Hiroshima Plus Seventy

Yeah. I suppose you're right. Eisenhower, MacArthur and the others certainly had no understanding of war, or how to win. Who would listen to them? Had they ever done anything to prove themselves?



sarcasm alert

Yeah. I suppose you're right. Eisenhower, MacArthur and the others certainly had no understanding of war, or how to win. Who would listen to them? Had they ever done anything to prove themselves?

sarcasm alert Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

MacArthur's "opinion" was never sought, and it must be remembered that it was Truman who would not let MacArthur use multiple atomic bombs during the Korean War.

Regarding Ike. Ike wasn't so much asked for his opinion as he was told about the Manhattan Project -- in late July 1945 -- two or three weeks before the bomb was due to be employed. Furthermore, Ike's self-serving remark wasn't published until 1963: almost two full decades after the bombs were used.

Meanwhile, the remarks of a military leader who did have a greater overview of all of the theaters of the war affirmed the use of the weapon:

"I think it was quite necessary to drop the bombs in order to shorten the war. . . . the Japanese Prime Minister was unable to control the Army. The Army was dominant in these matters, and they could only apparently be slugged into submission. And we slugged them. . . . The bomb stopped the war. Therefore, it was justifiable. I think it was very wise to use it." General Marshall (Marshall Foundation)

Jesus Christ, moralizing historians? YOU'RE the one trying to make the argument that 250K deaths isn't that much. Are you fucking nuts? Don't you see the corner you've backed yourself into that you have to make and defend such an ignorant argument? Originally Posted by WombRaider

it isn't. compared to upwards of 1 million potential causalities combined. do the math moralizing moron.

oh and by the way ... about that "No Military Value part" those academics scream about when they sit back 70 years later and and poke their noses into decisions made before they were even born and somehow they'd "do the right thing"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasebo,_Nagasaki

The area of present-day Sasebo was a small fishing village under the control of nearby Hirado Domain until shortly after the start of the Meiji period. Imperial Japanese Navy Admiral Tōgō Heihachirō, when surveying the coasts of northwestern Kyūshū for the site of a navy base, selected his location based on its protected, deep-water harbor, geographic proximity to China and Korea, and the presence of nearby coal fields. Sasebo Naval District, founded in 1886, became the major port for the Japanese navy in its operations in the First Sino-Japanese War and Russo-Japanese War, and remained a major naval base to the end of World War II. Along with the base facilities, the navy also constructed the Sasebo Naval Arsenal, which included major shipyards and repair facilities.
Sasebo City was founded on April 1, 1902. The city which had 206,000 inhabitants in 1945 suffered severe damage by bombing on June 29, 1945 during World War II and was destroyed by 48%.[1] Sasebo was one of the original 17 targets selected for the dropping of the atomic bomb.


now .. what were you saying about no Military targets womby?


one more time ... just to be sure you get it ..


founded in 1886, became the major port for the Japanese navy in its operations in the First Sino-Japanese War and Russo-Japanese War, and remained a major naval base to the end of World War II.

who's been backed into a corner now?



i suppose you'll claim Wiki isn't a reliable source of information, it's "biased" to the conservative base somehow?

That's the spirit, sewer rat! Who cares if we all ended up speaking German or Japanese at war's end? Who cares if the Nazis installed a puppet in the White House and started rounding up American Jews while the Japs occupied our West Coast and extended their campaign of genocide throughout China and the rest of Asia?

In the libtard scheme of things, there is no good and evil, only moral equivalence. I mean, there is some good in evil people and some evil in good people, so it's all the same, right? Don't confuse me with nuance here. IT DOESN'T MATTER if Hitler or Tojo had the bomb before we did. Why did we have to fight WW2 anyway?

What a fine American you are, sewer rat. Keep making us proud!
. Originally Posted by lustylad

And he'd be the FIRST to willingly assume the position on his knees before the Nazi's or Japanese since that's where he spends most of his " work " day. He could have been Herman Goering's main pump !!

it isn't. compared to upwards of 1 million potential causalities combined. do the math moralizing moron.

oh and by the way ... about that "No Military Value part" those academics scream about when they sit back 70 years later and and poke their noses into decisions made before they were even born and somehow they'd "do the right thing"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasebo,_Nagasaki

