The Bastard Just Had To Do It: Obama In Hiroshima Apologizes For America's Actions During WW2

[kaz]

... Though he didn't explain why we should apologize for fighting back when Japan attacked us

I've never heard anyone criticize the US for "fighting back." If two kids are fighting after the smaller kid threw the first punch, no one will criticize the bigger kid for fighting back. If the bigger kid, after taking a few shots at the beginning of the fight, ends up winning, that's just how it goes. However, if the smaller kid is almost unconscious and down on one knee and the bigger kid takes out a bazooka and blows his head off, some people may question that.

Terrible analogy. Millions and millions of people would have died if we invaded Japan, and the Japanese government had no intention of surrendering

1. Those numbers are speculative
2. Invasion was not the only alternative to using the atomic bomb
3. Evidence does not support the categorical claims that "the Japanese government had no intention of surrendering"
4. Yes, it was a terrible analogy

The exact numbers are speculative for sure, but it clearly would have been in the millions who would have died in an invasion. There was no evidence the Japanese were considering surrendering before the bomb and it's hard to imagine any scenario that would have cost fewer lives. And if we left without defeating the Japan government they would have continued the same policies and we probably would have had another war

MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb


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

If we accepted the terms of Japan stopping fighting and we go away without an occupation and change of government, then another war would have been inevitable. The idea that what they were proposing as "surrender" and their actual surrender after the bombs were entirely different things.

They were still fighting, a final move to end the war was completely justified. The Japanese could have killed fewer people in Pearl Harbor too. They could have not attacked it. We did nothing wrong and have nothing to apologize for

 

[daws101]

The RWNJs will rationalizing anything.

 

[daws101]

Another thing that history challenged rws seem to forget is Japan knew they didn't have the resources or the manpower to invade the U.S successfully.

 

[Unkotare]

I've never heard anyone criticize the US for "fighting back." If two kids are fighting after the smaller kid threw the first punch, no one will criticize the bigger kid for fighting back. If the bigger kid, after taking a few shots at the beginning of the fight, ends up winning, that's just how it goes. However, if the smaller kid is almost unconscious and down on one knee and the bigger kid takes out a bazooka and blows his head off, some people may question that.

Terrible analogy. Millions and millions of people would have died if we invaded Japan, and the Japanese government had no intention of surrendering

1. Those numbers are speculative
2. Invasion was not the only alternative to using the atomic bomb
3. Evidence does not support the categorical claims that "the Japanese government had no intention of surrendering"
4. Yes, it was a terrible analogy

The exact numbers are speculative for sure, but it clearly would have been in the millions who would have died in an invasion. There was no evidence the Japanese were considering surrendering before the bomb and it's hard to imagine any scenario that would have cost fewer lives. And if we left without defeating the Japan government they would have continued the same policies and we probably would have had another war

MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb


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

If we accepted the terms of Japan stopping fighting and we go away without an occupation and change of government, then another war would have been inevitable. The idea that what they were proposing as "surrender" and their actual surrender after the bombs were entirely different things.

They were still fighting, a final move to end the war was completely justified. The Japanese could have killed fewer people in Pearl Harbor too. They could have not attacked it. We did nothing wrong and have nothing to apologize for

Whoo! I'm getting dizzy watching these goal posts move around so much!

 

[Unkotare]

This doesn't have to be a 'left wing, right wing' thing, so stop trying to force that into the discussion.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Another thing that history challenged rws seem to forget is Japan knew they didn't have the resources or the manpower to invade the U.S successfully.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[kaz]

Terrible analogy. Millions and millions of people would have died if we invaded Japan, and the Japanese government had no intention of surrendering

1. Those numbers are speculative
2. Invasion was not the only alternative to using the atomic bomb
3. Evidence does not support the categorical claims that "the Japanese government had no intention of surrendering"
4. Yes, it was a terrible analogy

The exact numbers are speculative for sure, but it clearly would have been in the millions who would have died in an invasion. There was no evidence the Japanese were considering surrendering before the bomb and it's hard to imagine any scenario that would have cost fewer lives. And if we left without defeating the Japan government they would have continued the same policies and we probably would have had another war

MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb


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

If we accepted the terms of Japan stopping fighting and we go away without an occupation and change of government, then another war would have been inevitable. The idea that what they were proposing as "surrender" and their actual surrender after the bombs were entirely different things.

