The GREATEST war crime

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What does Bushido or self-defense have to do with this? The fact is that our government purposefully targeted civilians that had committed no crime other than being citizens of a country we were at war with and dropped an atomic bomb on them.

There was no such thing as a civilian to the Japanese.

As for your Mid-eastern child analogy, it doesn't fit. A child that picks up a gun and shoots at someone is not innocent. They may be forced to do so against their will, or they may be too young to understand what they're doing but they're not innocent. Those Japanese civilians had done no harm to us.

I didn't say whether or not either were innocent. My belief is that all children are innocent, no matter the condition.

They were civilians regardless. They weren't in the armed forces and they did nothing to deserve being bombed.

 

[namvet]

What does Bushido or self-defense have to do with this? The fact is that our government purposefully targeted civilians that had committed no crime other than being citizens of a country we were at war with and dropped an atomic bomb on them.

As for your Mid-eastern child analogy, it doesn't fit. A child that picks up a gun and shoots at someone is not innocent. They may be forced to do so against their will, or they may be too young to understand what they're doing but they're not innocent. Those Japanese civilians had done no harm to us.

can you have a war without killing civilians???? they man war plants. they're always in the line of fire. check out what the Brits did to Dresden. those Japanese Civilians were armed and ready to kill Americans in the invasion. fuck's wrong with you?????

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What does Bushido or self-defense have to do with this? The fact is that our government purposefully targeted civilians that had committed no crime other than being citizens of a country we were at war with and dropped an atomic bomb on them.

As for your Mid-eastern child analogy, it doesn't fit. A child that picks up a gun and shoots at someone is not innocent. They may be forced to do so against their will, or they may be too young to understand what they're doing but they're not innocent. Those Japanese civilians had done no harm to us.

can you have a war without killing civilians???? they man war plants. they're always in the line of fire. check out what the Brits did to Dresden. those Japanese Civilians were armed and ready to kill Americans in the invasion. fuck's wrong with you?????

No, that's why wars should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. However, this wasn't an accident. Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed. How do you know what those Japanese civilians would have done? Also, why did there need to be an invasion? The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union.

 

[GRX Dragon]

What does Bushido or self-defense have to do with this? The fact is that our government purposefully targeted civilians that had committed no crime other than being citizens of a country we were at war with and dropped an atomic bomb on them.

There was no such thing as a civilian to the Japanese.

As for your Mid-eastern child analogy, it doesn't fit. A child that picks up a gun and shoots at someone is not innocent. They may be forced to do so against their will, or they may be too young to understand what they're doing but they're not innocent. Those Japanese civilians had done no harm to us.

I didn't say whether or not either were innocent. My belief is that all children are innocent, no matter the condition.

They were civilians regardless. They weren't in the armed forces and they did nothing to deserve being bombed.

Because it's not possible they couldn't have been supporting their government's actions, right? The fact of the matter is they were not civilians in Japanese culture, it was in fact dishonorable and a disgrace to claim to be a civilian. And not just Japanese culture, but all throughout Asia!

Nevermind that you conveniently overlooked what I said about Nagasaki being the 3rd target, not intentionally the 2nd target!

 

[GRX Dragon]

What does Bushido or self-defense have to do with this? The fact is that our government purposefully targeted civilians that had committed no crime other than being citizens of a country we were at war with and dropped an atomic bomb on them.

As for your Mid-eastern child analogy, it doesn't fit. A child that picks up a gun and shoots at someone is not innocent. They may be forced to do so against their will, or they may be too young to understand what they're doing but they're not innocent. Those Japanese civilians had done no harm to us.

can you have a war without killing civilians???? they man war plants. they're always in the line of fire. check out what the Brits did to Dresden. those Japanese Civilians were armed and ready to kill Americans in the invasion. fuck's wrong with you?????

No, that's why wars should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. However, this wasn't an accident. Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed. How do you know what those Japanese civilians would have done? Also, why did there need to be an invasion? The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union.