The area of present-day Sasebo was a small fishing village under the control of nearby Hirado Domain until shortly after the start of the Meiji period. Imperial Japanese Navy Admiral Tōgō Heihachirō, when surveying the coasts of northwestern Kyūshū for the site of a navy base, selected his location based on its protected, deep-water harbor, geographic proximity to China and Korea, and the presence of nearby coal fields. Sasebo Naval District, founded in 1886, became the major port for the Japanese navy in its operations in the First Sino-Japanese War and Russo-Japanese War, and remained a major naval base to the end of World War II. Along with the base facilities, the navy also constructed the Sasebo Naval Arsenal, which included major shipyards and repair facilities.
Sasebo City was founded on April 1, 1902. The city which had 206,000 inhabitants in 1945 suffered severe damage by bombing on June 29, 1945 during World War II and was destroyed by 48%.[1] Sasebo was one of the original 17 targets selected for the dropping of the atomic bomb.


now .. what were you saying about no Military targets womby?


one more time ... just to be sure you get it ..


founded in 1886, became the major port for the Japanese navy in its operations in the First Sino-Japanese War and Russo-Japanese War, and remained a major naval base to the end of World War II.

who's been backed into a corner now?



i suppose you'll claim Wiki isn't a reliable source of information, it's "biased" to the conservative base somehow?
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

+ 1

MacArthur's "opinion" was never sought, and it must be remembered that it was Truman who would not let MacArthur use multiple atomic bombs during the Korean War.

Regarding Ike. Ike wasn't so much asked for his opinion as he was told about the Manhattan Project -- in late July 1945 -- two or three weeks before the bomb was due to be employed. Furthermore, Ike's self-serving remark wasn't published until 1963: almost two full decades after the bombs were used.

Meanwhile, the remarks of a military leader who did have a greater overview of all of the theaters of the war affirmed the use of the weapon: Originally Posted by I B Hankering

+ 1

You made an "opportunist move" Stalin would love to make, which reveals how despicable you really are.

Stalin invaded Manchuria, handing over all captured Japanese weapons and military equipments to his Chinese Communist cronies, consequently led to the catastrophic defeats of Chiang kai-shek's armies in Manchuria and the eventual bolshevizition of mainland China. And we are still living with its aftermath as of today, yet you dismiss it as a mere "opportunist" move by Stalin. Can anyone else be this moronic?

And of course he wouldn't overlook Korea. He did likewise to his north Korean cronies, needless to say, we are still haunted by its aftermath as of today. Another mere "opportunist" move by Stalin, according to you. Who else can get this moronic?

Over 110,000 fine Americans perished in Korea and Vietnam as a result of these "little opportuist moves" by Stalin. Yes, Vietnam. Without massive military aids from his Chinese Communist brethren, Ho Chi Minh wouldn't have made it out alive with the French. And you want to argue the lives of these fine Americans are not as significant as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

You have sounded so "patriotic" in so many of your posts, however, this single piece of nonsence demonstrated you are a mere fraud. Originally Posted by andymarksman

Your "logic" fails again. You made the ridiculous claim that "Stalin was the biggest beneficiary" of the decision to drop the bombs. Yet you also concede that the bombs hastened the Japanese decision to surrender. That means without the A-bombs Stalin would have had MORE time to pursue his opportunistic land grabs. He had plans to invade Hokkaido but we kept him out and made sure mainland Japan wasn't subject to joint postwar administration like Germany was. Far from benefiting Stalin, the bombs kept his opportunism in check.

And your knowledge and treatment of the history of the Chinese revolution is incredibly tenuous and superficial. The Russians withdrew from Manchuria at war's end. Mao didn't prevail over Chiang Kai-shek until 4 years later. It had nothing to do with the A-bombs dropped on Japan 4 years earlier.
.

Here's your answer; I don't give a fuck. Originally Posted by WombRaider

you mean stupid as fuck.

since you don't want to bother and since it refutes more of what that article claims .. that the use of an atomic weapon "kick-started" the Cold War, i'll tell you sport.

and once again the moral morons that wrote that article sound just like your type .. "America Haters". America is EVIL. Americans are war mongers .. Americans are barbarians .. America this and that crap.

The Donald would FIRE YOU boy.

and the unmitigated gall of these academics to somehow think that the USSR, kind benevolent (sic) commie assholes they were .. wouldn't have developed an atomic weapon just because we didn't use ours? that's the stupidest thing i've heard in at least a week lol.

