Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Define:terroristactually the ones in Saudi Arabia. it was the reason bin laden gave for the attacks.
Brain Fart, long day....
If I remember we where requested to be there by the Saudis, where we not? I have a difficult time with OBL being recognized as a soldier or commander of an armed force. Terrorist attacks are performed by cowards imo....
Also, I believe there was a previous ultimatum given to the Japanese....
Also, there was a previous ultimatum given to the Americans...
Saving the life of a single American GI would have been worth killing every living thing in Japan so far as I'm concerned. Those two attacks saved the lives of probably 1,000,000 American servicemen. So they were definitely the RIGHT thing to do.
spoken like one who only understands the story from their own vantage point.
Thank you for your neg rep, maatsmom843. It means so much to me knowing that my opinion differs from yours. I shall return the favor when I am able to give out rep again. After all, if I get neg rep cause you disagree with me, I should give you some neg rep cause I disagree with your point of view. Your -6 point rep pains me. When I neg rep you, you'll get a -491. If you happen to see my ex-wife running around there in Charleston, SC, tell her to fuck herself too along with yourself.
whoa! take this thing seriously much??? 
Oh, for the love of....What is the bleeding point to this thread, anyway? If those bombs werent used, hundreds of thousands more civilians would have died, would that have been a better alternative? Please...The Japanese weren't just going to give up, and surrender. So, it wasn't right to "nuke" Japan, it was the lesser of two evils, unavoidable. The US isn't some villan comparable to those nutjobs in Al Qaeda, as some are trying to imply.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War) (p. 26)
Can anyone explain this?
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War) (p. 26)
I can. They are simply wrong.
I can. They are simply wrong.
Well damn, I'm glad that whatever the Strategic Bombing Survey missed in their interviews with Japanese leaders didn't make it past you.
The Japanese government was fractured, true. I believe a good portion of it was attempting to surrender on terms which may have been acceptable to the American ppl.
Too bad they went through the absolute wrong diplomatic channels instead of just getting on a shortwave radio and begging for their terms to be accepted. THAT would have made us look like jerks for not accepting.
You get mad when you have to actually think about what you believe and why?I started reading through this but quickly realized this is a bs thread used to stir the pot and piss people off.
Earlier, you claimed the second bomb made them surrender.They even refused after 2 ATOMIC Bombs.
Can you please pick a single narrative and stick with it?
Retarded would surrender if America was going to be invaded? Since he demonizes those Japanese leaders who planned to resisted by any means, I can assume nothing else.
I think that nationalism is abhorrent but respect that your views are at least consistent. American isolationism would be a most welcome change from the current state of affairs.
Personally, I think that Nationalism is the only reasonable basis for citizenship in a country. If one is not truly committed, devoted, and loyal to that country, why are they there to begin with? Likewise, why would one retain any loyalty or devotion to a country that they have left? For example.... my paternal great-grandparents Adam and Karoline left Germany in 1910. The next time they had any contact with the portion of their family they left in Germany is when two of my great-grandfathers cousins showed up on their doorstep in Connecticut in 1928. Adam's belief, and that which has been handed down on that side of the family for the last century (including several of the intermarried families now) is that we are AMERICANS and AMERICANS ONLY. Where we came from means NOTHING.
I think that American Isolationism would bring about some very interesting things in the world. Including some things that foreigners may not like. The form of Total Isolationism I espouse would mean no medicines, food, money, or any other form of aid would be leaving the United States for the "developing nations". There would be no aircraft carriers treating tsunami victims. No American search teams digging through the rubble after earthquakes. It would also require some MASSIVE and MAJOR changes in American culture as well. Travel would largely be a thing of the past. Individual communities would have to start providing for themselves again. We would have to go back to a more agrarian, less technological, and hopefully more morality and values driven society.
