Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Smart bombs aren't always smart. In fact, they still do a lot of killing of innocent people.
And contrast Abudl with the Michigan Christian militia group that was collecting firearms and explosives in a bid to overthrow the government.
Did that Michigan militia ( I won't call 'em Christian, since they weren't) group kill anyone and take over the gov't? Or did our gov't step in and stop them?
That's the difference between our gov't and the islamic ones.
Leaving aside FDR's intentional provocations and accepting for the sake of argument that war guilt was solely Japan's, it remains the case Japan was looking for a negotiated end to the war before the atomic bombs were used--making those killings even more senseless than those which had preceded them.
And even at that--using them in an unpopulated or sparsely populated area--or, for instance, off the coast of Tokyo--would've made the point as well as burning two cities off the map.
There is no justifying the atomic bombings on any level whatsoever.
Japan never offered to surrender, even after the first bomb was dropped, thus the second bomb was dropped and a third was planned. Tuff zhit, they had their chance and should have thought twice before bombing Pearl Harbor. Now they must live with the legacy they created and I as an American will not feel one bit of guilt.
While I've read they were seeking peace conditions advantageous to Japan I've never read of an offer of unconditional surrender prior to the A-bombings. Have a link?
Well, in other words--just to be clear--you are stating that an unconditional surrender as opposed to a conditional one was worth burning and blasting tens of thousands of people to death?
That was precisely Truman's position, and that is why he is still widely reviled. By anyone with an ordinary sense of morality, anyway.
False. They never offered unconditional surrender. But they did offer a negotiated end to the war, which anyone with common decency would've tried to effect before ordering what actually occurred.
Leaving aside FDR's intentional provocations and accepting for the sake of argument that war guilt was solely Japan's, it remains the case Japan was looking for a negotiated end to the war before the atomic bombs were used--making those killings even more senseless than those which had preceded them.
And even at that--using them in an unpopulated or sparsely populated area--or, for instance, off the coast of Tokyo--would've made the point as well as burning two cities off the map.
There is no justifying the atomic bombings on any level whatsoever.
Well, in other words--just to be clear--you are stating that an unconditional surrender as opposed to a conditional one was worth burning and blasting tens of thousands of people to death?
That was precisely Truman's position, and that is why he is still widely reviled. By anyone with an ordinary sense of morality, anyway.
I have always thought that someone would tell me why it is wrong for me to support Truman for having the guts to make that move, . . . twice and now I know it is morality, or should I say lack of same. I very well remember how happy we were at the time the dropping of both those bombs since we were very sure that the war was finally over and no invasion of Japan would be necessary. Were you around in those days? I was such a supporter of the American military forces and whatever they did and then the crowning victory took place when I was in 7th grade.
Stick morality where the sun don't shine when you talk about those days and why those bombs were dropped.
False. They never offered unconditional surrender. But they did offer a negotiated end to the war, which anyone with common decency would've tried to effect before ordering what actually occurred.
Who is in control of whatever punishment is placed on the loser in an unconditional surrender? Who is in control in a negotiated one? Again, where were you in those days? Did you see and hear the sounds of Pearl Harbor? Did you have an uncle dead because of that war in less than 3 months after Pearl Harbor? Somehow I think your knowledge of that period may be dependent on a lot of progressive revisionism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