Truman stopped Russia from controlling all of China by using the weapon to end the war. The Russians, just like in eastern Europe, would have kept all of China under their rule. Even a few months delay would have enslaved all of China. i guess you and those moral moron academics would have been ok with that?

and who in the fuck do these prick academics think they are by claiming a naval blockade alone would have been enough? it's clear these pricks don't understand how

.. ready for this ...

how BARBARIC and INHUMANE it would have been to allow tens of thousands if not more Japanese to starve to death? while US Admirals sit in Tokyo Bay eating steaks, Japan starves. WONDERFUL!

and yet these moralizing morons say the US is barbaric in using the atomic bombs? well, you just can't reason with their type .. or yours either boy.

Truman have only a few options and none of them were easy nor without moral issues. He could have used the weapons to end the war, which he did, or allow the Japanese to starve while waiting for them to surrender and there's no guarantee they would have anytime soon no matter what those academics want to claim now, or invade Japan.

now .. the real villain who kick-started the Cold War.. i present to you ..

Winston Churchill



Yep. it was his fault. he and Stalin .. literally .. carved up Europe for themselves.
with a pencil and a map. you get this, we get that. yep. that's what they did. alone of course the US .. that (sic) barbaric county we are .. had no part in it. and would not have participated either.


During October 1944, he and Eden were in Moscow to meet with the Russian leadership. At this point, Russian forces were beginning to advance into various eastern European countries. Churchill held the view that until everything was formally and properly worked out at the Yalta conference, there had to be a temporary, war-time, working agreement with regard to who would run what.[228] The most significant of these meetings was held on 9 October 1944 in the Kremlin between Churchill and Stalin. During the meeting, Poland and the Balkan problems were discussed.[229] Churchill told Stalin:

Let us settle about our affairs in the Balkans. Your armies are in Rumania and Bulgaria. We have interests, missions, and agents there. Don't let us get at cross-purposes in small ways. So far as Britain and Russia are concerned, how would it do for you to have ninety per cent predominance in Rumania, for us to have ninety per cent of the say in Greece, and go fifty–fifty about Yugoslavia?[228]

Stalin agreed to this Percentages agreement, ticking a piece of paper as he heard the translation. In 1958, five years after the account of this meeting was published (in The Second World War), authorities of the Soviet Union denied that Stalin accepted the "imperialist proposal".[229]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement




The agreement

Winston Churchill (not Stalin) proposed the agreement, under which the UK and USSR agreed to divide Europe into spheres of influence, with one country having "predominance" in one sphere, and the other country would have "predominance" in another sphere.[3] According to Churchill's account of the incident, Churchill suggested that the Soviet Union should have 90 percent influence in Romania and 75 percent in Bulgaria; the United Kingdom should have 90 percent in Greece; and they should have 50 percent each in Hungary and Yugoslavia. Churchill wrote it on a piece of paper which he pushed across to Stalin, who ticked it off and passed it back.[2][4][5][6][7] The result of these discussions was that the percentages of Soviet influence in Bulgaria and, more significantly, Hungary were amended to 80 percent.
Churchill called it a "naughty document".[5]
Regarding its import, Gabriel Kolko writes:

There is little significance to the memorable and dramatic passage in Churchill's autobiography recalling how he and Stalin divided Eastern Europe ... Stalin's "tick," translated into real words, indicated nothing whatsoever. The very next day Churchill sent Stalin a draft of the discussion, and the Russian carefully struck out phrases implying the creation of spheres of influence, a fact Churchill excluded from his memoirs. Eden assiduously avoided the term, and considered the understanding merely as a practical agreement on how problems would be worked out in each country, and the very next day he and Molotov modified the percentages in a manner which Eden assumed was general rather than precise.[8]




You can't really blame Stalin, after all he was a megalomaniac, a mass murderer, a paranoid schizophrenic, probably bi-polar and an alcoholic.



you can blame Churchill. even if he grew up in the last vestiges of the British Empire, and who saw that Empire crumbling away, and made one last attempt to preserve some of it.



Eastern Europe carved up like steak on a plate. the check mark on this page was made by Stalin himself.

Unlike your asinine fantasy that people aren't killed during wars, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, U.S. casualty projections for the invasion of Japan were based on real world experiences during WWII, and not on some lib-retarded notion that smiling Japanese soldiers and/or citizens would be greeting troops of the Allied invasion force with sake and tea, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.





BTW, it is lib-retards like you, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, who are the moral cretins for championing a prolonged war that would have doomed millions more to death, injuries and additional suffering. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Projections. You have no basis to think that millions more would have died. Absolutely none. That is the justification you use to make yourself feel better about the bombs having been dropped.

it isn't. compared to upwards of 1 million potential causalities combined. do the math moralizing moron.

oh and by the way ... about that "No Military Value part" those academics scream about when they sit back 70 years later and and poke their noses into decisions made before they were even born and somehow they'd "do the right thing"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasebo,_Nagasaki

The area of present-day Sasebo was a small fishing village under the control of nearby Hirado Domain until shortly after the start of the Meiji period. Imperial Japanese Navy Admiral Tōgō Heihachirō, when surveying the coasts of northwestern Kyūshū for the site of a navy base, selected his location based on its protected, deep-water harbor, geographic proximity to China and Korea, and the presence of nearby coal fields. Sasebo Naval District, founded in 1886, became the major port for the Japanese navy in its operations in the First Sino-Japanese War and Russo-Japanese War, and remained a major naval base to the end of World War II. Along with the base facilities, the navy also constructed the Sasebo Naval Arsenal, which included major shipyards and repair facilities.
Sasebo City was founded on April 1, 1902. The city which had 206,000 inhabitants in 1945 suffered severe damage by bombing on June 29, 1945 during World War II and was destroyed by 48%.[1] Sasebo was one of the original 17 targets selected for the dropping of the atomic bomb.


now .. what were you saying about no Military targets womby?


one more time ... just to be sure you get it ..


founded in 1886, became the major port for the Japanese navy in its operations in the First Sino-Japanese War and Russo-Japanese War, and remained a major naval base to the end of World War II.

who's been backed into a corner now?



i suppose you'll claim Wiki isn't a reliable source of information, it's "biased" to the conservative base somehow?
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Sasebo is 90km from Nagasaki... and I already illustrated that point in an earlier post I made. I guess you were busy cleaning your white robes...

MacArthur's "opinion" was never sought, and it must be remembered that it was Truman who would not let MacArthur use multiple atomic bombs during the Korean War.

Regarding Ike. Ike wasn't so much asked for his opinion as he was told about the Manhattan Project -- in late July 1945 -- two or three weeks before the bomb was due to be employed. Furthermore, Ike's self-serving remark wasn't published until 1963: almost two full decades after the bombs were used.

Meanwhile, the remarks of a military leader who did have a greater overview of all of the theaters of the war affirmed the use of the weapon: Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You lie, yet again. Seems to me that according to these gentlemen, whose word I'll take over yours, say you're full of shit. You and Lusty Tard talk about evil in this world. Yet you can't be bothered to recognize that sometimes that evil is us. In your eyes it's always someone else.

"The top American military leaders who fought World War II, much to the surprise of many who are not aware of the record, were quite clear that the atomic bomb was unnecessary, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, and—for many—that the destruction of large numbers of civilians was immoral. Most were also conservatives, not liberals. Adm. William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… in being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”


"The commanding general of the US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”


"Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…”


"William “Bull” Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”


"Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives…”


Even the famous “hawk” Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

You lie, yet again. Seems to me that according to these gentlemen, whose word I'll take over yours, say you're full of shit. You and Lusty Tard talk about evil in this world. Yet you can't be bothered to recognize that sometimes that evil is us. In your eyes it's always someone else.

"The top American military leaders who fought World War II, much to the surprise of many who are not aware of the record, were quite clear that the atomic bomb was unnecessary, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, and—for many—that the destruction of large numbers of civilians was immoral. Most were also conservatives, not liberals. Adm. William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… in being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”



"The commanding general of the US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”


"Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…”


"William “Bull” Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”

Bull Halsey was an overrated commander who should have been relieved of his command for TWICE sailing his fleet into typhoons. But since he was a "War Hero" they didn't fire him.

Scientists? Halsey is an idiot. the scientists most certainly were the ONLY group involved who didn't want to "try it out". Trinity test site gave them all the proof they needed it worked. After that, it was a geopolitical/Military decision.

"Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives…”

Wonderful of Ike not to care about all the Chinese who would have been subjugated under the Soviet boot. i guess he didn't like Chinese food?? it was never a purely Military thing.

Ike was not a real General in the sense of Patton, or Dougie and others. He was a manager. he had been MacArthur's chief of staff before being promoted over 316 more senior officers including MacArthur an his longtime friend Patton to "manage" the Allied war effort. he was "Manager in Chief" not really "Commander in Chief".



