Ronald Reagan is coming to....

Roger, you rock!!!

How anyone can defend the slaughter of a civialian population is beyond me. Didn't the Nazi's slaughter civialians ??

 

It's real easy to defend. First, have a foreign power declare war on you two hours after conducting a surprise attack on your Navy, killing 1300 sailors. Then, after four years of war, in which 400,000 of your nations young men have been put in a grave, face the prospect of putting 1,000,000 more in a grave in the final invasion of the homeland of that hostile power. Your two choices are 1,000,000 dead Americans or 200,000 crispy Japanese (who all live and work in cities of military significance, just for the record; our goal was to eliminate their capacity, and hopefully desire, to wage war), not even counting the wounded or numbers of enemy dead and wounded.

When that's the scenario in front of you, ordering the Enola Gay to fire up it's engines and deliver the "gadget" is a pretty easy decision to make.

Personally, I much prefered the scenes of US service personnel dancing in the streets and sucking face with the ladies in 1945 than I'd care for images of large fields filled with shiny white grave markers from the invasion of Japan.

 

Lots of propaganda/rationalization/hogwash here!!

Granted the Japanese gov. was as evil as the Nazis and a more direct threat to the US, I am still amused at how so many of you just totally ignore (or don't care about) the moral implications of using such a horrific weapon on civilian population. Most of you seem to boil it down to a simple mathematic equation with out addressing the fact that our government made the concious decision to slaughter civilians in an effort to force the Japs to "unconditionally" surrender, rather than negotiate the terms of the surrender.

The big issue was whether the Japs would keep their emporer - we said no way and cut off talks. I'll point to sources after my meeting, but I'm not sure that any rational argument would sway any of you who seem hell bent on falling for the "our country right or wrong" BS. I will try nonetheless.

Rodger

 

Here comes that Strawman again, Roger! Kick him! Punch him! Knock him down! Maybe he won't get up this time!

 

Roger, you ignorant slut. How many times do we have to repeat the fact that the cities were targets of military significance before it will sink in.

Oh, never mind, it never will apparently.

As for the "moral implications" of dropping the bomb, once again, you don't get it. I guess in your twisted little world it would have been better if we would have invaded Japan and killed a few million people, on both sides, because they would have been killed with conventional weapons. And that "few million" would have included plenty of civilians, women, and children because ALL were being trained to repel the invasion. Women and small children were being trained to fight with bamboo spears. In every campaign up to that point, the defenders fought to the death rather than surrender. I don't think we took 1,000 prisoners, total, in the taking of Wake, Iwo Gima, and Guatalcanal combined. We did, however, kill about 40,000 Japanese in taking those islands. There was clear evidence to show that they wouldn't surrender without quite a bit of convincing. The first bomb didn't even do it as they were still willing to continue the war. It wasn't until they were faced with the prospect of us destroying everything above ground on island of Japan with A-bombs (a bluff, but it worked) that they conceded defeat and surrendered. And unconditional surrender was the ONLY acceptable terms for surrender to us, which is exactly as it should have been. Crushing the Empire of Japan helped make sure that it didn't happen again and that's a net good thing. Prior to that, their version of "surrender" was basically to call a time-out so they could regroup, resupply, and then get back to it in a few years. That was unacceptable to us.

 

If you have to go complicate things by talking about morality, might as well add in Dresden bombing too. There was virtually no heavy industry there.

 

Yo dude, an mebbie u waz puttin an eyeball on da synopsiz of one o dem bookz. I mean if yo gonna try lookin smart den yo shud just post da link to da source insteda cuttin n pastin en makin it look like u doin the thinkin, numsain? U gotz ne original tauts?