Hiroshima was purposely targeted, but it was as much a military target as it was a civilian target. And if they wanted to surrender, they knew better than to go to the USSR...

 

[The T]

One does wonder about the SECOND bomb, of course.

As to the first bomb dropped?

I have no problems with that.

Had I known only what Truman knew at that time, I'd have ordered the mission, too.

I don't really wonder any more about the second bomb than I do the first. I'd be interested in why you do.

And also, I've read that some historians believe that not only would the alternative have cost thousands of American soldier's lives, but could have actually resulted in even more Japanese deaths than the bomb (assuming invasion was the alternative). An interesting topic for discussion for sure, but purely subjective and speculative. As for the OP's assertion that it was a war crime, total bullshit.

The Entire WAR started by the AXIS (Hitler's Germany, Moussilini's Italy, and Tojo's JAPAN), was an atrocity in of itself.

The op is screwed in the head.

My $.02 worth.

 

[namvet]

What does Bushido or self-defense have to do with this? The fact is that our government purposefully targeted civilians that had committed no crime other than being citizens of a country we were at war with and dropped an atomic bomb on them.

As for your Mid-eastern child analogy, it doesn't fit. A child that picks up a gun and shoots at someone is not innocent. They may be forced to do so against their will, or they may be too young to understand what they're doing but they're not innocent. Those Japanese civilians had done no harm to us.

can you have a war without killing civilians???? they man war plants. they're always in the line of fire. check out what the Brits did to Dresden. those Japanese Civilians were armed and ready to kill Americans in the invasion. fuck's wrong with you?????

No, that's why wars should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. However, this wasn't an accident. Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed. How do you know what those Japanese civilians would have done? Also, why did there need to be an invasion? The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union.

The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union

and what did the Russians do??? they declared war on Japan. cry baby

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There was no such thing as a civilian to the Japanese.



I didn't say whether or not either were innocent. My belief is that all children are innocent, no matter the condition.

They were civilians regardless. They weren't in the armed forces and they did nothing to deserve being bombed.

Because it's not possible they couldn't have been supporting their government's actions, right? The fact of the matter is they were not civilians in Japanese culture, it was in fact dishonorable and a disgrace to claim to be a civilian. And not just Japanese culture, but all throughout Asia!

Nevermind that you conveniently overlooked what I said about Nagasaki being the 3rd target, not intentionally the 2nd target!

Maybe they supported their government, maybe they didn't. I doubt the children had any real understanding of what was going on, at any rate. But when did it become a crime to support your government? Regardless of whether they claimed to be civilians or not that's exactly what they were. They weren't fighting in the war and they hadn't done anything to the United States. They were simply trying to live their lives.

It doesn't matter which target Nagasaki was. It never should have been a target at all, along with Hiroshima.

 

[The T]

can you have a war without killing civilians???? they man war plants. they're always in the line of fire. check out what the Brits did to Dresden. those Japanese Civilians were armed and ready to kill Americans in the invasion. fuck's wrong with you?????

No, that's why wars should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. However, this wasn't an accident. Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed. How do you know what those Japanese civilians would have done? Also, why did there need to be an invasion? The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union.

The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union

and what did the Russians do??? they declared war on Japan. cry baby

Indeed. And they did so at the CLOSE of the WAR...and why? (By close I mean AFTER the BOMB was dropped...They had interests in Real-Estate.

TIMELINE <LINK

 

[namvet]

What does Bushido or self-defense have to do with this? The fact is that our government purposefully targeted civilians that had committed no crime other than being citizens of a country we were at war with and dropped an atomic bomb on them.

As for your Mid-eastern child analogy, it doesn't fit. A child that picks up a gun and shoots at someone is not innocent. They may be forced to do so against their will, or they may be too young to understand what they're doing but they're not innocent. Those Japanese civilians had done no harm to us.

can you have a war without killing civilians???? they man war plants. they're always in the line of fire. check out what the Brits did to Dresden. those Japanese Civilians were armed and ready to kill Americans in the invasion. fuck's wrong with you?????

