# The GREATEST war crime



## Yukon

On 6th August 1945 a B29 bomber dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima It has been estimated that over the years around 200,000 people have died as a result of this bomb being dropped. This was always a controversial decision. General Dwight Eisenhower told President Harry S. Truman that he was opposed to the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan. 

IKE said: " I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face". 

Winston Churchill also agreed that it was not necessary to drop the atom bomb on Japan. He later asserted: "It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the bomb fell." 

Mainly historians have argued that the US used the atom bomb as a warning against the Soviet Union. It was not an attempt to end the war but to determine what happened after the war.

*The dropping of the bomb was a terrible war crime, equal to the extermination of the Jews.*


----------



## del

Yukon said:


> On 6th August 1945 a B29 bomber dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima It has been estimated that over the years around 200,000 people have died as a result of this bomb being dropped. This was always a controversial decision. General Dwight Eisenhower told President Harry S. Truman that he was opposed to the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan.
> 
> IKE said: " I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face".
> 
> Winston Churchill also agreed that it was not necessary to drop the atom bomb on Japan. He later asserted: "It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the bomb fell."
> 
> Mainly historians have argued that the US used the atom bomb as a warning against the Soviet Union. It was not an attempt to end the war but to determine what happened after the war.
> 
> *The dropping of the bomb was a terrible war crime, equal to the extermination of the Jews.*



*yawn*

you've got sources for those quotes you made up i assume.


----------



## manifold

The nips seem to have gotten over it just fine.  Makes one wonder why this canuck douchebag gives a shit.


----------



## editec

One does wonder about the SECOND bomb, of course.

As to the first bomb dropped?

I have no problems with that.

Had I known only what Truman knew at that time, I'd have ordered the mission, too.


----------



## manifold

editec said:


> One does wonder about the SECOND bomb, of course.
> 
> As to the first bomb dropped?
> 
> I have no problems with that.
> 
> Had I known only what Truman knew at that time, I'd have ordered the mission, too.




I don't really wonder any more about the second bomb than I do the first.  I'd be interested in why you do.

And also, I've read that some historians believe that not only would the alternative have cost thousands of American soldier's lives, but could have actually resulted in even more Japanese deaths than the bomb (assuming invasion was the alternative).  An interesting topic for discussion for sure, but purely subjective and speculative.  As for the OP's assertion that it was a war crime, total bullshit.


----------



## Skull Pilot

yeah and it was those damn democrats that did it


----------



## Gunny

manifold said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> One does wonder about the SECOND bomb, of course.
> 
> As to the first bomb dropped?
> 
> I have no problems with that.
> 
> Had I known only what Truman knew at that time, I'd have ordered the mission, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really wonder any more about the second bomb than I do the first.  I'd be interested in why you do.
> 
> And also, I've read that some historians believe that not only would the alternative have cost thousands of American soldier's lives, but could have actually resulted in even more Japanese deaths than the bomb (assuming invasion was the alternative).  An interesting topic for discussion for sure, but purely subjective and speculative.  As for the OP's assertion that it was a war crime, total bullshit.
Click to expand...


The projected loss in US lives alone to invade mainland Japan was estimated at a million.

Even if Eisenhower made the statement dickweed attributed to him, it's just proof of his ignorance in regard to the Japanese people.  They would have died to the man protecting Hirohito.

The second bomb was dropped because Japan did not respond to a demand for surrender after the first one.  They responded after the second one or there very well could have been more.


----------



## Article 15

Skull Pilot said:


> yeah and it was those damn democrats that did it



Fuckin' pussies.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

It certainly was a crime to drop those bombs on the Japanese.


----------



## Kalam

Our own intelligence indicated that Japan was on the verge of capitulation before we atom bombed them. I'd think that conventional bombings of military targets would have been a less unnecessarily deadly method of placing the straw on the camel's back, but it's all history now, so what does it matter?


----------



## AllieBaba

You guys are pathetic.


----------



## WillowTree

Notice how no American Democwat ever stands up and says it was a horrible crime the Japanese committed that Sunday Morning on Dec. 7th 1941 and sneak attacked the USA?? Notice that?? Wonder why? 












*THE BLAME AMERICA FIRST CLUB IS ALWAYS IN SESSION*


----------



## Kalam

WillowTree said:


> Notice how no American Democwat ever stands up and says it was a horrible crime the Japanese committed that Sunday Morning on Dec. 7th 1941 and sneak attacked the USA?? Notice that?? Wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THE BLAME AMERICA FIRST CLUB IS ALWAYS IN SESSION*



Because Democrats are all secretly Tokyo Rose-loving, Hirohito-worshipping Nips, right? How dare anybody mention something even remotely negative about America's past or present actions?


----------



## editec

manifold said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> One does wonder about the SECOND bomb, of course.
> 
> As to the first bomb dropped?
> 
> I have no problems with that.
> 
> Had I known only what Truman knew at that time, I'd have ordered the mission, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really wonder any more about the second bomb than I do the first. I'd be interested in why you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because between the first and second bombs, Japan was so seriously attempting to surrender that the second bomb really wasn't necessary.
> 
> AFter the first bomb the military Junta has lost all authority, the Emperor actually got involved and had gained political power he didn't have during the war.
> 
> As I understand it, the only point of contention_ left_ was whether the Emporer was going to have to step down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And also, I've read that some historians believe that not only would the alternative have cost thousands of American soldier's lives, but could have actually resulted in even more Japanese deaths than the bomb (assuming invasion was the alternative). An interesting topic for discussion for sure, but purely subjective and speculative. As for the OP's assertion that it was a war crime, total bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, I totally agree with that the bomb (s ?) save innocent Japanese civilians, and plenty of Americans, too
> 
> The bombs probably save millions of Japanese lives.
> 
> That first bomb finally made it possible for the Emperor to regain enough authority (over the military junta) because it denuded them of any possible thought that they could fight off the Americans with honor.
> 
> It was a _coup d' grace_ for any remaining supports of Tojo, and for that whole militarist shogun thing they had going.
> 
> The Japanese were prepared for complete surrender _EXCEPT_ they wanted to insure that their Emperor would not be asked to step down or have his person violated.
> 
> There doesn't appear to have been any hurry to blow up Nagasaki.
> 
> Certainly not any military reason, at least
> 
> After all, the war was lost for Japan and they were ALREADY suing for peace.
> 
> The Japanese were prepared to surrender...only not _UNCONDITONALLY..._
> 
> They wanted _one _condition...that of keeping their emperor's person inviolate.
> 
> Given that we allowed them to do so, _anyway...AND_ given that bombing Nagasaki at that stage served no military purpose, the second bombing seems rather pointless, or if not without _any_ pupose, at least rushed for no particular reason.
Click to expand...


----------



## WillowTree

Kalam said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how no American Democwat ever stands up and says it was a horrible crime the Japanese committed that Sunday Morning on Dec. 7th 1941 and sneak attacked the USA?? Notice that?? Wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THE BLAME AMERICA FIRST CLUB IS ALWAYS IN SESSION*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Democrats are all secretly Tokyo Rose-loving, Hirohito-worshipping Nips, right? How dare anybody mention something even remotely negative about America's past or present actions?
Click to expand...

















wouldn't be so bad if once in awhile a democwat could intersperse the conversation with something positive about their country.. but that's entirely too much to ask innit?? God Bless America? NO NO nO God Damn America.. that's the ticket!


----------



## Xenophon

> Revisionism&#8217;s heyday lasted until the 1990s. Then the historiographical ground began to shift. A new body of scholarly work emerged, often based on hitherto unavailable documents, which countered revisionist arguments that the atomic bomb was primarily a diplomatic weapon in 1945, that Japan would have surrendered prior to the planned U.S. invasion had the bomb not been used, and that projected casualty figures for the anticipated invasion of Japan were far lower than those cited by supporters of the decision to use the bomb. The scholars producing these books and articles provided powerful support for Truman&#8217;s decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan. Thus Edward Drea&#8217;s MacArthur&#8217;s Ultra: Codebreaking and the War against Japan (1992) chronicled how Allied intelligence tracked the Japanese military buildup on the southernmost home island of Kyushu in the months prior to Hiroshima, a buildup that demonstrated Tokyo&#8217;s intent to fight to the bitter end and rendered all &#8220;low&#8221; casualty estimates dating from the spring and early summer of 1945&#8211;&#8211;the estimates relied upon by revisionist historians&#8211;&#8211;obsolete and irrelevant months before American soldiers were scheduled to land in Japan. In 1995 Robert P. Newman&#8217;s Truman and the Hiroshima Cult demolished the credibility of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey&#8217;s claim that Japan would have surrendered in the fall of 1945 absent both the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war, while Robert James Maddox&#8217;s Weapons for Victory: The Hiroshima Decision Fifty Years Later effectively dismantled what was left of the &#8220;atomic diplomacy&#8221; thesis. Two years later, in &#8220;Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasion of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications&#8221; (The Journal of Military History, July 1997), D. M. Giangreco conclusively documented the existence of enormous casualty projections, some of which undeniably reached Truman and his top advisors. The next year, in &#8220;The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan&#8217;s Decision to Surrender&#8211;&#8211;A Reconsideration&#8221; (Pacific Historical Review, November 1998), Sadao Asada, relying on a thorough review of Japanese-language sources, exposed as untenable the contention that Japan was prepared to surrender before Hiroshima or that a modification of the Potsdam Declaration guaranteeing the status of the emperor would have produced a Japanese surrender.



Source here

It is now understood that the 90s revisionists were full of shit, dropping the Abombs were the only sane choice and only way to end the war outside of losing millions of Japanese and maybe 1 million US fighting men in a main force invasion of Japan proper.

Such weapons were not a 'war crime' and in fact no treaty covered this.


----------



## Yukon

German war criminals were hanged because Jewish people died in work camps. The same people who hanged the Germans vaporized some 350000 Japanese civilian men, women, and children. Seems somewhat hypocritical to me but I'm like that you know, kinda fair minded.


----------



## WillowTree

Yukon said:


> German war criminals were hanged because Jewish people died in work camps. The same people who hanged the Germans vaporized some 350000 Japanese civilian men, women, and children. Seems somewhat hypocritical to me but I'm like that you know, kinda fair minded.






You don't want the US bombing yer azz, don't sneak up on us and bomb the fleet. Learn from history and you'll be okay! Tater!


----------



## editec

Gunny said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> One does wonder about the SECOND bomb, of course.
> 
> As to the first bomb dropped?
> 
> I have no problems with that.
> 
> Had I known only what Truman knew at that time, I'd have ordered the mission, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really wonder any more about the second bomb than I do the first. I'd be interested in why you do.
> 
> And also, I've read that some historians believe that not only would the alternative have cost thousands of American soldier's lives, but could have actually resulted in even more Japanese deaths than the bomb (assuming invasion was the alternative). An interesting topic for discussion for sure, but purely subjective and speculative. As for the OP's assertion that it was a war crime, total bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The projected loss in US lives alone to invade mainland Japan was estimated at a million.
> 
> Even if Eisenhower made the statement dickweed attributed to him, it's just proof of his ignorance in regard to the Japanese people. They would have died to the man protecting Hirohito.
> 
> The second bomb was dropped because Japan did not respond to a demand for surrender after the first one. They responded after the second one or there very well could have been more.
Click to expand...

 
No there could not have been more because there were no more bombs to drop.

No Ike was not a dickweed because he understood, as apparently you don't the sequence of events surround the Jananese surrender

Details matter, Gunny....especially in matters of war and peace.

This debate has nothing to do with peaceniks or socialists or any of the other ignorant right wing blather you so often support, dude.  so don't label any of us who are aguring about this issue as being in any way shape or form SOFT of the enemy.

Consider that...



..one hell of a lot of American Marines died in the Pacific who might not have had to, _with or without_ those bombs.

That argument is speculative, of course, but it is a drop dead certainty that the war was winding down and Japan knew it.

It is ALSO a certainty that with or without those bombs, Japan's political situation, it's WAR PARTY had lost all credibility, and was on its way out.

FYI Here's a thumbnail of the events leading to up the formal surrender.


January 1945 - MacArthur forwarded to the President a Japanese offer to 
surrender 

5 April 1945 - Japan appointed Prime Minister Suzuki Kantaro who was 
known to be a peace advocate. (meaning end of the influence of the war to the death generals)

8 May 1945 - Japan tried to surrender through the Soviet Union. 

June 1945 - Both the US Army and Navy recommended to Truman that he 
clarify the US demands in regard to the Emperor. 11 July 1945 - Japan offered to surrender unconditionally, with one 
exception -* they wished to retain their monarchy*. 

July 11: Japan writes "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or 
taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result 
of the war; we hope to terminate the war". 

July 12: The Emeror writes "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war". 

July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs to 
communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to 
dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal 
letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for 
above items, see: U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879). 

July 18: "Negotiations... necessary... for soliciting Russia's good 
offices in concluding the war and also in improving the basis for 
negotiations with England and America." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 
7/18/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, 
Box 18, National Archives). 

July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the 
Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to 
the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 
21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the 
Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in 
preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic 
Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, 
RG 457, Box 18, National Archives). 

July 26: Japan's Ambassador to Moscow, Sato, to the Soviet Acting 
Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lozovsky: "The aim of the Japanese 
Government with regard to Prince Konoye's mission is to enlist the good 
offices of the Soviet Government in order to end the war." 
(Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/26/45, Records of the National Security 
Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives). 

1945 Truman used atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, Hiroshima on 
August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. 


exerpted from source


----------



## Lycurgus

I agree with Gunny. As he speaks to the intangibles which the quotes in the opening post does not. The Japanese people would have fought to the last man, had we been put in the position of taking the nation with ground forces. As much as I hate the use of force, I am comfortable that we did what we needed to do for the best interest of our troops and that is where our obligation lays. Anyone who would wish to proclaim those two bombing missions war crimes only wishes to promote anti American propaganda, by choosing to ignore many facts and circumstances. When I read things like this I often wonder if the writers really understand what it means to take another's life and what it means to defend your own life day after day.


----------



## editec

Lycurgus said:


> I agree with Gunny. As he speaks to the intangibles which the quotes in the opening post does not. The Japanese people would have fought to the last man,


 
I think not.. *NOT if the Emperor went along with the surrender*...which, if you'd taken the time to read my post above, you would knew he would have.



> had we been put in the position of taking the nation with ground forces.


 
Which, if you'd taken the time to read my post above, you would know we would NOT have.






> As much as I hate the use of force,


 
Do you? Apparently you hate to read nearly as much. 




> I am comfortable that we did what we needed to do for the best interest of our troops and that is where our obligation lays.


 
Are you comfortable that thousands of Marines died in those final islands while Japan was already SUING for peace?

Apparently you are. Speaking as an ex NAV corpsman, I am not.




> Anyone who would wish to proclaim those two bombing missions war crimes only wishes to promote anti American propaganda,


 
Actually upon that issue I am inclined to agree. 

Mistakes the appear to have been, but w_ar crimes?_ definitely _not_



> by choosing to ignore many facts and circumstances.


 
You don't seem to mind completely ignoring *the facts* when they don't serve your American hardon POV.





> When I read things like this I often wonder if the writers really understand what it means to take another's life and what it means to defend your own life day after day.


 
If irony could only kill, eh?

_Oh wait! ..._it can.


----------



## Maple

Did you ever hear of Hitler or Stalin? Give me a break, that war would still be going on had we not dropped the bomb, over time it would have killed many thousands more people. The Japanese were not about to surrender, just like these terrorists won't.


----------



## Yukon

The slaughter of innocent Japanese civilians cannot be justified in any way, shape, or form. It was a crime against humanity that went unpunished but God will have His dues.


----------



## Xenophon

editec said:


> That argument is speculative, of course, but it is a drop dead certainty that the war was winding down and Japan knew it.
> 
> It is ALSO a certainty that with or without those bombs, Japan's political situation, it's WAR PARTY had lost all credibility, and was on its way out.


I'm sorry, but this is wrong.

There was no 'war party' in Imperial Japan, the Army had taken control of the government and would not release it.

Only the emperor could break their grip on the nation, and he refused to act because tradition forbid it, outside of 'advising' that Japan surrender.

It was the Hiroshima bomb that finally broke Hirohito's slavish devotion to tradition.

Even after he made the surrender recording and a SECOND A bomb drop, the Army again mutined and tried to destroy the recording and take Hirohito prisoner 'for his own good as he was surrounded by defeatists.'

That plot nealy suceeded.

As for that peace deal with russia you are quoting, have you ever read the details?

Japan was NOt to be occupied, it would try it's own war criminals under Japanese law, and the emperor and Imperial system was to remain intact.

There was not a snowball's chance in hell of the allies accepting Japanese terms.

BTW, Ike's comments were made in the 1950s long after the war while he was president, he was NOT informed about the manhatten project until it was actually used.


----------



## Gunny

editec said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really wonder any more about the second bomb than I do the first. I'd be interested in why you do.
> 
> And also, I've read that some historians believe that not only would the alternative have cost thousands of American soldier's lives, but could have actually resulted in even more Japanese deaths than the bomb (assuming invasion was the alternative). An interesting topic for discussion for sure, but purely subjective and speculative. As for the OP's assertion that it was a war crime, total bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The projected loss in US lives alone to invade mainland Japan was estimated at a million.
> 
> Even if Eisenhower made the statement dickweed attributed to him, it's just proof of his ignorance in regard to the Japanese people. They would have died to the man protecting Hirohito.
> 
> The second bomb was dropped because Japan did not respond to a demand for surrender after the first one. They responded after the second one or there very well could have been more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there could not have been more because there were no more bombs to drop.
> 
> No Ike was not a dickweed because he understood, as apparently you don't the sequence of events surround the Jananese surrender
> 
> Details matter, Gunny....especially in matters of war and peace.
> 
> This debate has nothing to do with peaceniks or socialists or any of the other ignorant right wing blather you so often support, dude.  so don't label any of us who are aguring about this issue as being in any way shape or form SOFT of the enemy.
> 
> Consider that...
> 
> 
> 
> ..one hell of a lot of American Marines died in the Pacific who might not have had to, _with or without_ those bombs.
> 
> That argument is speculative, of course, but it is a drop dead certainty that the war was winding down and Japan knew it.
> 
> It is ALSO a certainty that with or without those bombs, Japan's political situation, it's WAR PARTY had lost all credibility, and was on its way out.
> 
> FYI Here's a thumbnail of the events leading to up the formal surrender.
> 
> 
> January 1945 - MacArthur forwarded to the President a Japanese offer to
> surrender
> 
> 5 April 1945 - Japan appointed Prime Minister Suzuki Kantaro who was
> known to be a peace advocate. (meaning end of the influence of the war to the death generals)
> 
> 8 May 1945 - Japan tried to surrender through the Soviet Union.
> 
> June 1945 - Both the US Army and Navy recommended to Truman that he
> clarify the US demands in regard to the Emperor. 11 July 1945 - Japan offered to surrender unconditionally, with one
> exception -* they wished to retain their monarchy*.
> 
> July 11: Japan writes "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or
> taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result
> of the war; we hope to terminate the war".
> 
> July 12: The Emeror writes "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".
> 
> July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs to
> communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to
> dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal
> letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for
> above items, see: U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).
> 
> July 18: "Negotiations... necessary... for soliciting Russia's good
> offices in concluding the war and also in improving the basis for
> negotiations with England and America." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary,
> 7/18/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457,
> Box 18, National Archives).
> 
> July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the
> Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to
> the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July
> 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the
> Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in
> preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic
> Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files,
> RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
> 
> July 26: Japan's Ambassador to Moscow, Sato, to the Soviet Acting
> Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lozovsky: "The aim of the Japanese
> Government with regard to Prince Konoye's mission is to enlist the good
> offices of the Soviet Government in order to end the war."
> (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/26/45, Records of the National Security
> Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
> 
> 1945 Truman used atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, Hiroshima on
> August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9.
> 
> 
> exerpted from source
Click to expand...


One, I said "may very well have" since I don't know that there was or there wasn't another bomb.

I disagree with you on the topic, and your "details."  You're talking around my statements.

The projected loss IF we were to invade mainland Japan was approximately 1M US troops.  There's no caveat to that.  That's a projected loss of manpower given a situation.

At the time the bombs were dropped, Japan had been warned, and unconditional surrender demanded.  Japan did not.  They remained in a state of war.  Given THAT scenario, your options are invade mainland Japan or use an atomic weapon.

The learned after the fact political wranglings are irrelevant.  Japan trying to backdoor the US via Moscow is also irrelevant.  Moscow had very little to do with the war in the Pacific, and even that was done so begrudgingly.  

The choice was made, and a military leader I think it was the correct choice.


----------



## Gunny

editec said:


> Lycurgus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Gunny. As he speaks to the intangibles which the quotes in the opening post does not. The Japanese people would have fought to the last man,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think not.. *NOT if the Emperor went along with the surrender*...which, if you'd taken the time to read my post above, you would knew he would have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> had we been put in the position of taking the nation with ground forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, if you'd taken the time to read my post above, you would know we would NOT have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you? Apparently you hate to read nearly as much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you comfortable that thousands of Marines died in those final islands while Japan was already SUING for peace?
> 
> Apparently you are. Speaking as an ex NAV corpsman, I am not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually upon that issue I am inclined to agree.
> 
> Mistakes the appear to have been, but w_ar crimes?_ definitely _not_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by choosing to ignore many facts and circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to mind completely ignoring *the facts* when they don't serve your American hardon POV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I read things like this I often wonder if the writers really understand what it means to take another's life and what it means to defend your own life day after day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If irony could only kill, eh?
> 
> _Oh wait! ..._it can.
Click to expand...


You're wrong on this one.  Obviously Japan was not offering unconditional surrender which is what was demanded.  Tough.  We used to fight to win.


----------



## Yukon

Unfortunately Mr Gunny is biased and narrow minded in his thought process as are most Americans. American's will never admit that they made a mistake in fact Americans wont even admit that might have made a mistake.

The average American believes:
* They won the Vietnam War 
* The 9/11 terrorists entered the USA through Canada
* Their country is a socialist haven as a result of the recent sovietization of the economy 
* Universal Medicare is "evil"
* Don Ameche invented the telephone
* John Wayne won the Battle of Britain
* Al Gore invented the internet
* Richard Nixon wasn't a crook

I mean come on folks. How can a person debate rationally with people like this?

So it isnt at all surprising that Mr Gunny believes what he does about the WWII war crimes against the people of Japan.


----------



## Gurdari

WillowTree said:


> Notice how no American Democwat ever stands up and says it was a horrible crime the Japanese committed that Sunday Morning on Dec. 7th 1941 and sneak attacked the USA?? Notice that?? Wonder why?




Well, pearl harbor was a military target, no? As opposed to the Japanese bombing Seattle... so, you can think that ANY attack is a horrible crime, but if you distinguish between military and civillian targets then the Japanese attack would be different than the A-bombings I think.


----------



## Gurdari

WillowTree said:


> You don't want the US bombing yer azz, don't sneak up on us and bomb the fleet. Learn from history and you'll be okay! Tater!



Okay like Iraq?


----------



## HUGGY

WillowTree said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how no American Democwat ever stands up and says it was a horrible crime the Japanese committed that Sunday Morning on Dec. 7th 1941 and sneak attacked the USA?? Notice that?? Wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THE BLAME AMERICA FIRST CLUB IS ALWAYS IN SESSION*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Democrats are all secretly Tokyo Rose-loving, Hirohito-worshipping Nips, right? How dare anybody mention something even remotely negative about America's past or present actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wouldn't be so bad if once in awhile a democwat could intersperse the conversation with something positive about their country.. but that's entirely too much to ask innit?? God Bless America? NO NO nO God Damn America.. that's the ticket!
Click to expand...




Your mindless america right or wrong is no less ignorant than the "good germans".  If you love america you do the right thing.  THAT is what makes us the better country.  We stand for the higher ideal and admit when we fail to.


----------



## MalibuMan

Greatest War Crime?  Easy.

Not letting Patton kick the crap out of the Russians when he had the chance to.


----------



## Yukon

MalibuMonkey,

You watch too many Hollywood movies my son. Patton was as crazy as a bed-bug, in fact he was fired for his crazy antics.


----------



## Quatermass

I have in previous posts [ Is Terrorism the central plank of US led Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq ? ] remarked on the Terroristic nature of the American Nation, much to the dismay of reactionary chauvinistic patriots, various indoctrinated apologists and ever present representatives of those great swathes of right wing opinion which form the bulwark of unquestioning support for whatever belligerent action its political leadership decides to embark upon.

From All of the responses expressed here, with the exception of *Kevin Kennedy* and *Gurdari*, to this question raised by *Yukon*, it becomes both clearly and sadly evident, just how deeply the philosophy of America's corrupt Imperialist ruling class has affected and permeated into the many layers of its proletarian masses.

Terrorism is quite acceptable it seems, as long as the American flag is raised high enough and waved vigorously enough. As long as the manic tones of the star spangled banner are played loud enough and frequently enough, to blot out reason and human empathy and replace them with that false sense of national unity which comes with global conflict, and furnish some half witted excuse, that can be voiced triumphantly by latter generations on their internet message boards. 

Unless one learns from History, its mistakes are bound to be repeated. The attitudes of the most vocal mob on this message board are salient examples of a people that only see the arse of History, and are capable of learning nothing except that sugar-laced propaganda they are spoon-feed from on high.

The dropping of two Atomic Bombs by Cowardly U.S. Air-force bombers on old men and helpless women and children in civilian areas of Japan are amongst the most despicable and rotten endeavours ever perpetrated by homo sapiens since the beginning of civilisation. 

All who defend such acts are inhuman to the core. The fact _so many Americans do defend such acts of Terrorism_ speaks volumes, on that decaying culture.

Such a carnage could never be justified by decent Human beings.

