No, I don't care about the Vatican's opinion about waging war. Originally Posted by JD BarleycornSince we are now discussing opinion's:
Here is a question for you. What number is bigger, 250,000 or 10 million? The army calculated that it would cost the Japanese people 10 million civilian casualties for the allies to invade mainland Japan. Those are civilian casualties. Doesn't include the military or allied casualties. The decision was made by a democratic president that 250,000 was a smaller number than 10 million plus the soldiers who would die. No, I don't care about the Vatican's opinion about waging war. Originally Posted by JD BarleycornAwwww poor me. I wanted to kill 10 million civilians but I decided to kill only 250,000 instead. *sniff* I am so brave.
Just to get this thread back off track, the Bible was compiled by Constantine to be used to control the population. It's not really an authority. It has some good stuff, and a lot of BS. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyIf you think that the conservatives on here give a single fuck about what actual historical facts are, then you have come to the wrong thread.
Awwww poor me. I wanted to kill 10 million civilians but I decided to kill only 250,000 instead. *sniff* I am so brave.You need to reevaluate some of your "examples", shamman, because they undermine rather than support your ignorant POV. BTW, you equivocating jackass, you forgot to mention Bataan, Corregidor, Nanking, Wake, Manila, Unit 731, the Hell Ships, etc. or that it was the Japanese who started that war and that the last, fanatical Japanese soldiers didn't surrender until the 1970s.
The army needed to justify itself somehow didn't it? Obviously it succeeded when idiots like you decided to pat themselves on the back for sitting at home eating cheetos and watchin TV.
There were THREE real reasons that America dropped the bomb on Japan.
1. It was a show of our arrogance. It was, plain and simple, REVENGE for pearl harbor. It was completely backed by the military, and the military literally pushed it through by questioning the patriotism of every single politician in the U.S. They were angry that they had been caught sleeping and wanted revenge by dropping an A-bomb on a 100,000 civilians. Logic went right out the window.
2. The U.S was running out of supplies. They realized that the war would be extremely costly if they decided to continue it with Japan. So what's the alternative to spending money? It's to use something you already spent a couple billion dollars on. Sunk cost you see. War time America had no compassion for the Japs, they considered them vermin and much lesser than human beings. So in the end it came down to: save a couple million dollars, or end a couple hundred thousand human lives.
3. And this was, I believe, the most important. Russia. No matter what alliances they had on paper, the U.S and president Truman did not trust Russia. Most could already see the cold war on the horizon. A ground invasion of the Japanese would obviously mean that the Russians were heavily involved. Truman was already scared of the Russian influence growing in Asia, and they all unanimously agreed that having Japan fall under Russian territory would be a huge disadvantage for the U.S. Quick and easy A-bombs were the only way to keep Russia out I suppose. I don't know about you but prevention strategy does not justify the murder of civilians for me.
The U.S could have dropped the bomb near the ports, minimized civilian casualties and brought Japan to their knees. That way we could also have avoided a 100 years of nuclear fallout in one of their most densely populated areas. We could also simply have modified the post-dam proclamation with terms slightly more agreeable to the Japanese. But no, It was an act of revenge and heartlessness. There's a reason the images and reports were banned for 22 years. It was done only so people would forget. Polls that were done right after world war 2 showed that even the majority of Americans did not agree with Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Apparently, now, we know better than the people who actually lived through it.
Originally Posted by shanm
"R. J. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, estimates that between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military murdered from nearly 3 to over 10 million people, most likely 6 million Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. According to Rummel, "This democide [i.e., death by government] was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture." According to Rummel, in China alone, during 1937–45, approximately 3.9 million Chinese were killed, mostly civilians, as a direct result of the Japanese operations and 10.2 million in the course of the war. The most infamous incident during this period was the Nanking Massacre of 1937–38, when, according to the findings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the Japanese Army massacred as many as 300,000 civilians and prisoners of war, although the accepted figure is somewhere in the hundreds of thousands" (wiki).
You need to reevaluate some of your "examples", shamman, because they undermine rather than support your ignorant POV. BTW, you equivocating jackass, you forgot to mention Bataan, Corregidor, Nanking, Wake, Manila, Unit 731, the Hell Ships, etc. or that it was the Japanese who started that war and that the last, fanatical Japanese soldiers didn't surrender until the 1970s. Originally Posted by I B Hankering"The Japanese were savages, so lets show the who's the bigger savage by dropping a nuke on their heads."
"The Japanese were savages, so lets show the who's the bigger savage by dropping a nuke on their heads."You're the ignoramus that stupidly thinks that a flash of light over a barren piece of real estate was going to impress a highly motivated enemy that's willing to fight to the death to protect his homeland and take as many U.S. servicemen with him before he died, shamman. Your every stupid post will continue to be be refuted with facts, shamman.
You have proven yourself, time and time again, to be a huge fucking RETARD. Not only are you retarded, you are also a huge WANKER. As such, I don't think anything you say warrants a response anymore. Originally Posted by shanm
Awwww poor me. I wanted to kill 10 million civilians but I decided to kill only 250,000 instead. *sniff* I am so brave.I think this is a pretty good analysis. I would add that General MacArthur knew it would be a punishing ground war, and that many Japanese would fight to the death, and our casualties would be huge. War is hell, better to make the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country than my grand pappy die for mine.
The army needed to justify itself somehow didn't it? Obviously it succeeded when idiots like you decided to pat themselves on the back for sitting at home eating cheetos and watchin TV.
There were THREE real reasons that America dropped the bomb on Japan.
1. It was a show of our arrogance. It was, plain and simple, REVENGE for pearl harbor. It was completely backed by the military, and the military literally pushed it through by questioning the patriotism of every single politician in the U.S. They were angry that they had been caught sleeping and wanted revenge by dropping an A-bomb on a 100,000 civilians. Logic went right out the window.
2. The U.S was running out of supplies. They realized that the war would be extremely costly if they decided to continue it with Japan. So what's the alternative to spending money? It's to use something you already spent a couple billion dollars on. Sunk cost you see. War time America had no compassion for the Japs, they considered them vermin and much lesser than human beings. So in the end it came down to: save a couple million dollars, or end a couple hundred thousand human lives.
3. And this was, I believe, the most important. Russia. No matter what alliances they had on paper, the U.S and president Truman did not trust Russia. Most could already see the cold war on the horizon. A ground invasion of the Japanese would obviously mean that the Russians were heavily involved. Truman was already scared of the Russian influence growing in Asia, and they all unanimously agreed that having Japan fall under Russian territory would be a huge disadvantage for the U.S. Quick and easy A-bombs were the only way to keep Russia out I suppose. I don't know about you but prevention strategy does not justify the murder of civilians for me.
The U.S could have dropped the bomb near the ports, minimized civilian casualties and brought Japan to their knees. That way we could also have avoided a 100 years of nuclear fallout in one of their most densely populated areas. We could also simply have modified the post-dam proclamation with terms slightly more agreeable to the Japanese. But no, It was an act of revenge and heartlessness. There's a reason the images and reports were banned for 22 years. It was done only so people would forget. Polls that were done right after world war 2 showed that even the majority of Americans did not agree with Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Apparently, now, we know better than the people who actually lived through it.
Originally Posted by shanm
I think this is a pretty good analysis. I would add that General MacArthur knew it would be a punishing ground war, and that many Japanese would fight to the death, and our casualties would be huge. War is hell, better to make the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country than my grand pappy die for mine. Originally Posted by DSKAlthough I think you are correct, it only partially covers the entire story. Yes, Further war would have been costly. However, the reports of Japan being adamant in their resistance are/were highly exaggerated. They were already on their way to surrender, several months before the atomic bombs were dropped. They had already been militarily defeated by June 1945, their air force had been decimated and American airplanes had been roaming freely on Japanese airspace since January. The threat to American citizens and American Casualties were exaggerated to get the conservative idiots like IB Wanker on their side.
Although I think you are correct, it only partially covers the entire story. Yes, Further war would have been costly. However, the reports of Japan being adamant in their resistance are/were highly exaggerated. They were already on their way to surrender, several months before the atomic bombs were dropped. They had already been militarily defeated by June 1945, their air force had been decimated and American airplanes had been roaming freely on Japanese airspace since January. The threat to American citizens and American Casualties were exaggerated to get the conservative idiots like IB Wanker on their side.There was one American casualty for every 1.25 Japanese casualties on Iwo Jima, which was not historically Japanese soil, shamman. The Americans suffered one casualty for every two Japanese casualties taking Okinawa: Japanese soil, shamman. That's not "propaganda", shamman. Those are statistics, shamman. Despite your lies, shamman, Hirohito, in direct response to the bombings, took control of the situation and directed his advisers that Japan would surrender immediately and had to clandestinely carry through his enterprise lest someone thwart his attempt, shamman. Eisenhower wasn't president in 1945, nor was he completely familiar with the Pacific War, shamman. Truman had a greater appreciation for what was needed at that moment, and this is what Truman said:
A year later, in 1946, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey published a report on its research into the atomic bombs. Here's what the report said:
"The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Navy Minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms."
And these are the words of the words of the then-future president and five star military general Dwight Eisenhower:
"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing ... I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon,"
Originally Posted by shanm
"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans."
Truman. August 9, 1945.
August 5, 1963
Dear Kup:
I appreciated most highly your column of July 30th, a copy of which you sent me.
I have been rather careful not to comment on the articles that have been written on the dropping of the bomb for the simple reason that the dropping of the bomb was completely and thoroughly explained in my Memoirs, and it was done to save 125,000 youngsters on the American side and 125,000 on the Japanese side from getting killed and that is what it did. It probably also saved a half million youngsters on both sides from being maimed for life.
You must always remember that people forget, as you said in your column, that the bombing of Pearl Harbor was done while we were at peace with Japan and trying our best to negotiate a treaty with them.
All you have to do is to go out and stand on the keel of the Battleship in Pearl Harbor with the 3,000 youngsters underneath it who had no chance whatever of saving their lives. That is true of two or three other battleships that were sunk in Pearl Harbor. Altogether, there were between 3,000 and 6,000 youngsters killed at that time without any declaration of war. It was plain murder.
I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war that would have killed a half a million youngsters on both sides if those bombs had not been dropped. I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again -- and this letter is not confidential.
Sincerely yours,
Harry S. Truman
Although I think you are correct, it only partially covers the entire story. Yes, Further war would have been costly. However, the reports of Japan being adamant in their resistance are/were highly exaggerated. They were already on their way to surrender, several months before the atomic bombs were dropped. They had already been militarily defeated by June 1945, their air force had been decimated and American airplanes had been roaming freely on Japanese airspace since January. The threat to American citizens and American Casualties were exaggerated to get the conservative idiots like IB Wanker on their side.That is quite telling. I'm interested to hear jd since he seems to think opposite.
A year later, in 1946, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey published a report on its research into the atomic bombs. Here's what the report said:
"The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Navy Minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms."
And these are the words of the words of the then-future president and five star military general Dwight Eisenhower:
"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing ... I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon,"
Originally Posted by shanm
You post that like anyone cares about yours!Is there any way LLIdiot can prove the accuracy of his allegation that no one cares "about BT's opinion"
Is there anyone out there who gives a rat's ass (forgive me rat) about bt's opinion? Originally Posted by LexusLover
Since we are now discussing opinion's:
I not only do not care about JDIdiot's opinion as it relates to waging war.
I do not care about JDIdiot's opinion about any other topic either.
As his Patriarch would say, "carry on!" Originally Posted by bigtex
You post that like anyone cares about yours!
Is there anyone out there who gives a rat's ass (forgive me rat) about bt's opinion? Originally Posted by LexusLover
Is there any way LLIdiot can prove the accuracy of his allegation that no one cares "about BT's opinion"
Hmmmmmm! Let's see! Yes, there might be!
ECCIE has installed a "like" button on the bottom of each post. Bingo!
Let's go back and do the "like" button test. Shall we?
As of 6:10 pm on February 26, 2015, 5 poster's have openly expressed they "like" BT's post #451 of this thread.
On the other hand; as of the same time, not one single poster. Yes, a big fat "0" has expressed they "like" LLIdiot's post #452.
It appears that LLIdiot's "opinion" received as many tips as a 600 lb, midget pole dancer!
Now, the question becomes, "is there anyone out there who gives a rat's ass (forgive me rat)" about LLIdiot's "opinion?"
"Carry on!" Originally Posted by bigtex