No, that's why wars should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. However, this wasn't an accident. Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed. How do you know what those Japanese civilians would have done? Also, why did there need to be an invasion? The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union.

Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed

and Pearl Harbor was not. ok fine.

 

[namvet]

gentllemen please continue your education of young KK good evening

 

[rdean]

Considering that at least a million American Soldiers would have died without the bomb, not sure how it's a war crime.

The Jews killed by the Germans - huge, Russian killed by Russians - more than 20 million? Probably the greatest crime of the last century.

The greatest war crime committed by the US was without a doubt, standing by and letting the Iraqi Christians get slaughtered. Dropping the population from close to 1.2 million to probably less than 600,000.

They begged Bush to protect them. He said, "We don't want to show favoritism". They begged Bush to let them come here. He said, "We want to keep the illusion of diversity". I suspect the real reason was because it would show America the incredible failure if more than half a million Christians suddenly showed up on our doorstep, Christians not the "white" color. What's more, what would they say if asked about the "Weapons of Mass Destruction"? "Huh"? What weapons?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

can you have a war without killing civilians???? they man war plants. they're always in the line of fire. check out what the Brits did to Dresden. those Japanese Civilians were armed and ready to kill Americans in the invasion. fuck's wrong with you?????

No, that's why wars should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. However, this wasn't an accident. Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed. How do you know what those Japanese civilians would have done? Also, why did there need to be an invasion? The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union.

Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed

and Pearl Harbor was not. ok fine.

There's a difference between attacking a military installation, and vaporizing two cities.

 

[rdean]

No, that's why wars should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. However, this wasn't an accident. Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed. How do you know what those Japanese civilians would have done? Also, why did there need to be an invasion? The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union.

Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed

and Pearl Harbor was not. ok fine.

There's a difference between attacking a military installation, and vaporizing two cities.

I don't think you understand. Remember, this was a country that believed their emperor was descended from the Sun. They were totally devoted.

They had been training girls as you as 10 how to fight with a pitchfork or a knife. Imagine going to a country where NO ONE, not a single person, sees you as a liberator. Old people would have filled their wheelchairs with dynamite. The same suicide you saw with the Kamikazes you would have seen from every single person. Once those two cities were destroyed, the population was ordered by their emperor to lay down their arms and surrender. It wouldn't have been just a million American soldiers, but at least 5 million Japanese. Believe it.

AND, the Russians were moving equipment into place that would have ended in a North/South Japan, just like in Germany. That would have been the legacy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

and Pearl Harbor was not. ok fine.

There's a difference between attacking a military installation, and vaporizing two cities.

I don't think you understand. Remember, this was a country that believed their emperor was descended from the Sun. They were totally devoted.

They had been training girls as you as 10 how to fight with a pitchfork or a knife. Imagine going to a country where NO ONE, not a single person, sees you as a liberator. Old people would have filled their wheelchairs with dynamite. The same suicide you saw with the Kamikazes you would have seen from every single person. Once those two cities were destroyed, the population was ordered by their emperor to lay down their arms and surrender. It wouldn't have been just a million American soldiers, but at least 5 million Japanese. Believe it.

AND, the Russians were moving equipment into place that would have ended in a North/South Japan, just like in Germany. That would have been the legacy.

I don't think you understand. Remember that Japan was looking for peace before the atomic bombs were dropped.

Also the "million" American soldiers that would have died in an unnecessary invasion is greatly exaggerated. The true estimate is actually around 46,000.

 

[The T]

can you have a war without killing civilians???? they man war plants. they're always in the line of fire. check out what the Brits did to Dresden. those Japanese Civilians were armed and ready to kill Americans in the invasion. fuck's wrong with you?????

No, that's why wars should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. However, this wasn't an accident. Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed. How do you know what those Japanese civilians would have done? Also, why did there need to be an invasion? The Japanese were ready to end the war as evidenced by their putting out feelers to the Soviet Union.

