable in your view?
> 
> RetiredGySgt:  why are CurveLight's documents unreliable?
> 
> Are you claiming they have been altered?  They are not authentic?  What?
> 
> You just CANNOT both be right on the FACTS.  It's logically impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is playing with words. The Japanese made the following offer through the Soviet Union... They would cease hostilities and we would cease hostilities. They would evacuate all territory captured since Dec 7 1941 and we would evacuate all territory that was Japanese before Dec 7 1941. Further no other action would occur to Japan. No foreign presence in Japan, no reorganization of their Government, no dismantling of their military. We refused.
> 
> After the First Atomic Bomb they floated a similar plan and we again refused.
> 
> After the second Bomb the Emperor intervened in the Governments deliberations. The Army which controlled the Government absolutely REFUSED to surrender. Even after 2 Atomic Bombs. The Emperor over ruled them and ordered an immediate UNCONDITIONAL Surrender.
> 
> Curvelight is pretending that the offer to a cease of hostilities was a offer to surrender. He is further claiming that because we eventually allowed the Emperor to remain as a figure head in Japan we should not have dropped the bombs.
> 
> He is using the same intercepts as my source documents and claiming they do not clearly say what they say. Further I have in my source documents the actual meetings of the Japanese Government and what was and was not agreed to. Who wanted and did not want Peace. The Army ran the Government and was not going to surrender. Even after the Emperor agreed to surrender the Army staged a coup and tried to seize the voice recording where the Emperor ordered the surrender and prevent the Emperor from further addressing the Nation.
Click to expand...



I just posted the evidence Japan did not offer an unconditional surrender but you want to claim I'm ignorant of the facts? Lol...


----------



## namvet

I don't give a damned if it was ethical or not. it ended the war and saved millions of AMERICAN lives. bottom line for me. 

and i not going with this innocent civilian crap. they were working in factory's and making weapons to kill us.

the Japs murdered million of women and children in occupied countries. or do we let that slide???  they got what they deserved. 

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." fleet Admiral Yamamoto after the Pearl Harbor attack


----------



## CurveLight

Madeline said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> This business of flinging URLs around isn't getting us anywhere, CurveLight.  WHAT exactly is defective about the documents relied on by RetiredGySgt and namvet?  Why are THEY not good evidence of what transpired?
> 
> Are the doctored?
> 
> Are they incomplete?
> 
> Is there doubt about their authenticity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No to all those questions. He even uses magic intercepts for his claims. He is twisting the information and in some cases outright lying.
> 
> But what is the point if you refuse to even read the documents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have glanced through all the URLs, sir.  Each seems to support the factual allegations the posters have claimed they would. But BOTH scenarios cannot have occurred, and at this point, I am kinda sorta thinking this is as far as I'm gonna get.
> 
> I'm heavily inclined to believe what you have posted, RetiredGySgt, but I still have some doubts. More or less the same place I was in when this thread started.
Click to expand...


Try it from a slightly different approach and ask this question:

What threat did Japan pose to the US in August 1945 that justified nuking two cities?


----------



## namvet

indeed. what real threat did they pose ????

[youtube]gdCe2wBeCiw[/youtube]​
can anyone explain where they got this technology???? how bout the one with his head stuck up his ass ???!!!!


----------



## Madeline

Other nations were working on developing the A-Bomb?  But I thought the reason we executed Julius and Ethel Rosenburg was for telling that secret to the Soviets?  I thought only the US knew how to make one, for a period of time anyway.

Am I wrong?  I'm beginning to wonder if I know _any_ US history.


----------



## CurveLight

namvet said:


> indeed. what real threat did they pose ????
> 
> [youtube]gdCe2wBeCiw[/youtube]​
> can anyone explain where they got this technology???? how bout the one with his head stuck up his ass ???!!!!





Since you've already admitted you have no interest in addressing the OP it appears your only purpose here is to flex internet muscle.....


----------



## namvet

its no secret they were making their own bomb


----------



## CurveLight

Madeline said:


> Other nations were working on developing the A-Bomb?  But I thought the reason we executed Julius and Ethel Rosenburg was for telling that secret to the Soviets?  I thought only the US knew how to make one, for a period of time anyway.
> 
> Am I wrong?  I'm beginning to wonder if I know _any_ US history.




This is a red herring.  They know Japan posed no threat to the US in August 1945.  Namvet already confessed he doesn't care if it was ethical or not.  I respect his honesty on that.  Takes balls to admit you applaud the slaughter of civilians in part because someone else slaughtered civilians.


----------



## namvet

Pacifist like bentlight always believe you can have a war without killing anyone. 

he also believes this is moral and ethical since we didn't do it ???

























A boy murdered by Japs with a butt of a rifle, because he did not take off his hat.





buried alive


----------



## namvet

Madeline said:


> Other nations were working on developing the A-Bomb?  But I thought the reason we executed Julius and Ethel Rosenburg was for telling that secret to the Soviets?  I thought only the US knew how to make one, for a period of time anyway.
> 
> Am I wrong?  I'm beginning to wonder if I know _any_ US history.



no your not. do your own thinking. draw your own conclusions. this event is all over the net. never let morons like CurveLight do your thinking for you.


----------



## CurveLight

Madeline said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> This business of flinging URLs around isn't getting us anywhere, CurveLight.  WHAT exactly is defective about the documents relied on by RetiredGySgt and namvet?  Why are THEY not good evidence of what transpired?
> 
> Are the doctored?
> 
> Are they incomplete?
> 
> Is there doubt about their authenticity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No to all those questions. He even uses magic intercepts for his claims. He is twisting the information and in some cases outright lying.
> 
> But what is the point if you refuse to even read the documents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have glanced through all the URLs, sir.  Each seems to support the factual allegations the posters have claimed they would. But BOTH scenarios cannot have occurred, and at this point, I am kinda sorta thinking this is as far as I'm gonna get.
> 
> I'm heavily inclined to believe what you have posted, RetiredGySgt, but I still have some doubts. More or less the same place I was in when this thread started.
Click to expand...



The info they are pointing to is an incomplete picture.

In many ways, what you are saying about both scenarios being impossible to co-exist is exactly what was taking place.  There was the "official" position that the nukes were the only way to force japan to an unconditional surrender then there was the more factual position that japan was trying to surrender.

In both countries there was a power struggle between the military and civilian leadership, but their agendas were in role reversals.  In Japan the civilian side was more apt to seeking peace than the military but in the US it was the military that was pushing for peace more than the civilian leadership under Truman.

In regards to your OP question about the "necessity" of the bombs, what does it tell you that every top US military leader has agreed that the bombs were not necessary?


----------



## Samson

JW Frogen said:


> Despite the Germans having already surrendered I think we should have dropped an A bomb on Berlin, or at least Hamburg, simply as a gesture of good will to the Japanese, to prove to them that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a racist attack.




Meh......in the spirit of multiculturalism, we should have also dropped one on Nairobi, and Mexico City, and maybe an Alutian Island to pick off some eskimos.


----------



## CurveLight

namvet said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other nations were working on developing the A-Bomb?  But I thought the reason we executed Julius and Ethel Rosenburg was for telling that secret to the Soviets?  I thought only the US knew how to make one, for a period of time anyway.
> 
> Am I wrong?  I'm beginning to wonder if I know _any_ US history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no your not. do your own thinking. draw your own conclusions. this event is all over the net. never let morons like CurveLight do your thinking for you.
Click to expand...


Between the two of us, it was me that has proven that even after both bombs Japan did not give an unconditional surrender.  So if a "moron" had to educate you on a basic historical fact, where does that place you?


----------



## CurveLight

The question of the bombs' role was not in trying to figure out how to end WW2.  They were used to figure out how to start what became known as The Cold War.


----------



## Samson

CurveLight said:


> The question of the bombs' role was not in trying to figure out how to end WW2.  They were used to figure out how to start what became known as The Cold War.



Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense......

You could not think of any better way to demonstrate what an idiot you are.


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> JW Frogen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the Germans having already surrendered I think we should have dropped an A bomb on Berlin, or at least Hamburg, simply as a gesture of good will to the Japanese, to prove to them that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a racist attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh......in the spirit of multiculturalism, we should have also dropped one on Nairobi, and Mexico City, and maybe an Alutian Island to pick off some eskimos.
Click to expand...


In terms of killing people the bombs have been overrated.  What was and is so amazing is the force unleashed by a single weapon and the radiation field it leaves behind.


----------



## Samson

CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JW Frogen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the Germans having already surrendered I think we should have dropped an A bomb on Berlin, or at least Hamburg, simply as a gesture of good will to the Japanese, to prove to them that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a racist attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh......in the spirit of multiculturalism, we should have also dropped one on Nairobi, and Mexico City, and maybe an Alutian Island to pick off some eskimos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In terms of killing people the bombs have been overrated.  What was and is so amazing is the force unleashed by a single weapon and the radiation field it leaves behind.
Click to expand...


Its really the thought that counts.


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question of the bombs' role was not in trying to figure out how to end WW2.  They were used to figure out how to start what became known as The Cold War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense......
> 
> You could not think of any better way to demonstrate what an idiot you are.
Click to expand...



You're one of many who lack basic knowledge about the end of WW2.  The bombs were used to prevent Japan from surrendering through a deal with Russia.  Why?  The US would have had to share the spoils of war and we were not about to do that.  Also, we were never really allies with Russia as our only common goal was defeating the third Reich in Europe.

But feel free to continue calling people an idiot because they say something beyond your comprehension capabilities.  It makes you look oh so cool!


----------



## Samson

CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question of the bombs' role was not in trying to figure out how to end WW2.  They were used to figure out how to start what became known as The Cold War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense......
> 
> You could not think of any better way to demonstrate what an idiot you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're one of many who lack basic knowledge about the end of WW2.  The bombs were used to prevent Japan from surrendering through a deal with Russia.  Why?  The US would have had to share the spoils of war and we were not about to do that.  Also, we were never really allies with Russia as our only common goal was defeating the third Reich in Europe.
> 
> But feel free to continue calling people an idiot because they say something beyond your comprehension capabilities.  It makes you look oh so cool!
Click to expand...


Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense......
> 
> You could not think of any better way to demonstrate what an idiot you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're one of many who lack basic knowledge about the end of WW2.  The bombs were used to prevent Japan from surrendering through a deal with Russia.  Why?  The US would have had to share the spoils of war and we were not about to do that.  Also, we were never really allies with Russia as our only common goal was defeating the third Reich in Europe.
> 
> But feel free to continue calling people an idiot because they say something beyond your comprehension capabilities.  It makes you look oh so cool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta
Click to expand...



Shircia, fov huzy deramia!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question of the bombs' role was not in trying to figure out how to end WW2.  They were used to figure out how to start what became known as The Cold War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense......
> 
> You could not think of any better way to demonstrate what an idiot you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're one of many who lack basic knowledge about the end of WW2.  The bombs were used to prevent Japan from surrendering through a deal with Russia.  Why?  The US would have had to share the spoils of war and we were not about to do that.  Also, we were never really allies with Russia as our only common goal was defeating the third Reich in Europe.
> 
> But feel free to continue calling people an idiot because they say something beyond your comprehension capabilities.  It makes you look oh so cool!
Click to expand...


Once again you fucking MORON I have the meetings from the Japanese Government. They were never going to surrender to the allies before the A bombs and there were no deals to surrender to the Soviets as the Japanese did not believe they would attack them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> No to all those questions. He even uses magic intercepts for his claims. He is twisting the information and in some cases outright lying.
> 
> But what is the point if you refuse to even read the documents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have glanced through all the URLs, sir.  Each seems to support the factual allegations the posters have claimed they would. But BOTH scenarios cannot have occurred, and at this point, I am kinda sorta thinking this is as far as I'm gonna get.
> 
> I'm heavily inclined to believe what you have posted, RetiredGySgt, but I still have some doubts. More or less the same place I was in when this thread started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The info they are pointing to is an incomplete picture.
> 
> In many ways, what you are saying about both scenarios being impossible to co-exist is exactly what was taking place.  There was the "official" position that the nukes were the only way to force japan to an unconditional surrender then there was the more factual position that japan was trying to surrender.
> 
> In both countries there was a power struggle between the military and civilian leadership, but their agendas were in role reversals.  In Japan the civilian side was more apt to seeking peace than the military but in the US it was the military that was pushing for peace more than the civilian leadership under Truman.
> 
> In regards to your OP question about the "necessity" of the bombs, what does it tell you that every top US military leader has agreed that the bombs were not necessary?
Click to expand...


And yet you IGNORE the fact that until the second Atomic Bomb was dropped the Japanese had NO INTENTION of surrendering and even after the second attack it took direct intervention from the Emperor to force the Army to surrender.

Once again pea brain the Japanese never offered to surrender. The offer to the Soviets to intercede for them with the allies was NOT a surrender. And after the first bomb they made no credible offer either. I have the FACTS to back me up. The meetings of the Japanese Government.


----------



## Madeline

namvet said:


> I don't give a damned if it was ethical or not. it ended the war and saved millions of AMERICAN lives. bottom line for me.
> 
> and i not going with this innocent civilian crap. they were working in factory's and making weapons to kill us.
> 
> the Japs murdered million of women and children in occupied countries. or do we let that slide???  they got what they deserved.
> 
> "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." fleet Admiral Yamamoto after the Pearl Harbor attack



Yes, women and children died in the Phillipines and elsewhere.  They ALSO died in Germany, at the hands and bombs of the Allies.  Civilians in battlefields do die. If the Japanese Army engaged in widespread genocide of the peoples of the Pacific Islands, I have not heard that.  Genocide in/by Germany yes, but Japan no.

But since when are unarmed civilians, especially children, cannon fodder?   How many infants died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, namvet?  What weapons did _they_ help manufacture?  What sort of warfare ethics AIMS to kill civilians?

The POV I take is that if we ONLY dropped the A-Bomb to show off our shiney new weapon to scare the Russians, etc., it was *wrong*.  If we did it to force the surrender of Japan, it was *right*.


----------



## amiam*

Madeline said:


> Was it ethical to use the A-bomb on the Japanese?
> 
> If so, was it ethical to bomb both Hiroshima and Nagasaki?




I do not know what is ethical about war. I have never considered the ethics of war. I doubt if any soldier even considers this. His main concern is necessity and self preservation.

As to the dropping of the first a bomb...I wonder if any Jap wrote a poem about the excessive sunburn that the population of Hiroshima experienced?

Indeed, that which was of the Sun did shine on the Land of the Rising Sun............


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense......
> 
> You could not think of any better way to demonstrate what an idiot you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're one of many who lack basic knowledge about the end of WW2.  The bombs were used to prevent Japan from surrendering through a deal with Russia.  Why?  The US would have had to share the spoils of war and we were not about to do that.  Also, we were never really allies with Russia as our only common goal was defeating the third Reich in Europe.
> 
> But feel free to continue calling people an idiot because they say something beyond your comprehension capabilities.  It makes you look oh so cool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you fucking MORON I have the meetings from the Japanese Government. They were never going to surrender to the allies before the A bombs and there were no deals to surrender to the Soviets as the Japanese did not believe they would attack them.
Click to expand...


"This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."
Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html


Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?


----------



## CurveLight

Madeline said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a damned if it was ethical or not. it ended the war and saved millions of AMERICAN lives. bottom line for me.
> 
> and i not going with this innocent civilian crap. they were working in factory's and making weapons to kill us.
> 
> the Japs murdered million of women and children in occupied countries. or do we let that slide???  they got what they deserved.
> 
> "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." fleet Admiral Yamamoto after the Pearl Harbor attack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, women and children died in the Phillipines and elsewhere.  They ALSO died in Germany, at the hands and bombs of the Allies.  Civilians in battlefields do die. If the Japanese Army engaged in widespread genocide of the peoples of the Pacific Islands, I have not heard that.  Genocide in/by Germany yes, but Japan no.
> 
> But since when are unarmed civilians, especially children, cannon fodder?   How many infants died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, namvet?  What weapons did _they_ help manufacture?  What sort of warfare ethics AIMS to kill civilians?
> 
> The POV I take is that if we ONLY dropped the A-Bomb to show off our shiney new weapon to scare the Russians, etc., it was *wrong*.  If we did it to force the surrender of Japan, it was *right*.
Click to expand...



Here are two facts that should answer the question, if not in the very least examine the bombings more closely.

Top US military leaders told Truman the bombs were not necessary for Japan to surrender before they were used.


After we dropped the bombs we accepted a conditional surrender.


----------



## Samson

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're one of many who lack basic knowledge about the end of WW2.  The bombs were used to prevent Japan from surrendering through a deal with Russia.  Why?  The US would have had to share the spoils of war and we were not about to do that.  Also, we were never really allies with Russia as our only common goal was defeating the third Reich in Europe.
> 
> But feel free to continue calling people an idiot because they say something beyond your comprehension capabilities.  It makes you look oh so cool!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fucking MORON I have the meetings from the Japanese Government. They were never going to surrender to the allies before the A bombs and there were no deals to surrender to the Soviets as the Japanese did not believe they would attack them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."
> Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
> 
> 
> Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?
Click to expand...


No wonder you are such an idiot: Poor, poor Curvey believes 
Harry Elmer Barnes whose career as a professor and then as a journalist was aborted by his contentiousness and his cavalier disregard not only for accuracy but also for truth. He produced no original scholarly work but synthesized information from his vast reading in a series of prolix and repetitious works on the history of Western civilization.


----------



## Madeline

amiam* said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was it ethical to use the A-bomb on the Japanese?
> 
> If so, was it ethical to bomb both Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know what is ethical about war. I have never considered the ethics of war. I doubt if any soldier even considers this. His main concern is necessity and self preservation.
> 
> As to the dropping of the first a bomb...I wonder if any Jap wrote a poem about the excessive sunburn that the population of Hiroshima experienced?
> 
> Indeed, that which was of the Sun did shine on the Land of the Rising Sun............
Click to expand...


But there are warfare ethics, aren't there?  Don't we have them laid out in the Geneva Convention?  Don't we teach them at the Naval Academy, etc.?


----------



## Madeline

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fucking MORON I have the meetings from the Japanese Government. They were never going to surrender to the allies before the A bombs and there were no deals to surrender to the Soviets as the Japanese did not believe they would attack them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."
> Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
> 
> 
> Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No wonder you are such an idiot: Poor, poor Curvey believes
> Harry Elmer Barnes whose career as a professor and then as a journalist was aborted by his contentiousness and his cavalier disregard not only for accuracy but also for truth. He produced no original scholarly work but synthesized information from his vast reading in a series of prolix and repetitious works on the history of Western civilization.
Click to expand...


So the documents relied on by CurveLight are suspect, Samson?  I have to admit, I hope that you and RetiredGySgt and namvet are right, and Quartermass and CurveLight are wrong.  

This country has enough to feel shame over without a gratitutous A-Bombing or two to add to that black list.


----------



## Samson

Madeline said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."
> Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
> 
> 
> Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No wonder you are such an idiot: Poor, poor Curvey believes
> Harry Elmer Barnes whose career as a professor and then as a journalist was aborted by his contentiousness and his cavalier disregard not only for accuracy but also for truth. He produced no original scholarly work but synthesized information from his vast reading in a series of prolix and repetitious works on the history of Western civilization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the documents relied on by CurveLight are suspect, Samson?  I have to admit, I hope that you and RetiredGySgt and namvet are right, and Quartermass and CurveLight are wrong.
> 
> This country has enough to feel shame over without a gratitutous A-Bombing or two to add to that black list.
Click to expand...


Curvey's only resource is some nut-case-historical-revisionist.


----------



## Madeline

Samson said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> No wonder you are such an idiot: Poor, poor Curvey believes
> Harry Elmer Barnes whose career as a professor and then as a journalist was aborted by his contentiousness and his cavalier disregard not only for accuracy but also for truth. He produced no original scholarly work but synthesized information from his vast reading in a series of prolix and repetitious works on the history of Western civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the documents relied on by CurveLight are suspect, Samson?  I have to admit, I hope that you and RetiredGySgt and namvet are right, and Quartermass and CurveLight are wrong.
> 
> This country has enough to feel shame over without a gratitutous A-Bombing or two to add to that black list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Curvey's only resource is some nut-case-historical-revisionist.
Click to expand...


Please check your InBox.  I'm grateful to you, and so you have a present.


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fucking MORON I have the meetings from the Japanese Government. They were never going to surrender to the allies before the A bombs and there were no deals to surrender to the Soviets as the Japanese did not believe they would attack them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."
> Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
> 
> 
> Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No wonder you are such an idiot: Poor, poor Curvey believes
> Harry Elmer Barnes whose career as a professor and then as a journalist was aborted by his contentiousness and his cavalier disregard not only for accuracy but also for truth. He produced no original scholarly work but synthesized information from his vast reading in a series of prolix and repetitious works on the history of Western civilization.
Click to expand...



I never referenced barnes as a source you lying fuck.


----------



## CurveLight

Madeline said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the documents relied on by CurveLight are suspect, Samson?  I have to admit, I hope that you and RetiredGySgt and namvet are right, and Quartermass and CurveLight are wrong.
> 
> This country has enough to feel shame over without a gratitutous A-Bombing or two to add to that black list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curvey's only resource is some nut-case-historical-revisionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please check your InBox.  I'm grateful to you, and so you have a present.
Click to expand...



So you're relying on Samson to tell you my sources instead of asking me?  How much sense does that make?  One source is an article from August 1945:

"In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)"


Samson claimed my "only resource" is barnes when in fact I've never referenced barnes at all.  So you just thanked Samson for outright lying.


----------



## CurveLight

Madeline, have you ever responded to the fact our top military leaders all agreed the bombs were not necessary?


----------



## Samson

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're one of many who lack basic knowledge about the end of WW2.  The bombs were used to prevent Japan from surrendering through a deal with Russia.  Why?  The US would have had to share the spoils of war and we were not about to do that.  Also, we were never really allies with Russia as our only common goal was defeating the third Reich in Europe.
> 
> But feel free to continue calling people an idiot because they say something beyond your comprehension capabilities.  It makes you look oh so cool!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fucking MORON I have the meetings from the Japanese Government. They were never going to surrender to the allies before the A bombs and there were no deals to surrender to the Soviets as the Japanese did not believe they would attack them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."
> Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
> 
> 
> Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?
Click to expand...


Curvelight's "source" is Mark Weber's IHR Article.

Let's see what Good Ol' Mark is all about, shall we?



> Mark Weber:
> The Professional Denier
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> More than any other propagandist, Mark Weber, 45, embodies the Holocaust-denial movement. An articulate, media-savvy spokesperson with a master's degree in History from Indiana University, Weber got his start in the radical right in 1978, when he took the position of news editor for National Vanguard, a publication of the neo-Nazi National Alliance. In 1979, Weber also began to contribute regularly to The Spotlight, a weekly
> 
> 
> tabloid produced by Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby organization. His involvement with the IHR also intensified steadily over the years; initially working as a contributor to the now-defunct IHR Newsletter, Weber began serving as emcee for the group's annual conventions in 1984. In 1985 he became a member of IHR's Editorial Advisory Committee and in 1992 he became editor of the Journal of Historical Review. Following IHR's break with Carto and the subsequent departure of most professional staff members in 1993, Weber became director of the organization with one professional staff person serving under him.



Ahh, yes.

Only those as hopelessly stupid as Curvey would use Weber as a resource. Maybe he has a National Enquirer Article he'd like to present with more credability? Perhaps some Alien in the form of Elvis has an opinion about Ethics and The A-Bomb that Curvey would like to share!!


----------



## Madeline

CurveLight said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curvey's only resource is some nut-case-historical-revisionist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please check your InBox.  I'm grateful to you, and so you have a present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're relying on Samson to tell you my sources instead of asking me?  How much sense does that make?  One source is an article from August 1945:
> 
> "In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)"
> 
> 
> Samson claimed my "only resource" is barnes when in fact I've never referenced barnes at all.  So you just thanked Samson for outright lying.
Click to expand...


What Journal is this CurveLight?  Now I am _determined_ to know what the fuck is the deal with these competing documents.   Give us the complete citation and I will ask my research librarian to pull it for me.

Thankies.


----------



## Madeline

CurveLight said:


> Madeline, have you ever responded to the fact our top military leaders all agreed the bombs were not necessary?



CurveLight, I am not the arbiter here.  All USMB-ers get to have the same weight given their opinions.  I'm just asking questions because I'm dumbfounded that there is (apparently) disagreement as to the historical facts.


----------



## Madeline

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fucking MORON I have the meetings from the Japanese Government. They were never going to surrender to the allies before the A bombs and there were no deals to surrender to the Soviets as the Japanese did not believe they would attack them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."
> Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
> 
> 
> Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Curvelight's "source" is Mark Weber's IHR Article.
> 
> Let's see what Good Ol' Mark is all about, shall we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Weber:
> The Professional Denier
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> More than any other propagandist, Mark Weber, 45, embodies the Holocaust-denial movement. An articulate, media-savvy spokesperson with a master's degree in History from Indiana University, Weber got his start in the radical right in 1978, when he took the position of news editor for National Vanguard, a publication of the neo-Nazi National Alliance. In 1979, Weber also began to contribute regularly to The Spotlight, a weekly
> 
> 
> tabloid produced by Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby organization. His involvement with the IHR also intensified steadily over the years; initially working as a contributor to the now-defunct IHR Newsletter, Weber began serving as emcee for the group's annual conventions in 1984. In 1985 he became a member of IHR's Editorial Advisory Committee and in 1992 he became editor of the Journal of Historical Review. Following IHR's break with Carto and the subsequent departure of most professional staff members in 1993, Weber became director of the organization with one professional staff person serving under him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, yes.
> 
> Only those as hopelessly stupid as Curvey would use Weber as a resource. Maybe he has a National Enquirer Article he'd like to present with more credability? Perhaps some Alien in the form of Elvis has an opinion about Ethics and The A-Bomb that Curvey would like to share!!
Click to expand...


Well CurveLight?  Is this true?  You've relied on reporting by a discredited man?


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fucking MORON I have the meetings from the Japanese Government. They were never going to surrender to the allies before the A bombs and there were no deals to surrender to the Soviets as the Japanese did not believe they would attack them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."
> Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
> 
> 
> Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Curvelight's "source" is Mark Weber's IHR Article.
> 
> Let's see what Good Ol' Mark is all about, shall we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Weber:
> The Professional Denier
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> More than any other propagandist, Mark Weber, 45, embodies the Holocaust-denial movement. An articulate, media-savvy spokesperson with a master's degree in History from Indiana University, Weber got his start in the radical right in 1978, when he took the position of news editor for National Vanguard, a publication of the neo-Nazi National Alliance. In 1979, Weber also began to contribute regularly to The Spotlight, a weekly
> 
> 
> tabloid produced by Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby organization. His involvement with the IHR also intensified steadily over the years; initially working as a contributor to the now-defunct IHR Newsletter, Weber began serving as emcee for the group's annual conventions in 1984. In 1985 he became a member of IHR's Editorial Advisory Committee and in 1992 he became editor of the Journal of Historical Review. Following IHR's break with Carto and the subsequent departure of most professional staff members in 1993, Weber became director of the organization with one professional staff person serving under him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, yes.
> 
> Only those as hopelessly stupid as Curvey would use Weber as a resource. Maybe he has a National Enquirer Article he'd like to present with more credability? Perhaps some Alien in the form of Elvis has an opinion about Ethics and The A-Bomb that Curvey would like to share!!
Click to expand...



Weber is not my source either you dumbfuck.  That's the second time you've falsely accused a source I've not used.  But you want to call others stupid......lol.


----------



## CurveLight

Madeline said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline, have you ever responded to the fact our top military leaders all agreed the bombs were not necessary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight, I am not the arbiter here.  All USMB-ers get to have the same weight given their opinions.  I'm just asking questions because I'm dumbfounded that there is (apparently) disagreement as to the historical facts.
Click to expand...



It is an indisputable historical fact that the top US military leaders agreed the bombs were not necessary.

What do you think about that fact?  I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity of your OP since you have side stepped this at least 4 times.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."
> Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
> 
> 
> Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curvelight's "source" is Mark Weber's IHR Article.
> 
> Let's see what Good Ol' Mark is all about, shall we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Weber:
> The Professional Denier
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> More than any other propagandist, Mark Weber, 45, embodies the Holocaust-denial movement. An articulate, media-savvy spokesperson with a master's degree in History from Indiana University, Weber got his start in the radical right in 1978, when he took the position of news editor for National Vanguard, a publication of the neo-Nazi National Alliance. In 1979, Weber also began to contribute regularly to The Spotlight, a weekly
> 
> 
> tabloid produced by Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby organization. His involvement with the IHR also intensified steadily over the years; initially working as a contributor to the now-defunct IHR Newsletter, Weber began serving as emcee for the group's annual conventions in 1984. In 1985 he became a member of IHR's Editorial Advisory Committee and in 1992 he became editor of the Journal of Historical Review. Following IHR's break with Carto and the subsequent departure of most professional staff members in 1993, Weber became director of the organization with one professional staff person serving under him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, yes.
> 
> Only those as hopelessly stupid as Curvey would use Weber as a resource. Maybe he has a National Enquirer Article he'd like to present with more credability? Perhaps some Alien in the form of Elvis has an opinion about Ethics and The A-Bomb that Curvey would like to share!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Weber is not my source either you dumbfuck.  That's the second time you've falsely accused a source I've not used.  But you want to call others stupid......lol.
Click to expand...


You have no leg to stand on. Japan NEVER made an attempt to surrender before the Atomic Bombs. The only thing they did is offer through the Soviets to a cease fire and a return to pre war borders. They would vacate all captured territory that had from after Dec 1941 and we would evacuate all Japanese territory captured that was owned by them prior to Dec 1941. That is the ONLY offer made.


----------



## Samson

CurveLight said:


> "This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."
> Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
> 
> 
> Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?





CurveLight said:


> Weber is not my source either you dumbfuck.  That's the second time you've falsely accused a source I've not used.  But you want to call others stupid......lol.



Poor, poor foolish curvey, linked to Mark Weber's IHR article, and doesn't even understand who he's quoting....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline, have you ever responded to the fact our top military leaders all agreed the bombs were not necessary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight, I am not the arbiter here.  All USMB-ers get to have the same weight given their opinions.  I'm just asking questions because I'm dumbfounded that there is (apparently) disagreement as to the historical facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is an indisputable historical fact that the top US military leaders agreed the bombs were not necessary.
> 
> What do you think about that fact?  I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity of your OP since you have side stepped this at least 4 times.
Click to expand...


They were wrong. Once again the Japanese had no intention of surrendering. Even after 2 atomic Bombs the Army which controlled the Government REFUSED to surrender.


----------



## Samson

CurveLight said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline, have you ever responded to the fact our top military leaders all agreed the bombs were not necessary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight, I am not the arbiter here.  All USMB-ers get to have the same weight given their opinions.  I'm just asking questions because I'm dumbfounded that there is (apparently) disagreement as to the historical facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is an indisputable historical fact that the top US military leaders agreed the bombs were not necessary.
> 
> What do you think about that fact?  I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity of your OP since you have side stepped this at least 4 times.
Click to expand...


"Indesputable fact"

Like the Holocaust, huh? Your sources also claim that it did NOT happen.

Idiot.


----------



## Samson

RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight, I am not the arbiter here.  All USMB-ers get to have the same weight given their opinions.  I'm just asking questions because I'm dumbfounded that there is (apparently) disagreement as to the historical facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is an indisputable historical fact that the top US military leaders agreed the bombs were not necessary.
> 
> What do you think about that fact?  I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity of your OP since you have side stepped this at least 4 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were wrong. Once again the Japanese had no intention of surrendering. Even after 2 atomic Bombs the Army which controlled the Government REFUSED to surrender.
Click to expand...


Or, they never agreed to any such thing: Curvey's source is bogus: You may as well be arguing with someone that claims it was an "Indesputable fact" that Martians agreed the A bombs were not necessary, and quotes an article from the National Enquirer.


----------



## namvet

Madeline said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a damned if it was ethical or not. it ended the war and saved millions of AMERICAN lives. bottom line for me.
> 
> and i not going with this innocent civilian crap. they were working in factory's and making weapons to kill us.
> 
> the Japs murdered million of women and children in occupied countries. or do we let that slide???  they got what they deserved.
> 
> "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." fleet Admiral Yamamoto after the Pearl Harbor attack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, women and children died in the Phillipines and elsewhere.  They ALSO died in Germany, at the hands and bombs of the Allies.  Civilians in battlefields do die. If the Japanese Army engaged in widespread genocide of the peoples of the Pacific Islands, I have not heard that.  Genocide in/by Germany yes, but Japan no.
> 
> But since when are unarmed civilians, especially children, cannon fodder?   How many infants died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, namvet?  What weapons did _they_ help manufacture?  What sort of warfare ethics AIMS to kill civilians?
> 
> The POV I take is that if we ONLY dropped the A-Bomb to show off our shiney new weapon to scare the Russians, etc., it was *wrong*.  If we did it to force the surrender of Japan, it was *right*.
Click to expand...




> If the Japanese Army engaged in widespread genocide of the peoples of the Pacific Islands, I have not heard that.  Genocide in/by Germany yes, but Japan no.



oh my. well that means your didn't watch the vid on unit 731. i put that up for you to prove this. this is the last i can do to prove it
Massacres and Atrocities of WWII in the Pacific Region

Jap Atrocities against civilians are pretty common knowledge. 



> But since when are unarmed civilians, especially children, cannon fodder?



gez Madeline come on. ever since wars were fought thru the ages. you did hear about the holocaust???? and their being murdered as i type this. 



> What weapons did they help manufacture? What sort of warfare ethics AIMS to kill civilians?



come on Madeline. everything the military need to fight a war. then the generals and admirals decided who to use it on. including civilians. 

the Japs WERE building their own nuke. for who ???? for the last time the bombs were dropped to save Americans lives.


----------



## CurveLight

Madeline said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> "This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."
> Http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
> 
> 
> Have you never realized the Potsdam Declaration was designed to inhibit Japan's surrender so the a-bombs could be used?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curvelight's "source" is Mark Weber's IHR Article.
> 
> Let's see what Good Ol' Mark is all about, shall we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Weber:
> The Professional Denier
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> More than any other propagandist, Mark Weber, 45, embodies the Holocaust-denial movement. An articulate, media-savvy spokesperson with a master's degree in History from Indiana University, Weber got his start in the radical right in 1978, when he took the position of news editor for National Vanguard, a publication of the neo-Nazi National Alliance. In 1979, Weber also began to contribute regularly to The Spotlight, a weekly
> 
> 
> tabloid produced by Willis Carto's Liberty Lobby organization. His involvement with the IHR also intensified steadily over the years; initially working as a contributor to the now-defunct IHR Newsletter, Weber began serving as emcee for the group's annual conventions in 1984. In 1985 he became a member of IHR's Editorial Advisory Committee and in 1992 he became editor of the Journal of Historical Review. Following IHR's break with Carto and the subsequent departure of most professional staff members in 1993, Weber became director of the organization with one professional staff person serving under him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, yes.
> 
> Only those as hopelessly stupid as Curvey would use Weber as a resource. Maybe he has a National Enquirer Article he'd like to present with more credability? Perhaps some Alien in the form of Elvis has an opinion about Ethics and The A-Bomb that Curvey would like to share!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well CurveLight?  Is this true?  You've relied on reporting by a discredited man?
Click to expand...


This is the last time I respond when you rely on another poster to state my source instead of asking me directly or ignoring the fact I've pointed to the same article at least three times:

"Walter Trohan, JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY  TOKYO Chicago Tribune, August 19, 1945."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...doc&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&ie=UTF-8&client=ms-rim


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is an indisputable historical fact that the top US military leaders agreed the bombs were not necessary.
> 
> What do you think about that fact?  I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity of your OP since you have side stepped this at least 4 times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were wrong. Once again the Japanese had no intention of surrendering. Even after 2 atomic Bombs the Army which controlled the Government REFUSED to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or, they never agreed to any such thing: Curvey's source is bogus: You may as well be arguing with someone that claims it was an "Indesputable fact" that Martians agreed the A bombs were not necessary, and quotes an article from the National Enquirer.
Click to expand...



You keep lying about my sources you worthless ****.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower: "In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... 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..."

Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done."
Hiroshima


----------



## Samson

CurveLight said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curvelight's "source" is Mark Weber's IHR Article.
> 
> Let's see what Good Ol' Mark is all about, shall we?
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, yes.
> 
> Only those as hopelessly stupid as Curvey would use Weber as a resource. Maybe he has a National Enquirer Article he'd like to present with more credability? Perhaps some Alien in the form of Elvis has an opinion about Ethics and The A-Bomb that Curvey would like to share!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well CurveLight?  Is this true?  You've relied on reporting by a discredited man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the last time I respond when you rely on another poster to state my source instead of asking me directly or ignoring the fact I've pointed to the same article at least three times:
> 
> "Walter Trohan, JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY  TOKYO Chicago Tribune, August 19, 1945."
> http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...doc&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&ie=UTF-8&client=ms-rim
Click to expand...



The stupidity never ends for you does it?

This is what makes reading your posts worthwhile: The Entertainment Value

Anyone! Try to go to the source above and see if there's an offer of "Unconditional Surrender."


----------



## QUENTIN

Madeline,

To whatever weight you give USMB-ers, I hope I can add my two cents and experience.

I was a research assistant for 15 months with the Nuclear Studies Institute , in my capacity as a researcher compiling documents, quotes, sources, etc. for peer-reviewed articles and a book, I pored over several hundred and probably thousands of official documents from the time the bomb was dropped. I think it's fair to call myself an expert on the subject and I was mentored by one of the nation's foremost scholars on the subject.

You are right that both sets of facts cannot be right. The simple reality is analogous to the decision to invade Iraq, but with the added benefit of hindsight, declassification, and ample official documentation and historical review. There was an official line from the government, press secretary, president, and Secretary of War Stimson that the bombing was necessary, the only way to defeat the fanatical and inhuman Japanese, and that is saved first American lives, then inflated to 50,000 American lives, then 100,000 American lives, now 500,000 American lives and so on. This has become the traditional, mainstream narrative on the subject because it was the official narrative on the subject, so it's what is taught to 7th graders nationwide. I think you should perhaps consider the fact that those arguing for the official government line on this issue are also people defending the official government line on Iraq, that Saddam had WMDs and we had to invade and etc.

The problem with the official government line of the era, however, is that it's a total fabrication.

There really isn't much disagreement on the facts here. Historians may differ to this day on the intent behind the mythmaking, but there is no doubt that a land invasion of Japan by American forces was never in the cards and the number of projected casualties was literally an invention. The war was over and we'd known that for nearly a year.

In the 60+ years since the bomb was dropped, it has come to light that the Japanese were already thoroughly defeated, knew it, and actively, desperately trying to surrender, we knew that, but decided to bomb them anyway.  

Put simply: Quartermass and CurveLight are right, though I can't necessarily speak for their sources, I feel mine are substantially reliable.

The Japanese had been suing for peace for months, unlike what GunnySgt is trying to claim, they frequently tried to reach a surrender agreement with a sole condition: they could retain the Emperor as their leader, rather than see him humiliated, arrested, tried for war crimes, etc. He was a living God to them and while there is no comparable analogy to the U.S., try to imagine asking Americans in 1945 to resurrect and re-crucify Jesus. We know they were trying to offer this sole condition, and not the land bargain GunnySgt claims (which was prior to their later, desperate efforts we're discussing), because we were intercepting their communiques and those communiques are now declassified and part of the public record. That sole condition to their surrender was rejected by the U.S. government, which instead demanded an absolutely unconditional surrender. The sad, terrible irony of what happened is that when we finally did bomb them, we allowed the Emperor to remain in his throne and capitulated to that single condition. In other words, the war could have ended months earlier with the same outcome except no use of the bombs, no hundreds of thousands dead, no unleashing of nuclear weapons upon the world.

From a strategic, military, and ethical standpoint, there was no practical use for dropping the bombs. It was primarily an experiment to test the bombs and an opportunity to assert our dominance in the post-war world, particularly over the Russians.

I'm not sure how much reading you're doing on the subject, but if you're truly interested I recommend the following books on the subject to give you a comprehensive understanding of the decision to drop the bomb, backed up my numerous firsthand accounts, primary sources, intercepted communiques, official reports, etc.

Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, a collection
Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa.
The Decision to Use the Bomb: The Architecture of an American Myth by Gal Aperovitz
Weapons for Victory: The Hiroshima Decision Fifty Years Later by Robert James Maddox 
A Postwar Myth: 500,000 US Lives Saved by atomic scientist Barton J. Bernstein

Of course a wonderful, highly illuminating primary source is Harry Truman's personal memoirs from 1945 and Henry Stimson and McGeorge Bundy's book On Active Service in Peace and War.

Among historians who've written and spoken extensively on the subject, some of which can be found online, there's Howard Zinn, Sean Malloy, Sadao Asada, Ronald Takaki, J. Samuel Walker, and my former boss, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute, Peter Kuznick.

Just a few good scholarly websites on the subject I can suggest if you're curious to learn more and want to get past this "he said-she said" back and forth are:

http://www.unl.edu:2020/alpha/Atomic_Bomb_Decision.html
Atomic Bomb Decision Pathfinder
Hiroshima: the Article

Finally, some of these have been posted before I believe, but I think quotes from the military and intelligence officers surrounding Truman at the time help make a simple and compelling case for the fact that it was strategically and militarily unnecessary and moreover that we knew that before we did it:



			
				ADMIRAL CHESTER NIMITZ said:
			
		

> "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."


_quoted in The Decision to Use The Bomb, pg. 238_



			
				BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE said:
			
		

> "...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."


_quoted in The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359. _



			
				ELLIS ZACHARIAS said:
			
		

> "Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.
> 
> "Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.
> 
> "I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds."


_quoted in How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look Magazine, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21._



			
				PAUL NITZE said:
			
		

> "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."


_quoted in Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56._




			
				RALPH BARD said:
			
		

> "Following the three-power [July 1945 Potsdam] conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position [they were about to declare war on Japan] and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the [retention of the] Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.
> 
> "I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program." He concluded the memorandum by noting, "The only way to find out is to try it out."


_quoted from War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75._



			
				GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR said:
			
		

> MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."


_quoted from American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512._



			
				FLEET ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY said:
			
		

> "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.
> 
> "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."


_quoted in William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441._




			
				DWIGHT EISENHOWER said:
			
		

> "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'.


_quoted in Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380_



			
				DWIGHT EISENHOWER said:
			
		

> "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."


_quoted in Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63_

If after all that you still have doubts, feel free to PM me and I can send you some of the reports I helped compile with ample sourcing from official documents of the era. 

We did not need to use the bomb to end the war and we knew that, of that there cannot today truly be reasonable, informed, and intellectually honest doubt.


----------



## Samson

CurveLight said:


> Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done."
> Hiroshima




Just when I thought you couldn't get more idiotic



You posted only HALF the quote!!!



> Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."


----------



## Samson

QUENTIN said:


> Madeline,
> 
> To whatever weight you give USMB-ers, I hope I can add my two cents and experience.
> 
> I was a research assistant for 15 months with the Nuclear Studies Institute , in my capacity as a researcher compiling documents, quotes, sources, etc. for peer-reviewed articles and a book, I pored over several hundred and probably thousands of official documents from the time the bomb was dropped. I think it's fair to call myself an expert on the subject and I was mentored by one of the nation's foremost scholars on the subject..



Yes, Madeline, I suggest you actually go to the sources of these claims and see what the articles REALLY say, rather than relying on half-quotes.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curvelight's "source" is Mark Weber's IHR Article.
> 
> Let's see what Good Ol' Mark is all about, shall we?
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, yes.
> 
> Only those as hopelessly stupid as Curvey would use Weber as a resource. Maybe he has a National Enquirer Article he'd like to present with more credability? Perhaps some Alien in the form of Elvis has an opinion about Ethics and The A-Bomb that Curvey would like to share!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well CurveLight?  Is this true?  You've relied on reporting by a discredited man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the last time I respond when you rely on another poster to state my source instead of asking me directly or ignoring the fact I've pointed to the same article at least three times:
> 
> "Walter Trohan, JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY  TOKYO Chicago Tribune, August 19, 1945."
> http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...doc&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&ie=UTF-8&client=ms-rim
Click to expand...


Once again they did not offer pe4ace. READ the Japanese Government meetings. They offered to just stop the war with no other consequence to them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

QUENTIN said:


> Madeline,
> 
> To whatever weight you give USMB-ers, I hope I can add my two cents and experience.
> 
> I was a research assistant for 15 months with the Nuclear Studies Institute , in my capacity as a researcher compiling documents, quotes, sources, etc. for peer-reviewed articles and a book, I pored over several hundred and probably thousands of official documents from the time the bomb was dropped. I think it's fair to call myself an expert on the subject and I was mentored by one of the nation's foremost scholars on the subject.
> 
> You are right that both sets of facts cannot be right. The simple reality is analogous to the decision to invade Iraq, but with the added benefit of hindsight, declassification, and ample official documentation and historical review. There was an official line from the government, press secretary, president, and Secretary of War Stimson that the bombing was necessary, the only way to defeat the fanatical and inhuman Japanese, and that is saved first American lives, then inflated to 50,000 American lives, then 100,000 American lives, now 500,000 American lives and so on. This has become the traditional, mainstream narrative on the subject because it was the official narrative on the subject, so it's what is taught to 7th graders nationwide. I think you should perhaps consider the fact that those arguing for the official government line on this issue are also people defending the official government line on Iraq, that Saddam had WMDs and we had to invade and etc.
> 
> The problem with the official government line of the era, however, is that it's a total fabrication.
> 
> There really isn't much disagreement on the facts here. Historians may differ to this day on the intent behind the mythmaking, but there is no doubt that a land invasion of Japan by American forces was never in the cards and the number of projected casualties was literally an invention. The war was over and we'd known that for nearly a year.
> 
> In the 60+ years since the bomb was dropped, it has come to light that the Japanese were already thoroughly defeated, knew it, and actively, desperately trying to surrender, we knew that, but decided to bomb them anyway.
> 
> Put simply: Quartermass and CurveLight are right.
> 
> The Japanese had been suing for peace for months, unlike what GunnySgt is trying to claim, they frequently tried to reach a surrender agreement with a sole condition: they could retain the Emperor as their leader, rather than see him humiliated, arrested, tried for war crimes, etc. He was a living God to them and while there is no comparable analogy to the U.S., try to imagine asking Americans in 1945 to resurrect and re-crucify Jesus. We know they were trying to offer this sole condition, and not the land bargain GunnySgt claims (which was prior to their later, desperate efforts we're discussing), because we were intercepting their communiques and those communiques are now declassified and part of the public record. That sole condition to their surrender was rejected by the U.S. government, which instead demanded an absolutely unconditional surrender. The sad, terrible irony of what happened is that when we finally did bomb them, we allowed the Emperor to remain in his throne and capitulated to that single condition. In other words, the war could have ended months earlier with the same outcome except no use of the bombs, no hundreds of thousands dead, no unleashing of nuclear weapons upon the world.
> 
> From a strategic, military, and ethical standpoint, there was no practical use for dropping the bombs. It was primarily an experiment to test the bombs and an opportunity to assert our dominance in the post-war world, particularly over the Russians.
> 
> I'm not sure how much reading you're doing on the subject, but if you're truly interested I recommend the following books on the subject to give you a comprehensive understanding of the decision to drop the bomb, backed up my numerous firsthand accounts, primary sources, intercepted communiques, official reports, etc.
> 
> Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, a collection
> Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa.
> The Decision to Use the Bomb: The Architecture of an American Myth by Gal Aperovitz
> Weapons for Victory: The Hiroshima Decision Fifty Years Later by Robert James Maddox
> A Postwar Myth: 500,000 US Lives Saved by atomic scientist Barton J. Bernstein
> 
> Of course a wonderful, highly illuminating primary source is Harry Truman's personal memoirs from 1945 and Henry Stimson and McGeorge Bundy's book On Active Service in Peace and War.
> 
> Among historians who've written and spoken extensively on the subject, some of which can be found online, there's Howard Zinn, Sean Malloy, Sadao Asada, Ronald Takaki, J. Samuel Walker, and my former boss, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute, Peter Kuznick.
> 
> Just a few good scholarly websites on the subject I can suggest if you're curious to learn more and want to get past this "he said-she said" back and forth are:
> 
> http://www.unl.edu:2020/alpha/Atomic_Bomb_Decision.html
> Atomic Bomb Decision Pathfinder
> Hiroshima: the Article
> 
> Finally, some of these have been posted before I believe, but I think quotes from the military and intelligence officers surrounding Truman at the time help make a simple and compelling case for the fact that it was strategically and militarily unnecessary and moreover that we knew that before we did it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ADMIRAL CHESTER NIMITZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
> 
> 
> 
> _quoted in The Decision to Use The Bomb, pg. 238_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _quoted in The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359. _
> 
> 
> _quoted in How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21._
> 
> 
> _quoted in Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56._
> 
> 
> [quoteRALPH BARD, Under Sec. of the Navy] "Following the three-power [July 1945 Potsdam] conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position [they were about to declare war on Japan] and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the [retention of the] Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.
> 
> "I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program." He concluded the memorandum by noting, "The only way to find out is to try it out."
Click to expand...

_quoted from War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75._


_quoted from American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512._



			
				ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY said:
			
		

> "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.
> 
> "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."


_quoted in William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441._




			
				DWIGHT EISENHOWER said:
			
		

> "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'.


_quoted in Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380_



			
				DWIGHT EISENHOWER said:
			
		

> "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."


_quoted in Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63_

If after all that you still have doubts, feel free to PM me and I can send you some of the reports I helped compile with ample sourcing from official documents of the era. 

We did not need to use the bomb to end the war and we knew that, of that there cannot today truly be reasonable, informed, and intellectually honest doubt.[/QUOTE]

Straight up LIE. The Japanese NEVER offered a surrender. They offered an end to hostilities. You are either lying or a fool. Even after the first bomb they never offered to surrender.

The Army ran the Government and REFUSED to surrender. Even after 2 bombs they REFUSED to surrender. The only reason they did surrender is because the Emperor intervened.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

> Document 17: Memorandum from Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew to the President, "Analysis of Memorandum Presented by Mr.  Hoover," June 13, 1945
> Source: Record Group 107, Office of the Secretary of War, Formerly Top Secret Correspondence of Secretary of War Stimson ("Safe File"), July 1940-September 1945, box 8, Japan (After December 7/41)
> 
> A former ambassador to Japan, Grews knowledge of Japanese politics and culture informed his critical stance toward the concept of unconditional surrender.  He believed it essential that the United States declare its intention to preserve the institution of the emperor.  As he argued in this memorandum to President Truman, failure on our part to clarify our intentions on the status of the emperor will insure prolongation of the war and cost a large number of human lives.  Documents like this have played a role in arguments developed by Alperovitz that Truman and his advisers had alternatives to using the bomb such as modifying unconditional surrender and that anti-Soviet considerations weighed most heavily in their thinking.  By contrast, Herbert P. Bix has argued that the Japanese leadership would probably not have surrendered if the Truman administration had clarified the status of the emperor when it demanded unconditional surrender.[15]



one document.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

> Document 18: Memorandum from Chief of Staff Marshall to the Secretary of War, 15 June 1945, enclosing "Memorandum of Comments on 'Ending the Japanese War,'" June 14, 1945
> Source: Record Group 107, Office of the Secretary of War, Formerly Top Secret Correspondence of Secretary of War Stimson ("Safe File"), July 1940-September 1945, box 8, Japan (After December 7/41)
> 
> Commenting on another memorandum by Herbert Hoover, George A. Lincoln discussed war aims, face-saving proposals for Japan, and the nature of the proposed declaration to the Japanese government, including the problem of defining unconditional surrender.  Lincoln argued against modifying the concept of unconditional surrender: if it is phrased so as to invite negotiation he saw risks of prolonging the war or a compromise peace.  J. Samuel Walker has observed that those risks help explain why senior officials were unwilling to modify the demand for unconditional surrender.[16]



Another document.


----------



## Samson

RetiredGySgt said:


> Straight up LIE. The Japanese NEVER offered a surrender. They offered an end to hostilities. You are either lying or a fool. Even after the first bomb they never offered to surrender.
> 
> The Army ran the Government and REFUSED to surrender. Even after 2 bombs they REFUSED to surrender. The only reason they did surrender is because the Emperor intervened.





They are lying _AND_ they are fools.

Half-quotes, and idiot quotes seem to be their only resouce.

meh.....[unsubscribe]....anyone who wants to continue to read these morons posts is welcome to it. They're beginning to bore me.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

> Document 28: Combined Chiefs of Staff, Estimate of the Enemy Situation (as of 6 July 1945, C.C.S 643/3, July 8, 1945, Secret (Appendices Not Included)
> Source: RG 218, Central Decimal Files, 1943-1945, CCS 381 (6-4-45), Sec. 2 Pt. 5
> 
> This review of Japanese capabilities and intentions portrays an economy and society under tremendous strain; nevertheless, the ground component of the Japanese armed forces remains Japans greatest military asset.  Alperovitz sees statements in this estimate about the impact of Soviet entry into the war and the possibility of a conditional surrender involving survival of the emperor as an institution as more evidence that the policymakers saw alternatives to nuclear weapons use.  By contrast, Richard Frank takes note of the estimates depiction of the Japanese armys terms for peace: for surrender to be acceptable to the Japanese army it would be necessary for the military leaders to believe that it would not entail discrediting the warrior tradition and that it would permit the ultimate resurgence of a military in Japan.  That, Frank argues, would have been unacceptable to any Allied policy maker.[21]



And another.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

> Document 33: "Magic"  Diplomatic Summary, War Department, Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, No. 1210  July 17, 1945, Top Secret Ultra
> Source: Record Group 457, Records of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, "Magic" Diplomatic Summaries 1942-1945, box 18.
> 
> Another intercept of a cable from Togo to Sato shows that the Foreign Minister rejected unconditional surrender and that the emperor was not asking the Russians mediation in anything like unconditional surrender.  Incidentally, this Magic Diplomatic Summary indicates the broad scope and capabilities of the program; for example, it includes translations of intercepted French messages (see pages 8-9). [Page 14 missing from original]



NO unconditional Surrender allowed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

> Document 42: Diary Entry, July 24, 1945, "Japanese Peace Feelers"
> Source: Naval Historical Center, Operational Archives, James Forrestal Diaries
> 
> Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal was a regular recipient of Magic intercept reports; this substantial entry reviews the dramatic Sato-Togo exchanges covered in the 22 July Magic summary (although Forrestal misdated Satos cable as first of July instead of the 21st).   In contrast to Alperovitzs argument that Forrestal tried to modify the terms of unconditional surrender to give the Japanese an out, Frank sees Forrestals account of the Sato-Togo exchange as additional evidence that senior U.S. officials understood that Tokyo was not on the cusp of surrender. [34]



Japan not ready to surrender.


----------



## QUENTIN

Samson said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline,
> 
> To whatever weight you give USMB-ers, I hope I can add my two cents and experience.
> 
> I was a research assistant for 15 months with the Nuclear Studies Institute , in my capacity as a researcher compiling documents, quotes, sources, etc. for peer-reviewed articles and a book, I pored over several hundred and probably thousands of official documents from the time the bomb was dropped. I think it's fair to call myself an expert on the subject and I was mentored by one of the nation's foremost scholars on the subject..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Madeline, I suggest you actually go to the sources of these claims and see what the articles REALLY say, rather than relying on half-quotes.
Click to expand...


I suggest she do that too. That's why I not only provided her with links, but with several scholarly book recommendations that are far more comprehensive, thorough, well-researched and sourced than any website would be. If she's genuinely curious about this, it's a subject I'm fascinated by and spent a significant portion of my life researching, so I'm trying to make finding the knowledge for herself as easy as possible.

Also, you'll notice I cited all of my quotes and they can be easily verified. I see that CurveLight, knowingly or not, posted a half-quote that gave an inaccurate impression, but I am not him and I have not done the same so don't attempt to smear me by association unless you have some legitimate issue with any of the accurate and contextualized quotes.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

> Document 47: "Magic"  Diplomatic Summary, War Department, Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, No. 1225  August 2, 1945, Top Secret Ultra
> Source: Record Group 457, Records of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, "Magic" Diplomatic Summaries 1942-1945, box 18.
> 
> An intercepted message from Togo to Sato showed that Tokyo remained interested in securing Moscows good office but that it is difficult to decide on concrete peace conditions here at home all at once.  [W]e are exerting ourselves to collect the views of all quarters on the matter of concrete terms.  Barton Bernstein, Richard Frank, and Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, among others, have argued that the Magic intercepts from the end of July and early August show that the Japanese were far from ready to surrender.  According to Herbert Bix, for months Hirohito had believed that the outlook for a negotiated peace could be improved if Japan fought and won one last decisive battle, thus, Hirohito delayed surrender, continuing to procrastinate until the bomb was dropped and the Soviets attacked.[38]



Again no plan to surrender.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

> Documents 55a and 55b: Early High-level Reactions to the Hiroshima Bombing
> 
> Document 55a: Cabinet Meeting and Togo's Meeting with the Emperor, August 7-8, 1945
> Source: Gaimusho (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) ed. Shusen Shiroku (The Historical Records of the End of the War), annotated by Jun Eto, volume 4, 57-60 [Excerpts] [Translation by Toshihiro Higuchi]
> 
> Document 55b: Diary Entry for Wednesday, August 8 , 1945
> Source: Takashi Itoh, ed., Sokichi Takagi: Nikki to Joho [Sokichi Takagi: Diary and Documents] (Tokyo, Japan: Misuzu-Shobo, 2000), 923-924 [Translation by Hikaru Tajima]
> Ground Zero at Hiroshima Today: This was the site of Shima Hospital; the atomic explosion occurred 1,870 feet above it (Photo courtesy of Lynn Eden, www.wholeworldonfire.com)
> 
> Excerpts from the Foreign Ministry's compilation about the end of the war show how news of the bombing reached Tokyo as well as how Foreign Minister's Togo initially reacted to reports about Hiroshima. When he learned of the atomic bombing from the Domei News Agency, Togo believed that it was time to give up and advised the cabinet that the atomic attack provided the occasion for Japan to surrender on the basis of the Potsdam Declaration. Togo could not persuade the cabinet, however, and the Army wanted to delay any decisions until it had learned what had happened to Hiroshima. When the Foreign Minister met with the Emperor, Hirohito agreed with him; he declared that the top priority was an early end to the war, although it would be acceptable to seek better surrender terms--probably U.S. acceptance of a figure-head emperor--if it did not interfere with that goal. In light of those instructions, Togo and Prime Minister Suzuki agreed that the Supreme War Council should meet the next day. [42a]
> 
> An entry from Admiral Tagaki's diary for August 8 conveys more information on the mood in elite Japanese circles after Hiroshima, but before the Soviet declaration of war and the bombing of Nagasaki. Seeing the bombing of Hiroshima as a sign of a worsening situation at home, Tagaki worried about further deterioration. Nevertheless, his diary suggests that military hard-liners were very much in charge and that Prime Minister Suzuki was talking tough against surrender, by evoking last ditch moments in Japanese history and warning of the danger that subordinate commanders might not obey surrender orders. The last remark aggravated Navy Minister Yonai who saw it as irresponsible. That the Soviets had made no responses to Sato's request for a meeting was understood as a bad sign; Yonai realized that the government had to prepare for the possibility that Moscow might not help. One of the visitors mentioned at the beginning of the entry was Iwao Yamazaki who became Minister of the Interior in the next cabinet.



Again Hardliners controlled the Government and had no intention of surrender even after the first atomic bomb. The Emperor wanted better terms before he would agree.


----------



## QUENTIN

RetiredGySgt said:


> Document 33: "Magic"  Diplomatic Summary, War Department, Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, No. 1210  July 17, 1945, Top Secret Ultra
> Source: Record Group 457, Records of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, "Magic" Diplomatic Summaries 1942-1945, box 18.
> 
> Another intercept of a cable from Togo to Sato shows that the Foreign Minister rejected unconditional surrender and that the emperor was not asking the Russians mediation in anything like unconditional surrender.  Incidentally, this Magic Diplomatic Summary indicates the broad scope and capabilities of the program; for example, it includes translations of intercepted French messages (see pages 8-9). [Page 14 missing from original]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO unconditional Surrender allowed.
Click to expand...


Do you think you're somehow disproving, or even arguing, with what I said?

They were never willing to surrender unconditionally, I made that quite clear.

They were however willing to surrender with the sole condition that the Emperor retain his throne, we refused that sole condition, dropped two atomic bombs on their cities, and then allowed the Emperor to retain his throne anyway.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

> Document 71: The Cabinet Meeting over the Reply to the Four Powers (August 13)
> Source: Gaimusho [Ministry of Foreign Affairs], ed., Shusen Shiroku [Historical Record of the End of the War] (Tokyo: Hokuyosha, 1977-1978), vol. 5, 27-35 [Translated by Toshihiro Higuchi]
> 
> The Byrnes Note did not break the stalemate at the cabinet level.  An account of the cabinet debates on August 13 prepared by Director of Information Toshiro Shimomura showed the same divisions as before with Anami and a few other ministers continuing to argue that the Allies threatened the kokutai and that setting the four conditions (no occupation, etc.) did not mean that the war would continue. Nevertheless, Anami argued, We are still left with some power to fight.  Suzuki, who was working quietly with the peace party, declared that the Allied terms were acceptable because they gave a dim hope in the dark of preserving the emperor. At the end of the meeting, he announced that he would report to Hirohito and ask him to make another Sacred Judgment.  Meanwhile, junior Army officers plotted a coup to thwart the plans for surrender.[52]



After 2 ATOMIC bombs the Army refused to surrender and planned a coup to prevent the Emperor from surrendering. This was after 2 Atomic Bombs AND the Soviet attack.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

All the preceding quotes are from a single source.  The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources which I provided earlier. None of them are the entire document but rather summaries of what they said.

The Japanese had no intention of surrendering even after 2 Atomic Bombs and the Soviets attacking them. The Army controlled the Government and refused to surrender. When the Emperor intervened the Army plotted a Coup to stop even him from surrendering.

Any claim that the Japanese would simply surrender with no Atomic bombs IGNORES the fact they REFUSED even after 2 were dropped. Quoting Generals and Admirals from Europe on their beliefs of the Japanese intent is ignorant at best.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

QUENTIN said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Document 33: "Magic"  Diplomatic Summary, War Department, Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, No. 1210  July 17, 1945, Top Secret Ultra
> Source: Record Group 457, Records of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, "Magic" Diplomatic Summaries 1942-1945, box 18.
> 
> Another intercept of a cable from Togo to Sato shows that the Foreign Minister rejected unconditional surrender and that the emperor was not asking the Russians mediation in anything like unconditional surrender.  Incidentally, this Magic Diplomatic Summary indicates the broad scope and capabilities of the program; for example, it includes translations of intercepted French messages (see pages 8-9). [Page 14 missing from original]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO unconditional Surrender allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think you're somehow disproving, or even arguing, with what I said?
> 
> They were never willing to surrender unconditionally, I made that quite clear.
> 
> They were however willing to surrender with the sole condition that the Emperor retain his throne, we refused that sole condition, dropped two atomic bombs on their cities, and then allowed the Emperor to retain his throne anyway.
Click to expand...



The Emperor only agreed to the provision of a a surrender with him in control AFTER the first bomb, NOT before. There is NO surrender agreement prior to the first atomic blast. All they offered was to cease hostilities and return to the Dec 1941 lines.

Even after the first blast the Emperor did not FORCE the Army to give up. He told them to continue to work for better terms. they offered 4 terms which were rejected.

After the second Bomb and a Soviet Invasion the Army STILL refused to surrender. It took the Emperor to intervene and even then the Army tried a Coup to stop him


----------



## RetiredGySgt

QUENTIN said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Document 33: "Magic"  Diplomatic Summary, War Department, Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, No. 1210  July 17, 1945, Top Secret Ultra
> Source: Record Group 457, Records of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, "Magic" Diplomatic Summaries 1942-1945, box 18.
> 
> Another intercept of a cable from Togo to Sato shows that the Foreign Minister rejected unconditional surrender and that the emperor was not asking the Russians mediation in anything like unconditional surrender.  Incidentally, this Magic Diplomatic Summary indicates the broad scope and capabilities of the program; for example, it includes translations of intercepted French messages (see pages 8-9). [Page 14 missing from original]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO unconditional Surrender allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think you're somehow disproving, or even arguing, with what I said?
> 
> They were never willing to surrender unconditionally, I made that quite clear.
> 
> They were however willing to surrender with the sole condition that the Emperor retain his throne, we refused that sole condition, dropped two atomic bombs on their cities, and then allowed the Emperor to retain his throne anyway.
Click to expand...


That is a lie, they demanded 4 conditions. After the second bomb and the Soviet attack the Emperor changed it to one condition. Prior to the Atomic bombs they only offered a cease fire and return to Dec 1941 borders.


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done."
> Hiroshima
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just when I thought you couldn't get more idiotic
> 
> 
> 
> You posted only HALF the quote!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



I was fully prepared for you to try and jump on that and had Leahy's quote from his book ready to use in response.  What you fail to understand is his prediction that it would not go off has absolutely nothing to do with the fact he said the bombs were not necessary.  Quentin already posted Leahy's quote so I don't need to.

So will you respond to the fact our top military leaders all agreed the bombs were not necessary or will you continue to be dishonest and claim I'm citing sources I've not cited?

Wait....aren't you the same person that had no idea of the significance the bombs had with Russia?  Do you know what else happened on August 9th, 1945?


----------



## Stainmaster

RetiredGySgt said:


> First thing. The Atomic Bombs were not ready until Summer 1945. Germany surrendered in April. We had no reason to drop said bombs on Germany.
> 
> The reality is that it took BOTH bombs to get the Emperor of Japan to over ride his Army Controlled Government and order an immediate surrender. With those bombs we would have starved Japan through the winter killing untold thousands followed by an Invasion of a Home Island which would have seen MILLIONS of dead Japanese civilians and soldiers.
> 
> Japan was teaching her civilians to arm themselves with Bamboo spears and human wave charge any invasion. The continued invasion of Japan could have seen the potential elimination of the Japanese race.
> 
> The lie that Japan was ready to surrender is revisionist history. Japan under the Army had no intention of surrender. What they "offered" through the Soviet Union was a cease fire with Japan keeping everything she still possessed and the return of Japanese home possessions like Saipan and Okinawa. Japan was offering to let us just stop attacking them. They would retain all of their Chinese, Korean and other possessions and we would return their home island captures.
> 
> Here is a link to SOURCE documents verifying that Japan was NOT offering a meaningful surrender, that even after two atomic Bombs the Army controlled government refused to surrender, that the Emperor failed to act until after the second atomic bomb and that the Army attempted a Coup to prevent the Emperor from surrendering.
> 
> The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources
> 
> The atomic bombs were necessary unless one thinks we should have just let Japan keep everything from before the war and not disarm. They SAVED millions of lives.



From everything I've read, and talking with people at my Grandpop's lodge, this is the version I believe.  I think the Truman Administration did the right thing to save American lives as terrifying as it was.


----------



## CurveLight

QUENTIN said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline,
> 
> To whatever weight you give USMB-ers, I hope I can add my two cents and experience.
> 
> I was a research assistant for 15 months with the Nuclear Studies Institute , in my capacity as a researcher compiling documents, quotes, sources, etc. for peer-reviewed articles and a book, I pored over several hundred and probably thousands of official documents from the time the bomb was dropped. I think it's fair to call myself an expert on the subject and I was mentored by one of the nation's foremost scholars on the subject..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Madeline, I suggest you actually go to the sources of these claims and see what the articles REALLY say, rather than relying on half-quotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest she do that too. That's why I not only provided her with links, but with several scholarly book recommendations that are far more comprehensive, thorough, well-researched and sourced than any website would be. If she's genuinely curious about this, it's a subject I'm fascinated by and spent a significant portion of my life researching, so I'm trying to make finding the knowledge for herself as easy as possible.
> 
> Also, you'll notice I cited all of my quotes and they can be easily verified. I see that CurveLight, knowingly or not, posted a half-quote that gave an inaccurate impression, but I am not him and I have not done the same so don't attempt to smear me by association unless you have some legitimate issue with any of the accurate and contextualized quotes.
Click to expand...


I purposefully cited half of Leahy's quote because his prediction the bombs would not detonate have no bearing on his position they were not necessary.  There was no risk of a failed detonation whether the bombs worked or not.  If they didn't go off they would have simply looked like conventional duds.  It's not like the Japanese military would have said "Look! The nukes didn't go off!"

Although any poor sucker who would have opened a dud would not exactly be radiating with joy.......


----------



## CurveLight

Stainmaster said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> First thing. The Atomic Bombs were not ready until Summer 1945. Germany surrendered in April. We had no reason to drop said bombs on Germany.
> 
> The reality is that it took BOTH bombs to get the Emperor of Japan to over ride his Army Controlled Government and order an immediate surrender. With those bombs we would have starved Japan through the winter killing untold thousands followed by an Invasion of a Home Island which would have seen MILLIONS of dead Japanese civilians and soldiers.
> 
> Japan was teaching her civilians to arm themselves with Bamboo spears and human wave charge any invasion. The continued invasion of Japan could have seen the potential elimination of the Japanese race.
> 
> The lie that Japan was ready to surrender is revisionist history. Japan under the Army had no intention of surrender. What they "offered" through the Soviet Union was a cease fire with Japan keeping everything she still possessed and the return of Japanese home possessions like Saipan and Okinawa. Japan was offering to let us just stop attacking them. They would retain all of their Chinese, Korean and other possessions and we would return their home island captures.
> 
> Here is a link to SOURCE documents verifying that Japan was NOT offering a meaningful surrender, that even after two atomic Bombs the Army controlled government refused to surrender, that the Emperor failed to act until after the second atomic bomb and that the Army attempted a Coup to prevent the Emperor from surrendering.
> 
> The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources
> 
> The atomic bombs were necessary unless one thinks we should have just let Japan keep everything from before the war and not disarm. They SAVED millions of lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From everything I've read, and talking with people at my Grandpop's lodge, this is the version I believe.  I think the Truman Administration did the right thing to save American lives as terrifying as it was.
Click to expand...


I cannot get any pro-bomb person to answer a couple of questions so maybe you can.

If we dropped the bombs to force an unconditional surrender, then why is it the US changed its surrender terms instead of Japan?

Do you realize that after the bombs were dropped it was not Japan who changed their conditions for surrender but the US?

If it was worth nuking two civilian populations to try and force an unconditional surrender then why did we give up?  The nukes didn't change Japan's terms for surrender so why didn't we invade?  Why didn't we continue firebombing,  blockades and air raids?


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO unconditional Surrender allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think you're somehow disproving, or even arguing, with what I said?
> 
> They were never willing to surrender unconditionally, I made that quite clear.
> 
> They were however willing to surrender with the sole condition that the Emperor retain his throne, we refused that sole condition, dropped two atomic bombs on their cities, and then allowed the Emperor to retain his throne anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Emperor only agreed to the provision of a a surrender with him in control AFTER the first bomb, NOT before. There is NO surrender agreement prior to the first atomic blast. All they offered was to cease hostilities and return to the Dec 1941 lines.
> 
> Even after the first blast the Emperor did not FORCE the Army to give up. He told them to continue to work for better terms. they offered 4 terms which were rejected.
> 
> After the second Bomb and a Soviet Invasion the Army STILL refused to surrender. It took the Emperor to intervene and even then the Army tried a Coup to stop him
Click to expand...



Show us in the Potsdam Declaration where the Emperor's disposition is stated upon agreement of surrender.


----------



## namvet

they wanted to surrender on their terms. what was our offical policy????


----------



## CurveLight

namvet said:


> they wanted to surrender on their terms. what was our offical policy????




We accepted a surrender based on their terms.  Not ours.


----------



## namvet

bas ackwards as usual


----------



## CurveLight

namvet said:


> bas ackwards as usual




"On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."


"On August 12, the United States announced that it would accept the Japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only."
Http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm


Japan stated the terms for a conditional surrender and the US accepted.  Your continued denial of this fundamental and indisputable fact only helps reveals the depths of your inability to reach anything close to honesty.


----------



## namvet

you just claimed they offered to surrender in Jan. change your mind now????


----------



## CurveLight

namvet said:


> you just claimed they offered to surrender in Jan. change your mind now????




You're not deflecting that easily.  Respond to the facts I posted or understand I have nothing more to say to you on this.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The atomic bomb was not dropped on Berlin because the Germans had surrendered two months before the prototype was exploded in New Mexico.

The Japanese accepted all conditions, begging only for the Emperor to remain, which the U.S. graciously (and smartly, I might add) accepted.

The decision to nuke the Japanese cities was essential for their surrender.  Two reasons: (1) the Japanese military did not want to surrender, (2) we were facing getting clobbered on the beaches and taking incredible casualties.


----------



## namvet

Light: the emperor was allowed to stay AFTER the bombs were dropped. your rants go all the way back to Jan and stating we accepted their terms mons before the bombs were dropped. now your stepping all over yourself !!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

hmmm . . . wonder what namvet is muttering down there in the hole in the ground.


----------



## namvet

wonder what Skankey has up his ass ????


----------



## JakeStarkey

namvet: mutter, mutter, bugreth shashlocks, mutter, mutter


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> The atomic bomb was not dropped on Berlin because the Germans had surrendered two months before the prototype was exploded in New Mexico.
> 
> The Japanese accepted all conditions, begging only for the Emperor to remain, which the U.S. graciously (and smartly, I might add) accepted.
> 
> The decision to nuke the Japanese cities was essential for their surrender.  Two reasons: (1) the Japanese military did not want to surrender, (2) we were facing getting clobbered on the beaches and taking incredible casualties.




You're full of shit as I just posted the fact Japan offered the terms for surrender and we accepted.

Also......

Leahy, Eisenhower, and Macarthur all stated the bombs were not necessary for a surrender.  Could you explain why we should believe you over them?


----------



## JakeStarkey

CurveLight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The atomic bomb was not dropped on Berlin because the Germans had surrendered two months before the prototype was exploded in New Mexico.
> 
> The Japanese accepted all conditions, begging only for the Emperor to remain, which the U.S. graciously (and smartly, I might add) accepted.
> 
> The decision to nuke the Japanese cities was essential for their surrender.  Two reasons: (1) the Japanese military did not want to surrender, (2) we were facing getting clobbered on the beaches and taking incredible casualties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit as I just posted the fact Japan offered the terms for surrender and we accepted.
> 
> Also......
> 
> Leahy, Eisenhower, and Macarthur all stated the bombs were not necessary for a surrender.  Could you explain why we should believe you over them?
Click to expand...


Your facts and your documentation are wrong.  Check it out for your own creditability's sake, curve.


