# Hiroshima....



## Tom Horn

This is the moment the city was about to be torn apart by the first nuclear weapon ever used.   Notice the people standing in the foreground unaware that they were about to be incinerated:


----------



## Frank'sRules

Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.


----------



## Tom Horn

Frank'sRules said:


> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.



Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.


----------



## Frank'sRules

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
Click to expand...

They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Lesson here...don't start none and won't be none.


----------



## Tom Horn

Frank'sRules said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
Click to expand...


Ridiculous.


----------



## Frank'sRules

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It's history.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Actually no, dropping those bombs was about the pecking order of world power post the end of the war.  For all the blathering on about nuclear war, weaponry, who should be allowed to have and who should not; the US is the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons of this magnatude - and on civilian populations.


----------



## Tom Horn

Frank'sRules said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
Click to expand...


It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.


----------



## Fenton Lum

SassyIrishLass said:


> Lesson here...don't start none and won't be none.



We've started all our wars since then.


----------



## Tom Horn

Fenton Lum said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually no, dropping those bombs was about the pecking order of world power post the end of the war.  For all the blathering on about nuclear war, weaponry, who should be allowed to have and who should not; the US is the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons of this magnatude - and on civilian populations.
Click to expand...


Another America-hating dimwit ruined by our public schools and universities.


----------



## Frank'sRules

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
Click to expand...

It's history.  The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.


----------



## Tom Horn

Fenton Lum said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lesson here...don't start none and won't be none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've started all our wars since then.
Click to expand...


We started the Korean War?  Seriously....go away.


----------



## Tom Horn

Frank'sRules said:


> It's history.  The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.



Run along now.


----------



## Frank'sRules

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's history.  The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Run along now.
Click to expand...

I know, facts and history annoy you.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Fenton Lum said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lesson here...don't start none and won't be none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've started all our wars since then.
Click to expand...


LOL Korea? Who was transgressing on South Vietnam? You're a fucking idiot


----------



## Tom Horn

It should also be noted the Hiroshima A-bomb was like an M-80 compared to the ordnance we have now.


----------



## Frank'sRules

Tom Horn said:


> It should also be noted the Hiroshima A-bomb was like an M-80 compared to the ordnance we have now.


Making us just that much worse for building such things in the first place.  American devils.


----------



## Tom Horn

Frank'sRules said:


> Making us just that much worse for building such things in the first place.  American devils.



Mess with the bull, get the horns, hairlip.


----------



## blackhawk

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
Click to expand...

Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
Click to expand...


Knives and forks required nuclear bombing of civilians, we are truly an exceptional people.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making us just that much worse for building such things in the first place.  American devils.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mess with the bull, get the horns, hairlip.
Click to expand...


And then we wail like banshees when the chickens come home to roost.


----------



## Tom Horn

blackhawk said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
Click to expand...


That's correct...their officer corps had no intention of surrendering while they still had one working rifle.


----------



## Tom Horn

Fenton Lum said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making us just that much worse for building such things in the first place.  American devils.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mess with the bull, get the horns, hairlip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then we wail like banshees when the chickens come home to roost.
Click to expand...


So get the fuck out of our country...you no longer have any right to be here.


----------



## Frank'sRules

blackhawk said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
Click to expand...

So, who was in charge them, he or they?

And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.


----------



## Frank'sRules

Tom Horn said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's correct...their officer corps had no intention of surrendering while they still had one working rifle.
Click to expand...

So what?  They weren't in charge of surrendering.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Tom Horn said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's correct...their officer corps had no intention of surrendering while they still had one working rifle.
Click to expand...


The Japanese people wouldn't have surrendered if their Emperor hadn't told them to


----------



## martybegan

Frank'sRules said:


> *So what?  They weren't in charge of surrenderin*g.[*/*QUOTE]




and that one line shows you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Tom Horn

Frank'sRules said:


> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.



I pity your ignorance...we hit Hiroshima because of the war materials factories there...and we firebombed Tokyo repeatedly...you're seriously misguided....you should sue every professor you ever had.


----------



## Tom Horn

SassyIrishLass said:


> The Japanese people wouldn't have surrendered if their Emperor hadn't told them to



And then they had to be convinced it was his voice they heard on the radio.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
Click to expand...


Some day some of you eighth wits need to be able to defend your views with something meaningful.  Labeling anyone "america-hating" means nothing at all other than you can’t even make your own argument.  That's in essence what all your labeling is


----------



## Frank'sRules

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pity your ignorance...we hit Hiroshima because of the war materials factories there...and we firebombed Tokyo repeatedly...you're seriously misguided....you should sue every professor you ever had.
Click to expand...

We did firebomb Tokyo and there was nothing in either place we used nukes that mattered.  That's why we used the bombs there, not Tokyo.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Tom Horn said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese people wouldn't have surrendered if their Emperor hadn't told them to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then they had to be convinced it was his voice they heard on the radio.
Click to expand...


Yep, people who have actually studied history know all this, people who listen to left loon sources look like Lum and Frank, fucking clueless


----------



## BlindBoo

Awesome.

Any pics of the Raping of Nanking?

How about the Bataan Death March?

I'm glad our boys didn't invade their mainland.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Frank'sRules said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pity your ignorance...we hit Hiroshima because of the war materials factories there...and we firebombed Tokyo repeatedly...you're seriously misguided....you should sue every professor you ever had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did firebomb Tokyo and there was nothing in either place we used nukes that mattered.  That's why we used the bombs there, not Tokyo.
Click to expand...


Wrong, dumbass

*Target Selection*

ww2dbaseBetween 10 and 11 May 1945, Oppenheimer led a committee which came up with a list of cities most potentially suitable as targets of atomic attacks. The committee eventually arrived at the recommendation of four targets: Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and Kokura.

ww2dbaseHiroshima was chosen as the first target due to its military and industrial values. As a military target, Hiroshima was a major army base that housed the headquarters of the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters. It was also an important port in southern Japan and a communications center. The mountains surrounding Hiroshima also contributed to Hiroshima being among one of the top choices among the short list of potential targets, for that the mountains might contain the destructive forces of an atomic blast in the target area, increasing the level of destruction.

Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Tom Horn said:


> This is the moment the city was about to be torn apart by the first nuclear weapon ever used.   Notice the people standing in the foreground unaware that they were about to be incinerated:



  If this picture shows people about to be incinerated by the nuclear blast, then how did the camera and the film survive?  The camera isn't much farther from the blast than the people in this photograph, and if those people are close enough to be incinerated, then so is the camera and the film.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.


----------



## Frank'sRules

SassyIrishLass said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pity your ignorance...we hit Hiroshima because of the war materials factories there...and we firebombed Tokyo repeatedly...you're seriously misguided....you should sue every professor you ever had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did firebomb Tokyo and there was nothing in either place we used nukes that mattered.  That's why we used the bombs there, not Tokyo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, dumbass
> 
> *Target Selection*
> 
> ww2dbaseBetween 10 and 11 May 1945, Oppenheimer led a committee which came up with a list of cities most potentially suitable as targets of atomic attacks. The committee eventually arrived at the recommendation of four targets: Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and Kokura.
> 
> ww2dbaseHiroshima was chosen as the first target due to its military and industrial values. As a military target, Hiroshima was a major army base that housed the headquarters of the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters. It was also an important port in southern Japan and a communications center. The mountains surrounding Hiroshima also contributed to Hiroshima being among one of the top choices among the short list of potential targets, for that the mountains might contain the destructive forces of an atomic blast in the target area, increasing the level of destruction.
> 
> Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Click to expand...

The funny thing about history is, the winners write it, and they always, always spin it to make themselves look better.  There was no reason at all to use our new toys, we just couldn't help ourselves.

And just how arbitrary was the selection?

"US Secretary of War Henry Stimson voiced successfully against the selection of Kyoto as a target, arguing that the city held cultural importance to the world; he also had a personal attachment to the city as he and his wife traveled to Kyoto on their honeymoon many years prior."


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pity your ignorance...we hit Hiroshima because of the war materials factories there...and we firebombed Tokyo repeatedly...you're seriously misguided....you should sue every professor you ever had.
Click to expand...


It's this simple son, and you know it; anything america does is beyond questioning, but we're "free".  Even if it's the very thing we are critical of others doing.  Oh, and you hate big govt, but you cannot ever question it.  Odd that.  And you soil yourselves if anyone else does.


----------



## Tom Horn

BlindBoo said:


> Awesome.
> 
> Any pics of the Raping of Nanking?
> 
> How about the Bataan Death March?
> 
> I'm glad our boys didn't invade their mainland.



My uncle got as far as Saipan before he was grievously wounded....those islands were butcher shops.  Okinawa was a bloodbath and taking the mainland would have taken tens of thousands more lives.  Luckily Truman had seen enough and knew from his time in WW1 what we were looking at.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Frank'sRules said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pity your ignorance...we hit Hiroshima because of the war materials factories there...and we firebombed Tokyo repeatedly...you're seriously misguided....you should sue every professor you ever had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did firebomb Tokyo and there was nothing in either place we used nukes that mattered.  That's why we used the bombs there, not Tokyo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, dumbass
> 
> *Target Selection*
> 
> ww2dbaseBetween 10 and 11 May 1945, Oppenheimer led a committee which came up with a list of cities most potentially suitable as targets of atomic attacks. The committee eventually arrived at the recommendation of four targets: Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and Kokura.
> 
> ww2dbaseHiroshima was chosen as the first target due to its military and industrial values. As a military target, Hiroshima was a major army base that housed the headquarters of the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters. It was also an important port in southern Japan and a communications center. The mountains surrounding Hiroshima also contributed to Hiroshima being among one of the top choices among the short list of potential targets, for that the mountains might contain the destructive forces of an atomic blast in the target area, increasing the level of destruction.
> 
> Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The funny thing about history is, the winners write it, and they always, always spin it to make themselves look better.  There was no reason at all to use our new toys, we just couldn't help ourselves.
Click to expand...


Once again you've been outed as a know nothing. You're in over your head on this one, give it up


----------



## blackhawk

Frank'sRules said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
Click to expand...

Technically in imperial Japan during WW2 the emperor was in charge in reality the military was. The only reason he made the call for surrender was because the heads of the military could not reach an agreement on what to do half wanted to surrender half to continue fighting he was asked to break the deadlock. These are the facts accept them or ignore them I really don't care either way I will always respect ones right to be uninformed.


----------



## Frank'sRules

LordBrownTrout said:


> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.


They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Frank'sRules said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pity your ignorance...we hit Hiroshima because of the war materials factories there...and we firebombed Tokyo repeatedly...you're seriously misguided....you should sue every professor you ever had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did firebomb Tokyo and there was nothing in either place we used nukes that mattered.  That's why we used the bombs there, not Tokyo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, dumbass
> 
> *Target Selection*
> 
> ww2dbaseBetween 10 and 11 May 1945, Oppenheimer led a committee which came up with a list of cities most potentially suitable as targets of atomic attacks. The committee eventually arrived at the recommendation of four targets: Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and Kokura.
> 
> ww2dbaseHiroshima was chosen as the first target due to its military and industrial values. As a military target, Hiroshima was a major army base that housed the headquarters of the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters. It was also an important port in southern Japan and a communications center. The mountains surrounding Hiroshima also contributed to Hiroshima being among one of the top choices among the short list of potential targets, for that the mountains might contain the destructive forces of an atomic blast in the target area, increasing the level of destruction.
> 
> Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The funny thing about history is, the winners write it, and they always, always spin it to make themselves look better.  There was no reason at all to use our new toys, we just couldn't help ourselves.
Click to expand...


That's Tom's prollem with the professors he wants sued, some may have not stuck to the winner's fantasized partisan version.


----------



## Frank'sRules

blackhawk said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically in imperial Japan during WW2 the emperor was in charge in reality the military was. The only reason he made the call for surrender was because the heads of the military could not reach an agreement on what to do half wanted to surrender half to continue fighting he was asked to break the deadlock. These are the facts accept them or ignore them I really don't care either way I will always respect ones right to be uninformed.
Click to expand...

I am anything but uninformed.  Their surrender was near, and we knew it.


----------



## Fenton Lum

blackhawk said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically in imperial Japan during WW2 the emperor was in charge in reality the military was. The only reason he made the call for surrender was because the heads of the military could not reach an agreement on what to do half wanted to surrender half to continue fighting he was asked to break the deadlock. These are the facts accept them or ignore them I really don't care either way I will always respect ones right to be uninformed.
Click to expand...


"uninformed" = another point of view.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Frank'sRules said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
Click to expand...


They were planning conditional surrender.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Frank'sRules said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically in imperial Japan during WW2 the emperor was in charge in reality the military was. The only reason he made the call for surrender was because the heads of the military could not reach an agreement on what to do half wanted to surrender half to continue fighting he was asked to break the deadlock. These are the facts accept them or ignore them I really don't care either way I will always respect ones right to be uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am anything but uninformed.  Their surrender was near, and we knew it.
Click to expand...


It's been fleshed out extensively, it just conflicts with what he chooses to believe.


----------



## Tom Horn

Bob Blaylock said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the moment the city was about to be torn apart by the first nuclear weapon ever used.   Notice the people standing in the foreground unaware that they were about to be incinerated:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this picture shows people about to be incinerated by the nuclear blast, then how did the camera and the film survive?  The camera isn't much farther from the blast than the people in this photograph, and if those people are close enough to be incinerated, then so is the camera and the film.
Click to expand...


Duh...this camera and the film was obviously spared by some twist of fate...it's a real picture that I found and brought here to show the fury of an atomic blast.


----------



## blackhawk

Fenton Lum said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically in imperial Japan during WW2 the emperor was in charge in reality the military was. The only reason he made the call for surrender was because the heads of the military could not reach an agreement on what to do half wanted to surrender half to continue fighting he was asked to break the deadlock. These are the facts accept them or ignore them I really don't care either way I will always respect ones right to be uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "uninformed" = another point of view.
Click to expand...

Feel free to research what I have posted and see if it's inaccurate or untrue.


----------



## Tom Horn

LordBrownTrout said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were planning conditional surrender.
Click to expand...


No they were not.....they sent signals to Washington that they would withdraw from conquered territories to their borders if we stopped.  After 4 years of carnage we were not about to let them off the hook.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Frank'sRules said:


> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.


----------



## martybegan

Tom Horn said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were planning conditional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they were not.....they sent signals to Washington that they would withdraw from conquered territories to their borders if we stopped.  After 4 years of carnage we were not about to let them off the hook.
Click to expand...


Yes, with the conditions of 1) No disarmament of Japanese Troops 2) No Occupation of Japan 3) No war crimes trials for Japanese Military personnel 4) retention of the Emperor. These were a no go for the allies. 

In the end we gave them a conditional 4).


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Tom Horn said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were planning conditional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they were not.....they sent signals to Washington that they would withdraw from conquered territories to their borders if we stopped.  After 4 years of carnage we were not about to let them off the hook.
Click to expand...


That's what I was getting at. We weren't going to let them off the hook.


----------



## BlindBoo

Frank'sRules said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
Click to expand...


Besides the cost in lives of an invasion, we wanted a fast surrender to stop the Russians from occupying more land.  Letting them know we were not afraid to use our new toys could also have been a factor in Truman's thinking.

Don't get me wrong I feel for the all the innocent civilians who died in that war.  But that really was a different time.


----------



## Frank'sRules

LordBrownTrout said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were planning conditional surrender.
Click to expand...

Who wouldn't?


----------



## Frank'sRules

BlindBoo said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides the cost in lives of an invasion, we wanted a fast surrender to stop the Russians from occupying more land.  Letting them know we were not afraid to use our new toys could also have been a factor in Truman's thinking.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I feel for the all the innocent civilians who died in that war.  But that really was a different time.
Click to expand...

That changes nothing of the fact that it was an unnecessary use of weapons of terror.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

martybegan said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were planning conditional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they were not.....they sent signals to Washington that they would withdraw from conquered territories to their borders if we stopped.  After 4 years of carnage we were not about to let them off the hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, with the conditions of 1) No disarmament of Japanese Troops 2) No Occupation of Japan 3) No war crimes trials for Japanese Military personnel 4) retention of the Emperor. These were a no go for the allies.
> 
> In the end we gave them a conditional 4).
Click to expand...


That's the only face they were allowed to save. We even confiscated their samurai swords. There are thousands in private collections in the US.  Japan is the only country that can assign true value to these swords but they have a law now that keeps those swords in country if they are brought in to be evaluated.


----------



## Tom Horn

martybegan said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were planning conditional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they were not.....they sent signals to Washington that they would withdraw from conquered territories to their borders if we stopped.  After 4 years of carnage we were not about to let them off the hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, with the conditions of 1) No disarmament of Japanese Troops 2) No Occupation of Japan 3) No war crimes trials for Japanese Military personnel 4) retention of the Emperor. These were a no go for the allies.
> 
> In the end we gave them a conditional 4).
Click to expand...


Correct....we decided not to hang Hirohito because it would have infuriated the Japanese people into continued resistance.  Defrocking him of his supposed divinity was humiliating enough.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Frank'sRules said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides the cost in lives of an invasion, we wanted a fast surrender to stop the Russians from occupying more land.  Letting them know we were not afraid to use our new toys could also have been a factor in Truman's thinking.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I feel for the all the innocent civilians who died in that war.  But that really was a different time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That changes nothing of the fact that it was an unnecessary use of weapons of terror.
Click to expand...



Then, you must be pissed that we handed eastern europe back to russia after the war.


----------



## Frank'sRules

LordBrownTrout said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides the cost in lives of an invasion, we wanted a fast surrender to stop the Russians from occupying more land.  Letting them know we were not afraid to use our new toys could also have been a factor in Truman's thinking.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I feel for the all the innocent civilians who died in that war.  But that really was a different time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That changes nothing of the fact that it was an unnecessary use of weapons of terror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, you must be pissed that we handed eastern europe back to russia after the war.
Click to expand...

Patton was.


----------



## Tom Horn

LordBrownTrout said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were planning conditional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they were not.....they sent signals to Washington that they would withdraw from conquered territories to their borders if we stopped.  After 4 years of carnage we were not about to let them off the hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, with the conditions of 1) No disarmament of Japanese Troops 2) No Occupation of Japan 3) No war crimes trials for Japanese Military personnel 4) retention of the Emperor. These were a no go for the allies.
> 
> In the end we gave them a conditional 4).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the only face they were allowed to save. We even confiscated their samurai swords. There are thousands in private collections in the US.  Japan is the only country that can assign true value to these swords but they have a law now that keeps those swords in country if they are brought in to be evaluated.
Click to expand...


Sounds like you've been watching "American Pickers"...not many people know this.


----------



## Tom Horn

Frank'sRules said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides the cost in lives of an invasion, we wanted a fast surrender to stop the Russians from occupying more land.  Letting them know we were not afraid to use our new toys could also have been a factor in Truman's thinking.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I feel for the all the innocent civilians who died in that war.  But that really was a different time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That changes nothing of the fact that it was an unnecessary use of weapons of terror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, you must be pissed that we handed eastern europe back to russia after the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Patton was.
Click to expand...


Wrong again, moron....Patton was killed in a car wreck in 1945 and never knew what happened after Germany surrendered.


----------



## BlindBoo

Frank'sRules said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides the cost in lives of an invasion, we wanted a fast surrender to stop the Russians from occupying more land.  Letting them know we were not afraid to use our new toys could also have been a factor in Truman's thinking.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I feel for the all the innocent civilians who died in that war.  But that really was a different time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That changes nothing of the fact that it was an unnecessary use of weapons of terror.
Click to expand...


To each his own.


----------



## Frank'sRules

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides the cost in lives of an invasion, we wanted a fast surrender to stop the Russians from occupying more land.  Letting them know we were not afraid to use our new toys could also have been a factor in Truman's thinking.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I feel for the all the innocent civilians who died in that war.  But that really was a different time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That changes nothing of the fact that it was an unnecessary use of weapons of terror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, you must be pissed that we handed eastern europe back to russia after the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Patton was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again, moron....Patton was killed in a car wreck in 1945 and never knew what happened after Germany surrendered.
Click to expand...

His plan was to fight the Russians, while over there.  Get a sense of humor.


----------



## Tom Horn

The America-haters here delight in trying to make our enemies into tragic figures....they twist facts around until nobody knows what to believe.....Fifth columnists and they don't even know how they're being used.


----------



## Frank'sRules

Tom Horn said:


> The America-haters here delight in trying to make our enemies into tragic figures....they twist facts around until nobody knows what to believe.....Fifth columnists and they don't even know how they're being used.


Don't try to make acts of terrorism worthy.  It might work, like our use of terrorism in Japan, but it's never worthy.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the moment the city was about to be torn apart by the first nuclear weapon ever used.   Notice the people standing in the foreground unaware that they were about to be incinerated:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this picture shows people about to be incinerated by the nuclear blast, then how did the camera and the film survive?  The camera isn't much farther from the blast than the people in this photograph, and if those people are close enough to be incinerated, then so is the camera and the film.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh...this camera and the film was obviously spared by some twist of fate...it's a real picture that I found and brought here to show the fury of an atomic blast.
Click to expand...


That sounds a lot like you have no idea.  Or if it's real as well.


----------



## Tom Horn

Frank'sRules said:


> His plan was to fight the Russians, while over there.  Get a sense of humor.



"a sense of humor"?  So you're some snarky pinhead just trying to piss people off with your bullshit?  FYI, WW2 wasn't funny...60,000,000 people lost their lives.


----------



## Onyx

Tom Horn said:


> They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.



The ruling class was going to inflict millions of US military deaths by invading mainland Japan.

Do you know the conditions the US sent to Japan before dropping the bombs? Look those up and tell me whether dropping nuclear bombs was a necessary evil.


----------



## Tom Horn

Onyx said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ruling class was going to inflict millions of US military deaths by invading mainland Japan.
> 
> Do you know the conditions the US sent to Japan before dropping the bombs? Look those up and tell me whether dropping nuclear bombs was a necessary evil.
Click to expand...


You tell me, Ivan....I'm sure your borscht-gobblers have figured out some good lies about us.


----------



## Frank'sRules

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> His plan was to fight the Russians, while over there.  Get a sense of humor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "a sense of humor"?  So you're some snarky pinhead just trying to piss people off with your bullshit?  FYI, WW2 wasn't funny...60,000,000 people lost their lives.
Click to expand...

Would have been more like 59,000,000 if we hadn't used our new terror toys.


----------



## Fenton Lum

blackhawk said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically in imperial Japan during WW2 the emperor was in charge in reality the military was. The only reason he made the call for surrender was because the heads of the military could not reach an agreement on what to do half wanted to surrender half to continue fighting he was asked to break the deadlock. These are the facts accept them or ignore them I really don't care either way I will always respect ones right to be uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "uninformed" = another point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to research what I have posted and see if it's inaccurate or untrue.
Click to expand...


Thanks, very kind of you, since what you've posted here reads like speculation.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> The America-haters here delight in trying to make our enemies into tragic figures....they twist facts around until nobody knows what to believe.....Fifth columnists and they don't even know how they're being used.



Ah, the labels again when no coherent argument is at hand.


----------



## regent

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor what were Japan's goals?


----------



## Fenton Lum

BlindBoo said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides the cost in lives of an invasion, we wanted a fast surrender to stop the Russians from occupying more land.  Letting them know we were not afraid to use our new toys could also have been a factor in Truman's thinking.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I feel for the all the innocent civilians who died in that war.  But that really was a different time.
Click to expand...


They were told that above, perhaps they'll listen to you.


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Those big, bad Americanos....
If only they could be more like France..... lol


----------



## blackhawk

Fenton Lum said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically in imperial Japan during WW2 the emperor was in charge in reality the military was. The only reason he made the call for surrender was because the heads of the military could not reach an agreement on what to do half wanted to surrender half to continue fighting he was asked to break the deadlock. These are the facts accept them or ignore them I really don't care either way I will always respect ones right to be uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "uninformed" = another point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to research what I have posted and see if it's inaccurate or untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, very kind of you, since what you've posted here reads like speculation.
Click to expand...

Look for the book The Last Misson it details the story I have posted about. Heads up there is a book about a bomber crew in Europe with the same title.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning conditional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they were not.....they sent signals to Washington that they would withdraw from conquered territories to their borders if we stopped.  After 4 years of carnage we were not about to let them off the hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, with the conditions of 1) No disarmament of Japanese Troops 2) No Occupation of Japan 3) No war crimes trials for Japanese Military personnel 4) retention of the Emperor. These were a no go for the allies.
> 
> In the end we gave them a conditional 4).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the only face they were allowed to save. We even confiscated their samurai swords. There are thousands in private collections in the US.  Japan is the only country that can assign true value to these swords but they have a law now that keeps those swords in country if they are brought in to be evaluated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you've been watching "American Pickers"...not many people know this.
Click to expand...


Sounds like everything you know comes from television and you're projecting that on everyone else.


----------



## Onyx

Tom Horn said:


> You tell me, Ivan....I'm sure your borscht-gobblers have figured out some good lies about us.



To abdicate the emperor, which is the equivalent of abolishing the second amendment or burning all bibles in the United States.

The Imperial High Command, which was governed by 5 officers, was *one* vote away from surrendering to the United States.

Guess who is still around?


----------



## Fenton Lum

blackhawk said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> 
> 
> Technically in imperial Japan during WW2 the emperor was in charge in reality the military was. The only reason he made the call for surrender was because the heads of the military could not reach an agreement on what to do half wanted to surrender half to continue fighting he was asked to break the deadlock. These are the facts accept them or ignore them I really don't care either way I will always respect ones right to be uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "uninformed" = another point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to research what I have posted and see if it's inaccurate or untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, very kind of you, since what you've posted here reads like speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look for the book The Last Misson it details the story I have posted about. Heads up there is a book about a bomber crew in Europe with the same title.
Click to expand...


Well one book won't do it for me since learning is lifetime, but yeah, I'll give it a go with this version of inquiry.


----------



## Onyx

Frank'sRules said:


> Would have been more like 59,000,000 if we hadn't used our new terror toys.



More along the lines of 2 million, which basically means the United States would of failed had it invaded Japan alone.

For reference, the United States had over 3 million troops during 1945.


----------



## blackhawk

Fenton Lum said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically in imperial Japan during WW2 the emperor was in charge in reality the military was. The only reason he made the call for surrender was because the heads of the military could not reach an agreement on what to do half wanted to surrender half to continue fighting he was asked to break the deadlock. These are the facts accept them or ignore them I really don't care either way I will always respect ones right to be uninformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "uninformed" = another point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to research what I have posted and see if it's inaccurate or untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, very kind of you, since what you've posted here reads like speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look for the book The Last Misson it details the story I have posted about. Heads up there is a book about a bomber crew in Europe with the same title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well one book won't do it for me since learning is lifetime, but yeah, I'll give it a go with this version of inquiry.
Click to expand...

There have been a lot of books written about WW2 I'm confident you can find as many as you need.


----------



## kaz

Frank'sRules said:


> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.


----------



## Frank'sRules

Onyx said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would have been more like 59,000,000 if we hadn't used our new terror toys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More along the lines of 2 million, which basically means the United States would of failed had it invaded Japan alone.
> 
> For reference, the United States had over 3 million troops during 1945.
Click to expand...

There was never going to be a need to invade Japan.


----------



## kaz

Frank'sRules said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
Click to expand...


That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender.  What they proposed was that we just stop fighting.  That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again


----------



## Onyx

regent said:


> When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor what were Japan's goals?



To destroy the United States naval capabilities in the Pacific. 

Hostility had been rising for some time after the US placed high tariffs on oil, and eventually a full embargo.


----------



## kaz

Frank'sRules said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would have been more like 59,000,000 if we hadn't used our new terror toys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More along the lines of 2 million, which basically means the United States would of failed had it invaded Japan alone.
> 
> For reference, the United States had over 3 million troops during 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was never going to be a need to invade Japan.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Had we agreed to stop fighting (stop lying they were going to surrender), eventually we'd have had to fight the next war with them and invade then to end it.

The idea that we should fight wars to not win them is the stupid idea that gave us Korea, Vietnam and the stupidity we continue to day to continually fight wars yet tie one hand behind our back and put a glove on the other


----------



## HenryBHough

Truman knew wars were for winning.

Which is why The Democrat Party would drum him out were he alive today.


----------



## Onyx

kaz said:


> That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender.



Not under the conditions demanded. 

There was widespread public opinion against the ruling government at the time, and two of the five officers that made the decision regarding ending the war voted in favor of unconditional surrender. This *included* the abdication of their sacred emperor and putting *themselves* on trial. 



> That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again



Really?

Your argument is destiny?


----------



## kaz

Onyx said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not under the conditions demanded.
> 
> There was widespread public opinion against the ruling government at the time, and two of the five officers that made the decision regarding ending the war voted in favor of unconditional surrender. This *included* the abdication of their sacred emperor and putting *themselves* on trial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Your argument is destiny?
Click to expand...


No, WTF.  The reason I said it would happen again was in the one sentence of mine you quoted


----------



## Fenton Lum

blackhawk said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> "uninformed" = another point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to research what I have posted and see if it's inaccurate or untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, very kind of you, since what you've posted here reads like speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look for the book The Last Misson it details the story I have posted about. Heads up there is a book about a bomber crew in Europe with the same title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well one book won't do it for me since learning is lifetime, but yeah, I'll give it a go with this version of inquiry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There have been a lot of books written about WW2 I'm confident you can find as many as you need.
Click to expand...


I don't need to be fed the national line, that's what school was for, to socialize me in the proper manner. We were all subjected to that.


----------



## Frank'sRules

kaz said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender.  What they proposed was that we just stop fighting.  That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again
Click to expand...

Your spin doesn't play anywhere near as good as most here.  A truce, call it what you like, was okay for Korea but we couldn't have done such a thing with Japan?

Only Japan didn't again because a military power and we are still here.  North Korea might be nuts but the peace is still holding.  Your spin for why we had to use weapons of terror on Japan doesn't hunt.


----------



## kaz

Fenton Lum said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to research what I have posted and see if it's inaccurate or untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, very kind of you, since what you've posted here reads like speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look for the book The Last Misson it details the story I have posted about. Heads up there is a book about a bomber crew in Europe with the same title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well one book won't do it for me since learning is lifetime, but yeah, I'll give it a go with this version of inquiry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There have been a lot of books written about WW2 I'm confident you can find as many as you need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to be fed the national line, that's what school was for, to socialize me in the proper manner. We were all subjected to that.
Click to expand...


Yes, government schools indoctrinated you in government


----------



## jknowgood

Frank'sRules said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.  The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.
Click to expand...

They were using their own soldiers as bombs. Talk about terrorism.


----------



## Fenton Lum

HenryBHough said:


> Truman knew wars were for winning.
> 
> Which is why The Democrat Party would drum him out were he alive today.



We haven't been in a legit war since WWII, and that has been utterly bipartisan.


----------



## Fenton Lum

kaz said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, very kind of you, since what you've posted here reads like speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> Look for the book The Last Misson it details the story I have posted about. Heads up there is a book about a bomber crew in Europe with the same title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well one book won't do it for me since learning is lifetime, but yeah, I'll give it a go with this version of inquiry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There have been a lot of books written about WW2 I'm confident you can find as many as you need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to be fed the national line, that's what school was for, to socialize me in the proper manner. We were all subjected to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, government schools indoctrinated you in government
Click to expand...


You're exhibit "a" son, hook, line, and sinker.


----------



## Onyx

Fentum Lum said:
			
		

> We haven't been in a legit war since WWIIm and that has been utterly bipartisan.



There was the Korean War, but for some reason that war is widely forgotten by Americans.

US generals are going to get their asses handed to them if they ever get pushed into actual conventional warfare.


----------



## Fenton Lum

jknowgood said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.  The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were using their own soldiers as bombs. Talk about terrorism.
Click to expand...


"Terrorism" is always what the other guy does.


----------



## kaz

Frank'sRules said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender.  What they proposed was that we just stop fighting.  That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your spin doesn't play anywhere near as good as most here.  A truce, call it what you like, was okay for Korea but we couldn't have done such a thing with Japan?
> 
> Only Japan didn't again because a military power and we are still here.  North Korea might be nuts but the peace is still holding.  Your spin for why we had to use weapons of terror on Japan doesn't hunt.
Click to expand...


Um ... no ... Strawman.  I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it.  We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country.  Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives.  We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them.  Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them


----------



## Frank'sRules

jknowgood said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.  The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were using their own soldiers as bombs. Talk about terrorism.
Click to expand...

I poor man's smart weapon.


----------



## blackhawk

Fenton Lum said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to research what I have posted and see if it's inaccurate or untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, very kind of you, since what you've posted here reads like speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look for the book The Last Misson it details the story I have posted about. Heads up there is a book about a bomber crew in Europe with the same title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well one book won't do it for me since learning is lifetime, but yeah, I'll give it a go with this version of inquiry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There have been a lot of books written about WW2 I'm confident you can find as many as you need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to be fed the national line, that's what school was for, to socialize me in the proper manner. We were all subjected to that.
Click to expand...

This information did not come from a school history book. I gave you a place to start what you choose to with it is up to you either proceed or don't the choice is yours I'm not going to try and convince you anymore either way.


----------



## kaz

Onyx said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't been in a legit war since WWIIm and that has been utterly bipartisan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was the Korean War, but for some reason that war is widely forgotten by Americans.
> 
> US generals are going to get their asses handed to them if they ever get pushed into actual conventional warfare.
Click to expand...


That quote wasn't me, it was Fenton.  

I think the Vietnam war and the Korean were for legitimate purposes, but we fucked both up in the execution and would have been better off staying out of them rather than fight it the way we did, particularly Vietnam


----------



## Fenton Lum

kaz said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender.  What they proposed was that we just stop fighting.  That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your spin doesn't play anywhere near as good as most here.  A truce, call it what you like, was okay for Korea but we couldn't have done such a thing with Japan?
> 
> Only Japan didn't again because a military power and we are still here.  North Korea might be nuts but the peace is still holding.  Your spin for why we had to use weapons of terror on Japan doesn't hunt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um ... no ... Strawman.  I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it.  We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country.  Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives.  We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them.  Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them
Click to expand...


You have no will because you're defending nothing, they are wars of aggression.


----------



## Onyx

jknowgood said:


> They were using their own soldiers as bombs. Talk about terrorism.



The nuclear bombs were not used on solidiers. They were used on civilians. 

Many Japanese were critical of the military government and to a lesser extent the emperor by the end of the war. If you want historical context, notice how many more stories we have of Japanese secret police operating in 1945 as opposed to 1938.


----------



## TooTall

Frank'sRules said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
Click to expand...


You are full of shit up to your eyeballs.


----------



## Fenton Lum

blackhawk said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, very kind of you, since what you've posted here reads like speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> Look for the book The Last Misson it details the story I have posted about. Heads up there is a book about a bomber crew in Europe with the same title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well one book won't do it for me since learning is lifetime, but yeah, I'll give it a go with this version of inquiry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There have been a lot of books written about WW2 I'm confident you can find as many as you need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to be fed the national line, that's what school was for, to socialize me in the proper manner. We were all subjected to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This information did not come from a school history book. I gave you a place to start what you choose to with it is up to you either proceed or don't the choice is yours I'm not going to try and convince you anymore either way.
Click to expand...


I'm referring to a narrative line.  Again, many of these things are written from the vantage point of the victor.


----------



## Fenton Lum

TooTall said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are full of shit up to your eyeballs.
Click to expand...


Terrific rebuttal.


----------



## BlindBoo

Frank'sRules said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The America-haters here delight in trying to make our enemies into tragic figures....they twist facts around until nobody knows what to believe.....Fifth columnists and they don't even know how they're being used.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try to make acts of terrorism worthy.  It might work, like our use of terrorism in Japan, but it's never worthy.
Click to expand...


It was an act of war.


----------



## Frank'sRules

kaz said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender.  What they proposed was that we just stop fighting.  That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your spin doesn't play anywhere near as good as most here.  A truce, call it what you like, was okay for Korea but we couldn't have done such a thing with Japan?
> 
> Only Japan didn't again because a military power and we are still here.  North Korea might be nuts but the peace is still holding.  Your spin for why we had to use weapons of terror on Japan doesn't hunt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um ... no ... Strawman.  I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it.  We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country.  Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives.  We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them.  Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them
Click to expand...

You're going to have to make up your mind on why we had to take over Japan but we could make peace with North Korea?  In your mind I guess Germany and Italy shouldn't be allowed to have pop-guns yet just like Japan?


----------



## kaz

Fenton Lum said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender.  What they proposed was that we just stop fighting.  That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your spin doesn't play anywhere near as good as most here.  A truce, call it what you like, was okay for Korea but we couldn't have done such a thing with Japan?
> 
> Only Japan didn't again because a military power and we are still here.  North Korea might be nuts but the peace is still holding.  Your spin for why we had to use weapons of terror on Japan doesn't hunt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um ... no ... Strawman.  I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it.  We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country.  Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives.  We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them.  Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no will because you're defending nothing, they are wars orf aggression.
Click to expand...


Countering the Soviet Union was defense.  The domino theory wasn't a theory.  And what's your desire to have Koreans and Vietnamese Communist?  Look at the lives today of North Koreans and South Koreans.  That doesn't help them?  You just hate them because they're not white?

As for the ones after that, I don't support most of them.  I support Grenada and Panama, that's about it


----------



## jknowgood

Fenton Lum said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.  The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were using their own soldiers as bombs. Talk about terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Terrorism" is always what the other guy does.
Click to expand...

What do you call it?


----------



## TooTall

Frank'sRules said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.  The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.
Click to expand...


We dropped the bombs to save AMERICAN lives and it worked.


----------



## Fenton Lum

BlindBoo said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The America-haters here delight in trying to make our enemies into tragic figures....they twist facts around until nobody knows what to believe.....Fifth columnists and they don't even know how they're being used.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try to make acts of terrorism worthy.  It might work, like our use of terrorism in Japan, but it's never worthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was an act of war.
Click to expand...


Then we'd better expect the same at some point, we sure don't avoid war.


----------



## Onyx

kaz said:


> I think the Vietnam war and the Korean were for legitimate purposes, but we fucked both up in the execution and would have been better off staying out of them rather than fight it the way we did, particularly Vietnam



The Korean War had basis in moral justice . North Korea were aggressors, and the goals of the UN were self defense from beginning to end. This is only because we had a little bit of human consciousness still left five years after WW2.

The Vietnam War (which was not an actual war) was wholly unjust. It was driven by greed for geopolitical power, and it caused forced division and chaos among the Vietnamese people at the behest of the US military-industrial complex.


----------



## Tom Horn

Onyx said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tell me, Ivan....I'm sure your borscht-gobblers have figured out some good lies about us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To abdicate the emperor, which is the equivalent of abolishing the second amendment or burning all bibles in the United States.
> 
> The Imperial High Command, which was governed by 5 officers, was *one* vote away from surrendering to the United States.
> 
> Guess who is still around?
Click to expand...


We know...our fake president BOWED to the little asshole.


----------



## kaz

Frank'sRules said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender.  What they proposed was that we just stop fighting.  That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your spin doesn't play anywhere near as good as most here.  A truce, call it what you like, was okay for Korea but we couldn't have done such a thing with Japan?
> 
> Only Japan didn't again because a military power and we are still here.  North Korea might be nuts but the peace is still holding.  Your spin for why we had to use weapons of terror on Japan doesn't hunt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um ... no ... Strawman.  I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it.  We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country.  Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives.  We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them.  Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're going to have to make up your mind on why we had to take over Japan but we could make peace with North Korea?  In your mind I guess Germany and Italy shouldn't be allowed to have pop-guns yet just like Japan?
Click to expand...


I keep saying we should have won the war with North Korea and invaded them, you stupid fuck.  What is wrong with you?  Seriously?

I keep saying we should do one of two things:

1)  Fight a war to win it:  Including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama

2)  Stay out:  Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, ...

Afghanistan I think we should have destroyed the Taliban, but not invaded and tried to build a nation there.  Stupid move


----------



## kaz

Onyx said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Vietnam war and the Korean were for legitimate purposes, but we fucked both up in the execution and would have been better off staying out of them rather than fight it the way we did, particularly Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Korean War had basis in moral justice . North Korea were aggressors.
> 
> The Vietnam War (which was not an actual war) was wholly unjust. It was driven by greed for geopolitical power, and it caused forced division and chaos among the Vietnamese people at the behest of the US military-industrial complex.
Click to expand...


Well, as it happened I agree.  We should have stayed out rather than fought it the way we did. However, had we gone in, won, set up the Vietnamese and left it would have been totally justified.  We had the military power to do that, but not the political will.  LBJ because it was his economic policy, Nixon because the country was no longer behind the war.


----------



## Frank'sRules

TooTall said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.  The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We dropped the bombs to save AMERICAN lives and it worked.
Click to expand...

Well, how very brave of US.  Isn't that the same as saying that ISIS killing Americans is saving Muslim lives?

What we were mostly doing was showing off for the Russians.  And these important targets included this little gem -

"US Secretary of War Henry Stimson voiced successfully against the selection of Kyoto as a target, arguing that the city held cultural importance to the world; he also had a personal attachment to the city as he and his wife traveled to Kyoto on their honeymoon many years prior."


----------



## BlindBoo

Fenton Lum said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides the cost in lives of an invasion, we wanted a fast surrender to stop the Russians from occupying more land.  Letting them know we were not afraid to use our new toys could also have been a factor in Truman's thinking.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I feel for the all the innocent civilians who died in that war.  But that really was a different time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were told that above, perhaps they'll listen to you.
Click to expand...


Nah probably not


----------



## Tom Horn

kaz said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender.  What they proposed was that we just stop fighting.  That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your spin doesn't play anywhere near as good as most here.  A truce, call it what you like, was okay for Korea but we couldn't have done such a thing with Japan?
> 
> Only Japan didn't again because a military power and we are still here.  North Korea might be nuts but the peace is still holding.  Your spin for why we had to use weapons of terror on Japan doesn't hunt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um ... no ... Strawman.  I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it.  We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country.  Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives.  We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them.  Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're going to have to make up your mind on why we had to take over Japan but we could make peace with North Korea?  In your mind I guess Germany and Italy shouldn't be allowed to have pop-guns yet just like Japan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep saying we should have won the war with North Korea and invaded them, you stupid fuck.  What is wrong with you?  Seriously?
> 
> I keep saying we should do one of two things:
> 
> 1)  Fight a war to win it:  Including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama
> 
> 2)  Stay out:  Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, ...
> 
> Afghanistan I think we should have destroyed the Taliban, but not invaded and tried to build a nation there.  Stupid move
Click to expand...


We had the Vietnam War won by the summer of '68...nothing between us and Hanoi up Highway 1...and Johnston lost his nerve.   Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH.


----------



## Onyx

Tom Horn said:


> We know...our fake president BOWED to the little asshole.



Okay, but you know that is unrelated to my point. 

If dropping nuclear weapons was the only option, then explain why allowing Japan to keep their emperor (which ended up being done anyways) was not an option.


----------



## Fenton Lum

TooTall said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.  The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We dropped the bombs to save AMERICAN lives and it worked.
Click to expand...


And by that rationale anyone who drops that stuff on us would be saving THEIR lives I reckon.  Course, we're the only nation that ever has.  Yet.


----------



## Tom Horn

Frank'sRules said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.  The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We dropped the bombs to save AMERICAN lives and it worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, how very brave of US.  Isn't that the same as saying that ISIS killing Americans is saving Muslim lives?
> 
> What we were mostly doing was showing off for the Russians.  And these important targets included this little gem -
> 
> "US Secretary of War Henry Stimson voiced successfully against the selection of Kyoto as a target, arguing that the city held cultural importance to the world; he also had a personal attachment to the city as he and his wife traveled to Kyoto on their honeymoon many years prior."
Click to expand...


You were invited to leave this thread ya piece of shit....everybody here knows what you are.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender.  What they proposed was that we just stop fighting.  That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again
> 
> 
> 
> Your spin doesn't play anywhere near as good as most here.  A truce, call it what you like, was okay for Korea but we couldn't have done such a thing with Japan?
> 
> Only Japan didn't again because a military power and we are still here.  North Korea might be nuts but the peace is still holding.  Your spin for why we had to use weapons of terror on Japan doesn't hunt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um ... no ... Strawman.  I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it.  We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country.  Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives.  We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them.  Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're going to have to make up your mind on why we had to take over Japan but we could make peace with North Korea?  In your mind I guess Germany and Italy shouldn't be allowed to have pop-guns yet just like Japan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep saying we should have won the war with North Korea and invaded them, you stupid fuck.  What is wrong with you?  Seriously?
> 
> I keep saying we should do one of two things:
> 
> 1)  Fight a war to win it:  Including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama
> 
> 2)  Stay out:  Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, ...
> 
> Afghanistan I think we should have destroyed the Taliban, but not invaded and tried to build a nation there.  Stupid move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had the Vietnam War won by the summer of '68...nothing between us and Hanoi up Highway 1...and Johnston lost his nerve.   Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH.
Click to expand...


Everything is partisan to some, it's a disease.


----------



## Frank'sRules

kaz said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender.  What they proposed was that we just stop fighting.  That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your spin doesn't play anywhere near as good as most here.  A truce, call it what you like, was okay for Korea but we couldn't have done such a thing with Japan?
> 
> Only Japan didn't again because a military power and we are still here.  North Korea might be nuts but the peace is still holding.  Your spin for why we had to use weapons of terror on Japan doesn't hunt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um ... no ... Strawman.  I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it.  We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country.  Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives.  We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them.  Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're going to have to make up your mind on why we had to take over Japan but we could make peace with North Korea?  In your mind I guess Germany and Italy shouldn't be allowed to have pop-guns yet just like Japan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep saying we should have won the war with North Korea and invaded them, you stupid fuck.  What is wrong with you?  Seriously?
> 
> I keep saying we should do one of two things:
> 
> 1)  Fight a war to win it:  Including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama
> 
> 2)  Stay out:  Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, ...
> 
> Afghanistan I think we should have destroyed the Taliban, but not invaded and tried to build a nation there.  Stupid move
Click to expand...

You are welcome to keep saying things but that doesn't change the history.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.  The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We dropped the bombs to save AMERICAN lives and it worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, how very brave of US.  Isn't that the same as saying that ISIS killing Americans is saving Muslim lives?
> 
> What we were mostly doing was showing off for the Russians.  And these important targets included this little gem -
> 
> "US Secretary of War Henry Stimson voiced successfully against the selection of Kyoto as a target, arguing that the city held cultural importance to the world; he also had a personal attachment to the city as he and his wife traveled to Kyoto on their honeymoon many years prior."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were invited to leave this thread ya piece of shit....everybody here knows what you are.
Click to expand...


My my my, childish much?


----------



## Tom Horn

Onyx said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know...our fake president BOWED to the little asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, but you know that is unrelated to my point.
> 
> If dropping nuclear weapons was the only option, then explain why allowing Japan to keep their emperor (which ended up being done anyways) was not an option.
Click to expand...


The little guy in the pictures is the Emporer's son.  I already explained why he was spared....that was MacArthur's call by the way.


----------



## BlindBoo

Frank'sRules said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would have been more like 59,000,000 if we hadn't used our new terror toys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More along the lines of 2 million, which basically means the United States would of failed had it invaded Japan alone.
> 
> For reference, the United States had over 3 million troops during 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was never going to be a need to invade Japan.
Click to expand...


Not since July 16th of 1945 anyway......


----------



## Frank'sRules

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.  The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We dropped the bombs to save AMERICAN lives and it worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, how very brave of US.  Isn't that the same as saying that ISIS killing Americans is saving Muslim lives?
> 
> What we were mostly doing was showing off for the Russians.  And these important targets included this little gem -
> 
> "US Secretary of War Henry Stimson voiced successfully against the selection of Kyoto as a target, arguing that the city held cultural importance to the world; he also had a personal attachment to the city as he and his wife traveled to Kyoto on their honeymoon many years prior."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were invited to leave this thread ya piece of shit....everybody here knows what you are.
Click to expand...

Why, exactly, would I care what some dogmatic tool for America can do no wrong thinks of me?


----------



## Onyx

Tom Horn said:


> We had the Vietnam War won by the summer of '68...nothing between us and Hanoi up Highway 1...and Johnston lost his nerve.   Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH.



What are you talking about? There was a full fucking army between the US military and Hanoi.

The US military never operated in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The war was being fought against Viet Cong guerrillas and special units from PAVN.

Richard Nixon was the president when US troops pulled out as well. Not Lyndon B. Johnson.


----------



## kaz

Tom Horn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender.  What they proposed was that we just stop fighting.  That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again
> 
> 
> 
> Your spin doesn't play anywhere near as good as most here.  A truce, call it what you like, was okay for Korea but we couldn't have done such a thing with Japan?
> 
> Only Japan didn't again because a military power and we are still here.  North Korea might be nuts but the peace is still holding.  Your spin for why we had to use weapons of terror on Japan doesn't hunt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um ... no ... Strawman.  I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it.  We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country.  Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives.  We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them.  Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're going to have to make up your mind on why we had to take over Japan but we could make peace with North Korea?  In your mind I guess Germany and Italy shouldn't be allowed to have pop-guns yet just like Japan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep saying we should have won the war with North Korea and invaded them, you stupid fuck.  What is wrong with you?  Seriously?
> 
> I keep saying we should do one of two things:
> 
> 1)  Fight a war to win it:  Including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama
> 
> 2)  Stay out:  Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, ...
> 
> Afghanistan I think we should have destroyed the Taliban, but not invaded and tried to build a nation there.  Stupid move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had the Vietnam War won by the summer of '68...nothing between us and Hanoi up Highway 1...and Johnston lost his nerve.   Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH.
Click to expand...


Yes, LBJ murdered a lot of people for nothing.  We'd have had it won sooner if he'd ever been committed to winning it


----------



## Frank'sRules

Tom Horn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender.  What they proposed was that we just stop fighting.  That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again
> 
> 
> 
> Your spin doesn't play anywhere near as good as most here.  A truce, call it what you like, was okay for Korea but we couldn't have done such a thing with Japan?
> 
> Only Japan didn't again because a military power and we are still here.  North Korea might be nuts but the peace is still holding.  Your spin for why we had to use weapons of terror on Japan doesn't hunt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um ... no ... Strawman.  I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it.  We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country.  Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives.  We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them.  Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're going to have to make up your mind on why we had to take over Japan but we could make peace with North Korea?  In your mind I guess Germany and Italy shouldn't be allowed to have pop-guns yet just like Japan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep saying we should have won the war with North Korea and invaded them, you stupid fuck.  What is wrong with you?  Seriously?
> 
> I keep saying we should do one of two things:
> 
> 1)  Fight a war to win it:  Including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama
> 
> 2)  Stay out:  Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, ...
> 
> Afghanistan I think we should have destroyed the Taliban, but not invaded and tried to build a nation there.  Stupid move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had the Vietnam War won by the summer of '68...nothing between us and Hanoi up Highway 1...and Johnston lost his nerve.   Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH.
Click to expand...

We had it won?  The Pentagon Papers, why they didn't want them released, said there was no way to win.  And just look at that will ya, we lost another one.


----------



## kaz

Fenton Lum said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your spin doesn't play anywhere near as good as most here.  A truce, call it what you like, was okay for Korea but we couldn't have done such a thing with Japan?
> 
> Only Japan didn't again because a military power and we are still here.  North Korea might be nuts but the peace is still holding.  Your spin for why we had to use weapons of terror on Japan doesn't hunt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um ... no ... Strawman.  I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it.  We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country.  Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives.  We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them.  Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're going to have to make up your mind on why we had to take over Japan but we could make peace with North Korea?  In your mind I guess Germany and Italy shouldn't be allowed to have pop-guns yet just like Japan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep saying we should have won the war with North Korea and invaded them, you stupid fuck.  What is wrong with you?  Seriously?
> 
> I keep saying we should do one of two things:
> 
> 1)  Fight a war to win it:  Including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama
> 
> 2)  Stay out:  Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, ...
> 
> Afghanistan I think we should have destroyed the Taliban, but not invaded and tried to build a nation there.  Stupid move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had the Vietnam War won by the summer of '68...nothing between us and Hanoi up Highway 1...and Johnston lost his nerve.   Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything is partisan to some, it's a disease.
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with partisan, it's an irrefutable historic fact.  We'd killed all the Viet Cong at that point.  We had to stop and wait for them to build a new army to kill Americans


----------



## Claudette

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
Click to expand...


I agree. The use of those bombs brought the war to an end.

If they hadn't been used our soldiers would have invaded and fought every Japanese on the island who would have fought to the death for their emperor.


----------



## Tom Horn

Onyx said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had the Vietnam War won by the summer of '68...nothing between us and Hanoi up Highway 1...and Johnston lost his nerve.   Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? There was a full fucking army between the United States and Hanoi.
> 
> The US military never operated in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The war was being fought against Viet Cong guerrillas and special units from PAVN.
> 
> Nixon was the president when US troops pulled out too.
Click to expand...


I was THERE asshole...there was nothing left of the VC and only remnants of the NVA after the second half of Tet.  They were scattered, disorganized, and dispirited....we'd have taken Hanoi in 2 weeks.


----------



## Fenton Lum

kaz said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Vietnam war and the Korean were for legitimate purposes, but we fucked both up in the execution and would have been better off staying out of them rather than fight it the way we did, particularly Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Korean War had basis in moral justice . North Korea were aggressors.
> 
> The Vietnam War (which was not an actual war) was wholly unjust. It was driven by greed for geopolitical power, and it caused forced division and chaos among the Vietnamese people at the behest of the US military-industrial complex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, as it happened I agree.  We should have stayed out rather than fought it the way we did. However, had we gone in, won, set up the Vietnamese and left it would have been totally justified.  We had the military power to do that, but not the political will.  LBJ because it was his economic policy, Nixon because the country was no longer behind the war.
Click to expand...


Perhaps we shouldn't be trotting around the globe setting up govts for others.  Just a thought.  I mean hell, look how well that turned out in Iran for example.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had the Vietnam War won by the summer of '68...nothing between us and Hanoi up Highway 1...and Johnston lost his nerve.   Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? There was a full fucking army between the United States and Hanoi.
> 
> The US military never operated in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The war was being fought against Viet Cong guerrillas and special units from PAVN.
> 
> Nixon was the president when US troops pulled out too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was THERE asshole...there was nothing left of the VC and only remnants of the NVA after the second half of Tet.  They were scattered, disorganized, and dispirited....we'd have taken Hanoi in 2 weeks.
Click to expand...


Pffffft, Jesus, and to think you coulda "won" that for "us".


----------



## Tom Horn

Frank'sRules said:


> Why, exactly, would I care what some dogmatic tool for America can do no wrong thinks of me?



You're on an AMERICAN board ya vile little mongrel....go back to the sewer you crawled out of.


----------



## TooTall

Fenton Lum said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are full of shit up to your eyeballs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrific rebuttal.
Click to expand...


Thank you!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Frank'sRules said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
Click to expand...

Want me to link to source documents again that prove that the Japanese were not going to surrender? Even after 2 atomic bombs the Government of japan refused to surrender and it took direct intervention by the Emperor and then the Army staged a Coup to try and stop that.


----------



## Tom Horn

Fenton Lum said:


> Pffffft, Jesus, and to think you coulda "won" that for "us".



We weren't winning for your kind...we were winning despite your kind.


----------



## Onyx

Tom Horn said:


> I was THERE asshole...there was nothing left of the VC and only remnants of the NVA after the second half of Tet.



Typical uneducated idiocy. 

There were only several thousand dead North Vietnam soldiers by the end of the Tet offensive, and the units participating in the offensive were not apart of the conventional armed forces. 

Here is some trivia. How large was the PVAN during the Vietnam war?


----------



## Fenton Lum

kaz said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um ... no ... Strawman.  I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it.  We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country.  Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives.  We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them.  Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to have to make up your mind on why we had to take over Japan but we could make peace with North Korea?  In your mind I guess Germany and Italy shouldn't be allowed to have pop-guns yet just like Japan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep saying we should have won the war with North Korea and invaded them, you stupid fuck.  What is wrong with you?  Seriously?
> 
> I keep saying we should do one of two things:
> 
> 1)  Fight a war to win it:  Including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama
> 
> 2)  Stay out:  Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, ...
> 
> Afghanistan I think we should have destroyed the Taliban, but not invaded and tried to build a nation there.  Stupid move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had the Vietnam War won by the summer of '68...nothing between us and Hanoi up Highway 1...and Johnston lost his nerve.   Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything is partisan to some, it's a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with partisan, it's an irrefutable historic fact.  We'd killed all the Viet Cong at that point.  We had to stop and wait for them to build a new army to kill Americans
Click to expand...


"Another democRAT blah blah blah ...."

Yes hon, it does.


----------



## Onyx

kaz said:


> Yes, LBJ murdered a lot of people for nothing.  We'd have had it won sooner if he'd ever been committed to winning it



Win what?

Completely eradicate the Viet Cong? Impossible. 

Destroy the Democratic Republic of Vietnam? The US was never at war with them.

Build a new sandbox to keep Americans on government payroll and satiate the military-industrial complex? In that case the US military was victorious


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pffffft, Jesus, and to think you coulda "won" that for "us".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We weren't winning for your kind...we were winning despite your kind.
Click to expand...


Man fuck you, you weren't doing anything but following which is all you've ever been able to do.


----------



## TooTall

Fenton Lum said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.  The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We dropped the bombs to save AMERICAN lives and it worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by that rationale anyone who drops that stuff on us would be saving THEIR lives I reckon.  Course, we're the only nation that ever has.  Yet.
Click to expand...


They started it with a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.  Would you call that a terror attack?  Probably not.


----------



## Fenton Lum

TooTall said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are full of shit up to your eyeballs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terrific rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you!
Click to expand...


You betcha! I think you made him see your point!


----------



## Fenton Lum

TooTall said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.  The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We dropped the bombs to save AMERICAN lives and it worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by that rationale anyone who drops that stuff on us would be saving THEIR lives I reckon.  Course, we're the only nation that ever has.  Yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They started it with a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.  Would you call that a terror attack?  Probably not.
Click to expand...


Like I said hon, "Terrorism" is always what the "other guys" do.


----------



## Tom Horn

Onyx said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was THERE asshole...there was nothing left of the VC and only remnants of the NVA after the second half of Tet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical uneducated idiocy.
> 
> There were only several thousand dead North Vietnam soldiers by the end of the Tet offensive, and the units participating in the offensive were not apart of the conventional armed forces.
> 
> Here is some trivia. How large was the PVAN during the Vietnam war?
Click to expand...


I'm "uneducated"?  LMAO!!!  I wrote some of the assessments/ after-action reports during the summer of '68, ya little bookworm.   You better head on back to something John Kerry wrote about "summer soldiers"...that fucking coward is on your side of the story.


----------



## kaz

Fenton Lum said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to have to make up your mind on why we had to take over Japan but we could make peace with North Korea?  In your mind I guess Germany and Italy shouldn't be allowed to have pop-guns yet just like Japan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep saying we should have won the war with North Korea and invaded them, you stupid fuck.  What is wrong with you?  Seriously?
> 
> I keep saying we should do one of two things:
> 
> 1)  Fight a war to win it:  Including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama
> 
> 2)  Stay out:  Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, ...
> 
> Afghanistan I think we should have destroyed the Taliban, but not invaded and tried to build a nation there.  Stupid move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had the Vietnam War won by the summer of '68...nothing between us and Hanoi up Highway 1...and Johnston lost his nerve.   Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything is partisan to some, it's a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with partisan, it's an irrefutable historic fact.  We'd killed all the Viet Cong at that point.  We had to stop and wait for them to build a new army to kill Americans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Another democRAT blah blah blah ...."
> 
> Yes hon, it does.
Click to expand...


Your desire to rewrite history is dull


----------



## Onyx

By the way, anyone that believes several ten thousand deployed US troops could of defeated the PVAN with half a million conventional Vietnamese soldiers with artillery, aircraft, tanks, ect....

....is not thinking with their head.


----------



## kaz

Onyx said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, LBJ murdered a lot of people for nothing.  We'd have had it won sooner if he'd ever been committed to winning it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Win what?
> 
> Completely eradicate the Viet Cong? Impossible.
> 
> Destroy the Democratic Republic of Vietnam? The US was never at war with them.
> 
> Build a new sandbox to keep Americans on government payroll and satiate the military-industrial complex? In that case the US military was victorious
Click to expand...


You're still arguing the point not in contention.  I already agreed we should have stayed out of it rather than do what we did.  I was referring to something which completely didn't happen.  If our objective had been to help the Vietnamese government defeat the communist insurgency.  I'm referring to an entirely different scenario than what happened


----------



## Tom Horn

kaz said:


> Your desire to rewrite history is dull



I think it's fascinating.....the leftists have put 40 years and untold hours into manipulating these doorknobs to hate their own country and this is the end-product.


----------



## Fenton Lum

kaz said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep saying we should have won the war with North Korea and invaded them, you stupid fuck.  What is wrong with you?  Seriously?
> 
> I keep saying we should do one of two things:
> 
> 1)  Fight a war to win it:  Including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama
> 
> 2)  Stay out:  Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, ...
> 
> Afghanistan I think we should have destroyed the Taliban, but not invaded and tried to build a nation there.  Stupid move
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had the Vietnam War won by the summer of '68...nothing between us and Hanoi up Highway 1...and Johnston lost his nerve.   Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything is partisan to some, it's a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with partisan, it's an irrefutable historic fact.  We'd killed all the Viet Cong at that point.  We had to stop and wait for them to build a new army to kill Americans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Another democRAT blah blah blah ...."
> 
> Yes hon, it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your desire to rewrite history is dull
Click to expand...


Bitching about a political party in america isn't history son.


----------



## Onyx

Tom Horn said:


> I'm "uneducated"?  LMAO!!!  I wrote some of the assessments/ after-action reports during the summer of '68, ya little bookworm.



I am sure your superiors found your little diary entries to be amusing.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your desire to rewrite history is dull
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's fascinating.....the leftists have put 40 years and untold hours into manipulating these doorknobs to hate their own country and this is the end-product.
Click to expand...


Here comes another partisanshithead now.  If you don't agree with something, you must have a label.


----------



## Fenton Lum

kaz said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, LBJ murdered a lot of people for nothing.  We'd have had it won sooner if he'd ever been committed to winning it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Win what?
> 
> Completely eradicate the Viet Cong? Impossible.
> 
> Destroy the Democratic Republic of Vietnam? The US was never at war with them.
> 
> Build a new sandbox to keep Americans on government payroll and satiate the military-industrial complex? In that case the US military was victorious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still arguing the point not in contention.  I already agreed we should have stayed out of it rather than do what we did.  I was referring to something which completely didn't happen.  If our objective had been to help the Vietnamese government defeat the communist insurgency.  I'm referring to an entirely different scenario than what happened
Click to expand...


We shouldn't have been there period, wrap ya head around that.


----------



## Tom Horn

Onyx said:


> By the way, anyone that believes several ten thousand deployed US troops could of defeated the PVAN which half a million conventional Vietnamese soldiers with artillery, aircraft, tanks, ect....
> 
> is not thinking with their head.



I'd pay a hundred bucks to take you back in time and kick your ass out the door of a Huey with red smoke in the air....and I'd have had to because you'd have been shitting your trousers.  And having been a hippie draftee you'd have been shot dead your first day out in injun country.  What's tragic is you'd have gotten your platoon mates killed right along with ya.


----------



## kaz

Fenton Lum said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had the Vietnam War won by the summer of '68...nothing between us and Hanoi up Highway 1...and Johnston lost his nerve.   Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is partisan to some, it's a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with partisan, it's an irrefutable historic fact.  We'd killed all the Viet Cong at that point.  We had to stop and wait for them to build a new army to kill Americans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Another democRAT blah blah blah ...."
> 
> Yes hon, it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your desire to rewrite history is dull
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bitching about a political party in america isn't history son.
Click to expand...


I was talking about the Vietnam war, you keep bringing up party.  I said both LBJ and Nixon fucked up.  You're so obsessed with party you hear nothing else


----------



## Fenton Lum

kaz said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is partisan to some, it's a disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with partisan, it's an irrefutable historic fact.  We'd killed all the Viet Cong at that point.  We had to stop and wait for them to build a new army to kill Americans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Another democRAT blah blah blah ...."
> 
> Yes hon, it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your desire to rewrite history is dull
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bitching about a political party in america isn't history son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about the Vietnam war, you keep bringing up party.  I said both LBJ and Nixon fucked up.  You're so obsessed with party you hear nothing else
Click to expand...


*" Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH."

All you pard, all you.*


----------



## Onyx

kaz said:


> If our objective had been to help the Vietnamese government defeat the communist insurgency.  I'm referring to an entirely different scenario than what happened



Like I said, defeating the Viet Cong would of been impossible.

The movement would of lived on as long as the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was stationed in the north. Most south Vietnamese did not want their puppet government.  The US military presence did not temper defiance among civilians either.


----------



## Tom Horn

Onyx said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm "uneducated"?  LMAO!!!  I wrote some of the assessments/ after-action reports during the summer of '68, ya little bookworm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure your superiors found your little diary entries to be amusing.
Click to expand...


To the contrary...my "little diaries" kept line-units from running into ambushes.  You don't know shit about combat, Vietnam, or America....so you're wasting time you could be using to huff glue or play house with your boyfriend.


----------



## Onyx

Tom Horn said:


> I'd pay a hundred bucks to take you back in time and kick your ass out the door of a Huey with red smoke in the air....and I'd have had to because you'd have been shitting your trousers.  And having been a hippie draftee you'd have been shot dead your first day out in injun country.  What's tragic is you'd have gotten your platoon mates killed right along with ya.



Alright Rambo.

Go back to reminiscing about the good ol' days when you were the establishments bitch.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm "uneducated"?  LMAO!!!  I wrote some of the assessments/ after-action reports during the summer of '68, ya little bookworm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure your superiors found your little diary entries to be amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To the contrary...my "little diaries" kept line-units from running into ambushes.  You don't know shit about combat, Vietnam, or America....so you're wasting time you could be using to huff glue or play house with your boyfriend.
Click to expand...


What a empty fuggin blow hard anonymous poster hissyfit.


----------



## Tom Horn

Onyx said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If our objective had been to help the Vietnamese government defeat the communist insurgency.  I'm referring to an entirely different scenario than what happened
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, defeating the Viet Cong would of been impossible.
> 
> The movement would of lived on as long as the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was stationed in the north. Most south Vietnamese did not want their puppet government.  The US military presence did not temper defiance among civilians either.
Click to expand...


Hilarious!  We had considerably more friendly hamlets than Charles had....you're so wrong you're like a comedian soaked in flop-sweat.


----------



## Tom Horn

Fenton Lum said:


> What a empty fuggin blow hard anonymous poster hissyfit.



So you're his boyfriend?...it figures.


----------



## Onyx

Tom Horn said:


> To the contrary...my "little diaries" kept line-units from running into ambushes.  You don't know shit about combat, Vietnam, or America....so you're wasting time you could be using to huff glue or play house with your boyfriend.



 I know a lot about military theory.

Even if you were an officer that commanded units into "battle" (which you probably were not), the Vietnam sandbox was nothing close to modern conventional warfare, which you are completely uneducated about.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a empty fuggin blow hard anonymous poster hissyfit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're his boyfriend?...it figures.
Click to expand...


No homework this evening son?


----------



## Tom Horn

Fenton Lum said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a empty fuggin blow hard anonymous poster hissyfit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're his boyfriend?...it figures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No homework this evening son?
Click to expand...


"son"?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Go put another rubberband on your ponytail, loser.


----------



## Tom Horn

Onyx said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the contrary...my "little diaries" kept line-units from running into ambushes.  You don't know shit about combat, Vietnam, or America....so you're wasting time you could be using to huff glue or play house with your boyfriend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot about military theory.
> 
> Even if you were an officer that commanded units into "battle" (which you probably were not), the Vietnam sandbox was nothing close to modern conventional warfare, which you are completely uneducated about.
Click to expand...


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a empty fuggin blow hard anonymous poster hissyfit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're his boyfriend?...it figures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No homework this evening son?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "son"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go put another rubberband on your ponytail, loser.
Click to expand...


More labels, poor thing.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the contrary...my "little diaries" kept line-units from running into ambushes.  You don't know shit about combat, Vietnam, or America....so you're wasting time you could be using to huff glue or play house with your boyfriend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot about military theory.
> 
> Even if you were an officer that commanded units into "battle" (which you probably were not), the Vietnam sandbox was nothing close to modern conventional warfare, which you are completely uneducated about.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Now he's down to emoticons.


----------



## BlindBoo

Fenton Lum said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The America-haters here delight in trying to make our enemies into tragic figures....they twist facts around until nobody knows what to believe.....Fifth columnists and they don't even know how they're being used.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try to make acts of terrorism worthy.  It might work, like our use of terrorism in Japan, but it's never worthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was an act of war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we'd better expect the same at some point, we sure don't avoid war.
Click to expand...


It's 5 minutes to midnight.......


----------



## Tom Horn

Okay I'm done here....the Hiroshima pic is a reminder war isn't a theory or a game...it's the sky over a Hiroshima getting it's just rewards for starting a war with the USA.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

Fenton Lum said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually no, dropping those bombs was about the pecking order of world power post the end of the war.  For all the blathering on about nuclear war, weaponry, who should be allowed to have and who should not; the US is the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons of this magnatude - and on civilian populations.
Click to expand...


And we got the desired effects!!


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> Okay I'm done here....the Hiroshima pic is a reminder war isn't a theory or a game...it's the sky over a Hiroshima getting it's just rewards for starting a war with the USA.