Hiroshima was purposefully targeted and bombed

and Pearl Harbor was not. ok fine.

Your LOGIC is LOST on some. I follow you perfectly. Good Form!

 

[The T]

There's a difference between attacking a military installation, and vaporizing two cities.

I don't think you understand. Remember, this was a country that believed their emperor was descended from the Sun. They were totally devoted.

They had been training girls as you as 10 how to fight with a pitchfork or a knife. Imagine going to a country where NO ONE, not a single person, sees you as a liberator. Old people would have filled their wheelchairs with dynamite. The same suicide you saw with the Kamikazes you would have seen from every single person. Once those two cities were destroyed, the population was ordered by their emperor to lay down their arms and surrender. It wouldn't have been just a million American soldiers, but at least 5 million Japanese. Believe it.

AND, the Russians were moving equipment into place that would have ended in a North/South Japan, just like in Germany. That would have been the legacy.

I don't think you understand. Remember that Japan was looking for peace before the atomic bombs were dropped.

Also the "million" American soldiers that would have died in an unnecessary invasion is greatly exaggerated. The true estimate is actually around 46,000.

Japan was looking for peace before it was dropped? Have a LINK to this? History tells a different story...

________________________


The usa was facing the prospect of invading japan to subdue it. the last few battles; iwo jima and okinawa particularly, were incomprehensibly bloody. japan had no regard for its own citizen's lives and planned to turn their whole island into a fortress. Casualties were estimated to be 1 million americans and half a million british in the first invasion alone. some cynics say we used it to scare stalin as well, but the fact remains that they ignored an ultimatum on 7-27-45 after enduring the worst conventional bombs could do. A powerful argument remains that the Bomb saved allied and japanese lives.

________________________

SOURCE

This is widely KNOWN by most of us. Can you cite a source that supports your contnetion?

The ONLY reason they capitulated is that the fearewd we had MORE of the Bombs, and would USE THEM.

Nagasaki, and Hiroshima were examples of what we would do to bring it to a close rather than commit more American./ Allied lives to subdue them into capitulation. And it was estimated to be in the millions.

I'll be waiting for your answer.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't think you understand. Remember, this was a country that believed their emperor was descended from the Sun. They were totally devoted.

They had been training girls as you as 10 how to fight with a pitchfork or a knife. Imagine going to a country where NO ONE, not a single person, sees you as a liberator. Old people would have filled their wheelchairs with dynamite. The same suicide you saw with the Kamikazes you would have seen from every single person. Once those two cities were destroyed, the population was ordered by their emperor to lay down their arms and surrender. It wouldn't have been just a million American soldiers, but at least 5 million Japanese. Believe it.

AND, the Russians were moving equipment into place that would have ended in a North/South Japan, just like in Germany. That would have been the legacy.

I don't think you understand. Remember that Japan was looking for peace before the atomic bombs were dropped.

Also the "million" American soldiers that would have died in an unnecessary invasion is greatly exaggerated. The true estimate is actually around 46,000.

Japan was looking for peace before it was dropped? Have a LINK to this? History tells a different story...

________________________


The usa was facing the prospect of invading japan to subdue it. the last few battles; iwo jima and okinawa particularly, were incomprehensibly bloody. japan had no regard for its own citizen's lives and planned to turn their whole island into a fortress. Casualties were estimated to be 1 million americans and half a million british in the first invasion alone. some cynics say we used it to scare stalin as well, but the fact remains that they ignored an ultimatum on 7-27-45 after enduring the worst conventional bombs could do. A powerful argument remains that the Bomb saved allied and japanese lives.

________________________

SOURCE

This is widely KNOWN by most of us. Can you cite a source that supports your contnetion?

The ONLY reason they capitulated is that the fearewd we had MORE of the Bombs, and would USE THEM.

Nagasaki, and Hiroshima were examples of what we would do to bring it to a close rather than commit more American./ Allied lives to subdue them into capitulation. And it was estimated to be in the millions.