from Paul Johnson's A History of the American People, Harper Collins, 1997

(page 802) This was precisely the strategy, if so it can be called, of the Japanese Supreme Council, which on June 6, 1945 approved a document, 'Fundamental Policy to Be Followed Henceforth in the Conduct of the War'. Its final plan for the defense of Japan itself, 'Operation Decision', provided for the use of 10,000 suicide planes (mostly converted trainers), fifth-three infantry divisions, and twenty-five brigades: 2,350,000 trained troops would fight on the beaches, backed by 4 million army and navy civil employees and a civilian militia of 28 million. Their weapons were to include muzzle-loaders, bamboo spears, and bows and aarrows. Special legislation was passed by the Diet to form this army. American intelligence quicky became aware of this fight-to-the-finish strategy, and American commanders were under no illusions, in ttthe light of their experience in conquering the mid-Pacific island, what it would mean in terms of casualities to themselves, and indeed to the Japanese. By this stage in the war, the Americans had suffered 280,677 combat deaths in Europe and 41,322 in the Pacific, plus 115,187 service deaths from non-hostile causes, and 971,801 non-fatal casualties. In addition, 10,650 US servicemen had died (it was later learned) while prisoners-of-war of the Japanese (out of a total of 25,600). The Allied commanders calculated that, if an invasion of Hapan became necessary, they must expect up to a million further casualties.

Japanese losses, assuming comparable ratios to those already experienced, would be in the range of 10 million to 20 million.

 

Yo back at you, "dude." Why don't you roll back earlier in this thread, where you'll see that I actually posted PHOTOGRAPHS of some of my sources. The similarity of the data I posted to your cut-and-paste from a Paul Johnson book probably would have been clear to you if you'd seen the PHOTOGRAPH of a book by none other than that very same Paul Johnson. If you'd done that before you posted this drivel your foot might not be so firmly jammed into your mouth.

FYI I never cut and paste or quote whole passages without attribution. So kindly buzz off

 

All these discussions on Japan surrendering, A bombs and Sushi doesn’t take away from the fact that Ronald Reagan kicked and still kicks total ass.




SUUUUCCCCKKKAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!

 

Ez ma man ain't no hataz here. U C I wuz just readin dis and thinkin dat U prolly just read doze bookz like ten minutz ago an it wuz fresh in your mind so it wuz prolly just coincidince dat whut U wrote wuz almost identicle to da book. I meen da sentencez iz reel reel close n da thinkin iz rite wid it. Datz funny aint it. Yo first quote U did gud but I think U bullshittin us on da secind one. U ether forgot dem damn quotz or U typin out da book n makin littel changez so nobody knowz whatz up n U be lookin like a smartass mofo. But we seez whatz happenin yo know. N dont be showin dat ass again cauz it aint cool.

 

Uh...Knock...Knock..is anyone in there...Hello, McFly?

It's an BBS racing forum, dood. What do you expect facts? Same as with the Penthouse Forums, did you really expect that many people were having sex with amputees?

I think it was one of the worst/most horrific weapons to be used to date, but WWI mustard gas and todays chemical weapons could be just as bad. But why do I have to apologize to Japan, hell I wasn't even born when it happened? There could be a possibility that I would not be here if it wasn't used. (yeah..yeah...yeah, I'm reaching)

David

 

Can somebody translate this please?

 

i always thought that the Penthouse forum stuff was real!

And I never said anything about an apology -- I was merely discussing the ability of supposedly great men to rationalize anything.

R.

 

Dude, I couldn't grasp a single thing from that post. I was hopping YOU could translate it for me.

Oh well, guess if I can't understand it, it wasn't important.

 

I see. Dropping atomic bombs on civilian populations is okay, as long as its an American plane dropping the bomb. That's severely fucked up.

 

if it were up to me...... japan would still be using stone tools, and just now discovering fire.

 

and we'd all be riding 1950's technology Harleys. Some people already are......

 

no, we could race 1100cc BMW's.

 

Be berry, berry quite, we're trolling for Rodger

Let's face it; the two dropped bombs are history. Can't go and recall them even if we wanted. What is important is that another one is not dropped in the future. To me, this is one of the justifications for Iraq. They thought they would have a bomb by 2007 and a madman was in charge. Should we just wait and see or do some preventive maintenance and ensure he didn't get a chance to even threaten to use it.

I read an article that basically said yes Saddamn has a chemical weapon stockpile but they didn't think he would use them even in desperation. Hello...he did use 'em and he wasn't even desperate at the time. I think didn't use them against us because he knew there would be repercussions or he wasn't in charge after that first opening bunker buster.

David

 

we should mourn saddam, and the fall of the stupid, yet evil japanese empire.


sorry for removing ya'll from the planet. our bad.


are the pu$$ies happy now?