Donald Trump running for president
- Thread starter LiftWithDonuts
- Start date
HIT4ME
Well-known member
Its was a viable military target on America's own military as well which the government couldnt give a crap about when it comes to science. Thousands and thousands of soldiers were not only exposed to radiation during nuclear testing, but after the bombing of Hiroshima they let the troops go out and even camp near ground zero. Come back home feeling hit with depression? They will torture you by hosing you down with very hot water and cold water back and forth and drill your brain with a lobodomy, force you into insilin induced coma and other tortures.
Now, the Japanese scientists who committed the worst atrocities of the entire Japanese government, what happened to them? Japan would have the military drop chemical weapons in a chinese villages and the scientists would go out in chem suits and dissect Chinese people in the middle of the street and cut them open even if still alive in the name of science. That is brutal. They did much more brutal things too, I dont feel like explaining everything.
What happened to those scientists? Science > ethics. They got complete ww2 crime immunity and were welcomed by the American science community as they were drooling to have all that research shared. If anyone should have a nuke dropped on them the scientists should have been tied up in the middle of a desert and have radiation poured on them (no I really wouldnt do that.) Instead some of the most brutal devils of the entire war get rewarded for their hard work and research.
Not only were they given immunity the US government were a part of the cover up for them hiding evidence to protect them, etc....
Anyways, the point is, big government doesnt give a crap about people or its own military....they have no moral authority to bomb and mass murder 135,000 innocent civilians and have much more illness. National security and scientific research > than us, and they have no problem taking us out to if they have to.
You dont stop genocide by committing genocide.
But, I do respect other people's opinions and willing to tolerate differencesI used to think the same way so I get it.
So, how do you stop a genocidal government if not through force? I'm sincerely curious.
Woody
Well-known member
A stern chat over a nice cup of tea.
ax1
Legend
Shouldnt be a day of celebration, they could have picked any other day. I would have the flag half staffed and work the normal busy routines of the day. Especially after he just apologized with Japan, it seems inappropriate. I dont understand why you think its a big deal for me to vent that, but ok.
HIT4ME
Well-known member
Will there be cakes?
Woody
Well-known member
It's not tea time without cakes
ax1
Legend
First off Im a non-interventionist and fully support the 2nd Amendment. I dont believe in meddling with the affairs of other countries.
Now lets say its a war from that standpoint I give an opinion. I never said you cant use force, but to drop two bombs in the middle of two cities and killing 135,000 innocent civilians and poisoning so many more doesnt make unjustified actions and give them justice.
Personally, I think we easily could have kicked azz over there with a fraction of the civilian casualties and without poisoning hundreds of thousands (not sure the count total) of other civilians. There is a reason countries such as the US involved with the Geneva Protocol as the causalities of civilians and human suffering was too high. I would battle it out without weapons of mass destruction and win the war responsibly.
Japan at that time already had their military take hard losses and their economy was in shambles. I would have surrounded the island with an alliance and arm/train Mao's army (who became worse genocidilists than the Japanese, but at that time at least that wasnt going on.) They suffered the most from the Japanese, its their neighbor and they are more than willing to do the job and with our backing they will 100% have succeeded, it just would take a bit more time.
jswain34
Well-known member
ax1
Legend
Yeah sure, the biggest single wartime event of mankind is just like every other man made tragedy in history. Now lets throw a party.
Invalid Link Removed
ax1
Legend
Now that matters to me, thanks!
Dont think to much of it, we all get caught up in the emotion of the moment
jswain34
Well-known member
Did i say we should throw a party lol? Talk about completely twisting my words. We should take time to remember those horrible events but life goes on dude.
Would you like the nation to completely stop for the entire day and no one do anything else besides think back on d-day?
Would you like the nation to completely stop for the entire day and no one do anything else besides think back on d-day?
ax1
Legend
I know, we can have a little fun now cant we!
I did say in my 1st response to carry out daily activities as usual. I agree the world need not stop for that day, its going to be Japan's big day not ours. Im just trying to be respectful on that day at the same time nothing extraordinary.
HIT4ME
Well-known member
I do respect your opinion and I think we agree on something - there is no justice. I think that is kind of the point. I'm as conservative as they come but I'm about to sound liberal - war is not a winning situation. War is often lose/lose and often times the best way to keep the losses to a minimum is to hit hard and devastate.
