Loading The Nagasaki Bomb

Discussion in 'Military' started by bitterlyclingin, Feb 8, 2014.

  1. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    43,335
    Thanks Received:
    6,127
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +23,094
    Both sides were dropping bombs on each other's cities. In the end what is the difference between a one bomber raid and a 700 bomber raid that kill the same amount of people?
    You have a hard on for Truman and FDR, we get it. But it doesn't justify making crap up.

    Had Japan won the war there wouldn't have BEEN war crimes trials.
     
  2. gipper
    Offline

    gipper Libertarian/Anarchist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    24,749
    Thanks Received:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +25,666
    Name one American city Japan destroyed during the war.

    I never claimed Japan would hold war crime trials had they won. You did.
     
  3. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    43,335
    Thanks Received:
    6,127
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +23,094
    I did no such thing. Your statement is the first time it was brought up. Are you on meds?

    Japan couldn't bomb american cities because they lacked the range, not the will. And ask the civillians in China how Japan played the game of war.
     
  4. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,426
    Thanks Received:
    5,599
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,640
    He was NO hero.


    Aristo wannabe, more like.
     
  5. Vandalshandle
    Offline

    Vandalshandle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Messages:
    16,967
    Thanks Received:
    3,337
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Southern AZ
    Ratings:
    +10,267
    As Marty said, Gip, we get it. You hate FDR and Truman.Now, go back to you revisiionist history fringe blogs and reload. I was alive during both of their preisdencies, and I still remember Truman's presidency. His desegragation of the armed forces alone would have made him a great preisdent. Professional historians consistently rank FDR no. 1 or 2, and Truman 7 or 8, both of which rank higher than any other president in my 69 years. While I recognize that one can always find a find blog or crank author who loves to make an name for himself by calling everybody elses assessment nothing but lies and cover ups, most of us respect their professional opinions.

    Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2014
  6. gipper
    Offline

    gipper Libertarian/Anarchist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    24,749
    Thanks Received:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +25,666
    I hate no one. But I do hate what FDR and Truman did.

    Citing statist historians as proof of their greatest, is like asking a p-school teacher if socialism is a good thing.

    The great historians you call cranks are some of the most intelligent and capable people alive. It is too bad you can't see that.

    I thought as you do before I educated myself. I too like you, was brainwashed by a p-school education. I however overcame it. You have not.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    43,335
    Thanks Received:
    6,127
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +23,094
    I went to Catholic school, and I have read tons of WWII history outside of school for the past 30 years.

    And take that "I see things you don't because you are sheep" attitude and cram it up your ass. Its your own gulibility and desire to have some asshole revisionist twat agree with you that blinds YOU to the actual truth, you know the one the rest of us agree on.
     
  8. Vandalshandle
    Offline

    Vandalshandle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Messages:
    16,967
    Thanks Received:
    3,337
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Southern AZ
    Ratings:
    +10,267
    I checked out John V. Densen. He is an attorney (not a historian) practicing in Alabama (the hotbed of academic excellance!) who is a committed non interventionist. We all know how well that went in the 1930's!
     
  9. regent
    Offline

    regent Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    9,745
    Thanks Received:
    1,048
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,430
    One of Trumans problems was that he followed FDR. For some Americans FDR was the only president they had really known and expected all presidents to be another FDR. Truman, of course was Truman he acted differently, talked differently and was his own president. Generally, the historians that are asked to rate the presidents, and few are, rate the presidents on their time in office and with all that background noise taken into account. Truman is usually rated between fifth and ninth best president. Bush may have helped raise some of the president's positions.
     
  10. Vandalshandle
    Offline

    Vandalshandle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Messages:
    16,967
    Thanks Received:
    3,337
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Southern AZ
    Ratings:
    +10,267
    Good point!

    In the poll I posted above Bush II is around 35. I am surprised he is that high, but as time goes by, things begin to sort themselves out. Personally, I think that Thomas Jefferson and JFK were both a little overrated. Not that they were not good presidents, but JFK, for example, was hardly able to get any of his agenda passed by congress, whereas, LBJ got anything he wanted because of his political skill. Unfortuately, he intimidated everyone around him, and only tolerated those on his team that agreed with him, which explains that bastard, McNamara, whose idea of running the Vietnam war was to calculate the cost of each VC and North Vietnamese killed, and constantly look for cheaper ways to do it. Too bad that he didn't do the same thing that he did to the two seater Thunderbird, and just stop the production. Nixon was even worse, but he at least finally figured out that the only way to get out of Vietnam was to declare victory and leave.
     

Share This Page