I'll be waiting for your answer.

In the case of Hiroshima, no substantive evidence exists that the bombing was “necessary” to make Japan surrender. In fact, the Japanese had already attempted to sue for peace in July and were only hesitant because they distrusted the terms of unconditional surrender that the Allies demanded. They specifically wanted to keep their emperor, which, after the atomic bombings, they were allowed to, anyway. The military estimated before Hiroshima that invasion would cost as many as 20,000 or 30,000 American lives, but not nearly the half million lives that Truman later claimed had been the estimate. Even without invasion, Japan was utterly defeated by the war and U.S. blockades prevented the island nation from getting the necessary food to survive, much less maintain any type of threat against America.

Targeting Civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Anthony Gregory

An interesting quote regarding the use of the atomic bomb comes from Dwight D. Eisenhower:

"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

 

[Intense]

Wow, I've Never seen this argument before. Is this Recycle bin day?

If I was Pres. at the Time, which I was not, and never will be, I would probably not have dropped the bomb if I could find a way out of it. Keep in mind now that Fire Bombing was real nasty too, and we did allot of it. That said, After dropping the first bomb, we could have waited longer for a reaction from Japan, which was stunned and devastated, by act one. We probably would have had a surrender. I suspect We had other forces at play, including justifying Cost/Expense/Effect ratios. Anyway one looks at it, it was a hard decision. We did loose a third bomb to boot, in the Pacific, which has never been found.

 

[The T]

I don't think you understand. Remember that Japan was looking for peace before the atomic bombs were dropped.

Also the "million" American soldiers that would have died in an unnecessary invasion is greatly exaggerated. The true estimate is actually around 46,000.

Japan was looking for peace before it was dropped? Have a LINK to this? History tells a different story...

________________________


The usa was facing the prospect of invading japan to subdue it. the last few battles; iwo jima and okinawa particularly, were incomprehensibly bloody. japan had no regard for its own citizen's lives and planned to turn their whole island into a fortress. Casualties were estimated to be 1 million americans and half a million british in the first invasion alone. some cynics say we used it to scare stalin as well, but the fact remains that they ignored an ultimatum on 7-27-45 after enduring the worst conventional bombs could do. A powerful argument remains that the Bomb saved allied and japanese lives.

________________________

SOURCE

This is widely KNOWN by most of us. Can you cite a source that supports your contnetion?

The ONLY reason they capitulated is that the fearewd we had MORE of the Bombs, and would USE THEM.

Nagasaki, and Hiroshima were examples of what we would do to bring it to a close rather than commit more American./ Allied lives to subdue them into capitulation. And it was estimated to be in the millions.

I'll be waiting for your answer.

In the case of Hiroshima, no substantive evidence exists that the bombing was “necessary” to make Japan surrender. In fact, the Japanese had already attempted to sue for peace in July and were only hesitant because they distrusted the terms of unconditional surrender that the Allies demanded. They specifically wanted to keep their emperor, which, after the atomic bombings, they were allowed to, anyway. The military estimated before Hiroshima that invasion would cost as many as 20,000 or 30,000 American lives, but not nearly the half million lives that Truman later claimed had been the estimate. Even without invasion, Japan was utterly defeated by the war and U.S. blockades prevented the island nation from getting the necessary food to survive, much less maintain any type of threat against America.

Targeting Civilians at Hiroshima*and*Nagasaki by Anthony Gregory

An interesting quote regarding the use of the atomic bomb comes from Dwight D. Eisenhower:

"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

Only Certain SEGMENTS of the miltary tried when they saw their cause was LOST...NONE had the Heart, the AUDACITY to tell the Emoror...and therefore they FAILED.

Nice try. Ain't buying what your selling. You act as if the entire NATION tried to "SUE" For peace...your conveyance is UNTRUE.

So STOP why you thought YOU were ahead.

The Entire Country was in it, and geared for the duration to the LAST MAN.