And here stands *'Yukon'*. Who, a vile racialist though he may be, is ethically head and shoulders above so many others here on this question. 'Others' that without a second thought defend the right of their nation to boil pregnant women and little boys and crippled people and innocent babies in the molten radiance of atomic explosions. 

That _he _should come to this highly moral conclusion in the face of such hostile patriotic reaction is testament indeed to how low the American Nation has sunk, in all that it is, all that it represents and in all that it undertakes.


----------



## submarinepainter

We dropped them and won , the OP is Full of it, must watch to much Jon Stewart


----------



## editec

Xenophon said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> That argument is speculative, of course, but it is a drop dead certainty that the war was winding down and Japan knew it.
> 
> It is ALSO a certainty that with or without those bombs, Japan's political situation, it's WAR PARTY had lost all credibility, and was on its way out.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but this is wrong.
> 
> I appreciate your polite approach but you are incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no 'war party' in Imperial Japan, the Army had taken control of the government and would not release it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My shortcut for the war party.  Even within the military establishment there were hawks and doves...hence my made up description of those hawks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the emperor could break their grip on the nation, and he refused to act because tradition forbid it, outside of 'advising' that Japan surrender
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wong wrong wrong.  You're guessing, and I know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was the Hiroshima bomb that finally broke Hirohito's slavish devotion to tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You either didn't read what I wrote above or are choosing to ignore it hoping perhaps if you write incorrect facts well enough, that will wow, somebody.
> 
> It's doesn't wow me.  You are making shit up because that is your impression of WWII Japan.  You are dead wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even after he made the surrender recording and a SECOND A bomb drop, the Army again mutined and tried to destroy the recording and take Hirohito prisoner 'for his own good as he was surrounded by defeatists.'
> 
> That plot nealy suceeded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it did...it went against their Emperor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for that peace deal with russia you are quoting, have you ever read the details?
> 
> Japan was NOt to be occupied, it would try it's own war criminals under Japanese law, and the emperor and Imperial system was to remain intact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was early in the negotiations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was not a snowball's chance in hell of the allies accepting Japanese terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was ONE issue remaining to be decided....that snowball was mightly small by the time the first bomb was dropped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, Ike's comments were made in the 1950s long after the war while he was president, he was NOT informed about the manhatten project until it was actually used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, his assessment was therefore based on the facts after the fact.
> 
> Hence they were made with that hidsight which is usually thought 20/20
> 
> Now neither bomb might have been necessary.
> 
> But certainly given the feriosity of the Japanese, I can definitely understand the first bomb.
> 
> The second, as I said in my original post, seems to me to be dropped in haste that , for the life of my I cannot find a reason for.
> 
> Japan was defeated, it's emperor knew it, it's military knew it, it's people knew it.
> 
> Why the second bomb?
> 
> We'll never really know for sure, but Turman's character might have played a part.  The possibility of Russian and Japan coming to separate peace might have played a role in the decision (although I doubt Stalin would have been so foolish, it might still have been on the minds of Truman).
> 
> But to make the statement that Japan was not defeated, given the overhwleming evidence of their attempts to sue for peace?
> 
> That's preposterous.
Click to expand...


----------



## editec

> From All of the responses expressed here, with the exception of *Kevin Kennedy* and *Gurdari*, to this question raised by *Yukon*, it becomes both clearly and sadly evident, just how deeply the philosophy of America's corrupt Imperialist ruling class has affected and permeated into the many layers of its proletarian masses.


 
Oh bite me, you pompous ass.

In fact bite we Americans all, regardless of where we stand in this debate.


We're debating a finer point in something you clearly don't know jackshit about and here you come to lecture us on morality?

Peddle your anti-American blather someplace else.

America crushed a government gone mad when the crushed the Japanese. We did all of Asia a tremendous favor.

Japanese war crimes and crimes against humanity were legion and they were done from the top brass right down to the losest Japanese soldier. Ask the Korean what they think of the Japanese of WWII.

The Jpanaese is god damned lucky that cooler head prevailed because for for what they did to the Chinese people and to the prisoners they took, we could have vaporized the entire Island and nobody in the world would have said boo in their defense at the time of the war.

But we didn't BECAUSE we are Americans and we are debating the dropping of the bombs precisely BECAUSE we care about these finer points in MORALITY.

So just stuff your opinion of the state of american morality where the sun don't shine, kid, cuase nobody is impressed with your pseudo-moral tripe.


----------



## mightypeon

I am of the optinion that the Nukes where a powerplay to intimidiate Russia and to prevent the Japanese from surrendering the the USSR.
If they wanted to force a military surrender by "shock and awing" the Japanese, they could have used the nukes in concert with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (which the US knew was coming), and not some days prior to it.
I think the second nuke was more about showing the USSR that the US had more than one nuke in store.

War crime? War crimes are in the eyes of the victors.


----------



## Xenophon

editec said:


> I appreciate your polite approach but you are incorrect.


On this topic, not a chance ed.



> My shortcut for the war party.  Even within the military establishment there were hawks and doves...hence my made up description of those hawks.


Ok, I'll give you a mulligan on it.



> Wong wrong wrong.  You're guessing, and I know it.


Not even close, this is long established, hirohito himself wrote it.





> You either didn't read what I wrote above or are choosing to ignore it hoping perhaps if you write incorrect facts well enough, that will wow, somebody.
> 
> It's doesn't wow me.  You are making shit up because that is your impression of WWII Japan.  You are dead wrong.


I'm affraid you are the one making it up.

Hirohito is the one who revealed that tidbit.

You could of course claim he's lying about himself, but the fact that it's recorded in dozens of books won't change it much.




> That was early in the negotiations.


[their were no negociations.

Molotov ordered that the Japanese be given no answer, and Stalin told the allies that Japan was trying for a peace deal with pre conditions.




> There was ONE issue remaining to be decided....that snowball was mightly small by the time the first bomb was dropped.


There was no chance the allies would accept Japan's conditions.

Because of FDR's Casablanca comments the US was locked into uncondtinional surrender.



> Yes, his assessment was therefore based on the facts after the fact.
> 
> Hence they were made with that hidsight which is usually thought 20/20
> 
> Now neither bomb might have been necessary.


They were made while he was running for reelection, at a time the US was worried about nuclear war. His comments were not an accurate assesment of what actually happened.

Have you noticed nobody canvases MacArthur about this, the man who was there and outranked Ike?

The answer to that is he favored their usage to spare the lies of his men.



> But certainly given the feriosity of the Japanese, I can definitely understand the first bomb.
> 
> The second, as I said in my original post, seems to me to be dropped in haste that , for the life of my I cannot find a reason for.
> 
> Japan was defeated, it's emperor knew it, it's military knew it, it's people knew it.
> 
> Why the second bomb?
> 
> We'll never really know for sure, but Turman's character might have played a part.  The possibility of Russian and Japan coming to separate peace might have played a role in the decision (although I doubt Stalin would have been so foolish, it might still have been on the minds of Truman).
> 
> But to make the statement that Japan was not defeated, given the overhwleming evidence of their attempts to sue for peace?
> 
> That's preposterous.


They were defeated from a military standpoint in 1942, you could make the case that they were defeated before they started the war.

The point is from a JAPANESE viewpoint many of they were more then willing to see Japan wiped out rather then give in.

The second bomb was dropped because Japan made no answer at all to the first one, the idea being to bluff Japan into thinking that one a week was coming until they gave in.

Of course he know that the USA had no more such bombs, nor would it for sometime, but Japan didn't know this.


----------



## Xenophon

mightypeon said:


> I am of the optinion that the Nukes where a powerplay to intimidiate Russia and to prevent the Japanese from surrendering the the USSR.
> If they wanted to force a military surrender by "shock and awing" the Japanese, they could have used the nukes in concert with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (which the US knew was coming), and not some days prior to it.
> I think the second nuke was more about showing the USSR that the US had more than one nuke in store.
> 
> War crime? War crimes are in the eyes of the victors.


I'm sorry, this is rediculous.

It didn't matter if Japan surrendered to the USSR, the Russians had no way to occupy Japan and the USA made it clear if the USSR tried they would be prevented by force.

Atomic weapons were not made or used to intimidate the Soviets, who knew all about them from their quite exstensive infiltration of the US goernment.

Their purpose was to force the Japanese to accept reality.


----------



## Yukon

Quatermass,

Your's is without a doubt the most well thought out and eloquent response that I have read to any post made here at US Message Board. However, you did make one mistake and I quote: "...here stands *'Yukon'*. Who, a vile racialist though he may be...". 

Quartermass, I am not, repeat NOT, a racist. I simply speak what I believe to be the truth and I have learned these truths through many, many years of studying the Bible when I was a Priest. That being said I do thank you for the kind remarks. I will pray for you at Mass.

ex-Father Yukon



Quatermass said:


> I have in previous posts [ Is Terrorism the central plank of US led Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq ? ] remarked on the Terroristic nature of the American Nation, much to the dismay of reactionary chauvinistic patriots, various indoctrinated apologists and ever present representatives of those great swathes of right wing opinion which form the bulwark of unquestioning support for whatever belligerent action its political leadership decides to embark upon.
> 
> From All of the responses expressed here, with the exception of *Kevin Kennedy* and *Gurdari*, to this question raised by *Yukon*, it becomes both clearly and sadly evident, just how deeply the philosophy of America's corrupt Imperialist ruling class has affected and permeated into the many layers of its proletarian masses.
> 
> Terrorism is quite acceptable it seems, as long as the American flag is raised high enough and waved vigorously enough. As long as the manic tones of the star spangled banner are played loud enough and frequently enough, to blot out reason and human empathy and replace them with that false sense of national unity which comes with global conflict, and furnish some half witted excuse, that can be voiced triumphantly by latter generations on their internet message boards.
> 
> Unless one learns from History, its mistakes are bound to be repeated. The attitudes of the most vocal mob on this message board are salient examples of a people that only see the arse of History, and are capable of learning nothing except that sugar-laced propaganda they are spoon-feed from on high.
> 
> The dropping of two Atomic Bombs by Cowardly U.S. Air-force bombers on old men and helpless women and children in civilian areas of Japan are amongst the most despicable and rotten endeavours ever perpetrated by homo sapiens since the beginning of civilisation.
> 
> All who defend such acts are inhuman to the core. The fact _so many Americans do defend such acts of Terrorism_ speaks volumes, on that decaying culture.
> 
> Such a carnage could never be justified by decent Human beings.
> 
> And here stands *'Yukon'*. Who, a vile racialist though he may be, is ethically head and shoulders above so many others here on this question. 'Others' that without a second thought defend the right of their nation to boil pregnant women and little boys and crippled people and innocent babies in the molten radiance of atomic explosions.
> 
> That _he _should come to this highly moral conclusion in the face of such hostile patriotic reaction is testament indeed to how low the American Nation has sunk, in all that it is, all that it represents and in all that it undertakes.


----------



## HUGGY

Gunny said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> One does wonder about the SECOND bomb, of course.
> 
> As to the first bomb dropped?
> 
> I have no problems with that.
> 
> Had I known only what Truman knew at that time, I'd have ordered the mission, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really wonder any more about the second bomb than I do the first.  I'd be interested in why you do.
> 
> And also, I've read that some historians believe that not only would the alternative have cost thousands of American soldier's lives, but could have actually resulted in even more Japanese deaths than the bomb (assuming invasion was the alternative).  An interesting topic for discussion for sure, but purely subjective and speculative.  As for the OP's assertion that it was a war crime, total bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The projected loss in US lives alone to invade mainland Japan was estimated at a million.
> 
> Even if Eisenhower made the statement dickweed attributed to him, it's just proof of his ignorance in regard to the Japanese people.  They would have died to the man protecting Hirohito.
> 
> The second bomb was dropped because Japan did not respond to a demand for surrender after the first one.  They responded after the second one or there very well could have been more.
Click to expand...


I may be wrong but I thought at that time there were only two bombs available. Am I mistaken?  I have no source other than a memory of an old public tv educational prsentation.


----------



## Quatermass

Note that *Editec *is in contradiction with the article of his own citation: Id. exerpted from source _The actual author _of the work he has been &#8216;selectively quoting&#8217; adds (immediately after the end of *Editects *cut and paste masterpiece):

1945 Truman used atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, Hiroshima on 
August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. Now generally considered a war 
crime, at the minimum it was the murder of hundreds of thousands of 
innocent civilians. There was no lack of military targets or a 
demonstration in a remote place was possible, so the selection of 
targets is indefensible, leaving aside the issue of whether the bombing 
was justified in the first place. 
(original author: "Humanist" <shan.bazz@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 7 Aug 2005 13:01:33 -0700)

The above quote from &#8220;*Humanist*&#8221; needless to say fits in with the position *Yukon*, *Kevin Kennedy* and myself, *Quatermass *take in this debate. But flies in the face of the atrocity apologists such as *Editec *and his sorry band of flippant, amoral observers. 

Further, that *Editec *has need to pontificate so profusely over the inclinations of the then Emperor of Japan, and the authority of the military, in what is essentially a moral dialectic only betrays the fact that no matter how deeply one buries their head in history, without a foundation of ethical rectitude the results are always pedantic and worthless. *Editec *here is a mere bean counter of war-crimes, without the moral compass to determine a legal, justified act from that which is criminal and wanton. Instead, with the blinkered countenance of the narrow minded autistic, he endlessly shuffles through the ifs and buts of modern history, missing entirely the tenor of the original question posted by *Yukon*, as to *whether the Atomic Bombing of cities that are teaming with civilians is the greatest of crimes.*

As I noted in my first post, the indifference so many Americans hold towards other nations is an intrinsic reflection of their own corrupted and belligerent ruling elite. 

Marx already spoke of those who so readily internalise the ideological canker from their ruling class, numerously, and here in 1845,  &#8216;The Illusion of the Epoch&#8217; 

_&#8220;The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it.&#8221;_
The German Ideology: Chapter 1 - On Feuerbach




















http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-middle-east-general/73882-is-terrorism-the-central-plank-of-us-led-invasions-of-afghanistan-and-iraq.html


----------



## Yukon

Editec is just misinformed. He can't help it for he is a product of a failed education system. A system that refuses to acknowledge historical fact. Poor Editec. How sad.............


----------



## Gunny

Quatermass said:


> I have in previous posts [ Is Terrorism the central plank of US led Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq ? ] remarked on the Terroristic nature of the American Nation, much to the dismay of reactionary chauvinistic patriots, various indoctrinated apologists and ever present representatives of those great swathes of right wing opinion which form the bulwark of unquestioning support for whatever belligerent action its political leadership decides to embark upon.
> 
> From All of the responses expressed here, with the exception of *Kevin Kennedy* and *Gurdari*, to this question raised by *Yukon*, it becomes both clearly and sadly evident, just how deeply the philosophy of America's corrupt Imperialist ruling class has affected and permeated into the many layers of its proletarian masses.
> 
> Terrorism is quite acceptable it seems, as long as the American flag is raised high enough and waved vigorously enough. As long as the manic tones of the star spangled banner are played loud enough and frequently enough, to blot out reason and human empathy and replace them with that false sense of national unity which comes with global conflict, and furnish some half witted excuse, that can be voiced triumphantly by latter generations on their internet message boards.
> 
> Unless one learns from History, its mistakes are bound to be repeated. The attitudes of the most vocal mob on this message board are salient examples of a people that only see the arse of History, and are capable of learning nothing except that sugar-laced propaganda they are spoon-feed from on high.
> 
> The dropping of two Atomic Bombs by Cowardly U.S. Air-force bombers on old men and helpless women and children in civilian areas of Japan are amongst the most despicable and rotten endeavours ever perpetrated by homo sapiens since the beginning of civilisation.
> 
> All who defend such acts are inhuman to the core. The fact _so many Americans do defend such acts of Terrorism_ speaks volumes, on that decaying culture.
> 
> Such a carnage could never be justified by decent Human beings.
> 
> And here stands *'Yukon'*. Who, a vile racialist though he may be, is ethically head and shoulders above so many others here on this question. 'Others' that without a second thought defend the right of their nation to boil pregnant women and little boys and crippled people and innocent babies in the molten radiance of atomic explosions.
> 
> That _he _should come to this highly moral conclusion in the face of such hostile patriotic reaction is testament indeed to how low the American Nation has sunk, in all that it is, all that it represents and in all that it undertakes.



What is clearly and sadly evident is that you are nothing but a dishonest revisionist, not worth the time and effort to debate.  Joseph Goebbels would envy you.


----------



## Gunny

HUGGY said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really wonder any more about the second bomb than I do the first.  I'd be interested in why you do.
> 
> And also, I've read that some historians believe that not only would the alternative have cost thousands of American soldier's lives, but could have actually resulted in even more Japanese deaths than the bomb (assuming invasion was the alternative).  An interesting topic for discussion for sure, but purely subjective and speculative.  As for the OP's assertion that it was a war crime, total bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The projected loss in US lives alone to invade mainland Japan was estimated at a million.
> 
> Even if Eisenhower made the statement dickweed attributed to him, it's just proof of his ignorance in regard to the Japanese people.  They would have died to the man protecting Hirohito.
> 
> The second bomb was dropped because Japan did not respond to a demand for surrender after the first one.  They responded after the second one or there very well could have been more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may be wrong but I thought at that time there were only two bombs available. Am I mistaken?  I have no source other than a memory of an old public tv educational prsentation.
Click to expand...


I don't know for sure.  That's why the "could have been" caveat.  I believe editec stated there were but the two.  The "could have been" is also from the POV of the Japanese.  Even if we only had two, they wouldn't have known it, IMO.


----------



## Gunny

Yukon said:


> Editec is just misinformed. He can't help it for he is a product of a failed education system. A system that refuses to acknowledge historical fact. Poor Editec. How sad.............



Another blatant lie and attempt to do nothing more than incite.


----------



## roomy

Greatest warcrimes are relative.Do us all favour and shut the fuck up.You look like a fucking idiot.


----------



## Yukon

Mr Gunny,

I made no attempt whatsoever to incite. My statement is what I believe to be factual and is based on the comments made by Mr Editec. Most people believe what is taught to them via school or other means. If the teachings are false then the system is failing us. 

To believe that dropping an Atomic bomb on defenseless women and children, not once but twice, was anything more than a crime against humanity is simply beyond my comprehension. 

Jesus taught us to "do onto others as you would have them do onto you". As a Christian and as a formed Priest I believe that killing innocent people is wrong.


----------



## Gunny

Yukon said:


> Mr Gunny,
> 
> I made no attempt whatsoever to incite. My statement is what I believe to be factual and is based on the comments made by Mr Editec. Most people believe what is taught to them via school or other means. If the teachings are false then the system is failing us.
> 
> To believe that dropping an Atomic bomb on defenseless women and children, not once but twice, was anything more than a crime against humanity is simply beyond my comprehension.
> 
> Jesus taught us to "do onto others as you would have them do onto you". As a Christian and as a formed Priest I believe that killing innocent people is wrong.



The teachings aren't false just because you choose to believe a convoluted, backwards-assed version of events.  Fortunately for all the US military personnel that didn't die because your backwards-assed, fallacious "thinking" wasn't en vogue at the point in time.  

People still fought wars with winning in mind instead half-assing at it trying to change someone's way of thinking.  There's no crime.  Simple logic: he who has the most men left when the war is over wins.  You win by destroying the enemy's ability to wage war.  Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets as both cities contributed to the Japanese war effort.  

And you can't argue with results.  The war was ended.

It's fools like you and your line of thinking that have caused this trying to fight with arm tied behind your back mentality to begin with.  

Innocent people die in war.  Yet you and this other cut-n-paste knucklehead would present innocent people being killed as collateral damage as a primary strategy.  You're both liars.  Plain and simple.  That idiot that can't spell quartermass is an idiot because he appears to believe his stupid shit.  You're just a liar in that your sole purpose is to offend and shock others.


----------



## Midnight Marauder

Xenophon said:


> Revisionism&#8217;s heyday lasted until the 1990s. Then the historiographical ground began to shift. A new body of scholarly work emerged, often based on hitherto unavailable documents, which countered revisionist arguments that the atomic bomb was primarily a diplomatic weapon in 1945, that Japan would have surrendered prior to the planned U.S. invasion had the bomb not been used, and that projected casualty figures for the anticipated invasion of Japan were far lower than those cited by supporters of the decision to use the bomb. The scholars producing these books and articles provided powerful support for Truman&#8217;s decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan. Thus Edward Drea&#8217;s MacArthur&#8217;s Ultra: Codebreaking and the War against Japan (1992) chronicled how Allied intelligence tracked the Japanese military buildup on the southernmost home island of Kyushu in the months prior to Hiroshima, a buildup that demonstrated Tokyo&#8217;s intent to fight to the bitter end and rendered all &#8220;low&#8221; casualty estimates dating from the spring and early summer of 1945&#8211;&#8211;the estimates relied upon by revisionist historians&#8211;&#8211;obsolete and irrelevant months before American soldiers were scheduled to land in Japan. In 1995 Robert P. Newman&#8217;s Truman and the Hiroshima Cult demolished the credibility of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey&#8217;s claim that Japan would have surrendered in the fall of 1945 absent both the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war, while Robert James Maddox&#8217;s Weapons for Victory: The Hiroshima Decision Fifty Years Later effectively dismantled what was left of the &#8220;atomic diplomacy&#8221; thesis. Two years later, in &#8220;Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasion of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications&#8221; (The Journal of Military History, July 1997), D. M. Giangreco conclusively documented the existence of enormous casualty projections, some of which undeniably reached Truman and his top advisors. The next year, in &#8220;The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan&#8217;s Decision to Surrender&#8211;&#8211;A Reconsideration&#8221; (Pacific Historical Review, November 1998), Sadao Asada, relying on a thorough review of Japanese-language sources, exposed as untenable the contention that Japan was prepared to surrender before Hiroshima or that a modification of the Potsdam Declaration guaranteeing the status of the emperor would have produced a Japanese surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source here
> 
> It is now understood that the 90s revisionists were full of shit, dropping the Abombs were the only sane choice and only way to end the war outside of losing millions of Japanese and maybe 1 million US fighting men in a main force invasion of Japan proper.
> 
> Such weapons were not a 'war crime' and in fact no treaty covered this.
Click to expand...

Excellent, informative post.

I might add, that we probably would have seen a "North Japan" and a "South Japan" had we not acted as we did -- the USSR was preparing a war declaration on Japan in order to claim territory -- and probably Japan would have been another brush war to add to Korea and Vietnam. Literally millions of lives were SAVED by getting the unconditional surrender exactly when we did.

Few people realize that we're STILL fighting WW2, it's in the last phase pitting the extremist jihadists against a western world which created the Jewish State after WW2, and now supports and protects it. Their mission is and always has been complete eradication of the Jews. It's a thousands of years long conflict that I fear will only end with one side completely eradicated.


----------



## editec

> There was no chance the allies would accept Japan's conditions.


 
Likely true.  Still doesn't explain the rush to the second bombing



> Because of FDR's Casablanca comments the US was locked into uncondtinional surrender.


 
US was locked into no separate peace.

Unconditional surrender is in the eyes of the beholder.

Japan was crushed.  

Please explain to me why you believe the _second bomb_ had to be dropped _so quickly._

I don't see the rush.

I've never seen any credible answer to this question/

You aregument makes the case for not accepting any surrender on any terms whatever.

Understood.

Still doesn't explain the first bombs, and it clearly doesn't explain the second.


----------



## garyd

So you think the firebombing of Tokyo was all right? Never mind that it killed far more people than the nuke did. At an absolute minimum 10 million people died in the Pacific Theater of Operations during WWII and you are all hot and bothered over less than  one percent of them being killed by a nuke. Your blindness Yukon is as truly apalling as is your selective morality.


----------



## Quatermass

*Yukon*

You are most kind with your appraisal of my *post (#33)* in this debate. 

My employment of the appellation 'vile racialist' arises from previous contributions I noticed you've made, in arguments seperate from this one and which indicate a certain relegation of non-white peoples. As an Internationalist I feel duty bound to lay criticism at the door of any such notion which infringes upon the fraternity of the Human species.

That aside, on this issue of the criminality of certain nations, namely America, I think we've gained the upper ground with the greatest of ease. Indeed, further besetment from our positions of superiority may even be viewed by future generations as a 'virtual war crime' of sorts, given the weakness of the opponents here. 



Yukon said:


> Unfortunately Mr Gunny is biased and narrow minded in his thought process as are most Americans. American's will never admit that they made a mistake in fact Americans wont even admit that might have made a mistake.
> 
> The average American believes:
> * They won the Vietnam War
> * The 9/11 terrorists entered the USA through Canada
> * Their country is a socialist haven as a result of the recent sovietization of the economy
> * Universal Medicare is "evil"
> * Don Ameche invented the telephone
> * John Wayne won the Battle of Britain
> * Al Gore invented the internet
> * Richard Nixon wasn't a crook
> 
> I mean come on folks. How can a person debate rationally with people like this?
> 
> So it isnt at all surprising that Mr Gunny believes what he does about the WWII war crimes against the people of Japan.



I also found your comments on the beliefs and characteristics of 'the average American' to be most insightful. 'Never a truer word was spoken in jest'.



_"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages." _

Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II







Youth incinerated to charcoal remains in Hiroshima, compliments of U.S. valour.


----------



## Yukon

Mr. Quatermass,

I have been called a racist in the past and I suppose I will be called the same in the future. 

That being said it is nice to be able to discuss and debate issues with a person such as yourself - obviously educated and broad-minded. Even though we disagree we do so as mature gentlemen. It is sad that other people cannot follow the example being set for them.