They were still fighting, a final move to end the war was completely justified. The Japanese could have killed fewer people in Pearl Harbor too. They could have not attacked it. We did nothing wrong and have nothing to apologize for

Whoo! I'm getting dizzy watching these goal posts move around so much!

You're moving the goal posts, you keep redefining surrender. You say the Japanese were willing to surrender so therefore we didn't need to use the bombs, but that wasn't what I call surrendering. All they were willing to do was stop fighting and we go away. I'm saying that wasn't sufficient.

When I address what you called "surrender" you say I moved the goal posts. No, I'm saying what I said all along, there was no sign Japan would surrender. Your calling stopping fighting surrendering then treating as the same thing as an actual surrender which they did after the bombs is you equivocating

 

[Unkotare]

1. Those numbers are speculative
2. Invasion was not the only alternative to using the atomic bomb
3. Evidence does not support the categorical claims that "the Japanese government had no intention of surrendering"
4. Yes, it was a terrible analogy

The exact numbers are speculative for sure, but it clearly would have been in the millions who would have died in an invasion. There was no evidence the Japanese were considering surrendering before the bomb and it's hard to imagine any scenario that would have cost fewer lives. And if we left without defeating the Japan government they would have continued the same policies and we probably would have had another war

MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb


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

If we accepted the terms of Japan stopping fighting and we go away without an occupation and change of government, then another war would have been inevitable. The idea that what they were proposing as "surrender" and their actual surrender after the bombs were entirely different things.

They were still fighting, a final move to end the war was completely justified. The Japanese could have killed fewer people in Pearl Harbor too. They could have not attacked it. We did nothing wrong and have nothing to apologize for

Whoo! I'm getting dizzy watching these goal posts move around so much!

You're moving the goal posts, you keep redefining surrender. You say the Japanese were willing to surrender so therefore we didn't need to use the bombs, but that wasn't what I call surrendering. All they were willing to do was stop fighting and we go away. I'm saying that wasn't sufficient.

When I address what you called "surrender" you say I moved the goal posts. No, I'm saying what I said all along, there was no sign Japan would surrender. Your calling stopping fighting surrendering then treating as the same thing as an actual surrender which they did after the bombs is you equivocating

Are you sure you meant to address this post to me? I haven't mentioned the definition of surrender. The only person I see here trying to play semantics with that is you. Did you read the links I posted?

 

[Unkotare]

Two days before fdr left for the Yalta Conference, General MacArthur sent him a 40 page letter outlining Japanese overtures to surrender. The terms were exactly what Truman agreed to after incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians.

 

[Syriusly]

I am still waiting for the OP to show us where anyone apologized for the bombing of Hiroshima as the OP claimed.

No one that knows how you traitors operate is going to show you a thing.

Someone forgot to make Mikey take his meds today.

I don't need meds to realize that you shills are all liars and traitors.

6. Employ misdirection, smear people

You need your meds to establish contact with reality.

THe only meds I take are blood pressure meds, shill. Gobble gobble traitor.

I believe that- I am suggesting you go back on your anti-psychotic meds so you can be in touch with reality.

 

[miketx]

As stated liar, I don't take any. Now back to your douchery.

 

[Syriusly]

You libs and obozo fans let us know when the Japanese emperor shows up at Pearl Harbor to apologize. Once that happens, you might have a point. Until then, they started it, we finished it, end of story.

By the way, dems-----------------Truman was a democrat.

You Conservative and Stevie the Racist fans let us know when President Obama apologizes for anything at Hiroshima.

Once that happens you might have a point. Until then you are just endorsing Stevie the Racists lying thread.

By the way, Conservatives, yes Truman- and Roosevelt(who authorized the building of the bomb) were both Democrats- and lead the United States to victory in World War 2.

 

[Syriusly]

As stated liar, I don't take any. Now back to your douchery.

You are not a liar if your mental condition is making your say falsehoods- once you go back to your medication you should be fine.

 

[miketx]

America. Hated by the lowest paid shills soros can find.

 

[regent]

Again, this is what happens when you have a non-natural born Citizen as president born without sole allegiance to America.

Obama Ignores Japanese Atrocities in Hiroshima: US Decision to Drop Atom Bomb Arose from "Humanity's Worst Instincts"

I can't find the apology could you please offer a link or place it is in black and white?

 

[Asclepias]

Again, this is what happens when you have a non-natural born Citizen as president born without sole allegiance to America.

Obama Ignores Japanese Atrocities in Hiroshima: US Decision to Drop Atom Bomb Arose from "Humanity's Worst Instincts"

I can't find the apology could you please offer a link or place it is in black and white?

Steve hasnt reposted since i asked this same question on the first page. I'm pretty sure he is thoroughly embarrassed his sources at stormfront let him down......again.

 

[kaz]

The exact numbers are speculative for sure, but it clearly would have been in the millions who would have died in an invasion. There was no evidence the Japanese were considering surrendering before the bomb and it's hard to imagine any scenario that would have cost fewer lives. And if we left without defeating the Japan government they would have continued the same policies and we probably would have had another war

MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb


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

If we accepted the terms of Japan stopping fighting and we go away without an occupation and change of government, then another war would have been inevitable. The idea that what they were proposing as "surrender" and their actual surrender after the bombs were entirely different things.

They were still fighting, a final move to end the war was completely justified. The Japanese could have killed fewer people in Pearl Harbor too. They could have not attacked it. We did nothing wrong and have nothing to apologize for

Whoo! I'm getting dizzy watching these goal posts move around so much!

You're moving the goal posts, you keep redefining surrender. You say the Japanese were willing to surrender so therefore we didn't need to use the bombs, but that wasn't what I call surrendering. All they were willing to do was stop fighting and we go away. I'm saying that wasn't sufficient.

When I address what you called "surrender" you say I moved the goal posts. No, I'm saying what I said all along, there was no sign Japan would surrender. Your calling stopping fighting surrendering then treating as the same thing as an actual surrender which they did after the bombs is you equivocating

Are you sure you meant to address this post to me? I haven't mentioned the definition of surrender. The only person I see here trying to play semantics with that is you. Did you read the links I posted?

I've played zero semantics games. Don't know what you're talking about. You did.

Kaz: The Japanese weren't willing to surrender

Unkotare: Yes they were

Kaz: No, they were willing to stop fighting and let us go away, but that isn't surrendering. And with their government intact we would have eventually had to fight them in another war

Unkotare: Why do you keep redefining surrender?

I haven't

 

[miketx]

You know, I'd almost be willing to bet that most of the shill garbage on here aren't even Americans. Just paid euro-trash that haven't been assimilated by the muslims they love. Yet.

 

[Unkotare]

MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb


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

If we accepted the terms of Japan stopping fighting and we go away without an occupation and change of government, then another war would have been inevitable. The idea that what they were proposing as "surrender" and their actual surrender after the bombs were entirely different things.

They were still fighting, a final move to end the war was completely justified. The Japanese could have killed fewer people in Pearl Harbor too. They could have not attacked it. We did nothing wrong and have nothing to apologize for

Whoo! I'm getting dizzy watching these goal posts move around so much!

You're moving the goal posts, you keep redefining surrender. You say the Japanese were willing to surrender so therefore we didn't need to use the bombs, but that wasn't what I call surrendering. All they were willing to do was stop fighting and we go away. I'm saying that wasn't sufficient.

When I address what you called "surrender" you say I moved the goal posts. No, I'm saying what I said all along, there was no sign Japan would surrender. Your calling stopping fighting surrendering then treating as the same thing as an actual surrender which they did after the bombs is you equivocating

Are you sure you meant to address this post to me? I haven't mentioned the definition of surrender. The only person I see here trying to play semantics with that is you. Did you read the links I posted?

I've played zero semantics games. Don't know what you're talking about. You did.

Kaz: The Japanese weren't willing to surrender

Unkotare: Yes they were

Kaz: No, they were willing to stop fighting and let us go away, but that isn't surrendering. And with their government intact we would have eventually had to fight them in another war

Unkotare: Why do you keep redefining surrender?

I haven't

Are you presenting that as a quote? Can you link to the actual post?

 

[Unkotare]

Two days before fdr left for the Yalta Conference, General MacArthur sent him a 40 page letter outlining Japanese overtures to surrender. The terms were exactly what Truman agreed to after incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians.

.