Obama tried to apologize to Japan for nukes on Hiroshima, Nagasaki?

[Little-Acorn]

I'm half convinced this is a joke, though it apparently did not come from The Onion where such things are normally found.

It's inconceivable that any American President (or American citizen for that matter) could apologize for doing something to end a war we didn't even start.

Anyone have any info on the origins of this "story"?

----------------------------------

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/587698/201110111829/Apologies-Not-Accepted.htm

Apologies Not Accepted

Posted 10/11/2011 06:29 PM ET

In November 2009, Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to bow to Japan's emperor.

http://www.investors.com/image/ISS2c_111012_345.jpg.cms

Leadership: Leaked cables show Japan nixed a presidential apology to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for using nukes to end the overseas contingency operation known as World War II. Will the next president apologize for the current one?

The obsessive need of this president to apologize for American exceptionalism and our defense of freedom continued recently when Barack Obama's State Department (run by Hillary Clinton) contacted the family of al-Qaida propagandist and recruiter Samir Khan to "express its condolences" to his family.

Khan, a right-hand man to Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed along with Awlaki in an airstrike in Yemen on Sept. 30. We apologized for killing a terrorist before he could help kill any more of us.

[red states rule]

Since Obama took office, he has humiliated America one day - and one apology - at at time

[abso]

In 1946, a report by the Federal Council of Churches entitled Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith, includes the following passage: "As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible."A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and/or state terrorism. Two early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued: "Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"

[darin]

In 1946, a report by the Federal Council of Churches entitled Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith, includes the following passage: "As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible."A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and/or state terrorism. Two early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued: "Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"

Harry Truman's Response:


My dear Mr. Cavert:
I appreciated very much your telegram of August ninth.
Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.
When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true.
Sincerely yours,
Harry S. Truman

source: http://www.ncccusa.org/centennial/augustmoment.html


Truman is right. So was the council in part - however naive.

[Gunny]

In 1946, a report by the Federal Council of Churches entitled Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith, includes the following passage: "As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible."A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and/or state terrorism. Two early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued: "Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"

And? People whined about taking out OBL too. There are always those living in La-La Land with no clue whatsoever how to deal with reality. Sounds to me like Einstein and Szilard were just trying to backpedal over some misplaced guilt.

Obama needs to spend less time apologizing to the world for getting its collective ass kicked by us at various times and for supporting what's right instead of criminals, and more time on a cure for the domestic disaster he has created.

[jimnyc]

In 1946, a report by the Federal Council of Churches entitled Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith, includes the following passage: "As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible."A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and/or state terrorism. Two early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued: "Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"

Doesn't seem as if this is in your words... In the future, can you please supply links to a source to keep our board within copyright laws? Thanks!

[Nukeman]

In 1946, a report by the Federal Council of Churches entitled Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith, includes the following passage: "As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible."A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and/or state terrorism. Two early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued: "Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"Do you have an American in your pocket???... Who is "WE" in your statement there????? By the way the council of churches can condemn any acts they want they are NOT part of the govt. Einstein was critticle of the bomb mostly due to the unknown as to wheter or not the chain reaction would self regulate or continue to spread over the entire world, that was his fear......

As a side note the Germans were actively trying to obtain the atomic bomb that was our major motivation, did you never wonder why we had so many "German sounding names" in the Manhatten project, they switched sides because they didn't want those secrets in the hands of a madman like Hitler.

[Jeff]

This guy is sickening , he is running all around the world bowing and apologizing when the only thing he really needs to apologize for is running this country into the ground , He should just apologize for misrepresenting himself as a actually President

[ConHog]

Do you have an American in your pocket???... Who is "WE" in your statement there????? By the way the council of churches can condemn any acts they want they are NOT part of the govt. Einstein was critticle of the bomb mostly due to the unknown as to wheter or not the chain reaction would self regulate or continue to spread over the entire world, that was his fear......

As a side note the Germans were actively trying to obtain the atomic bomb that was our major motivation, did you never wonder why we had so many "German sounding names" in the Manhatten project, they switched sides because they didn't want those secrets in the hands of a madman like Hitler.


You're not entirely correct about Einstein. He was sickened that his discovery had a military application. Not just because it might end the world. but because that truly was not his intention.

Now, that isn't to say he didn't understand the need to have such a weapon, because he did, but fundamentally he was horrified at the concept of killing so many at one time.

And there certainly is nothing wrong wit that stance, it is one I share. it horrifies me that Obama has the capability to incinerate millions should he choose to do so. However, I also understand that under rare circumstance it is actually the least gruesome way to end a war (WWII in the Pacific being the example of course.)

[red states rule]

In 1946, a report by the Federal Council of Churches entitled Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith, includes the following passage: "As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible."A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and/or state terrorism. Two early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued: "Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"


Bottom line is, Japan started the war and America finished it. The result: saving the lives of an estimated one MILLION people since the US did not have to invade Japan

The atomic bomb - made in the USA and tested in Japan

Case closed

[abso]

Harry Truman's Response:



Truman is right. So was the council in part - however naive.

so you are saying that the only way to fight japan was to nuke its civilians ?, sorry, but i would never agree with that, even if it prevented military casualities resulted from the planned american invasion to japan, the way i see it, your president just bought his soliders lifes with the death of japanese civilians, and if it was me, i would never sacrifice an innocent civilian to save a solider who is willing to fight and die for his country.

[fj1200]

so you are saying that the only way to fight japan was to nuke its civilians ?, sorry, but i would never agree with that, even if it prevented military casualities resulted from the planned american invasion to japan, the way i see it, your president just bought his soliders lifes with the death of japanese civilians, and if it was me, i would never sacrifice an innocent civilian to save a solider who is willing to fight and die for his country.

No, it saved Japanese civilians as well. And no, it saved Japanese soldiers too. Tragic, but win/win. The Japanese military also had no such concern for Chinese civilians in the 30's and WWII.

[abso]

As the first military use of nuclear weapons, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent to some the crossing of a crucial barrier. Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, wrote of President Truman:

"He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species. It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity."[



In the documentary The Fog of War, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara recalls that General Curtis LeMay, who relayed the Presidential order to drop nuclear bombs on Japan, said,

"'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"




The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey, written by Paul Nitze, concluded that the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. After reviewing numerous documents, and interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, Nitze reported:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.



Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.

[darin]

so you are saying that the only way to fight japan was to nuke its civilians ?, sorry, but i would never agree with that, even if it prevented military casualities resulted from the planned american invasion to japan, the way i see it, your president just bought his soliders lifes with the death of japanese civilians, and if it was me, i would never sacrifice an innocent civilian to save a solider who is willing to fight and die for his country.

No - I'm saying in 1945, in what was a TOTAL WAR mentality, the nuke was the only way to SAVE MILLIONS OF LIVES. Our government made the hard choice to prevent the needless deaths of millions.

If you pick a fight with chuck norris, and chuck norris kicks your ass beyond recognition, and then beats up your DAD, to you blame Chuck Norris - or yourself for starting shit?

Oh yeah - here's Islam's answer to conflict:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/ramadan-quetta-9-3.jpg

Sunni suicide bombers targeting Shia pilgrims in Pakistan during
Islam’s holiest month helped make this a Ramadan to remember.
In all, the Religion of Peace racked up over a thousand dead bodies
across twenty-two countries!

Ramadan 2010 Scorecard

<tbody>
Day 30
In the name of
The Religion
of Peace
In the name of
All Other
Religions


Terror Attacks
226
1


Dead Bodies
1028
1

</tbody>



http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/16000-deadly-islamic-terrorist-attacks-since-911/



http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/muslim-protesters-burn-quran-day.jpg

Those guys are animals. They are monsters. They can only be 'cured' through martyrdom. I hope to see more of them getting their wish; and dying for their faith. Ideally, they'd get right with God and stop murdering thousands of people. Ideally, they'd REALLY find God and stop their raping, killing, and oppression of Women and homosexuals. Ideally, they'd show respect and grace to those who don't believe - or even INSULT - their precious religion. ...but that won't happen.

[fj1200]

As the first military use of nuclear weapons, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent to some the crossing of a crucial barrier. Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, wrote of President Truman:

"He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species. It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity."

He "knew"? What's his basis for that comment?


In the documentary The Fog of War, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara recalls that General Curtis LeMay, who relayed the Presidential order to drop nuclear bombs on Japan, said,


"'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost.

But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"

Of course it would be "thought" immoral if we had lost the war; the winner determines the rules/morality. And I reject your premise; it could be argued to be the moral decision win or lose.


The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey, written by Paul Nitze, concluded that the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. After reviewing numerous documents, and interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, Nitze reported:


Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

20/20 hindsight? You also need to take into account the nature of the surrender; full and complete that was ultimately offered or one that left in power the Emperor/military leadership that leads to aggression and immoral behavior, i.e. China.


Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.

Interesting, I wonder what the "basis of his belief" was?

[abso]

He "knew"? What's his basis for that comment?



Of course it would be "thought" immoral if we had lost the war; the winner determines the rules/morality. And I reject your premise; it could be argued to be the moral decision win or lose.



20/20 hindsight? You also need to take into account the nature of the surrender; full and complete that was ultimately offered or one that left in power the Emperor/military leadership that leads to aggression and immoral behavior, i.e. China.

[B]

Interesting, I wonder what the "basis of his belief" was?

its not my premise, its the premise of some americans who lived at that era,.

about Eisenhower, i don't know the basis of his belief, since he is dead we can't ask him, but i still can ask you, what is the basis of your belief that the bombs were neccessary although many american military leaders at that time believed that the bomb was completely unneccessary and that non nuclear bombardment was sufficient enough to defeat japan.

but who do you think knows better about the situation back then, you or Eisenhower ?


for me, even one single doubt coming from one military leader must have been enough to call off the nukes and trying his solution first.

and as i said before, i would never condone the sacrifice of innocent civilians lifes to save soliders, even if they were my own country's soliders.

for me, US just took the easy way, annhilate japanese to save us time and effort and lives, but they forgot that japanese civilians has the same right to live as those american lives they saved, they did nothing wrong to be killed in an exchange for others to live, if soliders choosed to fight, then its their own choice, but japanese civilians didn't get to choose, they just got ANNIHILATED, so excuse me if i don't see anything moral about what US did, it was just barbaric and inhuman act.


btw, they choosed the targets so that they could test their bomb, they even instructed the air force not to drop any bombs there, so that the cities remain without any destruction so that they can measure the destruction of the atomic bomb agianst all kind of buildings in those cities, they used the death of those innocent people as an experiment, yeah, really moral decision.


No - I'm saying in 1945, in what was a TOTAL WAR mentality, the nuke was the only way to SAVE MILLIONS OF LIVES. Our government made the hard choice to prevent the needless deaths of millions.

If you pick a fight with chuck norris, and chuck norris kicks your ass beyond recognition, and then beats up your DAD, to you blame Chuck Norris - or yourself for starting shit?

Oh yeah - here's Islam's answer to conflict:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/ramadan-quetta-9-3.jpg


http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/muslim-protesters-burn-quran-day.jpg

Those guys are animals. They are monsters. They can only be 'cured' through martyrdom. I hope to see more of them getting their wish; and dying for their faith. Ideally, they'd get right with God and stop murdering thousands of people. Ideally, they'd REALLY find God and stop their raping, killing, and oppression of Women and homosexuals. Ideally, they'd show respect and grace to those who don't believe - or even INSULT - their precious religion. ...but that won't happen.


and your point is to defend your country's actions by saying that muslims are worse ??? :rolleyes:

thanks, you just compared your army's actions to the actions of terrorists.

and btw, even muslim terrorists didn't drop a nuclear bomb, US did.
even muslim terrorists didn't start WWI, christians did.
even muslim terrorists didn't start WWII, christians did.

if its a matter of religions, then i would say that christians in the last century caused the death of more than 70 - 90 million deathes, thats just in the past century of course.

while muslims terrorists caused ...... lets see, the largest attack they did was 9/11, which resulted in 3000 death, so lets say that all attacks they did lead to the killing of about 10,000 to 20,000 humans.


yeah, 70 million, against 20 thousands, i can't agree with you anymore, muslims is the most evil that exist nowdays, you are right.


its true what they say:

kill one, you are a murderer.
kill ten, you are a serial killer.
kill hundreds, you are a terrorist.
kill thousands you are a military hero.


stop lecturing me about what muslim terrorists do, i know it, i see it with my own eyes on the media, i dont need you to repeat whats in the media for me, i can read without your help.

but what you should do, is to start to acknowledge that its not a matter of religions, only the person or the personS who kill are responsible for their own actions, not the rest of the people, and not the other people who believe in the same religion or then i would have to say that you are the same as Hitler since he was christian too.

[jimnyc]

Abso, would be nice to see you, ON YOUR OWN, continually speak out against the loss of innocent lives when muslims commit terror attacks DAILY since 9/11. But yet have no issue to point this stuff out all the time about America from years and years and years ago. When you DON'T do it on your own when muslims do this shit daily, but condemn the US whenever you have a chance about older stuff - kinda makes you look like you're bashing America and ignoring what muslims do in current times....

[abso]

Bottom line is, Japan started the war and America finished it. The result: saving the lives of an estimated one MILLION people since the US did not have to invade Japan

The atomic bomb - made in the USA and tested in Japan

Case closed

many military leaders disagree with you.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."


Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President)
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."


General of the Army Douglas MacArthur
Brigadier General Carter Clarke

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The second atomic bombing, on Nagasaki, came only three days after the bombing of Hiroshima, when the devastation at Hiroshima had yet to be fully comprehended by the Japanese. The lack of time between the bombings has led some historians to state that the second bombing was "certainly unnecessary", "gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst", and not jus in bello. In response to the claim that the atomic bombing of Nagasaki was unnecessary, Maddox wrote


Abso, would be nice to see you, ON YOUR OWN, continually speak out against the loss of innocent lives when muslims commit terror attacks DAILY since 9/11. But yet have no issue to point this stuff out all the time about America from years and years and years ago. When you DON'T do it on your own when muslims do this shit daily, but condemn the US whenever you have a chance about older stuff - kinda makes you look like you're bashing America and ignoring what muslims do in current times....

when have you seen me saying that i am proud with what muslim terrorists do ?

have i ever said that i supported the killing of innocents at the hands of muslims ?


at least i condmen terrorists acts, while you, never condemened the atomic bombs.


Do you have an American in your pocket???... Who is "WE" in your statement there????? By the way the council of churches can condemn any acts they want they are NOT part of the govt. Einstein was critticle of the bomb mostly due to the unknown as to wheter or not the chain reaction would self regulate or continue to spread over the entire world, that was his fear......

As a side note the Germans were actively trying to obtain the atomic bomb that was our major motivation, did you never wonder why we had so many "German sounding names" in the Manhatten project, they switched sides because they didn't want those secrets in the hands of a madman like Hitler.

who said that i wanted those secrets in the hands of hitler ?

but i also didn't want them in the hands of someone who will use them to kill thousands of women and children then be proud about it !!!!!!!!!!!!, such a man, i would call him a monster.

what OBAMA did, to apologize for the killing of innocent women and children, at least it was something, its not enough and nothing US can ever do is enough for what it did, but at least he aplogized, and what american do, is to condemn that apology, condemen the apology for killing women and children, how sick is that ??

[jimnyc]

many military leaders disagree with you.

dwight d. Eisenhower
in 1945 secretary of war stimson, visiting my headquarters in germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, i had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so i voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because i thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, i thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save american lives.

fleet admiral chester w. Nimitz, commander in chief of the u.s. Pacific fleet.
"the japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of japan."


fleet admiral william d. Leahy (the chief of staff to the president)
"the use of [the atomic bombs] at hiroshima and nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against japan. The japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the dark ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."


general of the army douglas macarthur
brigadier general carter clarke

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


the second atomic bombing, on nagasaki, came only three days after the bombing of hiroshima, when the devastation at hiroshima had yet to be fully comprehended by the japanese. The lack of time between the bombings has led some historians to state that the second bombing was "certainly unnecessary", "gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst", and not jus in bello. In response to the claim that the atomic bombing of nagasaki was unnecessary, maddox wrote

link to a source!!!! Please!!!

[jimnyc]

when have you seen me saying that i am proud with what muslim terrorists do ?

have i ever said that i supported the killing of innocents at the hands of muslims ?


at least i condmen terrorists acts, while you, never condemened the atomic bombs.

Your continual ignoring of daily muslim terror attacks, while you have time to condemn America, leads me to believe you are ignoring the muslim daily attacks. Certainly, if you have time to condemn attacks by America from 70 plus years ago, you would have time to condemn current attacks. NOT ONCE have I ever seen you start a thread to condemn a current terror attack - but I constantly see you start threads to condemn America or Israel. Deny all you like but this is a FACT.

You're just like the leaders of all these islamic countries, ignore it and don't say a word - but if pinned in a corner you will say it's bad but then follow it with an excuse about how the attacker is not a true muslim, it wasn't religion, or some other excuse. If there have been 15,000 plus terror attacks since 9/11 - can you show me JUST ONE thread you have started since then to condemn a muslim attack? JUST ONE??

[ConHog]

its not my premise, its the premise of some americans who lived at that era,.

about Eisenhower, i don't know the basis of his belief, since he is dead we can't ask him, but i still can ask you, what is the basis of your belief that the bombs were neccessary although many american military leaders at that time believed that the bomb was completely unneccessary and that non nuclear bombardment was sufficient enough to defeat japan.

but who do you think knows better about the situation back then, you or Eisenhower ?


for me, even one single doubt coming from one military leader must have been enough to call off the nukes and trying his solution first.

and as i said before, i would never condone the sacrifice of innocent civilians lifes to save soliders, even if they were my own country's soliders.

for me, US just took the easy way, annhilate japanese to save us time and effort and lives, but they forgot that japanese civilians has the same right to live as those american lives they saved, they did nothing wrong to be killed in an exchange for others to live, if soliders choosed to fight, then its their own choice, but japanese civilians didn't get to choose, they just got ANNIHILATED, so excuse me if i don't see anything moral about what US did, it was just barbaric and inhuman act.


btw, they choosed the targets so that they could test their bomb, they even instructed the air force not to drop any bombs there, so that the cities remain without any destruction so that they can measure the destruction of the atomic bomb agianst all kind of buildings in those cities, they used the death of those innocent people as an experiment, yeah, really moral decision.

You know what Abso? Thems the breaks. Shit happens in a war. WWII to was unlike anything the world had seen before or has seen since. It was literally entire nations against entire nations. Civilians from every country were liable to be killed by another country. How many were killed in England by the German Blitzkrieg? How many French were killed fighting with the resistance? Do you have ANY idea how many Russians died because they were trapped in Leningrad over a Russian winter with no resupply of their food?

You are COMPLETELY ignorant of history. The Japanese were fanatically dedicated to their Emperor who was seen and saw himself as a Demigod and there was noway in hell they were going to surrender without either an invasion or use of an atomic weapon (as it turns out it took TWO atomic weapons.) Military tacticians estimate that it would have cost at least 1 million Allied lives and probably at least 500 thousand Japanese lives if we had chosen to invade.

Truman truly chose the lesser of two evils when choosing to use atomic weapons and if you don't think he agonized over it , well you're even dumber than I thought. Same goes if you truly don't think most Americans regret that we had to take such an action.

[ConHog]

Your continual ignoring of daily muslim terror attacks, while you have time to condemn America, leads me to believe you are ignoring the muslim daily attacks. Certainly, if you have time to condemn attacks by America from 70 plus years ago, you would have time to condemn current attacks. NOT ONCE have I ever seen you start a thread to condemn a current terror attack - but I constantly see you start threads to condemn America or Israel. Deny all you like but this is a FACT.

You're just like the leaders of all these islamic countries, ignore it and don't say a word - but if pinned in a corner you will say it's bad but then follow it with an excuse about how the attacker is not a true muslim, it wasn't religion, or some other excuse. If there have been 15,000 plus terror attacks since 9/11 - can you show me JUST ONE thread you have started since then to condemn a muslim attack? JUST ONE??

Jim, he's a troll and nothing more. It really is that simple.

[abso]

Your continual ignoring of daily muslim terror attacks, while you have time to condemn America, leads me to believe you are ignoring the muslim daily attacks. Certainly, if you have time to condemn attacks by America from 70 plus years ago, you would have time to condemn current attacks. NOT ONCE have I ever seen you start a thread to condemn a current terror attack - but I constantly see you start threads to condemn America or Israel. Deny all you like but this is a FACT.

You're just like the leaders of all these islamic countries, ignore it and don't say a word - but if pinned in a corner you will say it's bad but then follow it with an excuse about how the attacker is not a true muslim, it wasn't religion, or some other excuse. If there have been 15,000 plus terror attacks since 9/11 - can you show me JUST ONE thread you have started since then to condemn a muslim attack? JUST ONE??


why would i start a thread to condemn a muslim attack, you are covering that issue completely, so me posting about it is just a waste of time.

look the issue is not about who posts it, have you found anyone in this forum who does not condemn terrorists, be them muslims or anything else ???


what should be posted in here, is something that is going to raise a debate about something, but where is the debate when you post about any muslim terrorist, all we can debate about is his reasons to do so, but is it right or wrong is not an issue, because we all already know that it is stupidly WRONG.

so since none here is interested to debate over reasons, i never post about islamic terrorism, i already said i condemn it, i refuse it, i will never carry a gun to solve my problems, and i am never going to agree with killing innocents, from any religion or any country.


bottom line, I AM NOT A MONSTER, i will never agree to the killing of any innocent man or woman, and also i do not agree with beating any women which seems to be an issue that you raise alot against me.

you say alot of times that i do not condemn terrorism, while i DO, i condemn it more than you, if you can do a simple math, you can see that muslims who have died due to islamic terrorism are far more greater in numbers than christians who died, you lost 3000 in 9/11, while in iraq more than 30 - 60 innocent muslims die DAILY due to bombs detonated by islamic terrorists, so you have to see that Islamic terrorism presents itself as a problem to muslims more than it has with christians or jews, since 2003, more than 50 to 100 thousand iraqi have lost their lifes due to terrorism, so, do you actually think that muslims like it or even want it ?


please, pause for just 5 minutes, try to think, try to think like any muslims does, how do you think that we like killings !!, that we like to see death everywhere !!!, how can you think that 1.5 billion people sharing the planet with you really wants everyone dead ???

if you can put aside your hate for a while, you will notice that we are just humans as much as you are, we have good men, bad meen, stupid men, radical men, we have all sort of personalities, but to just blame Islam for violence, its not going to work, because you can never eradicate Islam from existence, but if you look for the real problems, you can eradicate them, but you are just wasting your time blaming a book for all the probelms of the world.

for me, i would prefer to blame the reader, not the book, since there are other people who read the book and do no violence, then i think the problem is not in that book, thats all.


Jim, he's a troll and nothing more. It really is that simple.

Thanks for your nice words.

[abso]

You know what Abso? Thems the breaks. Shit happens in a war. WWII to was unlike anything the world had seen before or has seen since. It was literally entire nations against entire nations. Civilians from every country were liable to be killed by another country. How many were killed in England by the German Blitzkrieg? How many French were killed fighting with the resistance? Do you have ANY idea how many Russians died because they were trapped in Leningrad over a Russian winter with no resupply of their food?

You are COMPLETELY ignorant of history. The Japanese were fanatically dedicated to their Emperor who was seen and saw himself as a Demigod and there was noway in hell they were going to surrender without either an invasion or use of an atomic weapon (as it turns out it took TWO atomic weapons.) Military tacticians estimate that it would have cost at least 1 million Allied lives and probably at least 500 thousand Japanese lives if we had chosen to invade.

Truman truly chose the lesser of two evils when choosing to use atomic weapons and if you don't think he agonized over it , well you're even dumber than I thought. Same goes if you truly don't think most Americans regret that we had to take such an action.

first you assumed that i don't know anything about WWII, which is an assumtion based on nothing, since you don't know me, and you never talked with me about WWII to know how much info i have about it, so if you are a wise man, you would stay away from making assumtions.

secondly, you assumed that the Emperor would never have surrendered without the atomic bomb, which is like saying that the US army at that time was stupidly weak without the bomb, while to be fair, the US Army was more than capable to defeat japan without the help if any nukes, and that is the opinion of many military leaders at that time.

thirdly, even if the first bomb was neccessary, the second bomb was certainly unneccessary at all, since all the time between both was just 3 days, which didn't give japan enough time to think about surrender.

fourthly, i never said that Truman didn't regret what he did, since i never said that he is a cold blooded killer, but regretting killing thousands of women and children doesn't make you less of a terrorist.

fifthly, i also never said that most americans does not rgeret that actions, but i think many americans agree with it, which is the problem, i don't care if you regret it or not, just condoning it makes you a heartless terrorist in my eyes.


you don't care what i think, and i also don't care what you think, but the facts is plain and simple, US Army killed women and children, so don't lecture me about what the German did, or how many Russian died, or the japanese killing of POW, because after all, US is the only country who killed thousands of people with a single bomb, i don't know how those pilots felt, they must have felt terrible, but let me say it, if i were the pilot who dropped the bomb, i would have killed myself.

your justifications for the bomb is not in any way different than the way that any stupid terrorist justifies his actions.

if its about killing innocents, there is no grey zone, its just black or white, and anyone who kills innocent civilians is in the black zone for me, i would never sacrifice a single innocent human who didn't choose to die even if it meant saving an entire army.

[fj1200]

its not my premise, its the premise of some americans who lived at that era,.

I assumed the following words were yours as they were highlighted differently:

But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"
But if not I still maintain that is your premise. You are questioning the actions of those long dead based on a certain group who happens to question that particular episode and many times that became known after Japan's surrender.


about Eisenhower, i don't know the basis of his belief, since he is dead we can't ask him, but i still can ask you, what is the basis of your belief that the bombs were neccessary although many american military leaders at that time believed that the bomb was completely unneccessary and that non nuclear bombardment was sufficient enough to defeat japan.

but who do you think knows better about the situation back then, you or Eisenhower ?

The basis for belief at the time was very important, you brought it up so you are in the position to defend your premise. Who do you think was in the position of responsibility to know and make the ultimate decision? Truman was in the unenviable position of making that decision.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/pacific/player/
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/pacific/player/)http://www.ushistory.org/us/51g.asp


American soldiers and civilians were weary from four years of war, yet the Japanese military was refusing to give up their fight. American forces occupied Okinawa and Iwo Jima and were intensely fire bombing Japanese cities. But Japan had an army of 2 million strong stationed in the home islands guarding against invasion.
...
Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was purely military. A Normandy-type amphibious landing would have cost an estimated million casualties. Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President. Over 3,500 Japanese kamikaze raids had already wrought great destruction and loss of American lives.


There were those who considered that the atomic bomb should never have been used at all. I cannot associate myself with such ideas… I am surprised that very worthy people—but people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves—should adopt a position that rather than throw this bomb we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives…


for me, even one single doubt coming from one military leader must have been enough to call off the nukes and trying his solution first.

and as i said before, i would never condone the sacrifice of innocent civilians lifes to save soliders, even if they were my own country's soliders.

for me, US just took the easy way, annhilate japanese to save us time and effort and lives, but they forgot that japanese civilians has the same right to live as those american lives they saved, they did nothing wrong to be killed in an exchange for others to live, if soliders choosed to fight, then its their own choice, but japanese civilians didn't get to choose, they just got ANNIHILATED, so excuse me if i don't see anything moral about what US did, it was just barbaric and inhuman act.

You can't base major decisions on "even one single doubt." The leader of a major power in the midst of WWII needs to make a decision and single doubts are only an obstacle to an effective military campaign.

Do you contend that fewer civilians died than would have died had Japan not surrendered and a major ground invasion was initiated?


btw, they choosed the targets so that they could test their bomb, they even instructed the air force not to drop any bombs there, so that the cities remain without any destruction so that they can measure the destruction of the atomic bomb agianst all kind of buildings in those cities, they used the death of those innocent people as an experiment, yeah, really moral decision.


Because the USAAF wanted to use its bombs on previously undamaged cities in order to have accurate data on nuclear-caused damage, Kokura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokura), Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Niigata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niigata) were preserved from conventional bombing raids. Otherwise they would all have been fire-bombed.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_N agasaki#cite_note-20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_N agasaki
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_N agasaki)
Firebombing was preferable?

[abso]

I assumed the following words were yours as they were highlighted differently:

But if not I still maintain that is your premise. You are questioning the actions of those long dead based on a certain group who happens to question that particular episode and many times that became known after Japan's surrender.



The basis for belief at the time was very important, you brought it up so you are in the position to defend your premise. Who do you think was in the position of responsibility to know and make the ultimate decision? Truman was in the unenviable position of making that decision.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/pacific/player/
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/pacific/player/)http://www.ushistory.org/us/51g.asp







You can't base major decisions on "even one single doubt." The leader of a major power in the midst of WWII needs to make a decision and single doubts are only an obstacle to an effective military campaign.

Do you contend that fewer civilians died than would have died had Japan not surrendered and a major ground invasion was initiated?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_N agasaki
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_N agasaki)
Firebombing was preferable?

no, those words wasn't mine, i just colored them because i think they are important, thats all.


neither me nor you can say anything about the numbers of the people who could have died if the bombs were not dropped, since none can predict that, maybe the Emperor would have surrendered, maybe not.

i can never prove the US could have ended the war without the use of nukes, neither could Eisenhower, neither could any military leader who opposed those bombs.

but what i can and do say, is that the drop of such bombs was immoral, i would never sacrifice civilians to save other civilians, i would never sacrifice civilians to save soliders.

maybe i am not being practical, maybe its just me who thinks that way, but i would never ever kill an innocent woman or a child or a man to save anything no matter what it is.

maybe the bombs saved people, but i don't think that US president had the right to kill those civilians, they didn't choose to die, they wanted to live, none should decide who lives or who dies, thats only up to GOD not us.





Firebombing was preferable?

nope, not bombing civilians is what i prefer.

[ConHog]

no, those words wasn't mine, i just colored them because i think they are important, thats all.


neither me nor you can say anything about the numbers of the people who could have died if the bombs were not dropped, since none can predict that, maybe the Emperor would have surrendered, maybe not.

i can never prove the US could have ended the war without the use of nukes, neither could Eisenhower, neither could any military leader who opposed those bombs.

but what i can and do say, is that the drop of such bombs was immoral, i would never sacrifice civilians to save other civilians, i would never sacrifice civilians to save soliders.

maybe i am not being practical, maybe its just me who thinks that way, but i would never ever kill an innocent woman or a child or a man to save anything no matter what it is.

maybe the bombs saved people, but i don't think that US president had the right to kill those civilians, they didn't choose to die, they wanted to live, none should decide who lives or who dies, thats only up to GOD not us.




nope, not bombing civilians is what i prefer.


How many future Egyptian women would be saved from a beating if we dropped a nuke on Egypt?

On a serious note.

We didn't drop a nuke on Japan, we dropped atomic weapons, they are different.

Oh, and yes we CAN accurately predict how many lives it would have cost if we had invaded Japan. All Truman had to do was look at Normandy and factor that by 10, at least. As for today it is called computer modeling and can be used to come up with a pretty accurate estimate of the resources it would have taken to invade Japan and the casualties that it would have created.


Oh, and here's another newsflash for you Mohammed. American service men and women are in fact trained to guard civilian lives at all costs, including sacrificing their own lives if necessary. BUT the US does kinda frown upon throwing away her soldiers on a useless cause.

Are you here for any purpose other than to spout your bulshit about how evil the US is?

[fj1200]

no, those words wasn't mine, i just colored them because i think they are important, thats all.

OK. I still maintain that is your premise however.


neither me nor you can say anything about the numbers of the people who could have died if the bombs were not dropped, since none can predict that, maybe the Emperor would have surrendered, maybe not.

i can never prove the US could have ended the war without the use of nukes, neither could Eisenhower, neither could any military leader who opposed those bombs.

but what i can and do say, is that the drop of such bombs was immoral, i would never sacrifice civilians to save other civilians, i would never sacrifice civilians to save soliders.

maybe i am not being practical, maybe its just me who thinks that way, but i would never ever kill an innocent woman or a child or a man to save anything no matter what it is.

maybe the bombs saved people, but i don't think that US president had the right to kill those civilians, they didn't choose to die, they wanted to live, none should decide who lives or who dies, thats only up to GOD not us.

But that's exactly the point, you're positing morality based on the what-if's of 65 years ago in a war that consumed practically the entire world. You wouldn't have fired on those civilians in that manner but they would have been fired upon in another manner. If you want to argue the ethics of involving civilians in warfare you're certainly entitled to make that case but this particular set of circumstances is not that and neither is Japan's treatment of Chinese civilians leading up to and including WWII.


nope, not bombing civilians is what i prefer.

That was the alternative based on the information that you provided, you cherry picked the factoid.

[abso]

OK. I still maintain that is your premise however.



But that's exactly the point, you're positing morality based on the what-if's of 65 years ago in a war that consumed practically the entire world. You wouldn't have fired on those civilians in that manner but they would have been fired upon in another manner. If you want to argue the ethics of involving civilians in warfare you're certainly entitled to make that case but this particular set of circumstances is not that and neither is Japan's treatment of Chinese civilians leading up to and including WWII.



That was the alternative based on the information that you provided, you cherry picked the factoid.

i get your point, i really do, if the bombs were not to be dropped, maybe more would have died, but also, maybe less.

its not about less or more, thats not MY point, my point is that it doesnt even matter, more or less is not the issue.

MY point is that i would never kill a civilian just to prevent my enemy from killing other 10 civilians, because then i would be just a terrorist who kills civilians, the goal doesnt matter, only the means is what defines us as humans not the goals.

we all want to get rich, but some of us work hard, and some of us sell drugs, your means defines who you are, and if US couldn't figure out a way to end the war without killing thousands of women and children, then i am sorry to say that the US army acted like any other terrorist.


let me ask you a question, what do you think about Machiavelli principle " the end justifies the means " ?

[ConHog]

i get your point, i really do, if the bombs were not to be dropped, maybe more would have died, but also, maybe less.

its not about less or more, thats not MY point, my point is that it doesnt even matter, more or less is not the issue.

MY point is that i would never kill a civilian just to prevent my enemy from killing other 10 civilians, because then i would be just a terrorist who kills civilians, the goal doesnt matter, only the means is what defines us as humans not the goals.

we all want to get rich, but some of us work hard, and some of us sell drugs, your means defines who you are, and if US couldn't figure out a way to end the war without killing thousands of women and children, then i am sorry to say that the US army acted like any other terrorist.


let me ask you a question, what do you think about Machiavelli principle " the end justifies the means " ?


fuck you for calling the US military terrorists you scumbag piece of shit. How dare you call our military terrorists while REFUSING to condemn Muslims.

And people wonder why we hate and distrust all Muslims? Really?

[abso]

fuck you for calling the US military terrorists you scumbag piece of shit. How dare you call our military terrorists while REFUSING to condemn Muslims.

And people wonder why we hate and distrust all Muslims? Really?

when did i refuse to condemn muslim terrorists ???

please point me to any post that i have made which supported killing any innocent civilians, or supported terrorists.

next time you say something like that, try to post it with a prove for a change.....


and yes, the decision to drop nukes on women and children is something only a terrorist would do, so excuse me for not condoning killing women and children, if you are okay with it, then its your own business, you have your opinion and i have mine.



PS: condemning muslims is not what i do, i only condemn TERRORISTS, be them muslim or christians or jew, its doesnt matter and i don't really care about the religion of any terrorist.

[ConHog]

when did i refuse to condemn muslim terrorists ???

please point me to any post that i have made which supported killing any innocent civilians, or supported terrorists.


and yes, the decision to drop nukes on women and children is something only a terrorist would do, so excuse me for not condoning killing women and children, if you are okay with it, then its your own business, you have your opinion and i have mine.


PS: condemning muslims is not what i do, i only condemn TERRORISTS, be them muslim or christians or jew, its doesnt matter and i don't really care about the religion of any terrorist.


You're a piece of shit.

And no choosing to bomb 2 cities rather than see 10X as many people killed is not the act of a terrorist. It's the act of a leader making the best of a bad situation.

[Binky]

This guy is sickening , he is running all around the world bowing and apologizing when the only thing he really needs to apologize for is running this country into the ground , He should just apologize for misrepresenting himself as a actually President

I hope when it comes time for the next presidential election people will wake up and think about the times Obama has bowed to either our once upon a time enemies or those that still are and wish to see us dead.....It seems he has very little regard for the American people and just how that makes us feel when we see our president bowing in submission to those not worthy of our respect. While I have the utmost respect for the presidential office, I have not an ounce of it for our president per se. Respect has to be earned. And two years as a community organizer, whatever the hell that means, and a short stint as a senator, while pandering and hanging with undesirables, does not make me want to respect him. And it is certainly something I will keep in mind as I march off to the voting booth the next time around.

[fj1200]

i get your point, i really do, if the bombs were not to be dropped, maybe more would have died, but also, maybe less.

its not about less or more, thats not MY point, my point is that it doesnt even matter, more or less is not the issue.

No, I don't think you do. You demonize an action of 65 years ago based on your feelings today. You ignore the history for what fits your worldview today.


MY point is that i would never kill a civilian just to prevent my enemy from killing other 10 civilians, because then i would be just a terrorist who kills civilians, the goal doesnt matter, only the means is what defines us as humans not the goals.

we all want to get rich, but some of us work hard, and some of us sell drugs, your means defines who you are, and if US couldn't figure out a way to end the war without killing thousands of women and children, then i am sorry to say that the US army acted like any other terrorist.

No.


let me ask you a question, what do you think about Machiavelli principle " the end justifies the means " ?

In this scenario you present a false option. The option was not A-bomb or no, it was A-bomb or firebomb. Civilians dead either way.

[red states rule]

Bottom line is, using the bomb saved lives on both sides





Invasion Not Found in the History Books

Deep in the recesses of the National Archives in Washington, D.C., hidden for nearly four decades lie thousands of pages of yellowing and dusty documents stamped "Top Secret".

These documents, now declassified, are the plans for Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan during World War II. Only a few Americans in 1945 were aware of the elaborate plans that had been prepared for the Allied Invasion of the Japanese home islands. Even fewer today are aware of the defenses the Japanese had prepared to counter the invasion had it been launched. Operation Downfall was finalized during the spring and summer of 1945. It called for two massive military undertakings to be carried out in succession and aimed at the heart of the Japanese Empire.

In the first invasion - code named Operation Olympic - American combat troops would land on Japan by amphibious assault during the early morning hours of November 1, 1945 - 50 years ago. Fourteen combat divisions of soldiers and Marines would land on heavily fortified and defended Kyushu, the southernmost of the Japanese home islands, after an unprecedented naval and aerial bombardment.

The second invasion on March 1, 1946 - code named Operation Coronet - would send at least 22 divisions against 1 million Japanese defenders on the main island of Honshu and the Tokyo Plain. It's goal: the unconditional surrender of Japan. With the exception of a part of the British Pacific Fleet, Operation Downfall was to be a strictly American operation. It called for using the entire Marine Corps, the entire Pacific Navy, elements of the 7th Army Air Force, the 8 Air Force (recently redeployed from Europe), 10th Air Force and the American Far Eastern Air Force. More than 1.5 million combat soldiers, with 3 million more in support or more than 40% of all servicemen still in uniform in 1945 - would be directly involved in the two amphibious assaults. Casualties were expected to be extremely heavy.

Admiral William Leahy estimated that there would be more than 250,000 Americans killed or wounded on Kyushu alone. General Charles Willoughby, chief of intelligence for General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of the Southwest Pacific, estimated American casualties would be one million men by the fall of 1946. Willoughby's own intelligence staff considered this to be a conservative estimate.

During the summer of 1945, America had little time to prepare for such an endeavor, but top military leaders were in almost unanimous agreement that an invasion was necessary.

While naval blockade and strategic bombing of Japan was considered to be useful, General MacArthur, for instance, did not believe a blockade would bring about an unconditional surrender. The advocates for invasion agreed that while a naval blockade chokes, it does not kill; and though strategic bombing might destroy cities, it leaves whole armies intact.
So on May 25, 1945, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, after extensive deliberation, issued to General MacArthur, Admiral Chester Nimitz, and Army Air Force General Henry Arnold, the top secret directive to proceed with the invasion of Kyushu. The target date was after the typhoon season.
President Truman approved the plans for the invasions July 24. Two days later, the United Nations issued the Potsdam Proclamation, which called upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or face total destruction. Three days later, the Japanese governmental news agency broadcast to the world that Japan would ignore the proclamation and would refuse to surrender. During this same period it was learned -- via monitoring Japanese radio broadcasts -- that Japan had closed all schools and mobilized its schoolchildren, was arming its civilian population and was fortifying caves and building underground defenses.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1708051/posts

[fj1200]

... and if US couldn't figure out a way to end the war without killing thousands of women and children...

At what point does Japan have the responsibility for "ending the war"? Was emperor's pride that important? I now see the problem that you and I are having; You're granting victimhood where it doesn't belong.


that Japan had closed all schools and mobilized its schoolchildren, was arming its civilian population and was fortifying caves and building underground defenses.

Which "civilians" abso?

[red states rule]

Brian Williams of NBC News tried to lay a guilt trip on the navigator of the Enola Gay, and the vet fired right back at the liberal reporter





Brian Williams was off this week, but he left a taped piece with his bias for Friday's NBC Nightly News. To mark the 60th anniversary of the Enola Gay dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, Williams went to the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum annex near Dulles Airport -- where the plane is on display -- to talk to the plane's navigator, Dutch Van Kirk. Williams asked: “Do you have remorse for what happened? How do you deal with that in your mind?” Van Kirk indignantly replied: “No, I do not have remorse...”


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2005/08/05/enola-gay-vet-indignant-when-brian-williams-asks-if-he-has-remorse#ixzz1b2V6OJtj

[Gaffer]

When two countries are at war with each other it's the countries and their populations. Technically there are no civilians. The civilians provide the members of the military, the moral and logistical support for fighting the war. They are all as much a part of the war effort as the soldier. The more civilians suffer, the more likely they are to force their govt to end the war.

The first atomic bomb was dropped to take out a supply center and as proof the bomb existed. The first test bomb in NM was not known to the public or the world. The second bomb was also dropped on a supply center and was to show that we had more and mainland Japan and the emperor would be targeted. We actually didn't have more. It was a bluff. But it was also a demonstration to Stalin not to get any ideas.

To understand what was done at the time you have to understand the mindset of the Japanese and their emperor worship. It's quite similar to radical islamists. A cult of honor and death. The difference is the emperor was a living man who the Japanese wanted to protect.

[abso]

You're a piece of shit.

And no choosing to bomb 2 cities rather than see 10X as many people killed is not the act of a terrorist. It's the act of a leader making the best of a bad situation.

so the nukes didn't have anything to do with saving american soliders lifes at the expense of the lifes of thousands of innocent women and children ?

[abso]

No, I don't think you do. You demonize an action of 65 years ago based on your feelings today. You ignore the history for what fits your worldview today.

yes i am demonizing the action of 64 years ago, because thats the only way i can feel about it, and i would have felt the same if i was alive at that time, killing innocents will always be wrong no matter what is the situation.




No.

you have your opinion and i have mine.




In this scenario you present a false option. The option was not A-bomb or no, it was A-bomb or firebomb. Civilians dead either way.

no, it was you who assumed that it was nukes or bombs, but i don't think it was an either or situation, i am sure that there were alot of other options, but i guess the army had to test his bomb afterall.

[ConHog]

so the nukes didn't have anything to do with saving american soliders lifes at the expense of the lifes of thousands of innocent women and children ?



yOU'RE making me sick. The US dropped the bombs on Japan in an attempt to end the war as quickly and humanely as possible. PERIOD

[fj1200]

no, it was you who assumed that it was nukes or bombs, but i don't think it was an either or situation, i am sure that there were alot of other options, but i guess the army had to test his bomb afterall.

BS, that was the other option back then to win the war. You're moving the goal posts now, first you started with A-bombs are bad accepting the other forms of warfare available back then and now you're bringing up firebombing as unacceptable as well.

The army wasn't testing, they already knew it worked.

[abso]

BS, that was the other option back then to win the war. You're moving the goal posts now, first you started with A-bombs are bad accepting the other forms of warfare available back then and now you're bringing up firebombing as unacceptable as well.

The army wasn't testing, they already knew it worked.

all forms of warfare actions that lead to killing civilians are inhumane to me, be them nukes of any other sort of bombs.

if you think that killing civilians is an acceptable option for winning wars then its okay, but i don't agree with you at all, the army who kills a nation's civilians to persuade its army to stand down is as coward as a terrorist and i don't care how many civilians he was actually protecting, because soliders aren't supposed to drop bombs on women and kids, they are supposed to protect them no matter what the reason and no matter what is their nationality.

if you are a solider then its your responsibility to never point your weapon towards an innocent civilian, that is my beliefs about army and about war and about soliders and my beliefs will never change no matter what the situation are.



lets suppose the follwing hypothetical situation:

if a terrorist is holding 1000 people inside a building as hostages, and he just demanded that the police kills one man for him, ssupposing that every solution have been tried and failed, no rescue operation can be made.

what will you do if you were the police officer responsible, will you kill the man he demanded to be killed to save the hostages ?


even if you see the situation as non relevant, i see it the exact same, i will never kill one to save thousand, and i will never kill thousands to save millions, i will actually never kill an innocent to save other innocents, because all human beings are equal to me, and a one man value is as precious as the lifes of millions, human beings are not items, you can't say that two human beings are more precious than one, that is what you do with money not humans.

so if you think that the thousands of innocent men, women and kids who died at the hands of the US military back then was a justifiable sacrifice, then tell that to them, to the innocents who died, tell them that a man in an office decided that they must die to other could live, that man decided to nuke them because he thought that there are no other option.

[abso]

yOU'RE making me sick. The US dropped the bombs on Japan in an attempt to end the war as quickly and humanely as possible. PERIOD

tell that to the people who died, tell them that the US army decided to kill them as humanely as possible, tell the innocent men, women and kids that they died so that others could live, its just that they didn't get to choose to sacrifice themselfs for the sake of others, because some president already took the liberity of deciding that for them, and decided the the lifes that he saved was more important than the lifes he killed.

sorry, but your principles is what makes me sick.

[fj1200]

all forms of warfare actions that lead to killing civilians are inhumane to me, be them nukes of any other sort of bombs.

...

Then you ignore the options that were commonly used at the time. Nevertheless, I don't accept your imposing your own (modern?/pacifist) context on a World War fought 65 years ago as the arbiter of moral action.

[fj1200]

... because some president already took the liberity of deciding that for them...

Wrong, the emperor and the military commanders were the ones who made that decision.

[ConHog]

all forms of warfare actions that lead to killing civilians are inhumane to me, be them nukes of any other sort of bombs.

if you think that killing civilians is an acceptable option for winning wars then its okay, but i don't agree with you at all, the army who kills a nation's civilians to persuade its army to stand down is as coward as a terrorist and i don't care how many civilians he was actually protecting, because soliders aren't supposed to drop bombs on women and kids, they are supposed to protect them no matter what the reason and no matter what is their nationality.

if you are a solider then its your responsibility to never point your weapon towards an innocent civilian, that is my beliefs about army and about war and about soliders and my beliefs will never change no matter what the situation are.



lets suppose the follwing hypothetical situation:

if a terrorist is holding 1000 people inside a building as hostages, and he just demanded that the police kills one man for him, ssupposing that every solution have been tried and failed, no rescue operation can be made.

what will you do if you were the police officer responsible, will you kill the man he demanded to be killed to save the hostages ?


even if you see the situation as non relevant, i see it the exact same, i will never kill one to save thousand, and i will never kill thousands to save millions, i will actually never kill an innocent to save other innocents, because all human beings are equal to me, and a one man value is as precious as the lifes of millions, human beings are not items, you can't say that two human beings are more precious than one, that is what you do with money not humans.

so if you think that the thousands of innocent men, women and kids who died at the hands of the US military back then was a justifiable sacrifice, then tell that to them, to the innocents who died, tell them that a man in an office decided that they must die to other could live, that man decided to nuke them because he thought that there are no other option.

What dream world are you living in? Comparing ending a war with giving in to a terrorist is completely invalid as well. The terrorist in that situation was Japan. They are the ones who refused to surrender.

[LuvRPgrl]

so you are saying that the only way to fight japan was to nuke its civilians ?, sorry, but i would never agree with that, even if it prevented military casualities resulted from the planned american invasion to japan, the way i see it, your president just bought his soliders lifes with the death of japanese civilians, and if it was me, i would never sacrifice an innocent civilian to save a solider who is willing to fight and die for his country.

so you radically condemn all acts of terrorism?

[LuvRPgrl]

tell that to the people who died, tell them that the US army decided to kill them as humanely as possible, tell the innocent men, women and kids that they died so that others could live, its just that they didn't get to choose to sacrifice themselfs for the sake of others, because some president already took the liberity of deciding that for them, and decided the the lifes that he saved was more important than the lifes he killed.

sorry, but your principles is what makes me sick. It was the japs who made the decision that we would use the bomb. we offered them an alternative, they refused. and our alternative was completely peaceful, and, and, happened anyways. talk about idiotic and immoral, go look at the jap leaders who refused to surrender.

[abso]

Wrong, the emperor and the military commanders were the ones who made that decision.

so the emperor is the one who decided to nuke his own people ?

[abso]

It was the japs who made the decision that we would use the bomb. we offered them an alternative, they refused. and our alternative was completely peaceful, and, and, happened anyways. talk about idiotic and immoral, go look at the jap leaders who refused to surrender.

refusing to surrender is not a reason to bomb innocents.

killing innocents is wrong whatever the reasons are, but defending the action which lead to the death of more than 100,000 innocents is something that i can never describe how inhumane it is.

i am sorry if my words is annoying everyone, i really am, but i can't just imagine how can you people defend such action, how can you tolerate having the blood of 100,000 innocent civilians on your hands and then you dare to say "Its their fault for refusing to surrender".

if the japanese army refused to surrender then the US army should have fought in the right way, like real soliders, not act like cowards and terrorists and drop nukes on civilians then dare to say that they were right !!!!

if it was you or one of your relatives there, you would have a different opinion than yours.

you all say what you want, but i will never ever change what i believe in, Killing innocents is wrong, no matter what the reason is, killing some humans to save other humans is just wrong.

Soliders aren't supposed to kill innocent men, women, kids, they are supposed to protect them no matter what their nationality is, any solider is supposed to protect innocent lifes not end them, and i will stick with my opinion, that the drop of the nukes was by all means a war crime and plain terrorism and above all others, it was a genocide.

[abso]

so you radicallycondemn all acts of terrorism?

with the removal of the highlighted word, i agree completely to what you said, i do condemn all acts of terrorism, be them coming from individuals or from states.

[abso]

What dream world are you living in? Comparing ending a war with giving in to a terrorist is completely invalid as well. The terrorist in that situation was Japan. They are the ones who refused to surrender.

they refused to surrender so we should kill 100,000 innocents to make them surrender, is that the world you live in ?

[abso]

Then you ignore the options that were commonly used at the time. Nevertheless, I don't accept your imposing your own (modern?/pacifist) context on a World War fought 65 years ago as the arbiter of moral action.

morals doesn't change accroding to time or situations or wars.

morals are morals and its principles will always remain the same, no war will ever twist the basic principles of a solider's honour, which is NOT to kill innocents.

sorry, but i think my point is valid for all times and all situations, a solider who kill innocents for his country is as bad as a terrorist, be it in war or peace time.

and yes i don't care about options, because my morals will never change according to the options i have ahead of me, if i have to choose between killing two persons, i will surely create the third option with all my power, which is to kill neither one of them, so sorry for not caring for the options or the methods available for the US army back then, because whatever the options were, i don't consider dropping Nukes as one of them, killing innocents should never be an OPTION, the lifes of innocents aren't toys to play with, humans lifes aren't just another OPTION.

[Nukeman]

refusing to surrender is not a reason to bomb innocents.

killing innocents is wrong whatever the reasons are, but defending the action which lead to the death of more than 100,000 innocents is something that i can never describe how inhumane it is.

i am sorry if my words is annoying everyone, i really am, but i can't just imagine how can you people defend such action, how can you tolerate having the blood of 100,000 innocent civilians on your hands and then you dare to say "Its their fault for refusing to surrender".

This is precisely the logic that is used by the "extremist" in Islam



if the japanese army refused to surrender then the US army should have fought in the right way, like real soliders, not act like cowards and terrorists and drop nukes on civilians then dare to say that they were right !!!!They were and are real soldiers. If they weren't than we would have fire bombed the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan just to make them submit. YOu fail to realize the only army fighting to leave civilian casualties to a minimum is the US soldier, You know that guy that will die before he will kill a civilian....


if it was you or one of your relatives there, you would have a different opinion than yours.Dude we have been there, maybe not on the same scale as Nag, or Hiro but when a few radical Islamist attacked a innocent group of people on Sept 11, 2001 you have no room to talk..


you all say what you want, but i will never ever change what i believe in, Killing innocents is wrong, no matter what the reason is, killing some humans to save other humans is just wrong.The US is the ONLY military that tries to keep civilian deaths or injuries to an absolute min. and the soldiers pay for that with their lives EVER FREAKING DAY.... You are cheapening their sacrifice by saying such things. I give you some latitude on your post but on this your DEAD FREAKING WRONG.....


Soliders aren't supposed to kill innocent men, women, kids, they are supposed to protect them no matter what their nationality is, any solider is supposed to protect innocent lives not end them, and i will stick with my opinion, that the drop of the nukes was by all means a war crime and plain terrorism and above all others, it was a genocide.Your right and the US is the only military following that rule now aren't they. If the bombing of Hiro and Nag was a war crime so was the bombing of Pearl Harbor that brought us into the conflict in the first place..... So yes the Japanese military are the ones to ultimately blame for the bombing of those two cities, The are the ones that poked a sleeping bear.....

The bombings of Hiro and Nag stopped the military of Japan in its tracks, you cheapen and belittle the American soldier with your words by saying they are cowards, YOU tell me smart guy how many American soldiers died in 1 day at the taking of Normandy?? Those men were brave beyond comparison, No hiding behind women and children like a certain group of terrorist I know...

If there was a even and fair fight from the crazies in the mid east this conflict would have been over quickly, if as you say the American soldier is a coward and hides behind bombs and killing of innocents the war in Iraq, and Afghanistan would have been over in a matter of days... Trust smart guy if we were to unleash the full power of the US military without limitations of civilian casualties The crazy Islamic extremist in your country and others would not only be wiped out but they wouldn't even thin of raising a hand to the US for a VERY long time...

I have defended your right to say as you will on this board, I have even gone to PM with mods on your behalf, but when YOU insult people who had no say in the decision and insult the men and women who will go out of their way to save a civilian, even if it means they lose their life You sir are so far out of line it is disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LuvRPgrl]

refusing to surrender is not a reason to bomb innocents.


if the japanese army refused to surrender then the US army should have fought in the right way, like real soliders, not act like cowards and terrorists and drop nukes on civilians then dare to say that they were right !!!!



I know you dont mind if Americans die, us big and bad evil people, but you have some gall calling those soldiers cowards.


Soliders aren't supposed to kill innocent men, women, kids, they are supposed to protect them no matter what their nationality is, any solider is supposed to protect innocent lifes not end them, and i will stick with my opinion, that the drop of the nukes was by all means a war crime and plain terrorism and above all others, it was a genocide.

Time for you to go sit on the toilet, get a book on jap history, and freshen up.
The japs from time immamoral have been isolated unlike any other nation before, now or ever will be. In japan, family is everything, no family, you dont survive. If someone is ostracized by their family, the person has nowhere to go. China and Korea wont accept them, remember, at the time there were no commercial aircraft, and if they move somewhere else in japan, with no family background to support them, the locals wont even give them a job, the locals will despise anyone who shows up on their own and consider them a threat. No family, no job, no survive.
.
The emporer was god to them, no more, no less, and I mean virtually all of them.
.
.The japs, koreans and chinese hate each other with venom. Japan is isolated and the japs have to walk in lockstep or perish. There is simply no choice for the jap. If they try to go their own way, the family and the culture discards them lilke a dead dog. In the "rape of nanking," it has been established that the japs made nazi treatment of jews look like a stroll in the park.
.
.My wife is filipino, she recalls stories by her grandma about jap soldiers killing babies. They used them for sword practice, toss them in the air, then these brave and couragous men would stab at the baby slicing through the delicate 2 year old flesh, peirging a vital organ or maybe chopping its head off and leave it there for the mom and dad watch helplessly. They treated our POWs worse than a pet pig. LITERALLY. They considered surrender to be sacreligous, the ultimate humiliation. Suicide was a better choice. That why the komakazi pilots became so rampant at the end..
.
.The innocent civilians gave up their "innocence" when they started training to kill invading Americans. I detest what we did in Dresden, but I support the nuking of japan. At least in germany, citizens had numerous ways to opt out. The japs didnt, every single one of them would defend to the death. We KNOW this for a fact as demonstrated by the lack of looting after their sunami. They walk in lockstep, even making the nazis look like kinder garteners.
.
Germany had the SS to quell disodents, japan didnt cuz they didnt need one, nobody would be a disodent. Its no accident that the japs were the very last to surrender. The civilians were posed to fight, and they would have, no question about it. They would prefer to die, than surrender. They would rather be killed by a bomb, than to utter "I surrender" to one of the evil Americans.
.
.Who chose to drop the nukes? What options did America have? Our options were somewhat dictated by the japs. If they surrender, we leave peacefully. If not,1. we bomb, conventionally. nbut that wont do the job,,2. just leave, in that case they re arm then surprise attack us like the vile little cowards they are., or 3., invade- would lead to the wholesale slaughter of Americans, which actually was not a choice at all. Hence they chose to bomb themselves. They were given the opportunity to surrender before the first nuke. They refused.
.
.Now they see the "horrible inhumaness brought by the weapon" on their own people. They had an opportunity to surrender, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT WE WOULD NUKE ANOTHER CITY IF THEY REFUSED.
GUESS WHAT HAPPENED??????????
.
THEY SAID "WE WONT SURRENDER" EVEN IF YOU DROP ANOTHER NUKE.
So, here it is mr and mrs kawaIDIEBEFOREISURRENDERsaki. Surrender or we will bomb you again. That was their choice, they took the choice that they KNEW would lead to another nuke bombing. It was their choice. They declared "we wont surrender" i.e. "nuke us, nuke us, nuke us" Do you comprehend that? Do you realize how fucking radical it is that they didnt surrender even after seeing firsthand, for the first time in history, the devisatation of a nuke? If that wouldnt stop them, certainly none of the other options would have. We had no choice but to surrender to the japs, or nuke em.
.
.Finally after Nagasaki, they came to their senses understanding the eventual outcome.

They gave us two options, alot of japs die, or alot of Americans and japs die. If you chose the later, then you are a sick, demented, evil son of a bitch, son of satan, son of damien, cheerer of death and decadence, supporter of all sorts of horrible and wicked niceties done on other human beings by the likes of stalin, mo se tung??, pol pot, edi amen??. hitler.
.
.Fortunately the choice was not yours or one of your ilk. If you dont like it, go protest, be a target for the next nuke. The world will be better off without you taking up space in the ground, better if you are simply vaporized.
.
.
now, take a look down and see a great descripition of your thoughts on the subject. You see those lincoln logs floating around, they stick like,,,,well,,,, shit. If the japs had conquered your nation, they would consider those floaters as food for your once a day meals.

[LuvRPgrl]

so the emperor is the one who decided to nuke his own people ? Now you are finally catching on.

[LuvRPgrl]

with the removal of the highlighted word, i agree completely to what you said, i do condemn all acts of terrorism, be them coming from individuals or from states.
Really, when, where and how? I dont see it coming from the muslims in any significant amount, anywhere, anytime, or anyhow.

[ConHog]

they refused to surrender so we should kill 100,000 innocents to make them surrender, is that the world you live in ?

The world I live in says that innocents were dying regardless of whether we had used atomic weapons or not.