Even the famous “hawk” Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.” Originally Posted by WombRaider

From LeMay's wiki ..

In 1968, then, George Wallace's running mate was (now civilian) Curtis E. LeMay.[46]
When Wallace announced his selection in October 1968, a press conference was held that Wallace aide later referred to as a "fiasco." When LeMay was asked if nuclear weapons were necessary to win the war in Vietnam, he responded, "We can win this war without nuclear weapons." However, he then added, "But I have to say, we have a phobia about nuclear weapons. I think there may be times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons."[citation needed] Wallace's staff began to consider LeMay to be "politically tone-deaf" and the former Air Force General did nothing to diminish the perception of extremism that some American voters had of the Wallace-LeMay ticket.[48]
The "bomb them back to the stone age" comment received significant publicity but General LeMay disclaimed the comment, saying in a later interview: “I never said we should bomb them back to the Stone Age. I said we had the capability to do it."[44][45]

LeMay was not as adamantly opposed to using nuclear weapons as you try to make it seem. Again, it had political implications. So all this "Military target only" and "Only to end the war" don't hold water.

so let's cut to the chase moral moron.

What would Womby do?

impart on us (sic) your vast intellect and profound moral conciseness.
if you are so certain we should not have used an atomic bomb, then what would you have done Womby?

My money is on "starve the Japs to death while Stalin drinks Vodka in Beijing"
you certainly don't have the guts to support invading Japan do ya?

From LeMay's wiki ..

In 1968, then, George Wallace's running mate was (now civilian) Curtis E. LeMay.[46]
When Wallace announced his selection in October 1968, a press conference was held that Wallace aide later referred to as a "fiasco." When LeMay was asked if nuclear weapons were necessary to win the war in Vietnam, he responded, "We can win this war without nuclear weapons." However, he then added, "But I have to say, we have a phobia about nuclear weapons. I think there may be times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons."[citation needed] Wallace's staff began to consider LeMay to be "politically tone-deaf" and the former Air Force General did nothing to diminish the perception of extremism that some American voters had of the Wallace-LeMay ticket.[48]
The "bomb them back to the stone age" comment received significant publicity but General LeMay disclaimed the comment, saying in a later interview: “I never said we should bomb them back to the Stone Age. I said we had the capability to do it."[44][45]

LeMay was not as adamantly opposed to using nuclear weapons as you try to make it seem. Again, it had political implications. So all this "Military target only" and "Only to end the war" don't hold water.

so let's cut to the chase moral moron.

What would Womby do?

impart on us (sic) your vast intellect and profound moral conciseness.
if you are so certain we should not have used an atomic bomb, then what would you have done Womby?

My money is on "starve the Japs to death while Stalin drinks Vodka in Beijing"
you certainly don't have the guts to support invading Japan do ya?



Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I'm not playing that game with you. It's not about what I would do. It's done. I never said LeMay was opposed to nuclear weapons. I posted a quote where he said the bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war. What you fail to realize or appreciate it, is the pandora's box we opened by dropping those bombs. That's my ultimate point. Not whether it was right or wrong, but the implications of the act. I've never seen so many of you racist bastards care about the yellow man as I've seen in this thread. Your hearts bleed for them. "Let's kill 250K to save millions" you cry. Who is equivocating now?

I'm not playing that game with you. It's not about what I would do. It's done. I never said LeMay was opposed to nuclear weapons. I posted a quote where he said the bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war. What you fail to realize or appreciate it, is the pandora's box we opened by dropping those bombs. That's my ultimate point. Not whether it was right or wrong, but the implications of the act. I've never seen so many of you racist bastards care about the yellow man as I've seen in this thread. Your hearts bleed for them. "Let's kill 250K to save millions" you cry. Who is equivocating now? Originally Posted by WombRaider

then it's done. stop fucking moralizing about it asshat.
and that pandora's box would have been opened by someone sooner or later. if it had to be us, i'm ok with that.

then it's done. stop fucking moralizing about it asshat.
and that pandora's box would have been opened by someone sooner or later. if it had to be us, i'm ok with that. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You equivocate in a post where you tell me to stop equivocating. Only an absolute retard could pull that off.

Bravo, cocktard.

And it's done, when I say it's done. You don't call the tune I dance to, motherfucker.