The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[Unkotare]

...

Hoover after the event takes place? Eisenhower after the bomb? Neither were told of this top secret.The vice president was never told, yet we are to believe people way below the vice president were told?

....

You should learn how to read.

 

[toobfreak]

...
NOTHING is "verified" in the website, unless it is verified by an outside third party. ...

And what if the quotes are accurate? So what? ...

You're hilarious, Salty.

You're still deflecting, Shitstain.

 

[toobfreak]

...

Any website that starts out with a mission to overtly gather opinions AGAINST Hiroshima is automatically disqualified on the grounds of obvious bias. .....

But it the bias goes in the other direction, that's valid, Salty? You are kungfull of shit, Salty.

Who said the bias went in the other direction? Just because they gave fair and balanced answers?

 

[elektra]

You should learn how to read.

You should learn to teach

 

[elektra]

The link to the statements, thus far, 3 of the statements are proven, not true. How about a 4th, is it possible?
Hiroshima: Quotes

Joseph Grew, under secretary of state

might well have been afforded

Might? Might? During war, would the under secretary of state actually fight a war, or make a decision, if it might?

"If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."

Yes, true, "if", if is a big world. If we had flying pigs the Japanese would of surrendered when they saw the pig pilots fly in on flying pigs. But seriously, this statement does not mean Grew would not of used the bomb or that Grew would of acquiesced to Japanese surrender demands. It was discussed, and decided that during the battle of Okinawa that may of given the Japanese the impression they were winning the battle and thus prolonged the battle. It was a bloody deathly hell, the battle for okinawa, the last thing they needed is a renewed vigor to fight on the Japanese side.

Joseph Grew knew this, that is why his idea got shot down.

Nothing in this statement by Grew shows he was against ending the War using the bombs.

that is 4 of the quotes shown to be false. and, it seems they get weaker as we go

 

[Unkotare]

You should learn how to read.

You should learn to teach

Why do you say that?

 

[Unkotare]

...

Any website that starts out with a mission to overtly gather opinions AGAINST Hiroshima is automatically disqualified on the grounds of obvious bias. .....

But it the bias goes in the other direction, that's valid, Salty? You are kungfull of shit, Salty.

Who said the bias went in the other direction? Just because they gave fair and balanced answers?

Hypocrites like you are funny, Salty.

 

[sparky]

Any website that starts out with a mission to overtly gather opinions AGAINST Hiroshima is automatically disqualified on the grounds of obvious bias. They are saying right at the start that they were against the nuking, created the site against it, and set out to gather only quotes in support of that view. So we hear NOTHING of dissenting views FOR the nuking. With the stated bias, the ability and motive to fabricate, anything printed there is as worthless as the National Star. So what? You found a handful of people against the nuking? A better option would be to seek out articles who at least remain open to looking at both sides. I mean, to anyone with a seed of intellectual honesty.

So it's the 'battle of the links' Toob?

Discrediting sources is exactly the 'link dinks' game here, sorts who jump up/down demanding one, only to discredit it due to their OWN bias.

That's intellectual sabotage

~S~

 

[Kilroy2]

A nation that professes such an affinity with god

In God we trust
serving our Nation under God in peace as well as in war
one Nation under God,
do solemnly swear (or affirm)...so help me God.'"

Is this affinity a Velcro badge

One that you place on your chest so proudly when its
convenient

then tear it off when its inconvenient

Life is a series of test of ones morality in relationship with ones religious beliefs

If you claim such an affinity and sign international agreements, then one test is do you discard your morality because someone else does

It was obvious that prior to WW2 that most nation adhered to and support the notion to at least limit bombing of civilian and to use it indiscriminately was rightly thought to be barbaric

Yes Germany and Japan bombed civilian targets

and they paid the price for such foolishness with high civilian casualties

The eye for an eye mentality but even this generally is that the punishment should fit the crime

oh they bombed civilian targets so we can too but do more of it

participation in indiscriminate bombing should be measured but it is easy to get caught in it as death now that is nothing but a duty

and once it becomes a duty it doesn't mean that ones morality should be torn off with going with the flow

Killing civilians in war is wrong no matter no matter which sides starts it , it is irrelevant because a final judgment will be made if you truly believe in a God


So help me God

 

[Frannie]

A nation that professes such an affinity with god

In God we trust
serving our Nation under God in peace as well as in war
one Nation under God,
do solemnly swear (or affirm)...so help me God.'"

Is this affinity a Velcro badge

One that you place on your chest so proudly when its
convenient

then tear it off when its inconvenient

Life is a series of test of ones morality in relationship with ones religious beliefs

If you claim such an affinity and sign international agreements, then one test is do you discard your morality because someone else does

It was obvious that prior to WW2 that most nation adhered to and support the notion to at least limit bombing of civilian and to use it indiscriminately was rightly thought to be barbaric

Yes Germany and Japan bombed civilian targets

and they paid the price for such foolishness with high civilian casualties

The eye for an eye mentality but even this generally is that the punishment should fit the crime

oh they bombed civilian targets so we can too but do more of it

participation in indiscriminate bombing should be measured but it is easy to get caught in it as death now that is nothing but a duty

and once it becomes a duty it doesn't mean that ones morality should be torn off with going with the flow

Killing civilians in war is wrong no matter no matter which sides starts it , it is irrelevant because a final judgment will be made if you truly believe in a God


So help me God

There are no civilians, all people are equal. The people that you call civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were building the weapons of war. Japan's total inability to produce new weapons is what ended the war....

 

[Taz]

I would have nuked Tokyo as well.

 

[Frannie]

I would have nuked Tokyo as well.

Nagoya deserved it too

 

[toobfreak]

Any website that starts out with a mission to overtly gather opinions AGAINST Hiroshima is automatically disqualified on the grounds of obvious bias. They are saying right at the start that they were against the nuking, created the site against it, and set out to gather only quotes in support of that view. So we hear NOTHING of dissenting views FOR the nuking. With the stated bias, the ability and motive to fabricate, anything printed there is as worthless as the National Star. So what? You found a handful of people against the nuking? A better option would be to seek out articles who at least remain open to looking at both sides. I mean, to anyone with a seed of intellectual honesty.

So it's the 'battle of the links' Toob?

No battle, Spark. Just that when someone offers as proof of something some goofy, obscure webpage that starts out stating a deliberate bias and agenda of finding for only one side of a topic, you know in advance they aren't going to including anything in support of the other side of the view! So then, the webpage proves nothing because everything has two sides! And a handful of quotes, such as from avowed pacifists like Einstein, probably the most famously anti-war person of the 20th century, again proves what? That he gave another anti-war opinion? Was Einstein even a military expert or strategist? No!

And finally, quotes that are "vetted" by the website itself mean nothing, unless someone else has actually gone out and looked them up to confirm their veracity, otherwise, I could create a page full of quotes all saying any things I wanted and then vetting them as authentic too.

Funny how no one has asked Truman's opinion or any of the generals or other top brass who actually carried out the missions for THEIR POV. I knew many people who actually fought in WWII including my father and some of those people had friends and relatives lost at Pearl Harbor, and not ONE of them ever expressed to me any doubts or regrets whatsoever about nuking Imperial Japan. Without a doubt, bombing Japan not only aided and assured the speedy surrender of Japan sooner, but also contributed to such a crushing defeat that it brought an end to the imperial arrogance and obstinacy of old Japan leading eventually to a totally reformed Japan we know today.

Viva La Americans!

 

[Kilroy2]

A nation that professes such an affinity with god

In God we trust
serving our Nation under God in peace as well as in war
one Nation under God,
do solemnly swear (or affirm)...so help me God.'"

Is this affinity a Velcro badge

One that you place on your chest so proudly when its
convenient

then tear it off when its inconvenient

Life is a series of test of ones morality in relationship with ones religious beliefs

If you claim such an affinity and sign international agreements, then one test is do you discard your morality because someone else does

It was obvious that prior to WW2 that most nation adhered to and support the notion to at least limit bombing of civilian and to use it indiscriminately was rightly thought to be barbaric

Yes Germany and Japan bombed civilian targets

and they paid the price for such foolishness with high civilian casualties

The eye for an eye mentality but even this generally is that the punishment should fit the crime

oh they bombed civilian targets so we can too but do more of it

participation in indiscriminate bombing should be measured but it is easy to get caught in it as death now that is nothing but a duty

and once it becomes a duty it doesn't mean that ones morality should be torn off with going with the flow

Killing civilians in war is wrong no matter no matter which sides starts it , it is irrelevant because a final judgment will be made if you truly believe in a God


So help me God

There are no civilians, all people are equal. The people that you call civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were building the weapons of war. Japan's total inability to produce new weapons is what ended the war....