----------



## namvet

well well Starkey is getting his ass handed to him. let me go get some popcorn


----------



## JakeStarkey

Because you have not bothered to read the declassified material from the 1945 strategic planning ops for the Japanese invasion that have been released in the last decade.  It turns out that Leahy, Eisenhower, and Macarthur were all wrong, and that Truman made the right decision.  Here: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_downfall3.html

Now did you really suggest that Japanese offered to surrender in January 1945?  Really?  Oh, my.


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> Because you have not bothered to read the declassified material from the 1945 strategic planning ops for the Japanese invasion that have been released in the last decade.  It turns out that Leahy, Eisenhower, and Macarthur were all wrong, and that Truman made the right decision.  Here: Operation Downfall 3: Allied Intelligence
> 
> Now did you really suggest that Japanese offered to surrender in January 1945?  Really?  Oh, my.



Quote the specific part that proves they were wrong.


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The atomic bomb was not dropped on Berlin because the Germans had surrendered two months before the prototype was exploded in New Mexico.
> 
> The Japanese accepted all conditions, begging only for the Emperor to remain, which the U.S. graciously (and smartly, I might add) accepted.
> 
> The decision to nuke the Japanese cities was essential for their surrender.  Two reasons: (1) the Japanese military did not want to surrender, (2) we were facing getting clobbered on the beaches and taking incredible casualties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit as I just posted the fact Japan offered the terms for surrender and we accepted.
> 
> Also......
> 
> Leahy, Eisenhower, and Macarthur all stated the bombs were not necessary for a surrender.  Could you explain why we should believe you over them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your facts and your documentation are wrong.  Check it out for your own creditability's sake, curve.
Click to expand...


What facts are wrong?  If you know then you should have stated what they were and proven them wrong.


----------



## Stainmaster

CurveLight said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> First thing. The Atomic Bombs were not ready until Summer 1945. Germany surrendered in April. We had no reason to drop said bombs on Germany.
> 
> The reality is that it took BOTH bombs to get the Emperor of Japan to over ride his Army Controlled Government and order an immediate surrender. With those bombs we would have starved Japan through the winter killing untold thousands followed by an Invasion of a Home Island which would have seen MILLIONS of dead Japanese civilians and soldiers.
> 
> Japan was teaching her civilians to arm themselves with Bamboo spears and human wave charge any invasion. The continued invasion of Japan could have seen the potential elimination of the Japanese race.
> 
> The lie that Japan was ready to surrender is revisionist history. Japan under the Army had no intention of surrender. What they "offered" through the Soviet Union was a cease fire with Japan keeping everything she still possessed and the return of Japanese home possessions like Saipan and Okinawa. Japan was offering to let us just stop attacking them. They would retain all of their Chinese, Korean and other possessions and we would return their home island captures.
> 
> Here is a link to SOURCE documents verifying that Japan was NOT offering a meaningful surrender, that even after two atomic Bombs the Army controlled government refused to surrender, that the Emperor failed to act until after the second atomic bomb and that the Army attempted a Coup to prevent the Emperor from surrendering.
> 
> The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources
> 
> The atomic bombs were necessary unless one thinks we should have just let Japan keep everything from before the war and not disarm. They SAVED millions of lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From everything I've read, and talking with people at my Grandpop's lodge, this is the version I believe.  I think the Truman Administration did the right thing to save American lives as terrifying as it was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot get any pro-bomb person to answer a couple of questions so maybe you can.
> 
> If we dropped the bombs to force an unconditional surrender, then why is it the US changed its surrender terms instead of Japan?
> 
> Do you realize that after the bombs were dropped it was not Japan who changed their conditions for surrender but the US?
> 
> If it was worth nuking two civilian populations to try and force an unconditional surrender then why did we give up?  The nukes didn't change Japan's terms for surrender so why didn't we invade?  Why didn't we continue firebombing,  blockades and air raids?
Click to expand...


I have no idea.  Invasion would have cost American lives.  If it came down, as I understand it did, to American servicepeople dying or Japanese, it is a no brainer.  Remember Pearl Harbor.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CurveLight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit as I just posted the fact Japan offered the terms for surrender and we accepted.
> 
> Also......
> 
> Leahy, Eisenhower, and Macarthur all stated the bombs were not necessary for a surrender.  Could you explain why we should believe you over them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your facts and your documentation are wrong.  Check it out for your own creditability's sake, curve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What facts are wrong?  If you know then you should have stated what they were and proven them wrong.
Click to expand...


You ignored the earlier posting, so I moved it to here.

Because you have not bothered to read the declassified material from the 1945 strategic planning ops for the Japanese invasion that have been released in the last decade. It turns out that Leahy, Eisenhower, and Macarthur were all wrong, and that Truman made the right decisiohttp://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_downfall3.htmln
. 
Now did you really suggest that Japanese offered to surrender in January 1945? Really? Oh, my.


----------



## namvet

​


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your facts and your documentation are wrong.  Check it out for your own creditability's sake, curve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What facts are wrong?  If you know then you should have stated what they were and proven them wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ignored the earlier posting, so I moved it to here.
> 
> Because you have not bothered to read the declassified material from the 1945 strategic planning ops for the Japanese invasion that have been released in the last decade. It turns out that Leahy, Eisenhower, and Macarthur were all wrong, and that Truman made the right decisiohttp://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_downfall3.htmln
> .
> Now did you really suggest that Japanese offered to surrender in January 1945? Really? Oh, my.
Click to expand...



What facts are wrong?  If you know then you should have stated what they were and proven them wrong.


----------



## CurveLight

Stainmaster said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> From everything I've read, and talking with people at my Grandpop's lodge, this is the version I believe.  I think the Truman Administration did the right thing to save American lives as terrifying as it was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot get any pro-bomb person to answer a couple of questions so maybe you can.
> 
> If we dropped the bombs to force an unconditional surrender, then why is it the US changed its surrender terms instead of Japan?
> 
> Do you realize that after the bombs were dropped it was not Japan who changed their conditions for surrender but the US?
> 
> If it was worth nuking two civilian populations to try and force an unconditional surrender then why did we give up?  The nukes didn't change Japan's terms for surrender so why didn't we invade?  Why didn't we continue firebombing,  blockades and air raids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea.  Invasion would have cost American lives.  If it came down, as I understand it did, to American servicepeople dying or Japanese, it is a no brainer.  Remember Pearl Harbor.
Click to expand...



Why didn't we nuke panama, grenada, afghanistan, iraq or somalia?  If it came down to choosing between our Troops dying or the enemy we should have nuked those places too.  Correct?

I do appreciate your honesty in saying you have no idea but do you realize a land invasion was not necessary for several reasons even if we didn't drop the nukes?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your argument is a false analogy.  Choose something more equivalent.

A land invasion may well not have succeeded.  The casualties were going to be incredible even if the Allied armies managed to consolidate beach heads, much less push inland.  The bombs were necessary.  There is no real argument about this anymore.  It's one of those flat historical facts that is indisputable.


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> Your argument is a false analogy.  Choose something more equivalent.
> 
> A land invasion may well not have succeeded.  The casualties were going to be incredible even if the Allied armies managed to consolidate beach heads, much less push inland.  The bombs were necessary.  There is no real argument about this anymore.  It's one of those flat historical facts that is indisputable.




That must be why you work so hard to avoid simple questions.  Quentin posted a boat load of facts you people won't even pretend to address.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is a false analogy.  Choose something more equivalent.
> 
> A land invasion may well not have succeeded.  The casualties were going to be incredible even if the Allied armies managed to consolidate beach heads, much less push inland.  The bombs were necessary.  There is no real argument about this anymore.  It's one of those flat historical facts that is indisputable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That must be why you work so hard to avoid simple questions.  Quentin posted a boat load of facts you people won't even pretend to address.
Click to expand...


He posted no facts. He cl;aimed as you have that Japan offered to surrender before the Atomic Bombs, that is a BALD FACED lie. All Japan offered was to cease the war and return to the 1941 start lines. And after one bomb they still demanded their terms be meet.

It took 2 bombs, a Soviet Invasion AND the DIRECT intervention of the Emperor to end the war. Even then the Army attempted a Coup.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CurveLight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is a false analogy.  Choose something more equivalent.
> 
> A land invasion may well not have succeeded.  The casualties were going to be incredible even if the Allied armies managed to consolidate beach heads, much less push inland.  The bombs were necessary.  There is no real argument about this anymore.  It's one of those flat historical facts that is indisputable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That must be why you work so hard to avoid simple questions.  Quentin posted a boat load of facts you people won't even pretend to address.
Click to expand...


If new facts invalidate the old facts, the discussion is over.


----------



## JakeStarkey

RGS: It took 2 bombs, a Soviet Invasion AND the DIRECT intervention of the Emperor to end the war. Even then the Army attempted a Coup.  //

And a very worried Strategic Planning Committee that had been from mid=June of 1945 developing serious doubts about the invasion's chances of success.


----------



## namvet

they had their chance and blew it. the Japs brought the destruction on themselves. even a beaten dog knows when to run

[youtube]LIOqL86jfg4[/youtube]


[youtube]rT0UI4-oOwE[/youtube]​


----------



## namvet

leaflets dropped after Hiroshima


----------



## JakeStarkey

namvet: mutter bugret sherlock mutter onna bun mutter mutter


----------



## namvet

Starkey: mutter bugret sherlock mutter onna bun mutter mutter gu gu ca ca


----------



## namvet

JakeStarkey said:


> RGS: It took 2 bombs, a Soviet Invasion AND the DIRECT intervention of the Emperor to end the war. Even then the Army attempted a Coup.  //
> 
> And a very worried Strategic Planning Committee that had been from mid=June of 1945 developing serious doubts about the invasion's chances of success.



Starkey: mutter bugret sherlock mutter onna bun mutter mutter gu gu ca ca


----------



## namvet

JakeStarkey said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your facts and your documentation are wrong.  Check it out for your own creditability's sake, curve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What facts are wrong?  If you know then you should have stated what they were and proven them wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ignored the earlier posting, so I moved it to here.
> 
> Because you have not bothered to read the declassified material from the 1945 strategic planning ops for the Japanese invasion that have been released in the last decade. It turns out that Leahy, Eisenhower, and Macarthur were all wrong, and that Truman made the right decisiohttp://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_downfall3.htmln
> .
> Now did you really suggest that Japanese offered to surrender in January 1945? Really? Oh, my.
Click to expand...


Starkey: mutter bugret sherlock mutter onna bun mutter mutter gu gu ca ca


----------



## namvet

JakeStarkey said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is a false analogy.  Choose something more equivalent.
> 
> A land invasion may well not have succeeded.  The casualties were going to be incredible even if the Allied armies managed to consolidate beach heads, much less push inland.  The bombs were necessary.  There is no real argument about this anymore.  It's one of those flat historical facts that is indisputable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That must be why you work so hard to avoid simple questions.  Quentin posted a boat load of facts you people won't even pretend to address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If new facts invalidate the old facts, the discussion is over.
Click to expand...


Starkey: mutter bugret sherlock mutter onna bun mutter mutter gu gu ca ca (the discussion is over)


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is a false analogy.  Choose something more equivalent.
> 
> A land invasion may well not have succeeded.  The casualties were going to be incredible even if the Allied armies managed to consolidate beach heads, much less push inland.  The bombs were necessary.  There is no real argument about this anymore.  It's one of those flat historical facts that is indisputable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That must be why you work so hard to avoid simple questions.  Quentin posted a boat load of facts you people won't even pretend to address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He posted no facts. He cl;aimed as you have that Japan offered to surrender before the Atomic Bombs, that is a BALD FACED lie. All Japan offered was to cease the war and return to the 1941 start lines. And after one bomb they still demanded their terms be meet.
> 
> It took 2 bombs, a Soviet Invasion AND the DIRECT intervention of the Emperor to end the war. Even then the Army attempted a Coup.
Click to expand...



He posted no facts?  Holy fuck.  Dishonest people like you should have to pay other posters.


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is a false analogy.  Choose something more equivalent.
> 
> A land invasion may well not have succeeded.  The casualties were going to be incredible even if the Allied armies managed to consolidate beach heads, much less push inland.  The bombs were necessary.  There is no real argument about this anymore.  It's one of those flat historical facts that is indisputable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That must be why you work so hard to avoid simple questions.  Quentin posted a boat load of facts you people won't even pretend to address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If new facts invalidate the old facts, the discussion is over.
Click to expand...



You completely ignored the question in 196.  You claimed my facts are wrong but haven't done a fuxxing thing to support that claim.  Damn namvet.....are you ever honest on this issue?


----------



## namvet

i posted the vids and docs. not good enough???? piss off


----------



## CurveLight

namvet said:


> i posted the vids and docs. not good enough???? piss off



You've already admitted you don't care if it was ethical or not.


----------



## Samson

CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done."
> Hiroshima
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just when I thought you couldn't get more idiotic
> 
> 
> 
> You posted only HALF the quote!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was fully prepared for you to try and jump on that and had Leahy's quote from his book ready to use in response.  What you fail to understand is his prediction that it would not go off has absolutely nothing to do with the fact he said the bombs were not necessary.
Click to expand...


_FAIL_



"But....But...But....what you fail to understand...."



You babbling imbecile.


----------



## namvet

CurveLight said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> i posted the vids and docs. not good enough???? piss off
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already admitted you don't care if it was ethical or not.
Click to expand...


if your capable, and i doubt it, read the ENTIRE post shit for brains


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just when I thought you couldn't get more idiotic
> 
> 
> 
> You posted only HALF the quote!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was fully prepared for you to try and jump on that and had Leahy's quote from his book ready to use in response.  What you fail to understand is his prediction that it would not go off has absolutely nothing to do with the fact he said the bombs were not necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _FAIL_
> 
> 
> 
> "But....But...But....what you fail to understand...."
> 
> 
> 
> You babbling imbecile.
Click to expand...




More proof this has to be one of the worst fucking boards on the net.  When ***** like you know you are wrong you do nothing but whine and ignore the info.


----------



## namvet

Curve, you would make an ideal representive for this countries enemies.


----------



## Samson

Now you're just a joke.




Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just when I thought you couldn't get more idiotic
> 
> 
> 
> You posted only HALF the quote!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was fully prepared for you to try and jump on that and had Leahy's quote from his book ready to use in response.  What you fail to understand is his prediction that it would not go off has absolutely nothing to do with the fact he said the bombs were not necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _FAIL_
> 
> 
> 
> "But....But...But....what you fail to understand...."
> 
> 
> 
> You babbling imbecile.
Click to expand...




Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done."*
> Hiroshima
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just when I thought you couldn't get more idiotic
> 
> 
> 
> You posted only HALF the quote!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."[/*quote]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was fully prepared for you to try and jump on that and had Leahy's quote from his book ready to use in response.  What you fail to understand is his prediction that it would not go off has absolutely nothing to do with the fact he said the bombs were not necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _FAIL_
> 
> 
> 
> "But....But...But....what you fail to understand...."
> 
> 
> 
> You babbling imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More proof this has to be one of the worst fucking boards on the net.  When ***** like you know you are wrong you do nothing but whine and ignore the info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> moron.
Click to expand...


----------



## CurveLight

namvet said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> i posted the vids and docs. not good enough???? piss off
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already admitted you don't care if it was ethical or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if your capable, and i doubt it, read the ENTIRE post shit for brains
Click to expand...


I did. It doesn't change the fact you admitted you don't care if it was ethical or not.....and that is the topic of this thread Starkey.


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> Now you're just a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was fully prepared for you to try and jump on that and had Leahy's quote from his book ready to use in response.  What you fail to understand is his prediction that it would not go off has absolutely nothing to do with the fact he said the bombs were not necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _FAIL_
> 
> 
> 
> "But....But...But....what you fail to understand...."
> 
> 
> 
> You babbling imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just when I thought you couldn't get more idiotic
> 
> 
> 
> You posted only HALF the quote!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> More proof this has to be one of the worst fucking boards on the net.  When ***** like you know you are wrong you do nothing but whine and ignore the info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rotfl!  Incriminating evidence?  So he thought they wouldn't detonate.....so what you dumbass.  It has nothing to do with the fact he point blank said they were not necessary for Japan to surrender.
> 
> Ignore that fact again you whiny bitch.
Click to expand...


----------



## CurveLight

namvet said:


> Curve, you would make an ideal representive for this countries enemies.



To Nationalistic dildos like you anyone who addresses the factual errors we have made is an enemy.


----------



## Liability

It was understood at the time that unless the Japanese surrendered, we would lose as many as a half a million to a million of our fighting men to finally defeat the Japanese Empire.  And the Japanese were not going to surrender.  The citizenry was being trained in how to fight to the last man, woman and child.

It took the atomic bomb to prove to them that it was futile.  And even the first one didn't turn the trick.

Compared to how many of OUR soldiers' lives were at stake -- not even counting the many fold MORE Japanese lives that would be lost -- the math alone underscores a tragic (but real) morality in going atomic.

A horrible, horrifying and wrenching decision by President Truman?  Absolutely.

But immoral?

Based on the quantification of human life, the decision was far more moral than the alternative.


----------



## CurveLight

Liability said:


> It was understood at the time that unless the Japanese surrendered, we would lose as many as a half a million to a million of our fighting men to finally defeat the Japanese Empire.  And the Japanese were not going to surrender.  The citizenry was being trained in how to fight to the last man, woman and child.
> 
> It took the atomic bomb to prove to them that it was futile.  And even the first one didn't turn the trick.
> 
> Compared to how many of OUR soldiers' lives were at stake -- not even counting the many fold MORE Japanese lives that would be lost -- the math alone underscores a tragic (but real) morality in going atomic.
> 
> A horrible, horrifying and wrenching decision by President Truman?  Absolutely.
> 
> But immoral?
> 
> Based on the quantification of human life, the decision was far more moral than the alternative.



This is the same exact line that's been proven wrong on several levels.

The bombs did not make Japan change its conditions for surrender.  At. All.


----------



## Liability

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was understood at the time that unless the Japanese surrendered, we would lose as many as a half a million to a million of our fighting men to finally defeat the Japanese Empire.  And the Japanese were not going to surrender.  The citizenry was being trained in how to fight to the last man, woman and child.
> 
> It took the atomic bomb to prove to them that it was futile.  And even the first one didn't turn the trick.
> 
> Compared to how many of OUR soldiers' lives were at stake -- not even counting the many fold MORE Japanese lives that would be lost -- the math alone underscores a tragic (but real) morality in going atomic.
> 
> A horrible, horrifying and wrenching decision by President Truman?  Absolutely.
> 
> But immoral?
> 
> Based on the quantification of human life, the decision was far more moral than the alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same exact line that's been proven wrong on several levels.
> 
> The bombs did not make Japan change its conditions for surrender.  At. All.
Click to expand...


The conditions of surrender were not Japan's.

They were ours.

The atomic bombs sure as hell DID make Japan acquiesce to them.

Your bogus and unsupported claim that this "line" has been "proven [sic] wrong on several levels" is bullshit.  Of course, bullshit is your sole stock in trade, so it's no surprise you'd say such dishonest shit.  At.  All.


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well CurveLight?  Is this true?  You've relied on reporting by a discredited man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the last time I respond when you rely on another poster to state my source instead of asking me directly or ignoring the fact I've pointed to the same article at least three times:
> 
> "Walter Trohan, JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY  TOKYO Chicago Tribune, August 19, 1945."
> http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...doc&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&ie=UTF-8&client=ms-rim
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The stupidity never ends for you does it?
> 
> This is what makes reading your posts worthwhile: The Entertainment Value
> 
> Anyone! Try to go to the source above and see if there's an offer of "Unconditional Surrender."
Click to expand...


I've never claimed Japan offered an "Unconditional Surrender" you lying fuck.


----------



## Samson

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done."
> Hiroshima
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just when I thought you couldn't get more idiotic
> 
> 
> 
> You posted only HALF the quote!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."[/quote]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bogus and unsupported claim that this "line" has been "proven [sic] wrong on several levels" is bullshit.  Of course, bullshit is your sole stock in trade, so it's no surprise you'd say such dishonest shit.  At.  All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, Curvey has earned the USMB
Click to expand...


----------



## CurveLight

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was understood at the time that unless the Japanese surrendered, we would lose as many as a half a million to a million of our fighting men to finally defeat the Japanese Empire.  And the Japanese were not going to surrender.  The citizenry was being trained in how to fight to the last man, woman and child.
> 
> It took the atomic bomb to prove to them that it was futile.  And even the first one didn't turn the trick.
> 
> Compared to how many of OUR soldiers' lives were at stake -- not even counting the many fold MORE Japanese lives that would be lost -- the math alone underscores a tragic (but real) morality in going atomic.
> 
> A horrible, horrifying and wrenching decision by President Truman?  Absolutely.
> 
> But immoral?
> 
> Based on the quantification of human life, the decision was far more moral than the alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same exact line that's been proven wrong on several levels.
> 
> The bombs did not make Japan change its conditions for surrender.  At. All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conditions of surrender were not Japan's.
> 
> They were ours.
> 
> The atomic bombs sure as hell DID make Japan acquiesce to them.
> 
> Your bogus and unsupported claim that this "line" has been "proven [sic] wrong on several levels" is bullshit.  Of course, bullshit is your sole stock in trade, so it's no surprise you'd say such dishonest shit.  At.  All.
Click to expand...



You're a fucking dumbass no matter what issue you try to debate and you prove it once again.  The Official US policy before the bombs was an "Unconditional Surrender."  After the bombs it was the US that gave in to Japan's terms you ignorant fuck.

"On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."


"On August 12, the United States announced that it would accept the Japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only."
Http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm

Embarrass yourself some more Snitch Bitch.


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done."
> Hiroshima
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just when I thought you couldn't get more idiotic
> 
> 
> 
> You posted only HALF the quote!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bogus and unsupported claim that this "line" has been "proven [sic] wrong on several levels" is bullshit.  Of course, bullshit is your sole stock in trade, so it's no surprise you'd say such dishonest shit.  At.  All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, Curvey has earned the USMB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You keep ignoring the fact Leahy clearly stated the bombs were not necessary for Japan to surrender.  Why? Because you aren't here to discuss anything. You're a parasite.
Click to expand...


----------



## Tech_Esq

Madeline said:


> Was it ethical to use the A-bomb on the Japanese?
> 
> If so, was it ethical to bomb both Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
> 
> And if so, why did we not use the A-bomb on Berlin?
> 
> Are these questions still relevant for use in deciding the ethics of nuclear weapons deployment today?



Was it ethical? I think we have to look at the nature of the question and why you might ask it.

The US dropped a single bomb and it killed nearly 100,000 people. So, were the numbers of dead unique in the bombing campaign over Japan? The answer is no. We killed a similar number of people in the fire bombing of Tokyo, maybe more. So, I take it that the focus is not on this type of killing weapon because of the number of killed.

Yes, there were ill effects of radiation sickness that went on for years. This was new and horrible, but I don't think the question posed implicitly included this aspect of the weapons usage. Maybe I'm wrong, is that why you ask if it's ethical? If so, I'd suggest that there are many weapons (like mines, CBUs, gas and flame weapons that have significant after effects that are similarly horrible).

I think what makes it stand out is the cognitive dissonance of killing so many with seemingly, so little effort. One plane. One bomb. 100,000 dead. In the days of the 1,000 bomber raid, that would multiply out to unimaginable numbers. But, in truth, there were never the weapons to supply that level.

I don't think the ethical question lies in the usage of an atomic bomb, but in the opening of Pandora's box. When we used it in WWII, we were the only ones that had it. We used it to prevent enormous American and Japanese casualties during the proposed American invasion of the home islands in November of 1945. Would it have killed more than 200,000 Japanese? Most certainly. So, in that the war was brought to an early termination and fewer suffered because of it, probably ethical.

Now that many have the bomb, the problem is using it will probably not result in the end, but instead a retaliation. Is it moral to use a mega-weapon when you know that it will precipitate more usage? I would say first use is almost completely off the table. In the case of needing to for national survival, that would probably be only time it would be ethical, if you believe that ethics countenances such things.


----------



## Liability

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same exact line that's been proven wrong on several levels.
> 
> The bombs did not make Japan change its conditions for surrender.  At. All.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conditions of surrender were not Japan's.
> 
> They were ours.
> 
> The atomic bombs sure as hell DID make Japan acquiesce to them.
> 
> Your bogus and unsupported claim that this "line" has been "proven [sic] wrong on several levels" is bullshit.  Of course, bullshit is your sole stock in trade, so it's no surprise you'd say such dishonest shit.  At.  All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking dumbass no matter what issue you try to debate and you prove it once again.  The Official US policy before the bombs was an "Unconditional Surrender."  After the bombs it was the US that gave in to Japan's terms you ignorant fuck.
> 
> "On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."
> 
> 
> "On August 12, the United States announced that it would accept the Japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only."
> Http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm
> 
> Embarrass yourself some more Snitch Bitch.
Click to expand...


Your puerile and always ineffective effort at _ad hominem_ has never bolstered even one of your ridiculous arguments and in this case it constitutes just another massive fail by you in your long line of massive fails.

We called for unconditional surrender and we got it the day AFTER we dropped the SECOND of the two atomic bombs.

That we chose to be even moderately magnanimous doesn't change the equation at all.  Not even a tiny little bit.

