Typical warmongerAnd a less idealistic person, government, entity, force will always be your master.
Typical warmongerAnd a less idealistic person, government, entity, force will always be your master.
Billy says the same about Beijing. You guys are freaky nutzoids, and we werent even at war with Moscow
Typical warmonger
Hmmm ... ever hear of "The Rape of Nanking" ... or "The Code of Bushido" ... I didn't think so.
So. Your Plan was for America to lay down and become part of Greater Japan?
Yes, I know about the rape of Nanking. I know about the Saumuri code. Anybody who is remotely interested in history knows about it.
I never point to the Nazis and Imperial Japanese Army to excuse any actions the USA might consider. I hold USA to a higher standard than the low bar the Nazis and the Kwangtung Army set.
Japan was doomed.......the B-29's were already burning their major cities down, killing hundreds of thousands
pick your poison......the nukes saved thousands of American lives, we were in it to win it
Those are the guys you are fighting with.
B-29s were capable of flying in the stratosphere and were virtually untouchable by what little remained of Japanese air defenses in August 1945.
I’m very sorry. It’s why I hate war. The civilians suffer because of the egos of the leaders who sit in their comfortable places and decide what happens to the rest of us.
A certain amount of civilians are going to be killed in any war.
The Nazis were totally indiscriminate and ruthless about it.
Which in the long run undermined their cause and contributed to their defeat.
Our obligation as a liberal western democracy is to really consider how much damage to civilian populations is acceptable in the context of our strategic goals, and how much should either be avoided or mitigated to the extent possible.
Those are the questions people ask about the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, and the nuclear strikes.
I agree. Only Phantasmal is saying she will fight for nothing ... no idea, no family, no philosophy.
I support your ideology, but that wasn't the thinking in 1945. A history teacher one pointed out to my class that "Gunsmoke" wasn't a historical drama about a 19th century man in a 19th century American town. It was a fictional story about a 20th century man in a 19th century town. It used 20th century values to judge 19th century people and that was erroneous. It's like condemning everything Jefferson did because he was a slave rapist.
Judge them based on their times. Nuking Japan was the best call given the circumstances.
Japan was doomed.......the B-29's were already burning their major cities down, killing hundreds of thousands
pick your poison......the nukes saved thousands of American lives, we were in it to win it
I said in one of the first posts in this thread that we have the benefit of 77 years of hindsight, and none of us were there in 1945.
So I agree with the point that projecting our life experiences backwards seven decades is anachronistic-thinking.
I’m very sorry. It’s why I hate war. The civilians suffer because of the egos of the leaders who sit in their comfortable places and decide what happens to the rest of us.
Yes, I know about the rape of Nanking. I know about the Saumuri code. Anybody who is remotely interested in history knows about it.
I never point to the Nazis and Imperial Japanese Army to excuse any actions the USA might consider. I hold USA to a higher standard than the low bar the Nazis and the Kwangtung Army set.
blah blah blah..you dont want to "get it" but we ARE DIVIDED.True, but you're still pining for them like Putin does.
You use that insult a lot yet you don't understand it. I'm not pining for Goldwater like you are for Putin. I'm simply advocating that a conservative party use more logic and less emotion, that they become proponents for national security and the economy, not divisive assholes attacking both Americans and our Constitution.
I wasn't there in 1945, and I would never want to be in the position to make the decision. We all have the luxury of hindsight, looking back at it from a distance of 77 years.
My instinct leans towards feeling that while it was morally reprehensible, it may have been the least bad option. USA, Britain, Germany, USSR deliberately killed a lot of civilians from 1939 to 1945. All of it, strictly speaking, was morally reprehensible.
A certain amount of civilians are going to be killed in any war.
The Nazis were totally indiscriminate and ruthless about it.
Which in the long run undermined their cause and contributed to their defeat.
Our obligation as a liberal western democracy is to really consider how much damage to civilian populations is acceptable in the context of our strategic goals, and how much should either be avoided or mitigated to the extent possible.
Those are the questions people ask about the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, and the nuclear strikes.