The GREATEST war crime

[HUGGY]

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.

I'd be interested in why you do.


I'd be interested in why you don't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

impeach who, you knuckledragging imbecile?

liberals started vietnam, chucklehead. read a book.

(sigh) The French got whipped in 1954, and we would not get involved. Vietnam was divided and elections were scheduled for 1956 for a reunification govt. SVN and the US said no, because Ho would have swept North and South. Eisenhower (R) sent aid and committed the first trainers and advisers long before JFK (D) upped the anti by committing almost 13,000 US trainers, advisers, and field personnel by the time of his death.

Let's truth tell here, folks, then we can yell about intepretation.

but Kennedy started the bombing of South Vietnam in 1962.

Our gunships were doing the fifty-cal boogie on the water buffalo by 1958. We machine gunned, rocketed, and bombed long before JFK ordered in bigger platforms.

 

[elvis]

(sigh) The French got whipped in 1954, and we would not get involved. Vietnam was divided and elections were scheduled for 1956 for a reunification govt. SVN and the US said no, because Ho would have swept North and South. Eisenhower (R) sent aid and committed the first trainers and advisers long before JFK (D) upped the anti by committing almost 13,000 US trainers, advisers, and field personnel by the time of his death.

Let's truth tell here, folks, then we can yell about intepretation.

but Kennedy started the bombing of South Vietnam in 1962.

Our gunships were doing the fifty-cal boogie on the water buffalo by 1958. We machine gunned, rocketed, and bombed long before JFK ordered in bigger platforms.

I was going to say, I believe the involvement actually started under Truman. The US wanted SE Asia to be a natural resource supply for Japan.... as well as the domino theory which, unbeknownst to the US didn't apply in Vietnam. They didn't think nationalists could be communists.
How could Ho have run for president in the south if South Vietnam was its own country?

 

[JakeStarkey]

but Kennedy started the bombing of South Vietnam in 1962.

Our gunships were doing the fifty-cal boogie on the water buffalo by 1958. We machine gunned, rocketed, and bombed long before JFK ordered in bigger platforms.

I was going to say, I believe the involvement actually started under Truman. The US wanted SE Asia to be a natural resource supply for Japan.... as well as the domino theory which, unbeknownst to the US didn't apply in Vietnam. They didn't think nationalists could be communists.
How could Ho have run for president in the south if South Vietnam was its own country?

They were divided under UN guidelines (supposedly), and a national reunification election was scheduled for 1956.

Yes, the US did give the French some material through and up to the Dien Bien Phu debacle where the commies whipped the French paratroopers and foreign legion. When the frogeaters asked for naval air support from our carriers in the China Sea to know the commies of the high ground around 'Phu, Eisenhower sided with Senate Majority Leader Johnson (now that is ironic) against the Veep, Nixon, who wanted to nuke the redskis back to the 17th century.

So the French fell, the country was divided pending the election, which the US and SVN reneged (I would have reneged, too, but I would not have drastically escalated our troop presence), and the story continued for another twenty grim years.

 

[publicprotector]

As usual its all lies and bulshit from a certain American mentality, Japan was beaten well before the bombs were dropped not just militarily but the nation was months away from starvation. America never needed to use those weapons and never needed to invade Japan as the allied navies controlled the seas so a continuing blockade would have done the job to completely finish Japan off.

No what this was about was we have some new weapons that we want to test and we have the perfect excuse to drop them on unarmed civilians to see how good they work. That was one part the other was the Russian threat, the Allies at that time knew the Russians were a massive threat and this was a big demonstration of force to them, that was the main reason for the weapons being used.

And does anyone really think that the US Government gave a toss for how many men died or how many Japanese would no they did not. Pearl Harbour was allowed to happen, the US Government sold out its on people then just like it did on 9/11. Those who were controlling the US knew it was an emerging world power and was not going to let a thing like human suffering get in the way of their plans not matter who it was.

It is hard to believe indeed that there are still people who clutch the official story to their chest when there is a mountain of proof to state otherwise. This act was umitigated mass murder and a crime against humanity. But who cares not any American Government Since that time the US has had an history of attacking and invading nations that posed no threat to itself.

And like the coward that the US Government is it usually picks fights with 3rd world nations for its own selfish greed and interest but whats even more suprising that it cannot and does not win in these conflicts, but then thats not the ultimate goal is it. One wonders what these fearsome warriors will do when they meet their equals oh I know they don't do that do they because they know they would get their arses wupped on their own turf. No the brave American Government would not dare attack anyone who could bomb them back to the stone age would they.

When are the sheeple going to realise that you are nothing more than cannon fodder for their games of conquest, greed and power.

 

[Liability]

It certainly was a crime to drop those bombs on the Japanese.

There is nothing "certain" about it.

In fact, you are quite wrong.

It was NOT a crime at all.

Horrible? Yes. Criminal? Nope.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It certainly was a crime to drop those bombs on the Japanese.

There is nothing "certain" about it.

In fact, you are quite wrong.

It was NOT a crime at all.

Horrible? Yes. Criminal? Nope.

When you target civilians you are guilty of a war crime.

 

[Liability]

It certainly was a crime to drop those bombs on the Japanese.

There is nothing "certain" about it.

In fact, you are quite wrong.

It was NOT a crime at all.

Horrible? Yes. Criminal? Nope.

When you target civilians you are guilty of a war crime.

Again, that's nonsense.

If the only way to win the war (without dropping the bombs) was a campaign that would have resulted (it was estimated) in perhaps a million allied combat deaths and perhaps as many civilian deaths, then the targetting selection probably resulted in SAVING huge numbers of lives on both sides.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There is nothing "certain" about it.

In fact, you are quite wrong.

It was NOT a crime at all.

Horrible? Yes. Criminal? Nope.

When you target civilians you are guilty of a war crime.

Again, that's nonsense.

If the only way to win the war (without dropping the bombs) was a campaign that would have resulted (it was estimated) in perhaps a million allied combat deaths and perhaps as many civilian deaths, then the targetting selection probably resulted in SAVING huge numbers of lives on both sides.

Despite the fact that many, including Eisenhower, disagreed that Japan needed to be bombed because they were willing to discuss the possibility of peace, as they had already put out feelers towards the Soviet Union.

 

[elvis]

still going on about what evil war criminals the US was for destroying Japan. I guess we should have left Tojo in power so 20 years later, they could have hit us again.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

still going on about what evil war criminals the US was for destroying Japan. I guess we should have left Tojo in power so 20 years later, they could have hit us again.

Who's saying leave Tojo in power? I'm saying there was no need to obliterate innocent civilians.

 

[Liability]

When you target civilians you are guilty of a war crime.

Again, that's nonsense.

If the only way to win the war (without dropping the bombs) was a campaign that would have resulted (it was estimated) in perhaps a million allied combat deaths and perhaps as many civilian deaths, then the targetting selection probably resulted in SAVING huge numbers of lives on both sides.

Despite the fact that many, including Eisenhower, disagreed that Japan needed to be bombed because they were willing to discuss the possibility of peace, as they had already put out feelers towards the Soviet Union.

The "fact?"

Sorry. Your claims are not the same as "facts."

And even Ike could be wrong.

After the sneak attack, what was required was unconditional surrender. They refused. Their country was getting heavily bombed (also causing lots of casualites -- which is one of the things about wars -- casualites do happen) and yet -- Japan showed no sign of surrendering. Indeed, even after Hiroshima got blasted, Japan still declined to unconditionally surrender. It took Nagasaki to get them to abandon their willingness to fight to the last man.

Sending out "feelers" to Russia -- just to clarify a point for you -- is emphatically NOT an immediate and unconditional surrender.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Again, that's nonsense.

If the only way to win the war (without dropping the bombs) was a campaign that would have resulted (it was estimated) in perhaps a million allied combat deaths and perhaps as many civilian deaths, then the targetting selection probably resulted in SAVING huge numbers of lives on both sides.

Despite the fact that many, including Eisenhower, disagreed that Japan needed to be bombed because they were willing to discuss the possibility of peace, as they had already put out feelers towards the Soviet Union.

The "fact?"

Sorry. Your claims are not the same as "facts."

And even Ike could be wrong.

After the sneak attack, what was required was unconditional surrender. They refused. Their country was getting heavily bombed (also causing lots of casualites -- which is one of the things about wars -- casualites do happen) and yet -- Japan showed no sign of surrendering. Indeed, even after Hiroshima got blasted, Japan still declined to unconditionally surrender. It took Nagasaki to get them to abandon their willingness to fight to the last man.

Sending out "feelers" to Russia -- just to clarify a point for you -- is emphatically NOT an immediate and unconditional surrender.

If unconditional surrender requires the destruction of innocent civilians then we didn't need it.

 

[Liability]

Despite the fact that many, including Eisenhower, disagreed that Japan needed to be bombed because they were willing to discuss the possibility of peace, as they had already put out feelers towards the Soviet Union.

The "fact?"

Sorry. Your claims are not the same as "facts."

And even Ike could be wrong.

After the sneak attack, what was required was unconditional surrender. They refused. Their country was getting heavily bombed (also causing lots of casualites -- which is one of the things about wars -- casualites do happen) and yet -- Japan showed no sign of surrendering. Indeed, even after Hiroshima got blasted, Japan still declined to unconditionally surrender. It took Nagasaki to get them to abandon their willingness to fight to the last man.

Sending out "feelers" to Russia -- just to clarify a point for you -- is emphatically NOT an immediate and unconditional surrender.

If unconditional surrender requires the destruction of innocent civilians then we didn't need it.

If anything less than an unconditional surrender was not going to suffice, then we sure as hell did need it. And, the objective had been made crystal clear. Unconditional surrender WAS required. They started it. We ended it. And we ended it in a way that almost certainly saved over a million or two million lives.

Your historical revisionism is of mild interest -- mostly in a clinical way. But it's also loopey.

 

[elvis]

still going on about what evil war criminals the US was for destroying Japan. I guess we should have left Tojo in power so 20 years later, they could have hit us again.

Who's saying leave Tojo in power? I'm saying there was no need to obliterate innocent civilians.

**** them. Their government was warned. It's their government's fault they were cooked. I would have kept dropping bombs on them until the government either surrendered or there was no one left.

 

[elvis]

More drivel from folks who would rather we lost an additional 150,000 troops and have the northern part of Japan controlled by the communists. Stalin was supposed to get control of Hokkaido, you know?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The "fact?"

Sorry. Your claims are not the same as "facts."

And even Ike could be wrong.

After the sneak attack, what was required was unconditional surrender. They refused. Their country was getting heavily bombed (also causing lots of casualites -- which is one of the things about wars -- casualites do happen) and yet -- Japan showed no sign of surrendering. Indeed, even after Hiroshima got blasted, Japan still declined to unconditionally surrender. It took Nagasaki to get them to abandon their willingness to fight to the last man.

Sending out "feelers" to Russia -- just to clarify a point for you -- is emphatically NOT an immediate and unconditional surrender.

If unconditional surrender requires the destruction of innocent civilians then we didn't need it.

If anything less than an unconditional surrender was not going to suffice, then we sure as hell did need it. And, the objective had been made crystal clear. Unconditional surrender WAS required. They started it. We ended it. And we ended it in a way that almost certainly saved over a million or two million lives.

Your historical revisionism is of mild interest -- mostly in a clinical way. But it's also loopey.

What revisionism? We didn't drop those bombs and kill civilians?

 

[elvis]

If unconditional surrender requires the destruction of innocent civilians then we didn't need it.

If anything less than an unconditional surrender was not going to suffice, then we sure as hell did need it. And, the objective had been made crystal clear. Unconditional surrender WAS required. They started it. We ended it. And we ended it in a way that almost certainly saved over a million or two million lives.

Your historical revisionism is of mild interest -- mostly in a clinical way. But it's also loopey.

What revisionism? We didn't drop those bombs and kill civilians?

boo hoo ******* hoo.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

still going on about what evil war criminals the US was for destroying Japan. I guess we should have left Tojo in power so 20 years later, they could have hit us again.

Who's saying leave Tojo in power? I'm saying there was no need to obliterate innocent civilians.

**** them. Their government was warned. It's their government's fault they were cooked. I would have kept dropping bombs on them until the government either surrendered or there was no one left.

Their government was reaching out for peace, and it wasn't their government that dropped those bombs.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

More drivel from folks who would rather we lost an additional 150,000 troops and have the northern part of Japan controlled by the communists. Stalin was supposed to get control of Hokkaido, you know?

I'd rather have Stalin in control then have my country be responsible for all those deaths.