So your saying all people are equal when it comes to how they die

what a convenient morality

They had sites but by this time imports were cut off and it was just a matter of time before it all collapsed

Wiping out a city for a few factories at the expense of wiping out the population

I suppose that would work but most children weren't working in a factory

That Velcro comes off so easily

 

[elektra]

Killing civilians in war is wrong no matter no matter which sides starts it , it is irrelevant because a final judgment will be made if you truly believe in a God

Yep, killing civilians is wrong period.

We were suppose to lose WW II. Germany was to rise and rule the world.

Japan was suppose to control the pacific.

The filthy Americans are immoral. Next time we are attacked, we must lay down our arms and simply die.

 

[Frannie]

A nation that professes such an affinity with god

In God we trust
serving our Nation under God in peace as well as in war
one Nation under God,
do solemnly swear (or affirm)...so help me God.'"

Is this affinity a Velcro badge

One that you place on your chest so proudly when its
convenient

then tear it off when its inconvenient

Life is a series of test of ones morality in relationship with ones religious beliefs

If you claim such an affinity and sign international agreements, then one test is do you discard your morality because someone else does

It was obvious that prior to WW2 that most nation adhered to and support the notion to at least limit bombing of civilian and to use it indiscriminately was rightly thought to be barbaric

Yes Germany and Japan bombed civilian targets

and they paid the price for such foolishness with high civilian casualties

The eye for an eye mentality but even this generally is that the punishment should fit the crime

oh they bombed civilian targets so we can too but do more of it

participation in indiscriminate bombing should be measured but it is easy to get caught in it as death now that is nothing but a duty

and once it becomes a duty it doesn't mean that ones morality should be torn off with going with the flow

Killing civilians in war is wrong no matter no matter which sides starts it , it is irrelevant because a final judgment will be made if you truly believe in a God


So help me God

There are no civilians, all people are equal. The people that you call civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were building the weapons of war. Japan's total inability to produce new weapons is what ended the war....

So your saying all people are equal when it comes to how they die

what a convenient morality

They had sites but by this time imports were cut off and it was just a matter of time before it all collapsed

Wiping out a city for a few factories at the expense of wiping out the population

I suppose that would work but most children weren't working in a factory

That Velcro comes off so easily

Actually I believe the American document that says all people are equal.

If you are a Japanese woman welding at a nagasaki Mitsubishi submarine yard, you are a legit target

Cry on nippy, go slaughter some baby whales you piece of shit

 

[toobfreak]

A nation that professes such an affinity with god

In God we trust
serving our Nation under God in peace as well as in war
one Nation under God,
do solemnly swear (or affirm)...so help me God.'"

Is this affinity a Velcro badge

One that you place on your chest so proudly when its
convenient

then tear it off when its inconvenient

Life is a series of test of ones morality in relationship with ones religious beliefs

If you claim such an affinity and sign international agreements, then one test is do you discard your morality because someone else does

It was obvious that prior to WW2 that most nation adhered to and support the notion to at least limit bombing of civilian and to use it indiscriminately was rightly thought to be barbaric

Yes Germany and Japan bombed civilian targets

and they paid the price for such foolishness with high civilian casualties

The eye for an eye mentality but even this generally is that the punishment should fit the crime

oh they bombed civilian targets so we can too but do more of it

participation in indiscriminate bombing should be measured but it is easy to get caught in it as death now that is nothing but a duty

and once it becomes a duty it doesn't mean that ones morality should be torn off with going with the flow

Killing civilians in war is wrong no matter no matter which sides starts it , it is irrelevant because a final judgment will be made if you truly believe in a God


So help me God

There are no civilians, all people are equal. The people that you call civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were building the weapons of war. Japan's total inability to produce new weapons is what ended the war....

That is particularly true of Japan at that time. There really were no "civilians" in Japan in the normal sense, they had drilled in them from birth a kind of loyalty and honor stemming from the Bushido code of Feudal Japan that had existed in isolationist fashion just 80 years prior that drove everything from the Kamikaze to fly their planes loaded with explosives into their targets, to most Japanese fighting until killed or committing suicide. Towards the end of the war advancing on Saipan, troops even saw mothers clutching their babies jumping off cliffs to their death rather than be taken prisoner. In the end, there was a very thin gray line between civilian and Japanese military; 2 out of every 3 civilians in Saipan fought to the death, so any Jap was a potential danger and a threat. All this second-guessing and soul searching on bombing Japan almost 75 years ago is a joke. They're lucky we didn't sink the entire island into the Pacific--- --- they deserved no mercy.

 

[Frannie]

A nation that professes such an affinity with god

In God we trust
serving our Nation under God in peace as well as in war
one Nation under God,
do solemnly swear (or affirm)...so help me God.'"

Is this affinity a Velcro badge

One that you place on your chest so proudly when its
convenient

then tear it off when its inconvenient

Life is a series of test of ones morality in relationship with ones religious beliefs

If you claim such an affinity and sign international agreements, then one test is do you discard your morality because someone else does

It was obvious that prior to WW2 that most nation adhered to and support the notion to at least limit bombing of civilian and to use it indiscriminately was rightly thought to be barbaric

Yes Germany and Japan bombed civilian targets

and they paid the price for such foolishness with high civilian casualties

The eye for an eye mentality but even this generally is that the punishment should fit the crime

oh they bombed civilian targets so we can too but do more of it

participation in indiscriminate bombing should be measured but it is easy to get caught in it as death now that is nothing but a duty

and once it becomes a duty it doesn't mean that ones morality should be torn off with going with the flow

Killing civilians in war is wrong no matter no matter which sides starts it , it is irrelevant because a final judgment will be made if you truly believe in a God


So help me God

There are no civilians, all people are equal. The people that you call civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were building the weapons of war. Japan's total inability to produce new weapons is what ended the war....

That is particularly true of Japan at that time. There really were no "civilians" in Japan in the normal sense, they had drilled in them from birth a kind of loyalty and honor stemming from the Bushido code of Feudal Japan that had existed in isolationist fashion just 80 years prior that drove everything from the Kamikaze to fly their planes loaded with explosives into their targets, to most Japanese fighting until killed or committing suicide. Towards the end of the war advancing on Saipan, troops even saw mothers clutching their babies jumping off cliffs to their death rather than be taken prisoner. In the end, there was a very thin gray line between civilian and Japanese military; 2 out of every 3 civilians in Saipan fought to the death, so any Jap was a potential danger and a threat. All this second-guessing and soul searching on bombing Japan almost 75 years ago is a joke. They're lucky we didn't sink the entire island into the Pacific--- --- they deserved no mercy.

America was the same way, the factories were filled with women

 

[Vandalshandle]

If we had not nuked or invaded Japan, the Soviet Union would have, with the end result of Japan and South Korea having been lost to communism, just like Eastern Europe.

 

[Pogo]

[

And yes I'd say overrunning Nazi Germany and then invading Japan after already sustaining twenty million dead, are indeed the actions of an ally.
This is all flying blithely over your head, isn't it.

Yes, it is all over my head, how you can make one claim such as this:

USSR was in no position to invade or dominate anything after bearing the brunt of the war in Europe

Then making this claim just a little bit later:

invading Japan after already sustaining twenty million dead, are indeed the actions of an ally.

You can not have it both ways, if russia [sic] could invade Manchuria, it could invade and dominate other countries as well. So yes, your illogical assumption is over my head.

JAPAN invaded Manchuria, Twinkletoes. Fourteen years earlier. As well as Korea, Taiwan, French Indochina, Maylasia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and a slew of islands and territories from India to Canada. JAPAN was what was "dominating", not Russia, which, this just in, is a proper name and therefore capitalized, so the only "both ways" happening here is your selective capitalization. Ask the Koreans, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Malaysians, the Taiwanese, the Indonesians, about how Russia was "dominating" them.