And what will ya say when we get ours for starting wars?


----------



## Tom Horn

BlindBoo said:


> It's 5 minutes to midnight.......



And now Barry has given Iran the bomb while the Israelis have over two hundred nuclear missiles aimed at them...It's not 5 minutes to midnight but it's probably not 15 minutes anymore either.


----------



## Fenton Lum

DigitalDrifter said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually no, dropping those bombs was about the pecking order of world power post the end of the war.  For all the blathering on about nuclear war, weaponry, who should be allowed to have and who should not; the US is the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons of this magnatude - and on civilian populations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we got the desired effects!!
Click to expand...


Ha ha, yeah, the Soviets just laid down after that.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's 5 minutes to midnight.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now Barry has given Iran the bomb while the Israelis have over two hundred nuclear missiles aimed at them...It's not 5 minutes to midnight but it's probably not 15 minutes anymore either.
Click to expand...


What an ignorant ass.  We sold them the technology, and reactors from a company Rumsfeld once sat on the board of directors of.  A plan than spanned both Clinton and Bush administrations; as I always say .... utterly bipartisan.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Back to the topic, the Japanese never offered to surrender and never offered after either bomb, what they offered was a cease fire with a return to prewar lines everywhere except China.After the 2nd bomb the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender and the Japanese Army which ran the Government attempted a coup to stop that.


----------



## Fenton Lum

RetiredGySgt said:


> Back to the topic, the Japanese never offered to surrender and never offered after either bomb, what they offered was a cease fire with a return to prewar lines everywhere except China.After the 2nd bomb the Emperor intervened and ordered the surrender and the Japanese Army which ran the Government attempted a coup to stop that.


 And wala, crispy critters.


----------



## Borillar

Frank'sRules said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides the cost in lives of an invasion, we wanted a fast surrender to stop the Russians from occupying more land.  Letting them know we were not afraid to use our new toys could also have been a factor in Truman's thinking.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I feel for the all the innocent civilians who died in that war.  But that really was a different time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That changes nothing of the fact that it was an unnecessary use of weapons of terror.
Click to expand...

Would it have made you feel any better if we had firebombed them instead?


----------



## DigitalDrifter

Fenton Lum said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually no, dropping those bombs was about the pecking order of world power post the end of the war.  For all the blathering on about nuclear war, weaponry, who should be allowed to have and who should not; the US is the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons of this magnatude - and on civilian populations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we got the desired effects!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha, yeah, the Soviets just laid down after that.
Click to expand...


The Japanese laid down within the week, as for the Soviets, had traitors not sold us out we would have had the big hammer alone for much longer.


----------



## Fenton Lum

DigitalDrifter said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually no, dropping those bombs was about the pecking order of world power post the end of the war.  For all the blathering on about nuclear war, weaponry, who should be allowed to have and who should not; the US is the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons of this magnatude - and on civilian populations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we got the desired effects!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha, yeah, the Soviets just laid down after that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Japanese laid down within the week, as for the Soviets, had traitors not sold us out we would have had the big hammer alone for much longer.
Click to expand...


Excuses. excuses.


----------



## BlindBoo

Fenton Lum said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, LBJ murdered a lot of people for nothing.  We'd have had it won sooner if he'd ever been committed to winning it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Win what?
> 
> Completely eradicate the Viet Cong? Impossible.
> 
> Destroy the Democratic Republic of Vietnam? The US was never at war with them.
> 
> Build a new sandbox to keep Americans on government payroll and satiate the military-industrial complex? In that case the US military was victorious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still arguing the point not in contention.  I already agreed we should have stayed out of it rather than do what we did.  I was referring to something which completely didn't happen.  If our objective had been to help the Vietnamese government defeat the communist insurgency.  I'm referring to an entirely different scenario than what happened
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We shouldn't have been there period, wrap ya head around that.
Click to expand...


They should have been given their freedom after they helped kick out the Japanese in 1945.

But that didn't matter to the boys who were drafted or volunteered.  They just wanted to get back home alive I bet.


----------



## BlindBoo

Tom Horn said:


> Okay I'm done here....the Hiroshima pic is a reminder war isn't a theory or a game...it's the sky over a Hiroshima getting it's just rewards for starting a war with the USA.



It looks ominous.


----------



## Fenton Lum

BlindBoo said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, LBJ murdered a lot of people for nothing.  We'd have had it won sooner if he'd ever been committed to winning it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Win what?
> 
> Completely eradicate the Viet Cong? Impossible.
> 
> Destroy the Democratic Republic of Vietnam? The US was never at war with them.
> 
> Build a new sandbox to keep Americans on government payroll and satiate the military-industrial complex? In that case the US military was victorious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still arguing the point not in contention.  I already agreed we should have stayed out of it rather than do what we did.  I was referring to something which completely didn't happen.  If our objective had been to help the Vietnamese government defeat the communist insurgency.  I'm referring to an entirely different scenario than what happened
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We shouldn't have been there period, wrap ya head around that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should have been given their freedom after they helped kick out the Japanese in 1945.
> 
> But that didn't matter to the boys who were drafted or volunteered.  They just wanted to get back home alive I bet.
Click to expand...


I don't think we've learned all the much from the episode.  The power structure did however; no more draft, we do not want the entire nation involved in war, just a fraction, everyone else we want at ball games and at the mall.  No more body bags on tv.  No more televised broad based dissent and protest.  Hide our own atrocities from the public if at all possible, etc.


----------



## Tom Horn

BlindBoo said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay I'm done here....the Hiroshima pic is a reminder war isn't a theory or a game...it's the sky over a Hiroshima getting it's just rewards for starting a war with the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks ominous.
Click to expand...


Like a cat-5 tornado.


----------



## BlindBoo

Tom Horn said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's 5 minutes to midnight.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now Barry has given Iran the bomb while the Israelis have over two hundred nuclear missiles aimed at them...It's not 5 minutes to midnight but it's probably not 15 minutes anymore either.
Click to expand...


Meh, it's just a saying.  They have been pushed back by at least a decade or more.


----------



## BlindBoo

Fenton Lum said:


> The power structure did however



War equals profits and deficits don't matter.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay I'm done here....the Hiroshima pic is a reminder war isn't a theory or a game...it's the sky over a Hiroshima getting it's just rewards for starting a war with the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks ominous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like a cat-5 tornado.
Click to expand...


Guess you've been in one of those too huh.


----------



## Tom Horn

BlindBoo said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's 5 minutes to midnight.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now Barry has given Iran the bomb while the Israelis have over two hundred nuclear missiles aimed at them...It's not 5 minutes to midnight but it's probably not 15 minutes anymore either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh, it's just a saying.  They have been pushed back by at least a decade or more.
Click to expand...


They can make up for what they've lost enriching their own uranium by buying it from the N. Koreans.  We haven't stopped anything....just a publicity stunt by our muslim dickhead president.


----------



## Fenton Lum

BlindBoo said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> The power structure did however
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War equals profits and deficits don't matter.
Click to expand...


Yup, all along the line, war is just business and we are the arms dealer to the world.


----------



## Fenton Lum

Tom Horn said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's 5 minutes to midnight.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now Barry has given Iran the bomb while the Israelis have over two hundred nuclear missiles aimed at them...It's not 5 minutes to midnight but it's probably not 15 minutes anymore either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh, it's just a saying.  They have been pushed back by at least a decade or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can make up for what they've lost enriching their own uranium by buying it from the N. Koreans.  We haven't stopped anything....just a publicity stunt by our muslim dickhead president.
Click to expand...


Again, we sold them reactors from a company Rumsfeld once sat on the board of directors of, a mere 2 years before the "Axis of Evil" remark.


----------



## BlindBoo

Fenton Lum said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay I'm done here....the Hiroshima pic is a reminder war isn't a theory or a game...it's the sky over a Hiroshima getting it's just rewards for starting a war with the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks ominous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like a cat-5 tornado.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess you've been in one of those too huh.
Click to expand...


Grew up in Ok.  So yeah I've seen a few.


----------



## BlindBoo

Tom Horn said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's 5 minutes to midnight.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now Barry has given Iran the bomb while the Israelis have over two hundred nuclear missiles aimed at them...It's not 5 minutes to midnight but it's probably not 15 minutes anymore either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh, it's just a saying.  They have been pushed back by at least a decade or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can make up for what they've lost enriching their own uranium by buying it from the N. Koreans.  We haven't stopped anything....just a publicity stunt by our muslim dickhead president.
Click to expand...


Muslim?  I don't even think he's that religious.

It was a deal made with the permanent members of the UNSC and Germany...EU.

But it's almost Beer thirty.....


----------



## Frank'sRules

Borillar said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were never going to willingly unconditionally surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> They were planning to do so, we just couldn't wait for them if we wanted to show off to the Russians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides the cost in lives of an invasion, we wanted a fast surrender to stop the Russians from occupying more land.  Letting them know we were not afraid to use our new toys could also have been a factor in Truman's thinking.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I feel for the all the innocent civilians who died in that war.  But that really was a different time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That changes nothing of the fact that it was an unnecessary use of weapons of terror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would it have made you feel any better if we had firebombed them instead?
Click to expand...

No.  Also designed as a weapon of terror.


----------



## kaz

Fenton Lum said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with partisan, it's an irrefutable historic fact.  We'd killed all the Viet Cong at that point.  We had to stop and wait for them to build a new army to kill Americans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Another democRAT blah blah blah ...."
> 
> Yes hon, it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your desire to rewrite history is dull
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bitching about a political party in america isn't history son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about the Vietnam war, you keep bringing up party.  I said both LBJ and Nixon fucked up.  You're so obsessed with party you hear nothing else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *" Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH."
> 
> All you pard, all you.*
Click to expand...


Wrong, I'm not the one who wrote that.  So seriously, you went back and found that quote, and you didn't notice Tom Horn said it, not me?  How stupid are you?


----------



## kaz

Tom Horn said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If our objective had been to help the Vietnamese government defeat the communist insurgency.  I'm referring to an entirely different scenario than what happened
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, defeating the Viet Cong would of been impossible.
> 
> The movement would of lived on as long as the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was stationed in the north. Most south Vietnamese did not want their puppet government.  The US military presence did not temper defiance among civilians either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hilarious!  We had considerably more friendly hamlets than Charles had....you're so wrong you're like a comedian soaked in flop-sweat.
Click to expand...


I wasn't there.  But what Onyx says isn't what I hear from the people I know who were.  That doesn't mean he's wrong, just that I'm not going to argue something beyond my knowledge.  I believe the people I know, but I don't personally know enough to debate it for them.  But they thought it turned on us because of the endless war.  Had we come in and let the Vietnamese fight it themselves (as they wanted to do) with our support, the war would have been far shorter and far more successful


----------



## TooTall

kaz said:


> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is partisan to some, it's a disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with partisan, it's an irrefutable historic fact.  We'd killed all the Viet Cong at that point.  We had to stop and wait for them to build a new army to kill Americans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Another democRAT blah blah blah ...."
> 
> Yes hon, it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your desire to rewrite history is dull
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bitching about a political party in america isn't history son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about the Vietnam war, you keep bringing up party.  I said both LBJ and Nixon fucked up.  You're so obsessed with party you hear nothing else
Click to expand...


You forgot about Kennedy.


----------



## MaryL

Frank'sRules said:


> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.


Lets forget the fathers of the A bomb were mostly Jewish Europeans fleeing genocide. Frightened that perhaps the Nazis would get a nuclear weapon FIRST. And that secondly, the fascist Japanese were researching race specific genetic weapons, by unit 741. Wow, put things in perspective here, people.


----------



## MaryL

Tom Horn said:


> This is the moment the city was about to be torn apart by the first nuclear weapon ever used.   Notice the people standing in the foreground unaware that they were about to be incinerated:
> Photoshop picture and Photoshop logic.  Nobody ever used a weapon like this before! The A- bomb was meant to be used on NAZI Germany  and was developed by mostly European Jewish scientist.  Odd thing, it took 2 nukes on Japan to get them to understand what their attack on Pearl Harbor meant.


----------



## kaz

TooTall said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with partisan, it's an irrefutable historic fact.  We'd killed all the Viet Cong at that point.  We had to stop and wait for them to build a new army to kill Americans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Another democRAT blah blah blah ...."
> 
> Yes hon, it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your desire to rewrite history is dull
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bitching about a political party in america isn't history son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about the Vietnam war, you keep bringing up party.  I said both LBJ and Nixon fucked up.  You're so obsessed with party you hear nothing else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot about Kennedy.
Click to expand...


Kennedy sent advisers, not combat troops.  What did I forget about him?


----------



## Frank'sRules

MaryL said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> Lets forget the fathers of the A bomb were mostly Jewish Europeans fleeing genocide. Frightened that perhaps the Nazis would get a nuclear weapon FIRST. And that secondly, the fascist Japanese were researching race specific genetic weapons, by unit 741. Wow, put things in perspective here, people.
Click to expand...

No.  Terror is terror.  Whatever ISIS is afraid of doesn't justify thier madness.


----------



## namvet

Frank'sRules said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
Click to expand...


look at it this way reprobate, if your daddy was killed in the invasion we're not stuck with your sorry ass here


----------



## westwall

Frank'sRules said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
Click to expand...







No, they weren't.  Even after the second bomb was dropped the militarists launched a coup attempt to try and prevent the surrender.  You have no clue what you're talking about.  The military rulers wanted the Japanese to fight to the death.  They even went so far as to mass produce pole bayonets (to be used to make spears) for the Japanese civilians to use on the beaches in a hope to get under our superior firepower.

Read some history.


----------



## Frank'sRules

westwall said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they weren't.  Even after the second bomb was dropped the militarists launched a coup attempt to try and prevent the surrender.  You have no clue what you're talking about.  The military rulers wanted the Japanese to fight to the death.  They even went so far as to mass produce pole bayonets (to be used to make spears) for the Japanese civilians to use on the beaches in a hope to get under our superior firepower.
> 
> Read some history.
Click to expand...

I've read the history which is why I said what I said.


----------



## Frank'sRules

namvet said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> look at it this way reprobate, if your daddy was killed in the invasion we're not stuck with your sorry ass here
Click to expand...

If we had waited instead of showing off lots of Japanese kids would be walking the earth today.


----------



## namvet

Frank'sRules said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pity your ignorance...we hit Hiroshima because of the war materials factories there...and we firebombed Tokyo repeatedly...you're seriously misguided....you should sue every professor you ever had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did firebomb Tokyo and there was nothing in either place we used nukes that mattered.  That's why we used the bombs there, not Tokyo.
Click to expand...


wrong. those were prime untouched targets used for the test


Tom Horn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie, they weren't going to surrender.  What they proposed was that we just stop fighting.  That would have left the militaristic government in place that started the war and would have been destined to do it again
> 
> 
> 
> Your spin doesn't play anywhere near as good as most here.  A truce, call it what you like, was okay for Korea but we couldn't have done such a thing with Japan?
> 
> Only Japan didn't again because a military power and we are still here.  North Korea might be nuts but the peace is still holding.  Your spin for why we had to use weapons of terror on Japan doesn't hunt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um ... no ... Strawman.  I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it.  We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country.  Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives.  We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them.  Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're going to have to make up your mind on why we had to take over Japan but we could make peace with North Korea?  In your mind I guess Germany and Italy shouldn't be allowed to have pop-guns yet just like Japan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep saying we should have won the war with North Korea and invaded them, you stupid fuck.  What is wrong with you?  Seriously?
> 
> I keep saying we should do one of two things:
> 
> 1)  Fight a war to win it:  Including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama
> 
> 2)  Stay out:  Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, ...
> 
> Afghanistan I think we should have destroyed the Taliban, but not invaded and tried to build a nation there.  Stupid move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had the Vietnam War won by the summer of '68...nothing between us and Hanoi up Highway 1...and Johnston lost his nerve.   Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH.
Click to expand...


the Tet offensive. we beat em to pulp.  I was over there when Johnson sent the bombing halt order.cause of pressure back here. they rearm resupply and hello Nam2


----------



## westwall

Frank'sRules said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they weren't.  Even after the second bomb was dropped the militarists launched a coup attempt to try and prevent the surrender.  You have no clue what you're talking about.  The military rulers wanted the Japanese to fight to the death.  They even went so far as to mass produce pole bayonets (to be used to make spears) for the Japanese civilians to use on the beaches in a hope to get under our superior firepower.
> 
> Read some history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've read the history which is why I said what I said.
Click to expand...






I have no idea what you have read, but whatever it was, it wasn't based on fact.


----------



## Frank'sRules

namvet said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pity your ignorance...we hit Hiroshima because of the war materials factories there...and we firebombed Tokyo repeatedly...you're seriously misguided....you should sue every professor you ever had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did firebomb Tokyo and there was nothing in either place we used nukes that mattered.  That's why we used the bombs there, not Tokyo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong. those were prime untouched targets used for the test
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your spin doesn't play anywhere near as good as most here.  A truce, call it what you like, was okay for Korea but we couldn't have done such a thing with Japan?
> 
> Only Japan didn't again because a military power and we are still here.  North Korea might be nuts but the peace is still holding.  Your spin for why we had to use weapons of terror on Japan doesn't hunt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um ... no ... Strawman.  I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it.  We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country.  Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives.  We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them.  Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're going to have to make up your mind on why we had to take over Japan but we could make peace with North Korea?  In your mind I guess Germany and Italy shouldn't be allowed to have pop-guns yet just like Japan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep saying we should have won the war with North Korea and invaded them, you stupid fuck.  What is wrong with you?  Seriously?
> 
> I keep saying we should do one of two things:
> 
> 1)  Fight a war to win it:  Including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama
> 
> 2)  Stay out:  Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, ...
> 
> Afghanistan I think we should have destroyed the Taliban, but not invaded and tried to build a nation there.  Stupid move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had the Vietnam War won by the summer of '68...nothing between us and Hanoi up Highway 1...and Johnston lost his nerve.   Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Tet offensive. we beat em to pulp.  I was over there when Johnson sent the bombing halt order.cause of pressure back here. they rearm resupply and hello Nam2
Click to expand...

The targets were so important that one wasn't used because the Sec. Of War had his honeymoon there.  Grow up,  people.


----------



## Frank'sRules

westwall said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they weren't.  Even after the second bomb was dropped the militarists launched a coup attempt to try and prevent the surrender.  You have no clue what you're talking about.  The military rulers wanted the Japanese to fight to the death.  They even went so far as to mass produce pole bayonets (to be used to make spears) for the Japanese civilians to use on the beaches in a hope to get under our superior firepower.
> 
> Read some history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've read the history which is why I said what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you have read, but whatever it was, it wasn't based on fact.
Click to expand...

The facts aren't American spin on why we had to use weapons of terror.


----------



## namvet




----------



## namvet

Frank'sRules said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pity your ignorance...we hit Hiroshima because of the war materials factories there...and we firebombed Tokyo repeatedly...you're seriously misguided....you should sue every professor you ever had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did firebomb Tokyo and there was nothing in either place we used nukes that mattered.  That's why we used the bombs there, not Tokyo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong. those were prime untouched targets used for the test
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um ... no ... Strawman.  I said Korea was a bad idea, we didn't fight it to win it.  We should have assured China we'd stop at the border and win the war when we controlled most of the country.  Fighting China to a standoff was just a waste of lives.  We need to either fight to win wars or stay out of them.  Which is why I keep advocating staying out of them since we have no will to win them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're going to have to make up your mind on why we had to take over Japan but we could make peace with North Korea?  In your mind I guess Germany and Italy shouldn't be allowed to have pop-guns yet just like Japan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep saying we should have won the war with North Korea and invaded them, you stupid fuck.  What is wrong with you?  Seriously?
> 
> I keep saying we should do one of two things:
> 
> 1)  Fight a war to win it:  Including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama
> 
> 2)  Stay out:  Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, ...
> 
> Afghanistan I think we should have destroyed the Taliban, but not invaded and tried to build a nation there.  Stupid move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had the Vietnam War won by the summer of '68...nothing between us and Hanoi up Highway 1...and Johnston lost his nerve.   Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Tet offensive. we beat em to pulp.  I was over there when Johnson sent the bombing halt order.cause of pressure back here. they rearm resupply and hello Nam2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The targets were so important that one wasn't used because the Sec. Of War had his honeymoon there.  Grow up,  people.
Click to expand...


would you have a honeymoon in a war zone??  i really believe you would if you can find A woman


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Frank'sRules said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> look at it this way reprobate, if your daddy was killed in the invasion we're not stuck with your sorry ass here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we had waited instead of showing off lots of Japanese kids would be walking the earth today.
Click to expand...

Look retard the Japanese NEVER offered to surrender. They offered a ceasefire and return to the start lines except in China. The Japanese Government was prepared to allow their people to starve to death to save face.


----------



## Frank'sRules

namvet said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pity your ignorance...we hit Hiroshima because of the war materials factories there...and we firebombed Tokyo repeatedly...you're seriously misguided....you should sue every professor you ever had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did firebomb Tokyo and there was nothing in either place we used nukes that mattered.  That's why we used the bombs there, not Tokyo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong. those were prime untouched targets used for the test
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to have to make up your mind on why we had to take over Japan but we could make peace with North Korea?  In your mind I guess Germany and Italy shouldn't be allowed to have pop-guns yet just like Japan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep saying we should have won the war with North Korea and invaded them, you stupid fuck.  What is wrong with you?  Seriously?
> 
> I keep saying we should do one of two things:
> 
> 1)  Fight a war to win it:  Including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama
> 
> 2)  Stay out:  Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, ...
> 
> Afghanistan I think we should have destroyed the Taliban, but not invaded and tried to build a nation there.  Stupid move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had the Vietnam War won by the summer of '68...nothing between us and Hanoi up Highway 1...and Johnston lost his nerve.   Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Tet offensive. we beat em to pulp.  I was over there when Johnson sent the bombing halt order.cause of pressure back here. they rearm resupply and hello Nam2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The targets were so important that one wasn't used because the Sec. Of War had his honeymoon there.  Grow up,  people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> would you have a honeymoon in a war zone??  i really believe you would if you can find A woman
Click to expand...

His personal feelings are why it wasn't nuked.  Want to tell me again how we had to drop the nukes where we did?


----------



## namvet

those 16" guns were manned and ready just in case someone ashore had a change of mind


----------



## Frank'sRules

RetiredGySgt said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> look at it this way reprobate, if your daddy was killed in the invasion we're not stuck with your sorry ass here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we had waited instead of showing off lots of Japanese kids would be walking the earth today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look retard the Japanese NEVER offered to surrender. They offered a ceasefire and return to the start lines except in China. The Japanese Government was prepared to allow their people to starve to death to save face.
Click to expand...

The Japanese not being pussies is why we had to become terrorists?


----------



## namvet

Frank'sRules said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pity your ignorance...we hit Hiroshima because of the war materials factories there...and we firebombed Tokyo repeatedly...you're seriously misguided....you should sue every professor you ever had.
> 
> 
> 
> We did firebomb Tokyo and there was nothing in either place we used nukes that mattered.  That's why we used the bombs there, not Tokyo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong. those were prime untouched targets used for the test
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep saying we should have won the war with North Korea and invaded them, you stupid fuck.  What is wrong with you?  Seriously?
> 
> I keep saying we should do one of two things:
> 
> 1)  Fight a war to win it:  Including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama
> 
> 2)  Stay out:  Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, ...
> 
> Afghanistan I think we should have destroyed the Taliban, but not invaded and tried to build a nation there.  Stupid move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had the Vietnam War won by the summer of '68...nothing between us and Hanoi up Highway 1...and Johnston lost his nerve.   Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Tet offensive. we beat em to pulp.  I was over there when Johnson sent the bombing halt order.cause of pressure back here. they rearm resupply and hello Nam2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The targets were so important that one wasn't used because the Sec. Of War had his honeymoon there.  Grow up,  people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> would you have a honeymoon in a war zone??  i really believe you would if you can find A woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His personal feelings are why it wasn't nuked.  Want to tell me again how we had to drop the nukes where we did?
Click to expand...


we told you. take off the colored glass's and read


----------



## Frank'sRules

namvet said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> We did firebomb Tokyo and there was nothing in either place we used nukes that mattered.  That's why we used the bombs there, not Tokyo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong. those were prime untouched targets used for the test
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had the Vietnam War won by the summer of '68...nothing between us and Hanoi up Highway 1...and Johnston lost his nerve.   Another democRAT who should have been hanged on the South Lawn of the WH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Tet offensive. we beat em to pulp.  I was over there when Johnson sent the bombing halt order.cause of pressure back here. they rearm resupply and hello Nam2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The targets were so important that one wasn't used because the Sec. Of War had his honeymoon there.  Grow up,  people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> would you have a honeymoon in a war zone??  i really believe you would if you can find A woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His personal feelings are why it wasn't nuked.  Want to tell me again how we had to drop the nukes where we did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we told you. take off the colored glass's and read
Click to expand...

We wanted to show off our new toys and did.  Had we waited we would have lost our chance.

And glasses is spelled glasses.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Frank'sRules said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> look at it this way reprobate, if your daddy was killed in the invasion we're not stuck with your sorry ass here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we had waited instead of showing off lots of Japanese kids would be walking the earth today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look retard the Japanese NEVER offered to surrender. They offered a ceasefire and return to the start lines except in China. The Japanese Government was prepared to allow their people to starve to death to save face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese not being pussies is why we had to become terrorists?
Click to expand...

No surrender meant a November Invasion with projected casualties of 1 million on our side. It would have been worse on the Japanese civilians ordered to charge machine guns with bamboo spears. There would have been millions of dead Japanese. The bombs saved lives.


----------



## Frank'sRules

RetiredGySgt said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> look at it this way reprobate, if your daddy was killed in the invasion we're not stuck with your sorry ass here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we had waited instead of showing off lots of Japanese kids would be walking the earth today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look retard the Japanese NEVER offered to surrender. They offered a ceasefire and return to the start lines except in China. The Japanese Government was prepared to allow their people to starve to death to save face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese not being pussies is why we had to become terrorists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No surrender meant a November Invasion with projected casualties of 1 million on our side. It would have been worse on the Japanese civilians ordered to charge machine guns with bamboo spears. There would have been millions of dead Japanese. The bombs saved lives.
Click to expand...

That's the American lie alright.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I have SOURCE Documents that spell out the Japanese plans and the offers of ceasefire. What do you have?


----------



## namvet

Byrne's and Stimpson convinced Truman to the drop it. warning if he didn't and the invasion went forward millions would die. after the grieving families find out Truman had the bomb he, Truman would be impeached.


----------



## namvet

almost forgot. from the Truman Library - the documents

The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb


----------



## Frank'sRules

RetiredGySgt said:


> I have SOURCE Documents that spell out the Japanese plans and the offers of ceasefire. What do you have?


History and rationality.


----------



## Frank'sRules

namvet said:


> almost forgot. from the Truman Library - the documents
> 
> The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb


Did you think this was unknown?  It's history but, history written by the victors.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Fenton Lum said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually no, dropping those bombs was about the pecking order of world power post the end of the war.  For all the blathering on about nuclear war, weaponry, who should be allowed to have and who should not; the US is the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons of this magnatude - and on civilian populations.
Click to expand...


And then have the cheek to tell others they can't have nukes because they might... use them on people... like the US did.


----------



## namvet

Frank'sRules said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> So, who was in charge them, he or they?
> 
> And they were soon to surrender anyway.  We just wanted to show off our new toys and we couldn't drop them on Tokyo, we might have killed people who mattered, so when we went more off the grid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> look at it this way reprobate, if your daddy was killed in the invasion we're not stuck with your sorry ass here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we had waited instead of showing off lots of Japanese kids would be walking the earth today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look retard the Japanese NEVER offered to surrender. They offered a ceasefire and return to the start lines except in China. The Japanese Government was prepared to allow their people to starve to death to save face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Japanese not being pussies is why we had to become terrorists?
Click to expand...


you can't see the Forrest because of the trees. im finished with you


----------



## namvet

RetiredGySgt said:


> I have SOURCE Documents that spell out the Japanese plans and the offers of ceasefire. What do you have?



don't waste your time. his cheese slide off its cracker


----------



## Unkotare

Frank'sRules said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should also be noted the Hiroshima A-bomb was like an M-80 compared to the ordnance we have now.
> 
> 
> 
> Making us just that much worse for building such things in the first place.  American devils.
Click to expand...



Stay in school, kid, but stop being such a patsy.


----------



## westwall

Frank'sRules said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they weren't.  Even after the second bomb was dropped the militarists launched a coup attempt to try and prevent the surrender.  You have no clue what you're talking about.  The military rulers wanted the Japanese to fight to the death.  They even went so far as to mass produce pole bayonets (to be used to make spears) for the Japanese civilians to use on the beaches in a hope to get under our superior firepower.
> 
> Read some history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've read the history which is why I said what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you have read, but whatever it was, it wasn't based on fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts aren't American spin on why we had to use weapons of terror.
Click to expand...






No, the facts are the facts.  The Japanese were not going to surrender.  The Emperor wanted to, but Tojo refused.  And as Tojo was dictator what he wanted ruled the day.  We got a taste of what they were planning for on the home islands with their actions on Saipan where they wanted the civilians to either fight or die by suicide.  The two nukes easily saved 500,000 US casualties.  Others estimate more but I am going for the conservative estimate.  They also saved over a million Japanese.  These estimates are based on well known factual evidence.  

Like I said, I have no idea what drivel you've been reading (probably a bunch of Zinn derived crap) but the real historians have supported their estimates with well known Japanese source material.


----------



## TooTall

kaz said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Another democRAT blah blah blah ...."
> 
> Yes hon, it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your desire to rewrite history is dull
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bitching about a political party in america isn't history son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about the Vietnam war, you keep bringing up party.  I said both LBJ and Nixon fucked up.  You're so obsessed with party you hear nothing else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot about Kennedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy sent advisers, not combat troops.  What did I forget about him?
Click to expand...


In the real world those advisers were armed and dangerous. Kennedy inherited 700 advisers in Vietnam and increased that number to 16,000 before he was assassinated.  Do you think the 5000+ advisers presently in Iraq sit at a desk and give orders?


----------



## kaz

TooTall said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your desire to rewrite history is dull
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bitching about a political party in america isn't history son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about the Vietnam war, you keep bringing up party.  I said both LBJ and Nixon fucked up.  You're so obsessed with party you hear nothing else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot about Kennedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy sent advisers, not combat troops.  What did I forget about him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the real world those advisers were armed and dangerous. Kennedy inherited 700 advisers in Vietnam and increased that number to 16,000 before he was assassinated.  Do you think the 5000+ advisers presently in Iraq sit at a desk and give orders?
Click to expand...


Yes, that's what they do.  They also send out for donuts for the office on Fridays.  What point are you trying to make?  You thought when I said LBJ and Tricky Dick fucked up my point was it was those two and no one but those two and everyone else farts lilacs?  What?


----------



## TooTall

kaz said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fenton Lum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitching about a political party in america isn't history son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about the Vietnam war, you keep bringing up party.  I said both LBJ and Nixon fucked up.  You're so obsessed with party you hear nothing else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot about Kennedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy sent advisers, not combat troops.  What did I forget about him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the real world those advisers were armed and dangerous. Kennedy inherited 700 advisers in Vietnam and increased that number to 16,000 before he was assassinated.  Do you think the 5000+ advisers presently in Iraq sit at a desk and give orders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's what they do.  They also send out for donuts for the office on Fridays.  What point are you trying to make?  You thought when I said LBJ and Tricky Dick fucked up my point was it was those two and no one but those two and everyone else farts lilacs?  What?
Click to expand...


I only noticed that you put the blame on two out of three that were responsible for the Vietnam war.


----------



## kaz

TooTall said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about the Vietnam war, you keep bringing up party.  I said both LBJ and Nixon fucked up.  You're so obsessed with party you hear nothing else
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about Kennedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy sent advisers, not combat troops.  What did I forget about him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the real world those advisers were armed and dangerous. Kennedy inherited 700 advisers in Vietnam and increased that number to 16,000 before he was assassinated.  Do you think the 5000+ advisers presently in Iraq sit at a desk and give orders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's what they do.  They also send out for donuts for the office on Fridays.  What point are you trying to make?  You thought when I said LBJ and Tricky Dick fucked up my point was it was those two and no one but those two and everyone else farts lilacs?  What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only noticed that you put the blame on two out of three that were responsible for the Vietnam war.
Click to expand...


Exactly, just an anal nit.  Re-read my post.  I didn't say no one else had anything to do with it.  But to compare the level of Kennedy to the other two is ridiculous.  So if you're saying Kennedy equals the other two I'm laughing at you, if you're saying he contributed to it but to a lesser degree, then I just addressed it, didn't I?


----------



## TooTall

kaz said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot about Kennedy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy sent advisers, not combat troops.  What did I forget about him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the real world those advisers were armed and dangerous. Kennedy inherited 700 advisers in Vietnam and increased that number to 16,000 before he was assassinated.  Do you think the 5000+ advisers presently in Iraq sit at a desk and give orders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's what they do.  They also send out for donuts for the office on Fridays.  What point are you trying to make?  You thought when I said LBJ and Tricky Dick fucked up my point was it was those two and no one but those two and everyone else farts lilacs?  What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only noticed that you put the blame on two out of three that were responsible for the Vietnam war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, just an anal nit.  Re-read my post.  I didn't say no one else had anything to do with it.  But to compare the level of Kennedy to the other two is ridiculous.  So if you're saying Kennedy equals the other two I'm laughing at you, if you're saying he contributed to it but to a lesser degree, then I just addressed it, didn't I?
Click to expand...


Sorry to disagree, but Kennedy inherited 700 advisers and ended up with 16,000 in country.  That is a HUGE contribution in my opinion.


----------



## kaz

TooTall said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy sent advisers, not combat troops.  What did I forget about him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the real world those advisers were armed and dangerous. Kennedy inherited 700 advisers in Vietnam and increased that number to 16,000 before he was assassinated.  Do you think the 5000+ advisers presently in Iraq sit at a desk and give orders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's what they do.  They also send out for donuts for the office on Fridays.  What point are you trying to make?  You thought when I said LBJ and Tricky Dick fucked up my point was it was those two and no one but those two and everyone else farts lilacs?  What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only noticed that you put the blame on two out of three that were responsible for the Vietnam war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, just an anal nit.  Re-read my post.  I didn't say no one else had anything to do with it.  But to compare the level of Kennedy to the other two is ridiculous.  So if you're saying Kennedy equals the other two I'm laughing at you, if you're saying he contributed to it but to a lesser degree, then I just addressed it, didn't I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to disagree, but Kennedy inherited 700 advisers and ended up with 16,000 in country.  That is a HUGE contribution in my opinion.
Click to expand...


Swish

The point was whether you are comparing Kennedy to LBJ and Nixon or not.  You evaded the question ... again


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Frank'sRules said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The America-haters here delight in trying to make our enemies into tragic figures....they twist facts around until nobody knows what to believe.....Fifth columnists and they don't even know how they're being used.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try to make acts of terrorism worthy.  It might work, like our use of terrorism in Japan, but it's never worthy.
Click to expand...



Japan attacked us.  That was not terrorism.  Only in your delusional mind.


----------



## Picaro

Tom Horn said:


> This is the moment the city was about to be torn apart by the first nuclear weapon ever used.   Notice the people standing in the foreground unaware that they were about to be incinerated:



How did the photo survive? Was the photographer a really really fast runner?


----------



## Picaro

blackhawk said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually after the emperor decided to announce Japan's surrender after the Nagasaki bomb a group of military officers tried to overthrow him to prevent the surrender from being broadcast preferring to fight to the end rather than suffer in their mind the dishonor of surrender.
Click to expand...


And they still had millions of troops running around as well, though most were in China; they were still a major threat long term.


----------



## Picaro

Frank'sRules said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's history.  The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Run along now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, facts and history annoy you.
Click to expand...


lol talk about projection.


----------



## Picaro

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
Click to expand...


Yes. They were holding training classes for civilians in how to sharpen bamboo shoots to use as weapons, as well.


----------



## namvet

Picaro said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the moment the city was about to be torn apart by the first nuclear weapon ever used.   Notice the people standing in the foreground unaware that they were about to be incinerated:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did the photo survive? Was the photographer a really really fast runner?
Click to expand...


this was the Nagasaki bomb. a man named Hiromichi Matsuda captured the spreading atomic cloud over Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 from Koyagi-jima, far enough away so that he and the picture survived.


----------



## Frank'sRules

Picaro said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's history.  The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Run along now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, facts and history annoy you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol talk about projection.
Click to expand...

I don't project, and I don't repeat dogma like killing people with weapons of terror saved lives.


----------



## Frank'sRules

Picaro said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. They were holding training classes for civilians in how to sharpen bamboo shoots to use as weapons, as well.
Click to expand...

So?  Civilians in a country potentially being invaded shouldn't fight back?  Interesting.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. They were holding training classes for civilians in how to sharpen bamboo shoots to use as weapons, as well.
Click to expand...



Over 70 years ago, and you're still swallowing propaganda that was never intended for you? Talk about a sap of historic proportions.


----------



## Unkotare

Was Hiroshima Necessary?


----------



## Unkotare

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...ids-plague-u-s-west-with-what-might-have-been


----------



## Unkotare

MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb


----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. They were holding training classes for civilians in how to sharpen bamboo shoots to use as weapons, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Over 70 years ago, and you're still swallowing propaganda that was never intended for you? Talk about a sap of historic proportions.
Click to expand...


Too bad for you gimps we know the facts about it. You and Frankie will just have to peddle the Kool Aid to dumbass Millennials.


----------



## Picaro

Frank'sRules said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. They were holding training classes for civilians in how to sharpen bamboo shoots to use as weapons, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  Civilians in a country potentially being invaded shouldn't fight back?  Interesting.
Click to expand...


You make no sense, as usual.


----------



## Picaro

Frank'sRules said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's history.  The rationalization is we had to drop the bombs to "save" lives, which wasn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Run along now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, facts and history annoy you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol talk about projection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't project, and I don't repeat dogma like killing people with weapons of terror saved lives.
Click to expand...


That isn't dogma, that's the truth, and as for you dogma is all you have, as well as projection. You just object to whose lives were saved by it, is all.


----------



## Picaro

RetiredGySgt said:


> I have SOURCE Documents that spell out the Japanese plans and the offers of ceasefire. What do you have?



Obviously he has nothing, just babbling the usual American hate so popular with gimps and loons.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. They were holding training classes for civilians in how to sharpen bamboo shoots to use as weapons, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Over 70 years ago, and you're still swallowing propaganda that was never intended for you? Talk about a sap of historic proportions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...we know the facts about it. ....
Click to expand...



You wouldn't know a fact if it picked you up and dumped you on your head. FACTS are what I have provided.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...ids-plague-u-s-west-with-what-might-have-been


.


----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. They were holding training classes for civilians in how to sharpen bamboo shoots to use as weapons, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Over 70 years ago, and you're still swallowing propaganda that was never intended for you? Talk about a sap of historic proportions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...we know the facts about it. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know a fact if it picked you up and dumped you on your head. FACTS are what I have provided.
Click to expand...


Oh of course I would, and you never provide squat, just some ignorant silly-assed garbage you found and some FDR bashing site or other. The fact is we won, and your racist asshole gimps lost. Get over it.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb


.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. They were holding training classes for civilians in how to sharpen bamboo shoots to use as weapons, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Over 70 years ago, and you're still swallowing propaganda that was never intended for you? Talk about a sap of historic proportions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...we know the facts about it. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know a fact if it picked you up and dumped you on your head. FACTS are what I have provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh of course I would.....
Click to expand...



No, you would just wake up confused and in pain as usual.


----------



## westwall

Frank'sRules said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. They were holding training classes for civilians in how to sharpen bamboo shoots to use as weapons, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  Civilians in a country potentially being invaded shouldn't fight back?  Interesting.
Click to expand...






  Typical brainless progressive.  Only in your feeble minds is it not proper to conquer a nation that attacked you first.  Just go away.  You're a halfwit.


----------



## Picaro

Nobody wastes time reading your 'evidence' any more, scat boi.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. They were holding training classes for civilians in how to sharpen bamboo shoots to use as weapons, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Over 70 years ago, and you're still swallowing propaganda that was never intended for you? Talk about a sap of historic proportions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...we know the facts about it. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know a fact if it picked you up and dumped you on your head. FACTS are what I have provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....you never provide squat...
Click to expand...



I'm the only one on this thread who has provided FACTS. You haven't read the links.


----------



## SAYIT

Unkotare said:


> Was Hiroshima Necessary?


 
Wow! IHR? The Institute of Historical Review? It's a Nazi website where hate for the US - and of course Joooos - is rampant.

I can't believe you would post their drivel.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Nobody wastes time reading your 'evidence' any more.....




You're afraid to look at facts. You're afraid to read the links.


----------



## Unkotare

westwall said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. They were holding training classes for civilians in how to sharpen bamboo shoots to use as weapons, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  Civilians in a country potentially being invaded shouldn't fight back?  Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in your feeble minds is it not proper to conquer a nation that attacked you first.  ...
Click to expand...



Where did he say that? I missed that post.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

.


----------



## whitehall

The arguably most important question in history is... "was it necessary"? I believe the dying FDR administration compounded the atrocity by sending Marines to invade a non strategic little piece of shit island in order to make a case for using the Bomb. Iwo Jima could have been bypassed but the FDR administration sacrificed seven thousand Marines in a freaking month to take an island which was virtually out of touch from the Japanese mainland and had been fortified for forty years. After the Marines were sacrificed, the administration had the political evidence it needed to try out the creation that all those eggheads were dying to see, their little creation  finally used on sub-humans while they were negotiating for surrender terms.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

whitehall said:


> The arguably most important question in history is... "was it necessary"? I believe the dying FDR administration compounded the atrocity by sending Marines to invade a non strategic little piece of shit island in order to make a case for using the Bomb. Iwo Jima could have been bypassed but the FDR administration sacrificed seven thousand Marines in a freaking month to take an island which was virtually out of touch from the Japanese mainland and had been fortified for forty years. After the Marines were sacrificed, the administration had the political evidence it needed to try out the creation that all those eggheads were dying to see, their little creation  finally used on sub-humans while they were negotiating for surrender terms.


Iwo Jima was critical to the bombing Campaign. Even before the island was conquered damaged bombers were landing there.


----------



## westwall

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. They were holding training classes for civilians in how to sharpen bamboo shoots to use as weapons, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over 70 years ago, and you're still swallowing propaganda that was never intended for you? Talk about a sap of historic proportions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...we know the facts about it. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know a fact if it picked you up and dumped you on your head. FACTS are what I have provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....you never provide squat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the only one on this thread who has provided FACTS. You haven't read the links.
Click to expand...







No.  What you have provided is a huge heaping of OPINION.  Learn the difference.  Gar Alperovitz is a well known socialist who has been trying to rewrite history for decades.  The facts are well known.  The Saipan experience refutes every point that he, and your other sources make.  The Japanese leadership wished for their own version of Gottadamerung, and they were bound and determined to see it through.

THESE are the real facts.   Facts that your socialist ignores...

"On Aug. 15, 1945, nearly 1,000 soldiers occupied the Imperial Palace grounds for six hours from 2 a.m., aiming to seize two 25-cm records of the reading of the surrender decree and blocking its noon broadcast that day.

The actions of Lt. Gen. Takeshi Mori, commander of the First Imperial Guards Division, and Gen. Shizuichi Tanaka, commander of the Eastern Defense Command, enabled the monarch, known posthumously as Emperor Showa, to announce over the radio to the Japanese people and armed forces the nation’s unconditional surrender.

The broadcast paved the way for the Allied Powers to occupy Japan without serious turmoil.

Emperor Hirohito made the recording at around 11:30 p.m. on Aug. 14, and Chamberlain Yoshihiro Tokugawa put the two records in a small safe in the first-floor office of the monarch’s retinue, hidden from sight with piles of papers.

At around 1:40 a.m. on Aug. 15, Mori, 52, was shot by Maj. Kenji Hatanaka and then hacked to death by Capt. Shigetaro Uehara at his headquarters after rejecting their demand to order his 4,000-man division to revolt against the government and seize the palace.

“Mori rejected the officers’ demands to order his Guards Division to rise up in revolt, because he had recognized the importance of establishing peace with the Allied Powers to prevent the Japanese people from being destroyed by a continued war,” historian Kazutoshi Hando said in a recent interview.

“Had the broadcast of the surrender rescript been blocked, the Japanese military would have kept up its fighting spirit, and the armed forces would have carried on on many battlefields,” he said.

On Aug. 14, the government of then Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki decided to accept the Allied demand for unconditional surrender. The decision was made at a meeting of the six-member Supreme Council for the Direction of the War, including Suzuki and War Minister Korechika Anami, in the presence of Emperor Hirohito."

Generals foiled Aug. 15 palace coup | The Japan Times


----------



## Unkotare

westwall said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have provided is a huge heaping of OPINION.  .....





Direct quotes from military leaders at the time are "opinion"? Maybe their opinions, but not my words. 


MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb


----------



## whitehall

RetiredGySgt said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The arguably most important question in history is... "was it necessary"? I believe the dying FDR administration compounded the atrocity by sending Marines to invade a non strategic little piece of shit island in order to make a case for using the Bomb. Iwo Jima could have been bypassed but the FDR administration sacrificed seven thousand Marines in a freaking month to take an island which was virtually out of touch from the Japanese mainland and had been fortified for forty years. After the Marines were sacrificed, the administration had the political evidence it needed to try out the creation that all those eggheads were dying to see, their little creation  finally used on sub-humans while they were negotiating for surrender terms.
> 
> 
> 
> Iwo Jima was critical to the bombing Campaign. Even before the island was conquered damaged bombers were landing there.
Click to expand...

No offense Gunny but you need too look at history rather than relying on political cliches. The stated mission for the invasion of a stinking island fortified by almost a half century of slave labor that created a network of tunnels and bunkers that had every inch of the island plotted with mortar and machine gun fire was to suppress Japanese fighter planes from harassing Allied bombers. The mission was so freaking lame that it defied explanation. Allied bombers could have pounded the Iwo landing strip and the Japanese fighter planes into the stone age and bypassed the island to starve to death. It is said thar FDR gasped when he learned of the Marine casualties. The Marines were supposed to retreat and show the politicians that the mainlanded had to be nuked but the Marines took the stinking unnecessary island at an incredible cost and God bless them.


----------



## 80zephyr

Frank'sRules said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
Click to expand...


My dad was in the navy in the Pacific, and he was gearing up to invade Japan. Are you implying that if we didn't drop those bombs that we would never had invaded?

Mark


----------



## regent

Iwo and Okinawa were indicative of what was coming with the invasion of the Japanese mainland.


----------



## westwall

Unkotare said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have provided is a huge heaping of OPINION.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Direct quotes from military leaders at the time are "opinion"? Maybe their opinions, but not my words.
> 
> 
> MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb
Click to expand...






Yes, those were THEIR opinions.  Their concerns were with the nature of war itself.  They realized that nuclear weapons would forever alter how wars were fought.  Only it turns out they were wrong about that too...Weren't they..  The lowest estimate for the continuance of the war from them was two weeks.  So, 4 more firebombings and voila, you have more Japanese burned to death than were killed by the bombs.  It is ALL opinion.  They have no facts to back up their assertions.  We do have facts to back up ours.

The quote from LeMay is particularly amusing given his bloodthirsty nature.  He and Bomber Harris were two of a kind and casualties among the civilian population never concerned either man in the slightest.


----------



## MaryL

And what was the military view on the necessity of attacking Pearl Harbor, to begin with? Was THAT necessary? Does Japan hash that decision over and over again? Or do they just lament getting their asses kicked? I am  not seeing too many "authorities"   decrying Japan initiated  allied involvement period. Oh no,instead, Japan were  poor little victims. Really? How does that work?


----------



## regent

WWII was  the biggest event in those generals and admiral's military lives. The war was what they had trained for and there was nothing bigger on the horizon, but most would not be doing the invading. The invasion and loss of life would be mostly enlisted pukes, draftees and second lieutenants. Most of us recognize the names of those generals and admirals because they have gone into the history books and had memorials created for them.


----------



## Unkotare

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...ids-plague-u-s-west-with-what-might-have-been


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> And what was the military view on the necessity of attacking Pearl Harbor, to begin with? Was THAT necessary? Does Japan hash that decision over and over again? Or do they just lament getting their asses kicked? I am  not seeing too many "authorities"   decrying Japan initiated  allied involvement period. Oh no,instead, Japan were  poor little victims. Really? How does that work?





You're saying the annihilation of hundreds of thousands of civilians was an act of revenge? Can you document that?


----------



## MaryL

Unkotare said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what was the military view on the necessity of attacking Pearl Harbor, to begin with? Was THAT necessary? Does Japan hash that decision over and over again? Or do they just lament getting their asses kicked? I am  not seeing too many "authorities"   decrying Japan initiated  allied involvement period. Oh no,instead, Japan were  poor little victims. Really? How does that work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying the annihilation of hundreds of thousands of civilians was an act of revenge? Can you document that?
Click to expand...

You don't understand the full scope of WW2, do you? The needless  attack on  Pearl harbor by the Japanese that started American involvement, the bombing of Coventry , the use of V1 or V2 weapons, Japan's research into genetic weapons by the notorious "unit 751". It's sad those civilians died in Hiroshima, compare that to the horror the imperial Japanese perpetrated, and where bent on murdering   millions of innocent people. Until Hiroshima. That ended their military march of dominance. Too bad they need 2 A bombs to persuade them.


----------



## Tom Horn

Tarawa was where we learned how to whip a fortified Jap island....they were ready for the beach landings and we took heavy losses but used what we learned there later closer to mainland Japan.   US KIA 1,700...Jap KIA 4,700.  My uncle was there with 2nd. Marines and said it was the longest three days of his life.


----------



## Tom Horn

BTW, anybody whining about the detention camps we had here during the war, should remember there were GIs coming home who'd seen the barbaric little bastards in action in the Pacific.  No Japanese-American would have been safe walking the streets in America.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what was the military view on the necessity of attacking Pearl Harbor, to begin with? Was THAT necessary? Does Japan hash that decision over and over again? Or do they just lament getting their asses kicked? I am  not seeing too many "authorities"   decrying Japan initiated  allied involvement period. Oh no,instead, Japan were  poor little victims. Really? How does that work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying the annihilation of hundreds of thousands of civilians was an act of revenge? Can you document that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand the full scope of WW2, do you? .....
Click to expand...



Yes, I do. Now answer my question.


----------



## Unkotare

Tom Horn said:


> BTW, anybody whining about the detention camps we had here during the war, should remember there were GIs coming home who'd seen the barbaric little bastards in action in the Pacific.  No Japanese-American would have been safe walking the streets in America....




Oh, fdr's concentration camps were a generous protection! I wonder how grateful you would feel if your land and possessions were all stolen, your family forced out of its home at gunpoint and your ass thrown into a concentration camp. Are you an American or aren't you?


----------



## Frank'sRules

80zephyr said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My dad was in the navy in the Pacific, and he was gearing up to invade Japan. Are you implying that if we didn't drop those bombs that we would never had invaded?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Yes.  All we had to do was wait but, we had new toys to play with.


----------



## Frank'sRules

westwall said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. They were holding training classes for civilians in how to sharpen bamboo shoots to use as weapons, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  Civilians in a country potentially being invaded shouldn't fight back?  Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical brainless progressive.  Only in your feeble minds is it not proper to conquer a nation that attacked you first.  Just go away.  You're a halfwit.
Click to expand...

They were ready to fight like men.  We used WMD like terrorists instead.


----------



## regent

Frank'sRules said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. They were holding training classes for civilians in how to sharpen bamboo shoots to use as weapons, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  Civilians in a country potentially being invaded shouldn't fight back?  Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical brainless progressive.  Only in your feeble minds is it not proper to conquer a nation that attacked you first.  Just go away.  You're a halfwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were ready to fight like men.  We used WMD like terrorists instead.
Click to expand...


So how do men fight? You're right we should have fought like the Japanese fought, beheaded Japanese, bayonet babies and prisoners, ask for help and blow up the enemy trying to help us.
They fought their war and we fought ours, and at the time it didn't seem illegal or in bad taste. .


----------



## Frank'sRules

regent said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. They were holding training classes for civilians in how to sharpen bamboo shoots to use as weapons, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  Civilians in a country potentially being invaded shouldn't fight back?  Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Typical brainless progressive.  Only in your feeble minds is it not proper to conquer a nation that attacked you first.  Just go away.  You're a halfwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were ready to fight like men.  We used WMD like terrorists instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how do men fight? You're right we should have fought like the Japanese fought, beheaded Japanese, bayonet babies and prisoners, ask for help and blow up the enemy trying to help us.
> They fought their war and we fought ours, and at the time it didn't seem illegal or in bad taste. .
Click to expand...

Do you always base your decisions on how immoral others are?

Or, do you stand up and be moral regardless?


----------



## Tom Horn

Unkotare said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, anybody whining about the detention camps we had here during the war, should remember there were GIs coming home who'd seen the barbaric little bastards in action in the Pacific.  No Japanese-American would have been safe walking the streets in America....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, fdr's concentration camps were a generous protection! I wonder how grateful you would feel if your land and possessions were all stolen, your family forced out of its home at gunpoint and your ass thrown into a concentration camp. Are you an American or aren't you?
Click to expand...


Are you an American is the question.  There would have been acts of sabotage, assassination, and relaying fortification information to Jap subs lurking off the California coast.   And when you use the word "concentration camp" you spit in every Jewish face lost in real concentration camps in Poland...the detention-centers here were nothing like that.  The people couldn't leave, that's it.  They could do whatever they pleased but they couldn't leave for our national security and their own security.   Yes, they should have gotten their homes and property back at the end of the war and I believe most were reimbursed although I don't know much about that.


----------



## Unkotare

Frank'sRules said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. They were holding training classes for civilians in how to sharpen bamboo shoots to use as weapons, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> So?  Civilians in a country potentially being invaded shouldn't fight back?  Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Typical brainless progressive.  Only in your feeble minds is it not proper to conquer a nation that attacked you first.  Just go away.  You're a halfwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were ready to fight like men.  We used WMD like terrorists instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how do men fight? You're right we should have fought like the Japanese fought, beheaded Japanese, bayonet babies and prisoners, ask for help and blow up the enemy trying to help us.
> They fought their war and we fought ours, and at the time it didn't seem illegal or in bad taste. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you always base your decisions on how immoral others are?
> 
> Or, do you stand up and be moral regardless?
Click to expand...



You're asking the wrong person. Leftists don't believe in morality.


----------



## Frank'sRules

Unkotare said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?  Civilians in a country potentially being invaded shouldn't fight back?  Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical brainless progressive.  Only in your feeble minds is it not proper to conquer a nation that attacked you first.  Just go away.  You're a halfwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were ready to fight like men.  We used WMD like terrorists instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how do men fight? You're right we should have fought like the Japanese fought, beheaded Japanese, bayonet babies and prisoners, ask for help and blow up the enemy trying to help us.
> They fought their war and we fought ours, and at the time it didn't seem illegal or in bad taste. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you always base your decisions on how immoral others are?
> 
> Or, do you stand up and be moral regardless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking the wrong person. Leftists don't believe in morality.
Click to expand...

Are you a leftists?  And while they are sometimes "the ends justifies the means", they are also usually moral?

I know many of low moral standing, I don't emulate them or use them to justify my decisions.  In the end it is I that must be able to sleep at night and for that there is a high price to be paid but it's not optional if one is a moral being.


----------



## Tom Horn

Frank'sRules said:


> Do you always base your decisions on how immoral others are?
> 
> Or, do you stand up and be moral regardless?



Listen you little coward....I saw you called another Viet-Vet a "baby-killer" yesterday.  You wouldn't say that to our faces...only in front of your keyboard.  Nothing else you say here will be addressed by me...you're a piece of shit.


----------



## Unkotare

Tom Horn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, anybody whining about the detention camps we had here during the war, should remember there were GIs coming home who'd seen the barbaric little bastards in action in the Pacific.  No Japanese-American would have been safe walking the streets in America....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, fdr's concentration camps were a generous protection! I wonder how grateful you would feel if your land and possessions were all stolen, your family forced out of its home at gunpoint and your ass thrown into a concentration camp. Are you an American or aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There would have been acts of sabotage, assassination, and relaying fortification information ....
Click to expand...






That's not what naval intelligence told that fucking scumbag fdr.


----------



## Tom Horn

Unkotare said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, anybody whining about the detention camps we had here during the war, should remember there were GIs coming home who'd seen the barbaric little bastards in action in the Pacific.  No Japanese-American would have been safe walking the streets in America....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, fdr's concentration camps were a generous protection! I wonder how grateful you would feel if your land and possessions were all stolen, your family forced out of its home at gunpoint and your ass thrown into a concentration camp. Are you an American or aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There would have been acts of sabotage, assassination, and relaying fortification information ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what naval intelligence told that fucking scumbag fdr.
Click to expand...


I'm certainly no fan of FDR...he let Churchill swing in the wind until the Nazis were almost on his doorstep.  He left our battleships (but not our carriers...curious) at Pearl wide-open.  They were so unprepared despite rumors flying that the vault that held the Pacific theatre war plans was on a time-lock and couldn't be opened until Monday morning.  But once he committed he went full-throttle and gave the war over to the generals to fight and didn't meddle.  After the war was a different story.


----------



## Frank'sRules

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you always base your decisions on how immoral others are?
> 
> Or, do you stand up and be moral regardless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you little coward....I saw you called another Viet-Vet a "baby-killer" yesterday.  You wouldn't say that to our faces...only in front of your keyboard.  Nothing else you say here will be addressed by me...you're a piece of shit.
Click to expand...

And he, like you, probably didn't understand that what you were sent to do was wrong and no rationalization will make it right so trying to only means you are both not dealing with the reality which is, you were never supposed to be there and what you did there was wrong.  I expect men who have gone to war to have balls?  If you can't deal with an anonymous person on the other end of the Internet with a keyboard, I can't help you.  I call it like it is.

You lost a war that you should never have been in.  You slaughtered innocents and for no good reason.  Welcome to being cannon fodder, that made it home.  Congrats on that and nothing else.  Your service was in vain and even worse, it was inhumane.  You became death, and for absolutely no justifiable reason.  You two were only tools of a nation in the wrong.  While that may not be your fault that is nothing to be proud of.  You served, honorably or not, human evil.

And BTW you lost, so let it go and move on.


----------



## Unkotare

Tom Horn said:


> ... when you use the word "concentration camp" you spit in every Jewish face lost.....




Really? Because that is exactly what that fucking scumbag fdr called his concentration camps, and that is exactly what they were.


----------



## Frank'sRules

Unkotare said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... when you use the word "concentration camp" you spit in every Jewish face lost.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Because that is exactly what that fucking scumbag fdr called his concentration camps, and that is exactly what they were.
Click to expand...

Ours were more humane, but just as wrong.  And ours were called internment camps


----------



## Unkotare

Frank'sRules said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you always base your decisions on how immoral others are?
> 
> Or, do you stand up and be moral regardless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you little coward....I saw you called another Viet-Vet a "baby-killer" yesterday.  You wouldn't say that to our faces...only in front of your keyboard.  Nothing else you say here will be addressed by me...you're a piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he, like you, probably didn't understand that what you were sent to do was wrong and no rationalization will make it right so trying to only means you are both not dealing with the reality which is, you were never supposed to be there and what you did there was wrong.  I expect men who have gone to war to have balls?  If you can't deal with an anonymous person on the other end of the Internet with a keyboard, I can't help you.  I call it like it is.
> 
> You lost a war that you should never have been in.  You slaughtered innocents and for no good reason.  Welcome to being cannon fodder, that made it home.  Congrats on that and nothing else.  Your service was in vain and even worse, it was inhumane.  You became death, and for absolutely no justifiable reason.  You two were only tools of a nation in the wrong.  While that may not be your fault that is nothing to be proud of.  You served, honorably or not, human evil.
> 
> And BTW you lost, so let it go and move on.
Click to expand...




Wait until you're out of diapers before making such declarations, boy.


----------



## Unkotare

Frank'sRules said:


> ... ours were called internment camps




No, they were not. Not by the fucking scumbag who had them built.


----------



## Picaro

SAYIT said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was Hiroshima Necessary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! IHR? The Institute of Historical Review? It's a Nazi website where hate for the US - and of course Joooos - is rampant.
> 
> I can't believe you would post their drivel.
Click to expand...


lol yes. that's why I quit clicking on his 'links' and alleged 'evidence' a long time ago. It's a waste of time.


----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. They were holding training classes for civilians in how to sharpen bamboo shoots to use as weapons, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over 70 years ago, and you're still swallowing propaganda that was never intended for you? Talk about a sap of historic proportions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...we know the facts about it. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know a fact if it picked you up and dumped you on your head. FACTS are what I have provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....you never provide squat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the only one on this thread who has provided FACTS. You haven't read the links.
Click to expand...


You're just trolling. you have no 'facts', just ideological spin and gibberish as usual.


----------



## Picaro

Frank'sRules said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. They were holding training classes for civilians in how to sharpen bamboo shoots to use as weapons, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  Civilians in a country potentially being invaded shouldn't fight back?  Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical brainless progressive.  Only in your feeble minds is it not proper to conquer a nation that attacked you first.  Just go away.  You're a halfwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were ready to fight like men.  We used WMD like terrorists instead.
Click to expand...


Really? You mean manly stuff like pitchforking babies into the backs of trucks, machine gunning down thousands of unarmed civilians at a time, beheading people for personal amusement,  raping women to death, all that kind of stuff is 'manly' to you, is it?


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over 70 years ago, and you're still swallowing propaganda that was never intended for you? Talk about a sap of historic proportions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...we know the facts about it. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know a fact if it picked you up and dumped you on your head. FACTS are what I have provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....you never provide squat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the only one on this thread who has provided FACTS. You haven't read the links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just trolling. you have no 'facts', just ideological spin and gibberish as usual.
Click to expand...





Facts you are afraid to look at. Direct quotes from military leaders of that time, and proof that efforts to negotiate surrender long before the bombings were rebuffed.


----------



## 80zephyr

Frank'sRules said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My dad was in the navy in the Pacific, and he was gearing up to invade Japan. Are you implying that if we didn't drop those bombs that we would never had invaded?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  All we had to do was wait but, we had new toys to play with.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that Japan would have surrendered without being invaded?

Mark


----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...we know the facts about it. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know a fact if it picked you up and dumped you on your head. FACTS are what I have provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....you never provide squat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the only one on this thread who has provided FACTS. You haven't read the links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just trolling. you have no 'facts', just ideological spin and gibberish as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts you are afraid to look at. Direct quotes from military leaders of that time, and proof that efforts to negotiate surrender long before the bombings were rebuffed.
Click to expand...


Most of us have read that stuff; the problem is you haven't. and we know it.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know a fact if it picked you up and dumped you on your head. FACTS are what I have provided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....you never provide squat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the only one on this thread who has provided FACTS. You haven't read the links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just trolling. you have no 'facts', just ideological spin and gibberish as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts you are afraid to look at. Direct quotes from military leaders of that time, and proof that efforts to negotiate surrender long before the bombings were rebuffed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of us have read that stuff; the problem is you haven't. and we know it.
Click to expand...





I'm the one posting it, you numbskull.


----------



## Unkotare

80zephyr said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My dad was in the navy in the Pacific, and he was gearing up to invade Japan. Are you implying that if we didn't drop those bombs that we would never had invaded?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  All we had to do was wait but, we had new toys to play with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Japan would have surrendered without being invaded?
> 
> ...
Click to expand...




That's what Japan said long before the bombs were dropped.


----------



## Moonglow

Unkotare said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My dad was in the navy in the Pacific, and he was gearing up to invade Japan. Are you implying that if we didn't drop those bombs that we would never had invaded?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  All we had to do was wait but, we had new toys to play with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Japan would have surrendered without being invaded?
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Japan said long before the bombs were dropped.
Click to expand...

Saying and doing are two different actions..


----------



## Tom Horn

Frank'sRules said:


> And he, like you, probably didn't understand that what you were sent to do was wrong and no rationalization will make it right so trying to only means you are both not dealing with the reality which is, you were never supposed to be there and what you did there was wrong.  I expect men who have gone to war to have balls?  If you can't deal with an anonymous person on the other end of the Internet with a keyboard, I can't help you.  I call it like it is.
> 
> You lost a war that you should never have been in.  You slaughtered innocents and for no good reason.  Welcome to being cannon fodder, that made it home.  Congrats on that and nothing else.  Your service was in vain and even worse, it was inhumane.  You became death, and for absolutely no justifiable reason.  You two were only tools of a nation in the wrong.  While that may not be your fault that is nothing to be proud of.  You served, honorably or not, human evil.
> 
> And BTW you lost, so let it go and move on.



This ^^^^^ kind of garbage is why you have a troubling suicide-rate from Vets returning from combat theatres.  It's nothing new; our domestic communists did it to WW2 Vets and Korea Vets, Viet Vets, and they're doing it to Vets who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The vast majority of us know what's behind it and ignore it because it's always done from a distance, behind our backs, like here.   But some listen to it and take it seriously.  This piece of shit wants to shame us, ridicule us, make us believe we "lost".  He wants us to commit suicide, although he'll deny it.  He has no idea what happened in Vietnam before we left, none.  Yet he sits there perched on his little ivory tower casting his judgements on men he'd have to stand on a ladder to kiss our asses.  It's a coward's excuse for ducking his own responsibility to defend a country that''s defended him.


----------



## Tom Horn

Unkotare said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... when you use the word "concentration camp" you spit in every Jewish face lost.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Because that is exactly what that fucking scumbag fdr called his concentration camps, and that is exactly what they were.
Click to expand...


Did we work them 20 hour days with little food and no medical care until they fell down and were then sent to the ovens?  Did we torture them for amusement like the Nips and Nazis did, conduct hideous medical procedures on them, like injecting blue dye into their eyes or seeing how long they could live without a liver?  Did we shoot them by the thousands and throw them into ditches covered with lye?  Did we murder 6,000,000 of them?   You can call the internment camps whatever suits you but they were the farthest thing from concentration camps the world has ever known.


----------



## Unkotare

Tom Horn said:


> You can call the internment camps whatever suits you but they were the farthest thing from concentration camps the world has ever known.




What "suited" the scumbag fdr was to call them concentration camps because that is, by definition, what they were.


----------



## Unkotare

That the scumbag fdr's concentration camps were less hellish than the genocidal psychopath hitler's death camps doesn't change the fact that concentration camps are precisely what they were. "Not as bad as hitler" is not the standard to which America holds itself.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...we know the facts about it. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know a fact if it picked you up and dumped you on your head. FACTS are what I have provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....you never provide squat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the only one on this thread who has provided FACTS. You haven't read the links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just trolling. you have no 'facts', just ideological spin and gibberish as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts you are afraid to look at. Direct quotes from military leaders of that time, and proof that efforts to negotiate surrender long before the bombings were rebuffed.
Click to expand...

Once again for the slow and stupid ALL the Japanese offered was a ceasefire, return to prewar borders except in China and no consequences for starting the war.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know a fact if it picked you up and dumped you on your head. FACTS are what I have provided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....you never provide squat...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the only one on this thread who has provided FACTS. You haven't read the links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just trolling. you have no 'facts', just ideological spin and gibberish as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts you are afraid to look at. Direct quotes from military leaders of that time, and proof that efforts to negotiate surrender long before the bombings were rebuffed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again for the slow and stupid ALL the Japanese offered was a ceasefire, return to prewar borders except in China and no consequences for starting the war.
Click to expand...




Wrong. The terms offered were the same that Truman eventually agreed to.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...ids-plague-u-s-west-with-what-might-have-been


.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....you never provide squat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the only one on this thread who has provided FACTS. You haven't read the links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just trolling. you have no 'facts', just ideological spin and gibberish as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts you are afraid to look at. Direct quotes from military leaders of that time, and proof that efforts to negotiate surrender long before the bombings were rebuffed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again for the slow and stupid ALL the Japanese offered was a ceasefire, return to prewar borders except in China and no consequences for starting the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The terms offered were the same that Truman eventually agreed to.
Click to expand...

No they were not the Japanese insisted no US troops in japan and a return of all property taken during the war retard.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the only one on this thread who has provided FACTS. You haven't read the links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just trolling. you have no 'facts', just ideological spin and gibberish as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts you are afraid to look at. Direct quotes from military leaders of that time, and proof that efforts to negotiate surrender long before the bombings were rebuffed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again for the slow and stupid ALL the Japanese offered was a ceasefire, return to prewar borders except in China and no consequences for starting the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The terms offered were the same that Truman eventually agreed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they were not the Japanese insisted no US troops in japan and a return of all property taken during the war retard.
Click to expand...




You are wrong. Read the link, dumbass.


----------



## Picaro

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the only one on this thread who has provided FACTS. You haven't read the links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just trolling. you have no 'facts', just ideological spin and gibberish as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts you are afraid to look at. Direct quotes from military leaders of that time, and proof that efforts to negotiate surrender long before the bombings were rebuffed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again for the slow and stupid ALL the Japanese offered was a ceasefire, return to prewar borders except in China and no consequences for starting the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The terms offered were the same that Truman eventually agreed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they were not the Japanese insisted no US troops in japan and a return of all property taken during the war retard.
Click to expand...


Unktare is just a troll, and never has anything. Mostly he gets ignored.


----------



## Picaro

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....you never provide squat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the only one on this thread who has provided FACTS. You haven't read the links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just trolling. you have no 'facts', just ideological spin and gibberish as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts you are afraid to look at. Direct quotes from military leaders of that time, and proof that efforts to negotiate surrender long before the bombings were rebuffed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of us have read that stuff; the problem is you haven't. and we know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the one posting it, you numbskull.
Click to expand...


So?You obviously haven't read the real histories, or you wouldn't be lying so blatantly about it.


----------



## Picaro

Tom Horn said:


> BTW, anybody whining about the detention camps we had here during the war, should remember there were GIs coming home who'd seen the barbaric little bastards in action in the Pacific.  No Japanese-American would have been safe walking the streets in America.



Not to mention at the time there was plenty of cause for them as well; over a third of them were not U.S. citizens, and most of them were avid cheerleaders for Japan's conquests and invasion before Pearl, and few of them ever bothered to report Japanese intelligence agents recruiting efforts in their communities, which is odd if they were so wonderfully patriotic n stuff, as scat boi claims. Then ther is the Niheiu Incident, and other fun facts about Japanese in America.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the only one on this thread who has provided FACTS. You haven't read the links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just trolling. you have no 'facts', just ideological spin and gibberish as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts you are afraid to look at. Direct quotes from military leaders of that time, and proof that efforts to negotiate surrender long before the bombings were rebuffed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of us have read that stuff; the problem is you haven't. and we know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the one posting it, you numbskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?You obviously haven't read the real histories, or you wouldn't be lying so blatantly about it.
Click to expand...



I provided a link you are afraid to look at.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just trolling. you have no 'facts', just ideological spin and gibberish as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts you are afraid to look at. Direct quotes from military leaders of that time, and proof that efforts to negotiate surrender long before the bombings were rebuffed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of us have read that stuff; the problem is you haven't. and we know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the one posting it, you numbskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?You obviously haven't read the real histories, or you wouldn't be lying so blatantly about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided a link you are afraid to look at.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Picaro

]





Tom Horn said:


> BTW, anybody whining about the detention camps we had here during the war, should remember there were GIs coming home who'd seen the barbaric little bastards in action in the Pacific.  No Japanese-American would have been safe walking the streets in America.




And for further info on this, it was mostly Filipinos and other ethnic Asian fishermen and workers who were attacking Japanese here, not American whites, in case there are those who didn't know that; other Asian immigrants were a bigger threat to their safety than whites or other ethnic groups. They also didn't intern all Japanese, just those on the West Coast, and Hawaii was already essentially quarantined, so no need to ship them to camps on the mainland. Unkotare's Big Pity Party  is completely unwarranted, as are the vast majority of his silly narratives.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the only one on this thread who has provided FACTS. You haven't read the links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just trolling. you have no 'facts', just ideological spin and gibberish as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts you are afraid to look at. Direct quotes from military leaders of that time, and proof that efforts to negotiate surrender long before the bombings were rebuffed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of us have read that stuff; the problem is you haven't. and we know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the one posting it, you numbskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?You obviously haven't read the real histories, or you wouldn't be lying so blatantly about it.
Click to expand...



Wrong again.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> ...
> 
> Not to mention at the time there was plenty of cause for them as well; over a third of them were not U.S. citizens, and most of them were avid cheerleaders for Japan's conquests and invasion before Pearl, and few of them ever bothered to report Japanese intelligence agents recruiting efforts in their communities, which is odd if they were so wonderfully patriotic n stuff, as scat boi claims. Then ther is the Niheiu Incident, and other fun facts about Japanese in America.





Ringle Report on Japanese Internment


----------



## whitehall

The Bushido maniac holdouts knew the war was lost and the best they could do was to negotiate for surrender terms but the U.S. president wouldn't talk to them.. When the the Bushido holdouts couldn't negotiate terms with Harry Truman they decided to try to negotiate terms with US Ally, Joe Stalin. Apparently the major issue was that the Japanese Emperor not be executed for war crimes but still Harry Truman refused to talk about terms. Clearly the eggheads were itching to test their monstrosity on real people and they knew it was the last chance and Truman was a fool who had no freaking clue about what he was about to do. Ironically the Japanese Emperor was saved from war crimes prosecution after Truman authorized the U.S. Military to incinerate tens of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians. It's my fervent hope and prayer that there is no celestial payback for what Truman authorized and what the liberal media condoned.


----------



## Unkotare

Picaro said:


> BTW, anybody whining about the detention camps we had here during the war,.....




"Concentration camp"


I hope you never have armed soldiers pound on your door and throw your ass as well as your entire family in any such concentration camp, even for your "own good."[/QUOTE]


----------



## Unkotare

FDR’s Solicitor General Withheld Evidence in Japanese Internment Cases


----------



## Unkotare

http://web.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal111/Japan4.pdf


----------



## Unkotare

Japanese American Evacuation Cases - The Movement To Redress Victims


----------



## Unkotare

Reflections on the 70th Anniversary of the Decimation of Hiroshima


----------



## Unkotare

"[T]he 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. . . ."



"_n being the first to use it, we . . . 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."

-Admiral William D. Leahy


MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb_


----------



## Unkotare

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . . [Nimitz also stated: "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . ."]"

-Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet


----------



## Unkotare

"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before."

- Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Once again all the Japanese offered was a Ceasefire.


----------



## Unkotare

"The United States is still reaping the bitter fruit of its failure to accept repeated Japanese peace overtures for more than a year before the capitulation was signed aboard the battleship Missouri," Walter Trohan of theChicago Tribune reported in 1965. "If Japan's peace overtures had been accepted, the implication is clear that nuclear bombs would not have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Twenty years earlier, Trohan published one of the biggest World War II stories on August 19,1945, which appeared on the front pages of both the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald. Trohan revealed that seven months before the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memo from General Douglas MacArthur, which outlined five surrender overtures from high ranking Japanese officials offering surrender under terms. Trohan reported, "the terms were identical with those subsequently concluded by Roosevelt's successor, Harry S. Truman." Trohan also argues that if peace were not delayed, it would have kept the Soviet Union out of the war with Japan and possibly avoided the Cold War, which would consume foreign affairs for the several decades thereafter. The use of the new weapon sent a message to the rest of the world that the United States was now the most powerful country in the world. For subsequent decades, the Soviet Union would protest to that notion as both nations maneuvered for diplomatic leverage over the other while both sides steadily increased their nuclear armaments."

Reflections on the 70th Anniversary of the Decimation of Hiroshima


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again all the Japanese offered was a Ceasefire.




Once again, you are wrong. 

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...ids-plague-u-s-west-with-what-might-have-been


----------



## Muhammed

Frank'sRules said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
Click to expand...

The Soviet union had a war strategy of executing the men and raping and torturing the boys, girls and women civilians in the territory they conquered in Europe as a terror tactic.

The Japanese had to take that into consideration when they unconditionally surrendered to the USA.


----------



## Unkotare

"On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in _The New York Herald Tribune_) publicly:



said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 336, Chapter 27)
The text of the press conference provides these details:



_LeMay:_ The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.
_The Press:_ You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?

*. . .*

_LeMay:_ The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."


----------



## Unkotare

"On the 40th Anniversary of the bombing former President Richard M. Nixon reported that:



[General Douglas] MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off. . . . (See p. 352, Chapter 28)



The day after Hiroshima was bombed MacArthur's pilot, Weldon E. Rhoades, noted in his diary:


General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster [the bomb]. I had a long talk with him today, necessitated by the impending trip to Okinawa. . . . (See p. 350, Chapter 28)



Former President Herbert Hoover met with MacArthur alone for several hours on a tour of the Pacific in early May 1946. His diary states:


I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria. (See pp. 350-351, Chapter 28)



_Saturday Review of Literature_ editor Norman Cousins also later reported that MacArthur told him he saw no military justification for using the atomic bomb, and that "The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." (See p. 351, Chapter 28)"


----------



## RetiredGySgt

*



			Document 71
		
Click to expand...





			: The Cabinet Meeting over the Reply to the Four Powers (August 13)
		
Click to expand...

*


> 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]




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


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again all the Japanese offered was a Ceasefire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you are wrong.
> 
> http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...ids-plague-u-s-west-with-what-might-have-been
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again all the Japanese offered was a Ceasefire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you are wrong.
> 
> http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...ids-plague-u-s-west-with-what-might-have-been
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## HenryBHough

The sad part about the nuking of the Japs was that it was the last time an American President felt a war was to be won.


----------



## Unkotare

"In an article reprinted in 1947 by _Reader's Digest_, Brigadier General Bonner Fellers (in charge of psychological warfare on MacArthur's wartime staff and subsequently MacArthur's military secretary in Tokyo) stated:



Obviously . . . the atomic bomb neither induced the Emperor's decision to surrender nor had any effect on the ultimate outcome of the war." (See p. 352, Chapter 28)



Colonel Charles "Tick" Bonesteel, 1945 chief of the War Department Operations Division Policy Section, subsequently recalled in a military history interview: "[T]he poor damn Japanese were putting feelers out by the ton so to speak, through Russia. . . ." (See p. 359, Chapter 28)



Brigadier Gen. Carter W. Clarke, the officer in charge of preparing MAGIC intercepted cable summaries in 1945, stated in a 1959 interview:


we brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and 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. (See p. 359, Chapter 28)"

MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what was the military view on the necessity of attacking Pearl Harbor, to begin with? Was THAT necessary? Does Japan hash that decision over and over again? Or do they just lament getting their asses kicked? I am  not seeing too many "authorities"   decrying Japan initiated  allied involvement period. Oh no,instead, Japan were  poor little victims. Really? How does that work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying the annihilation of hundreds of thousands of civilians was an act of revenge? Can you document that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand the full scope of WW2, do you? .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. Now answer my question.
Click to expand...





Well?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what was the military view on the necessity of attacking Pearl Harbor, to begin with? Was THAT necessary? Does Japan hash that decision over and over again? Or do they just lament getting their asses kicked? I am  not seeing too many "authorities"   decrying Japan initiated  allied involvement period. Oh no,instead, Japan were  poor little victims. Really? How does that work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying the annihilation of hundreds of thousands of civilians was an act of revenge? Can you document that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand the full scope of WW2, do you? .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. Now answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
Click to expand...

Well what? According to you an offer of a Cease fire and return to before the war start lines is a surrender. And then you claim we should have been willing to sacrifice 1 million troops and millions of Japanese civilians invading instead of ending the war.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what was the military view on the necessity of attacking Pearl Harbor, to begin with? Was THAT necessary? Does Japan hash that decision over and over again? Or do they just lament getting their asses kicked? I am  not seeing too many "authorities"   decrying Japan initiated  allied involvement period. Oh no,instead, Japan were  poor little victims. Really? How does that work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying the annihilation of hundreds of thousands of civilians was an act of revenge? Can you document that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand the full scope of WW2, do you? .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. Now answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well what? ....
Click to expand...



Wasn't talking to you. Remove your nose and take a walk.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what was the military view on the necessity of attacking Pearl Harbor, to begin with? Was THAT necessary? Does Japan hash that decision over and over again? Or do they just lament getting their asses kicked? I am  not seeing too many "authorities"   decrying Japan initiated  allied involvement period. Oh no,instead, Japan were  poor little victims. Really? How does that work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying the annihilation of hundreds of thousands of civilians was an act of revenge? Can you document that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand the full scope of WW2, do you? .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. Now answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to you an offer of a Cease fire and return to before the war start lines is a surrender. ..
Click to expand...



Lie.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what was the military view on the necessity of attacking Pearl Harbor, to begin with? Was THAT necessary? Does Japan hash that decision over and over again? Or do they just lament getting their asses kicked? I am  not seeing too many "authorities"   decrying Japan initiated  allied involvement period. Oh no,instead, Japan were  poor little victims. Really? How does that work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying the annihilation of hundreds of thousands of civilians was an act of revenge? Can you document that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand the full scope of WW2, do you? .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. Now answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....you claim we should have been willing to sacrifice 1 million troops and millions of Japanese civilians invading instead of ending the war.
Click to expand...



Another lie. Have some self respect.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The Japanese Government run by the Army never offered to surrender. They had 4 demands none of which were a surrender. Only the overruling by the Emperor changed that and then the Army tried to stage a Coup to stop that. Even after 2 Atomic bombs and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union the Japanese Army refused to surrender and when forced to by the Emperor tried a coup to stop that.


----------



## MaryL

Unko can't wrap his head around this issue. He's so caught up in this Japanese/minority  culture milieu he lost  historical references and common sense.


----------



## namvet

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Japanese Government run by the Army never offered to surrender. They had 4 demands none of which were a surrender. Only the overruling by the Emperor changed that and then the Army tried to stage a Coup to stop that. Even after 2 Atomic bombs and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union the Japanese Army refused to surrender and when forced to by the Emperor tried a coup to stop that.



fuckers brought a knife to a gunfight


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Japanese Government run by the Army never offered to surrender. .......




And now the spin to try and ignore the facts I have posted over and over.


----------



## Unkotare

namvet said:


> fuckers brought a knife to a gunfight



What a remarkably stupid thing to say. I know you wanted to sound all "Rambo, John J" when you posted that, but it would hardly be foolish to bring a knife before the gun was invented.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> Unko can't wrap his head around this issue. ....




Why won't you answer my question?


----------



## MaryL

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese Government run by the Army never offered to surrender. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now the spin to try and ignore the facts I have posted over and over.
Click to expand...

Japan initiated the war, it's not their fault they couldn't see the future and they were nuked  and lost? Too bad it took twice  to nuke them before it got it through their thick heads. What does it take to get  into yours?


----------



## MaryL

The only thing you do is ignore why Japan Started WW 2. Why do you do that?


----------



## MaryL

Japan started WW2. Unko?  Japan was fascist , that isn't a good thing. Japan  was Fascist. They killed millions of innocent Chinese and bombed Pearl harbor for their own ends.  Hiroshima died for their sins.  It was avoidable.


----------



## SAYIT

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese Government run by the Army never offered to surrender. .......
> 
> 
> 
> And now the spin to try and ignore the facts I have posted over and over.
Click to expand...


What facts? You've posted the opinions of a few military guys who, perhaps for their own personal reasons (or perhaps due to age or infirmity), engaged in historical revision of the strange kind. The Japanese continued to build weapons and plan not just a bloody defense of the home islands, but offense attacks as well (I-400-class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

As much as these Monday Morning Q-backs tried to promote themselves as in-the-loop players, they may well have been posing for book deals and tours or simply disgruntled former employees. You know ... lining their pockets or getting revenge. 

The bottom line? Japan's will to continue (or quit) was not carved in stone and broadcast on Tokyo Radio by Tokyo Rose. There was no way any American administration could risk a resurgence of Japan's will or capacity to stay in the game and your desperately shrill efforts to rewrite history are both obvious and shameful.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese Government run by the Army never offered to surrender. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now the spin to try and ignore the facts I have posted over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan initiated the war, it's not their fault they couldn't see the future and they were nuked  and lost? Too bad it took twice  to nuke them before it got it through their thick heads. What does it take to get  into yours?
Click to expand...







You still haven't answered my question.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> The only thing you do is ignore why Japan Started WW 2. Why do you do that?




I don't. That is not the topic of the thread.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> Japan started WW2. Unko?  Japan was fascist , that isn't a good thing. Japan  was Fascist. They killed millions of innocent Chinese and bombed Pearl harbor for their own ends.  Hiroshima died for their sins.  It was avoidable.




So you ARE claiming the atomic bombs were an act of revenge on behalf of China?


----------



## SAYIT

Unkotare said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan started WW2. Unko?  Japan was fascist , that isn't a good thing. Japan  was Fascist. They killed millions of innocent Chinese and bombed Pearl harbor for their own ends.  Hiroshima died for their sins.  It was avoidable.
> 
> 
> 
> So you ARE claiming the atomic bombs were an act of revenge on behalf of China?
Click to expand...


Why must you twist everything to fit your belief system? The point is Imperial Japan was a ruthless and soulless conqueror and occupier. They had proven themselves capable of unspeakable brutality and there was no reason to believe their nature and methodology was ever going to change. (see: Kamikaze - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


----------



## MaryL

Unkotare said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan started WW2. Unko?  Japan was fascist , that isn't a good thing. Japan  was Fascist. They killed millions of innocent Chinese and bombed Pearl harbor for their own ends.  Hiroshima died for their sins.  It was avoidable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you ARE claiming the atomic bombs were an act of revenge on behalf of China?
Click to expand...

You already asked that question, Are you are having second thoughts?  Perhaps perhaps those that died at Hiroshima/Nagasaki died to wash  your  guilty  fascist sins?   Japan didn't have any reason to attack the US, either, ya THINK?  Maybe perhaps?


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan started WW2. Unko?  Japan was fascist , that isn't a good thing. Japan  was Fascist. They killed millions of innocent Chinese and bombed Pearl harbor for their own ends.  Hiroshima died for their sins.  It was avoidable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you ARE claiming the atomic bombs were an act of revenge on behalf of China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already asked that question......?
Click to expand...



Why won't you answer it?


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan started WW2. Unko?  Japan was fascist , that isn't a good thing. Japan  was Fascist. They killed millions of innocent Chinese and bombed Pearl harbor for their own ends.  Hiroshima died for their sins.  It was avoidable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you ARE claiming the atomic bombs were an act of revenge on behalf of China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps perhaps those that died at Hiroshima/Nagasaki died to wash  your  guilty  fascist sins?   ....
Click to expand...



....?

My?


----------



## Unkotare

SAYIT said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan started WW2. Unko?  Japan was fascist , that isn't a good thing. Japan  was Fascist. They killed millions of innocent Chinese and bombed Pearl harbor for their own ends.  Hiroshima died for their sins.  It was avoidable.
> 
> 
> 
> So you ARE claiming the atomic bombs were an act of revenge on behalf of China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why must you twist everything to fit your belief system? The point is Imperial Japan was a ruthless and soulless conqueror and occupier. They had proven themselves capable of unspeakable brutality and there was no reason to believe their nature and methodology was ever going to change. (see: Kamikaze - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Click to expand...






Is that an answer to the question she won't?


----------



## regent

Did Japan expect to defeat the United States after its attack on Pearl Harbor? If Japan did not expect to defeat the US what were its goals?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fenton Lum said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually no, dropping those bombs was about the pecking order of world power post the end of the war.  For all the blathering on about nuclear war, weaponry, who should be allowed to have and who should not; the US is the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons of this magnatude - and on civilian populations.
Click to expand...

Grand Master Troll level obtained.


----------



## Weatherman2020

regent said:


> Did Japan expect to defeat the United States after its attack on Pearl Harbor? If Japan did not expect to defeat the US what were its goals?


Neutralize the 7th fleet, finish their expansion of the Pacific for the 2-3 years required to rebuild the fleet, then sue for peace keeping the Pacific.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Did Japan expect to defeat the United States after its attack on Pearl Harbor? If Japan did not expect to defeat the US what were its goals?




Why don't you bother to learn some history before jumping in?


----------



## SAYIT

Unkotare said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why must you twist everything to fit your belief system? The point is Imperial Japan was a ruthless and soulless conqueror and occupier. They had proven themselves capable of unspeakable brutality and there was no reason to believe their nature and methodology was ever going to change. (see: Kamikaze - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
> 
> 
> 
> Is that an answer to the question she won't?
Click to expand...


Is that your best response?


----------



## Unkotare

SAYIT said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why must you twist everything to fit your belief system? The point is Imperial Japan was a ruthless and soulless conqueror and occupier. They had proven themselves capable of unspeakable brutality and there was no reason to believe their nature and methodology was ever going to change. (see: Kamikaze - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
> 
> 
> 
> Is that an answer to the question she won't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that your best response?
Click to expand...




It's a question. Why are some of y'all so deathly afraid of a question?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Weatherman2020 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Japan expect to defeat the United States after its attack on Pearl Harbor? If Japan did not expect to defeat the US what were its goals?
> 
> 
> 
> Neutralize the 7th fleet, finish their expansion of the Pacific for the 2-3 years required to rebuild the fleet, then sue for peace keeping the Pacific.
Click to expand...

And they failed because not knowing where our 2 carriers were they played it safe and did not attack again and take out the infrastructure at Pearl.  Oil facilities, docks, cranes etc.  As a result most of the fleet was sailing again in a month.


----------



## SAYIT

Unkotare said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why must you twist everything to fit your belief system? The point is Imperial Japan was a ruthless and soulless conqueror and occupier. They had proven themselves capable of unspeakable brutality and there was no reason to believe their nature and methodology was ever going to change. (see: Kamikaze - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
> 
> 
> 
> Is that an answer to the question she won't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that your best response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a question. Why are some of y'all so deathly afraid of a question?
Click to expand...


I answered your question. Why are you so deathly afraid to answer mine?



Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Japan expect to defeat the United States after its attack on Pearl Harbor? If Japan did not expect to defeat the US what were its goals?
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you bother to learn some history before jumping in?
Click to expand...


Weatherman posted a sincere answer to regent's sincere question. Why did you resort to snipping? Why are some of y'all so deathly afraid of a question?


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Japan expect to defeat the United States after its attack on Pearl Harbor? If Japan did not expect to defeat the US what were its goals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you bother to learn some history before jumping in?
Click to expand...

So you don't know the answer so I don't know my history. If you defend Japan's entry into the war you should at least know what their goals were. Was it victory over America; just destroy the US fleet, what?


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> ... If you defend Japan's entry into the war ...




I haven't, you dope.


----------



## regent

So Japan should not have attacked Pearl Harbor, wouldn't that have been the best way to avoid Hiroshima? So the a bomb on Japan was due to something Japan should not have done?


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Japan expect to defeat the United States after its attack on Pearl Harbor? If Japan did not expect to defeat the US what were its goals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you bother to learn some history before jumping in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't know the answer so I don't know my history. If you defend Japan's entry into the war you should at least know what their goals were. Was it victory over America; just destroy the US fleet, what?
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> So Japan should not have attacked Pearl Harbor....





Obviously.


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Japan expect to defeat the United States after its attack on Pearl Harbor? If Japan did not expect to defeat the US what were its goals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you bother to learn some history before jumping in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't know the answer...
Click to expand...



Did you graduate from high school?


----------



## Unkotare

SAYIT said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why must you twist everything to fit your belief system? The point is Imperial Japan was a ruthless and soulless conqueror and occupier. They had proven themselves capable of unspeakable brutality and there was no reason to believe their nature and methodology was ever going to change. (see: Kamikaze - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
> 
> 
> 
> Is that an answer to the question she won't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that your best response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a question. Why are some of y'all so deathly afraid of a question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered your question. Why are you so deathly afraid to answer mine?.....
Click to expand...



What question?


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Japan expect to defeat the United States after its attack on Pearl Harbor? If Japan did not expect to defeat the US what were its goals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you bother to learn some history before jumping in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't know the answer...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you graduate from high school?
Click to expand...

nope


----------



## elektra

Japan got what it deserved. Actually not, they deserved much worst.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Japan got what it deserved. Actually not, they deserved much worst.




So, the atomic bombs were revenge?


----------



## elektra

Unkotare said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan got what it deserved. Actually not, they deserved much worst.
> 
> 
> 
> So, the atomic bombs were revenge?
Click to expand...

Deserving and revenge are two different things. Certainly one could make the argument if a nation ever deserved revenge, it was the Japanese who were thee most horrific people ever imagined.


----------



## Unkotare

elektra said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan got what it deserved. Actually not, they deserved much worst.
> 
> 
> 
> So, the atomic bombs were revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deserving and revenge are two different things. ...
Click to expand...



How so?


----------



## ding

Unkotare said:


> Did you graduate from high school?


 Condescend much?  Regent and I don't see eye to eye on much, but I have never found the need in our discussions to disparage him.  Shame on you.  Raise your standard of conduct.


----------



## MaryL

Unkotare said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese Government run by the Army never offered to surrender. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now the spin to try and ignore the facts I have posted over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan initiated the war, it's not their fault they couldn't see the future and they were nuked  and lost? Too bad it took twice  to nuke them before it got it through their thick heads. What does it take to get  into yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered my question.
Click to expand...

I am here. Japan started WW2 . Japan killed millions of innocent  non combatants in the process, and took 4 years and countless lives to stop them. Japan was the antagonist, the bad guys here. And they got their comeuppance . They got their asses kicked. Karma. Pearl harbor=Hiroshima. Get over it.


----------



## MaryL

Unko: Are you going to start excusing  Germany invading Czechoslovakia and then invading Russia and excusing putting Jews in ovens of war crimes? You realize Japan was aligned with NAZI Germany and fascist Italy, Japan wasn't some poor poor witto victim that suddenly got nuked out of the blue. Are you that naive to think Japan was poor little victim here?


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese Government run by the Army never offered to surrender. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now the spin to try and ignore the facts I have posted over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan initiated the war, it's not their fault they couldn't see the future and they were nuked  and lost? Too bad it took twice  to nuke them before it got it through their thick heads. What does it take to get  into yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am here. Japan started WW2 . Japan killed millions of innocent  non combatants in the process, and took 4 years and countless lives to stop them. Japan was the antagonist, the bad guys here. And they got their comeuppance . They got their asses kicked. Karma. Pearl harbor=Hiroshima. Get over it.
Click to expand...





So you ARE claiming it was an act of revenge?


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> Unko: Are you going to start excusing  Germany invading Czechoslovakia and then invading Russia and excusing putting Jews in ovens of war crimes? ....?




Your straw man is embarrassed to be a part of that post.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Japan expect to defeat the United States after its attack on Pearl Harbor? If Japan did not expect to defeat the US what were its goals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you bother to learn some history before jumping in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't know the answer...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you graduate from high school?
Click to expand...

As I responded earlier, I did not.


----------



## SAYIT

Unkotare said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was the antagonist, the bad guys here. And they got their comeuppance . They got their asses kicked. Karma. Pearl harbor=Hiroshima. Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> So you ARE claiming it was an act of revenge?
Click to expand...


Certainly some felt (and feel) justice was served ... that the Japanese got what they had coming to them. If it makes you feel superior to call their sentiment vengeful, you go right ahead. I consider the 2 big bombs to have been an act of mercy. As has been conclusively proven here, there is way more evidence that Japan had no intention of quitting the war than the revisionist pap you've spewed, and the nightly fire-bombing of Japanese cities was slowly devastating (and starving) the civilian population. Ending the war quickly - and without the massive death toll an invasion would have generated - was an act of mercy. 

Move on, Unk.


----------



## Unkotare

SAYIT said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was the antagonist, the bad guys here. And they got their comeuppance . They got their asses kicked. Karma. Pearl harbor=Hiroshima. Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> So you ARE claiming it was an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly some felt (and feel) justice was served ... that the Japanese got what they had coming to them. If it makes you feel superior to call their sentiment vengeful, you go right ahead. ...
Click to expand...



Was it an act of revenge, yes or no?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was the antagonist, the bad guys here. And they got their comeuppance . They got their asses kicked. Karma. Pearl harbor=Hiroshima. Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> So you ARE claiming it was an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly some felt (and feel) justice was served ... that the Japanese got what they had coming to them. If it makes you feel superior to call their sentiment vengeful, you go right ahead. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Was it an act of revenge, yes or no?
Click to expand...

Explain slowly for us slow ones how now 71 years later the answer to that question from someone that wasn't even born when the bombs were dropped matters?


----------



## Unkotare

SAYIT said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was the antagonist, the bad guys here. And they got their comeuppance . They got their asses kicked. Karma. Pearl harbor=Hiroshima. Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> So you ARE claiming it was an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly some felt (and feel) justice was served ... that the Japanese got what they had coming to them. If it makes you feel superior to call their sentiment vengeful, you go right ahead. I consider the 2 big bombs to have been an act of mercy. As has been conclusively proven here, there is way more evidence that Japan had no intention of quitting the war than the revisionist pap you've spewed, and the nightly fire-bombing of Japanese cities was slowly devastating (and starving) the civilian population. Ending the war quickly - and without the massive death toll an invasion would have generated - was an act of mercy.
> 
> Move on, Unk.
Click to expand...




RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was the antagonist, the bad guys here. And they got their comeuppance . They got their asses kicked. Karma. Pearl harbor=Hiroshima. Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> So you ARE claiming it was an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly some felt (and feel) justice was served ... that the Japanese got what they had coming to them. If it makes you feel superior to call their sentiment vengeful, you go right ahead. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Was it an act of revenge, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain slowly for us slow ones how now 71 years later the answer to that question from someone that wasn't even born when the bombs were dropped matters?
Click to expand...



So, all study of history is illegitimate in your book?


----------



## Unkotare

SAYIT said:


> ..... I consider the 2 big bombs to have been an act of mercy......





Incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians is "mercy" to you? Is that how morally bankrupt you are? You would feel the same way if the tables were turned?


----------



## SAYIT

Unkotare said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was the antagonist, the bad guys here. And they got their comeuppance . They got their asses kicked. Karma. Pearl harbor=Hiroshima. Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> So you ARE claiming it was an act of revenge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...As has been conclusively proven here, there is way more evidence that Japan had no intention of quitting the war than the revisionist pap you've spewed, and the nightly fire-bombing of Japanese cities was slowly devastating (and starving) the civilian population. Ending the war quickly - and without the massive death toll an invasion would have generated - was an act of mercy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was it an act of revenge, yes or no?
Click to expand...


Clearly I believe it was not revenge but rather an act of mercy that probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Twist that answer to mean anything you choose.



Unkotare said:


> So, all study of history is illegitimate in your book?



That's lame Unk, and a sign your argument is also. I neither said nor inferred (though you do seem to be twisting everything to fit your narrative) that "all study of history is illegitimate..." Instead I not only said but proved earlier in this thread that your POV is not supported by facts.



Unkotare said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... I consider the 2 big bombs to have been an act of mercy......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians is "mercy" to you? Is that how morally bankrupt you are? You would feel the same way if the tables were turned?
Click to expand...


Once more for the terminally dense: the use of 2 atomic bombs shortened the war saving hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million lives. The fire-bombing that was devastating Japanese cities and civilians may have doomed the same numbers as did the big bombs but not with the shock and awe necessary to cause Japan to surrender.

So what kind of heartless poster would have preferred the war (and casualties) continue for an extra year or two? What kind of bankrupt soul are you anyway?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... I consider the 2 big bombs to have been an act of mercy......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians is "mercy" to you? Is that how morally bankrupt you are? You would feel the same way if the tables were turned?
Click to expand...

Millions would have died in an invasion.


----------



## Unkotare

SAYIT said:


> ...
> 
> That's lame Unk, and a sign your argument is also. I neither said nor inferred (though you do seem to be twisting everything to fit your narrative) that "all study of history is illegitimate..." ....




That wasn't addressed to you. Try paying attention.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... I consider the 2 big bombs to have been an act of mercy......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians is "mercy" to you? Is that how morally bankrupt you are? You would feel the same way if the tables were turned?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Millions would have died in an invasion.
Click to expand...


Maybe, if there had been one.


----------



## Unkotare

SAYIT said:


> .....
> 
> Clearly I believe it was not revenge but rather an act of mercy.....




The slaughter of defenseless civilians is not an act of "mercy." Even you should know that much.


----------



## Unkotare

SAYIT said:


> .... I not only said but proved earlier in this thread that your POV is not supported by facts...




Wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

SAYIT said:


> ... the use of 2 atomic bombs shortened the war saving hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million lives.....




Speculation.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the use of 2 atomic bombs shortened the war saving hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million lives.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation.
Click to expand...

Speculation is claiming that aplanned invasion that would have occurred in November of 1945 would some how not have occurred if the bombs were not dropped and Japan were not forced to surrender. The facts are that even WITH 2 atomic Bombs and a Russian declaration of war the Japanese Government refused to surrender and ONLY the intervention of the Emperor changed that and even then the Army attempted a coup to stop the surrender.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the use of 2 atomic bombs shortened the war saving hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million lives.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speculation is claiming that aplanned invasion that would have occurred in November of 1945 would some how not have occurred if the bombs were not dropped and Japan were not forced to surrender......
Click to expand...



Invasion or atomic bombs were not the only two options. Overtures to surrender were placed before the SOB fdr at the time of the Yalta Conference. If there were interest in ending the war, it would have been pursued.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

History shows that ALL the Japanese Government offered even after 2 atomic bombs was a cease fire with return to pre war start lines except in China where they demanded to keep all they took.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> History shows that ALL the Japanese Government offered even after 2 atomic bombs was a cease fire with return to pre war start lines except in China where they demanded to keep all they took.



I have posted evidence for you dozens of times from many sources. Pretending to be unaware of it is dishonest and cowardly.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> History shows that ALL the Japanese Government offered even after 2 atomic bombs was a cease fire with return to pre war start lines except in China where they demanded to keep all they took.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted evidence for you dozens of times from many sources. Pretending to be unaware of it is dishonest and cowardly.
Click to expand...

I posted links to ACTUAL correspondence and files from Japanese Meetings including the actual offers made. At no time did the Army in Japan offer to surrender.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> History shows that ALL the Japanese Government offered even after 2 atomic bombs was a cease fire with return to pre war start lines except in China where they demanded to keep all they took.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted evidence for you dozens of times from many sources. Pretending to be unaware of it is dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted links to ACTUAL correspondence and files from Japanese Meetings including the actual offers made. At no time did the Army in Japan offer to surrender.
Click to expand...




I posted the ACTUAL words of the ACTUAL military leaders of the time.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> History shows that ALL the Japanese Government offered even after 2 atomic bombs was a cease fire with return to pre war start lines except in China where they demanded to keep all they took.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted evidence for you dozens of times from many sources. Pretending to be unaware of it is dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted links to ACTUAL correspondence and files from Japanese Meetings including the actual offers made. At no time did the Army in Japan offer to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the ACTUAL words of the ACTUAL military leaders of the time.
Click to expand...

You posted words of men NOT involved in the actual negotiations  nor aware of what was and was not actually said. I on the other hand posted the ACTUAL statements the actual communications, the actual notes from the meetings the actual offers.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> History shows that ALL the Japanese Government offered even after 2 atomic bombs was a cease fire with return to pre war start lines except in China where they demanded to keep all they took.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted evidence for you dozens of times from many sources. Pretending to be unaware of it is dishonest and cowardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted links to ACTUAL correspondence and files from Japanese Meetings including the actual offers made. At no time did the Army in Japan offer to surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the ACTUAL words of the ACTUAL military leaders of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You posted words of men NOT involved in the actual negotiations  nor aware of what was and was not actually said. ...
Click to expand...



Wrong, and you know it's wrong; you classless, lying little SOB.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I have direct link to source documents and you know it, the liar here is you. Shall I link them again?  The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources


----------



## esthermoon

Tom Horn said:


> This is the moment the city was about to be torn apart by the first nuclear weapon ever used.   Notice the people standing in the foreground unaware that they were about to be incinerated:


Poor people...
Hope something like that will never happen again


----------



## Tom Horn

esthermoon said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the moment the city was about to be torn apart by the first nuclear weapon ever used.   Notice the people standing in the foreground unaware that they were about to be incinerated:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people...
> Hope something like that will never happen again
Click to expand...


I like your new siggy.


----------



## esthermoon

Tom Horn said:


> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the moment the city was about to be torn apart by the first nuclear weapon ever used.   Notice the people standing in the foreground unaware that they were about to be incinerated:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people...
> Hope something like that will never happen again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your new siggy.
Click to expand...


----------



## Tom Horn

esthermoon said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the moment the city was about to be torn apart by the first nuclear weapon ever used.   Notice the people standing in the foreground unaware that they were about to be incinerated:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people...
> Hope something like that will never happen again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your new siggy.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I'm glad you've stayed around here.....you're a welcome asset to the board and can count on me as a friend here if you need help with anybody.


----------



## esthermoon

Thank you Tom Horn!
I'm glad you consider yourself a friend of mine!


----------



## Unkotare

MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb


----------



## Unkotare

Hiroshima: Quotes


----------



## Unkotare

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...ids-plague-u-s-west-with-what-might-have-been


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> Hiroshima: Quotes


Admirals and generals usually get one war during their times and they have to make the most of that war. But the generals and admirals would not be the ones landing in Olympia and Coronet it would be marines and soldiers. When all was safe, MacArthur would insist on wading ashore from a landing craft although a dock was available. The brass would all be writing books on their roles in the landing while the telegrams were still going out.  As it was, there was no landing on Olympia and Coronet and those soldiers and marines would come home to have a life, and write on the message boards.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb


NONE of them were involved in the talks. I provided a link to SOURCE documents that PROVE the Army running Japan never offered to surrender, all they offered was a ceasefire with return to 41 start lines. EVEN after 2 atomic bombs and then they attempted a coup when the Emperor over rode them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...ids-plague-u-s-west-with-what-might-have-been


Source documents prove the what ifs are pure bullshit Japan never offered to surrender.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> Hiroshima: Quotes


Source documents prove Japan never offered to surrender even after 2 atomic bombs.


----------



## idb

Tom Horn said:


> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism can work.  It sure did there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
Click to expand...

I've always wondered why an invasion of the mainland would have been necessary.
They had no functioning navy or air force and they're a country almost totally dependent on imports for natural resources.
Surely a blockade would have been easy and low risk.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

idb said:


> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank'sRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Horn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....they didn't quit until we nuked Nagasaki and probably still wouldn't have quit if they'd known we only had two A-bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> They were going to surrender even before we dropped the bombs, we were just showing off for the Russians.  But these two acts of terrorism sealed the deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's America-hating fantasy.  They were ready to inflict tens of thousands of GI deaths on us to defend mainland Japan...they told their people to attack us with knives and forks if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've always wondered why an invasion of the mainland would have been necessary.
> They had no functioning navy or air force and they're a country almost totally dependent on imports for natural resources.
> Surely a blockade would have been easy and low risk.
Click to expand...

They had over a million troops in China. Where all their resources were coming from.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb
> 
> 
> 
> NONE of them were involved in the talks. I provided a link to SOURCE documents that PROVE the Army running Japan never offered to surrender, ......
Click to expand...



No, you did not.

The fact is that "In official internal military interviews, diaries and other private as well as public materials, _*literally every top U.S. military leader involved*_ subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity."

    - ibid


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> ....
> They had over a million troops in China. Where _all their resources were coming from_.



Not by '45 they weren't.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb
> 
> 
> 
> NONE of them were involved in the talks. I provided a link to SOURCE documents that PROVE the Army running Japan never offered to surrender, ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not.
> 
> The fact is that "In official internal military interviews, diaries and other private as well as public materials, _*literally every top U.S. military leader involved*_ subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity."
> 
> - ibid
Click to expand...

Yes I did want me to do it again? The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources

The Army running the Japanese Government NEVER offered to surrender. They offered a ceasefire a return to 41 Start lines and NO troops in japan by foreign Armies as well as keep the Emperor.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> They had over a million troops in China. Where _all their resources were coming from_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not by '45 they weren't.
Click to expand...

There were 700,000 Japanese troops facing the Soviets in Manchuria.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...ids-plague-u-s-west-with-what-might-have-been
> 
> 
> 
> Source documents prove the what ifs are pure bullshit Japan never offered to surrender.
Click to expand...



January 22, 1945, MacArthur sent a 40-page message to the White House outlining peace overtures he had received that included the *exact* terms that Truman later agreed to.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> ....
> 
> The Army running the Japanese Government NEVER offered to surrender. ......




Yes, they did. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...ids-plague-u-s-west-with-what-might-have-been


----------



## RetiredGySgt

No they did not. The Army offered a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines EXCEPT in China no troops In Japan and that was all after the 2nd Bomb they demanded the Emperor remain in power and no troops in japan.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> They had over a million troops in China. Where _all their resources were coming from_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not by '45 they weren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were 700,000 Japanese troops facing the Soviets in Manchuria.
Click to expand...



Resources were not getting to Japan from China by then. Land, sea, and air transportation was disrupted to the point that the holdings in China were NOT supporting the military (or domestic) infrastructure.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> No they did not. T....



Read:
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/...ids-plague-u-s-west-with-what-might-have-been


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb
> 
> 
> 
> NONE of them were involved in the talks......
Click to expand...



"Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and t*he top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff*"

   -ibid


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I don't care what the Chicago tribune claims I have resource to ACTUAL Government documents related to the event. Both from the US and from Japan.


----------



## Unkotare

"Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:



The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . . [Nimitz also stated: "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . ."]"



     -ibid


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Once again simply not true. I have linked to the ACTUAL conversations and decisions by the Japanese Government. Official documents not conjecture and hyperbole.


----------



## Unkotare

"Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:



The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. "


  -ibid


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb
> 
> 
> 
> NONE of them were involved in the talks......
Click to expand...



"The Under-Secretary of the Navy, Ralph Bard, formally dissented from the Interim Committee's recommendation to use the bomb against a city without warning."


ibid


----------



## Unkotare

"Rear Admiral L. Lewis Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy from 1944 to 1945 (and later chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission), ... repeatedly stated his belief that the use of the atomic bomb "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion. . . ."


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> "Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:
> 
> 
> 
> The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. "
> 
> 
> -ibid


Again the ONLY thing the Japanese did through the Soviets were hint they might talk they never offered a SINGLE concrete proposal or recommendation. Something you would know if you actually read my link to ACTUAL Government documents intercepts and notes.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:
> 
> 
> 
> The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. "
> 
> 
> -ibid
> 
> 
> 
> Again the ONLY thing the Japanese did through the Soviets were hint they might talk ......
Click to expand...



"Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:



"The Japanese *had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war*."



ibid


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:
> 
> 
> 
> The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. "
> 
> 
> -ibid
> 
> 
> 
> Again the ONLY thing the Japanese did through the Soviets were hint they might talk ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Japanese *had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war*."
> 
> 
> 
> ibid
Click to expand...

No they did not, the ONLY offer the Japanese Government made was a ceasefire return to 41 start line except in China and no troops in Japan. Again one can find that out by actually reading the link I provided to actual documents intercepts and notes from both Governments.


----------



## Unkotare

"On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in _The New York Herald Tribune_) publicly:



said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 336, Chapter 27)
The text of the press conference provides these details:



_LeMay:_ The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.
_The Press:_ You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?

*. . .*

_LeMay:_ The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

(See p. 336, Chapter 27)

On other occasions in internal histories and elsewhere LeMay gave even shorter estimates of how long the war might have lasted (e.g., "a few days"). (See pp. 336-341, Chapter 27)"




ibid


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Again after 2 atomic bombs AND the soviet declaration of war the japanese Government run by the Army REFUSED to surrender and it took the intervention of the Emperor to end the war and then the Army staged a Coup to stop that.


----------



## Unkotare

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:
> 
> 
> 
> The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. "
> 
> 
> -ibid
> 
> 
> 
> Again the ONLY thing the Japanese did through the Soviets were hint they might talk ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Japanese *had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war*."
> 
> 
> 
> ibid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they did not, the ONLY offer the Japanese Government made was a ceasefire return to 41 start line except in China and no troops in Japan. .....
Click to expand...



Item #3 on the list of conditions offered by Japan in the letter MacArthur sent to the scumbag fdr specifically cites occupation.


----------



## Unkotare

"In a 1965 Air Force oral history interview Spaatz stressed: "That was purely a political decision, wasn't a military decision."

ibid


----------



## Unkotare

"Former President Herbert Hoover met with MacArthur alone for several hours on a tour of the Pacific in early May 1946. His diary states:



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


ibid


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> "Former President Herbert Hoover met with MacArthur alone for several hours on a tour of the Pacific in early May 1946. His diary states:
> 
> 
> 
> I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."
> 
> 
> ibid


Simply not true You have claims by people that have no actual evidence I on the other hand have excerpts letters intercepts and notes directly from the Governments of the US and Japan.


----------



## Unkotare

"Colonel Charles "Tick" Bonesteel, 1945 chief of the War Department Operations Division Policy Section, subsequently recalled in a military history interview: "[T]he poor damn Japanese were putting feelers out by the ton so to speak, through Russia. . . ."


----------



## Unkotare

"Brigadier Gen. Carter W. Clarke, the officer in charge of preparing MAGIC intercepted cable summaries in 1945, stated in a 1959 interview:



"we brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and 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."


ibid


----------



## Unkotare

"In his memoirs President Dwight D. Eisenhower reports the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:



"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. . . ."


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unkotare said:


> "In his memoirs President Dwight D. Eisenhower reports the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:
> 
> 
> 
> "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. . . ."


Again I have the ACTUAL documents that prove all your supposed second hand info is simply grousing. Japan NEVER made any concrete offer to the Soviets and the intercepts prove it. In fact the Soviets were not interested in helping them to begin with. Second all the Japanese offered was a ceasefire with a return to 1941 start lines with the exception of China. Even after 2 Atomic bombs and a Soviet attack the Japanese Army REFUSED to surrender and the Emperor had to over ride them and THEN the Army attempted a Coup to STOP that.


----------



## Unkotare

"In his memoirs President Dwight D. Eisenhower reports the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:



"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. . . ."


ibid


----------



## Unkotare

*"PAUL NITZE*
(Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey)
In 1950 Nitze would recommend a massive military buildup, and in the 1980s he was an arms control negotiator in the Reagan administration. In July of 1945 he was assigned the task of writing a strategy for the air attack on Japan. Nitze later wrote:

"The plan I devised was essentially this: Japan was already isolated from the standpoint of ocean shipping. The only remaining means of transportation were the rail network and intercoastal shipping, though our submarines and mines were rapidly eliminating the latter as well. A concentrated air attack on the essential lines of transportation, including railroads and (through the use of the earliest accurately targetable glide bombs, then emerging from development) the Kammon tunnels which connected Honshu with Kyushu, would isolate the Japanese home islands from one another and fragment the enemy's base of operations. *I believed that interdiction of the lines of transportation would be sufficiently effective so that additional bombing of urban industrial areas would not be necessary.*

"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... _ concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945."

Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 36-37 (my emphasis)

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that was primarily written by Nitze and reflected his reasoning:

"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.

In his memoir, written in 1989, Nitze repeated,

"Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary."

Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 44-45."


ibid_


----------



## regent

One of the problems, is that many believe that the Japanese during WWII were similar to Germans, Russians, Americans and others at war. When there seemed no hope they would surrender, but it was not true of the Japanese. If they could blow up one of  the enemy by blowing themselves up, they would. Japanese suicide attacks were a staple of the Japanese military. I for one, don't believe the smoke that they were beaten and wanted to surrender as would the Germans and so on. 
Of course they wanted to surrender, but on their terms. If the Japanese believed they could not beat the US what was their goal?


----------

