The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[eagle1462010]

Jesus.................this dude never stops WHINING...............

We dropped the dang bomb.............that is the history of it..............But I guess you are on a mission to say AMERICA SUCKS..............

Whatever................go buy some cheese............to have with your whine.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Jesus.................this dude never stops WHINING...............

Read: pointing out facts that indict FDR and Truman and their gang of leftists.

We dropped the dang bomb.............that is the history of it..............But I guess you are on a mission to say AMERICA SUCKS..............

HUH??? When have I ever said "America sucks"?! What on earth are you talking about? Pointing out the immoral actions of FDR and Truman is not the same thing as saying "America sucks."

If you want to ignore or minimize FDR and Truman's pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese Communist policies, you go right ahead. If you wanna ignore or minimize Truman's handing over China to the Communists and his needless and cruel vaporizing of over 200,000 civilians, most of them women and children, you go right ahead.

America did not "suck": FDR and Truman "sucked." FDR turned a long-time anti-Communist ally--Japan--into an enemy, gave billions of dollars to one of the two most murderous regimes in modern history (the Soviet Union), and saved that regime from destruction by needlessly picking a fight with Japan.

Truman, who was not the sharpest knife in the rack, sheepishly agreed to honor FDR's treasonous and disastrous Yalta promises to Stalin, ignored clear peace openings with the Japanese, did everything he could to help Japan's hardliners block surrender, and then nuked two Japanese cities and killed over 200,000 people, most of them women and children. As one of our best generals and most-beloved presidents, Dwight Eisenhower, said, "the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Was Ike a "whiner" too?

 

[eagle1462010]

Jesus.................this dude never stops WHINING...............

Read: pointing out facts that indict FDR and Truman and their gang of leftists.

We dropped the dang bomb.............that is the history of it..............But I guess you are on a mission to say AMERICA SUCKS..............

HUH??? When have I ever said "America sucks"?! What on earth are you talking about? Pointing out the immoral actions of FDR and Truman is not the same thing as saying "America sucks."

If you want to ignore or minimize FDR and Truman's pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese Communist policies, you go right ahead. If you wanna ignore or minimize Truman's handing over China to the Communists and his needless and cruel vaporizing of over 200,000 civilians, most of them women and children, you go right ahead.

America did not "suck": FDR and Truman "sucked." FDR turned a long-time anti-Communist ally--Japan--into an enemy, gave billions of dollars to one of the two most murderous regimes in modern history (the Soviet Union), and saved that regime from destruction by needlessly picking a fight with Japan.

Truman, who was not the sharpest knife in the rack, sheepishly agreed to honor FDR's treasonous and disastrous Yalta promises to Stalin, ignored clear peace openings with the Japanese, did everything he could to help Japan's hardliners block surrender, and then nuked two Japanese cities and killed over 200,000 people, most of them women and children. As one of our best generals and most-beloved presidents, Dwight Eisenhower, said, "the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Was Ike a "whiner" too?

Was aimed at Uki guy after reading more of his usual posts.............

Not at you.

 

[P@triot]

When you freeze another nation's assets, cut off most of their oil supply

Japan can drill for their own oil...including offshore.

and deny them access to other vital raw materials, that nation will view those actions as hostile and dangerous, and, if they can, will most likely resort to force if diplomacy fails to undo them.

So again, if a restaurant denies you service, you're justified in taking a shotgun and blowing the head off the manager and staff? Moron

 

[P@triot]

You do realize that we didn't just impose draconian sanctions on Japan but that we, along with the British and the Dutch, also froze all of their assets, totaling billions of dollars, right?

You do realize that you're swallowing ignorant propaganda like a mindless minion, right?

On July 24, Tokyo decided to strengthen its position in terms of its invasion of China by moving through Southeast Asia. Given that France had long occupied parts of the region, and Germany, a Japanese ally, now controlled most of France through Petain’s puppet government, France “agreed” to the occupation of its Indo-China colonies.

They were part of the "Axis of Evil", dumb ass. You can try as hard as you want to make them the victim, but educated people will just point and laugh at you (as we're all doing right now).

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-freezes-japanese-assets

 

[P@triot]

This is fairy tale material. Throughout history, nations have taken sanctions very seriously. When you freeze another nation's assets, cut off most of their oil supply, and deny them access to other vital raw materials, that nation will view those actions as hostile and dangerous, and, if they can, will most likely resort to force if diplomacy fails to undo them.

And a nuclear power will most likely resort to nuclear war if an idiot nation resorts to force against them. And they would be 100% justified in doing so.

 

[P@triot]

The fact that FDR took these actions to provoke Japan to war is obvious from the fact that when the Japanese offered to withdraw from southern Indochina, FDR refused to lift the sanctions, even though Japan's move into southern Indochina was the excuse Roosevelt gave for freezing Japan's assets. So, when Japan offered to withdraw from southern Indochina, and then from northern Indochina, why didn't FDR accept the offer and lift the sanctions?

Because they were part of the "Axis of Evil", you dumb ass. They were an ally of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, etc.

Furthermore, we don't need a reason. We can choose to freeze assets and not engage in trade or economic interactions any time we want. Period. We don't owe any other nation anything. We are a sovereign nation who has every right to close our borders and refuse to work with the rest of the world. Deal with it.

 

[P@triot]

If you want to ignore or minimize FDR and Truman's pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese Communist policies,

Uh...the Communist Party did not take over China until 1949 (or 8 years after the sanctions of Japan and 8 years after the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Japan). So your position doesn't hold up.

 

[P@triot]

If you want to ignore or minimize FDR and Truman's pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese Communist policies,

America did not "suck": FDR and Truman "sucked." FDR turned a long-time anti-Communist ally--Japan--into an enemy

Dude...your revisionist is just bizarre. China wasn't communist in 1941. Japan wasn't our ally in 1941. And we didn't really care that much about communism because Adolf Hitler was running roughshod across Europe. We had to defeat Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. even if it meant working with the U.S.S.R.

You're like the fuck'n idiot who claims Reagan was wrong for working with Osama Bin Laden even though they were our allies at the time and they were helping to defeat the U.S.S.R. - which was the biggest threat at that time.

 

[Unkotare]

Jesus.................this dude never stops WHINING...............

We dropped the dang bomb.............that is the history of it..............But I guess you are on a mission to say AMERICA SUCKS...................

The ONLY ones to say such offensive words - and you have been saying them over and over - on this thread are the communist-loving, fdr-worshipping apologists who cannot seem to discuss history without fabricating some misplace personal offense. Some of you "Don't talk about it!" "There was no choice!" "You can't question any conclusion I'm already comfortable with!" apologists sound suspiciously like the "It's settled science!" hens on the climate change forum. Makes sense considering your militant defense of any democrat administration, policy, plan, or position. If discussing History is too emotionally taxing for you, stop trying. At least stop parroting your fellow democrats' reaction to every topic they insist on declaring closed.

"You're against abortion, but you hate babies after they're born!" NO...

"You question 'climate change,' so you want the earth to die!" NO...

"You don't want higher taxes, so you hate the poor!" NO...

"You ridicule some radical whacko-leftist college professors, so you hate education!" NO...

"You question the decision to incinerate hundreds of thousands of helpless civilians, so support a murderous communist regime, and to throw innocent Americans into concentration camps, so you hate America!" NO, NO, NO.....

Stop being so fucking stupid, or go find something else to talk about.

 

[Unkotare]

If you want to ignore or minimize FDR and Truman's pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese Communist policies,

America did not "suck": FDR and Truman "sucked." FDR turned a long-time anti-Communist ally--Japan--into an enemy

Dude...your revisionist is just bizarre. China wasn't communist in 1941.......

The Nationalists and the Communists were in the midst of a Civil War at the time. I wonder which side fdr wanted to win...

 

[eagle1462010]

Jesus.................this dude never stops WHINING...............

We dropped the dang bomb.............that is the history of it..............But I guess you are on a mission to say AMERICA SUCKS...................

The ONLY ones to say such offensive words - and you have been saying them over and over - on this thread are the communist-loving, fdr-worshipping apologists who cannot seem to discuss history without fabricating some misplace personal offense. Some of you "Don't talk about it!" "There was no choice!" "You can't question any conclusion I'm already comfortable with!" apologists sound suspiciously like the "It's settled science!" hens on the climate change forum. Makes sense considering your militant defense of any democrat administration, policy, plan, or position. If discussing History is too emotionally taxing for you, stop trying. At least stop parroting your fellow democrats' reaction to every topic they insist on declaring closed.

"You're against abortion, but you hate babies after they're born!" NO...

"You question 'climate change,' so you want the earth to die!" NO...

"You don't want higher taxes, so you hate the poor!" NO...

"You ridicule some radical whacko-leftist college professors, so you hate education!" NO...

"You question the decision to incinerate hundreds of thousands of helpless civilians, so support a murderous communist regime, and to throw innocent Americans into concentration camps, so you hate America!" NO, NO, NO.....

Stop being so fucking stupid, or go find something else to talk about.

I'll take find something else to talk about ............You are boring me with your WHINING.............You have been on this subject for years................Get over it..................most of us don't care you are offended today at what our country did back then to END THE WAR..........

Japan got what it had coming because it refused to surrender ..............Oh well.

 

[Unkotare]

Jesus.................this dude never stops WHINING...............

We dropped the dang bomb.............that is the history of it..............But I guess you are on a mission to say AMERICA SUCKS...................

The ONLY ones to say such offensive words - and you have been saying them over and over - on this thread are the communist-loving, fdr-worshipping apologists who cannot seem to discuss history without fabricating some misplace personal offense. Some of you "Don't talk about it!" "There was no choice!" "You can't question any conclusion I'm already comfortable with!" apologists sound suspiciously like the "It's settled science!" hens on the climate change forum. Makes sense considering your militant defense of any democrat administration, policy, plan, or position. If discussing History is too emotionally taxing for you, stop trying. At least stop parroting your fellow democrats' reaction to every topic they insist on declaring closed.

"You're against abortion, but you hate babies after they're born!" NO...

"You question 'climate change,' so you want the earth to die!" NO...

"You don't want higher taxes, so you hate the poor!" NO...

"You ridicule some radical whacko-leftist college professors, so you hate education!" NO...

"You question the decision to incinerate hundreds of thousands of helpless civilians, so support a murderous communist regime, and to throw innocent Americans into concentration camps, so you hate America!" NO, NO, NO.....

Stop being so fucking stupid, or go find something else to talk about.

I'll take find something else to talk about ................

Of course you will.

 

[GreenBean]

Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.

True but Irrelevant -

 

[gipper]

Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.

So is it true in your world, that bombing a military installation causing roughly 2k deaths is equivalent to the A bombing of civilians killing 200,000?

 

[candycorn]

Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.

So is it true in your world, that bombing a military installation causing roughly 2k deaths is equivalent to the A bombing of civilians killing 200,000?

Except our move was justified...theirs wasn’t so there is no equivalent.

 

[gipper]

Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.

So is it true in your world, that bombing a military installation causing roughly 2k deaths is equivalent to the A bombing of civilians killing 200,000?

Except our move was justified...theirs wasn’t so there is no equivalent.

Good lord no way.

Mass murdering civilians of a defenseless nation is a war crime, except to brainwashed statist Americans.

 

[elektra]

Such a failed OP, how many days should we have waited? Between Atomic bombs? Never answered? Why, because this is an OP that is all about lies and denigrating the history of the United States of America.

mikegrifter1 begins the OP with a credible quote of Bundy's, then the grifter1 later, says Bundy is a lying dog? How can someone so cherry pick a source, calling them credible when they say what they want to hear but then calling them a lying dog when they do not like what they had said?

That answer is simple, this thread was nothing but a poorly thought out opinion not based on any fact other than there was a war that their beloved Japanese, lost.

Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:

The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

Bundy was a lying dog. He was the main ghost writer of "Stimson's" infamous article in defense of Truman's decision. Bundy twisted and lied all over the place in that article.

So very weak and pathetic, mikegrifter1 proves his own OP as being based on lies. Just let him post enough, and that foot goes in mouth.

 

[candycorn]

Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.

So is it true in your world, that bombing a military installation causing roughly 2k deaths is equivalent to the A bombing of civilians killing 200,000?

Except our move was justified...theirs wasn’t so there is no equivalent.

Good lord no way.

Mass murdering civilians of a defenseless nation is a war crime, except to brainwashed statist Americans.

Thousands of civilians were murdered by the Japanese. We stopped it.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

/—-/ We nuked Nagasaki to get the attention of both the Emperor and Uncle Joe Stalin.