The Japanese were permitted to keep their titular head, the Emperor.  _We_ granted them that much.  But the unconditional surrender we had demanded came only when they saw clearly that we could completely destroy them.  (Ironically, the second atomic bomb was the last in our then very tiny "stockpile."  But thankfully, the enemy was in no position to realize this.)

I have not embarrassed me, you stupid PussyPuddle.  I embarrassed *you*, even if you remain too stupid and dishonest to recognize it or admit it.

Of course, as always, you embarrassed yourself, too.  You always do.


----------



## Samson

CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just when I thought you couldn't get more idiotic
> 
> 
> 
> You posted only HALF the quote!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Curvey has earned the USMB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep ignoring the fact Leahy clearly stated the bombs were not necessary for Japan to surrender.  Why? Because you aren't here to discuss anything. You're a parasite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep editing the full quote:
> 
> Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."
> 
> 
> 
> Jaysus I'm embarassed for you.
Click to expand...


----------



## CurveLight

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conditions of surrender were not Japan's.
> 
> They were ours.
> 
> The atomic bombs sure as hell DID make Japan acquiesce to them.
> 
> Your bogus and unsupported claim that this "line" has been "proven [sic] wrong on several levels" is bullshit.  Of course, bullshit is your sole stock in trade, so it's no surprise you'd say such dishonest shit.  At.  All.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking dumbass no matter what issue you try to debate and you prove it once again.  The Official US policy before the bombs was an "Unconditional Surrender."  After the bombs it was the US that gave in to Japan's terms you ignorant fuck.
> 
> "On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."
> 
> 
> "On August 12, the United States announced that it would accept the Japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only."
> Http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm
> 
> Embarrass yourself some more Snitch Bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your puerile and always ineffective effort at _ad hominem_ has never bolstered even one of your ridiculous arguments and in this case it constitutes just another massive fail by you in your long line of massive fails.
> 
> We called for unconditional surrender and we got it the day AFTER we dropped the SECOND of the two atomic bombs.
> 
> That we chose to be even moderately magnanimous doesn't change the equation at all.  Not even a tiny little bit.
> 
> The Japanese were permitted to keep their titular head, the Emperor.  _We_ granted them that much.  But the unconditional surrender we had demanded came only when they saw clearly that we could completely destroy them.  (Ironically, the second atomic bomb was the last in our then very tiny "stockpile."  But thankfully, the enemy was in no position to realize this.)
> 
> I have not embarrassed me, you stupid PussyPuddle.  I embarrassed *you*, even if you remain too stupid and dishonest to recognize it or admit it.
> 
> Of course, as always, you embarrassed yourself, too.  You always do.
Click to expand...



Snitch Bitch.  I just posted the fact Japan offered a conditional surrender and we accepted their conditional surrender which means it was not an unconditional surrender.  Keep embarrassing yourself Snitch Bitch.


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep ignoring the fact Leahy clearly stated the bombs were not necessary for Japan to surrender.  Why? Because you aren't here to discuss anything. You're a parasite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep editing the full quote:
> 
> Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."
> 
> 
> 
> Jaysus I'm embarassed for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quentin posted Leahy's position in #156 and you keep ignoring it.  Parasite.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was understood at the time that unless the Japanese surrendered, we would lose as many as a half a million to a million of our fighting men to finally defeat the Japanese Empire.  And the Japanese were not going to surrender.  The citizenry was being trained in how to fight to the last man, woman and child.
> 
> It took the atomic bomb to prove to them that it was futile.  And even the first one didn't turn the trick.
> 
> Compared to how many of OUR soldiers' lives were at stake -- not even counting the many fold MORE Japanese lives that would be lost -- the math alone underscores a tragic (but real) morality in going atomic.
> 
> A horrible, horrifying and wrenching decision by President Truman?  Absolutely.
> 
> But immoral?
> 
> Based on the quantification of human life, the decision was far more moral than the alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same exact line that's been proven wrong on several levels.
> 
> The bombs did not make Japan change its conditions for surrender.  At. All.
Click to expand...


Your argument is a fail, at all levels, CurveLight.


----------



## Tech_Esq

So, am I to take it that we've abandoned the ethics discussion on this thread for rehashing history?

Just FYI, this particular bit of history was already re-hashed on another USMB thread about 9 months ago. Maybe y'all wanna search for it and pick that argument up where it died off.


----------



## JakeStarkey

curvelight said:


> liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> curvelight said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're a fucking dumbass no matter what issue you try to debate and you prove it once again.  The official us policy before the bombs was an "unconditional surrender."  after the bombs it was the us that gave in to japan's terms you ignorant fuck.
> 
> "on august 10, 1945, japan offered to surrender to the allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."
> 
> 
> "on august 12, the united states announced that it would accept the japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only."
> Japan Surrenders, August 10-15, 1945
> 
> embarrass yourself some more snitch bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your puerile and always ineffective effort at _ad hominem_ has never bolstered even one of your ridiculous arguments and in this case it constitutes just another massive fail by you in your long line of massive fails.
> 
> we called for unconditional surrender and we got it the day after we dropped the second of the two atomic bombs.
> 
> That we chose to be even moderately magnanimous doesn't change the equation at all.  Not even a tiny little bit.
> 
> The japanese were permitted to keep their titular head, the emperor.  _we_ granted them that much.  But the unconditional surrender we had demanded came only when they saw clearly that we could completely destroy them.  (ironically, the second atomic bomb was the last in our then very tiny "stockpile."  but thankfully, the enemy was in no position to realize this.)
> 
> i have not embarrassed me, you stupid pussypuddle.  I embarrassed *you*, even if you remain too stupid and dishonest to recognize it or admit it.
> 
> Of course, as always, you embarrassed yourself, too.  You always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> snitch bitch.  I just posted the fact japan offered a conditional surrender and we accepted their conditional surrender which means it was not an unconditional surrender.  Keep embarrassing yourself snitch bitch.
Click to expand...


fail.


----------



## Samson

This is YOUR Quote:



CurveLight said:


> Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done."
> Hiroshima



That is only HALF the quote. You Manipulated it:



CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep editing the full quote:
> 
> Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."
> 
> 
> 
> Jaysus I'm embarassed for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quentin posted Leahy's position in #156 and you keep ignoring it.  Parasite.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> curvelight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> your puerile and always ineffective effort at _ad hominem_ has never bolstered even one of your ridiculous arguments and in this case it constitutes just another massive fail by you in your long line of massive fails.
> 
> we called for unconditional surrender and we got it the day after we dropped the second of the two atomic bombs.
> 
> That we chose to be even moderately magnanimous doesn't change the equation at all.  Not even a tiny little bit.
> 
> The japanese were permitted to keep their titular head, the emperor.  _we_ granted them that much.  But the unconditional surrender we had demanded came only when they saw clearly that we could completely destroy them.  (ironically, the second atomic bomb was the last in our then very tiny "stockpile."  but thankfully, the enemy was in no position to realize this.)
> 
> i have not embarrassed me, you stupid pussypuddle.  I embarrassed *you*, even if you remain too stupid and dishonest to recognize it or admit it.
> 
> Of course, as always, you embarrassed yourself, too.  You always do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snitch bitch.  I just posted the fact japan offered a conditional surrender and we accepted their conditional surrender which means it was not an unconditional surrender.  Keep embarrassing yourself snitch bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fail.
Click to expand...



Whatever you say namvet.


----------



## Liability

PussyPuddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MenstrualMess said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking dumbass no matter what issue you try to debate and you prove it once again.  The Official US policy before the bombs was an "Unconditional Surrender."  After the bombs it was the US that gave in to Japan's terms you ignorant fuck.
> 
> "On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."
> 
> 
> "On August 12, the United States announced that it would accept the Japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only."
> Http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm
> 
> Embarrass yourself some more Snitch Bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your puerile and always ineffective effort at _ad hominem_ has never bolstered even one of your ridiculous arguments and in this case it constitutes just another massive fail by you in your long line of massive fails.
> 
> We called for unconditional surrender and we got it the day AFTER we dropped the SECOND of the two atomic bombs.
> 
> That we chose to be even moderately magnanimous doesn't change the equation at all.  Not even a tiny little bit.
> 
> The Japanese were permitted to keep their titular head, the Emperor.  _We_ granted them that much.  But the unconditional surrender we had demanded came only when they saw clearly that we could completely destroy them.  (Ironically, the second atomic bomb was the last in our then very tiny "stockpile."  But thankfully, the enemy was in no position to realize this.)
> 
> I have not embarrassed me, you stupid PussyPuddle.  I embarrassed *you*, even if you remain too stupid and dishonest to recognize it or admit it.
> 
> Of course, as always, you embarrassed yourself, too.  You always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Snitch Bitch.  I just posted the fact Japan offered a conditional surrender and we accepted their conditional surrender which means it was not an unconditional surrender.  Keep embarrassing yourself Snitch Bitch.
Click to expand...


PussyPuddle:

You are not permitted to re-write history, pussy drippings.

We demanded AND GOT an unconditional surrender.

We elected (for reasons of our own) to allow Japan to keep it's titular head.

That's the fact, jackass.  It doesn't convert the unconditional surrender into anything else.  Sorry.  

End of story.

All your pathetic attempts to contort it or twist it and lie your absurd ass off about it will never change it.

I realize you are far too much of a gutless pussy to ever admit that you are wrong (well, in fairness, you _did_ have to concede one time that you were wrong) but that doesn't change rality here:  you remain wrong, MenstrualMess.

Now, of course, you being the abjectly and always dishonest lying cowardly pussy that you are will deny the plain words of the text, but the Instrument of Surrender signed by Japan ending WWII is really quite clear:  


> We, acting by command of and on behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.
> 
> *We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese Armed Forces and all Armed Forces under Japanese control wherever situated.*
> 
> * * * *


 Japanese Instrument of Surrender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was difficult for the Japanese to grant UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER to the Allies.  It appears to be even harder for you to admit an historical fact.


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> This is YOUR Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done."
> Hiroshima
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is only HALF the quote. You Manipulated it:
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quentin posted Leahy's position in #156 and you keep ignoring it.  Parasite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The sentences are mutually exclusive you dumbfuck.  He was against them whether they detonated or not.
Click to expand...


----------



## CurveLight

Liability said:


> PussyPuddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your puerile and always ineffective effort at _ad hominem_ has never bolstered even one of your ridiculous arguments and in this case it constitutes just another massive fail by you in your long line of massive fails.
> 
> We called for unconditional surrender and we got it the day AFTER we dropped the SECOND of the two atomic bombs.
> 
> That we chose to be even moderately magnanimous doesn't change the equation at all.  Not even a tiny little bit.
> 
> The Japanese were permitted to keep their titular head, the Emperor.  _We_ granted them that much.  But the unconditional surrender we had demanded came only when they saw clearly that we could completely destroy them.  (Ironically, the second atomic bomb was the last in our then very tiny "stockpile."  But thankfully, the enemy was in no position to realize this.)
> 
> I have not embarrassed me, you stupid PussyPuddle.  I embarrassed *you*, even if you remain too stupid and dishonest to recognize it or admit it.
> 
> Of course, as always, you embarrassed yourself, too.  You always do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snitch Bitch.  I just posted the fact Japan offered a conditional surrender and we accepted their conditional surrender which means it was not an unconditional surrender.  Keep embarrassing yourself Snitch Bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PussyPuddle:
> 
> You are not permitted to re-write history, pussy drippings.
> 
> We demanded AND GOT an unconditional surrender.
> 
> We elected (for reasons of our own) to allow Japan to keep it's titular head.
> 
> That's the fact, jackass.  It doesn't convert the unconditional surrender into anything else.  Sorry.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> All your pathetic attempts to contort it or twist it and lie your absurd ass off about it will never change it.
> 
> I realize you are far too much of a gutless pussy to ever admit that you are wrong (well, in fairness, you _did_ have to concede one time that you were wrong) but that doesn't change rality here:  you remain wrong, MenstrualMess.
> 
> Now, of course, you being the abjectly and always dishonest lying cowardly pussy that you are will deny the plain words of the text, but the Instrument of Surrender signed by Japan ending WWII is really quite clear:
> 
> 
> 
> We, acting by command of and on behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.
> 
> *We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese Armed Forces and all Armed Forces under Japanese control wherever situated.*
> 
> * * * *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japanese Instrument of Surrender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It was difficult for the Japanese to grant UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER to the Allies.  It appears to be even harder for you to admit an historical fact.
Click to expand...



I've already posted the fact Japan offered a conditional surrender we accepted Snitch Bitch.  When I said "keep embarrassing yourself" I didn't mean for you to make it your only mission in life.


----------



## Liability

MenstrualMess said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PussyPuddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Snitch Bitch.  I just posted the fact Japan offered a conditional surrender and we accepted their conditional surrender which means it was not an unconditional surrender.  Keep embarrassing yourself Snitch Bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PussyPuddle:
> 
> You are not permitted to re-write history, pussy drippings.
> 
> We demanded AND GOT an unconditional surrender.
> 
> We elected (for reasons of our own) to allow Japan to keep it's titular head.
> 
> That's the fact, jackass.  It doesn't convert the unconditional surrender into anything else.  Sorry.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> All your pathetic attempts to contort it or twist it and lie your absurd ass off about it will never change it.
> 
> I realize you are far too much of a gutless pussy to ever admit that you are wrong (well, in fairness, you _did_ have to concede one time that you were wrong) but that doesn't change rality here:  you remain wrong, MenstrualMess.
> 
> Now, of course, you being the abjectly and always dishonest lying cowardly pussy that you are will deny the plain words of the text, but the Instrument of Surrender signed by Japan ending WWII is really quite clear:
> 
> 
> 
> We, acting by command of and on behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.
> 
> *We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese Armed Forces and all Armed Forces under Japanese control wherever situated.*
> 
> * * * *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japanese Instrument of Surrender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It was difficult for the Japanese to grant UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER to the Allies.  It appears to be even harder for you to admit an historical fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted the fact Japan offered a conditional surrender we accepted * * * *  When I said "keep embarrassing yourself" I didn't mean for you to make it your only mission in life.
Click to expand...


Of course I can't "keep" doing that since I haven't ever started.  That's just you lying again.  Ho hum. 

I have, however, completely exposed and humiliated you; but you are such a lying PussyPuddle that you are not even aware of how humiliated you should feel at this point.

Japan did not "offer" the surrender, either, you retarded asshole-licker.  We offered it and _they_ were obliged to accept it.  You cannot get anything straight.


----------



## Samson

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PussyPuddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Snitch Bitch.  I just posted the fact Japan offered a conditional surrender and we accepted their conditional surrender which means it was not an unconditional surrender.  Keep embarrassing yourself Snitch Bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PussyPuddle:
> 
> You are not permitted to re-write history, pussy drippings.
> 
> We demanded AND GOT an unconditional surrender.
> 
> We elected (for reasons of our own) to allow Japan to keep it's titular head.
> 
> That's the fact, jackass.  It doesn't convert the unconditional surrender into anything else.  Sorry.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> All your pathetic attempts to contort it or twist it and lie your absurd ass off about it will never change it.
> 
> I realize you are far too much of a gutless pussy to ever admit that you are wrong (well, in fairness, you _did_ have to concede one time that you were wrong) but that doesn't change rality here:  you remain wrong, MenstrualMess.
> 
> Now, of course, you being the abjectly and always dishonest lying cowardly pussy that you are will deny the plain words of the text, but the Instrument of Surrender signed by Japan ending WWII is really quite clear:
> 
> 
> 
> We, acting by command of and on behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.
> 
> *We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese Armed Forces and all Armed Forces under Japanese control wherever situated.*
> 
> * * * *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japanese Instrument of Surrender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It was difficult for the Japanese to grant UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER to the Allies.  It appears to be even harder for you to admit an historical fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted the fact Japan offered a conditional surrender we accepted Snitch Bitch.  When I said "keep embarrassing yourself" I didn't mean for you to make it your only mission in life.
Click to expand...


Poor Demented Curvey.


----------



## CurveLight

Liability said:


> MenstrualMess said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> PussyPuddle:
> 
> You are not permitted to re-write history, pussy drippings.
> 
> We demanded AND GOT an unconditional surrender.
> 
> We elected (for reasons of our own) to allow Japan to keep it's titular head.
> 
> That's the fact, jackass.  It doesn't convert the unconditional surrender into anything else.  Sorry.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> All your pathetic attempts to contort it or twist it and lie your absurd ass off about it will never change it.
> 
> I realize you are far too much of a gutless pussy to ever admit that you are wrong (well, in fairness, you _did_ have to concede one time that you were wrong) but that doesn't change rality here:  you remain wrong, MenstrualMess.
> 
> Now, of course, you being the abjectly and always dishonest lying cowardly pussy that you are will deny the plain words of the text, but the Instrument of Surrender signed by Japan ending WWII is really quite clear:
> Japanese Instrument of Surrender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It was difficult for the Japanese to grant UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER to the Allies.  It appears to be even harder for you to admit an historical fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted the fact Japan offered a conditional surrender we accepted * * * *  When I said "keep embarrassing yourself" I didn't mean for you to make it your only mission in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I can't "keep" doing that since I haven't ever started.  That's just you lying again.  Ho hum.
> 
> I have, however, completely exposed and humiliated you; but you are such a lying PussyPuddle that you are not even aware of how humiliated you should feel at this point.
> 
> Japan did not "offer" the surrender, either, you retarded asshole-licker.  We offered it and _they_ were obliged to accept it.  You cannot get anything straight.
Click to expand...



Keep ignoring it Snitch Bitch.....



"On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."


"On August 12, the United States announced that it would accept the Japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only."
Http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm


----------



## Liability

PussyPuddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MenstrualMess said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted the fact Japan offered a conditional surrender we accepted * * * *  When I said "keep embarrassing yourself" I didn't mean for you to make it your only mission in life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I can't "keep" doing that since I haven't ever started.  That's just you lying again.  Ho hum.
> 
> I have, however, completely exposed and humiliated you; but you are such a lying PussyPuddle that you are not even aware of how humiliated you should feel at this point.
> 
> Japan did not "offer" the surrender, either, you retarded asshole-licker.  We offered it and _they_ were obliged to accept it.  You cannot get anything straight.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keep ignoring it * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> "On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."
> 
> 
> "On August 12, the United States announced that it would accept the Japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only."
> Http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm
Click to expand...


I will continue to ignore your bullshit dishonest spin as long as you continue to ignore the historical reality.

Japan SIGNED the *Un*conditional surrender, PussyPuddle.

Need to read it again?  



> We hereby proclaim *the unconditional surrender* to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese Armed Forces and all Armed Forces under Japanese control wherever situated.



End of story.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MenstrualMess said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted the fact Japan offered a conditional surrender we accepted * * * *  When I said "keep embarrassing yourself" I didn't mean for you to make it your only mission in life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I can't "keep" doing that since I haven't ever started.  That's just you lying again.  Ho hum.
> 
> I have, however, completely exposed and humiliated you; but you are such a lying PussyPuddle that you are not even aware of how humiliated you should feel at this point.
> 
> Japan did not "offer" the surrender, either, you retarded asshole-licker.  We offered it and _they_ were obliged to accept it.  You cannot get anything straight.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keep ignoring it Snitch Bitch.....
> 
> 
> 
> "On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."
> 
> 
> "On August 12, the United States announced that it would accept the Japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only."
> Http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm
Click to expand...


Your definitions and your interpretation, CurveLight, are wrong: period.


----------



## peach174

To Madeline who asked when gov. took over the school system;
I was referring to the Dept. of Education signed into law by Pres. Jimmy Carter in 1979. Before the Dept. was created we were # 3 in the top ten list  ever since then we have been going downhill. Now we are in the 40's. Point is the children are not being educated they are being taught to be good little dems. but hasnt worked out for them very well has it?


----------



## JakeStarkey

peach174 said:


> To Madeline who asked when gov. took over the school system;
> I was referring to the Dept. of Education signed into law by Pres. Jimmy Carter in 1979. Before the Dept. was created we were # 3 in the top ten list  ever since then we have been going downhill. Now we are in the 40's. Point is the children are not being educated they are being taught to be good little dems. but hasnt worked out for them very well has it?



Worked very well from 1992 to 2000, and again in 2006, 2008, and will in 2010.  peach, the little ones are taught be good little dems or good little pubs in the particular towns where they live.  Both sides do it, both sides are wrong, but the parents in the communities, support the indoctrination by the side they support, so none of it will change.


----------



## namvet

JakeStarkey says, "mutter, spiffle, bugrnth spamwich, mutter, mutter, saw him he loot headquarters, "spiffle, bugrnth hamwich."


----------



## JakeStarkey

Namvet: "mutter, sparky, bugrth eat turtles, harky, mutter, mutter, mutterh, oh no, mutter, mutter."


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I can't "keep" doing that since I haven't ever started.  That's just you lying again.  Ho hum.
> 
> I have, however, completely exposed and humiliated you; but you are such a lying PussyPuddle that you are not even aware of how humiliated you should feel at this point.
> 
> Japan did not "offer" the surrender, either, you retarded asshole-licker.  We offered it and _they_ were obliged to accept it.  You cannot get anything straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep ignoring it Snitch Bitch.....
> 
> 
> 
> "On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."
> 
> 
> "On August 12, the United States announced that it would accept the Japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only."
> Http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your definitions and your interpretation, CurveLight, are wrong: period.
Click to expand...


.
There isn't a whole lot of room for interpretation in the above facts.  Japan made an offer of surrender under one condition and we accepted that offer.


----------



## Liability

CurveLight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep ignoring it Snitch Bitch.....
> 
> 
> 
> "On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."
> 
> 
> "On August 12, the United States announced that it would accept the Japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only."
> Http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your definitions and your interpretation, CurveLight, are wrong: period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> There isn't a whole lot of room for interpretation in the above facts.  Japan made an offer of surrender under one condition and we accepted that offer.
Click to expand...



Wrong, PussyPuddle.  We dictated to the Japanese the terms of surrender -- and it was *un*conditional -- and the Japanese were obliged to accept it.  And they did.  The document of surrender they signed (as I have quoted twice already) acknowledges FROM the Japanese what you (for your own bizarre reasons) are unable to admit.  

There is no room for interpretation nor is there any valid room for your ceaseless dishonesty.

The Japanese didn't offer anything that was accepted.  WE made the offer.  They accepted.  The terms were UNCONDITIONAL surrender.

And that's the way it was.  Your spin is just you being the liar you so often are.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CurveLight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep ignoring it Snitch Bitch.....
> 
> 
> 
> "On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."
> 
> 
> "On August 12, the United States announced that it would accept the Japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only."
> Http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your definitions and your interpretation, CurveLight, are wrong: period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> There isn't a whole lot of room for interpretation in the above facts.  Japan made an offer of surrender under one condition and we accepted that offer.
Click to expand...


Your interpretation is not conditional surrender.  No historian of any merit accepts such a loony concept.  I understand you believe it.  I believe you believe it.  But you are wrong, and history will continue to be written in a way you don't like.  Don't let it upset you.


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your definitions and your interpretation, CurveLight, are wrong: period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> There isn't a whole lot of room for interpretation in the above facts.  Japan made an offer of surrender under one condition and we accepted that offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your interpretation is not conditional surrender.  No historian of any merit accepts such a loony concept.  I understand you believe it.  I believe you believe it.  But you are wrong, and history will continue to be written in a way you don't like.  Don't let it upset you.
Click to expand...



When you address the facts I've quoted and linked then you'll have responded.  Until then you are doing nothing.


----------



## Liability

PussyPuddle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MenstrualMess said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> There isn't a whole lot of room for interpretation in the above facts.  Japan made an offer of surrender under one condition and we accepted that offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your interpretation is not conditional surrender.  No historian of any merit accepts such a loony concept.  I understand you believe it.  I believe you believe it.  But you are wrong, and history will continue to be written in a way you don't like.  Don't let it upset you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you address the facts I've quoted and linked then you'll have responded.  Until then you are doing nothing.
Click to expand...


Kinda pathetic.

PussyPuddle, _bent tight_, MenstrualMess is unable to post honestly.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was understood at the time that unless the Japanese surrendered, we would lose as many as a half a million to a million of our fighting men to finally defeat the Japanese Empire.  And the Japanese were not going to surrender.  The citizenry was being trained in how to fight to the last man, woman and child.
> 
> It took the atomic bomb to prove to them that it was futile.  And even the first one didn't turn the trick.
> 
> Compared to how many of OUR soldiers' lives were at stake -- not even counting the many fold MORE Japanese lives that would be lost -- the math alone underscores a tragic (but real) morality in going atomic.
> 
> A horrible, horrifying and wrenching decision by President Truman?  Absolutely.
> 
> But immoral?
> 
> Based on the quantification of human life, the decision was far more moral than the alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same exact line that's been proven wrong on several levels.
> 
> The bombs did not make Japan change its conditions for surrender.  At. All.
Click to expand...


Straight up LIE. Before the bombs Japan wanted us to agree to a cease fire and a return to our 1941 start lines. They wanted no foreign presence in Japan , no Change of Government and no change of the Military. After the first bomb they still tried to make demands they want 4 things only one of which was the Emperor. After 2 bombs and a Soviet declaration of War they agreed to surrender and WE agreed to let them keep their Emperor as a FIGURE head only. The final surrender was UNCONDITIONAL. As evidenced by the Documents the Japanese signed.

You have yet to provide us with all the supposed surrender attempts by Japan in 1945. You keep making the claim but provide absolutely no evidence of such.


----------



## Kalam

Targeting civilians or civilian population centers is always unethical; using weapons of mass destruction makes the situation unimaginably worse from a moral standpoint. By 1945, Japan's military had been crippled to the point of ineffectiveness. A bombing campaign against strategic military and industrial targets could have been carried out with minimal casualties among the US military as well as among Japan's civilian population.


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was understood at the time that unless the Japanese surrendered, we would lose as many as a half a million to a million of our fighting men to finally defeat the Japanese Empire.  And the Japanese were not going to surrender.  The citizenry was being trained in how to fight to the last man, woman and child.
> 
> It took the atomic bomb to prove to them that it was futile.  And even the first one didn't turn the trick.
> 
> Compared to how many of OUR soldiers' lives were at stake -- not even counting the many fold MORE Japanese lives that would be lost -- the math alone underscores a tragic (but real) morality in going atomic.
> 
> A horrible, horrifying and wrenching decision by President Truman?  Absolutely.
> 
> But immoral?
> 
> Based on the quantification of human life, the decision was far more moral than the alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same exact line that's been proven wrong on several levels.
> 
> The bombs did not make Japan change its conditions for surrender.  At. All.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Straight up LIE. Before the bombs Japan wanted us to agree to a cease fire and a return to our 1941 start lines. They wanted no foreign presence in Japan , no Change of Government and no change of the Military. After the first bomb they still tried to make demands they want 4 things only one of which was the Emperor. After 2 bombs and a Soviet declaration of War they agreed to surrender and WE agreed to let them keep their Emperor as a FIGURE head only. The final surrender was UNCONDITIONAL. As evidenced by the Documents the Japanese signed.
> 
> You have yet to provide us with all the supposed surrender attempts by Japan in 1945. You keep making the claim but provide absolutely no evidence of such.
Click to expand...



There is nothing that can be posted that you would pay attention to unless it appeared to re-affirm your pre-maturely developed position.  I've already posted evidence that you flat out ignore but demand more......


----------



## CurveLight

Kalam said:


> Targeting civilians or civilian population centers is always unethical; using weapons of mass destruction makes the situation unimaginably worse from a moral standpoint. By 1945, Japan's military had been crippled to the point of ineffectiveness. A bombing campaign against strategic military and industrial targets could have been carried out with minimal casualties among the US military as well as among Japan's civilian population.



One of the reasons the sites were chosen was based on creating an atomic barometer.  They needed to drop the bombs in places that were very much in tact to measure the damage and fall out.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kalam said:


> Targeting civilians or civilian population centers is always unethical; using weapons of mass destruction makes the situation unimaginably worse from a moral standpoint. By 1945, Japan's military had been crippled to the point of ineffectiveness. A bombing campaign against strategic military and industrial targets could have been carried out with minimal casualties among the US military as well as among Japan's civilian population.



That is exactly what happened: two atomic bombs and the Soviet invasion ended the war with very little casualties to Americans.  No atomic bombs, no surrender.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same exact line that's been proven wrong on several levels.
> 
> The bombs did not make Japan change its conditions for surrender.  At. All.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straight up LIE. Before the bombs Japan wanted us to agree to a cease fire and a return to our 1941 start lines. They wanted no foreign presence in Japan , no Change of Government and no change of the Military. After the first bomb they still tried to make demands they want 4 things only one of which was the Emperor. After 2 bombs and a Soviet declaration of War they agreed to surrender and WE agreed to let them keep their Emperor as a FIGURE head only. The final surrender was UNCONDITIONAL. As evidenced by the Documents the Japanese signed.
> 
> You have yet to provide us with all the supposed surrender attempts by Japan in 1945. You keep making the claim but provide absolutely no evidence of such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing that can be posted that you would pay attention to unless it appeared to re-affirm your pre-maturely developed position.  I've already posted evidence that you flat out ignore but demand more......
Click to expand...


You are now engaged in the immorality of stubbornness.  Your assertion has flatly been disproved.  You can't admit it, which says very poorly about your character.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same exact line that's been proven wrong on several levels.
> 
> The bombs did not make Japan change its conditions for surrender.  At. All.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straight up LIE. Before the bombs Japan wanted us to agree to a cease fire and a return to our 1941 start lines. They wanted no foreign presence in Japan , no Change of Government and no change of the Military. After the first bomb they still tried to make demands they want 4 things only one of which was the Emperor. After 2 bombs and a Soviet declaration of War they agreed to surrender and WE agreed to let them keep their Emperor as a FIGURE head only. The final surrender was UNCONDITIONAL. As evidenced by the Documents the Japanese signed.
> 
> You have yet to provide us with all the supposed surrender attempts by Japan in 1945. You keep making the claim but provide absolutely no evidence of such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing that can be posted that you would pay attention to unless it appeared to re-affirm your pre-maturely developed position.  I've already posted evidence that you flat out ignore but demand more......
Click to expand...


You have made a claim, that Japan offered to Surrender in 1945 NUMEROUS times before either bomb was dropped. PROVE it. The ONLY offer they ever made was through the Soviets and that was not a surrender it was a cease fire with a pullback to the 1941 Line for all sides. And according to this offer nothing else would be done to the Japanese.

After the first bomb was dropped they made an offer with 4 demands. We rejected it. After the second bomb and the Soviet Declaration of War and Invasion Japan's Emperor ordered an immediate surrender with no Conditions. The Allies accepted and changed the term to keeping the Emperor as a FIGURE head. Japan surrendered unconditionally.


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straight up LIE. Before the bombs Japan wanted us to agree to a cease fire and a return to our 1941 start lines. They wanted no foreign presence in Japan , no Change of Government and no change of the Military. After the first bomb they still tried to make demands they want 4 things only one of which was the Emperor. After 2 bombs and a Soviet declaration of War they agreed to surrender and WE agreed to let them keep their Emperor as a FIGURE head only. The final surrender was UNCONDITIONAL. As evidenced by the Documents the Japanese signed.
> 
> You have yet to provide us with all the supposed surrender attempts by Japan in 1945. You keep making the claim but provide absolutely no evidence of such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing that can be posted that you would pay attention to unless it appeared to re-affirm your pre-maturely developed position.  I've already posted evidence that you flat out ignore but demand more......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have made a claim, that Japan offered to Surrender in 1945 NUMEROUS times before either bomb was dropped. PROVE it. The ONLY offer they ever made was through the Soviets and that was not a surrender it was a cease fire with a pullback to the 1941 Line for all sides. And according to this offer nothing else would be done to the Japanese.
> 
> After the first bomb was dropped they made an offer with 4 demands. We rejected it. After the second bomb and the Soviet Declaration of War and Invasion Japan's Emperor ordered an immediate surrender with no Conditions. The Allies accepted and changed the term to keeping the Emperor as a FIGURE head. Japan surrendered unconditionally.
Click to expand...


This is rock solid proof you ignore facts you don't like because I've linked a government website showing japan offered a conditional surrender but you continue to ignore it.....like your twin Starkey.


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straight up LIE. Before the bombs Japan wanted us to agree to a cease fire and a return to our 1941 start lines. They wanted no foreign presence in Japan , no Change of Government and no change of the Military. After the first bomb they still tried to make demands they want 4 things only one of which was the Emperor. After 2 bombs and a Soviet declaration of War they agreed to surrender and WE agreed to let them keep their Emperor as a FIGURE head only. The final surrender was UNCONDITIONAL. As evidenced by the Documents the Japanese signed.
> 
> You have yet to provide us with all the supposed surrender attempts by Japan in 1945. You keep making the claim but provide absolutely no evidence of such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing that can be posted that you would pay attention to unless it appeared to re-affirm your pre-maturely developed position.  I've already posted evidence that you flat out ignore but demand more......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are now engaged in the immorality of stubbornness.  Your assertion has flatly been disproved.  You can't admit it, which says very poorly about your character.
Click to expand...


Flatly disproved?  Lol....you have ignored the government link I posted showing Japan's offer of a surrender on one condition and we accepted.  But you keep on ignoring that..........hell.....you don't even attempt to support your claims like saying all the top military leaders were wrong for saying the bomb was not necessary.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing that can be posted that you would pay attention to unless it appeared to re-affirm your pre-maturely developed position.  I've already posted evidence that you flat out ignore but demand more......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have made a claim, that Japan offered to Surrender in 1945 NUMEROUS times before either bomb was dropped. PROVE it. The ONLY offer they ever made was through the Soviets and that was not a surrender it was a cease fire with a pullback to the 1941 Line for all sides. And according to this offer nothing else would be done to the Japanese.
> 
> After the first bomb was dropped they made an offer with 4 demands. We rejected it. After the second bomb and the Soviet Declaration of War and Invasion Japan's Emperor ordered an immediate surrender with no Conditions. The Allies accepted and changed the term to keeping the Emperor as a FIGURE head. Japan surrendered unconditionally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is rock solid proof you ignore facts you don't like because I've linked a government website showing japan offered a conditional surrender but you continue to ignore it.....like your twin Starkey.
Click to expand...


Your website misinterprets the facts, thus the conclusion is wrong.

You would fail any paper you had to turn in on this subject with that interpretation.  The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that you are intellectually anoxeric, refusing to ingest all the evidence.  This is not being persuasive, but demagogic on your part.

Curve, the rest of America is not out of step, you are.


----------



## Samson

JakeStarkey said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straight up LIE. Before the bombs Japan wanted us to agree to a cease fire and a return to our 1941 start lines. They wanted no foreign presence in Japan , no Change of Government and no change of the Military. After the first bomb they still tried to make demands they want 4 things only one of which was the Emperor. After 2 bombs and a Soviet declaration of War they agreed to surrender and WE agreed to let them keep their Emperor as a FIGURE head only. The final surrender was UNCONDITIONAL. As evidenced by the Documents the Japanese signed.
> 
> You have yet to provide us with all the supposed surrender attempts by Japan in 1945. You keep making the claim but provide absolutely no evidence of such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing that can be posted that you would pay attention to unless it appeared to re-affirm your pre-maturely developed position.  I've already posted evidence that you flat out ignore but demand more......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are now engaged in the immorality of stubbornness.  Your assertion has flatly been disproved.  You can't admit it, which says very poorly about your character.
Click to expand...



He cannot admit it, which only makes him pitiful.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing that can be posted that you would pay attention to unless it appeared to re-affirm your pre-maturely developed position.  I've already posted evidence that you flat out ignore but demand more......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have made a claim, that Japan offered to Surrender in 1945 NUMEROUS times before either bomb was dropped. PROVE it. The ONLY offer they ever made was through the Soviets and that was not a surrender it was a cease fire with a pullback to the 1941 Line for all sides. And according to this offer nothing else would be done to the Japanese.
> 
> After the first bomb was dropped they made an offer with 4 demands. We rejected it. After the second bomb and the Soviet Declaration of War and Invasion Japan's Emperor ordered an immediate surrender with no Conditions. The Allies accepted and changed the term to keeping the Emperor as a FIGURE head. Japan surrendered unconditionally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is rock solid proof you ignore facts you don't like because I've linked a government website showing japan offered a conditional surrender but you continue to ignore it.....like your twin Starkey.
Click to expand...


You are a LIAR. I provided the minutes from the Japanese Government, I provided the Magic intercepts, they made a surrender offer ONLY after the first bomb. YOU have claimed they made numerous requests including JUST keeping the Emperor. PROVE your claim.


----------



## Liability

Samson said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing that can be posted that you would pay attention to unless it appeared to re-affirm your pre-maturely developed position.  I've already posted evidence that you flat out ignore but demand more......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are now engaged in the immorality of stubbornness.  Your assertion has flatly been disproved.  You can't admit it, which says very poorly about your character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He cannot admit it, which only makes him pitiful.
Click to expand...


True.  But like a bad dog which has shit on your rug, he CAN have his nose rubbed in it:



> We, acting by command of and on behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.
> 
> *We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese Armed Forces and all Armed Forces under Japanese control wherever situated.*
> 
> * * * *


 Japanese Instrument of Surrender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bad PussyPuddle.  Bad bitch.


----------



## namvet

VJ day Honolulu. I don't think dead Japs were on their minds

[youtube]ZqNbB5-XxK8[/youtube]



> 65 Years Ago my Dad shot this film along Kalakaua Ave. in Waikiki capturing spontaneous celebrations that broke out upon first hearing news of the Japanese surrender. Kodachrome 16mm film: God Bless Kodachrome, right? I was able to find an outfit to do a much superior scan of this footage to what I had previously posted, so I re-did this film and replaced the older version There are still images from this amazing day, in color, at discoveringhawaii.com


----------



## JakeStarkey

Just remember that it takes a village so that conloons like Curve don't ran amuck across the countryside being chased by people with pitchforks and torches.

What yo-yos they are.


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have made a claim, that Japan offered to Surrender in 1945 NUMEROUS times before either bomb was dropped. PROVE it. The ONLY offer they ever made was through the Soviets and that was not a surrender it was a cease fire with a pullback to the 1941 Line for all sides. And according to this offer nothing else would be done to the Japanese.
> 
> After the first bomb was dropped they made an offer with 4 demands. We rejected it. After the second bomb and the Soviet Declaration of War and Invasion Japan's Emperor ordered an immediate surrender with no Conditions. The Allies accepted and changed the term to keeping the Emperor as a FIGURE head. Japan surrendered unconditionally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is rock solid proof you ignore facts you don't like because I've linked a government website showing japan offered a conditional surrender but you continue to ignore it.....like your twin Starkey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your website misinterprets the facts, thus the conclusion is wrong.
> 
> You would fail any paper you had to turn in on this subject with that interpretation.  The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that you are intellectually anoxeric, refusing to ingest all the evidence.  This is not being persuasive, but demagogic on your part.
> 
> Curve, the rest of America is not out of step, you are.
Click to expand...


Lol...same stoopid shit.  You say a post is wrong then throw in ad homs and don't even attempt to support your claims.


----------



## Kalam

JakeStarkey said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Targeting civilians or civilian population centers is always unethical; using weapons of mass destruction makes the situation unimaginably worse from a moral standpoint. By 1945, Japan's military had been crippled to the point of ineffectiveness. A bombing campaign against strategic military and industrial targets could have been carried out with minimal casualties among the US military as well as among Japan's civilian population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly what happened:
Click to expand...

No, it isn't, unless you believe that the instant vaporization of hundreds of thousands of people can be written off because of their nationality. What a disingenuous claim. I suppose this type of callousness towards the slaughter of civilians should be expected from an avowed Zionist. 



JakeStarkey said:


> two atomic bombs and the Soviet invasion ended the war with very little casualties to Americans.  No atomic bombs, no surrender.


Baseless. Nationality is an artificial distinction. The location of a person's birth doesn't make his life any more or less valuable than his neighbor's.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Kalam said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Targeting civilians or civilian population centers is always unethical; using weapons of mass destruction makes the situation unimaginably worse from a moral standpoint. By 1945, Japan's military had been crippled to the point of ineffectiveness. A bombing campaign against strategic military and industrial targets could have been carried out with minimal casualties among the US military as well as among Japan's civilian population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly what happened:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't, unless you believe that the instant vaporization of hundreds of thousands of people can be written off because of their nationality. What a disingenuous claim. I suppose this type of callousness towards the slaughter of civilians should be expected from an avowed Zionist.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> two atomic bombs and the Soviet invasion ended the war with very little casualties to Americans.  No atomic bombs, no surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baseless. Nationality is an artificial distinction. The location of a person's birth doesn't make his life any more or less valuable than his neighbor's.
Click to expand...


Hundreds of thousands were not vaporized in EITHER city dumb ass. And yes the Two Bombs ended the Pacific War, with out them we would have been forced to Invade them.


----------



## namvet

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly what happened:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't, unless you believe that the instant vaporization of hundreds of thousands of people can be written off because of their nationality. What a disingenuous claim. I suppose this type of callousness towards the slaughter of civilians should be expected from an avowed Zionist.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> two atomic bombs and the Soviet invasion ended the war with very little casualties to Americans.  No atomic bombs, no surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baseless. Nationality is an artificial distinction. The location of a person's birth doesn't make his life any more or less valuable than his neighbor's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hundreds of thousands were not vaporized in EITHER city dumb ass. And yes the Two Bombs ended the Pacific War, with out them we would have been forced to Invade them.
Click to expand...


 CurveLight would never have been born. hmmm


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kalam said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Targeting civilians or civilian population centers is always unethical; using weapons of mass destruction makes the situation unimaginably worse from a moral standpoint. By 1945, Japan's military had been crippled to the point of ineffectiveness. A bombing campaign against strategic military and industrial targets could have been carried out with minimal casualties among the US military as well as among Japan's civilian population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly what happened:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't, unless you believe that the instant vaporization of hundreds of thousands of people can be written off because of their nationality. What a disingenuous claim. I suppose this type of callousness towards the slaughter of civilians should be expected from an avowed Zionist.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> two atomic bombs and the Soviet invasion ended the war with very little casualties to Americans.  No atomic bombs, no surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baseless. Nationality is an artificial distinction. The location of a person's birth doesn't make his life any more or less valuable than his neighbor's.
Click to expand...


What a goof.  The nation states have superseded the Papacy and the Caliphate, and geography grounds an individual's character and values system.  The proper course was taken about Nagasaki and Hiroshima.


----------



## Kalam

JakeStarkey said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly what happened:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't, unless you believe that the instant vaporization of hundreds of thousands of people can be written off because of their nationality. What a disingenuous claim. I suppose this type of callousness towards the slaughter of civilians should be expected from an avowed Zionist.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> two atomic bombs and the Soviet invasion ended the war with very little casualties to Americans.  No atomic bombs, no surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baseless. Nationality is an artificial distinction. The location of a person's birth doesn't make his life any more or less valuable than his neighbor's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a goof.  The nation states have superseded the Papacy and the Caliphate, and geography grounds an individual's character and values system.  The proper course was taken about Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Click to expand...

When 3,000 Americans are killed over the span of several hours, the incident is recognized as a national tragedy and two unnecessary wars are started overseas. When 300,000 Japanese are killed in an instant, the day is celebrated as a national holiday. I see.


----------



## JakeStarkey

9-11 was a tragedy, a cold-blooded massacre of innocents.  300,000 Japanese did not die in an instant.  Afghanistan was abolutely the right war in the right place against the right enemy of all mankind.


----------



## Kalam

JakeStarkey said:


> 9-11 was a tragedy, a cold-blooded massacre of innocents.  300,000 Japanese did not die in an instant.



Well that just makes everything all fine and dandy.











_"God bless Amurrika... Land that I love..."_


----------



## mdn2000

How sad, the Japanese died, I did not read all the posts in this thread so maybe the next fact has been covered, if so forgive me.

*How about the hundreds of thousands of lives the USA saved in Nagasaki by dropping leaflets warning the japanese that we were going to drop a bomb on Nagasaki, hundreds of thousands fled and lived *

War is not ethical or moral. I dont think killing is ethical or moral for any reason ever. We had to fight the war period, it was not our choice, the war forced us to do unethical, immoral acts. 

Is it justifiable to act unethically, yes.

Is it justifiable to be immoral, yes.

We did not start the WW II, we were forced to defend ourselves, unfortunately the lesser of two evils is to kill the enemy before the enemy kills your children.

Do you watch a man rape and kill a child or do you do the unethical immoral act of killing the man, justice demands man break the moral codes of society.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Kalam said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't, unless you believe that the instant vaporization of hundreds of thousands of people can be written off because of their nationality. What a disingenuous claim. I suppose this type of callousness towards the slaughter of civilians should be expected from an avowed Zionist.
> 
> 
> Baseless. Nationality is an artificial distinction. The location of a person's birth doesn't make his life any more or less valuable than his neighbor's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a goof.  The nation states have superseded the Papacy and the Caliphate, and geography grounds an individual's character and values system.  The proper course was taken about Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When 3,000 Americans are killed over the span of several hours, the incident is recognized as a national tragedy and two unnecessary wars are started overseas. When 300,000 Japanese are killed in an instant, the day is celebrated as a national holiday. I see.
Click to expand...


Look you fucking retard WW2 was a WAR, one the Japanese STARTED with us. The people killed during it on BOTH sides rest squarely on the shoulders of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Further both targets of the Atomic Bombs were MILITARY targets.

Now tell us you brain dead fuck, what was was going on on 9/11?


----------



## Kalam

RetiredGySgt said:


> Further both targets of the Atomic Bombs were MILITARY targets.



Please tell us how many of the dead were civilians and how many were soldiers.


----------



## mdn2000

Quatermass said:


> *Madeline* asks if the unbridled slaughter of old men, women and little children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was 'ethical'. One has to realise here that barbarity is the ethical standard which defines of the International Capitalist system. Just as we can recognise a tree by its fruits so can we determine a socio-economic method by its historical consequences.
> 
> The colours of Capitalism the world over are brutal and primitive. Chaos ensues from an extension of a system of class division and institutionalised greed, along with the protection of private property; the fierce competition for new markets, the subjugation and exploitation of international indigenous populations for super profits and the inevitable wars the ruling class demand in order to maintain their established hierarchies of Imperialist stranglehold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in History is the result of 'accident' and everything a consequence of  the fundamental economic and social structures we maintain by our political choices, or lack of therein.
> 
> So it is important to recognise that the ethic of an exploitative system is social chaos and war. And 'Behold', the societies in which Humanity now languish reflect this truth abundantly.
> 
> More specifically, in the context of Japan and the Nuclear attacks America unleashed upon the Japanese civilian population, the consensus of independent rational opinion realises that these atrocities were completely unnecessary, and the result of a malevolent Capitalist superpower besotted with displaying its aggressive abilities to the World so it could dominate post-war affairs with an iron fist, in a climate of fear.  And it has. As is evidenced by America's exhaustive plethora of post WW2 invasions, interventions, all out wars and both covert and explicit funding of terrorism.
> 
> *RetiredGySgt *is, as usual, blinkered to any reality which shows up the nefarious nature of his beloved terrorist nation. Perhaps his own complicity as a servile military tool is too much to bear, if he were to ever open his eyes to the harsh light of day. And so it is his ilk that in fact revise history with Pavlovian synergy, every time the truth begins to dawn upon a new generation.
> 
> Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force and later president of the U.S., when informed of the decision to drop Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki stated:
> 
> "I voiced my 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."
> 
> Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Truman, revealed to his biographer Jonathan Daniels:
> 
> "they went ahead and killed as many women and children as they could which was just what they wanted all the time."
> [Alperovitz, Decision, p. 326.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Shinichi Tetsutani, almost 4 years old, was playing on his tricycle when the brave U.S.A.F. atomic-bombed his home. Such was the intensity of the nuclear glare all but the metallic frame melted.)
> 
> And in his autobiography, Admiral Leahy states:
> 
> "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."
> [Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima & Potsdam , by Gar Alperovitz, p. 14.]
> 
> General Douglas MacArthur, officer in charge of Pacific operations, questioned the military usefulness of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. His consultant Norman Cousins wrote in 1987:
> 
> "The war might have ended weeks earlier, [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
> [Hoover and Cousins quoted in Alperovitz, Decision, pp. 349-50.]
> 
> Many military and government officials under Truman failed to fathom his decision to pursue the bombings when surrender was within their grasp. Joseph Grew, Under Secretary of State; John McCloy, Assistant to the Secretary of War; Ralph Bard, Under Secretary of the Navy; and Lewis Strauss, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy, to name but a few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (ghostly shadows created by incinerating radiance are all that remained of some anonymous Japanese victims of American atomic-war barbarity.)
> 
> After the carnage was unleashed U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded:
> 
> "certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 [the date U.S. forces were to invade.], Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
> [, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima & Potsdam , by Gar Alperovitz, pp. 10-11.]



How come you claim something was written in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey and use a secondary source as proof, not the primary source.  The USSBS was not one survey, it was many reports by many different people, could you cite the actual survey, which report, which page, the author of the report? 

I have been collecting books on this subject and I will definitely find the books you cite and most likely ad them to my collection.

Dont take me wrong, I am not saying that somewhere amongst the thousands of pages one persons opinion did not say this but come on, you should be citing the primary source not an author that took a couple of sentences from hundreds of thousands.


----------



## Liability

Kalam said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9-11 was a tragedy, a cold-blooded massacre of innocents.  300,000 Japanese did not die in an instant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that just makes everything all fine and dandy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"God bless Amurrika... Land that I love..."_
Click to expand...


You are such a fucking fraud.

When your fucking scumbag Islamic shithead brethren slaughter innocents, do you imagine their pictures are any less revolting?

Holy fucking Muhammad in a toilet bowl.  Images of war and its consequences have shock value and YOU are the first piece of shit filthy propagandist to EVER figure that out.  

You are a lowlife liar on the surface and all the way to your maggot infested "soul."

