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

[kaz]

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?

If I were presenting that as an actual quote, I would have used quote marks.

Why don't you just address the point? What the Japanese were willing to do before the bombs was not surrender, they were just willing to stop fighting if we agreed to go away. My view is then another war would have been inevitable. We had to occupy them and remove their government. The bomb accomplished that with way fewer deaths than any other available plan would have.

And again, they attacked us, they were still fighting, we had every right to use the bomb. We did nothing wrong regardless

 

[Unkotare]

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?

If I were presenting that as an actual quote, I would have used quote marks.

Why don't you just address the point? What the Japanese were willing to do before the bombs was not surrender, they were just willing to stop fighting if we agreed to go away. My view is then another war would have been inevitable. We had to occupy them and remove their government. The bomb accomplished that with way fewer deaths than any other available plan would have.

And again, they attacked us, they were still fighting, we had every right to use the bomb. We did nothing wrong regardless

If it wasn't a quote then don't misrepresent me.

 

[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.

.

.

 

[Unkotare]

... 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

Ignored Japanese Peace Bids Plague U. S., West, with What Might Have Been (August 14, 1965)

Read the link.

 

[kaz]

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?

If I were presenting that as an actual quote, I would have used quote marks.

Why don't you just address the point? What the Japanese were willing to do before the bombs was not surrender, they were just willing to stop fighting if we agreed to go away. My view is then another war would have been inevitable. We had to occupy them and remove their government. The bomb accomplished that with way fewer deaths than any other available plan would have.

And again, they attacked us, they were still fighting, we had every right to use the bomb. We did nothing wrong regardless

If it wasn't a quote then don't misrepresent me.

So you have a no paraphrasing rule? How do you pull that off? Do people follow your rule?

 

[Unkotare]

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?

If I were presenting that as an actual quote, I would have used quote marks.

Why don't you just address the point? What the Japanese were willing to do before the bombs was not surrender, they were just willing to stop fighting if we agreed to go away. My view is then another war would have been inevitable. We had to occupy them and remove their government. The bomb accomplished that with way fewer deaths than any other available plan would have.

And again, they attacked us, they were still fighting, we had every right to use the bomb. We did nothing wrong regardless

If it wasn't a quote then don't misrepresent me.

So you have a no paraphrasing rule? How do you pull that off? Do people follow your rule?

It's more of a no lying about what I actually said rule.

 

[kaz]

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

Ignored Japanese Peace Bids Plague U. S., West, with What Might Have Been (August 14, 1965)

Read the link.

Well, I'm not going to defend FDR. He was the worst President in American history. And if that was a sincere offer then I would agree with you that we should have tried to make it happen. However, it doesn't contradict what I said, the Japanese weren't offering to surrender, just stop fighting if we would go away. And the threat of a future war would still have been high. Though if we could have ended in in 1944, that would probably have been worth it

 

[kaz]

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?

If I were presenting that as an actual quote, I would have used quote marks.

Why don't you just address the point? What the Japanese were willing to do before the bombs was not surrender, they were just willing to stop fighting if we agreed to go away. My view is then another war would have been inevitable. We had to occupy them and remove their government. The bomb accomplished that with way fewer deaths than any other available plan would have.

And again, they attacked us, they were still fighting, we had every right to use the bomb. We did nothing wrong regardless

If it wasn't a quote then don't misrepresent me.

So you have a no paraphrasing rule? How do you pull that off? Do people follow your rule?

It's more of a no lying about what I actually said rule.

That was exactly what you said. I said they weren't willing to surrender, just stop fighting. You're still continuing that equivocation. I say just stopping fighting was not the Japanese surrendering as you claimed

 

[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.

What does this have to do with anything?

Just everything.

 

[daws101]

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.

Bravo!

 

[daws101]

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

Classic delusion when getting your ass handed to you.

 

[daws101]

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.

Even more desperation and delusion.

 

[Unkotare]

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

If I were presenting that as an actual quote, I would have used quote marks.

Why don't you just address the point? What the Japanese were willing to do before the bombs was not surrender, they were just willing to stop fighting if we agreed to go away. My view is then another war would have been inevitable. We had to occupy them and remove their government. The bomb accomplished that with way fewer deaths than any other available plan would have.

And again, they attacked us, they were still fighting, we had every right to use the bomb. We did nothing wrong regardless

If it wasn't a quote then don't misrepresent me.

So you have a no paraphrasing rule? How do you pull that off? Do people follow your rule?

It's more of a no lying about what I actually said rule.

That was exactly what you said. .....

Then show me the actual quote.

 

[Unkotare]

...... I said they weren't willing to surrender, just stop fighting. You're still continuing that equivocation. I say just stopping fighting was not the Japanese surrendering as you claimed

You still haven't read the link. I wonder why.

 

[Redfish]

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.

LMAO!!! I didn't know I was in a discussion with folks who didn't know that!

there is no limit to what dem/libs don't know.

 

[Unkotare]

... 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."

.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You know, I'd almost be willing to bet that soon the folks at the home will discover that Mikey has slipped out and gotten access to a computer and may be a danger to himself.

 

[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.

LMAO!!! I didn't know I was in a discussion with folks who didn't know that!

there is no limit to what dem/libs don't know.

There is no limit to what Redfish will make up.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Ignored Japanese Peace Bids Plague U. S., West, with What Might Have Been (August 14, 1965)

Read the link.

Well, I'm not going to defend FDR. He was the worst President in American history. And if that was a sincere offer then I would agree with you that we should have tried to make it happen. However, it doesn't contradict what I said, the Japanese weren't offering to surrender, just stop fighting if we would go away. And the threat of a future war would still have been high. Though if we could have ended in in 1944, that would probably have been worth it

And by 'worst' Kaz means because he was the President who led us to victory in World War 2- and that really pisses him off.

Kaz would really have preferred the United States to have lost in World War 2 so he could blame it on the Democrats.

 

[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.

You know, I'd almost be willing to bet that soon the folks at the home will discover that Mikey has slipped out and gotten access to a computer and may be a danger to himself.

Misdirection and lies. The liberal rule book. Need I post it again?