JFK was as liberal as Obama. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction
Hahahaha.... that's what you libtard revisionists want everyone to think. The truth is JFK wouldn't even recognize today's Democratic party and he would be driven off the reservation if he didn't flee on his own. Let's not hijack this thread again. Read this and learn (with particular attention to my posts #14, 25 and 27):http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ne_120791.html
http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1122802
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/R...on-Issues.aspx
. Originally Posted by lustylad
I already said let's not hijack this thread again. However, I can understand why you're eager to change the subject after you and shammy had your asses handed to you on the last topic! Originally Posted by lustyladI don't really call finding one author who says a number getting my ass handed to me, but I guess you guys have to take victories where you can find them. It would seem that if the number is correct, you'd have no problem finding multiple sources to back it up. Your buddy, chicken dick, spouts a number, I question it and suddenly the onus is on ME to find the proof. How the fuck does that work? You make the initial call, burden of proof is on you, not me. I said in the other thread, we don't really know what would have happened if we hadn't dropped the bomb. The fact that you guys are claiming absolutely to know what would have happened is horseshit.
Any good military historian knows the definition of "casualties" includes BOTH dead and wounded. Wikipedia says the US suffered 405k dead, 671k wounded and 30k missing in WW2. The war lasted 3-1/2 years, not 4, and the casualty rates were heavily tilted toward the end of the war since we were busy gearing up (rather than fighting) during the early part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ualties_of_war Originally Posted by lustylad
Calm down shammy. Take a deep breath. I know you are having your ass handed to you here, but that's no reason to melt down and spew epithets.... Here is a wiki quote on the Battle of Okinawa which lasted 10 weeks:Seems like you can stretch the truth to the size of your giant asshole sometime, LustyFAG.
"The battle is considered one of the bloodiest in the Pacific. Based on Okinawan government sources, mainland Japan lost 77,166 soldiers, who were either killed or committed suicide, and the Allies suffered 14,009 deaths (with an estimated total of more than 65,000 casualties of all kinds). Simultaneously, 42,000–150,000 local civilians were killed or committed suicide, a significant proportion of the local population. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki together with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria caused Japan to surrender less than two months after the end of the fighting on Okinawa."
Should I walk you through some "basic arithmetic"? Hmmm... divide 65k casualties by 10 weeks and you get - 6500 a week! Did I do that right? Go ahead and say I am conflating allied with US casualties, we bore the brunt of that number, shammy. And Okinawa was just one battle raging in the Pacific theater at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa
. Originally Posted by lustylad
I said in the other thread, we don't really know what would have happened if we hadn't dropped the bomb. The fact that you guys are claiming absolutely to know what would have happened is horseshit. Originally Posted by UnderConstructionThere you go again, weasel... You and shammy are the ones who started the debate by claiming the Japanese would have surrendered anyway without our dropping the bomb. Now you flip-flop and admit "we really don't know what would have happened..." Weasel, weasel, weasel. Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop. Falsely accuse the other guy of doing what you did. Then throw out a strawman:
There you go again, weasel... You and shammy are the ones who started the debate by claiming the Japanese would have surrendered anyway without our dropping the bomb. Now you flip-flop and admit "we really don't know what would have happened..." Weasel, weasel, weasel. Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop. Falsely accuse the other guy of doing what you did. Then throw out a strawman:Ok... I posted an article citing military and civilian sources saying they felt we didn't need to drop the bomb, but your sources somehow rate higher than mine, I guess because they advance your argument and not mine. Whatever you need to do to feel like you've won is fine by me. I have a feeling you don't have much happiness in your life and who am I to take away the tiny victory you get by thinking you're right.
"... you guys are claiming absolutely to know what would have happened..."
No we're not. You are making shit up again. The closest I came to saying anything like that was to point out that the Okinawa casualty figures were treated by the US military as a good PREDICTOR of what might happen if we had to invade the Mainland. Nothing absolute about predictions, that's why they generally include best case/worst case scenarios.
You know that expression "you fight like a girl"? In your case it's "you debate like a liberal". JFK would eat you for lunch.
. Originally Posted by lustylad
I don't really call finding one author who says a number getting my ass handed to me, but I guess you guys have to take victories where you can find them. It would seem that if the number is correct, you'd have no problem finding multiple sources to back it up. Your buddy, chicken dick, spouts a number, I question it and suddenly the onus is on ME to find the proof. How the fuck does that work? You make the initial call, burden of proof is on you, not me. I said in the other thread, we don't really know what would have happened if we hadn't dropped the bomb. The fact that you guys are claiming absolutely to know what would have happened is horseshit. Originally Posted by UnderConstructionBut then you'd be the willfully ignorant jackass who is ignoring how many other authors are citing and quoting Fussell, wouldn't you, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion?
Seems like you can stretch the truth to the size of your giant asshole sometime, LustyFAG.You want to ignore how Iwo, Luzon, Manilla, Borneo, Burma AND Okinawa were happening almost simultaneously, shamman, and that the air war over Japan was one, long and constant battle, as was the sea war. And does your sorry ass really want to equivocate over whether the lives saved by the bombs were American, British, Australian and/or Chinese, you sorry POS? And don't forget the Japanese were typically suffering at least twice that number of casualties, shamman.