Let's consider what those friendly innocent Japanese did:  






Or perhaps the horrors inflicted on human being by the scumbag Islamoshit you applaud offers a more pleasant view?   Let's find out, shit-eater:  






  That last one was a picture of the body of Father Judge, a NYC Fire Department chaplain, being carried away from the first Tower after he was killed by the falling debris, one of the first known victims of the 9/11 atrocities committed in the fucking filthy name of Muham*mud*.


----------



## namvet

Kalam said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't, unless you believe that the instant vaporization of hundreds of thousands of people can be written off because of their nationality. What a disingenuous claim. I suppose this type of callousness towards the slaughter of civilians should be expected from an avowed Zionist.
> 
> 
> Baseless. Nationality is an artificial distinction. The location of a person's birth doesn't make his life any more or less valuable than his neighbor's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a goof.  The nation states have superseded the Papacy and the Caliphate, and geography grounds an individual's character and values system.  The proper course was taken about Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When 3,000 Americans are killed over the span of several hours, the incident is recognized as a national tragedy and two unnecessary wars are started overseas. When 300,000 Japanese are killed in an instant, the day is celebrated as a national holiday. I see.
Click to expand...


no you don't. your dumber than a box a rocks !!!!!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Kalam said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further both targets of the Atomic Bombs were MILITARY targets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell us how many of the dead were civilians and how many were soldiers.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant question. During WW2 strategic Bombing of Military Targets did not preclude bombing adjacent civilian areas. It was considered collateral damage.

As for Japan, read the plans Japan had for the Invasion of Mainland Japan. EVERY person able to carry a bamboo spear was going to be issued one and used to human wave attack the landing beaches. As far as Japan was concerned they had no civilians.


----------



## Kalam

namvet said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a goof.  The nation states have superseded the Papacy and the Caliphate, and geography grounds an individual's character and values system.  The proper course was taken about Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> When 3,000 Americans are killed over the span of several hours, the incident is recognized as a national tragedy and two unnecessary wars are started overseas. When 300,000 Japanese are killed in an instant, the day is celebrated as a national holiday. I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no you don't. your dumber than a box a rocks !!!!!
Click to expand...


I can by your proper spelling and capitalization that you're far more intelligent than I am.


----------



## Kalam

RetiredGySgt said:


> Irrelevant question. During WW2 strategic Bombing of Military Targets did not preclude bombing adjacent civilian areas. It was considered collateral damage.


It's not irrelevant at all. Whether the goal of the US was to limit damage to military targets or not, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of those who died were civilians. 

_"Hell is full of good intentions"_ - St. Bernard of Clairvaux



RetiredGySgt said:


> As for Japan, read the plans Japan had for the Invasion of Mainland Japan. EVERY person able to carry a bamboo spear was going to be issued one and used to human wave attack the landing beaches.


Who said anything about an invasion? I mentioned that a surgical bombing campaign could have been a better idea. Bamboo spears can't do much against a B-29.



RetiredGySgt said:


> As far as Japan was concerned they had no civilians.


You hold the United States to the same moral standard as Imperial Japan?


----------



## CurveLight

Sickness is married to your stupidity as heat is to the sun.





RetiredGySgt said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further both targets of the Atomic Bombs were MILITARY targets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell us how many of the dead were civilians and how many were soldiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant question. During WW2 strategic Bombing of Military Targets did not preclude bombing adjacent civilian areas. It was considered collateral damage.
> 
> As for Japan, read the plans Japan had for the Invasion of Mainland Japan. EVERY person able to carry a bamboo spear was going to be issued one and used to human wave attack the landing beaches. As far as Japan was concerned they had no civilians.
Click to expand...


----------



## CurveLight

The top 3 US military commanders all said the bombs were not necessary.  But for some funkziffle reason you claim to know better than them. 







RetiredGySgt said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly what happened:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't, unless you believe that the instant vaporization of hundreds of thousands of people can be written off because of their nationality. What a disingenuous claim. I suppose this type of callousness towards the slaughter of civilians should be expected from an avowed Zionist.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> two atomic bombs and the Soviet invasion ended the war with very little casualties to Americans.  No atomic bombs, no surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baseless. Nationality is an artificial distinction. The location of a person's birth doesn't make his life any more or less valuable than his neighbor's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hundreds of thousands were not vaporized in EITHER city dumb ass. And yes the Two Bombs ended the Pacific War, with out them we would have been forced to Invade them.
Click to expand...


----------



## namvet

did they win the debate ???? doink


----------



## CurveLight

Where is the evidence how many were saved by leaflets?  You're also glossing over the fact we targeted and killed countless civilians out of pure evil.





mdn2000 said:


> How sad, the Japanese died, I did not read all the posts in this thread so maybe the next fact has been covered, if so forgive me.
> 
> *How about the hundreds of thousands of lives the USA saved in Nagasaki by dropping leaflets warning the japanese that we were going to drop a bomb on Nagasaki, hundreds of thousands fled and lived *
> 
> War is not ethical or moral. I dont think killing is ethical or moral for any reason ever. We had to fight the war period, it was not our choice, the war forced us to do unethical, immoral acts.
> 
> Is it justifiable to act unethically, yes.
> 
> Is it justifiable to be immoral, yes.
> 
> We did not start the WW II, we were forced to defend ourselves, unfortunately the lesser of two evils is to kill the enemy before the enemy kills your children.
> 
> Do you watch a man rape and kill a child or do you do the unethical immoral act of killing the man, justice demands man break the moral codes of society.


----------



## CurveLight

namvet said:


> did they win the debate ???? doink



There was no debate you dumbfuck.


----------



## namvet

CurveLight said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> did they win the debate ???? doink
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no debate you dumbfuck.
Click to expand...


then why the opinions moron ???? your the knight in shinning armour condeming the world for its actions.  you were there???? tell us all about it. since your all right and we're all wrong.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> Where is the evidence how many were saved by leaflets?  You're also glossing over the fact we targeted and killed countless civilians out of pure evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How sad, the Japanese died, I did not read all the posts in this thread so maybe the next fact has been covered, if so forgive me.
> 
> *How about the hundreds of thousands of lives the USA saved in Nagasaki by dropping leaflets warning the japanese that we were going to drop a bomb on Nagasaki, hundreds of thousands fled and lived *
> 
> War is not ethical or moral. I dont think killing is ethical or moral for any reason ever. We had to fight the war period, it was not our choice, the war forced us to do unethical, immoral acts.
> 
> Is it justifiable to act unethically, yes.
> 
> Is it justifiable to be immoral, yes.
> 
> We did not start the WW II, we were forced to defend ourselves, unfortunately the lesser of two evils is to kill the enemy before the enemy kills your children.
> 
> Do you watch a man rape and kill a child or do you do the unethical immoral act of killing the man, justice demands man break the moral codes of society.
Click to expand...


You are a LYING sack of puss filled vomit. But then you prove that every day here don't you?


----------



## namvet

strange these American barbarians, as curve refers to them, spent billions raising the Japs and Nazi's from the post war rubble and rebuilding their countries. and turning Japan into one of the biggest economic giants in histroy.

can you explain this strange behavior ?????


----------



## CurveLight

namvet said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> did they win the debate ???? doink
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no debate you dumbfuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then why the opinions moron ???? your the knight in shinning armour condeming the world for its actions.  you were there???? tell us all about it. since your all right and we're all wrong.
Click to expand...



Why did the top 3 military commanders say the bombs weren't necessary?  Are you joking?

Stop dodging you raggedy **** and explain why you claim to know better than those three commanders.


----------



## namvet

CurveLight said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no debate you dumbfuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why the opinions moron ???? your the knight in shinning armour condeming the world for its actions.  you were there???? tell us all about it. since your all right and we're all wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the top 3 military commanders say the bombs weren't necessary?  Are you joking?
> 
> Stop dodging you raggedy **** and explain why you claim to know better than those three commanders.
Click to expand...


once again you fall flat on your ass. you stated ALL MILITARY LEADERS opposed it. now your down to 3. you can't even find your ass with both hands. get your story straight shit for brains.


----------



## CurveLight

namvet said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> then why the opinions moron ???? your the knight in shinning armour condeming the world for its actions.  you were there???? tell us all about it. since your all right and we're all wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the top 3 military commanders say the bombs weren't necessary?  Are you joking?
> 
> Stop dodging you raggedy **** and explain why you claim to know better than those three commanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> once again you fall flat on your ass. you stated ALL MILITARY LEADERS opposed it. now your down to 3. you can't even find your ass with both hands. get your story straight shit for brains.
Click to expand...


Stop dodging you raggedy **** and explain why you claim to know better than those three commanders.


----------



## namvet

CurveLight said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the top 3 military commanders say the bombs weren't necessary?  Are you joking?
> 
> Stop dodging you raggedy **** and explain why you claim to know better than those three commanders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> once again you fall flat on your ass. you stated ALL MILITARY LEADERS opposed it. now your down to 3. you can't even find your ass with both hands. get your story straight shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop dodging you raggedy **** and explain why you claim to know better than those three commanders.
Click to expand...



why??? your dead brain is surrounded by a brick wall


----------



## JakeStarkey

CurveLight said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the top 3 military commanders say the bombs weren't necessary?  Are you joking?
> 
> Stop dodging you raggedy **** and explain why you claim to know better than those three commanders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> once again you fall flat on your ass. you stated ALL MILITARY LEADERS opposed it. now your down to 3. you can't even find your ass with both hands. get your story straight shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop dodging you raggedy **** and explain why you claim to know better than those three commanders.
Click to expand...


Because the events prove them, and you, wrong.


----------



## Liability

The Japanese sign the Surrender and declare, therein, that they UNCONDITIONALLY SURRENDER.

PussyPuddle, _bent tight_, MensturalMess nevertheless declares that the Japanese did NOT "unconditionally surrender."

Yeah, stupid.  You tell them. 

THEN the dishonest moron, _bent tight_, can't figure out why everyone recognizes that he's a complete joke with no credibility or hope of ever attaining any credibility.


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> once again you fall flat on your ass. you stated ALL MILITARY LEADERS opposed it. now your down to 3. you can't even find your ass with both hands. get your story straight shit for brains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dodging you raggedy **** and explain why you claim to know better than those three commanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the events prove them, and you, wrong.
Click to expand...


The Iraq Method won't help you at all.


----------



## CurveLight

namvet said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> once again you fall flat on your ass. you stated ALL MILITARY LEADERS opposed it. now your down to 3. you can't even find your ass with both hands. get your story straight shit for brains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dodging you raggedy **** and explain why you claim to know better than those three commanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why??? your dead brain is surrounded by a brick wall
Click to expand...



What a useless coward you keep proving to be.  You can't explain why you know better so you set up camp in the first grade.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did the top 3 military commanders say the bombs weren't necessary?  Are you joking?
> 
> Stop dodging you raggedy **** and explain why you claim to know better than those three commanders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> once again you fall flat on your ass. you stated ALL MILITARY LEADERS opposed it. now your down to 3. you can't even find your ass with both hands. get your story straight shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop dodging you raggedy **** and explain why you claim to know better than those three commanders.
Click to expand...


None of whom fought the Japanese. Please.


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> once again you fall flat on your ass. you stated ALL MILITARY LEADERS opposed it. now your down to 3. you can't even find your ass with both hands. get your story straight shit for brains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dodging you raggedy **** and explain why you claim to know better than those three commanders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of whom fought the Japanese. Please.
Click to expand...



It's like you get paid a LOT of money to embarrass yourself.  You claim to know better than them, don't even attempt to explain why, then ignore their views because they didn't fight the Japanese?  Holy fuck you are stoopid.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dodging you raggedy **** and explain why you claim to know better than those three commanders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of whom fought the Japanese. Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's like you get paid a LOT of money to embarrass yourself.  You claim to know better than them, don't even attempt to explain why, then ignore their views because they didn't fight the Japanese?  Holy fuck you are stoopid.
Click to expand...


No the STUPID one is you. NONE of the Generals or Admirals that FOUGHT the Japanese are on your list, now are they? The Pacific war against the Japanese was so different from the European war as to make the experiences learned from one pointless in the other.

The reality is a simple one. The US intended to force an Unconditional Surrender. The Japanese on paper were beaten but refused to give up and had millions of troops under arms with millions more civilians able to be called on.

The Japanese Government was Fanatical. Run by the Army they had no intention of surrendering. We were looking at a main Island landing the first part of 1946. This would have cost MILLIONS of lives mostly Japanese.

None of the European Officers had a clue what the Japanese were like.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop dodging you raggedy **** and explain why you claim to know better than those three commanders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of whom fought the Japanese. Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's like you get paid a LOT of money to embarrass yourself.  You claim to know better than them, don't even attempt to explain why, then ignore their views because they didn't fight the Japanese?  Holy fuck you are stoopid.
Click to expand...


CurveLight, you are clearly emotionally disturbed and cognitively impaired.  The rest of the world is overwhelming in step, and you are out of step.  You are wrong, period.


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of whom fought the Japanese. Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like you get paid a LOT of money to embarrass yourself.  You claim to know better than them, don't even attempt to explain why, then ignore their views because they didn't fight the Japanese?  Holy fuck you are stoopid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the STUPID one is you. NONE of the Generals or Admirals that FOUGHT the Japanese are on your list, now are they? The Pacific war against the Japanese was so different from the European war as to make the experiences learned from one pointless in the other.
> 
> The reality is a simple one. The US intended to force an Unconditional Surrender. The Japanese on paper were beaten but refused to give up and had millions of troops under arms with millions more civilians able to be called on.
> 
> The Japanese Government was Fanatical. Run by the Army they had no intention of surrendering. We were looking at a main Island landing the first part of 1946. This would have cost MILLIONS of lives mostly Japanese.
> 
> None of the European Officers had a clue what the Japanese were like.
Click to expand...


Holy fuck you keep increasing your stoopidity factor.  Macarthur was the Supreme Commander in the Pacific from 1942-1945 you dumb bitch.  Why don't you tell us all how the Supreme Commander of the Pacific didn't "have a clue" about the Japanese.

Not to mention...if not fighting the Japs eliminates the possibility of an opinion....then why do you claim to have one you fuxxing ****?


----------



## JakeStarkey

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like you get paid a LOT of money to embarrass yourself.  You claim to know better than them, don't even attempt to explain why, then ignore their views because they didn't fight the Japanese?  Holy fuck you are stoopid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No the STUPID one is you. NONE of the Generals or Admirals that FOUGHT the Japanese are on your list, now are they? The Pacific war against the Japanese was so different from the European war as to make the experiences learned from one pointless in the other.
> 
> The reality is a simple one. The US intended to force an Unconditional Surrender. The Japanese on paper were beaten but refused to give up and had millions of troops under arms with millions more civilians able to be called on.
> 
> The Japanese Government was Fanatical. Run by the Army they had no intention of surrendering. We were looking at a main Island landing the first part of 1946. This would have cost MILLIONS of lives mostly Japanese.
> 
> None of the European Officers had a clue what the Japanese were like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy fuck you keep increasing your stoopidity factor.  Macarthur was the Supreme Commander in the Pacific from 1942-1945 you dumb bitch.  Why don't you tell us all how the Supreme Commander of the Pacific didn't "have a clue" about the Japanese.
> 
> Not to mention...if not fighting the Japs eliminates the possibility of an opinion....then why do you claim to have one you fuxxing ****?
Click to expand...


Yep, there is Curve's rational, bright brain.  You moron.  Everyone is laughing at you.


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of whom fought the Japanese. Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like you get paid a LOT of money to embarrass yourself.  You claim to know better than them, don't even attempt to explain why, then ignore their views because they didn't fight the Japanese?  Holy fuck you are stoopid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CurveLight, you are clearly emotionally disturbed and cognitively impaired.  The rest of the world is overwhelming in step, and you are out of step.  You are wrong, period.
Click to expand...



Good job on sticking to ad homs when you can't support your claims.  You never showed why all the commanders were wrong and your Iraq Melthod is fuxxing stale.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CurveLight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like you get paid a LOT of money to embarrass yourself.  You claim to know better than them, don't even attempt to explain why, then ignore their views because they didn't fight the Japanese?  Holy fuck you are stoopid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight, you are clearly emotionally disturbed and cognitively impaired.  The rest of the world is overwhelming in step, and you are out of step.  You are wrong, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good job on sticking to ad homs when you can't support your claims.  You never showed why all the commanders were wrong and your Iraq Melthod is fuxxing stale.
Click to expand...


The Iraq Method is your idiocy, and the event proved the few commanders who opposed it to be wrong.  This discussion proves that your cognition is definitely impaired.  So move along, your case is summarily dismissed.


----------



## elvis

CurveLight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like you get paid a LOT of money to embarrass yourself.  You claim to know better than them, don't even attempt to explain why, then ignore their views because they didn't fight the Japanese?  Holy fuck you are stoopid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight, you are clearly emotionally disturbed and cognitively impaired.  The rest of the world is overwhelming in step, and you are out of step.  You are wrong, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good job on sticking to ad homs when you can't support your claims.  You never showed why all the commanders were wrong and your Iraq Melthod is fuxxing stale.
Click to expand...


eots is waiting for you in the conspiracy forums.


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> No the STUPID one is you. NONE of the Generals or Admirals that FOUGHT the Japanese are on your list, now are they? The Pacific war against the Japanese was so different from the European war as to make the experiences learned from one pointless in the other.
> 
> The reality is a simple one. The US intended to force an Unconditional Surrender. The Japanese on paper were beaten but refused to give up and had millions of troops under arms with millions more civilians able to be called on.
> 
> The Japanese Government was Fanatical. Run by the Army they had no intention of surrendering. We were looking at a main Island landing the first part of 1946. This would have cost MILLIONS of lives mostly Japanese.
> 
> None of the European Officers had a clue what the Japanese were like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck you keep increasing your stoopidity factor.  Macarthur was the Supreme Commander in the Pacific from 1942-1945 you dumb bitch.  Why don't you tell us all how the Supreme Commander of the Pacific didn't "have a clue" about the Japanese.
> 
> Not to mention...if not fighting the Japs eliminates the possibility of an opinion....then why do you claim to have one you fuxxing ****?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, there is Curve's rational, bright brain.  You moron.  Everyone is laughing at you.
Click to expand...



What is the rationale you speak of?


----------



## CurveLight

elvis said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight, you are clearly emotionally disturbed and cognitively impaired.  The rest of the world is overwhelming in step, and you are out of step.  You are wrong, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good job on sticking to ad homs when you can't support your claims.  You never showed why all the commanders were wrong and your Iraq Melthod is fuxxing stale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> eots is waiting for you in the conspiracy forums.
Click to expand...


More proof on why this board generally sucks.  ***** like you join in 8th grade bandwagon bullshit instead of discussing facts.


----------



## Liability

CurveLight said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good job on sticking to ad homs when you can't support your claims.  You never showed why all the commanders were wrong and your Iraq Melthod is fuxxing stale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots is waiting for you in the conspiracy forums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More proof on why this board generally sucks.  ***** like you join in 8th grade bandwagon bullshit instead of discussing facts.
Click to expand...


LOL!.  _bent tight_ uses the word "****" (again) and thinks that _his_ contributions are somehow superior to the posts which dismiss his blithering imbecility.

Wow.  _bent tight_ used the word "****."  So he MUST be completely correct.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> More proof on why this board generally sucks.



So leave then.


----------



## JakeStarkey

question to the general Opus Penguin here: is CurveLight normally like this?


----------



## RadiomanATL

JakeStarkey said:


> question to the general Opus Penguin here: is CurveLight normally like this?



Yes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

RadiomanATL said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> question to the general Opus Penguin here: is CurveLight normally like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


Sigh and thanks.


----------



## CurveLight

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> eots is waiting for you in the conspiracy forums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More proof on why this board generally sucks.  ***** like you join in 8th grade bandwagon bullshit instead of discussing facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!.  _bent tight_ uses the word "****" (again) and thinks that _his_ contributions are somehow superior to the posts which dismiss his blithering imbecility.
> 
> Wow.  _bent tight_ used the word "****."  So he MUST be completely correct.
Click to expand...



I linked a government site showing Japan offered a conditional surrender and we accepted but Snitch Bitch punks like you ignore that......and....lol....cite Wiki instead.


----------



## RadiomanATL

JakeStarkey said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> question to the general Opus Penguin here: is CurveLight normally like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh and thanks.
Click to expand...


NP.

I figure I saved you about 3 hours and 30 posts of banging your head against a wall of stupidity and purposeful obtuseness


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> question to the general Opus Penguin here: is CurveLight normally like this?



Oh look....the usual method of derailing and avoiding supporting claims by doing nothing but whining and making it personal.  

Show us how the top commanders were wrong like you claimed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CurveLight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> question to the general Opus Penguin here: is CurveLight normally like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look....the usual method of derailing and avoiding supporting claims by doing nothing but whining and making it personal.
> 
> Show us how the top commanders were wrong like you claimed.
Click to expand...


You claimed all the top commanders were wrong, I claimed some.  Reading back proves I was right.  And the events proved those who did not want to bomb were wrong as well.

You have lost, CurveLight, I declare this over, and we can all move on to better things.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> More proof on why this board generally sucks.  ***** like you join in 8th grade bandwagon bullshit instead of discussing facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!.  _bent tight_ uses the word "****" (again) and thinks that _his_ contributions are somehow superior to the posts which dismiss his blithering imbecility.
> 
> Wow.  _bent tight_ used the word "****."  So he MUST be completely correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I linked a government site showing Japan offered a conditional surrender and we accepted but Snitch Bitch punks like you ignore that......and....lol....cite Wiki instead.
Click to expand...


You are a LIAR. The Emperor offered an UNCONDITIONAL Surrender. Even the Surrender documents state this.

You did claim Japan made numerous offers to surrender leading up to the Atomic Bombs and have yet to provide a single source to back that claim. You further Stated that Japan offered the exact surrender we accepted prior to the Atomic Bombs, again with no link to any source that backs the claim up.

I on the other hand have provided the actual deliberations of the Japanese Government before and after each Atomic attack. I have provided the only attempt by Japan to stop the war prior to the Atomic attacks. I have provided the offer they made after the first Atomic attack.


----------



## Liability

PussyPuddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MenstrualMess said:
> 
> 
> 
> More proof on why this board generally sucks.  ***** like you join in 8th grade bandwagon bullshit instead of discussing facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!.  _bent tight_ uses the word "****" (again) and thinks that _his_ contributions are somehow superior to the posts which dismiss his blithering imbecility.
> 
> Wow.  _bent tight_ used the word "****."  So he MUST be completely correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I linked a government site showing Japan offered a conditional surrender and we accepted but * * * punks like you ignore that......and....lol....cite Wiki instead.
Click to expand...


I provided the link to the actual document of surrender SIGNED by the defeated empire of Japan in which THEY acknowledged that their surrender was UNCONDITIONAL.

You are very selective in what you choose to ignore, PussyPuddle.  

Like reality.

And no.  I _didn't_ just cite wiki, you always dishonest ass-sucker.  I cited to the *actual* SURRENDER instrument -- which can be viewed via Wiki.  It's typical of your sopho_*moronic*_ thinking, though, to try to engage in an obvious fallacy again.  

*Bottom line*:  you were wrong, you have been wrong and you remain wrong.  You can "argue" all you wish, but the historical record, where the Japanese acknowledged their own *unconditional surrender*, is not subject to your attempted deflections.  *They* acknowledged it.  It's an historical fact.  Yet you, MenstrualMess, liar that you always are, cannot find the balls to just concede it. 

 Color me totally non-surprised by your cowardly perpetual dishonesty.


----------



## JakeStarkey

RGS, after 22 pages of this thread, is still correct and CL is still wrong, stubbornly and immorally so.


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> question to the general Opus Penguin here: is CurveLight normally like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look....the usual method of derailing and avoiding supporting claims by doing nothing but whining and making it personal.
> 
> Show us how the top commanders were wrong like you claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claimed all the top commanders were wrong, I claimed some.  Reading back proves I was right.  And the events proved those who did not want to bomb were wrong as well.
> 
> You have lost, CurveLight, I declare this over, and we can all move on to better things.
Click to expand...


You're an idiot.  I never claimed the top commanders were wrong.  I'm the one that pointed out they all said the bombs were not necessary.  You responded by saying they were wrong but never even attempted to prove your claim.  You're just another typical fuckwad.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look....the usual method of derailing and avoiding supporting claims by doing nothing but whining and making it personal.
> 
> Show us how the top commanders were wrong like you claimed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed all the top commanders were wrong, I claimed some.  Reading back proves I was right.  And the events proved those who did not want to bomb were wrong as well.
> 
> You have lost, CurveLight, I declare this over, and we can all move on to better things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  I never claimed the top commanders were wrong.  I'm the one that pointed out they all said the bombs were not necessary.  You responded by saying they were wrong but never even attempted to prove your claim.  You're just another typical fuckwad.
Click to expand...


Lying again I see, Name again for us those top commanders from the Pacific that were opposed to the Bombs.


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!.  _bent tight_ uses the word "****" (again) and thinks that _his_ contributions are somehow superior to the posts which dismiss his blithering imbecility.
> 
> Wow.  _bent tight_ used the word "****."  So he MUST be completely correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I linked a government site showing Japan offered a conditional surrender and we accepted but Snitch Bitch punks like you ignore that......and....lol....cite Wiki instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a LIAR. The Emperor offered an UNCONDITIONAL Surrender. Even the Surrender documents state this.
> 
> You did claim Japan made numerous offers to surrender leading up to the Atomic Bombs and have yet to provide a single source to back that claim. You further Stated that Japan offered the exact surrender we accepted prior to the Atomic Bombs, again with no link to any source that backs the claim up.
> 
> I on the other hand have provided the actual deliberations of the Japanese Government before and after each Atomic attack. I have provided the only attempt by Japan to stop the war prior to the Atomic attacks. I have provided the offer they made after the first Atomic attack.
Click to expand...



You've continually ignored the government link I've posted a few times showing Japan offered conditional surrender and the sources showing we accepted the same surrender they offered prior to the bombs.  But you keep calling me a liar because if you repeat it enough you will convince yourself to the point you feel justified in ignoring the links I posted.


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed all the top commanders were wrong, I claimed some.  Reading back proves I was right.  And the events proved those who did not want to bomb were wrong as well.
> 
> You have lost, CurveLight, I declare this over, and we can all move on to better things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  I never claimed the top commanders were wrong.  I'm the one that pointed out they all said the bombs were not necessary.  You responded by saying they were wrong but never even attempted to prove your claim.  You're just another typical fuckwad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying again I see, Name again for us those top commanders from the Pacific that were opposed to the Bombs.
Click to expand...


Strawman.  I never the Pacific's top commanders.  I said the military's top commanders.  But you keep on being dishonest because nobody here will call you out as long as you are disagreeing with me.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CurveLight, obviously, is a loon, so this is only for grins and chuckles now.


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> CurveLight, obviously, is a loon, so this is only for grins and chuckles now.




So basically when you've been proven wrong you marry yourself to ad homs.  

This must be why so most boards have rules against ad homs because they know it would get overrun with bitches like you who seek safety in making an issue personal.  This board is full of fukwads like you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CurveLight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight, obviously, is a loon, so this is only for grins and chuckles now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically when you've been proven wrong you marry yourself to ad homs.
> 
> This must be why so most boards have rules against ad homs because they know it would get overrun with bitches like you who seek safety in making an issue personal.  This board is full of fukwads like you.
Click to expand...


Only a loon (meaning a goofy mentality) would be doing what you do.  That is not an ad hom, rather an accurate description of what you are doing here.  You are now practicing the immorality of stubborness, knowing that you are wrong yet unwilling to admit.  You stand there like a red-eyed four-old in the corner not getting its way.  Tuff luck.


----------



## Liability

Because this question is addressed to _bent tight_, there's no rational reason to expect an HONEST answer.

Still, out of magnanimity, I offer this one in the hopes that he might grasp at some small chance to redeem a minor piece of his hideously ruined credibility.

Here we go.  This is a very easy, straightforward question that can be honestly and correctly answered in one word:

*DID the Empire of Japan, itself, formally acknowledge that its surrender to the Allied forces was an "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER?" * 

(Hint:  all you need to say is "yes," since the answer IS "yes.")


----------



## JakeStarkey

Liability is advising you wisely, CurveLight.  Accept it and move on.


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight, obviously, is a loon, so this is only for grins and chuckles now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically when you've been proven wrong you marry yourself to ad homs.
> 
> This must be why so most boards have rules against ad homs because they know it would get overrun with bitches like you who seek safety in making an issue personal.  This board is full of fukwads like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a loon (meaning a goofy mentality) would be doing what you do.  That is not an ad hom, rather an accurate description of what you are doing here.  You are now practicing the immorality of stubborness, knowing that you are wrong yet unwilling to admit.  You stand there like a red-eyed four-old in the corner not getting its way.  Tuff luck.
Click to expand...


Only a loon would point out the top US Commanders all said the bombs were not necessary?  Or how about you falsely claiming I said the Commanders were wrong?  Hell, you've still avoided supporting your claim they are wrong.  Incidentally you may be correct.  Only a loon would continue responding to you when you've done nothing but make false claims then stick to ad homs when you've been proven wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Now, Curve, you are outright lying.  No need to get angry with you.  When dealing with either a delusional individual or a liar, simply keep him or her in reality by telling the correct facts.  So, it goes like this: "No, CurveLight, you are wrong, the surrender was unconditional and the rest of the world accepts that.  That you don't is fine for you, but no one else believes it or cares what you think.  Those are the facts."


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> Now, Curve, you are outright lying.  No need to get angry with you.  When dealing with either a delusional individual or a liar, simply keep him or her in reality by telling the correct facts.  So, it goes like this: "No, CurveLight, you are wrong, the surrender was unconditional and the rest of the world accepts that.  That you don't is fine for you, but no one else believes it or cares what you think.  Those are the facts."



Lol.....okay socky!  See ya bitch.


----------



## CurveLight

Here's a decent link for people to ignore:

The Hiroshima Myth by John V. Denson


Without a doubt the biggest factor of ignorance regarding this issue is the Emperor.

With all the atrocities Japan committed why didn't the US prosecute Japan's leader?  (Hint: that was part of the conditional surrender)


----------



## The great dane

History proves that the US claims to have certain ethics, but in truth doesnt have them.

I see it like this, they wanted to spare their soldiers, so they killed a few hundredthousand civilians, as they also did in Europe and pretty much everywhere they have sent soldiers.
But hey dont forget that the US are the good guys, Japanese and Nazi's were bad because they killed civilians openly, the US arent because they openly say they are the good guys.


----------



## Liability

The great dane said:


> History proves that the US claims to have certain ethics, but in truth doesnt have them.
> 
> I see it like this, they wanted to spare their soldiers, so they killed a few hundredthousand civilians, as they also did in Europe and pretty much everywhere they have sent soldiers.
> But hey dont forget that the US are the good guys, Japanese and Nazi's were bad because they killed civilians openly, the US arent because they openly say they are the good guys.



The "way you see it" is myopic and stupid.

Every nation which goes to war, moron, calls itself the "good guys."  Not all are, obviously.

Almost every nation in modern time has been guilty of killing civilians during war -- and that practice is not even remotely new.

Unlike many other nations, the U.S. does try to avoid it.

You cavalierly dismiss the fact that the Japanese civilian population was being trained to fight to the last man and woman.  The probability was for a horrendous loss of life, not just of our fighting men, either.  From that perspective, the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki almost certainly SAVED many fold more lives than were lost -- and again, that does not mean just OURs.

Ask some Chinese how the Japanese treated civilians.  Get back to us.  Ask the Poles and the gypsies and the Jews how the Germans treated civilians.  Report back objectively, if you have that capacity.  

You shouldn't talk about the U.S. not having ethics when you, yourself, so markedly lack them.


----------



## CurveLight

Liability said:


> The great dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> History proves that the US claims to have certain ethics, but in truth doesnt have them.
> 
> I see it like this, they wanted to spare their soldiers, so they killed a few hundredthousand civilians, as they also did in Europe and pretty much everywhere they have sent soldiers.
> But hey dont forget that the US are the good guys, Japanese and Nazi's were bad because they killed civilians openly, the US arent because they openly say they are the good guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "way you see it" is myopic and stupid.
> 
> Every nation which goes to war, moron, calls itself the "good guys."  Not all are, obviously.
> 
> Almost every nation in modern time has been guilty of killing civilians during war -- and that practice is not even remotely new.
> 
> Unlike many other nations, the U.S. does try to avoid it.
> 
> You cavalierly dismiss the fact that the Japanese civilian population was being trained to fight to the last man and woman.  The probability was for a horrendous loss of life, not just of our fighting men, either.  From that perspective, the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki almost certainly SAVED many fold more lives than were lost -- and again, that does not mean just OURs.
> 
> Ask some Chinese how the Japanese treated civilians.  Get back to us.  Ask the Poles and the gypsies and the Jews how the Germans treated civilians.  Report back objectively, if you have that capacity.
> 
> You shouldn't talk about the U.S. not having ethics when you, yourself, so markedly lack them.
Click to expand...


Lol....the Snitch Bitch pontificates uselessly once again....


----------



## Liability

MenstrualMess said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The great dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> History proves that the US claims to have certain ethics, but in truth doesnt have them.
> 
> I see it like this, they wanted to spare their soldiers, so they killed a few hundredthousand civilians, as they also did in Europe and pretty much everywhere they have sent soldiers.
> But hey dont forget that the US are the good guys, Japanese and Nazi's were bad because they killed civilians openly, the US arent because they openly say they are the good guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "way you see it" is myopic and stupid.
> 
> Every nation which goes to war, moron, calls itself the "good guys."  Not all are, obviously.
> 
> Almost every nation in modern time has been guilty of killing civilians during war -- and that practice is not even remotely new.
> 
> Unlike many other nations, the U.S. does try to avoid it.
> 
> You cavalierly dismiss the fact that the Japanese civilian population was being trained to fight to the last man and woman.  The probability was for a horrendous loss of life, not just of our fighting men, either.  From that perspective, the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki almost certainly SAVED many fold more lives than were lost -- and again, that does not mean just OURs.
> 
> Ask some Chinese how the Japanese treated civilians.  Get back to us.  Ask the Poles and the gypsies and the Jews how the Germans treated civilians.  Report back objectively, if you have that capacity.
> 
> You shouldn't talk about the U.S. not having ethics when you, yourself, so markedly lack them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * * *  pontificates uselessly once again....
Click to expand...


MenstrualMess has nothing of any consequence to say, again, so he posts.

Couldn't help but notice that you lack the ability to refute the post.  Your ceaseless reliance on your lame form of _ad hominem_ is noted, however.

Or are you still trying to maintain that the Japanese didn't Unconditionally Surrender even though the very surrender instrument * they signed*, to end the war, called it an "unconditional surrender?"


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan.

Operation Olympic - planned US invasion of Southern Japan 1945

That the casualty figures were fake and we had no plans to invade and occupy a resisting Japan.


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan.
> 
> Operation Olympic - planned US invasion of Southern Japan 1945
> 
> That the casualty figures were fake and we had no plans to invade and occupy a resisting Japan.




Quote the post where I said that.  I never did you lying fuck.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan.
> 
> Operation Olympic - planned US invasion of Southern Japan 1945
> 
> That the casualty figures were fake and we had no plans to invade and occupy a resisting Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote the post where I said that.  I never did you lying fuck.
Click to expand...


 So you have never claimed that the casualty figures released for Operation Olympic were "faked", raised to hide the truth about us wanting to bomb Japan just to scare the Soviets? Hmm?

Remind us again oh truthful one, how Japan never signed an Unconditional surrender, How Japan offered numerous times to surrender before either Bomb was dropped, how the offer before the bombs was the exact same offer after the bombs.


----------



## CurveLight

RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan.
> 
> Operation Olympic - planned US invasion of Southern Japan 1945
> 
> That the casualty figures were fake and we had no plans to invade and occupy a resisting Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote the post where I said that.  I never did you lying fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have never claimed that the casualty figures released for Operation Olympic were "faked", raised to hide the truth about us wanting to bomb Japan just to scare the Soviets? Hmm?
> 
> Remind us again oh truthful one, how Japan never signed an Unconditional surrender, How Japan offered numerous times to surrender before either Bomb was dropped, how the offer before the bombs was the exact same offer after the bombs.
Click to expand...


Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:

"Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."

So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.


----------



## namvet

CurveLight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote the post where I said that.  I never did you lying fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have never claimed that the casualty figures released for Operation Olympic were "faked", raised to hide the truth about us wanting to bomb Japan just to scare the Soviets? Hmm?
> 
> Remind us again oh truthful one, how Japan never signed an Unconditional surrender, How Japan offered numerous times to surrender before either Bomb was dropped, how the offer before the bombs was the exact same offer after the bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:
> 
> "Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."
> 
> So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.
Click to expand...


----------



## CurveLight

namvet said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have never claimed that the casualty figures released for Operation Olympic were "faked", raised to hide the truth about us wanting to bomb Japan just to scare the Soviets? Hmm?
> 
> Remind us again oh truthful one, how Japan never signed an Unconditional surrender, How Japan offered numerous times to surrender before either Bomb was dropped, how the offer before the bombs was the exact same offer after the bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:
> 
> "Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."
> 
> So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Yes...we all know how easy it is to reduce you to posting pics.


----------



## namvet

[youtube]CbAGFCEGA8U[/youtube]


[youtube]A9Rg_mymxF0[/youtube]


[youtube]9xMt_ylzsWc[/youtube]​


----------



## RetiredGySgt

So Curvelight..... Since the US was prepared to invade the home Islands, the Japanese were unwilling to surrender and were training their civilians to human wave attack the landing beaches with bamboo spears, and you never claimed the casualty figures were false..... You would rather have seen several MILLION dead Japanese and upwards of a million casualties on the allied side, rather then drop 2 bombs that killed FAR less people?

And you want us to believe that dropping the bombs was unethical?


----------



## JakeStarkey

CurveLight's unwillingness to accept superior evidence and analysis is unethical.


----------



## pans trogladyta

I don't believe you can use the word "ethical", to apply to any war.  At best you can claim necessity.  As the saying goes:  "The longer a war lasts the more like your enemy you become".  Was the dropping of the bombs necessary?  Yes.  Was it ethical?  No.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

pans trogladyta said:


> I don't believe you can use the word "ethical", to apply to any war.  At best you can claim necessity.  As the saying goes:  "The longer a war lasts the more like your enemy you become".  Was the dropping of the bombs necessary?  Yes.  Was it ethical?  No.



And I disagree. The question is a simple one. DO we kill a few hundred thousand in order to save MILLIONS or do we just kill MILLIONS. That is an ethics question. You may not LIKE the ethics but it is ethical.


----------



## pans trogladyta

RetiredGySgt said:


> pans trogladyta said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you can use the word "ethical", to apply to any war.  At best you can claim necessity.  As the saying goes:  "The longer a war lasts the more like your enemy you become".  Was the dropping of the bombs necessary?  Yes.  Was it ethical?  No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I disagree. The question is a simple one. DO we kill a few hundred thousand in order to save MILLIONS or do we just kill MILLIONS. That is an ethics question. You may not LIKE the ethics but it is ethical.
Click to expand...




Your saying it does not make it so.  Your question implies you have the right to decide who lives and who dies, you don't.  The only life you have a right to make that choice about is your own.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

pans trogladyta said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pans trogladyta said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you can use the word "ethical", to apply to any war.  At best you can claim necessity.  As the saying goes:  "The longer a war lasts the more like your enemy you become".  Was the dropping of the bombs necessary?  Yes.  Was it ethical?  No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I disagree. The question is a simple one. DO we kill a few hundred thousand in order to save MILLIONS or do we just kill MILLIONS. That is an ethics question. You may not LIKE the ethics but it is ethical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your saying it does not make it so.  Your question implies you have the right to decide who lives and who dies, you don't.  The only life you have a right to make that choice about is your own.
Click to expand...


Making said choice is an ethical question. Pretty simple concept.


----------



## CurveLight

Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:

"Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."

So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.






RetiredGySgt said:


> So Curvelight..... Since the US was prepared to invade the home Islands, the Japanese were unwilling to surrender and were training their civilians to human wave attack the landing beaches with bamboo spears, and you never claimed the casualty figures were false..... You would rather have seen several MILLION dead Japanese and upwards of a million casualties on the allied side, rather then drop 2 bombs that killed FAR less people?
> 
> And you want us to believe that dropping the bombs was unethical?




Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:

"Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."

So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.


----------



## CurveLight

CurveLight said:


> Here's a decent link for people to ignore:
> 
> The Hiroshima Myth by John V. Denson
> 
> 
> Without a doubt the biggest factor of ignorance regarding this issue is the Emperor.
> 
> With all the atrocities Japan committed why didn't the US prosecute Japan's leader?  (Hint: that was part of the conditional surrender)




Gee.  It almost gets boring to predict something so accurately.


----------



## Liability

MenstrualMess said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a decent link for people to ignore:
> 
> The Hiroshima Myth by John V. Denson
> 
> 
> Without a doubt the biggest factor of ignorance regarding this issue is the Emperor.
> 
> With all the atrocities Japan committed why didn't the US prosecute Japan's leader?  (Hint: that was part of the conditional surrender)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee.  It almost gets boring to predict something so accurately.
Click to expand...


You cannot "predict" the past, stupid.

You CAN, however, as YOU keep proving, misinterpret the historical record.

I PREDICT that you will continue to deny objective conclusive historic evidence in favor of your ridiculous conspiracy theory.


----------



## JakeStarkey

pans trogladyta said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pans trogladyta said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you can use the word "ethical", to apply to any war.  At best you can claim necessity.  As the saying goes:  "The longer a war lasts the more like your enemy you become".  Was the dropping of the bombs necessary?  Yes.  Was it ethical?  No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I disagree. The question is a simple one. DO we kill a few hundred thousand in order to save MILLIONS or do we just kill MILLIONS. That is an ethics question. You may not LIKE the ethics but it is ethical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your saying it does not make it so.  Your question implies you have the right to decide who lives and who dies, you don't.  The only life you have a right to make that choice about is your own.
Click to expand...


Absolutely incorrect.  Decisions of the most horrific choices are caused by tyrannical governments and leaders that force men and women of good will to make such choices.

Please, naivete informs your statement.  Please think very carefully before uttering such statements.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:
> 
> "Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."
> 
> So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Curvelight..... Since the US was prepared to invade the home Islands, the Japanese were unwilling to surrender and were training their civilians to human wave attack the landing beaches with bamboo spears, and you never claimed the casualty figures were false..... You would rather have seen several MILLION dead Japanese and upwards of a million casualties on the allied side, rather then drop 2 bombs that killed FAR less people?
> 
> And you want us to believe that dropping the bombs was unethical?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:
> 
> "Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."
> 
> So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.
Click to expand...


You are a coward. An intellectual coward and an ethical coward. YOU keep making ignorant claims that are not true and I can link to them through out this thread.

YOU claimed Japan made numerous attempts to surrender before the Bombs were dropped. AN out right LIE you can not support. They made one attempt and it was not a surrender but a cessation of Hostilities with Japan relinquishing captured territory after Dec 1941 and the Allies returning Captured Japanese territory.

YOU claimed that Japan made the EXACT same offer to surrender before the bombs were dropped as the one we finally accepted, which was UNCONDITIONAL. Another bald faced lie.

YOU claimed Japan did not surrender UNCONDITIONALLY, when we all know and have the surrender documents to prove they did EXACTLY that.

YOU claimed that the US fabricated casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan. Implying further that we had no intention of invading and that Japan was already beaten. Another lie.


----------



## CurveLight

Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:

"Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."

So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.






RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:
> 
> "Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."
> 
> So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Curvelight..... Since the US was prepared to invade the home Islands, the Japanese were unwilling to surrender and were training their civilians to human wave attack the landing beaches with bamboo spears, and you never claimed the casualty figures were false..... You would rather have seen several MILLION dead Japanese and upwards of a million casualties on the allied side, rather then drop 2 bombs that killed FAR less people?
> 
> And you want us to believe that dropping the bombs was unethical?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:
> 
> "Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."
> 
> So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a coward. An intellectual coward and an ethical coward. YOU keep making ignorant claims that are not true and I can link to them through out this thread.
> 
> YOU claimed Japan made numerous attempts to surrender before the Bombs were dropped. AN out right LIE you can not support. They made one attempt and it was not a surrender but a cessation of Hostilities with Japan relinquishing captured territory after Dec 1941 and the Allies returning Captured Japanese territory.
> 
> YOU claimed that Japan made the EXACT same offer to surrender before the bombs were dropped as the one we finally accepted, which was UNCONDITIONAL. Another bald faced lie.
> 
> YOU claimed Japan did not surrender UNCONDITIONALLY, when we all know and have the surrender documents to prove they did EXACTLY that.
> 
> YOU claimed that the US fabricated casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan. Implying further that we had no intention of invading and that Japan was already beaten. Another lie.
Click to expand...



Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:

"Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."

So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.


----------



## CurveLight

JakeStarkey said:


> pans trogladyta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I disagree. The question is a simple one. DO we kill a few hundred thousand in order to save MILLIONS or do we just kill MILLIONS. That is an ethics question. You may not LIKE the ethics but it is ethical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your saying it does not make it so.  Your question implies you have the right to decide who lives and who dies, you don't.  The only life you have a right to make that choice about is your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely incorrect.  Decisions of the most horrific choices are caused by tyrannical governments and leaders that force men and women of good will to make such choices.
> 
> Please, naivete informs your statement.  Please think very carefully before uttering such statements.
Click to expand...


You're full of shit and I've proven several times the bombs were not necessary but you keep on wrapping your ignorance up in a form of patriotism indistinguishable from butt monkey crack.


----------



## Polk

No, it was not unethical.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pans trogladyta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your saying it does not make it so.  Your question implies you have the right to decide who lives and who dies, you don't.  The only life you have a right to make that choice about is your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely incorrect.  Decisions of the most horrific choices are caused by tyrannical governments and leaders that force men and women of good will to make such choices.
> 
> Please, naivete informs your statement.  Please think very carefully before uttering such statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're full of shit and I've proven several times the bombs were not necessary but you keep on wrapping your ignorance up in a form of patriotism indistinguishable from butt monkey crack.
Click to expand...


You have not proven anything. Once again, you claimed the Japanese made numerous attempts to surrender before the bombs were dropped.  A LIE.

You claimed that Japan made an offer EXACTLY like what was given them after the bombs. A LIE.

You claimed that Japan was offered a conditional surrender. Again a LIE.

MEANWHILE, I provided PROOF Japan made ONE attempt to end the war before the bombs were dropped and that was no surrender offer. 

I provided proof that even after both bombs were dropped and the Soviets declared war the Japanese Government REFUSED to surrender. It took the DIRECT intervention of the Emperor and that was nearly foiled by an attempted Coup by the Army.

Try again you coward.


----------



## CurveLight

Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:

"Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."

So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.






RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely incorrect.  Decisions of the most horrific choices are caused by tyrannical governments and leaders that force men and women of good will to make such choices.
> 
> Please, naivete informs your statement.  Please think very carefully before uttering such statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit and I've proven several times the bombs were not necessary but you keep on wrapping your ignorance up in a form of patriotism indistinguishable from butt monkey crack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not proven anything. Once again, you claimed the Japanese made numerous attempts to surrender before the bombs were dropped.  A LIE.
> 
> You claimed that Japan made an offer EXACTLY like what was given them after the bombs. A LIE.
> 
> You claimed that Japan was offered a conditional surrender. Again a LIE.
> 
> MEANWHILE, I provided PROOF Japan made ONE attempt to end the war before the bombs were dropped and that was no surrender offer.
> 
> I provided proof that even after both bombs were dropped and the Soviets declared war the Japanese Government REFUSED to surrender. It took the DIRECT intervention of the Emperor and that was nearly foiled by an attempted Coup by the Army.
> 
> Try again you coward.
Click to expand...



Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:

"Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."

So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CurveLight said:


> Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:
> 
> "Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."
> 
> So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit and I've proven several times the bombs were not necessary but you keep on wrapping your ignorance up in a form of patriotism indistinguishable from butt monkey crack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not proven anything. Once again, you claimed the Japanese made numerous attempts to surrender before the bombs were dropped.  A LIE.
> 
> You claimed that Japan made an offer EXACTLY like what was given them after the bombs. A LIE.
> 
> You claimed that Japan was offered a conditional surrender. Again a LIE.
> 
> MEANWHILE, I provided PROOF Japan made ONE attempt to end the war before the bombs were dropped and that was no surrender offer.
> 
> I provided proof that even after both bombs were dropped and the Soviets declared war the Japanese Government REFUSED to surrender. It took the DIRECT intervention of the Emperor and that was nearly foiled by an attempted Coup by the Army.
> 
> Try again you coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:
> 
> "Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."
> 
> So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.
Click to expand...


So you can not provide any factual evidence to support your bogus claims? We already knew this, keep on lying it is hilarious.


----------



## CurveLight

Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:

"Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."

So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.









RetiredGySgt said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:
> 
> "Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."
> 
> So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not proven anything. Once again, you claimed the Japanese made numerous attempts to surrender before the bombs were dropped.  A LIE.
> 
> You claimed that Japan made an offer EXACTLY like what was given them after the bombs. A LIE.
> 
> You claimed that Japan was offered a conditional surrender. Again a LIE.
> 
> MEANWHILE, I provided PROOF Japan made ONE attempt to end the war before the bombs were dropped and that was no surrender offer.
> 
> I provided proof that even after both bombs were dropped and the Soviets declared war the Japanese Government REFUSED to surrender. It took the DIRECT intervention of the Emperor and that was nearly foiled by an attempted Coup by the Army.
> 
> Try again you coward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:
> 
> "Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."
> 
> So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can not provide any factual evidence to support your bogus claims? We already knew this, keep on lying it is hilarious.
Click to expand...



Once again you fucking donkey dick sucker......you said:

"Curvelight has made the claim we never intended to Invade Japan."

So show where I made that claim you lying fuck.


----------



## pcw27

"I think it was a good thing that Harry Truman dropped the atomic bomb on Japan. That is all I have to say about my parents"
-Watchmen


----------

