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.
One of the great historical debates to this day remains whether Harry Truman was justified in ordering the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki even though over a million Americans would have died in an invasion of Japan.
However, looking at the Bernouts and Hillary supporters and other liberals today, they wouldn't have chosen one of these choices (though if they had to they would probably put the lives of Japanese civilians over that of American soldiers.)
If liberals had run America during WW2, they wouldn't have demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan and Germany. Instead of choosing between the atomic bombings and a US invasion of Japan, they would have let General Tojo's remain in power and negotiated with them, probably after the Battle of Okinawa, or maybe even after Iwo Jima since Okinawa was Japanese territory before the WW2 invasions. This would have have the Imperial Japanese regime in power to potentially rebuild its military and threaten America again.
A liberal Democrat government (a Bernie Sanders/Obama/HIllary type administration) would likely have also not demanded Germany's unconditional surrender. They would have negotiated with Hitler after liberating France and the Netherlands. They may even have negotiated a deal after the Battle of the Bulge. In this scenario the Soviets alone would have defeated the Nazi regime and instead of East and West Germany and the Berlin airlift, etc, we would have ended up with all of Germany occupied by the Soviets and turned into a Soviet puppet communist regime, with Soviet forces on the French and Dutch borders, within striking distance of the UK.
The problem today is that we no longer utterly defeat our enemies. The Korean War ended with a peace treaty and the region remains tense today as a result. We could have bombed North Vietnam into defeat with limited U.S. casualties if we had firebombed Hanoi like Dresden and Leipzig in WW2. Most of the opposition to the Vietnam War wasn't out of concern for U.S. casualties. It was sympathy for the communist enemy as evidenced by how soldiers were treated by protesters upon returning to America.
We were also utterly devastating Saddam's army in Desert Storm when the West stopped the attack without pushing into Baghdad and installing a pro-Western government in Iraq. They were concerned about the enemy soldiers dying on the Highway of Death. If Saddam had been deposed then, there would have been no need for a US military presence in Saudi Arabia that would eventually motivate Osama bin Laden to attack us on 9-11. We also refuse to Israel completely defeat Hamas in Gaza and pressure them to negotiate cease fires with that Muslim terrorist group.
Japan and Germany were utterly defeated and surrendered conditionally. And they no longer cause us any problems today.
Um...FDR and Truman were liberals and fairly hardcore ones. I'm not even going to respond to the rest of this incoherent rant because it isn't backed up by any facts, but instead very uninformed opinion.
Japan and Germany were utterly defeated and surrendered conditionally. And they no longer cause us any problems today.
Which is how you end a war-not by some pre-assigned POTUS ideology driven date of walking away.
You finish the job, and that requires the enemy unconditionally surrenders. During the war, no one knows, nor cares, when that date is. They focus on getting to that point, and nothing else, and use any means at their disposal to expedite it to lower their own casualty counts.
What wound up making the end of the war possible were the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At the very least Iwo Jima was in irresponsible and needless bloodbath.
Nuc them until they Glow!
You mock but how else would you think those wars could have ended?
You mock but how else would you think those wars could have ended?
No I am serious. Invasion of Mainland Japan would of lost of many lives on the Allies. IJA had planned a final defense and help back resources for such a invasion.
It would got very messy if the USSR would of invaded North Japan.
So the end the Atom Bomb was a end game for Japan.
The only thing those Liberals had in common with modern Liberals is larger government. FDR would sht bricks if he saw a black man in the oval office. Jesse Owens said something along the lines of Hitler giving him more recognition than FDR after not getting invited to the white house with other Olympic Medalist.
Um...FDR and Truman were liberals and fairly hardcore ones. I'm not even going to respond to the rest of this incoherent rant because it isn't backed up by any facts, but instead very uninformed opinion.
So why not instead respond to this non-rant, (link tp post 116), that makes similar substantive points but a lot more coherently?
No I am serious. Invasion of Mainland Japan would of lost of many lives on the Allies. IJA had planned a final defense and help back resources for such a invasion.
It would got very messy if the USSR would of invaded North Japan.
So the end the Atom Bomb was a end game for Japan.
Clinton passed on OBL due to collateral damage issues (years prior to 9/11-Thanks,(sar) Bill), as has Obama in assisting retaking ISIS cities.
Libs today are truly pacifists even at the risk of future US casualties.
Truman wasn't; didn't blink an eye about 250,000 humans as collateral damage b/w Tokyo raids, and 2 atom bombs. (FDR would no doubt have blinked!!)
No more Trumans exist in the Kumbaya DNC crowd.
On the bold, in regards to OBL, you left out that Obama ordered his kill along with the support of the current democratic nominee.
You also don't seem to be aware that the Obama administration has engaged in many activities that are aimed directly at ISIS in regards to killing their members and leadership with drone strikes. He has even killed American citizens and (tried to) reasoned that it was to protect America and its citizens.
I actually like Obama in personality and IMO he is a pretty calm, cold and calculated individual. I think he is pretty bad ass as well and is much more likely to use technology to kill who he sees as our enemies versus sending in American troops to be killed. You need to look more into his administration's use of drones.
He has actively engaged in killing people and this is something that many super liberals here in America believe is a huge negative on him and his administration.
As I stated a few months ago, all presidents engage in war. I do think that some, like Obama are less likely to put American bodies on the line for another country, but if we were bombed by a specific country like what happened at Pearl Harbor, I have no doubt that he would crush whoever it was who bombed us if he were still in office. I personally believe Hillary Clinton is way more heartless than he is in regards to our American troops and she also has something to prove being that she is a woman and doesn't want to come off as "weak." I think she would also put the hammer on someone with our military. I think no matter the political ideology any of our presidents would because we have a good stream of nationalism here in America whereas if we are threatened or attacked we pounce.
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.
