|
|
#11
02-02-2017, 08:10 AM
|
|||
|
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it. —60 Minutes (5/12/96) --------- Millions died in latin america because of the dictatorships imposed by the US Millions died in East Asia around the vietnam war The middle east is a killing fields from US ally Saudi Arabia's ISIS death squads How many died in Chicago again this year? | ||
|
|
|||
|
#12
02-02-2017, 09:07 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
2. you do realize the Japanese were never going to give up and costing the lives of our boys. You're a bitch so you'll never have that courage. Japanese had 300k people ready to suicide or fight to the death. If no bombs more people would of died for sure, but it would of prevented all these long term problems (which no one really thought of at the time). 3. Latin America is dictated by corruption. If you think the US are the reason you should travel more often. The culture is different and capitalism isn't widely accepted. Most Latin Americans want to do nothing and live like everyone else hence why socialism and communism works so wel. 4. Vietnam was bullshit, but the American people protested and we got out with the loss. Something you can't do as you keep coming back here like a loser. 5. Isis and jihadist are real pops. We are actually to nice waiting for these fucks to shoot or attack before we actually attack them. Yep we bombing with drones and sorry for civil casualties we actually take that into consideration unlike piece of shits that fly planes into buildings. 6. What's going on in Chicago is terrible, but if you think that people are just walking in the streets and randomly getting murdered you're wrong. Sure that happens and at a higher rate because of the gang violence. Most of the deaths aren't good kids that were on their way to school. That's what you hear on the news or from their friends and family, but most of these kids went the wrong path and are in actuality pieces of shit killing each other. Stay off the media you clown. This is the greatest nation in the world. People don't flee shit nations to freeze in Canada. Fuck off | |||
|
|
||||
|
#14
02-02-2017, 09:36 AM
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ill stop here because i know youre what is called a dishonest interlocutor, youre not really interested in dialogue. You know, the germans thought the nazis were pretty cool until the chickens came home to roost. They paid last, but they paid dearly. | |||||
|
|
||||||
|
#15
02-02-2017, 10:56 AM
|
|||
|
you are so dumb and prove you have never taken any kind of college history courses reguarding ww2, specifically the bomb.
Did we need to use it, no. Would we have lost hundreds of thousands and up to 5million projected dead japanse in a prolonged battle island hopping, yes we would have. Did we also want to use the bomb to make sure everyone knew we would and study its effects after? damn straight. Was that the primary motive? no. just an added bonus that the rest of the world knows America isn't afraid to level you with a fucking split of an atom. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#16
02-02-2017, 10:58 AM
|
|||
|
The real question re: Japan isn't the 1st bomb, it was whether or not we should have dropped the 2nd.
__________________
Checkraise Dragonslayer <Retired>
"My armor color matches my playstyle" | ||
|
|
|||
|
#17
02-02-2017, 11:01 AM
|
|||
|
the notion the japanese where just going to surrender without the emporer surrendering is fantasy. and he wasn't budging. after the 1st one. so we dropped a 2nd, and we woulda kept going. Have a read, learn something.
A staple of Hiroshima Revisionism has been the contention that the government of Japan was prepared to surrender during the summer of 1945, with the sole proviso that its sacred emperor be retained. President Harry S. Truman and those around him knew this through intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages, the story goes, but refused to extend such an assurance because they wanted the war to continue until atomic bombs became available. The real purpose of using the bombs was not to defeat an already-defeated Japan, but to give the United States a club to use against the Soviet Union. Thus Truman purposely slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Japanese, not to mention untold thousands of other Asians and Allied servicemen who would perish as the war needlessly ground on, primarily to gain diplomatic advantage. One might think that compelling substantiation would be necessary to support such a monstrous charge, but the revisionists have been unable to provide a single example from Japanese sources. What they have done instead amounts to a variation on the old shell game. They state in their own prose that the Japanese were trying to surrender without citing any evidence and, to show that Truman was aware of their efforts, cite his diary entry of July 18 referring to a “telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.” There it is! The smoking gun! But it is nothing of the sort. The message Truman cited did not refer to anything even remotely resembling surrender. It referred instead to the Japanese foreign office’s attempt (under the suspicious eyes of the military) to persuade the Soviet Union to broker a negotiated peace that would have permitted the Japanese to retain their prewar empire and their imperial system (not just the emperor) intact. No American president could have accepted such a settlement, as it would have meant abandoning the United States’ most basic war aims. An exchange I had with two revisionists, Martin Sherwin and Kai Bird, is revealing. In the December 2007 issue of Passport (newsletter of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations), I published a short critique of their Pulitzer Prize-winning American Prometheus: the Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Among other things, I accused them of resorting to “semantic jugglery” in falsely equating Truman’s diary reference to “peace” with “surrender,” and pointed out that they had failed to provide “even a wisp of evidence” that Japan was trying to surrender. In their response, Sherwin and Bird in turn accused me of dismissing a “huge body of distinguished scholarship,” but again failed to include a single example of such evidence. In particular, Sherwin and Bird berated me for failing to refer to Tsuyoshi Hasegawa’s Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan. “Hasegawa’s research into Soviet and Japanese archives,” they wrote, “is replete with massive new and important ‘wisps’ of evidence about the causes of Japan’s surrender. It seems telling to us that his work is ignored.” What Sherwin and Bird apparently did not know, or hoped their readers did not know, was that although Hasegawa agreed with revisionists on a number of issues he explicitly rejected the early surrender thesis. Indeed, Hasegawa in no uncertain terms wrote that “Without the twin shocks of the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war, the Japanese never would have surrendered in August.” So much for the “massive new and important ‘wisps’ of evidence.” Undeterred by this fiasco and still unable to produce even a single document from Japanese sources, Bird has continued to peddle the fiction that “peace” meant the same thing as “surrender.” In a mostly contemptuous review of Sir Max Hastings’ s Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45 (Washington Post Book World, April 20, 2008), Bird professed to be “appalled by the critical evidence left out.” In passing he cited what he referred to as Hasegawa’s “widely praised” book again, but only to note the latter’s claim that Soviet entry into the war rather than the atomic bombs caused Japan’s surrender. There is no mention of the bogus “massive new and important ‘wisps’ of evidence” he and Sherwin earlier had claimed to find in Hasegawa’s work. Bird castigated Hastings because he “can’t find the space to note that Truman, Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, and Adm. William D. Leahy, the president’s chief of staff, all reportedly agreed on Aug. 3, 1945—three days before 140,000 civilians were killed in Hiroshima—that Japan was ‘looking for peace.’ ” Readers of this sentence who were unfamiliar with the sources—meaning practically all of them—could be expected to reach the false conclusion that Japan was trying to surrender. In the last sentence of his review, Bird wrote that “the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain a hot-button issue, something that can make otherwise responsible historian nose-dive into polemics.” How true! | ||
|
|
|||
|
#18
02-02-2017, 11:04 AM
|
||||
|
I would just like to point out that there are no reports on mass shootings in Australia because nobody gives a shit about Australia. Pretty sure the average person would struggle to name 2 cities in that shit hole prison colony.
__________________
Edalse Dwarf Cleric
Eslade Dwarf Paladin (Cazic Thule Server) Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#19
02-02-2017, 11:06 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
http://www.willamette.edu/~rloftus/postwaremp.html And Heartbrand is right, Whatever you think about the first bomb, the 2nd one was not about ending the war, neither was the bombing of Tokyo that followed (detailed in the article i linked) | |||
|
|
||||
|
#20
02-02-2017, 11:10 AM
|
|||
|
not going to click that because you have no idea what your talking about, your obviously not from a family that took part in ww2, my family lost 2 of its 3 men to that war. and i wouldn't exist if that bomb wasn't dropped. If we did drop a 2nd bomb just as a fuck you, then fuck it. Look how it turned out. Japan is a great ally now. Fact is, we dropped 2 bombs, and it worked. we were not going to let the emp sit there and dilly dally and wonder if we had only one bomb, that what he was thinking "maybe they just used there only plutonium, we may loose but we will take alot of them with us". Thats how they thought back then, u remember kamakazi dive bombers right? you are so god damned out of touch lol.
| ||
|
|
|||
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