----------



## Gunny

editec said:


> There was no chance the allies would accept Japan's conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likely true.  Still doesn't explain the rush to the second bombing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of FDR's Casablanca comments the US was locked into uncondtinional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> US was locked into no separate peace.
> 
> Unconditional surrender is in the eyes of the beholder.
> 
> Japan was crushed.
> 
> Please explain to me why you believe the _second bomb_ had to be dropped _so quickly._
> 
> I don't see the rush.
> 
> I've never seen any credible answer to this question/
> 
> You aregument makes the case for not accepting any surrender on any terms whatever.
> 
> Understood.
> 
> Still doesn't explain the first bombs, and it clearly doesn't explain the second.
Click to expand...


We did in fact accept a conditional surrender.  Hirohito was was not touched.  Had we insisted on his standing trial, the Japanese people would have fought to the last person, atomic bomb or no.

The accounting for dropping the second bomb is that after the first, Japan was again ordered to surrender and did not reply.  We dropped the second bomb as a result.  

Credibility is in the eyes of the beholder.


----------



## Gunny

Yukon said:


> Mr. Quatermass,
> 
> I have been called a racist in the past and I suppose I will be called the same in the future.
> 
> That being said it is nice to be able to discuss and debate issues with a person such as yourself - obviously educated and broad-minded. Even though we disagree we do so as mature gentlemen. It is sad that other people cannot follow the example being set for them.



What kind of lameass strawman is this?  I haven't called either of you racists.  You're both idiots and liars.  

One can only stare in amazement and you two freaks complimenting each other for your complete lacks of intelligence, knowledge debating skills and personal integrity.


----------



## Xenophon

editec said:


> There was no chance the allies would accept Japan's conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likely true.  Still doesn't explain the rush to the second bombing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of FDR's Casablanca comments the US was locked into uncondtinional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> US was locked into no separate peace.
> 
> Unconditional surrender is in the eyes of the beholder.
> 
> Japan was crushed.
> 
> Please explain to me why you believe the _second bomb_ had to be dropped _so quickly._
> 
> I don't see the rush.
> 
> I've never seen any credible answer to this question/
> 
> You aregument makes the case for not accepting any surrender on any terms whatever.
> 
> Understood.
> 
> Still doesn't explain the first bombs, and it clearly doesn't explain the second.
Click to expand...


I have the perfect book for you, right up your ally:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rising-Sun-Decline-Japanese-1936-1945/dp/0812968581]Amazon.com: The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945 (Modern Library War): John Toland: Books[/ame]

Toland, who's wife was Japanese, interviewed many of the players (the book was written in 1970).

He himself changed his viewpoint of the pacific war from writing this book.

The interviews with teh roayal family members will clear up a lot of this.


----------



## editec

Yukon said:


> Mr Gunny,
> 
> I made no attempt whatsoever to incite. My statement is what I believe to be factual and is based on the comments made by Mr Editec. Most people believe what is taught to them via school or other means. If the teachings are false then the system is failing us.


 
Oh, bla bla bla, Yukon.  the educational system has nothing to do with it.  This is not the sort of issue one can expect people not enamored by history to know or care about.  




> To believe that dropping an Atomic bomb on defenseless women and children, not once but twice, was anything more than a crime against humanity is simply beyond my comprehension.


 
Crime speaks to state of mind as well as the facts, chum.  

Consider that Truman really might have thought that invading Japan would have caused the death of far more  innocents than both bombs combined did.

This whole moral outrage canard you keep trying to play is childish.



> Jesus taught us to "do onto others as you would have them do onto you". As a Christian and as a formed Priest I believe that killing innocent people is wrong.


 
Well when you fail to mention Japans criminal behavior and jerk us off with you anti-American _worst war crime_ blather most of us have our doubts about your sincereity.

I have very little doubt had I been POTUS, knowing what I knew when Truman came into office, I'd have probably dropped that first bomb, as well.

My question remains was the second bomb justified, and if it was, WHY was it?

That is the ONLY debate I am having here.

This worst war crime is sheer lunacy.

The Japanese soldiers cut off more heads for FUN, than both bombs killed, you ninny.

American _RESTRAINT_ given that and how our prisoners were treated was fairly remarkable.

So take you anti-American bullshit and shove it.

You ain't doing Jesus no favors, either, sport.


----------



## Yukon

Gunny said:


> What kind of lameass strawman is this?  *I haven't called either of you racists. * You're both idiots and liars.
> 
> One can only stare in amazement and you two freaks complimenting each other for your complete lacks of intelligence, knowledge debating skills and personal integrity.



Mr. Gunny,

I don't think I said that you refered to me as a racist and I never revert to name calling. I will pray for you...


----------



## Gunny

Yukon said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of lameass strawman is this?  *I haven't called either of you racists. * You're both idiots and liars.
> 
> One can only stare in amazement and you two freaks complimenting each other for your complete lacks of intelligence, knowledge debating skills and personal integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Gunny,
> 
> I don't think I said that you refered to me as a racist and I never revert to name calling. I will pray for you...
Click to expand...


I guess this means you are going to ignore rather than address editec dropping the A-bomb on your so-called argument.  Lame.

Even if you were sincere; which, you aren't ... you pray for your own ass and let me worry about mine.


----------



## mightypeon

One of the most gross numbers of history is the number of Chinese POWs who were returned to china.
54
Yes, 54 out of millions.

Even Nazi Germany is hard pressed to beat that.

I still maintain that to maximise shock and confusion, the most reasonable way would have been to nuke in concert with the Soviet invasion. That it was done prior to it implies, at least to me, that it was a powerplay aimed at the Soviet Union, and not neccesarly on Japan.


----------



## editec

Gunny said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no chance the allies would accept Japan's conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likely true. Still doesn't explain the rush to the second bombing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of FDR's Casablanca comments the US was locked into uncondtinional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> US was locked into no separate peace.
> 
> Unconditional surrender is in the eyes of the beholder.
> 
> Japan was crushed.
> 
> Please explain to me why you believe the _second bomb_ had to be dropped _so quickly._
> 
> I don't see the rush.
> 
> I've never seen any credible answer to this question/
> 
> You aregument makes the case for not accepting any surrender on any terms whatever.
> 
> Understood.
> 
> Still doesn't explain the first bombs, and it clearly doesn't explain the second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We did in fact accept a conditional surrender. Hirohito was was not touched. Had we insisted on his standing trial, the Japanese people would have fought to the last person, atomic bomb or no.
> 
> The accounting for dropping the second bomb is that after the first, Japan was again ordered to surrender and did not reply. We dropped the second bomb as a result.
> 
> Credibility is in the eyes of the beholder.
Click to expand...

 
Cedibility certainly is that, Guns.

Still...what was it..  three days between bombs?

Seems hasty to me, given the diplomatic events happening at the same time.


----------



## elvis

Even if Hiroshima were a war crime (which it wasn't), it is nowhere near the severity of the war crimes committed between the Russians and Germans.  (not even counting the Holocaust)


----------



## elvis

Some historians claim that it wasn't the bombs that made Japan surrender, but what they were facing if they didn't surrender.  they were facing a mainland invasion from the US from the South and Russian invasion from the West.  This is all assuming the US only had two bombs.  I read somewhere we had a third one.  Just something to chew on.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Even if Hiroshima were a war crime (which it wasn't), it is nowhere near the severity of the war crimes committed between the Russians and Germans.  (not even counting the Holocaust)



If dropping atomic bombs on two cities full of innocent civilians isn't a war crime I'm not sure what is, and the fact that other nations have committed atrocities certainly doesn't exonerate our government.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if Hiroshima were a war crime (which it wasn't), it is nowhere near the severity of the war crimes committed between the Russians and Germans.  (not even counting the Holocaust)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If dropping atomic bombs on two cities full of innocent civilians isn't a war crime I'm not sure what is, and the fact that other nations have committed atrocities certainly doesn't exonerate our government.
Click to expand...


you're assuming the civilians were innocent.  I don't know one way or another, but in Germany's case, there is considerable evidence that they by and large were NOT innocent.  and this should not be controversial.  Churchill and Roosevelt even said Germany's population needed to pay.  

and I was arguing with the idiot OP who said it was the GREATEST war crime, which is an insult to the MILLIONS in eastern europe who were slaughtered for being "subhumans".


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if Hiroshima were a war crime (which it wasn't), it is nowhere near the severity of the war crimes committed between the Russians and Germans.  (not even counting the Holocaust)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If dropping atomic bombs on two cities full of innocent civilians isn't a war crime I'm not sure what is, and the fact that other nations have committed atrocities certainly doesn't exonerate our government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're assuming the civilians were innocent.  I don't know one way or another, but in Germany's case, there is considerable evidence that they by and large were NOT innocent.  and this should not be controversial.  Churchill and Roosevelt even said Germany's population needed to pay.
> 
> and I was arguing with the idiot OP who said it was the GREATEST war crime, which is an insult to the MILLIONS in eastern europe who were slaughtered for being "subhumans".
Click to expand...


I'm assuming they were innocent because they were civilians.  What crime could they have possibly committed that warranted us vaporizing them, especially the children?  The opinion of two warmongers is not a convincing argument.

I would agree that it's not the worst thing that has ever been done, especially considering the purges of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.  However, it's certainly one of the worst things our government has ever done.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If dropping atomic bombs on two cities full of innocent civilians isn't a war crime I'm not sure what is, and the fact that other nations have committed atrocities certainly doesn't exonerate our government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're assuming the civilians were innocent.  I don't know one way or another, but in Germany's case, there is considerable evidence that they by and large were NOT innocent.  and this should not be controversial.  Churchill and Roosevelt even said Germany's population needed to pay.
> 
> and I was arguing with the idiot OP who said it was the GREATEST war crime, which is an insult to the MILLIONS in eastern europe who were slaughtered for being "subhumans".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm assuming they were innocent because they were civilians.  What crime could they have possibly committed that warranted us vaporizing them, especially the children?  The opinion of two warmongers is not a convincing argument.
> 
> I would agree that it's not the worst thing that has ever been done, especially considering the purges of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.  However, it's certainly one of the worst things our government has ever done.
Click to expand...


Assuming RGS is correct, that Japan surrendered because of the bombs, would you rather have millions more killed on both sides than the bombs dropped?  No matter who is right about why Japan surrendered, they WERE facing a two front mainland invasion if they did not surrender.  
How do you consider FDR a war monger when Hitler declared war on the US?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're assuming the civilians were innocent.  I don't know one way or another, but in Germany's case, there is considerable evidence that they by and large were NOT innocent.  and this should not be controversial.  Churchill and Roosevelt even said Germany's population needed to pay.
> 
> and I was arguing with the idiot OP who said it was the GREATEST war crime, which is an insult to the MILLIONS in eastern europe who were slaughtered for being "subhumans".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm assuming they were innocent because they were civilians.  What crime could they have possibly committed that warranted us vaporizing them, especially the children?  The opinion of two warmongers is not a convincing argument.
> 
> I would agree that it's not the worst thing that has ever been done, especially considering the purges of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.  However, it's certainly one of the worst things our government has ever done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assuming RGS is correct, that Japan surrendered because of the bombs, would you rather have millions more killed on both sides than the bombs dropped?  No matter who is right about why Japan surrendered, they WERE facing a two front mainland invasion if they did not surrender.
> How do you consider FDR a war monger when Hitler declared war on the US?
Click to expand...


I'd certainly dispute the fact that millions might have died had we been forced to invade Japan.



> Thus, the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency: that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that was needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost. The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll  nearly twice the total of U.S. dead in all theaters in the Second World War  is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators. Unsurprisingly, the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb "spared millions of American lives."



Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Ralph Raico

However, even if that were so, that millions of Americans might have died in the invasion, why did we need the invasion?  To secure the unconditional surrender of Japan?  What's wrong with conditional surrender?

I call FDR a warmonger because he didn't necessarily try all that hard to keep America out of the war.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm assuming they were innocent because they were civilians.  What crime could they have possibly committed that warranted us vaporizing them, especially the children?  The opinion of two warmongers is not a convincing argument.
> 
> I would agree that it's not the worst thing that has ever been done, especially considering the purges of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.  However, it's certainly one of the worst things our government has ever done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming RGS is correct, that Japan surrendered because of the bombs, would you rather have millions more killed on both sides than the bombs dropped?  No matter who is right about why Japan surrendered, they WERE facing a two front mainland invasion if they did not surrender.
> How do you consider FDR a war monger when Hitler declared war on the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd certainly dispute the fact that millions might have died had we been forced to invade Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency: that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that was needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost. The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll  nearly twice the total of U.S. dead in all theaters in the Second World War  is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators. Unsurprisingly, the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb "spared millions of American lives."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Ralph Raico
> 
> However, even if that were so, that millions of Americans might have died in the invasion, why did we need the invasion?  To secure the unconditional surrender of Japan?  What's wrong with conditional surrender?
> 
> I call FDR a warmonger because he didn't necessarily try all that hard to keep America out of the war.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with conditional surrender?  you mean like tojo gets to stay in power?  We had to make sure they never tried it again.  
Pearl harbor was bombed.  that was enough for the pacific.  I agree about Europe, but letting Britain starve?  the Holocaust? Hitler's goal was to enslave (which meant work to death) millions more slavs and Russians in the East.  I am usually non-interventionist, but those things weigh heavy.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming RGS is correct, that Japan surrendered because of the bombs, would you rather have millions more killed on both sides than the bombs dropped?  No matter who is right about why Japan surrendered, they WERE facing a two front mainland invasion if they did not surrender.
> How do you consider FDR a war monger when Hitler declared war on the US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd certainly dispute the fact that millions might have died had we been forced to invade Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency: that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that was needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost. The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll  nearly twice the total of U.S. dead in all theaters in the Second World War  is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators. Unsurprisingly, the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb "spared millions of American lives."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Ralph Raico
> 
> However, even if that were so, that millions of Americans might have died in the invasion, why did we need the invasion?  To secure the unconditional surrender of Japan?  What's wrong with conditional surrender?
> 
> I call FDR a warmonger because he didn't necessarily try all that hard to keep America out of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's wrong with conditional surrender?  you mean like tojo gets to stay in power?  We had to make sure they never tried it again.
> Pearl harbor was bombed.  that was enough for the pacific.  I agree about Europe, but letting Britain starve?  the Holocaust? Hitler's goal was to enslave (which meant work to death) millions more slavs and Russians in the East.  I am usually non-interventionist, but those things weigh heavy.
Click to expand...


I can't predict what the conditions would have been, but if our other two options are getting thousands of American soldiers killed or attacking innocent civilians then I think we certainly should have been willing to negotiate.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd certainly dispute the fact that millions might have died had we been forced to invade Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Ralph Raico
> 
> However, even if that were so, that millions of Americans might have died in the invasion, why did we need the invasion?  To secure the unconditional surrender of Japan?  What's wrong with conditional surrender?
> 
> I call FDR a warmonger because he didn't necessarily try all that hard to keep America out of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with conditional surrender?  you mean like tojo gets to stay in power?  We had to make sure they never tried it again.
> Pearl harbor was bombed.  that was enough for the pacific.  I agree about Europe, but letting Britain starve?  the Holocaust? Hitler's goal was to enslave (which meant work to death) millions more slavs and Russians in the East.  I am usually non-interventionist, but those things weigh heavy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't predict what the conditions would have been, but if our other two options are getting thousands of American soldiers killed or attacking innocent civilians then I think we certainly should have been willing to negotiate.
Click to expand...


what about horrifying the people so they never repeat their actions?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with conditional surrender?  you mean like tojo gets to stay in power?  We had to make sure they never tried it again.
> Pearl harbor was bombed.  that was enough for the pacific.  I agree about Europe, but letting Britain starve?  the Holocaust? Hitler's goal was to enslave (which meant work to death) millions more slavs and Russians in the East.  I am usually non-interventionist, but those things weigh heavy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't predict what the conditions would have been, but if our other two options are getting thousands of American soldiers killed or attacking innocent civilians then I think we certainly should have been willing to negotiate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what about horrifying the people so they never repeat their actions?
Click to expand...


Beating them in the war wasn't enough?  There's no justification for dropping those bombs.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't predict what the conditions would have been, but if our other two options are getting thousands of American soldiers killed or attacking innocent civilians then I think we certainly should have been willing to negotiate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what about horrifying the people so they never repeat their actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beating them in the war wasn't enough?  There's no justification for dropping those bombs.
Click to expand...


That's just it.  They WEREN"T beaten.  In fact, they barely surrendered after the bombs were dropped.  Why should we have settled for conditional surrender so they can build their war machine again?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

If they're willing to accept a conditional *surrender* then they're beaten.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> If they're willing to accept a conditional *surrender* then they're beaten.



again, what did conditional mean?  Tojo gets to stay in power?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're willing to accept a conditional *surrender* then they're beaten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, what did conditional mean?  Tojo gets to stay in power?
Click to expand...


Again, I'm not able to predict what might have happened.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're willing to accept a conditional *surrender* then they're beaten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, what did conditional mean?  Tojo gets to stay in power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not able to predict what might have happened.
Click to expand...


i don't think we should have taken the chance of them rebuilding their war machine.  The Japanese government brought that horror on its people.  they should have thought twice before starting a war they couldn't finish when they had cities made of wood and paper.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, what did conditional mean?  Tojo gets to stay in power?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not able to predict what might have happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't think we should have taken the chance of them rebuilding their war machine.  The Japanese government brought that horror on its people.  they should have thought twice before starting a war they couldn't finish when they had cities made of wood and paper.
Click to expand...


The Japanese government didn't decide to drop those bombs, Truman did.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not able to predict what might have happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think we should have taken the chance of them rebuilding their war machine.  The Japanese government brought that horror on its people.  they should have thought twice before starting a war they couldn't finish when they had cities made of wood and paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Japanese government didn't decide to drop those bombs, Truman did.
Click to expand...


Still, Japan's treachery brought about those bombs.  I don't feel the least bit guilty about dropping those bombs on "innocent" people.  fuck with the bull, you get the horns.

Maybe we should have just kept   bombing them with conventional weapons until they gave up.  People get so stuck on the bombs, even though they were not the most deadly or destructive bombing raids on japan.  or conducted a mainland invasion, splitting the country in half with Russia and killing millions more people.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

What crimes are these civilians, including the children, guilty of since you want to question their innocence?  Do you think they were consulted before Pearl Harbor was attacked?  Do you think these civilians and children flew the planes during the Pearl Harbor attack?  I'm just confused as to what they could possibly have done to warrant extermination.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> What crimes are these civilians, including the children, guilty of since you want to question their innocence?  Do you think they were consulted before Pearl Harbor was attacked?  Do you think these civilians and children flew the planes during the Pearl Harbor attack?  I'm just confused as to what they could possibly have done to warrant extermination.



I don't know if they were innocent or not.  It's something worth discussing.  Look at it this way:  Neither Japan nor Germany have done anything since 1945.  Without unconditional surrender in Japan, I doubt that would be the case for her.


----------



## mightypeon

Actually, Germany had a MAJOR role in the Jugoslavian breakdown, Germany routinly was the first major to "recognice" various independences by Slovenia et. al., there was a lot of money and a fair amount of weapons going to Slovenia and Croatia too.
Germany was behind organzising an "international" operation, and Germany was especially full of shit in the propaganda war against Serbia. 

Secondly, who were Japan or Germany supposed to invade?
For Germany, invade Nato? Bad idea.
Invade the Warsaw pact? Worse idea. On the other hand, this would lead to more parking lots in Berlin.
Destabilise and Invade Jugoslavia? Whoops we actually did that.
Invade Switzerland? They would buy a bunch of nukes and turn Berlin into a Parking lot too 
Invade Lichtenstein? Country is to small, we cant fit a single tank in.

For Japan? 
Well, invade the Soviet Union = fail
Invade China => Fail too, the Soviets would intervene
Invade Taiwan => Round 2 with the US, bad idea.
Invade Vietnam or other countries in South East Asia? Well, they could have done that, there was a time were Vietnam was totally out of allies. On the other hand, during that time they simultaneously beat China and Kambodia.


----------



## HUGGY

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think we should have taken the chance of them rebuilding their war machine.  The Japanese government brought that horror on its people.  they should have thought twice before starting a war they couldn't finish when they had cities made of wood and paper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese government didn't decide to drop those bombs, Truman did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still, Japan's treachery brought about those bombs.  I don't feel the least bit guilty about dropping those bombs on "innocent" people.  fuck with the bull, you get the horns.
> 
> Maybe we should have just kept   bombing them with conventional weapons until they gave up.  People get so stuck on the bombs, even though they were not the most deadly or destructive bombing raids on japan.  or conducted a mainland invasion, splitting the country in half with Russia and killing millions more people.
Click to expand...


You are such a pompus moron.  You obviously know nothing of why the japs bombed pearl harbor.  I won't even explain it to you. It would be a watste of time.

Let me make it simple for you ...They did to pearl harbor what we did to Iraq and for nearly the same reasons.

They were both pre-emptive attacks.  They were both about oil.


----------



## Yukon

How many Negro persons were killed during the slavery period in the US from 1654 - 1865 (dates when slavery was legal) ? This was a crime against humanity of the greatest proportion however the crime goes "unpunished" in fact even unrecognized as being a crime. The US treated the Negro in the same way the German treated the Jew - as a slave. Why is that the German committed a crime yet the American did not?


Does America ever commit a crime?


----------



## manifold

Pukon,

Yes, IMO it was criminal that we didn't annex Canada when we had the chance.


----------



## Yukon

manifold said:


> Pukon,
> 
> Yes, IMO it was criminal that we didn't annex Canada when we had the chance.



The last time you tried that we burned down your Capital and your President's home (white house). I'm sorry but you people can't fight, never could fight, and never will be able to fight. Your battle cry is "feet do yo thing". Fat and lazy................


----------



## mightypeon

I kinda remember an awesome Southpark Episode concerning a US Kanada War...


----------



## Yukon

You must be American, you believe Southpark to be historically accurate.


----------



## KittenKoder

Yukon said:


> You must be American, you believe Southpark to be historically accurate.



*rae* You must be a moron, first it's South Park (note the space between the words ...). Secondly, what do you think any comedian or politically based cartoon gets their material from?


----------



## mightypeon

You must not be canadian, all Canadians I know would be smart enough to read the part with "Berlin Germany NOT MASSACHUSETS".

Actually, I daresay that Southparks creators are highly above average concerning political knowledge and education as well as intelligence.

In an actual war with the US, Canada would likely loose since all your population and industrial centres are within relativly easy reach of US bases, meaning that you could not employ "General Winter" to your advantadge like for example Russia could against any foe. 
Secondly, Canada could try to employ a premptive strike at either Chicago or the east coast, however a fairly decentraliced entitity like the USA can not be decapaciated so easily.
The longer the war would take, the more the industrial and manpower andvantadge of the USA would come into play. Last but not least, Canadas army is reknowned for its very good infantry units, if you want to decapaciate the USA (as Canada, be lucky that you dont need a friggin large transport fleet too  )you need Tanks and Tank-Grenadiers, as well as the ability to neutralize the aerial superiority the USA will likely enjoy in the parts were you are waging your attack. Although the Canadian army in theory has all of that, it has neither of that in the required quantities.

Basically, Canada would be like Russia, but without the Nukes, without the Manpower, without the ability to use the winter, without scores of satelite nations and without any cross ocean logistic constraints on either side. You forces may have a slightly higher qualitiy than the Russian ones (for some reason, the Russian soldier is always the most underestimated one of his time period, no matter wether we are in modern times or in the antique), but you totally lack numbers.


----------



## elvis

HUGGY said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese government didn't decide to drop those bombs, Truman did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, Japan's treachery brought about those bombs.  I don't feel the least bit guilty about dropping those bombs on "innocent" people.  fuck with the bull, you get the horns.
> 
> Maybe we should have just kept   bombing them with conventional weapons until they gave up.  People get so stuck on the bombs, even though they were not the most deadly or destructive bombing raids on japan.  or conducted a mainland invasion, splitting the country in half with Russia and killing millions more people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are such a pompus moron.  You obviously know nothing of why the japs bombed pearl harbor.  I won't even explain it to you. It would be a watste of time.
> 
> Let me make it simple for you ...They did to pearl harbor what we did to Iraq and for nearly the same reasons.
> 
> They were both pre-emptive attacks.  They were both about oil.
Click to expand...


Uh I know why the bombed Pearl Harbor.  We put an oil embargo on them because we didn't like their aggression in Asia.


----------



## elvis

Yukon said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pukon,
> 
> Yes, IMO it was criminal that we didn't annex Canada when we had the chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last time you tried that we burned down your Capital and your President's home (white house). I'm sorry but you people can't fight, never could fight, and never will be able to fight. Your battle cry is "feet do yo thing". Fat and lazy................
Click to expand...


I think that was Kanada's last military victory.


----------



## Gunny

THE greatest war crime is ... losing a fucking war not through a lack of ability, but because you're too much of a pussy to use that ability to fight to win.


----------



## mightypeon

elvis3577 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pukon,
> 
> Yes, IMO it was criminal that we didn't annex Canada when we had the chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last time you tried that we burned down your Capital and your President's home (white house). I'm sorry but you people can't fight, never could fight, and never will be able to fight. Your battle cry is "feet do yo thing". Fat and lazy................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that was Kanada's last military victory.
Click to expand...


Technically, Canada was also victorious in both World Wars and, depends on how you rate it, the Korean war.

In all of these conflicts, they performed at least decently.


----------



## elvis

mightypeon said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last time you tried that we burned down your Capital and your President's home (white house). I'm sorry but you people can't fight, never could fight, and never will be able to fight. Your battle cry is "feet do yo thing". Fat and lazy................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that was Kanada's last military victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically, Canada was also victorious in both World Wars and, depends on how you rate it, the Korean war.
> 
> In all of these conflicts, they performed at least decently.
Click to expand...


While we're at it, let's say that Poland was victorious over Saddam Hussein's army.


----------



## mightypeon

Actually, Saddam Husseins conventional army could in fact have been beaten by Poland alone (provided someone gets the Poles down there), especially in the current Gulf war. Occupation is something entirly different


----------



## editec

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're willing to accept a conditional *surrender* then they're beaten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, what did conditional mean? Tojo gets to stay in power?
Click to expand...

 
Condition meant (at that point in negotiations) ONLY that the person of the emperor would NOT be violated.

That is, according to what I've read on the subject, the ONLY condition that the Japanese were making for surrender.

And what's more that was the only condition they were making* before we invaded Okinawa, too.*

*And if that is correct...*

*.. then I believe that one hell of a lot of  American servicemen died needlessly at Okinawa.*

*And if that is correct *

*...then , as WELL as a hell of a lot of Japanese civilians  died from those A-bombs AFTER the Japs were TRYING to surrender, too.*

*IF that is correct...*


----------



## Yukon

Remember the Vietnam debacle? You lost that one badly..............


----------



## elvis

Yukon said:


> Remember the Vietnam debacle? You lost that one badly..............



We didn't lose, asshole.  We pulled out, which is obviously something your father should have considered doing.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Yukon said:


> German war criminals were hanged because Jewish people died in work camps. The same people who hanged the Germans vaporized some 350000 Japanese civilian men, women, and children. Seems somewhat hypocritical to me but I'm like that you know, kinda fair minded.



Focus on the manner of death is pretty stupid. The fact is we were "vaporizing" cities on a routine basis at that point in the war. The fire bombing of Dresden, Tokyo and a list of other Japanese cities are evidence of that. The wounds suffered by the victims of the fire bombing are no less horrific than the radiation sickness suffered by the nuke bomb victims. It was novel though. As was the attack. Instead of taking huge squadrons of planes and lots of bombs to do the same thing, it now took one of each. 

I'm sure the Japanese took note of the math and the extrapolated the result. At any rate, I certainly don't get your point if all you are saying is a bunch of people died at one time, therefore it's a war crime. We were killing that many people everyday in Japan. You're just improperly focused on two novel uses of a new weapon to do it.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Yukon said:


> Remember the Vietnam debacle? You lost that one badly..............



Not militarily. People like you were successful in undermining the will of the limp dick politicians to fight though. So I guess we should tell you Good Job! Huh?


----------



## Tech_Esq

editec said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're willing to accept a conditional *surrender* then they're beaten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, what did conditional mean? Tojo gets to stay in power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Condition meant (at that point in negotiations) ONLY that the person of the emperor would NOT be violated.
> 
> That is, according to what I've read on the subject, the ONLY condition that the Japanese were making for surrender.
> 
> And what's more that was the only condition they were making* before we invaded Okinawa, too.*
> 
> *And if that is correct...*
> 
> *.. then I believe that one hell of a lot of  American servicemen died needlessly at Okinawa.*
> 
> *And if that is correct *
> 
> *...then , as WELL as a hell of a lot of Japanese civilians  died from those A-bombs AFTER the Japs were TRYING to surrender, too.*
> 
> *IF that is correct...*
Click to expand...


My understanding from the latest things I've seen on it is that while the junta was crumbling, they still had such fractured control over the levers of power that no real surrender could be effectuated. I have no doubt that during the relevant time periods you are talking about there were elements in and around government that wanted to surrender. But, we're talking about a chaotic situation and nothing was clean. My understanding is that even after Nagasaki, the surrender was nearly foiled by an attempted coup by militarist elements.


----------



## Tech_Esq

mightypeon said:


> You must not be canadian, all Canadians I know would be smart enough to read the part with "Berlin Germany NOT MASSACHUSETS".
> 
> Actually, I daresay that Southparks creators are highly above average concerning political knowledge and education as well as intelligence.
> 
> In an actual war with the US, Canada would likely loose since all your population and industrial centres are within relativly easy reach of US bases, meaning that you could not employ "General Winter" to your advantadge like for example Russia could against any foe.
> Secondly, Canada could try to employ a premptive strike at either Chicago or the east coast, however a fairly decentraliced entitity like the USA can not be decapaciated so easily.
> The longer the war would take, the more the industrial and manpower andvantadge of the USA would come into play. Last but not least, Canadas army is reknowned for its very good infantry units, if you want to decapaciate the USA (as Canada, be lucky that you dont need a friggin large transport fleet too  )you need Tanks and Tank-Grenadiers, as well as the ability to neutralize the aerial superiority the USA will likely enjoy in the parts were you are waging your attack. Although the Canadian army in theory has all of that, it has neither of that in the required quantities.
> 
> Basically, Canada would be like Russia, but without the Nukes, without the Manpower, without the ability to use the winter, without scores of satelite nations and without any cross ocean logistic constraints on either side. You forces may have a slightly higher qualitiy than the Russian ones (for some reason, the Russian soldier is always the most underestimated one of his time period, no matter wether we are in modern times or in the antique), but you totally lack numbers.



Overly generous analysis. Canada has 23 million people. They lose.

Air and sea power would be so instantaneously and overwhelmingly an obstacle to logistics and counter-logistical operations (cutting the US gas and oil supplies), that they would never fully get on balance. There would be no electricity in Canada after the first week. No important targets for US forces lay very far to the north. Our troops and doctrine are easily capable at operating at the required latitudes and any advantage to Canadian infantry would be minor.

Our biggest difficulty would be massing equipment with an antiquated and degraded rail system. Decapitating the US would be a nightmare once Canada was "blinded" since we control most of the North American "vision" assets. 

But as you say, Yukon is not Canadian. I've never known a Canadian that was that much of a putz.


----------



## Yukon

How sad that the loss of a war isn't accepted by the "losers". The Japanese never eally accepted her  of WWII.Americansever accepted their humiliating losses in 1812 or 1974. How sad, how pitiful, how typically Americanesque.


----------



## Xenophon

The USA didn't lose the war of 1812.

BTW, there was no 'Canada' back then, it was a part of the British Empire.

That war ended in a status quo agreement, with Britain agreeing to not interfere with US shipping anymore, a major aim of the USA.


----------



## Gunny

Yukon said:


> How sad that the loss of a war isn't accepted by the "losers". The Japanese never eally accepted her  of WWII.Americansever accepted their humiliating losses in 1812 or 1974. How sad, how pitiful, how typically Americanesque.



So now the US lost the War of 1812?  Do you ever just STFU?

The US left Vietnam by agreement, chowderhead.  The South Vietnamese lost the Vietnam war.  Whenever the NVA or VC went up against US troops they got the same thing you get every time you open your mouth on this board ... owned.


----------



## mightypeon

To me, claiming that the US did not loose Vietnam is like a Football Star player who quite the match while it is a draw claiming that "He didnt loose" although his team in the end lost without him.

Did the US fullfill its war goals? I would say no. 
Although the Vietcong ceased to exist as a fighting force after Tet, the South Vietnamese gouverment was not stabilised, and the north Vietnamese were not broken.

Did the North Vietnamese fullfill their war goals? Their war goal concerning the US was to get them removed from the picture. They managed to achieve this. Their War goal concerning South Vietnam was to overthrow and annex them. They managed to achieve that too.
A clear Yes here.

If one side fullfills their war goals while the other side doesnt, the side which fullfilled its goals wins, and by extension, the other side looses.


----------



## strollingbones

pst when they burn down yo ur white house...thats not winning....but i digress


president harry s truman had guts and balls...he bombed them once...warned them ahead....said .....surrender...uncontionally...to avoid the 2nd bomb...they refused..he bombed them again....told them again...uncontional surrender or a 3rd bomb would be dropped...fuck what you say or care....the lives of many allies as well as our own men were saved by a man willing  to have the balls to drop an unknown weapon and then to bluff like hell....we had no 3 rd bomb...but we had a man willing to go balls to wall....to receive the unconditional surrender of japan....

we will never know how many lives president truman saved....

but if he only saved one american, one brit, one allied solider...he was right to do it....you talk of civilian deaths...collateral damages...the only fucking collateral damage i give a flying fuck about is the mother braver than me....the one who was willing to let her son or daughter go....if bombing those 2 cities saved one mother from heartbreak...then president truman made the right decision....debate it all you want


----------



## Gunny

mightypeon said:


> To me, claiming that the US did not loose Vietnam is like a Football Star player who quite the match while it is a draw claiming that "He didnt loose" although his team in the end lost without him.
> 
> Did the US fullfill its war goals? I would say no.
> Although the Vietcong ceased to exist as a fighting force after Tet, the South Vietnamese gouverment was not stabilised, and the north Vietnamese were not broken.
> 
> Did the North Vietnamese fullfill their war goals? Their war goal concerning the US was to get them removed from the picture. They managed to achieve this. Their War goal concerning South Vietnam was to overthrow and annex them. They managed to achieve that too.
> A clear Yes here.
> 
> If one side fullfills their war goals while the other side doesnt, the side which fullfilled its goals wins, and by extension, the other side looses.



Ummm ... no.  Did the South Vietnamese establish and maintain a democratic government in the South?  No.  Did the South Vietnamese support their government?  No.  Was supporting the South Vietnamese government an untenable position and waste of resources?  Yes.  Is the wise decision to continue to prop up a loser against the face of our own public opinion?  No.  

Who should fight for S Vietnamese independence?  The US?  Or South Vietnam?  The latter.  We built their armed forces up to a strength it had never seen and its military forces had been trained by US forces for close to a decade.  All the weaponry and materiel in the universe can't install a set of balls.  

The fact is, the US never had a clear-cut objective in Vietnam.  I would say since our last objective was to turn the fighting over to the South Vietnamese and get US forces out of Vietnam, we achieved our goal.

As you stated, N Vietnam achieved its goal.  South Vietnam didn't achieve its goal.


----------



## mightypeon

As far as I got it, the US went in under the premise of "Stopping the Domino".
it did not achieve that.

That it did not have any clearer cut goals may have contributed a lot to its performance.


----------



## Tech_Esq

mightypeon said:


> As far as I got it, the US went in under the premise of "Stopping the Domino".
> it did not achieve that.
> 
> That it did not have any clearer cut goals may have contributed a lot to its performance.



As I said earlier, it was not a military loss. It was a political loss. The left in America pro-actively cooperated with the communist government of North Vietnam to undermine the will to fight in the United States. After 1968, the media was a willing participant in the undermining of American will to fight a foreign war.

As Gunny correctly stated, the US won every military engagement of consequence in the war. So much so that after the Tet offensive of 1968, the Viet Cong ceased to exist as a fighting formation. After that time guerrilla fighters were exports from the north.

All of that is not to say that I agree with Kennedy and Johnson's decision to involve the US in Vietnam. Johnson, the more I hear him and learn about him, seems to have been something of a mush-brain. The way he engaged in Vietnam was completely idiotic.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

strollingbones said:


> pst when they burn down yo ur white house...thats not winning....but i digress
> 
> 
> president harry s truman had guts and balls...he bombed them once...warned them ahead....said .....surrender...uncontionally...to avoid the 2nd bomb...they refused..he bombed them again....told them again...uncontional surrender or a 3rd bomb would be dropped...fuck what you say or care....the lives of many allies as well as our own men were saved by a man willing  to have the balls to drop an unknown weapon and then to bluff like hell....we had no 3 rd bomb...but we had a man willing to go balls to wall....to receive the unconditional surrender of japan....
> 
> we will never know how many lives president truman saved....
> 
> but if he only saved one american, one brit, one allied solider...he was right to do it....you talk of civilian deaths...collateral damages...the only fucking collateral damage i give a flying fuck about is the mother braver than me....the one who was willing to let her son or daughter go....if bombing those 2 cities saved one mother from heartbreak...then president truman made the right decision....debate it all you want



Yes, thank goodness Truman had the guts to incinerate children.


----------



## Yukon

My name's Yukon and I'm from Cana-duh.  Looking for a new altarboy to replace the one I was canned from the church for.  Any takers?


----------



## theHawk

Yukon said:


> On 6th August 1945 a B29 bomber dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima It has been estimated that over the years around 200,000 people have died as a result of this bomb being dropped. This was always a controversial decision. General Dwight Eisenhower told President Harry S. Truman that he was opposed to the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan.
> 
> IKE said: " I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face".
> 
> Winston Churchill also agreed that it was not necessary to drop the atom bomb on Japan. He later asserted: "It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the bomb fell."
> 
> Mainly historians have argued that the US used the atom bomb as a warning against the Soviet Union. It was not an attempt to end the war but to determine what happened after the war.
> 
> *The dropping of the bomb was a terrible war crime, equal to the extermination of the Jews.*



The war was not over at the time.  And each engagement with the Japanese got more and more fierce the closer they got to the main islands.  I suggest picking up and reading a book like E.B. Sledge to get a better understanding what they were up against.

And by the way, the Japanese had a chance to surrender before Hiroshima, and after, and they didn't.   More people died in the Tokyo "fire raids" by conventional bombing than died in Hiroshima.  Not to mention, it seems a little rediculous to make a case that the killing of 200,000 people was a "war crime" when 50-70 million people total died as a result of World War II.


----------



## American Horse

Julius Caesar after the Siege of Uxellodonum:
His harshness towards the Gauls when they refused to accept their conquest would increase over time.

Caesar had tried mercy and he had tried savagery, but his punishment of the survivors of Uxellodonum must be viewed as one of the great atrocities of warfare. After he had captured the natural fortress of Uxellodonum he granted the surviving soldiers - perhaps 2,000 men - their lives. He then cut off both their hands. They were freed and  sent away as cripples to remind Gaul of Caesar's punishment. This was the effective end of the Gallic war.


----------



## mightypeon

Uxellondum?

The gallic war ended in Alesia, an engagement with some 2000 tribesmen is by no means major for that times standarts.
What was more important than the Roman cruelty was the fact that the Romans set up a functional and working administration which quickly brought stability to the lands.


----------



## editec

manifold said:


> Pukon,
> 
> Yes, IMO it was criminal that we didn't annex Canada when we had the chance.


 
We never had a chance, manifold.

We invaded Canada twice and the people living there catagorically rejected our advances to join us against Britian _TWICE._


----------



## American Horse

mightypeon said:


> Uxellondum?
> 
> The gallic war ended in Alesia, an engagement with some 2000 tribesmen is by no means major for that times standarts.
> What was more important than the Roman cruelty was the fact that the Romans set up a functional and working administration which quickly brought stability to the lands.



What was important was not the cruelty in itself, nor the great number, but the constant reminder.  These soldiers who had resisted Rome would have been among the larger population for the rest of their lives, unable even to feed themselves or take care of their body functions.  That is what it always has meant to me anyway.

So, the rest of the population understood from this reminder that the Romans were capable of effective administration of government, or they could be effectively cruel against rebellion, take your pick.


----------



## editec

Tech_Esq said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, what did conditional mean? Tojo gets to stay in power?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Condition meant (at that point in negotiations) ONLY that the person of the emperor would NOT be violated.
> 
> That is, according to what I've read on the subject, the ONLY condition that the Japanese were making for surrender.
> 
> And what's more that was the only condition they were making* before we invaded Okinawa, too.*
> 
> *And if that is correct...*
> 
> *.. then I believe that one hell of a lot of American servicemen died needlessly at Okinawa.*
> 
> *And if that is correct *
> 
> *...then , as WELL as a hell of a lot of Japanese civilians died from those A-bombs AFTER the Japs were TRYING to surrender, too.*
> 
> *IF that is correct...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My understanding from the latest things I've seen on it is that while the junta was crumbling, they still had such fractured control over the levers of power that no real surrender could be effectuated. I have no doubt that during the relevant time periods you are talking about there were elements in and around government that wanted to surrender. But, we're talking about a chaotic situation and nothing was clean. My understanding is that even after Nagasaki, the surrender was nearly foiled by an attempted coup by militarist elements.
Click to expand...

 
It is possible, I suppose, that some of the militarists would have continued fighting or that the emperor still didn't have control over those rogue militarists and the US government understoood that.

Diplomatic records indicate one thing, but they aren't necessarily the entire story, that's for DAMNED sure.

For us to really get this down we really do need to understand what was happening in Japan and Washington on a moment by moment basis.

We can each focus on one event or the other and decide that was the most important development, but we weren't there to really understand how any one event played against all others, or what the mindset of the players was as those events unfolded, either.

This is a rather trypical problem when one is trying to understand history, I think.

And this debate is one of the reasons that historians should NOT get into the business of making judgements about history.

The job of history is merely to document the facts as well as they possible can.

The moment any of us start to make value judgements about history or the players in it, we're bringing  our own prejudices and presuppositions into that process.

Of course none of us can avoid doing that, but it's easy for us to get it wrong because we don't have perfect understanding, or because even when we do, our biases and prejudices don't make sense for that time and those people.


----------



## strollingbones

elvis3577 said:


> Some historians claim that it wasn't the bombs that made Japan surrender, but what they were facing if they didn't surrender.  they were facing a mainland invasion from the US from the South and Russian invasion from the West.  This is all assuming the US only had two bombs.  I read somewhere we had a third one.  Just something to chew on.



two bombs...you have to remember that the exodus of jews (look jillian you know i dont mean to be insulting but jews is just what is the easier to type) from germany brought some of the greatest minds in history with it....the bomb was planned....debated what the hell would happen....then built....the delivery of the bomb itself was ingenious....drop and head up as fast as you could.....cause they didnt expect to live so it was a what the fuck moment for the men of the plane ..they were told they most likely would not live..

now a link for you to look at:

Just before the First World War *two German scientists, James Franck and Gustav Hertz *carried out experiments where they bombarded mercury atoms with electrons and traced the energy changes that resulted from the collisions. Their experiments helped to substantiate they theory put forward by Nils Bohr that an atom can absorb internal energy only in precise and definite amounts.

In 1921 two Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner, discovered nuclear isomers. Over the next few years they devoted their time to researching the application of radioactive methods to chemical problems.

In the 1930s they became interested in the research being carried out by Enrico Fermi and Emilio Segre at the University of Rome. This included experiments where elements such as uranium were bombarded with neutrons. By 1935 the two men had discovered slow neutrons, which have properties important to the operation of nuclear reactors. 

Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner were now joined by *Fritz Strassmann and discovered that uranium nuclei split when bombarded with neutrons. In 1938 Meitner, like other Jews in Nazi Germany, was dismissed from her university post. She moved to Sweden and later that year she wrote a paper on nuclear fission with her nephew, Otto Frisch, where they argued that by splitting the atom it was possible to use a few pounds of uranium to create the explosive and destructive power of many thousands of pounds of dynamite.*

Atom Bomb

a wee bit more


*On 2nd August, 1939, three Jewish scientists who had fled to the United States from Europe, Albert Einstein, Leo Szilard and Eugene Wigner, *wrote a joint letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, about the developments that had been taking place in nuclear physics. They warned Roosevelt that scientists in Germany were working on the possibility of using uranium to produce nuclear weapons. 

Roosevelt responded by setting up a scientific advisory committee to investigate the matter. He also had talks with the British government about ways of sabotaging the German efforts to produce nuclear weapons

now for your confusion in the number of bombs...the us had 3.....one used to test with.....two dropped on japan....was it ethical...well hell yea....and you must remember truman was vp under most of this and then gets the call up to president right when there could be no hesitation....as assault on the mainland of japan would have costs unknonw numbers of american and allied lives...there was no doubt it would take something of major power to diswayed the emeperior who believe he was god like...you must look at this in the social context of the times....look at the history of the tinman..see the major battles and minor ones that decide the pacific ....look at the history of the kamikaze bombers ....the us would have lost thousands of men....

then look at the character of harry s truman...and you will see...he had no other choice...he would have accepted the "unconditional surrender of japan" at any time..prior to the fat boy and pior to the little boy...

do people just not have any damned concept of what ww2 was.....its not the glam and glory of the history channnel


----------



## editec

> ...there was no doubt it would take something of major power to diswayed the emeperior who believe he was god like...


 
I think you're wrong about that.  Yes, the people might have revered him as a GOD, but I doubt he was confused about who he was.  He knew perfectly well that he was but a man.

After all, the emperor of Japan was often little more than a prisoner of whatever Shogun controlled the island.

The emperor was essantially not in control of Japan for his entire lieftime.

All he had to work with was the reverence that the PEOPLE held him in, and until the militarists were defeated and disgraced by their failures, *he was virtually their prisoner.*

But as the war was winding down the emperor WAS PERSONALLY involved in diplomatic petitions to end the war, Stroll.

What he knew was this...the Japanese* people* would NOT tolerate the violation of his monachy_ or his person._

So yes, that *single condition* was part of his surrender proposition.

And it seems obvious that the Americans understood that fact, too.

Remember that the emperor was kept in place after we took over.

I SUSPECT that the bombs were dropped because the poltical/military momentum to drop them was just too great NOT to.

Remember that Truman had just teken office and he needed to NOT make a mistake.

So going along with the military establishments plans that were in motion before he took office was likely what happened.

Much like how Kennedy went along with the Bay of Pigs even though he wasn't really on top of that plan.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> pst when they burn down yo ur white house...thats not winning....but i digress
> 
> 
> president harry s truman had guts and balls...he bombed them once...warned them ahead....said .....surrender...uncontionally...to avoid the 2nd bomb...they refused..he bombed them again....told them again...uncontional surrender or a 3rd bomb would be dropped...fuck what you say or care....the lives of many allies as well as our own men were saved by a man willing  to have the balls to drop an unknown weapon and then to bluff like hell....we had no 3 rd bomb...but we had a man willing to go balls to wall....to receive the unconditional surrender of japan....
> 
> we will never know how many lives president truman saved....
> 
> but if he only saved one american, one brit, one allied solider...he was right to do it....you talk of civilian deaths...collateral damages...the only fucking collateral damage i give a flying fuck about is the mother braver than me....the one who was willing to let her son or daughter go....if bombing those 2 cities saved one mother from heartbreak...then president truman made the right decision....debate it all you want
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, thank goodness Truman had the guts to incinerate children.
Click to expand...


you would prefer Japan rise again and raise more hell.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> pst when they burn down yo ur white house...thats not winning....but i digress
> 
> 
> president harry s truman had guts and balls...he bombed them once...warned them ahead....said .....surrender...uncontionally...to avoid the 2nd bomb...they refused..he bombed them again....told them again...uncontional surrender or a 3rd bomb would be dropped...fuck what you say or care....the lives of many allies as well as our own men were saved by a man willing  to have the balls to drop an unknown weapon and then to bluff like hell....we had no 3 rd bomb...but we had a man willing to go balls to wall....to receive the unconditional surrender of japan....
> 
> we will never know how many lives president truman saved....
> 
> but if he only saved one american, one brit, one allied solider...he was right to do it....you talk of civilian deaths...collateral damages...the only fucking collateral damage i give a flying fuck about is the mother braver than me....the one who was willing to let her son or daughter go....if bombing those 2 cities saved one mother from heartbreak...then president truman made the right decision....debate it all you want
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, thank goodness Truman had the guts to incinerate children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you would prefer Japan rise again and raise more hell.
Click to expand...


That's an assumption on your part, but yes I would have preferred we try to end the war with Japan diplomatically rather than kill innocent civilians.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, thank goodness Truman had the guts to incinerate children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you would prefer Japan rise again and raise more hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an assumption on your part, but yes I would have preferred we try to end the war with Japan diplomatically rather than kill innocent civilians.
Click to expand...


wasnt going to end diplomatically.  they were prepared to fight to the death.  and the Japs shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you would prefer Japan rise again and raise more hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an assumption on your part, but yes I would have preferred we try to end the war with Japan diplomatically rather than kill innocent civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wasnt going to end diplomatically.  they were prepared to fight to the death.  and the Japs shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish.
Click to expand...


Again, that's an assumption on your point.  With Hitler and Mussolini gone I'm sure Japan would have been willing to concede some things to the United States to end the war.  But being diplomatic doesn't mean that Japan would have to capitulate to every one of our government's demands.

As to the "Japs" not starting something they can't finish, how many of those civilians and children that were killed do you think had anything to do with Pearl Harbor?


----------



## KittenKoder

The greatest war crime: Martial Law


----------



## Quatermass

> by *elvis3577*: "and the Japs shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish."








*Civilian casualties on a footpath in an Hiroshima street awaiting medical treatment after the atomic bomb was dropped.*



The Japanese valiant attack on the slumbering Pearl harbour will go down in history as a bold and brave military manoeuvre, with virtually no civilian losses, and certainly more killed as a result of 'friendly fire'. 

The American sneak dropping of Atomic weapons on Hundreds of thousands of civilians on the other hand will go down in history as one of the most cowardly endeavours known to Man. A chapter which adequately characterises the modern American nation, and its political leadership. 

Unable to face the Japanese in conventional direct warfare. Instead turning on the Japanese soldier's women and children at home, behind the war lines. Vaporising innocents as they go to school and as they journey out, shopping.


The following is an excerpt from: "*Hiroshima was no longer a city*"
By *Mikki Smith * ( full article: ISR issue 13 | "Hiroshima was no longer a city" )

_"The exact number of people who were murdered by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs--both immediately and in the months following--is difficult to determine. The Hiroshima International Council for Health Care of the Radiation-exposed estimates the population of Hiroshima at the time of the bombing to have been between 340,000 and 350,000. By the end of December 1945, 140,000 people had died. Of this total number, approximately 20,000--less than 15 percent of the casualties--were military personnel.8 As Truman acknowledged, a great many of the victims had been children, as well as women and the elderly. By 1950, the continuing effects of radiation raised the death toll in Hiroshima to 200,000.9 In Nagasaki, with an estimated population of 250,000 people at the time of the bombing, approximately 70,000 people had died of its effects by the end of 1945.10 It was reported that only 150 of these were Japanese military personnel."11_


8) For more information about the effects of the bomb on Hiroshima, visit the HICARE Web site at Hiroshima International Council for Health Care of the Radiation-exposed (as of July 14, 2000).
9)  Rhodes, p. 734.
10) Rhodes, p. 740.
11) Unites States Strategic Bombing Survey, "The Effects of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki," cited in Alperovitz, Decision, p. 534n.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an assumption on your part, but yes I would have preferred we try to end the war with Japan diplomatically rather than kill innocent civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wasnt going to end diplomatically.  they were prepared to fight to the death.  and the Japs shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, that's an assumption on your point.  With Hitler and Mussolini gone I'm sure Japan would have been willing to concede some things to the United States to end the war.  But being diplomatic doesn't mean that Japan would have to capitulate to every one of our government's demands.
> 
> As to the "Japs" not starting something they can't finish, how many of those civilians and children that were killed do you think had anything to do with Pearl Harbor?
Click to expand...


Surrender for  the Japanese (happy now?) was disgraceful. They would rather die than surrender.  That mentality had been in their culture for centuries.  The civilians were prepared to fight to the death against a mainland invasion, so they certainly were not ready to surrender.  They would have been willing to concede "some" things?  Probably not their militaristic government.   After all the war crimes the Japanese committed, I have no sympathy for them.  
Now, if you would like to discuss whether the bombs or the prospect of facing a mainland invasion from both directions caused their surrender, I would enjoy discussing that.
As for the bombs?  just desserts for not surrendering.


----------



## Yukon

America was guilty of the greatest crime against humanity when she dropped the atomic bomb on the innocent women and children of Japan in 1945. America continues to commit crimes against humanity - tortue, slaughter of innocent women and children of Iraq by dropping bombs on them, invasions of sovereign countries like Panama. Even within the boundaries of the USA crimes against humanity are commited by injecting poison into the arms of criminals and by denying basic health care to the poor. SHAME on America, shame.....................


----------



## elvis

Yukon said:


> America was guilty of the greatest crime against humanity when she dropped the atomic bomb on the innocent women and children of Japan in 1945. America continues to commit crimes against humanity - tortue, slaughter of innocent women and children of Iraq by dropping bombs on them, invasions of sovereign countries like Panama. Even within the boundaries of the USA crimes against humanity are commited by injecting poison into the arms of criminals and by denying basic health care to the poor. SHAME on America, shame.....................



I can't wait until we come after the Yukon territory so we can torture you.


----------



## Gunny

KittenKoder said:


> The greatest war crime: Martial Law





Shit.  The military's WAY more fair than our retarded civilian law in a lot of ways.


----------



## Gunny

Quatermass said:


> by *elvis3577*: "and the Japs shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Civilian casualties on a footpath in an Hiroshima street awaiting medical treatment after the atomic bomb was dropped.*
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese valiant attack on the slumbering Pearl harbour will go down in history as a bold and brave military manoeuvre, with virtually no civilian losses, and certainly more killed as a result of 'friendly fire'.
> 
> The American sneak dropping of Atomic weapons on Hundreds of thousands of civilians on the other hand will go down in history as one of the most cowardly endeavours known to Man. A chapter which adequately characterises the modern American nation, and its political leadership.
> 
> Unable to face the Japanese in conventional direct warfare. Instead turning on the Japanese soldier's women and children at home, behind the war lines. Vaporising innocents as they go to school and as they journey out, shopping.
> 
> 
> The following is an excerpt from: "*Hiroshima was no longer a city*"
> By *Mikki Smith * ( full article: ISR issue 13 | "Hiroshima was no longer a city" )
> 
> _"The exact number of people who were murdered by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs--both immediately and in the months following--is difficult to determine. The Hiroshima International Council for Health Care of the Radiation-exposed estimates the population of Hiroshima at the time of the bombing to have been between 340,000 and 350,000. By the end of December 1945, 140,000 people had died. Of this total number, approximately 20,000--less than 15 percent of the casualties--were military personnel.8 As Truman acknowledged, a great many of the victims had been children, as well as women and the elderly. By 1950, the continuing effects of radiation raised the death toll in Hiroshima to 200,000.9 In Nagasaki, with an estimated population of 250,000 people at the time of the bombing, approximately 70,000 people had died of its effects by the end of 1945.10 It was reported that only 150 of these were Japanese military personnel."11_
> 
> 
> 8) For more information about the effects of the bomb on Hiroshima, visit the HICARE Web site at Hiroshima International Council for Health Care of the Radiation-exposed (as of July 14, 2000).
> 9)  Rhodes, p. 734.
> 10) Rhodes, p. 740.
> 11) Unites States Strategic Bombing Survey, "The Effects of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki," cited in Alperovitz, Decision, p. 534n.
Click to expand...


Deflection.  Elvis put a boot up your ass and you failed to respond.  

Are you and Yukon dating by any chance?


----------



## Yukon

Gunny,

Do you look underyour bed and inside your closet for Communists before retiring for the night ? I hear Commies like to hide under Trailers too.


----------



## elvis

Yukon said:


> Gunny,
> 
> Do you look underyour bed and inside your closet for Communists before retiring for the night ? I hear Commies like to hide under Trailers too.



What's the matter?  Couldn't catch the altar boys today?


----------



## Gunny

Yukon said:


> Gunny,
> 
> Do you look underyour bed and inside your closet for Communists before retiring for the night ? I hear Commies like to hide under Trailers too.



WITH a gun cocked and locked in my hand.


----------



## Gunny

elvis3577 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny,
> 
> Do you look underyour bed and inside your closet for Communists before retiring for the night ? I hear Commies like to hide under Trailers too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the matter?  Couldn't catch the altar boys today?
Click to expand...


His rheumatism is acting up.


----------



## Yukon

I bet he has a gold tooth, drives a pickup truck, wears a baseball cap, has a beer belly and when he bends over slightly the crack in his buttocks is exposed.


----------



## Gunny

Yukon said:


> I bet he has a gold tooth, drives a pickup truck, wears a baseball cap, has a beer belly and when he bends over slightly the crack in his buttocks is exposed.



Matter of fact, I drive a BIG pickup truck, and wear baseball caps.  I wear Wrangler jeans, pearlsnap western shirts and boots too, and own a belt buckle as big as the license plate on your tricycle.  

And?

No gold tooth, no beer belly and my ass fits INSIDE my jeans, you-con.  I know you probably had to go rub one out at the thought of looking at some guy's hairy ass-crack, but you'll have no such luck here.


----------



## KittenKoder

Gunny said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet he has a gold tooth, drives a pickup truck, wears a baseball cap, has a beer belly and when he bends over slightly the crack in his buttocks is exposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matter of fact, I drive a BIG pickup truck, and wear baseball caps.  I wear Wrangler jeans, pearlsnap western shirts and boots too, and own a belt buckle as big as the license plate on your tricycle.
> 
> And?
> 
> No gold tooth, no beer belly and my ass fits INSIDE my jeans, you-con.  I know you probably had to go rub one out at the thought of looking at some guy's hairy ass-crack, but you'll have no such luck here.
Click to expand...


Yukon was describing himself ...


----------



## Toro

Gunny said:


> Matter of fact, I drive a BIG pickup truck, and wear baseball caps.  I wear Wrangler jeans, pearlsnap western shirts and boots too, and own a belt buckle as big as the license plate on your tricycle.



This is how my wife wants me attired on "Dress-Up Night."


----------



## Gunny

Toro said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matter of fact, I drive a BIG pickup truck, and wear baseball caps.  I wear Wrangler jeans, pearlsnap western shirts and boots too, and own a belt buckle as big as the license plate on your tricycle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how my wife wants me attired on "Dress-Up Night."
Click to expand...


----------



## Yukon

Had Hitler won WWII, prosecution of Nazi war criminals would have been greatly delayed and reduced, but probably not stopped entirely. Consider that some of Nazi war criminals did not see a court until they were in their *nineties.* Americans believe their country, being the most militarily powerful on earth, will never permit American citizens to be prosecuted for war crimes. A lot could change in the next 70 years, including Americans themselves getting an attack of guilt over what they did in Iraq as more and more video of the atrocities comes to light. 

*China and India eclipse the USA in economic and military power*. The USA would become like Britain after its empire collapsed, still imagining itself powerful, but toothless in actuality. American tourists are captured and tried. This is already happening in Germany. American war criminals are kidnapped and taken to countries that are willing to stand up to American pressure, much the way Israelis kidnapped Nazi war criminals and took them to Israel. Primarily for public relations, the Americans are already prosecuting a few show trials of rapists, murderers and torturers. I look forward to living long enough to see a goodly number of these bastards rotting in solitary. The suffering they have caused with their mindless jingoism and sadism is too overwhelming to even ontemplate.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Yukon said:


> Had Hitler won WWII, prosecution of Nazi war criminals would have been greatly delayed and reduced, but probably not stopped entirely. Consider that some of Nazi war criminals did not see a court until they were in their *nineties.* Americans believe their country, being the most militarily powerful on earth, will never permit American citizens to be prosecuted for war crimes. A lot could change in the next 70 years, including Americans themselves getting an attack of guilt over what they did in Iraq as more and more video of the atrocities comes to light.
> 
> *China and India eclipse the USA in economic and military power*. The USA would become like Britain after its empire collapsed, still imagining itself powerful, but toothless in actuality. American tourists are captured and tried. This is already happening in Germany. American war criminals are kidnapped and taken to countries that are willing to stand up to American pressure, much the way Israelis kidnapped Nazi war criminals and took them to Israel. Primarily for public relations, the Americans are already prosecuting a few show trials of rapists, murderers and torturers. I look forward to living long enough to see a goodly number of these bastards rotting in solitary. The suffering they have caused with their mindless jingoism and sadism is too overwhelming to even ontemplate.



You're just a Master baiter aren't you. Or, maybe that's just masturbator.

     

By the way, you misspelled Adolph in your signature. Way to look like more of an idiot than you already do. Dummy.


----------



## YWN666

WillowTree said:


> Notice how no American Democwat ever stands up and says it was a horrible crime the Japanese committed that Sunday Morning on Dec. 7th 1941 and sneak attacked the USA?? Notice that?? Wonder why?




What a crock of mindless rhetorical bullshit.  I am a Democrat and had a bumper sticker on my car that said "If there was no Pearl Harbor, there wouldn't have been a Hiroshima"


----------



## Yukon

YWN666 said:


> What a crock of mindless rhetorical bullshit.  I am a Democrat and had a bumper sticker on my car that said "If there was no Pearl Harbor, there wouldn't have been a Hiroshima"




Both the attack on Pear Harbour and the Hiroshima bombing were crimes against humanity albeit the Hiroshima attack was much more vile, dastradly, and hideous.


----------



## elvis

Yukon said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a crock of mindless rhetorical bullshit.  I am a Democrat and had a bumper sticker on my car that said "If there was no Pearl Harbor, there wouldn't have been a Hiroshima"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both the attack on Pear Harbour and the Hiroshima bombing were crimes against humanity albeit the Hiroshima attack was much more vile, dastradly, and hideous.
Click to expand...


We need a commemorative coin to honor this great moment in history.  The Anola Gay on one side and the mushroom cloud on the other.


----------



## YWN666

Yukon said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a crock of mindless rhetorical bullshit.  I am a Democrat and had a bumper sticker on my car that said "If there was no Pearl Harbor, there wouldn't have been a Hiroshima"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both the attack on Pear Harbour and the Hiroshima bombing were crimes against humanity albeit the Hiroshima attack was much more vile, dastradly, and hideous.
Click to expand...



Wow, you missed the point.  Consider me shocked.


----------



## Quatermass

*WYN666...*
Your bumper sticker only distinguished you as an apologist for your nation's Atomic war crimes, committed against defenceless women, children and old men. To postulate an equivalence in action between the military engagement of a military target (Pearl Harbour),(http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/76591-the-greatest-thing-in-history.html) and the military engagements of soft civilian targets (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) betrays moral deviancy. 

The conflict between two armies on a designated field of battle (Pearl Harbour) cannot be legitimately compared to the atrocities of one army (America's) against hapless civilians behind the established battle lines (Hiroshima / Nagasaki).

Now I've always considered *WYN666*, people that kill children to be even lower than those who abuse children. So why declare proudly your support of this monumental and despicable act of American International terrorism, (http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-middle-east-general/73882-is-terrorism-the-central-plank-of-us-led-invasions-of-afghanistan-and-iraq.html)which should in fact be an embarrassing revelation?






Infanticide victim 4 year old #Shinichi Tetsutani's partially melted tricycle# remains a poignant icon for the illegal and amoral, unbridled barbarity of U.S. Imperialist aggression.


----------



## YWN666

Quatermass said:


> *WYN666...*
> Your bumper sticker only distinguished you as an apologist for your nation's Atomic war crimes, committed against defenceless women, children and old men. To postulate an equivalence in action between the military engagement of a military target (Pearl Harbour),(http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/76591-the-greatest-thing-in-history.html) and the military engagements of soft civilian targets (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) betrays moral deviancy.



I wasn't "postulating an equivalence".  I was saying that if Pearl Harbor had not happened, we would have had no reason to drop the atomic bomb.  

If you want to discuss war crimes, let's talk about the Bataan Death March (or doesn't that count?)


----------



## editec

YWN666 said:


> Quatermass said:
> 
> 
> 
> *WYN666...*
> Your bumper sticker only distinguished you as an apologist for your nation's Atomic war crimes, committed against defenceless women, children and old men. To postulate an equivalence in action between the military engagement of a military target (Pearl Harbour),(http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/76591-the-greatest-thing-in-history.html) and the military engagements of soft civilian targets (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) betrays moral deviancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't "postulating an equivalence". I was saying that if Pearl Harbor had not happened, we would have had no reason to drop the atomic bomb.
> 
> If you want to discuss war crimes, let's talk about the Bataan Death March (or doesn't that count?)
Click to expand...

 
He doesn't want to discuss things rationally and with the subtlety that such discussion deserve.

He's fucking troll.


----------



## YWN666

editec said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quatermass said:
> 
> 
> 
> *WYN666...*
> Your bumper sticker only distinguished you as an apologist for your nation's Atomic war crimes, committed against defenceless women, children and old men. To postulate an equivalence in action between the military engagement of a military target (Pearl Harbour),(http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/76591-the-greatest-thing-in-history.html) and the military engagements of soft civilian targets (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) betrays moral deviancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't "postulating an equivalence". I was saying that if Pearl Harbor had not happened, we would have had no reason to drop the atomic bomb.
> 
> If you want to discuss war crimes, let's talk about the Bataan Death March (or doesn't that count?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't want to discuss things rationally and with the subtlety that such discussion deserve.
> 
> He's fucking troll.
Click to expand...



Yeah, I gathered that.  He can't even get the 3 letters in my ID correct.


----------



## Yukon

America has committed great war crimes. It is unfortunate though that most of the population are unwilling to recognize this fact. Bush, Junior should be hanged as a war criminal.


----------



## sealybobo

Yukon said:


> America has committed great war crimes. It is unfortunate though that most of the population are unwilling to recognize this fact. Bush, Junior should be hanged as a war criminal.



What frustrates me about politics is how long it takes to get something done.  So it took a couple years to convince retards that Bush lied us into war.  Now that we know that, they won't accept speculation that they don't hear first from Fox News.  

Well, now it is starting to come out so no longer will people call me a conspiracy theorist when I say these things:  

http://www.democrats.com/iraq-torture-scandal

In 2002 and 2003, Dick Cheney ordered the torture of key prisoners captured in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Cheney says he ordered torture to stop another terrorist attack, but the evidence is now clear: Cheney wanted false "confessions" to justify the unprovoked U.S. invasion of Iraq. 
Those "confessions" were featured in key pre-war speeches by Cheney, George Bush, and Colin Powell that betrayed Congress, the American people, and the world. 
Thus the "Torture" scandal and the "Iraq" scandal are not two separate scandals, but one massive and historically disastrous scandal: the Iraq-Torture Scandal. 

Cheney claims his torture "saved hundreds of thousands of lives." In reality, it cost hundreds of thousands of lives - innocent Iraqi lives. It also killed over 4,300 U.S. soldiers, maimed hundreds of thousands more, cost U.S. taxpayers $3 trillion dollars, and profoundly damaged U.S. credibility and security. 
Dick Cheney understands the enormity of his crimes and launched a public relations war to protect himself, including carefully-chosen TV interviews and speeches. His daughter (and chief defender) Liz Cheney admitted her father's greatest fear is prosecution. 
It's time for Congress to investigate the massive Iraq-Torture Scandal  - and for the Department of Justice to prosecute Dick Cheney for creating it. 

http://www.democrats.com/iraq-torture-scandal


----------



## sealybobo

del said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6th August 1945 a B29 bomber dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima It has been estimated that over the years around 200,000 people have died as a result of this bomb being dropped. This was always a controversial decision. General Dwight Eisenhower told President Harry S. Truman that he was opposed to the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan.
> 
> IKE said: " I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face".
> 
> Winston Churchill also agreed that it was not necessary to drop the atom bomb on Japan. He later asserted: "It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the bomb fell."
> 
> Mainly historians have argued that the US used the atom bomb as a warning against the Soviet Union. It was not an attempt to end the war but to determine what happened after the war.
> 
> *The dropping of the bomb was a terrible war crime, equal to the extermination of the Jews.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *yawn*
> 
> you've got sources for those quotes you made up i assume.
Click to expand...


Come on!  Don't be so naive.  You still need proof that Cheney & Bush purposely lied us into Iraq for money?  And are you ready to impeach?  Didn't think so.  

Hell, you guys tried to suggest that if it weren't for liberals, you would have won viet nam.

Funny thing was, it was our kids that you were sending to die.  Bush/Cheney had it easy.  McCain too if he didn't suck as a pilot.


----------



## del

sealybobo said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6th August 1945 a B29 bomber dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima It has been estimated that over the years around 200,000 people have died as a result of this bomb being dropped. This was always a controversial decision. General Dwight Eisenhower told President Harry S. Truman that he was opposed to the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan.
> 
> IKE said: " I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face".
> 
> Winston Churchill also agreed that it was not necessary to drop the atom bomb on Japan. He later asserted: "It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the bomb fell."
> 
> Mainly historians have argued that the US used the atom bomb as a warning against the Soviet Union. It was not an attempt to end the war but to determine what happened after the war.
> 
> *The dropping of the bomb was a terrible war crime, equal to the extermination of the Jews.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *yawn*
> 
> you've got sources for those quotes you made up i assume.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on!  Don't be so naive.  You still need proof that Cheney & Bush purposely lied us into Iraq for money?  And are you ready to impeach?  Didn't think so.
> 
> Hell, you guys tried to suggest that if it weren't for liberals, you would have won viet nam.
> 
> Funny thing was, it was our kids that you were sending to die.  Bush/Cheney had it easy.  McCain too if he didn't suck as a pilot.
Click to expand...


impeach who, you knuckledragging imbecile?

liberals started vietnam, chucklehead. read a book.


----------



## elvis

del said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> *yawn*
> 
> you've got sources for those quotes you made up i assume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on!  Don't be so naive.  You still need proof that Cheney & Bush purposely lied us into Iraq for money?  And are you ready to impeach?  Didn't think so.
> 
> Hell, you guys tried to suggest that if it weren't for liberals, you would have won viet nam.
> 
> Funny thing was, it was our kids that you were sending to die.  Bush/Cheney had it easy.  McCain too if he didn't suck as a pilot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> impeach who, you knuckledragging imbecile?
> 
> liberals started vietnam, chucklehead. read a book.
Click to expand...


How come Kennedy gets away with that one?


----------



## Hemperor

Enough evidence to prosecute Rumsfeld for war crimes/UK &#8216;must release&#8217; Iraq war files
UN official: Enough evidence to prosecute Rumsfeld for war crimes

 Killing over a million people is Genocide.

Also there are the deaths an injuries suffered by the soldiers who were sent to the illegal war.

The list of crimes is quite extensive.

There is also the abuse of power. I would even call it treason.

No one should ever again, be allowed to commit these types of crimes and those who did, certainly should not go free. They are criminals.

David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster January 26, 2009

Monday, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak told CNN&#8217;s Rick Sanchez that the US has an &#8220;obligation&#8221; to investigate whether Bush administration officials ordered torture, adding that he believes that there is already enough evidence to prosecute former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

&#8220;We have clear evidence,&#8221; he said. &#8220;In our report that we sent to the United Nations, we made it clear that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld clearly authorized torture methods and he was told at that time by Alberto Mora, the legal council of the Navy, &#8216;Mr. Secretary, what you are actual ordering here amounts to torture.&#8217; So, there we have the clear evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld knew what he was doing but, nevertheless, he ordered torture.&#8221;

Asked during an interview with Germany&#8217;s ZDF television on Jan. 20, Nowak said: &#8220;I think the evidence is on the table.&#8221;

At issue, however, is whether &#8220;American law will recognize these forms of torture.&#8221;

A bipartisan Senate report released last month found Rumsfeld and other top administration officials responsible for abuse of Guantanamo detainees in US custody.

It said Rumsfeld authorized harsh interrogation techniques on December 2, 2002 at the Guantanamo prison, although he ruled them out a month later.

The coercive measures were based on a document signed by Bush in February, 2002.

There is a video at the source as well.

Source

UK &#8216;must release&#8217; Iraq war files

January 28, 2009

The British government has been ordered to release the minutes of crucial ministerial meetings from 2003 at which the United States-led invasion of Iraq was discussed.

The information tribunal, which hears appeals under Britain&#8217;s data protection act, backed a decision to disclose minutes of cabinet meetings from March 13 and 17, where ministers held talks about whether the decision to go to war was allowed under international law.

The tribunal said: &#8220;We have decided that the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the formal minutes of two cabinet meetings at which ministers decided to commit forces to military action in Iraq did not&#8230; outweigh the public interest in disclosure.

The cabinet office has 28 days to decide whether to appeal against the ruling.

Announcing its decision on Tuesday, the tribunal said: &#8220;The decision to commit the nation&#8217;s armed forces to the invasion of another country is momentous in its own right, and&#8230; its seriousness is increased by the criticisms that have been made  of the general decision-making processes in the cabinet at the time.&#8221;

A spokesman for Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, said: &#8220;We are considering our response&#8221;.

Blair criticised

Tony Blair, prime minister at the time of the invasion, was widely criticised for backing George Bush, the then US president, in invading Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein despite failing to secure a second United Nations resolution on the matter.

Ministerial discussions focused notably on Peter Goldsmith&#8217;s, the then attorney general, advice on the legality of war.

Blair&#8217;s government strongly resisted demands for the advice of its most senior legal adviser to be made public, until a large section was leaked during the 2005 general election campaign.

Goldsmith then denied ministers pressured him into changing his mind to rule that invading Iraq would be legal in international law even without a second UN security council resolution.

The information tribunal said that &#8220;there has&#8230; been criticism of the attorney general&#8217;s legal advice and of the particular way in which the March 17 opinion was made available to the cabinet only at the last moment and the March 7 opinion was not disclosed to it at all.&#8221;

The tribunal ruling backed up an earlier decision by Richard Thomas, the information commissioner.

Thomas said: &#8220;I am pleased that the tribunal has upheld my decision that the public interest in disclosing the official cabinet minutes in this particular case outweighs the public interest in withholding the information.

&#8220;Disclosing the minutes will allow the public to more fully understand this particular decision.&#8221;

Source

Blair and his cohorts  should be tried for war crimes as well.

Others in the Bush Administration as well as Bush, should also be charged with war crimes and crimes against Humanity.

The weapons alone that were used, are one good place to start.

The war was based on fabricated information and lies.

Torture was condoned. Killing over a million people is Genocide.

Also there are the deaths an injuries suffered by the soldiers who were sent to the illegal war.

The list of crimes is quite extensive.

There is also the abuse of power. I would even call it treason.

No one should ever again, be allowed to commit these types of crimes and those who did, certainly should not go free. They are criminals.

Obama Revokes Bush Executive Order on Presidential Archives
Obama shuts network of CIA &#8216;ghost prisons&#8217;
Indexed List of all Stories in Archives
Published in: crime waron at 4:02 am Comments Off
Tags: Bush, crimes against humanity, fabricated information, illegal war, lies, Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, torture, UK, United Nations Special Rapporteur, war crimes,

weapons of mass desperation


----------



## JakeStarkey

del said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> *yawn*
> 
> you've got sources for those quotes you made up i assume.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on!  Don't be so naive.  You still need proof that Cheney & Bush purposely lied us into Iraq for money?  And are you ready to impeach?  Didn't think so.
> 
> Hell, you guys tried to suggest that if it weren't for liberals, you would have won viet nam.
> 
> Funny thing was, it was our kids that you were sending to die.  Bush/Cheney had it easy.  McCain too if he didn't suck as a pilot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> impeach who, you knuckledragging imbecile?
> 
> liberals started vietnam, chucklehead. read a book.
Click to expand...


(sigh) The French got whipped in 1954, and we would not get involved.  Vietnam was divided and elections were scheduled for 1956 for a reunification govt.  SVN and the US said no, because Ho would have swept North and South.  Eisenhower (R) sent aid and committed the first trainers and advisers long before JFK (D) upped the anti by committing almost 13,000 US trainers, advisers, and field personnel by the time of his death.

Let's truth tell here, folks, then we can yell about intepretation.


----------



## elvis

JakeStarkey said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on!  Don't be so naive.  You still need proof that Cheney & Bush purposely lied us into Iraq for money?  And are you ready to impeach?  Didn't think so.
> 
> Hell, you guys tried to suggest that if it weren't for liberals, you would have won viet nam.
> 
> Funny thing was, it was our kids that you were sending to die.  Bush/Cheney had it easy.  McCain too if he didn't suck as a pilot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impeach who, you knuckledragging imbecile?
> 
> liberals started vietnam, chucklehead. read a book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (sigh) The French got whipped in 1954, and we would not get involved.  Vietnam was divided and elections were scheduled for 1956 for a reunification govt.  SVN and the US said no, because Ho would have swept North and South.  Eisenhower (R) sent aid and committed the first trainers and advisers long before JFK (D) upped the anti by committing almost 13,000 US trainers, advisers, and field personnel by the time of his death.
> 
> Let's truth tell here, folks, then we can yell about intepretation.
Click to expand...


but Kennedy started the bombing of South Vietnam in 1962.


----------



## HUGGY

manifold said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> One does wonder about the SECOND bomb, of course.
> 
> As to the first bomb dropped?
> 
> I have no problems with that.
> 
> Had I known only what Truman knew at that time, I'd have ordered the mission, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really wonder any more about the second bomb than I do the first.  I'd be interested in why you do.
> 
> And also, I've read that some historians believe that not only would the alternative have cost thousands of American soldier's lives, but could have actually resulted in even more Japanese deaths than the bomb (assuming invasion was the alternative).  An interesting topic for discussion for sure, but purely subjective and speculative.  As for the OP's assertion that it was a war crime, total bullshit.
Click to expand...


*I'd be interested in why you do.
*

I'd be interested in why you don't.


----------



## JakeStarkey

elvis3577 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> impeach who, you knuckledragging imbecile?
> 
> liberals started vietnam, chucklehead. read a book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (sigh) The French got whipped in 1954, and we would not get involved.  Vietnam was divided and elections were scheduled for 1956 for a reunification govt.  SVN and the US said no, because Ho would have swept North and South.  Eisenhower (R) sent aid and committed the first trainers and advisers long before JFK (D) upped the anti by committing almost 13,000 US trainers, advisers, and field personnel by the time of his death.
> 
> Let's truth tell here, folks, then we can yell about intepretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but Kennedy started the bombing of South Vietnam in 1962.
Click to expand...


Our gunships were doing the fifty-cal boogie on the water buffalo by 1958.  We machine gunned, rocketed, and bombed long before JFK ordered in bigger platforms.


----------



## elvis

JakeStarkey said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> (sigh) The French got whipped in 1954, and we would not get involved.  Vietnam was divided and elections were scheduled for 1956 for a reunification govt.  SVN and the US said no, because Ho would have swept North and South.  Eisenhower (R) sent aid and committed the first trainers and advisers long before JFK (D) upped the anti by committing almost 13,000 US trainers, advisers, and field personnel by the time of his death.
> 
> Let's truth tell here, folks, then we can yell about intepretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but Kennedy started the bombing of South Vietnam in 1962.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our gunships were doing the fifty-cal boogie on the water buffalo by 1958.  We machine gunned, rocketed, and bombed long before JFK ordered in bigger platforms.
Click to expand...


I was going to say, I believe the involvement actually started under Truman.  The US wanted SE Asia to be a natural resource supply for Japan.... as well as the domino theory which, unbeknownst to the US didn't apply in Vietnam.  They didn't think nationalists could be communists. 
How could Ho have run for president in the south if South Vietnam was its own country?


----------



## JakeStarkey

elvis3577 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but Kennedy started the bombing of South Vietnam in 1962.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our gunships were doing the fifty-cal boogie on the water buffalo by 1958.  We machine gunned, rocketed, and bombed long before JFK ordered in bigger platforms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was going to say, I believe the involvement actually started under Truman.  The US wanted SE Asia to be a natural resource supply for Japan.... as well as the domino theory which, unbeknownst to the US didn't apply in Vietnam.  They didn't think nationalists could be communists.
> How could Ho have run for president in the south if South Vietnam was its own country?
Click to expand...


They were divided under UN guidelines (supposedly), and a national reunification election was scheduled for 1956.

Yes, the US did give the French some material through and up to the Dien Bien Phu debacle where the commies whipped the French paratroopers and foreign legion.  When the frogeaters asked for naval air support from our carriers in the China Sea to know the commies of the high ground around 'Phu, Eisenhower sided with Senate Majority Leader Johnson (now that _is _ironic) against the Veep, Nixon, who wanted to nuke the redskis back to the 17th century.

So the French fell, the country was divided pending the election, which the US and SVN reneged (I would have reneged, too, but I would not have drastically escalated our troop presence), and the story continued for another twenty grim years.


----------



## publicprotector

As usual its all lies and bulshit from  a certain American mentality, Japan was beaten well before the bombs were dropped not just militarily but the nation was months away from starvation. America never needed to use those weapons and never needed to invade Japan as the allied navies controlled the seas so a continuing blockade would have done the job  to completely finish Japan off.

No what this was about was we have some new weapons that we want to test and we have the perfect excuse to drop them on unarmed civilians to see how good they work. That was one part the other was the Russian threat, the Allies at that time knew the Russians were a massive threat and this was a big demonstration of force to them, that was the main reason for the weapons being used.

And does anyone really think that the US Government gave a toss for how many men died or how many Japanese would no they did not. Pearl Harbour was allowed to happen, the US Government sold out its on people then just like it did on 9/11. Those who were controlling the US knew it was an emerging world power and was not going to let a thing like human suffering get in the way of their plans not matter who it was.

It is hard to believe indeed that there are still people who clutch the official story to their chest when there is a mountain of proof to state otherwise. This act was umitigated mass murder and a crime against humanity. But who cares not any American Government Since that time the US has had an history of attacking and invading nations that posed no threat to itself.

And like the coward that the US Government is it usually picks fights with 3rd world nations for its own selfish greed and interest but whats even more suprising that it cannot and does not win in these conflicts, but then thats not the ultimate goal is it. One wonders what these fearsome warriors will do when they meet their equals oh I know they don't do that do they because they know they would get their arses wupped on their own turf. No the brave American Government would not dare attack anyone who could bomb them back to the stone age would they.

When are the sheeple going to realise that you are nothing more than cannon fodder for their games of conquest, greed and power.


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> It certainly was a crime to drop those bombs on the Japanese.



There is nothing "certain" about it.

In fact, you are quite wrong.

It was NOT a crime at all.  

Horrible?  Yes.  Criminal?  Nope.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly was a crime to drop those bombs on the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing "certain" about it.
> 
> In fact, you are quite wrong.
> 
> It was NOT a crime at all.
> 
> Horrible?  Yes.  Criminal?  Nope.
Click to expand...


When you target civilians you are guilty of a war crime.


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly was a crime to drop those bombs on the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing "certain" about it.
> 
> In fact, you are quite wrong.
> 
> It was NOT a crime at all.
> 
> Horrible?  Yes.  Criminal?  Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you target civilians you are guilty of a war crime.
Click to expand...


Again, that's nonsense.

If the only way to win the war (without dropping the bombs) was a campaign that would have resulted (it was estimated) in perhaps a million allied combat deaths and perhaps as many civilian deaths, then the targetting selection probably resulted in SAVING huge numbers of lives on both sides.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing "certain" about it.
> 
> In fact, you are quite wrong.
> 
> It was NOT a crime at all.
> 
> Horrible?  Yes.  Criminal?  Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you target civilians you are guilty of a war crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, that's nonsense.
> 
> If the only way to win the war (without dropping the bombs) was a campaign that would have resulted (it was estimated) in perhaps a million allied combat deaths and perhaps as many civilian deaths, then the targetting selection probably resulted in SAVING huge numbers of lives on both sides.
Click to expand...


Despite the fact that many, including Eisenhower, disagreed that Japan needed to be bombed because they were willing to discuss the possibility of peace, as they had already put out feelers towards the Soviet Union.


----------



## elvis

still going on about what evil war criminals the US was for destroying Japan.  I guess we should have left Tojo in power so 20 years later, they could have hit us again.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> still going on about what evil war criminals the US was for destroying Japan.  I guess we should have left Tojo in power so 20 years later, they could have hit us again.



Who's saying leave Tojo in power?  I'm saying there was no need to obliterate innocent civilians.


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you target civilians you are guilty of a war crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's nonsense.
> 
> If the only way to win the war (without dropping the bombs) was a campaign that would have resulted (it was estimated) in perhaps a million allied combat deaths and perhaps as many civilian deaths, then the targetting selection probably resulted in SAVING huge numbers of lives on both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that many, including Eisenhower, disagreed that Japan needed to be bombed because they were willing to discuss the possibility of peace, as they had already put out feelers towards the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...



The "fact?"

Sorry.  Your claims are not the same as "facts."

And even Ike could be wrong.

After the sneak attack, what was required was unconditional surrender.  They refused.  Their country was getting heavily bombed (also causing lots of casualites -- which is one of the things about wars -- casualites do happen) and yet -- Japan showed no sign of surrendering.  Indeed, even after Hiroshima got blasted, Japan still declined to unconditionally surrender.  It took Nagasaki to get them to abandon their willingness to fight to the last man.  

Sending out "feelers" to Russia -- just to clarify a point for you -- is emphatically NOT an immediate and unconditional surrender.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that's nonsense.
> 
> If the only way to win the war (without dropping the bombs) was a campaign that would have resulted (it was estimated) in perhaps a million allied combat deaths and perhaps as many civilian deaths, then the targetting selection probably resulted in SAVING huge numbers of lives on both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that many, including Eisenhower, disagreed that Japan needed to be bombed because they were willing to discuss the possibility of peace, as they had already put out feelers towards the Soviet Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "fact?"
> 
> Sorry.  Your claims are not the same as "facts."
> 
> And even Ike could be wrong.
> 
> After the sneak attack, what was required was unconditional surrender.  They refused.  Their country was getting heavily bombed (also causing lots of casualites -- which is one of the things about wars -- casualites do happen) and yet -- Japan showed no sign of surrendering.  Indeed, even after Hiroshima got blasted, Japan still declined to unconditionally surrender.  It took Nagasaki to get them to abandon their willingness to fight to the last man.
> 
> Sending out "feelers" to Russia -- just to clarify a point for you -- is emphatically NOT an immediate and unconditional surrender.
Click to expand...


If unconditional surrender requires the destruction of innocent civilians then we didn't need it.


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that many, including Eisenhower, disagreed that Japan needed to be bombed because they were willing to discuss the possibility of peace, as they had already put out feelers towards the Soviet Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "fact?"
> 
> Sorry.  Your claims are not the same as "facts."
> 
> And even Ike could be wrong.
> 
> After the sneak attack, what was required was unconditional surrender.  They refused.  Their country was getting heavily bombed (also causing lots of casualites -- which is one of the things about wars -- casualites do happen) and yet -- Japan showed no sign of surrendering.  Indeed, even after Hiroshima got blasted, Japan still declined to unconditionally surrender.  It took Nagasaki to get them to abandon their willingness to fight to the last man.
> 
> Sending out "feelers" to Russia -- just to clarify a point for you -- is emphatically NOT an immediate and unconditional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If unconditional surrender requires the destruction of innocent civilians then we didn't need it.
Click to expand...



If anything less than an unconditional surrender was not going to suffice, then we sure as hell did need it.  And, the objective had been made crystal clear.  Unconditional surrender WAS required.  They started it.  We ended it.  And we ended it in a way that almost certainly saved over a million or two million lives.

Your historical revisionism is of mild interest -- mostly in a clinical way.   But it's also loopey.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> still going on about what evil war criminals the US was for destroying Japan.  I guess we should have left Tojo in power so 20 years later, they could have hit us again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's saying leave Tojo in power?  I'm saying there was no need to obliterate innocent civilians.
Click to expand...


Fuck them.  Their government was warned.  It's their government's fault they were cooked.  I would have kept dropping bombs on them until the government either surrendered or there was no one left.


----------



## elvis

More drivel from folks who would rather we lost an additional 150,000 troops and have the northern part of Japan controlled by the communists. Stalin was supposed to get control of Hokkaido, you know?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "fact?"
> 
> Sorry.  Your claims are not the same as "facts."
> 
> And even Ike could be wrong.
> 
> After the sneak attack, what was required was unconditional surrender.  They refused.  Their country was getting heavily bombed (also causing lots of casualites -- which is one of the things about wars -- casualites do happen) and yet -- Japan showed no sign of surrendering.  Indeed, even after Hiroshima got blasted, Japan still declined to unconditionally surrender.  It took Nagasaki to get them to abandon their willingness to fight to the last man.
> 
> Sending out "feelers" to Russia -- just to clarify a point for you -- is emphatically NOT an immediate and unconditional surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If unconditional surrender requires the destruction of innocent civilians then we didn't need it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If anything less than an unconditional surrender was not going to suffice, then we sure as hell did need it.  And, the objective had been made crystal clear.  Unconditional surrender WAS required.  They started it.  We ended it.  And we ended it in a way that almost certainly saved over a million or two million lives.
> 
> Your historical revisionism is of mild interest -- mostly in a clinical way.   But it's also loopey.
Click to expand...


What revisionism?  We didn't drop those bombs and kill civilians?


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If unconditional surrender requires the destruction of innocent civilians then we didn't need it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anything less than an unconditional surrender was not going to suffice, then we sure as hell did need it.  And, the objective had been made crystal clear.  Unconditional surrender WAS required.  They started it.  We ended it.  And we ended it in a way that almost certainly saved over a million or two million lives.
> 
> Your historical revisionism is of mild interest -- mostly in a clinical way.   But it's also loopey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What revisionism?  We didn't drop those bombs and kill civilians?
Click to expand...


boo hoo fucking hoo.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> still going on about what evil war criminals the US was for destroying Japan.  I guess we should have left Tojo in power so 20 years later, they could have hit us again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's saying leave Tojo in power?  I'm saying there was no need to obliterate innocent civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck them.  Their government was warned.  It's their government's fault they were cooked.  I would have kept dropping bombs on them until the government either surrendered or there was no one left.
Click to expand...


Their government was reaching out for peace, and it wasn't their government that dropped those bombs.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> More drivel from folks who would rather we lost an additional 150,000 troops and have the northern part of Japan controlled by the communists. Stalin was supposed to get control of Hokkaido, you know?



I'd rather have Stalin in control then have my country be responsible for all those deaths.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything less than an unconditional surrender was not going to suffice, then we sure as hell did need it.  And, the objective had been made crystal clear.  Unconditional surrender WAS required.  They started it.  We ended it.  And we ended it in a way that almost certainly saved over a million or two million lives.
> 
> Your historical revisionism is of mild interest -- mostly in a clinical way.   But it's also loopey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What revisionism?  We didn't drop those bombs and kill civilians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> boo hoo fucking hoo.
Click to expand...


I happen to think that life is precious, regardless of whether two government's have an issue with one another.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's saying leave Tojo in power?  I'm saying there was no need to obliterate innocent civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck them.  Their government was warned.  It's their government's fault they were cooked.  I would have kept dropping bombs on them until the government either surrendered or there was no one left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their government was reaching out for peace, and it wasn't their government that dropped those bombs.
Click to expand...


No they weren't.  they were not going to surrender.  we have been over this a million goddamned times.  We were supposed to believe they were reaching out for peace after they sucker punched us?  Fuck them.  
I guess we should have invaded them and lost another 150,000 men because you dont want civilians killed. with you in charge, the Japs would have had the whole fucking pacific to themselves.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What revisionism?  We didn't drop those bombs and kill civilians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boo hoo fucking hoo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I happen to think that life is precious, regardless of whether two government's have an issue with one another.
Click to expand...


Tell that to the soldiers still trapped underneath the Arizona. oh wait, they weren't civilians. their lives don't count.  
I guess you don't think life is precious enough to save the 150,000 soldiers that dropping the bombs did.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More drivel from folks who would rather we lost an additional 150,000 troops and have the northern part of Japan controlled by the communists. Stalin was supposed to get control of Hokkaido, you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather have Stalin in control then have my country be responsible for all those deaths.
Click to expand...


any idea how many Stalin murdered?  I guess you'd rather have millions more murdered by Stalin than kill a few hundred thousand.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck them.  Their government was warned.  It's their government's fault they were cooked.  I would have kept dropping bombs on them until the government either surrendered or there was no one left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their government was reaching out for peace, and it wasn't their government that dropped those bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they weren't.  they were not going to surrender.  we have been over this a million goddamned times.  We were supposed to believe they were reaching out for peace after they sucker punched us?  Fuck them.
> I guess we should have invaded them and lost another 150,000 men because you dont want civilians killed. with you in charge, the Japs would have had the whole fucking pacific to themselves.
Click to expand...


Dwight Eisenhower, supreme commander of the Allied forces, believed differently.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> boo hoo fucking hoo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to think that life is precious, regardless of whether two government's have an issue with one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the soldiers still trapped underneath the Arizona. oh wait, they weren't civilians. their lives don't count.
> I guess you don't think life is precious enough to save the 150,000 soldiers that dropping the bombs did.
Click to expand...


I don't think an invasion would have been necessary.  As I've already said, the Japanese were interested in peace.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their government was reaching out for peace, and it wasn't their government that dropped those bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they weren't.  they were not going to surrender.  we have been over this a million goddamned times.  We were supposed to believe they were reaching out for peace after they sucker punched us?  Fuck them.
> I guess we should have invaded them and lost another 150,000 men because you dont want civilians killed. with you in charge, the Japs would have had the whole fucking pacific to themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dwight Eisenhower, supreme commander of the Allied forces, believed differently.
Click to expand...


He wasn't in the Pacific, now, was he?


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to think that life is precious, regardless of whether two government's have an issue with one another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the soldiers still trapped underneath the Arizona. oh wait, they weren't civilians. their lives don't count.
> I guess you don't think life is precious enough to save the 150,000 soldiers that dropping the bombs did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think an invasion would have been necessary.  As I've already said, the Japanese were interested in peace.
Click to expand...


so is osama bin laden.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> More drivel from folks who would rather we lost an additional 150,000 troops and have the northern part of Japan controlled by the communists. Stalin was supposed to get control of Hokkaido, you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather have Stalin in control then have my country be responsible for all those deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> any idea how many Stalin murdered?  I guess you'd rather have millions more murdered by Stalin than kill a few hundred thousand.
Click to expand...


Stalin murdered many.  Can you say with 100% certainty that he would have killed millions of Japanese people?  Can you say with certainty that he would have killed any Japanese people?  No.  It's impossible to know what might have happened.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they weren't.  they were not going to surrender.  we have been over this a million goddamned times.  We were supposed to believe they were reaching out for peace after they sucker punched us?  Fuck them.
> I guess we should have invaded them and lost another 150,000 men because you dont want civilians killed. with you in charge, the Japs would have had the whole fucking pacific to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dwight Eisenhower, supreme commander of the Allied forces, believed differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wasn't in the Pacific, now, was he?
Click to expand...


I'm sure he had a better understanding of the situation than either of us.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the soldiers still trapped underneath the Arizona. oh wait, they weren't civilians. their lives don't count.
> I guess you don't think life is precious enough to save the 150,000 soldiers that dropping the bombs did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think an invasion would have been necessary.  As I've already said, the Japanese were interested in peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so is osama bin laden.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure where you're getting that.


----------



## Gunny

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What revisionism?  We didn't drop those bombs and kill civilians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boo hoo fucking hoo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I happen to think that life is precious, regardless of whether two government's have an issue with one another.
Click to expand...


You need to wake up.  Your Utopian belief is for dreamers.   Man has settled his differences through physical violence from Day One that one envied the other.  

When you're in a war, you fight to win or stay home.  We didn't start WWII.  We didn't sneak attack Japan.  Japan tugged on Superman's cape and got the shit knocked out of them.

Then too, you might also consider the fanaticism of the Japanese which was a direct factor in the decision to drop the bombs on them. They fought to the death on Guam, Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.  There was no reason to assume they would suddenly change their ways if we invaded mainland Japan.  

As a military leader, it is your responsibility to take away the enemy's means and will to fight with as little loss to your own forces as possible.  The decision was made and from the standpoint of a nation, not just a handful of bleeding hearts, the decision was correct.  It accomplished the military and political war of forcing an enemy nation to surrender and cease hostilities.  

I'd LOVE to hear you explain your "all life is precious" theory at a Hamas meeting.  Bottom line is, you can believe what you want idealistically, just don't let it get in the way of reality or you'll be dead.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Gunny said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> boo hoo fucking hoo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to think that life is precious, regardless of whether two government's have an issue with one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to wake up.  Your Utopian belief is for dreamers.   Man has settled his differences through physical violence from Day One that one envied the other.
> 
> When you're in a war, you fight to win or stay home.  We didn't start WWII.  We didn't sneak attack Japan.  Japan tugged on Superman's cape and got the shit knocked out of them.
> 
> Then too, you might also consider the fanaticism of the Japanese which was a direct factor in the decision to drop the bombs on them. They fought to the death on Guam, Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.  There was no reason to assume they would suddenly change their ways if we invaded mainland Japan.
> 
> As a military leader, it is your responsibility to take away the enemy's means and will to fight with as little loss to your own forces as possible.  The decision was made and from the standpoint of a nation, not just a handful of bleeding hearts, the decision was correct.  It accomplished the military and political war of forcing an enemy nation to surrender and cease hostilities.
> 
> I'd LOVE to hear you explain your "all life is precious" theory at a Hamas meeting.  Bottom line is, you can believe what you want idealistically, just don't let it get in the way of reality or you'll be dead.
Click to expand...


I would assume that Hamas would laugh in my face, if they even gave me the chance to speak considering I'm an American.


----------



## Gunny

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to think that life is precious, regardless of whether two government's have an issue with one another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to wake up.  Your Utopian belief is for dreamers.   Man has settled his differences through physical violence from Day One that one envied the other.
> 
> When you're in a war, you fight to win or stay home.  We didn't start WWII.  We didn't sneak attack Japan.  Japan tugged on Superman's cape and got the shit knocked out of them.
> 
> Then too, you might also consider the fanaticism of the Japanese which was a direct factor in the decision to drop the bombs on them. They fought to the death on Guam, Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.  There was no reason to assume they would suddenly change their ways if we invaded mainland Japan.
> 
> As a military leader, it is your responsibility to take away the enemy's means and will to fight with as little loss to your own forces as possible.  The decision was made and from the standpoint of a nation, not just a handful of bleeding hearts, the decision was correct.  It accomplished the military and political war of forcing an enemy nation to surrender and cease hostilities.
> 
> I'd LOVE to hear you explain your "all life is precious" theory at a Hamas meeting.  Bottom line is, you can believe what you want idealistically, just don't let it get in the way of reality or you'll be dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would assume that Hamas would laugh in my face, if they even gave me the chance to speak considering I'm an American.
Click to expand...


What does your nationality have to do with the ideal that all life is precious?  Are you saying your belief is founded on a societal belief and not some belief intrinsic to all mankind?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Gunny said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to wake up.  Your Utopian belief is for dreamers.   Man has settled his differences through physical violence from Day One that one envied the other.
> 
> When you're in a war, you fight to win or stay home.  We didn't start WWII.  We didn't sneak attack Japan.  Japan tugged on Superman's cape and got the shit knocked out of them.
> 
> Then too, you might also consider the fanaticism of the Japanese which was a direct factor in the decision to drop the bombs on them. They fought to the death on Guam, Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.  There was no reason to assume they would suddenly change their ways if we invaded mainland Japan.
> 
> As a military leader, it is your responsibility to take away the enemy's means and will to fight with as little loss to your own forces as possible.  The decision was made and from the standpoint of a nation, not just a handful of bleeding hearts, the decision was correct.  It accomplished the military and political war of forcing an enemy nation to surrender and cease hostilities.
> 
> I'd LOVE to hear you explain your "all life is precious" theory at a Hamas meeting.  Bottom line is, you can believe what you want idealistically, just don't let it get in the way of reality or you'll be dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would assume that Hamas would laugh in my face, if they even gave me the chance to speak considering I'm an American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does your nationality have to do with the ideal that all life is precious?  Are you saying your belief is founded on a societal belief and not some belief intrinsic to all mankind?
Click to expand...


My point was that Hamas would be unlikely to let an American, whose nation is so strongly allied with Israel, address them in such a way, and they certainly wouldn't listen to me if they did.


----------



## noose4

Yukon said:


> On 6th August 1945 a B29 bomber dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima It has been estimated that over the years around 200,000 people have died as a result of this bomb being dropped. This was always a controversial decision. General Dwight Eisenhower told President Harry S. Truman that he was opposed to the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan.
> 
> IKE said: " I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face".
> 
> Winston Churchill also agreed that it was not necessary to drop the atom bomb on Japan. He later asserted: "It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the bomb fell."
> 
> Mainly historians have argued that the US used the atom bomb as a warning against the Soviet Union. It was not an attempt to end the war but to determine what happened after the war.
> 
> *The dropping of the bomb was a terrible war crime, equal to the extermination of the Jews.*




horse shit, if we had not dropped the bomb and an invasion of japan had been deemed necessary many many more Americans would have been killed ending that war and seeing as how my father turned 18 in 1945 and was drafted at the wars ending i am damn glad we dropped the bomb on the nation that attacked us at pearl harbor and brought us into that war seeing as if we hadnt my father and many others fathers may have been killed in that invasion. THANK GOD OR WHATEVER FOR THE ATOM BOMB.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The classified documents released in the last five to seven years indicate the strategic planners for the invasion of the home islands were increasing the liklihood that the Japs were actually going to have a *good *chance to beat the Americans and allies on the invasion beaches.

If I were Truman and if I were given estimates like that,  I would have told my State Department to make final backdoor approaches while telling my commanders, "If the backdoor remains shut, make sure that two of the front doors radiate for a 1,000 years."


----------



## editec

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly was a crime to drop those bombs on the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing "certain" about it.
> 
> In fact, you are quite wrong.
> 
> It was NOT a crime at all.
> 
> Horrible? Yes. Criminal? Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you target civilians you are guilty of a war crime.
Click to expand...

 
True.

War, _all wars_ are a crime.

Some of them are just more criminal that others, that's all.


----------



## elvis

noose4 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6th August 1945 a B29 bomber dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima It has been estimated that over the years around 200,000 people have died as a result of this bomb being dropped. This was always a controversial decision. General Dwight Eisenhower told President Harry S. Truman that he was opposed to the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan.
> 
> IKE said: " I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face".
> 
> Winston Churchill also agreed that it was not necessary to drop the atom bomb on Japan. He later asserted: "It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the bomb fell."
> 
> Mainly historians have argued that the US used the atom bomb as a warning against the Soviet Union. It was not an attempt to end the war but to determine what happened after the war.
> 
> *The dropping of the bomb was a terrible war crime, equal to the extermination of the Jews.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> horse shit, if we had not dropped the bomb and an invasion of japan had been deemed necessary many many more Americans would have been killed ending that war and seeing as how my father turned 18 in 1945 and was drafted at the wars ending i am damn glad we dropped the bomb on the nation that attacked us at pearl harbor and brought us into that war seeing as if we hadnt my father and many others fathers may have been killed in that invasion. THANK GOD OR WHATEVER FOR THE ATOM BOMB.
Click to expand...


Yukon wishes Germany and Japan would have won so the Jews would have been exterminated.


----------



## Liability

editec said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing "certain" about it.
> 
> In fact, you are quite wrong.
> 
> It was NOT a crime at all.
> 
> Horrible? Yes. Criminal? Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you target civilians you are guilty of a war crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> War, _all wars_ are a crime.
> 
> Some of them are just more criminal that others, that's all.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Words still have meaning.  And as long as words have meaning, war and crime are NOT necessarily synonomous.  They CAN be.  But they aren't always.


----------



## publicprotector

Er correction GUNNY, the US did start that conflict because it allowed Japan to attack the US. The Jpas were given all the right signals, anyone with an ounce of brain knew before the 1st shot was fired that Japan never had a hope in wining against the US and its allies just like Hitler never had. It was just all part of the big plan, the one that continues to this day.

America stopped selling oil to Japan and it was because of this and other reasons that provoked Japan into Attacking the US and the US Government knew it was going to be attacked.


----------



## Liability

publicprotector said:


> Er correction GUNNY, the US did start that conflict because it allowed Japan to attack the US. The Jpas were given all the right signals, anyone with an ounce of brain knew before the 1st shot was fired that Japan never had a hope in wining against the US and its allies just like Hitler never had. It was just all part of the big plan, the one that continues to this day.
> 
> America stopped selling oil to Japan and it was because of this and other reasons that provoked Japan into Attacking the US and the US Government knew it was going to be attacked.



Yes yes.

We not only permitted the Imperial Japanese to perform that "sneak" attack on our military base in Hawaii, badly damaging our capacity to fight a war, but also permitted the Imperial Japanese to slaughter our own sailors and airman that December day.

This is precisely the same logic that holds that "we" perpetrated the 9/11/2001 attacks on those aircraft, the Trade Towers in New York, the Pentagon in D.C. and the crash in PA.  Obviously.  

You self-loathing moron conspiracy theorists are totally nuts in a despicable kinda way.

(By the way, not all conspiracy theories are nuts.  But the 9/11 Troofers and the "We" allowed Pearl Harbor to get Bombed conspiracy nuts are mucho crazy.)


----------



## publicprotector

LIABILITY, well you may wish to fool yourself but I do not, the historical facts are there if you like it or not. I'm sure your quite ready to believe other historical facts about Governments killing their own but not of America.

One must ask what do you call Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma etc. etc. Was that not the American authorities murdering their fellow citizens. And I am neither a moron or full of self loathing as I am not American. And the actual damage inflicted by the Japanese at Pearl Harbour was tactically minimal as proven by America's very quick response to that event and its subsequent actions.

History is replete with evidence of Governments and leaders murdering their own citizens right up to the present day, why is it that some Americans just cannot face the fact that their own Governments have done the same. To believe it has happened to others or it could but not to ones self is just wishful thinking at best and down right ignorance at worse. Its interesting how you pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe, does it provide you with comfort?


----------



## Liability

publicprotector said:


> LIABILITY, well you may wish to fool yourself but I do not, the historical facts are there if you like it or not. I'm sure your quite ready to believe other historical facts about Governments killing their own but not of America.
> 
> One must ask what do you call Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma etc. etc. Was that not the American authorities murdering their fellow citizens. And I am neither a moron or full of self loathing as I am not American. And the actual damage inflicted by the Japanese at Pearl Harbour was tactically minimal as proven by America's very quick response to that event and its subsequent actions.
> 
> History is replete with evidence of Governments and leaders murdering their own citizens right up to the present day, why is it that some Americans just cannot face the fact that their own Governments have done the same. To believe it has happened to others or it could but not to ones self is just wishful thinking at best and down right ignorance at worse. Its interesting how you pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe, does it provide you with comfort?



Ruby Ridge was arguable governmental illegality.  WACO, too, just more certainly.  I have no idea what you mean by "Oklahoma."  It's a State.  

These acts are different than the conspiracy crap idiots like you are trying to foist off on us.

There is no reasoning with a lunatic like you, so forgive me for not even bothering with you. 

You are nuts.


----------



## Yukon

Today's war criminals are Americans - torturing POW's, baby killing, fire bombing civilians, supporting zionist inhumanity against the peacefull people of Palistine.....all war crimes !


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yukon Man apparently hasn't been following the news and certainly doesn't know Middle East history.

Arabs invaded Palestine in 1948 to kill Jews and got their collective ass handed to them, which has happened several times since then, and which will ALWAYS happen to them.


----------



## Liability

Yukon said:


> Today's war criminals are Americans - torturing POW's, baby killing, fire bombing civilians, supporting zionist inhumanity against the peacefull people of Palistine.....all war crimes !



We engaged in no torture.

We don't kill babies -- at least not intentionally like your allegedly "peaceful" Palestinian scumbags.

We do not fire bomb civilians.

We DO support Israel but not against any peaceful Palestinians.  There are no peaceful Palestinians.

No war crimes.

You are just a fool and a liar.


----------



## Yukon

JakeStarkey said:


> Yukon Man apparently hasn't been following the news and certainly doesn't know Middle East history.
> 
> Arabs invaded Palestine in 1948 to kill Jews and got their collective ass handed to them, which has happened several times since then, and which will ALWAYS happen to them.



It is you who fails to understand history for you have beeb brainwashed by the Zionist hordes who control your media. The ZOG is the USA you are his prisoner. 

Vive le PLO !


----------



## elvis

Yukon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yukon Man apparently hasn't been following the news and certainly doesn't know Middle East history.
> 
> Arabs invaded Palestine in 1948 to kill Jews and got their collective ass handed to them, which has happened several times since then, and which will ALWAYS happen to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who fails to understand history for you have beeb brainwashed by the Zionist hordes who control your media. The ZOG is the USA you are his prisoner.
> 
> Vive le PLO !
Click to expand...


and it is you who brainwashed your alter boys, dickhead.


----------



## Kalam

Liability said:


> There are no peaceful Palestinians.


----------



## mystic

Liability said:


> We engaged in no torture.
> 
> We don't kill babies -- at least not intentionally like your allegedly "peaceful" Palestinian scumbags.
> 
> We do not fire bomb civilians.
> 
> We DO support Israel but not against any peaceful Palestinians.  There are no peaceful Palestinians.
> 
> No war crimes.
> 
> You are just a fool and a liar.



Do you really believe all of that?


----------



## Yukon

Yes they do believe it. They will believe anything. They are fools. Sad but true...............


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

mystic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> We engaged in no torture.
> 
> We don't kill babies -- at least not intentionally like your allegedly "peaceful" Palestinian scumbags.
> 
> We do not fire bomb civilians.
> 
> We DO support Israel but not against any peaceful Palestinians.  There are no peaceful Palestinians.
> 
> No war crimes.
> 
> You are just a fool and a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe all of that?
Click to expand...


Do you have any evidence which would contradict the points in the argument?  

I'd only modify the 'fire bombing civilians' point to reflect 'innocent' civilians... as we have no qualms dropping white phosperous on civilians of the guilty variety... such as the civilians in Japan, with whom we were at war... and the civilians who we know to be directly supporting enemy combatants.


----------



## Yukon

US Marine Core battle cry: " Feet do yo thang"


----------



## mystic

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Do you have any evidence which would contradict the points in the argument?
> 
> I'd only modify the 'fire bombing civilians' point to reflect 'innocent' civilians... as we have no qualms dropping white phosperous on civilians of the guilty variety... such as the civilians in Japan, with whom we were at war... and the civilians who we know to be directly supporting enemy combatants.



How silly of me to not make that distinction. Of course, we've only fire bombed _Guilty Civilians_. I've never heard that category before in the Geneva Conventions, but I'm sure it exists.


----------



## Yukon

*Baby Killers !*


----------



## namvet

the million american dead was only a conservative est. in reality it would double or triple that.


----------



## Yukon

NamVet,

You lost in Vietnam. An army of pathetic, nip peasents defeated the US Miltitary, in fact you were humiliated. How sad and pathetic you are. Now you are being defeated in Afghanistan. Will you never learn? You people need to fight an army consisting of old women and old men perhaps then you might win.


----------



## noose4

Yukon said:


> NamVet,
> 
> You lost in Vietnam. An army of pathetic, nip peasents defeated the US Miltitary, in fact you were humiliated. How sad and pathetic you are. Now you are being defeated in Afghanistan. Will you never learn? You people need to fight an army consisting of old women and old men perhaps then you might win.



is that you jane fonda?


----------



## namvet

Yukon said:


> NamVet,
> 
> You lost in Vietnam. An army of pathetic, nip peasents defeated the US Miltitary, in fact you were humiliated. How sad and pathetic you are. Now you are being defeated in Afghanistan. Will you never learn? You people need to fight an army consisting of old women and old men perhaps then you might win.



no we didn't lose it. some retarted liberal named LBJ lost it. and his liberal cohorts that approved the that war to begin with. and i was not with army. 

ah i think another retarded liberal named Obama is fighting in Afghanistan ????

Yukon your an idiot. get help. vietnam was not fought in Japan.


----------



## namvet

Yukon said:


> NamVet,
> 
> You lost in Vietnam. An army of pathetic, nip peasents defeated the US Miltitary, in fact you were humiliated. How sad and pathetic you are. Now you are being defeated in Afghanistan. Will you never learn? You people need to fight an army consisting of old women and old men perhaps then you might win.



I am the IDIOT YUKON MAN. THERE  ITS FIXED


----------



## Yukon

numbvet,

*YOU LOST* get over it, *YOU LOST !*


----------



## namvet

Yukon said:


> numbvet,
> 
> *YOU LOST* get over it, *YOU LOST !*



AH SO YOU SERVED IN NAM. iDIOT????


----------



## Yukon

No chance I served in Vietnam. Thats where idiot Americans went to die in the name of "Glory and country". I protested the Vietnam war at every opportunity. I honestly feel that those who served in Vietnam were complict to murder. They will burn in the firey pits of eternal hell.


----------



## namvet

Yukon said:


> No chance I served in Vietnam. Thats where idiot Americans went to die in the name of "Glory and country". I protested the Vietnam war at every opportunity. I honestly feel that those who served in Vietnam were complict to murder. They will burn in the firey pits of eternal hell.



I know you idiot. from other forums. may you rot in hell !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## elvis

Yukon said:


> numbvet,
> 
> *YOU LOST* get over it, *YOU LOST !*



again, we didn't lose.  we pulled out.  which is something your father should have done.


----------



## namvet

Yukon is a retard that lives in Canada posing as a catholic priest. 

*FAILURE*


----------



## elvis

namvet said:


> Yukon is a retard that lives in Canada posing as a catholic priest.
> 
> *FAILURE*



i think he was a priest who was thrown out because he couldn't keep his hands and other things off the altar boys.


----------



## namvet

elvis3577 said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yukon is a retard that lives in Canada posing as a catholic priest.
> 
> *FAILURE*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think he was a priest who was thrown out because he couldn't keep his hands and other things off the altar boys.
Click to expand...


I think your right on. he's crazier than a shit house rat !!!!


----------



## Yukon

NamVet,

Are you not just slightly ashamed that your vaunted US Marine Core was soundly defeated by VC peasents? That they were able to chase your lilly white backsides from their country was and is truly emarkable but they did prove that the US Military is really nothing more than a group of little boys dressed up like soldiers - they cant fight, never could and never will.


----------



## AllieBaba

We withdrew. We shouldn't  have. 

And what's your problem with peasants?


----------



## Yukon

I have no problem with peasants at all. Peasants are like flies and maggots they are to be tolerated and hopefully obliterated one way or the other.The US was defeated and withdrew. Withdrew with VC firing the backs of the great USMC. How sad you people are ...........................


----------



## AllieBaba

Ah, so you approve of bombing the Jap peasants.

Got it.


----------



## AmericanPatriot

Up until the last few posts I was willing to give Yukonman the benefit of the doubt but the last few posts really show how utterly stupid he is. 
If you werent there you dont know shit, sport. 
The US Army and Marines were let down by the government and liberal pussies in this country. WE went because we were asked/ordered. The "defeat" came because we werent allowed to win. 
I just realized that this is a waste of my time . Trying to convince someone like you is like trying to teach a pig to dance. It is a waste of time and annoys the teacher.
How about you fix whats wrong in your country and keep out of mine.


----------



## Intense

AmericanPatriot said:


> Up until the last few posts I was willing to give Yukonman the benefit of the doubt but the last few posts really show how utterly stupid he is.
> If you werent there you dont know shit, sport.
> The US Army and Marines were let down by the government and liberal pussies in this country. WE went because we were asked/ordered. The "defeat" came because we werent allowed to win.
> I just realized that this is a waste of my time . Trying to convince someone like you is like trying to teach a pig to dance. It is a waste of time and annoys the teacher.
> How about you fix whats wrong in your country and keep out of mine.



"We Were Soldiers" Joseph Galloway.  My best Read on Viet Nam.  Permanently changed my perspective.   


From the Link.   Product Description
Each year, the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps selects one book that he believes is both relevant and timeless for reading by all Marines. The Commandant's choice for 1993 was We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young. 
In November 1965, some 450 men of the 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry, under the command of Lt. Col. Hal Moore, were dropped by helicopter into a small clearing in the Ia Drang Valley. They were immediately surrounded by 2,000 North Vietnamese soldiers. Three days later, only two and a half miles away, a sister battalion was chopped to pieces. Together, these actions at the landing zones X-Ray and Albany constituted one of the most savage and significant battles of the Vietnam War. 
How these men persevered--sacrificed themselves for their comrades and never gave up--makes a vivid portrait of war at its most inspiring and devastating. General Moore and Joseph Galloway, the only journalist on the ground throughout the fighting, have interviewed hundreds of men who fought there, including the North Vietnamese commanders. This devastating account rises above the specific ordeal it chronicles to present a picture of men facing the ultimate challenge, dealing with it in ways they would have found unimaginable only a few hours earlier. It reveals to us, as rarely before, man's most heroic and horrendous endeavor.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/We-Were-Soldiers-Once-Young/dp/034547581X]Amazon.com: We Were Soldiers Once...and Young: Ia Drang - the Battle That Changed the War in Vietnam (9780345475817): Harold G. Moore, Joseph L. Galloway: Books[/ame]


----------



## AmericanPatriot

Lt. Col Moore was one hell of a man.


----------



## Intense

Another Great Man  

General Lewis Walt


Lewis William Walt, General, United States Marine Corps


----------



## GRX Dragon

mightypeon said:


> War crime? War crimes are in the eyes of the victors.



At least someone understands that the entire idea of a warcrime is relative at best, its defining moment depends solely on the man holding judgment.



HUGGY said:


> I may be wrong but I thought at that time there were only two bombs available. Am I mistaken?  I have no source other than a memory of an old public tv educational prsentation.



They were working on the third bomb during the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Nagasaki was actually the third target too, not the 2nd target. The second target was a military institution, which changed to Nagasaki primarily due to the skies over the particular target. Knowing that, had the 2nd bomb gone according to plan, there would have been far fewer military deaths. Nagasaki was only the 3rd choice for the trio-bombs in the _extreme unlikelihood_ that there was no surrender, but as I said it became the 2nd location because there was smoke across the 2nd target that was meant to be nuked.



Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I'm assuming they were innocent because they were civilians.  What crime could they have possibly committed that warranted us vaporizing them, especially the children?  The opinion of two warmongers is not a convincing argument.
> 
> I would agree that it's not the worst thing that has ever been done, especially considering the purges of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.  However, it's certainly one of the worst things our government has ever done.




Maybe the children were innocent, much like the mideastern child that would pick up an AK-47 to shoot at an armed soldier. But the civilian populace in Japan were well trained in the Bushido arts thanks to tradition. Japanese culture dictated that all Japanese would learn self-defense and various offensive techniques in the Bushido tradition. It was considered dishonorable and disgraceful for any family not to be trained, even the women were often trained to fight.



Yukon said:


> The last time you tried that we burned down your Capital and your President's home (white house). I'm sorry but you people can't fight, never could fight, and never will be able to fight. Your battle cry is "feet do yo thing". Fat and lazy................



Even in the war 1812 the British-Canadian forces took their tail behind their legs and ran home after their defeat.



Kevin_Kennedy said:


> When you target civilians you are guilty of a war crime.



This is only true to those who support the Geneva Convention and UN/ICC to begin with. Without either entity, there would be no such thing as a warcrime, which by itself is a contradiction. War is about winning, period.



publicprotector said:


> Er correction GUNNY, the US did start that conflict because it allowed Japan to attack the US. The Jpas were given all the right signals, anyone with an ounce of brain knew before the 1st shot was fired that Japan never had a hope in wining against the US and its allies just like Hitler never had. It was just all part of the big plan, the one that continues to this day.
> 
> America stopped selling oil to Japan and it was because of this and other reasons that provoked Japan into Attacking the US and the US Government knew it was going to be attacked.



I would daresay that FDR committed treason when he approved of embargoing the oil from the Japanese. The greatest crime of WWII is the fact we got involved without crushing Stalin-USSR. We were right to crush Hitler and Germany, but not crushing Stalin while people like FDR marginalized Stalin's critics tells me the cold war was just propaganda aside from the Truman and Reagan administrations.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

What does Bushido or self-defense have to do with this?  The fact is that our government purposefully targeted civilians that had committed no crime other than being citizens of a country we were at war with and dropped an atomic bomb on them.

As for your Mid-eastern child analogy, it doesn't fit.  A child that picks up a gun and shoots at someone is not innocent.  They may be forced to do so against their will, or they may be too young to understand what they're doing but they're not innocent.  Those Japanese civilians had done no harm to us.


----------



## GRX Dragon

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> What does Bushido or self-defense have to do with this?  The fact is that our government purposefully targeted civilians that had committed no crime other than being citizens of a country we were at war with and dropped an atomic bomb on them.



There was no such thing as a civilian to the Japanese.



> As for your Mid-eastern child analogy, it doesn't fit.  A child that picks up a gun and shoots at someone is not innocent.  They may be forced to do so against their will, or they may be too young to understand what they're doing but they're not innocent.  Those Japanese civilians had done no harm to us.



I didn't say whether or not either were innocent. My belief is that all children are innocent, no matter the condition.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

GRX Dragon said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Bushido or self-defense have to do with this?  The fact is that our government purposefully targeted civilians that had committed no crime other than being citizens of a country we were at war with and dropped an atomic bomb on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no such thing as a civilian to the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for your Mid-eastern child analogy, it doesn't fit.  A child that picks up a gun and shoots at someone is not innocent.  They may be forced to do so against their will, or they may be too young to understand what they're doing but they're not innocent.  Those Japanese civilians had done no harm to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say whether or not either were innocent. My belief is that all children are innocent, no matter the condition.
Click to expand...


They were civilians regardless.  They weren't in the armed forces and they did nothing to deserve being bombed.


----------



## namvet

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> What does Bushido or self-defense have to do with this?  The fact is that our government purposefully targeted civilians that had committed no crime other than being citizens of a country we were at war with and dropped an atomic bomb on them.
> 
> As for your Mid-eastern child analogy, it doesn't fit.  A child that picks up a gun and shoots at someone is not innocent.  They may be forced to do so against their will, or they may be too young to understand what they're doing but they're not innocent.  Those Japanese civilians had done no harm to us.



can you have a war without killing civilians???? they man war plants. they're always in the line of fire. check out what the Brits did to Dresden. those Japanese Civilians were armed and ready to kill Americans in the invasion. fuck's wrong with you?????


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

namvet said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Bushido or self-defense have to do with this?  The fact is that our government purposefully targeted civilians that had committed no crime other than being citizens of a country we were at war with and dropped an atomic bomb on them.
> 
> As for your Mid-eastern child analogy, it doesn't fit.  A child that picks up a gun and shoots at someone is not innocent.  They may be forced to do so against their will, or they may be too young to understand what they're doing but they're not innocent.  Those Japanese civilians had done no harm to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you have a war without killing civilians???? they man war plants. they're always in the line of fire. check out what the Brits did to Dresden. those Japanese Civilians were armed and ready to kill Americans in the invasion. fuck's wrong with you?????
Click to expand...


No, that's why wars should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.  However, this wasn't an accident.  Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed.  How do you know what those Japanese civilians would have done?  Also, why did there need to be an invasion?  The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union.


----------



## GRX Dragon

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> GRX Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Bushido or self-defense have to do with this?  The fact is that our government purposefully targeted civilians that had committed no crime other than being citizens of a country we were at war with and dropped an atomic bomb on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no such thing as a civilian to the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for your Mid-eastern child analogy, it doesn't fit.  A child that picks up a gun and shoots at someone is not innocent.  They may be forced to do so against their will, or they may be too young to understand what they're doing but they're not innocent.  Those Japanese civilians had done no harm to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say whether or not either were innocent. My belief is that all children are innocent, no matter the condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were civilians regardless.  They weren't in the armed forces and they did nothing to deserve being bombed.
Click to expand...


Because it's not possible they couldn't have been supporting their government's actions, right? The fact of the matter is they were not civilians in Japanese culture, it was in fact _dishonorable_ and a _disgrace_ to claim to be a civilian. And not just Japanese culture, but all throughout Asia!

Nevermind that you conveniently overlooked what I said about Nagasaki being the 3rd target, not intentionally the 2nd target!


----------



## GRX Dragon

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Bushido or self-defense have to do with this?  The fact is that our government purposefully targeted civilians that had committed no crime other than being citizens of a country we were at war with and dropped an atomic bomb on them.
> 
> As for your Mid-eastern child analogy, it doesn't fit.  A child that picks up a gun and shoots at someone is not innocent.  They may be forced to do so against their will, or they may be too young to understand what they're doing but they're not innocent.  Those Japanese civilians had done no harm to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you have a war without killing civilians???? they man war plants. they're always in the line of fire. check out what the Brits did to Dresden. those Japanese Civilians were armed and ready to kill Americans in the invasion. fuck's wrong with you?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's why wars should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.  However, this wasn't an accident.  Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed.  How do you know what those Japanese civilians would have done?  Also, why did there need to be an invasion?  The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...


Hiroshima was purposely targeted, but it was as much a military target as it was a civilian target. And if they wanted to surrender, they knew better than to go to the USSR...


----------



## The T

manifold said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> One does wonder about the SECOND bomb, of course.
> 
> As to the first bomb dropped?
> 
> I have no problems with that.
> 
> Had I known only what Truman knew at that time, I'd have ordered the mission, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really wonder any more about the second bomb than I do the first. I'd be interested in why you do.
> 
> And also, I've read that some historians believe that not only would the alternative have cost thousands of American soldier's lives, but could have actually resulted in even more Japanese deaths than the bomb (assuming invasion was the alternative). An interesting topic for discussion for sure, but purely subjective and speculative. As for the OP's assertion that it was a war crime, total bullshit.
Click to expand...

 
The Entire WAR started by the AXIS (Hitler's Germany, Moussilini's Italy, and Tojo's JAPAN), was an atrocity in of itself.

The op is screwed in the head.

My $.02 worth.


----------



## namvet

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Bushido or self-defense have to do with this?  The fact is that our government purposefully targeted civilians that had committed no crime other than being citizens of a country we were at war with and dropped an atomic bomb on them.
> 
> As for your Mid-eastern child analogy, it doesn't fit.  A child that picks up a gun and shoots at someone is not innocent.  They may be forced to do so against their will, or they may be too young to understand what they're doing but they're not innocent.  Those Japanese civilians had done no harm to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you have a war without killing civilians???? they man war plants. they're always in the line of fire. check out what the Brits did to Dresden. those Japanese Civilians were armed and ready to kill Americans in the invasion. fuck's wrong with you?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's why wars should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.  However, this wasn't an accident.  Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed.  How do you know what those Japanese civilians would have done?  Also, why did there need to be an invasion?  The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...




> The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union



and what did the Russians do??? they declared war on Japan. cry baby


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

GRX Dragon said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GRX Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no such thing as a civilian to the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say whether or not either were innocent. My belief is that all children are innocent, no matter the condition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were civilians regardless.  They weren't in the armed forces and they did nothing to deserve being bombed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's not possible they couldn't have been supporting their government's actions, right? The fact of the matter is they were not civilians in Japanese culture, it was in fact _dishonorable_ and a _disgrace_ to claim to be a civilian. And not just Japanese culture, but all throughout Asia!
> 
> Nevermind that you conveniently overlooked what I said about Nagasaki being the 3rd target, not intentionally the 2nd target!
Click to expand...


Maybe they supported their government, maybe they didn't.  I doubt the children had any real understanding of what was going on, at any rate.  But when did it become a crime to support your government?  Regardless of whether they claimed to be civilians or not that's exactly what they were.  They weren't fighting in the war and they hadn't done anything to the United States.  They were simply trying to live their lives.

It doesn't matter which target Nagasaki was.  It never should have been a target at all, along with Hiroshima.


----------



## The T

namvet said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> can you have a war without killing civilians???? they man war plants. they're always in the line of fire. check out what the Brits did to Dresden. those Japanese Civilians were armed and ready to kill Americans in the invasion. fuck's wrong with you?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's why wars should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. However, this wasn't an accident. Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed. How do you know what those Japanese civilians would have done? Also, why did there need to be an invasion? The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and what did the Russians do??? they declared war on Japan. cry baby
Click to expand...

 
Indeed. And they did so at the CLOSE of the WAR...and why? (By close I mean AFTER the BOMB was dropped...They had interests in Real-Estate.

*TIMELINE  <LINK*


----------



## namvet

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Bushido or self-defense have to do with this?  The fact is that our government purposefully targeted civilians that had committed no crime other than being citizens of a country we were at war with and dropped an atomic bomb on them.
> 
> As for your Mid-eastern child analogy, it doesn't fit.  A child that picks up a gun and shoots at someone is not innocent.  They may be forced to do so against their will, or they may be too young to understand what they're doing but they're not innocent.  Those Japanese civilians had done no harm to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you have a war without killing civilians???? they man war plants. they're always in the line of fire. check out what the Brits did to Dresden. those Japanese Civilians were armed and ready to kill Americans in the invasion. fuck's wrong with you?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's why wars should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.  However, this wasn't an accident.  Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed.  How do you know what those Japanese civilians would have done?  Also, why did there need to be an invasion?  The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...




> Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed



and Pearl Harbor was not. ok fine.


----------



## namvet

gentllemen please continue your education of young KK good evening


----------



## rdean

Considering that at least a million American Soldiers would have died without the bomb, not sure how it's a war crime.

The Jews killed by the Germans - huge, Russian killed by Russians - more than 20 million?  Probably the greatest crime of the last century.

The greatest war crime committed by the US was without a doubt, standing by and letting the Iraqi Christians get slaughtered.  Dropping the population from close to 1.2 million to probably less than 600,000.  

They begged Bush to protect them.  He said, "We don't want to show favoritism".  They begged Bush to let them come here.  He said, "We want to keep the illusion of diversity".  I suspect the real reason was because it would show America the incredible failure if more than half a million Christians suddenly showed up on our doorstep, Christians not the "white" color.  What's more, what would they say if asked about the "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?  "Huh"?  What weapons?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

namvet said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> can you have a war without killing civilians???? they man war plants. they're always in the line of fire. check out what the Brits did to Dresden. those Japanese Civilians were armed and ready to kill Americans in the invasion. fuck's wrong with you?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's why wars should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.  However, this wasn't an accident.  Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed.  How do you know what those Japanese civilians would have done?  Also, why did there need to be an invasion?  The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and Pearl Harbor was not. ok fine.
Click to expand...


There's a difference between attacking a military installation, and vaporizing two cities.


----------



## rdean

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's why wars should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.  However, this wasn't an accident.  Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed.  How do you know what those Japanese civilians would have done?  Also, why did there need to be an invasion?  The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and Pearl Harbor was not. ok fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a difference between attacking a military installation, and vaporizing two cities.
Click to expand...


I don't think you understand.  Remember, this was a country that believed their emperor was descended from the Sun.  They were totally devoted.

  They had been training girls as you as 10 how to fight with a pitchfork or a knife.  Imagine going to a country where NO ONE, not a single person, sees you as a liberator.  Old people would have filled their wheelchairs with dynamite.  The same suicide you saw with the Kamikazes you would have seen from every single person.  Once those two cities were destroyed, the population was ordered by their emperor to lay down their arms and surrender.  It wouldn't have been just a million American soldiers, but at least 5 million Japanese.  Believe it.

AND, the Russians were moving equipment into place that would have ended in a North/South Japan, just like in Germany.  That would have been the legacy.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rdean said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> and Pearl Harbor was not. ok fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between attacking a military installation, and vaporizing two cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand.  Remember, this was a country that believed their emperor was descended from the Sun.  They were totally devoted.
> 
> They had been training girls as you as 10 how to fight with a pitchfork or a knife.  Imagine going to a country where NO ONE, not a single person, sees you as a liberator.  Old people would have filled their wheelchairs with dynamite.  The same suicide you saw with the Kamikazes you would have seen from every single person.  Once those two cities were destroyed, the population was ordered by their emperor to lay down their arms and surrender.  It wouldn't have been just a million American soldiers, but at least 5 million Japanese.  Believe it.
> 
> AND, the Russians were moving equipment into place that would have ended in a North/South Japan, just like in Germany.  That would have been the legacy.
Click to expand...


I don't think you understand.  Remember that Japan was looking for peace before the atomic bombs were dropped.

Also the "million" American soldiers that would have died in an unnecessary invasion is greatly exaggerated.  The true estimate is actually around 46,000.


----------



## The T

namvet said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> can you have a war without killing civilians???? they man war plants. they're always in the line of fire. check out what the Brits did to Dresden. those Japanese Civilians were armed and ready to kill Americans in the invasion. fuck's wrong with you?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's why wars should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. However, this wasn't an accident. Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed. How do you know what those Japanese civilians would have done? Also, why did there need to be an invasion? The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and Pearl Harbor was not. ok fine.
Click to expand...

 
Your LOGIC is LOST on some. I follow you perfectly. Good Form!


----------



## The T

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between attacking a military installation, and vaporizing two cities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand. Remember, this was a country that believed their emperor was descended from the Sun. They were totally devoted.
> 
> They had been training girls as you as 10 how to fight with a pitchfork or a knife. Imagine going to a country where NO ONE, not a single person, sees you as a liberator. Old people would have filled their wheelchairs with dynamite. The same suicide you saw with the Kamikazes you would have seen from every single person. Once those two cities were destroyed, the population was ordered by their emperor to lay down their arms and surrender. It wouldn't have been just a million American soldiers, but at least 5 million Japanese. Believe it.
> 
> AND, the Russians were moving equipment into place that would have ended in a North/South Japan, just like in Germany. That would have been the legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand. Remember that Japan was looking for peace before the atomic bombs were dropped.
> 
> Also the "million" American soldiers that would have died in an unnecessary invasion is greatly exaggerated. The true estimate is actually around 46,000.
Click to expand...

 

Japan was looking for peace before it was dropped? Have a LINK to this? History tells a different story...

________________________


*The usa was facing the prospect of invading japan to subdue it. the last few battles; iwo jima and okinawa particularly, were incomprehensibly bloody. japan had no regard for its own citizen's lives and planned to turn their whole island into a fortress.* Casualties were estimated to be 1 million americans and half a million british in the first invasion alone. some cynics say we used it to scare stalin as well, but the fact remains that they ignored an ultimatum on 7-27-45 after enduring the worst conventional bombs could do. A powerful argument remains that the Bomb saved allied and japanese lives. 

________________________

*SOURCE*

This is widely KNOWN by most of us. Can you cite a source that supports your contnetion?

The ONLY reason they capitulated is that the fearewd we had MORE of the Bombs, and would USE THEM.

Nagasaki, and Hiroshima were examples of what we would do to bring it to a close rather than commit more American./ Allied lives to subdue them into capitulation. And it was estimated to be in the millions.

I'll be waiting for your answer.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

The T said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand. Remember, this was a country that believed their emperor was descended from the Sun. They were totally devoted.
> 
> They had been training girls as you as 10 how to fight with a pitchfork or a knife. Imagine going to a country where NO ONE, not a single person, sees you as a liberator. Old people would have filled their wheelchairs with dynamite. The same suicide you saw with the Kamikazes you would have seen from every single person. Once those two cities were destroyed, the population was ordered by their emperor to lay down their arms and surrender. It wouldn't have been just a million American soldiers, but at least 5 million Japanese. Believe it.
> 
> AND, the Russians were moving equipment into place that would have ended in a North/South Japan, just like in Germany. That would have been the legacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand. Remember that Japan was looking for peace before the atomic bombs were dropped.
> 
> Also the "million" American soldiers that would have died in an unnecessary invasion is greatly exaggerated. The true estimate is actually around 46,000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was looking for peace before it was dropped? Have a LINK to this? History tells a different story...
> 
> ________________________
> 
> 
> *The usa was facing the prospect of invading japan to subdue it. the last few battles; iwo jima and okinawa particularly, were incomprehensibly bloody. japan had no regard for its own citizen's lives and planned to turn their whole island into a fortress.* Casualties were estimated to be 1 million americans and half a million british in the first invasion alone. some cynics say we used it to scare stalin as well, but the fact remains that they ignored an ultimatum on 7-27-45 after enduring the worst conventional bombs could do. A powerful argument remains that the Bomb saved allied and japanese lives.
> 
> ________________________
> 
> *SOURCE*
> 
> This is widely KNOWN by most of us. Can you cite a source that supports your contnetion?
> 
> The ONLY reason they capitulated is that the fearewd we had MORE of the Bombs, and would USE THEM.
> 
> Nagasaki, and Hiroshima were examples of what we would do to bring it to a close rather than commit more American./ Allied lives to subdue them into capitulation. And it was estimated to be in the millions.
> 
> I'll be waiting for your answer.
Click to expand...




> In the case of Hiroshima, no substantive evidence exists that the bombing was necessary to make Japan surrender. In fact, the Japanese had already attempted to sue for peace in July and were only hesitant because they distrusted the terms of unconditional surrender that the Allies demanded. They specifically wanted to keep their emperor, which, after the atomic bombings, they were allowed to, anyway. The military estimated before Hiroshima that invasion would cost as many as 20,000 or 30,000 American lives, but not nearly the half million lives that Truman later claimed had been the estimate. Even without invasion, Japan was utterly defeated by the war and U.S. blockades prevented the island nation from getting the necessary food to survive, much less maintain any type of threat against America.



Targeting Civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Anthony Gregory

An interesting quote regarding the use of the atomic bomb comes from Dwight D. Eisenhower:

"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasnt necessary to hit them with that awful thing."


----------



## Intense

Wow, I've Never seen this argument before. Is this Recycle bin day?

If I was Pres. at the Time, which I was not, and never will be, I would probably not have dropped the bomb if I could find a way out of it. Keep in mind now that Fire Bombing was real nasty too, and we did allot of it. That said, After dropping the first bomb, we could have waited longer for a reaction from Japan, which was stunned and devastated, by act one. We probably would have had a surrender. I suspect We had other forces at play, including justifying Cost/Expense/Effect ratios. Anyway one looks at it, it was a hard decision. We did loose a third bomb to boot, in the Pacific, which has never been found.


----------



## The T

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand. Remember that Japan was looking for peace before the atomic bombs were dropped.
> 
> Also the "million" American soldiers that would have died in an unnecessary invasion is greatly exaggerated. The true estimate is actually around 46,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was looking for peace before it was dropped? Have a LINK to this? History tells a different story...
> 
> ________________________
> 
> 
> *The usa was facing the prospect of invading japan to subdue it. the last few battles; iwo jima and okinawa particularly, were incomprehensibly bloody. japan had no regard for its own citizen's lives and planned to turn their whole island into a fortress.* Casualties were estimated to be 1 million americans and half a million british in the first invasion alone. some cynics say we used it to scare stalin as well, but the fact remains that they ignored an ultimatum on 7-27-45 after enduring the worst conventional bombs could do. A powerful argument remains that the Bomb saved allied and japanese lives.
> 
> ________________________
> 
> *SOURCE*
> 
> This is widely KNOWN by most of us. Can you cite a source that supports your contnetion?
> 
> The ONLY reason they capitulated is that the fearewd we had MORE of the Bombs, and would USE THEM.
> 
> Nagasaki, and Hiroshima were examples of what we would do to bring it to a close rather than commit more American./ Allied lives to subdue them into capitulation. And it was estimated to be in the millions.
> 
> I'll be waiting for your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of Hiroshima, no substantive evidence exists that the bombing was necessary to make Japan surrender. In fact, the Japanese had already attempted to sue for peace in July and were only hesitant because they distrusted the terms of unconditional surrender that the Allies demanded. They specifically wanted to keep their emperor, which, after the atomic bombings, they were allowed to, anyway. The military estimated before Hiroshima that invasion would cost as many as 20,000 or 30,000 American lives, but not nearly the half million lives that Truman later claimed had been the estimate. Even without invasion, Japan was utterly defeated by the war and U.S. blockades prevented the island nation from getting the necessary food to survive, much less maintain any type of threat against America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Targeting Civilians at Hiroshima*and*Nagasaki by Anthony Gregory
> 
> An interesting quote regarding the use of the atomic bomb comes from Dwight D. Eisenhower:
> 
> "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasnt necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
Click to expand...

 
Only Certain SEGMENTS of the miltary tried when they saw their cause was LOST...NONE had the Heart, the AUDACITY to tell the Emoror...and therefore they FAILED.

Nice try. Ain't buying what your selling. You act as if the entire NATION tried to "SUE" For peace...your conveyance is UNTRUE.

So STOP why you thought YOU were ahead. 

The Entire Country was in it, and geared for the duration to the LAST MAN.


----------



## elvis

I love the smell of cooked Japs in the morning.  Smells like SAVED AMERICAN LIVES.


----------



## Yukon

Did you know that the attack on Pearl Harbour was really planned by FDR and he blamed the Japanese?


----------



## AmericanPatriot

Young Mr. Yukon is only posting to see other people pay attention to him. I would be willing to bet he is an emotionally stunted individual  that just likes to see reactions to his asinine postings. It is obvious to me he really knows nothing of true history.
My father was involved in the fighting on Okinawa and told me the Japanese there would rather die than surrender. How do you think they would have reacted to a full scale invasion of their home island? You speak of only 45,000 Allied deaths in that invasion. One of those could have been my father. At the time the estimate was for up to 1 million additional Allied casualties. 
If you are ever in a fight rest assured you will use any and all weapons to end that fight. But there again I doubt if you have what it takes to stand up to anyone. When this topic started I just thought you were ignorant but now I understand you are stupid and a coward. 
Here's my philosophy.. Don't start a fight if you are not willing to get your ass handed to you.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

AmericanPatriot said:


> Young Mr. Yukon is only posting to see other people pay attention to him. I would be willing to bet he is an emotionally stunted individual  that just likes to see reactions to his asinine postings. It is obvious to me he really knows nothing of true history.
> My father was involved in the fighting on Okinawa and told me the Japanese there would rather die than surrender. How do you think they would have reacted to a full scale invasion of their home island? You speak of only 45,000 Allied deaths in that invasion. One of those could have been my father. At the time the estimate was for up to 1 million additional Allied casualties.
> If you are ever in a fight rest assured you will use any and all weapons to end that fight. But there again I doubt if you have what it takes to stand up to anyone. When this topic started I just thought you were ignorant but now I understand you are stupid and a coward.
> Here's my philosophy.. Don't start a fight if you are not willing to get your ass handed to you.



Actually the estimate for the unnecessary invasion is around 46,000.  The 1 million number came from people who attempt to justify the atomic bombings.


----------



## Intense

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> AmericanPatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Young Mr. Yukon is only posting to see other people pay attention to him. I would be willing to bet he is an emotionally stunted individual  that just likes to see reactions to his asinine postings. It is obvious to me he really knows nothing of true history.
> My father was involved in the fighting on Okinawa and told me the Japanese there would rather die than surrender. How do you think they would have reacted to a full scale invasion of their home island? You speak of only 45,000 Allied deaths in that invasion. One of those could have been my father. At the time the estimate was for up to 1 million additional Allied casualties.
> If you are ever in a fight rest assured you will use any and all weapons to end that fight. But there again I doubt if you have what it takes to stand up to anyone. When this topic started I just thought you were ignorant but now I understand you are stupid and a coward.
> Here's my philosophy.. Don't start a fight if you are not willing to get your ass handed to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the estimate for the unnecessary invasion is around 46,000.  The 1 million number came from people who attempt to justify the atomic bombings.
Click to expand...


You can't predict house to house fighting that simply.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Intense said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmericanPatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Young Mr. Yukon is only posting to see other people pay attention to him. I would be willing to bet he is an emotionally stunted individual  that just likes to see reactions to his asinine postings. It is obvious to me he really knows nothing of true history.
> My father was involved in the fighting on Okinawa and told me the Japanese there would rather die than surrender. How do you think they would have reacted to a full scale invasion of their home island? You speak of only 45,000 Allied deaths in that invasion. One of those could have been my father. At the time the estimate was for up to 1 million additional Allied casualties.
> If you are ever in a fight rest assured you will use any and all weapons to end that fight. But there again I doubt if you have what it takes to stand up to anyone. When this topic started I just thought you were ignorant but now I understand you are stupid and a coward.
> Here's my philosophy.. Don't start a fight if you are not willing to get your ass handed to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the estimate for the unnecessary invasion is around 46,000.  The 1 million number came from people who attempt to justify the atomic bombings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't predict house to house fighting that simply.
Click to expand...


I'm currently looking for the actual article itself.  Here's a blurb about it, however.



> He supplies pre-Hiroshima estimates from several sources, including the Joint War Plans Committee, which estimated that between 20,000 and 46,000 troops would die in such an invasion. The sources cited all show that the estimates were significantly lower than 500,000. The article also speculates about the reasons for the post-war inflation of the estimates.



Alsos: A Postwar Myth: 500,000 U.S. Lives Saved


----------



## Yukon

Our Japanese friends were actually peace loving people who were driven to war becuase the USA would not trade with them. It was America's fault not the Japanese. You know it to be true.......


----------



## Intense

Yukon said:


> Our Japanese friends were actually peace loving people who were driven to war becuase the USA would not trade with them. It was America's fault not the Japanese. You know it to be true.......



You know you are retarded right? You know that you give other Retarded People a Black Eye, just for being associated with you. I refuse to trade with you. Try bombing Me. 

I say We Invade Canada, What will it take,.... an hour and a half? 90% + Live within 90 minutes of the Border. We could also just apprehend them when they cross over for their Doctors Appt., or to Shop. Let's Boycott Canadian Beer, and Hockey Teams.... 

No wait, We are not like you.


----------



## rdean

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the estimate for the unnecessary invasion is around 46,000.  The 1 million number came from people who attempt to justify the atomic bombings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't predict house to house fighting that simply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm currently looking for the actual article itself.  Here's a blurb about it, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He supplies pre-Hiroshima estimates from several sources, including the Joint War Plans Committee, which estimated that between 20,000 and 46,000 troops would die in such an invasion. The sources cited all show that the estimates were significantly lower than 500,000. The article also speculates about the reasons for the post-war inflation of the estimates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alsos: A Postwar Myth: 500,000 U.S. Lives Saved
Click to expand...


As "Intense" points out, you can't predict house to house fighting.  But you can look at what has happened in Iraq and get a pretty good idea of what would have happened in Japan.  

Remember, in Iraq, at the beginning of the invasion, almost no US soldiers were lost.  Since then, thousands killed and tens of thousands maimed and Saddam was a "tyrant", not beloved by the country.  

Japan had half the population of the US and adored their emperorer and even believed he was their version of "Jesus Christ" here on earth.  They were willing to die to protect their "God" here on earth.  You can't seriously believe that under these circumstances, the US would have lost only 46,000 soldiers, especially going door to door.

Japan was looking for peace, true, but included in that peace was keeping whatever land they had already concquered and keeping their military untouched.  Basically, they wanted hostilities to "cease" until they could regroup.  Their "peace" was a "time out".

Tell me they aren't teaching in school that we dropped two atomic bombs on innocent people simply because we "could".  Truman agonized over this.  They were careful to select cities that didn't have the "religious" meaning that Tokoyo or others had.  The ONLY reason the Japanese stopped fighting was because the US told them they would drop more and more if they didn't stop.


----------



## namvet

[youtube]bAp8bSdE5MQ[/youtube]


----------



## Intense

namvet said:


> [youtube]bAp8bSdE5MQ[/youtube]



They did some nasty shit. And Our Home Grown Shit Heads Traded Pardons with Them and Nazi's for Research intel.


----------



## Yukon

Many German and Japanese experiments proved to be good research.


----------



## Intense

Blood Money, Contaminated Offering. Take your pick.


----------



## namvet

Yukon said:


> Many German and Japanese experiments proved to be good research.




you just approved of mass murder. lets play pearl harbor. ill lay down and you can blow the hell of me. faggot


----------



## HUGGY

namvet said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many German and Japanese experiments proved to be good research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you just approved of mass murder. lets play pearl harbor. ill lay down and you can blow the hell of me. faggot
Click to expand...


I just knew it!  Namvet is a homo.


----------



## namvet

just knew it!  !!! HUGGY approves of mass murder also. thanks  HUGGY  for confirming that


----------



## nolesrock

Yukon said:


> *The dropping of the bomb was a terrible war crime, equal to the extermination of the Jews.*



okay, back to the matter at hand...

there is NO COMPARISON!

consider this...
while some people of japanese origin were sent to internment camps, none were summarily executed...

and beyond that, there was no systematic extermination campaign, no "final solution of the japanese question" by the american government...

a large number of innocents were killed yes...but it was no holocaust...

the japanese citizens in hiroshima and nagasaki were not taken prisoner and worked, starved, gassed or slowly tortured in a labor/concentration camp...

roosevelt was not a raving lunatic, a bloodthirsty madman nor a documented racist/xenophobe...

how were the atom bombs equal to "the final solution?" do tell.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have already demonstrated that the dropping of the bomb was militarily justified because the strategic analysis got it right (unlike Iraq II).  A real chance existed that the Allied forces would not be able to get a foothold on the home islands, and if they did, the projected casualties were sky high.

The war crime would have been if the bomb had not been dropped.


----------



## Kalam

namvet said:


> ill lay down and you can blow the hell of me.


----------



## Liability

Kalam said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ill lay down and you can blow the hell of me.
Click to expand...


That there is some funny stuff!



(I refer to just the image of Gomez Addams and the associated text.  I do not endorse the message conveyed to namvet.  Sorry if I was unclear prior to this edit.)


----------



## mystic

Kalam said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ill lay down and you can blow the hell of me.
Click to expand...


LMAO!!!


----------



## namvet

Kalam said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ill lay down and you can blow the hell of me.
Click to expand...


hi sailor new in town ????


----------



## Kalam

namvet said:


> hi sailor



You're lending credence to my suspicions.


----------



## namvet

Kalam said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> hi sailor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lending credence to my suspicions.
Click to expand...


ok. ill just pick your ass up and throw it thru that little hole in the side of the ship


----------



## REVxERIK

WillowTree said:


> Notice how no American Democwat ever stands up and says it was a horrible crime the Japanese committed that Sunday Morning on Dec. 7th 1941 and sneak attacked the USA?? Notice that?? Wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THE BLAME AMERICA FIRST CLUB IS ALWAYS IN SESSION*


 my opinion is the japanese did a horrible rotten low slimy thing, nothing forgives that. But our response was less than appropriate. but that's just me.


----------



## Yukon

HUGGY said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many German and Japanese experiments proved to be good research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you just approved of mass murder. lets play pearl harbor. ill lay down and you can blow the hell of me. faggot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just knew it!  Namvet is a homo.
Click to expand...


Not only is he a hom he's also a fake. He no more served in Vietnam then I did. In fact he probably fled to Canada - the cowardly hypocrit.


----------



## namvet

Yukon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> namvet said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just approved of mass murder. lets play pearl harbor. ill lay down and you can blow the hell of me. faggot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just knew it!  Namvet is a homo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only is he a hom he's also a fake. He no more served in Vietnam then I did. In fact he probably fled to Canada - the cowardly hypocrit.
Click to expand...


of course you can prove this. being a molester of children and all 

*FAIL*


----------



## mightypeon

At the time of the bombs, the fact that Russia was still neutral was playing a large role in Japanese considerations (japan asked Russia to act as a mediator lol). The USA knew Russia would attack in August, to faciliate a surrender, they could have waited for the monstrous Russian attack that obliberated the Japanese forces in China over a matter of 2 weeks.

You know, loosing 1 million soldier over a matter of 2 weeks is propably harsher than loosign some 200K due to the Bombs, if the Japanese would not have surrendered before september the Bomb could have been dropped anyway.


----------



## rdean

The greatest American war crime was letting Bin Laden go after what he did to this country.

The second one was tricking America into invading Iraq.

The third was standing by and watching the slaughter of Iraqi Christians.

At least, these were the worst in my lifetime.

There's others, cutting veterans benefits while they were serving their third and fourth tour.  Sending them over there with rusty and old equipment, etc.


----------



## Yukon

American war planes dropping bombs on the innocent men, women, and children of Iraq and Afghanistan is a crime agains humanity, against civilization, and against our Lord and Saviour Jesus. He will judge America and America will be judged harshly for these crimes. 

The patriots of the Muslim world, men like Bin Laden and his brethern, will avenge these bombings. 

*May God forgive us.*


----------



## Intense

Yukon said:


> American war planes dropping bombs on the innocent men, women, and children of Iraq and Afghanistan is a crime agains humanity, against civilization, and against our Lord and Saviour Jesus. He will judge America will be judged harshly for these crimes.
> 
> The patriots of the Muslim world, men like Bin Laden and his brethern, will avenge these bombings.
> 
> *May God forgive us.*



So where is Canada Exactly? What is it referred to as ? The 52nd State.  Getting on Prayer Rug time Yukon, get that nose right into the carpet now. Maybe, just maybe They'll spare your head.


----------



## blu

i just skimmed through this thread but didn't see anything about the usa and the philippines


----------



## REVxERIK

rdean said:


> The greatest American war crime was letting Bin Laden go after what he did to this country.
> 
> The second one was tricking America into invading Iraq.
> 
> The third was standing by and watching the slaughter of Iraqi Christians.
> 
> At least, these were the worst in my lifetime.
> 
> There's others, cutting veterans benefits while they were serving their third and fourth tour.  Sending them over there with rusty and old equipment, etc.



such truth and sincerity. good on ya!


----------