You have to keep in mind, the president of the US does not have a responsibility to protect Japanese citizens - but he does have a responsibility to protect American Soldiers. Troops are here to serve and protect, but the fact that they choose to lay their life on the line doesn't mean it no longer costs anything.
This was a WORLD war, where multiple countries were fighting and all were sustaining heavy casualties. The death toll was already staggering, and it would have continued to be so if we kept sticking to the same tactics.
It was the responsibility of the Japanese military and their leaders to protect those citizens. And the sudden devastation of that population created a huge economic and political pressure. It also sent the clear message that they CANNOT win. Not just to Japan, but to Germany and others. You can boil the frog in water by sending 1000 troops and 100 civilians to their death battle by battle - or you can show them the devastation all at once.
Can I say it is "justice"? No, because justice could not be had in this case. Maybe it was justice to the remaining innocent civilians who now were safe. It isn't like civilians weren't already dying. The only way that would have been better was a targeted assassination of the leaders responsible - and that's just not realistic.
LiftWithDonuts
Well-known member
Wait, he said " I'm sorry we dropped a atomic bomb on you" to Japan?
Cause if he didn't then everything that you type from here on out in this thread should be looked at as bull****. And again with the gay hate stuff? Kinda sucks what this thread has turned into, just bs being thrown around as truths and peoples hate for others on full display.
Invalid Link Removed
LiftWithDonuts
Well-known member
You guys are funny, instead of posting a site discrediting my link, post a link or anything that backs that Obama said "I'm sorry", maybe you don't do that because he didn't apologize
LiftWithDonuts
Well-known member
Also, didn't take long to see that they weren't arrested at all or had anything to do with whatever it is y'all said happened Invalid Link Removed
Many more links to that, but nice try though. seems like conservatives don't like truth so much they start making up lies
Many more links to that, but nice try though. seems like conservatives don't like truth so much they start making up lies
LiftWithDonuts
Well-known member
Literally every site that says they got arrested has the same crappy Photoshoped picture and the same story. So much satire lol
ax1
Legend
Gay hate??? Lol I love gay people. I support their freedoms as much or more than anyone here and especially more than Obama.
LiftWithDonuts
Well-known member
Gutterpump
Banned
Nope. Clearly it's by killing it's 100's of thousands of women and babies instead of fighting it's troops. Did the US have to throw nukes around to invade any other country? Nope. The US is great at invading and overthrowing governments these days. Yet y'all think we need to nuke civilians?
LiftWithDonuts
Well-known member
You mean on the president not apologizing?
Invalid Link Removed
Tell me where he apologizes
If you're referring to snopes link a creditable site because I couldnt find one
Woody
Well-known member
So killing is civilians is okay but nuking is a no? As a lawyer, that's how your argument seemed to me lol
LiftWithDonuts
Well-known member
I think if something like what happened at pearl harbor happened today, our military is much more advanced and we wouldn't have to drop a nuclear bomb and kill the innocent civilians.
ax1
Legend
I apologize if I offended anyone but at the same time I dont think its a big deal to say that. I have a sense of humor too that doesnt show at times and that everyone may not take as funny, specifically the rainbow house.
There is a HUGE difference between criticizing and hating. I just criticize the politics that are going on for the most part in the gay community. I criticize the heterosexual community far more if people want to categorize everyone. Really I dont care (as in dont mind) what people do in the bedroom or who they love.
Gutterpump
Banned
I honestly don't believe it ever had to be done. The US saw an easy way out. But by doing so, it became MUCH more evil than it's own enemy.
Ever watch The Watchmen? Same thing. I'm on Rorschach's side.
thebigt
Legend
every article or study is slanted/biased in some way, imo.
even statistics can be skewed, look at the unemployment numbers!!!
geez, if you learn anything on this forum you look to see who is the money behind a study. and for every study showing one thing there is usually another to counter it....yes but....
ax1
Legend
Always continue, the more intelligent minds here the better for all.
That nuclear threat cold war is a little different issue though....we could have still built those weapons without actually really using them. Im all for self defense and a powerful non-interventionist military. All the testing Russia did on their own is easily enough to persuade to prevent a nuclear war for themselves.
Nice post before btw! We all have the same intent which is most important imo, just disagreements on how to handle issues.
youngandfree
Well-known member
youngandfree
Well-known member
Our technology is more advanced, but the state of our military compared to 1944 is a mere skeleton in comparison. There's no way the US could pull off the military actions now like they did back then.
ax1
Legend
What mattered is that history between Japan and China. Thats what counts. And we did somewhat arm and aid China in their fight and they took care of (some) business. We could have taken it to another level at that point, they would love to take them out.
This is just a scenario if I was in fact at war, thats the only reason I bring this up.
Personally I would not have intervened. America declared war on Japan before pearl harbor with interventionist policies and meddling with the affairs of other countries. Economic warfare and sanctions is an act of war. Of course, they told everybody to have a good nights sleep and not to worry and ignored all the warnings and we know what happened after that.
I share what I believe is the same opinion as most Americans on 12/6/1941 which is not to meddle with the affairs of foreign nations.
youngandfree
Well-known member
So you think putting an end to the war was the easy way out? Which war that the US has been involved in since WW2 has actually been won and a declared winner established, and all hostilities cease? I guess it would have been easier to use the Vietnam strategy back then.
ax1
Legend
They dont need to pull off the military actions in the same way in 1944 nor we should.
Then we have Obama purging our military brass more than any president in history, but thats another story.
youngandfree
Well-known member
Gutterpump
Banned
I believe the war could've been ended without nukes, which is exactly what I said. I also know my history, and I believe the main fight that really broke the war was the Russian involvement against the Germans in the east. They didn't require nukes to do so either. The Germans made a huge mistake to invade Russia, they were weakened badly by doing so.
Gutterpump
Banned
People in here need a history lesson:
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
ax1
Legend
If I had to give the perspective of after the fact what I would do rather than nuking.
No I do not support insurgencies and regime changes around the world.
ax1
Legend
Japan had Zero chance. 0!
youngandfree
Well-known member
So having tens of thousands more troops die is better than dropping a couple bombs. The Japanese are to blame for developing cities around their military complex.
thebigt
Legend
you always have political nonsense, lies, deceit, and propaganda surrounding war.
the American civil war and both ww's have always interested me because of the bravery of those men. they were seeing their comrade's killed all around them and the wounded and maimed suffering, but still they kept coming---and this goes for every side involved in all three wars!!!
in WW2 the allies bombed the crap out of japan, but it seems like the entire nation adopted the 'bushido code' death before dishonor. I begrudgingly admire the warrior attitude of the Japanese, they were prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child. the history books say that the Japanese were heavily entrenched and estimates are that 500,000 American lives would have been lost invading japan.
we had already been bombing the holy hell out of japan...[a version of which we did in Iraq]...but boots on the ground were still necessary.
if the choice were loose another 500,000 American lives or drop the atomic bomb then the American president harry Truman would have been obligated to protect American lives, imo.
no one is celebrating the loss of lives from dropping those bombs, I know for certain that I do not!!!
if anyone has bothered to read Truman's biography in it he states that dropping the bombs was the toughest decision of his life and he deeply regrets having to make that decision. but he felt an obligation and duty to do what he had to do to protect American lives.
the American civil war and both ww's have always interested me because of the bravery of those men. they were seeing their comrade's killed all around them and the wounded and maimed suffering, but still they kept coming---and this goes for every side involved in all three wars!!!
in WW2 the allies bombed the crap out of japan, but it seems like the entire nation adopted the 'bushido code' death before dishonor. I begrudgingly admire the warrior attitude of the Japanese, they were prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child. the history books say that the Japanese were heavily entrenched and estimates are that 500,000 American lives would have been lost invading japan.
we had already been bombing the holy hell out of japan...[a version of which we did in Iraq]...but boots on the ground were still necessary.
if the choice were loose another 500,000 American lives or drop the atomic bomb then the American president harry Truman would have been obligated to protect American lives, imo.
no one is celebrating the loss of lives from dropping those bombs, I know for certain that I do not!!!
if anyone has bothered to read Truman's biography in it he states that dropping the bombs was the toughest decision of his life and he deeply regrets having to make that decision. but he felt an obligation and duty to do what he had to do to protect American lives.
ax1
Legend
The US had about 118,000 troops pass through both cities. Many of them suffered thyroid problems, leukemia and cancer. When they got sick they were told to F' themselves.
So if US troops is your primary concern, from this standpoint it was hypocritical to use the nukes anyways. Thats not counting the thousands of our soldiers that were exposed during initial testing and the post WWII "atomic vets."
Gutterpump
Banned
Troops have offered their lives in service of their country. Tens of thousands of troops is MUCH better than HUNDREDS of thousands of innocents, yes. It's not rocket science. And again, dropping nukes did not win the war.
HIT4ME
Well-known member
Sincerely, I would like to know what alternative you are proposing that would have had a better outcome? And keep in mind, from Truman's perspective, his job is to protect Americans above all else - regardless of whether they are in the military or not.
You guys are history buffs, I'm just a guy who tries to see angles.
And having the weapons and knowing how devastating they are is a deterrent. Having the rest of the world KNOW we will use them if we have to, is even more powerful. It's not just about having the power, it's about the signal you send to the opposition. The fact of the matter is, we dropped 2 bombs and killed a lot of people. If those targets weren't well chosen, we may have needed to drop 4 bombs to send the same message (and then how many die?). In all reality, we sent a signal not just to Japan, but to ALL of our enemies that they CANNOT win. The only way to win would to become equally as powerful, like Russia, in which case winning would come at such a cost that everyone loses.
There's a book called The End of History and the Last Man. The argument of this book is that the human ideal is liberal democracy. Something you have touched upon with your previous statements - economic sanctions are a form of warfare - is mentioned in this book, but in a different way. The author points out that there has NEVER, in the HISTORY of MANKIND, been a war between two liberal democracies. Never. The reason is, liberal democracies must be intertwined with capitalism in order to work, and if two countries are both capitalistic, they will trade. And if countries have strong trade, they are likely to fight economic battles rather than military battles. They have other ways to work out their differences.
In this light, maybe we should help to spread capitalism and democracy in the world. By "meddling" in other countries affairs, we can help build their infrastructure, encourage trade, and build ties that help avoid bloodshed. And we can do this all while seeing an economic gain on both sides. In other words, you can fight your wars with your guns or with your dollars.
Another tangent to this is something that MLK once said (yes, a conservative quoting MLK!!!!) - or at least paraphrasing - he said something along the lines of, "I want my neighbors to have a nice TV and nice things. Because I want those things too. And if I have them, and they want them, what will happen then? Where will they look for their new TV?"
This is a great point - we often look at war as an easy thing to end, in retrospect. This was such a far reaching war with genocide and all kinds of human loss. Power was fairly evenly divided between the two sides. It could have gone in either direction. It could have gone on for a long time at much greater loss. We could have had greater losses and then a Hitler domination - which would have just ruined everything. Ending it, and ending it in our favor, was not easy and failure was not an option.
The Russians put up a fight, but they didn't end it. And how many people died in that conflict? Sure, it was more military deaths, but they don't matter? For every member of the military that dies, you need a civilian to take their place.
And it was OK for Russians and Germans to go at it with guns and kill each other in perpetuity, and hopefully there would be enough military deaths to get somewhere? And hopefully it would be in the favor of freedom and not some genocidal maniac?
hairygrandpa
Legend
Please don't be offended, I'm just pointing out a logical fallacy here:
Statement:
We would have needed 500.000 soldiers for an invasion, the bomb saved the lives of 500.000 soldiers.
Rebutal :
We would have needed 3 million American children for an invasion, the bomb would have saved the lives of 3 million children.
No soldier -nor American child was at risk, if an invasion were not considered.
Gutterpump
Banned
The Russians ended the war. Plain and simple. Absolutely no-one quoted my post above about that, because it's inarguable, and simply, people in here don't know their history. Without that fight, the war would not have ended. It wasn't the bombs. That battle single-handedly decided the fate of the war. So none of this BS about how it (dropping nukes) needed to be done. Yes, 10's of thousands of troops died, but 100's of thousand of civilian deaths happened needlessly. It's simple math regarding which is better....