Same wikipedia article states, by your definition, Deaths (12000) +wounded (38000), comes out to 50,000. Lets forget that you choose to blatanly disregard the fact that it is ALLIED deaths and not AMERICAN deaths like the grubered odumbo minion stated earlier, (WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE ARGUING). Then consider the fact that you regard a battle that lasted closer to 12 weeks (1April- 22 June 1945) and not 10 weeks like you suggest, as a shorter amount to suit your purpose. The death count per week comes out to 4100, almost half the original amount posted by your wanker friend. You have stretched the truth so much that I think even your moms dildo might fit in there. You are digging yourself into a hole that you wont be able to climb out of, so just stop Originally Posted by shanm
Is it NOT an atrocity to use one atrocity to avoid another? Jesus, we're arguing over what is more terrible.That's exactly what the fuck you and shamman are doing, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion. Some how you lib-retarded fucks romantically imagine that conventional war is so much more congenial, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.
IB Dipshit:
You're a fucking hypocrite sitting in the comfort of your favorite chair typing on a keyboard while existing completely and stupidly oblivious to the fact that civilians were going to die either way, you ignorant, hypocritical jackass. Examine the reality that was Okinawa, shamman. "More than 100,000 Okinawan civilians perish, with over 72,000 American and 100,000 Japanese casualties." In August, 1945, the U.S. was still suffering 7,000 casualties per week in the Pacific, shamman, and yet you have the audacity to stupidly argue that it's an atrocity to bring an end to continuing atrocities. You're an atrocious, fucking moron, shamman Originally Posted by UnderConstruction
But then you'd be the willfully ignorant jackass who is ignoring how many other authors are citing and quoting Fussell, wouldn't you, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion?I don't think anyone, even you, is under the impression that war is congenial. Can you at least admit that's a terrible situation to be in? Having to make that kind of decision? Do you have that phrase in your clipboard or do you type it out every single time?
You want to ignore how Iwo, Luzon, Manilla, Borneo, Burma AND Okinawa were happening almost simultaneously, shamman, and that the air war over Japan was one, long and constant battle, as was the sea war. And does your sorry ass really want to equivocate over whether the lives saved by the bombs were American, British, Australian and/or Chinese, you sorry POS? And don't forget the Japanese were typically suffering at least twice that number of casualties, shamman.
That's exactly what the fuck you and shamman are doing, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion. Some how you lib-retarded fucks romantically imagine that conventional war is so much more congenial, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
I don't think anyone, even you, is under the impression that war is congenial. Can you at least admit that's a terrible situation to be in? Having to make that kind of decision? Do you have that phrase in your clipboard or do you type it out every single time? Originally Posted by UnderConstructionIt's you and shamman who are criticizing and berating the men who had to make that decision, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.
But then you'd be the willfully ignorant jackass who is ignoring how many other authors are citing and quoting Fussell, wouldn't you, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion?That has absolutely nothing to do with it. The question was whether the atomic bomb caused the Japanese to surrender or not. Whatever wars already happened have absolutely ZERO relevance to this topic. The U.S strategic bombing survey did thorough research and concluded that the war was over and the Japanese were going to surrender anyway. If you want to argue with the official authority on the subject then go ahead and blabber on. See that is the difference between a verifiable study and any that you posted. Any quotes, or whatever you have, do not matter in the slightest.
You want to ignore how Iwo, Luzon, Manilla, Borneo, Burma AND Okinawa were happening almost simultaneously, shamman, and that the air war over Japan was one, long and constant battle, as was the sea war. And does your sorry ass really want to equivocate over whether the lives saved by the bombs were American, British, Australian and/or Chinese, you sorry POS? And don't forget the Japanese were typically suffering at least twice that number of casualties, shamman.
That's exactly what the fuck you and shamman are doing, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion. Some how you lib-retarded fucks romantically imagine that conventional war is so much more congenial, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
That has absolutely nothing to do with it. The question was whether the atomic bomb caused the Japanese to surrender or not. Whatever wars already happened have absolutely ZERO relevance to this topic. The U.S strategic bombing survey did thorough research and concluded that the war was over and the Japanese were going to surrender anyway. If you want to argue with the official authority on the subject then go ahead and blabber on. See that is the difference between a verifiable study and any that you posted. Any quotes, or whatever you have, do not matter in the slightest. Originally Posted by shanmThe study you are citing does not say the war was "over", shamman. It says the war would go on for several more months, shamman; wherein, people -- i.e., soldiers, airmen, sailors, marines AND CIVILIANS -- would continue to kill and be killed and people would continue to die, shamman. The only thing here that rates a "zero" is your intellect, shamman.
The study you are citing does not say the war was "over", shamman. It says the war would go on for several more months, shamman; wherein, people -- i.e., soldiers, air men, sailors, marines AND CIVILIANS -- would continue to kill and be killed and people would continue to die, shamman. The only thing here that rates a "zero" is your intellect, shamman. Originally Posted by I B HankeringThis is what the official report says: