Hiroshima and Nagasaki

With the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. DIRECTLY targeted civilians.  They also directly targeted civilians with the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden.  The Japanese and German GOVERNMENTS committed many atrocities, but that in no way makes it moral or right for the U.S. to murder civilians in those countries.

You can make all the arguments you want about how murdering these civilians brought an early end to the war.  This does not change the fact that civilian men, women, and children were murdered.  When other people do this, we call them terrorists.  That label applies equally here.

>>40

Now you're just making shit up.  I've lived in Japan, and I found them to be the most peaceful and kind society I've ever lived in.  This idea that they all share one mind and all act the same is simply a racist stereotype.

This bullshit about killing everything is just your own fantasy.  Get out of the basement, experience the world through other countries cultures, and then come back and talk about 'total war'. 

Just because they were polite doesn't mean they thought you were their equal.  the didn't.

They're peaceful NOW.  Before 1945 it was a purely military culture.  you do realize shit happened before you were born, right?  You do understand that Japan was ruled by the military until we destroyed their military, right? 

Let's repeat that for the slow folks:  Japan was a military society and culture until we dismantled their military after the war.  A war started by the Japanese to keep us from interfereing in their conquest and dominance of East Asia.  The subjugated peoples were treated like animals because the culture of Japan taught that if it ain't Jap, it's crap.  They had to be stopped.

They invaded China, the Phillipines, and other East asian nations.  While there, they committed atrocity after atrocity until we nuked them.  They still try to deny it ever happened.

Japan was just as bad as Germany in their treatment of conquered peoples during the war.  Denying that is revisionist bullshit.  That sort of behaviour by the soldiers doesn't happen in a vacuum.  The Japanese, just like the Germans in Russia, thought of the conquered as subhuman and treated them as such.

Here's what Truman had to weigh in his decision:

1.  US public sick of war, sick of dead Americans.
2.  Japanese always fought to the last, no reason to think it would be any different on the fucking mainland of Japan.
3.  Soviets were about to invade Japan from the north, and communism couldn't be allowed to spread.
4.  Millions of dead Americans if we invaded mainland Japan, and as an American that's bad.
5.  might be able to end it by dropping a couple bombs!?!  DO IT!

btw, had the Japanese military had its way, we actually would have had to kill a majority of the people of Japan, tens of millions in all likelyhood.  The military thought it better for ALL to die than suffer the humiliation of defeat and surrender.  It took their god/emporer to tell them to quit, and the military tried to keep that from happening but (thankfully) faild AFTER we nuked them twice.  That is historical fact.

As a bonus side effect of the nuking, nobody has been nuked since.  yet.

>>42

YAWN.  All those atrocities were committed by the JAPANESE MILITARY.  The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on JAPANESE CIVILIANS.  I realize you can't tell the difference between soldiers and housewives, but please try.

And you're an idiot to claim that Japanese society was simply militaristic before the war, and peaceful after.  Please, please, please read some history.  Japan is a nation centered around rice farming.  That is their societal cohesion.  Their rulers, much like rulers all over the world throughout history, were violent.  JAPANESE RULES does not equal JAPANESE CIVILIANS.

fuck 'em

Truman's nuclear and atomic action against Japanese civilians is precisely equal to bin Laden's action against American civilians.  If one was acceptable, then so is the other.  Choose, assholes!

>>43

I understand where you're coming from, but seriously...what should have been done differently? Clearly you're having a difficult time understanding that during that time in Japan that civilians were as apart of the Japanese military machine as Americans were to theirs.

Things then aren't how they are now. So of course you feel the way you do, I do too! But the fact is the term "civilian" applies differently then in comparison to now. No one is saying that it is moral, ethical or fair, but that's the way it is.

>>45

First of all, you're not still buying that Bin Laden did 9/11 are you? If so: LULZ

Secondly, "Choose" sounds suspiciously like the "With us or against us" rhetoric that Bush puked up during his axis of evil rant. I'm sure "Choose" came out of the mouth of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Nixon and all great fascists drum beaters. You think you're deferring to some moral imparitive but you're just making yourself look like a retard who fails at history and moral relativism.

>>46
There's no serious reason to believe bin Laden wasn't the architect of 911.

Also, I'm only telling the fuckos to choose since by all logic they MUST choose.  For example, since you have to either live or die, you must also "choose" between those options.  Since you must choose, I'm hardly being Fascist about it.

This dumbshit troll has been arguing against a strawman since the beginning of this thread. The US was targetting military installations and industries, they decided to go ahead because they weighed the cost of 100000 japanese civilian lives against the continuation of a war that had already taken 50000000 lives. End of discussion.

>>47


There are plenty of fucking reasons, but whatever, I'm not going to argue that with you here. Anyway, what a choice you give them, eh? A choice between Moral Relativism and Childish 'tit-for-tat' Ignorance.

>>48

Complete bullshit.  The U.S. knowingly dropped atomic bombs on densely populated cities of no strategic military value.  They directly targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians.  People like you are no different than the people who support terrorist suicide bombing of innocent civilians.

Japs bombed Pearl Harbor.
Then they raped countless women.
A-bombs for the win!

America sucks penis balls.

Irrelevant, stop nit picking
War's over, and we're allied anyway

>>29
THE USA BEST HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD IN THE WORLD?!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA

BAHAHAHAHAHA BAHAhAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa

Fucktard study you're history.

>>54
So much fail. I said "one of the best" and it is. Even the most prominent America hating academic Noam Chomsky admits this. What countries are you suggesting have better human rights records anyway?

Also, it's "your" not "you're".

Human rights commonly include:

    * security rights that prohibit crimes such as murder/"enforced" involuntary suicide, massacre, torture and rape
    * liberty rights that protect freedoms in areas such as belief and religion, association, assembling and movement
    * political rights that protect the liberty to participate in politics by expressing themselves, protesting, participating in a republic
    * due process rights that protect against abuses of the legal system such as arrest and imprisonment without trial, secret trials and excessive punishments
    * equality rights that guarantee equal citizenship, equality before the law and nondiscrimination
    * welfare rights (also known as economic rights) that require the provision of, e.g., education, paid holidays, and protections against severe poverty and starvation
    * group rights

America leads the way in many of these areas. Only some liberal European countries have such a good record.

>>56
I hope you fucking die. That list is fucking fail.
Welfare rights? WTF? Group rights? Oh wait, unless the group is White.
GTFO welfare nigger worshipper.

>>49

There are plenty of fucking reasons, but whatever, I'm not going to argue that with you here.

You can't actually argue since you don't actually have reasons to support.  There is no serious reason to doubt bin Laden was the architect of 911.  That's the truth that is well enough documented in the 911 Report, and until you come up with the (admittedly non-existent) facts to counter it, IT STANDS.

Anyway, what a choice you give them, eh? A choice between Moral Relativism and Childish 'tit-for-tat' Ignorance.

No, it's a clear choice between accepting or denouncing the evil done by your own nation.  Either bin Laden acted like Truman, or Truman acted like bin Laden.  WHICH IS IT, PUNK?

>>8
ITT we pretend peace negotiations were not going on during the atomic bombings.

He's the real metric

Cons: Kills thousands of innocent people, levels a city, and cause irreperable loss of cultural value.
Pros: We reserve the right to remove the royal family as head of state, which we decide against doing anyway.

The policy of unconditional surrender was one of the worst moves the Allies made in WWII. Not because they should have sought peace with Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo, but because it gave those nations no alternative BUT those.

In 1943, The Italian Fascist Party Removed Mussolini from Power. Then sought to seek a peace agreement with the U.S. Fortunately we were smart enough to realize the opportunity, and the vast majority of Italian Troops throughout axis europe declared Neutrality.

However, if we had made it our policy from the beginning to offer peace, just not with Mussolini, the move against Il Duce by the Fascist Party would have come alot sooner, and would have been in negotiations with the Allies before the coup, possibly avoiding the entire Italian Campaign.

During the July 20th conspiracy, the biggest impediment the plotters had was that the Allies had guaranteed there would be no peace negotiations at all. Had they been offered "We will make peace, but not with the Nazis" there would have been much greater support for the coup. Instead most of the Army followed Hitler to his dying day and beyond.

By 1945, the government that had attacked the United States had been driven out. Since 1944 there was a new prime minister who was given the job in order to secure any peace conditions they could have. By the summer of 1945, they had a single demand for peace. Japan would allow itself to be occupied, allow its government and society to be dismantled, would give up its empire, would disband its military, and only asked in exchange that it be allowed to continue its royal dynasty.

>>59

Awesome point.  The Japanese were prepared to surrender, they just wanted to keep their Emperor.  But the U.S. wanted unconditional surrender, so they incinerated hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS with atomic bombs.

And in the end, the U.S. let Japan keep their emperor anyway.  This was a completely unnecessary MURDER of innocent men, women, and children.

Wrong. The Japanese refused to surrender even after the bombing of Hiroshima, so it was the decision of the Japanese fascist masters to nuke their own people rather than let the people rule.

Oh and by the way since it was the decision of the Japanofascists the USA is in no way responsible. The USA tried it's best to end the war with the least civilian casualties possible and was the epitome of honour and moral righteousness throughout.

>>62

Obvious troll is obvious.

>>63
I'm not trolling. It's all true.

>>64

Nope, still trolling.

>>61
Right, they refused UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. They were willing to offer a peace that would have given America everything it requested with the sole condition of maintaining the Imperial Family. They wanted to hold on to this condition even after the first atomic bombing.
Peace was not only achievable with Japan prior to the dropping of the first atomic bomb, but prior to the Surrender of Germany.
Not only would this have saved countless Japanese lives, but countless American, Philipino, and Chinese lives, and also the lives of approximately 1 million people in Indochina.
It also would have prevented the Russians from entering the war, and thereby save Korea, and potentially China from falling to Murderous Commmunist dictators.

Governments can't really be terrorists. Military groups can't do terrorist acts. They can do horrible, unspeakable, evil things, but as long as they're part of an accepted government, it's just another act of war!

>>58

You can't actually argue since you don't actually have reasons to support.  There is no serious reason to doubt bin Laden was the architect of 911.  That's the truth that is well enough documented in the 911 Report, and until you come up with the (admittedly non-existent) facts to counter it, IT STANDS.

I have plenty of reasons, some of which actually stem from how Bin Laden is used in the media, in comparison to threats that actually existed (Kim Jong Ill, Saddam). Also, I never "admitted" that my reasons were non-existent. It's just that it would be a waste of time to debate the issue with someone who takes the 9/11 report so seriously.

Oh and hey, do you happen to have the 9/11 report on hand? What about fact checkers for the report itself? I mean, outside of the media and government saying "Bin Laden did" can you point to me some objective proof that he was "The Mastermind" when, frankly, at that time there were several groups, non-islamic groups, planning similar attacks?

No, it's a clear choice between accepting or denouncing the evil done by your own nation.  Either bin Laden acted like Truman, or Truman acted like bin Laden.  WHICH IS IT, PUNK?

Clearly, you didn't understand what I meant by my statement. Re-read it and get back to us.

>>56
The united states has the worst humans rights record in the west. Europe has a far better humans rights record. YOUR FUCKING FACIST COUNTRY MURDERED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE SINCE THE SECOND WORLD WAR. What about Vietnam?

>>69
Facist: A system of government in which the people are governed by a face.

Examples: Power Rangers, that IBM commercials.

tl;dr

If you wanted to show the japs what you were capable of you could've just used one on an outpost or an island base

However, one bomb on a major city does serve a purpose - to scare the Russians, 2 is not necessary

US had to do it to stop world war 2. No one liked the Japanese at that point anyway. Thread over.

>>72
So, why didn't they just accept the conditional surrender that was offered long before Hiroshima?

>>73 So they'd give butthurt liberals a reason to complain now.

>>73
Because it was ridiculous.

People die in war? DURRRRRRRRRRRR

DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Additionally, killing civilians can never be a good thing, but war is war and there is nothing going to change that. The objective of war is to win and not be taken over, you self-cunt gobbling panty waist. You do whatever you can to win, and not just win, but win and beat the shit out of them so bad that they will never think of it again.

A Japanese soldier would have no problems shooting you and your family given it meant their country's success.

I imagine designing a nuclear bomb cost a lot. Wouldn't want to waste that money, especially with an opportunity like that not to, right?

Designing nuclear bombs has led to many other technologies that are used in every US household. This includes new ways of electricity production and fire detectors!

         *
      *     *
    *          *
  *              *
*The more you know!*
 ------------------

>>77
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW