Untold History of the United States

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I didn't say he dropped the bomb because of worry over the Republicans, now did I?

[Jason]

A justifiable vendetta satisfied. The sins of a nation cleansed in by the light of purifying nuclear fire. Very poetic.

[Coito ergo sum]

I didn't say he dropped the bomb because of worry over the Republicans, now did I?

I thought you had either stated it or implied it, but I must be misremembering. My apolly-logies.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A justifiable vendetta satisfied. The sins of a nation cleansed in by the light of purifying nuclear fire. Very poetic.

That's certainly one way to look at it. But the US military was hardly that unprofessional. Ending the war was the first priority. Kicking the crap out of the Japanese was a side benefit. If we'd wanted revenge we could have dropped a few more bombs and refused to accept their surrender until a lot more Japanese had died.

Some of us watch way too many movies.

[Coito ergo sum]

A justifiable vendetta satisfied. The sins of a nation cleansed in by the light of purifying nuclear fire. Very poetic.

How did you gather that from anything written on this thread?

Finding that the bombs were an effective, efficient and least bloody way to end the war as quickly as possible is not "justifiable vendetta."

And, what sins are you referring to?

You seem to be descending into mere snark and sarcasm at this point.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I didn't say he dropped the bomb because of worry over the Republicans, now did I?

I thought you had either stated it or implied it, but I must be misremembering. My apolly-logies.

What I said was that if he hadn't used the bombs the Republicans would have had a good case for asking for his balls. I would have.

[Coito ergo sum]

I didn't say he dropped the bomb because of worry over the Republicans, now did I?

I thought you had either stated it or implied it, but I must be misremembering. My apolly-logies.

What I said was that if he hadn't used the bombs the Republicans would have had a good case for asking for his balls. I would have.

Ah, gotcha. That's my position too. I would think his own party would have rendered him a capon, had he not utilized the available firepower.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I didn't say he dropped the bomb because of worry over the Republicans, now did I?

I thought you had either stated it or implied it, but I must be misremembering. My apolly-logies.

What I said was that if he hadn't used the bombs the Republicans would have had a good case for asking for his balls. I would have.

Ah, gotcha. That's my position too. I would think his own party would have rendered him a capon, had he not utilized the available firepower.

People today say dropping the bombs was a bad thing. But they're using today's information, not what Truman had. And, in the end, it wouldn't have mattered, because worse things would have happened if Japan had hung on. Stats I've seen suggest that 90% of children under five would have died in a siege.

[Jason]

A justifiable vendetta satisfied. The sins of a nation cleansed in by the light of purifying nuclear fire. Very poetic.

How did you gather that from anything written on this thread?

Finding that the bombs were an effective, efficient and least bloody way to end the war as quickly as possible is not "justifiable vendetta."

And, what sins are you referring to?

You seem to be descending into mere snark and sarcasm at this point.

Argumentum ad obtuseum.

[sandinista]

One atomic bombing may have been excusable, but the second was unnecessary. I'm quite sure it was an act of vengeance. A war crime the lawyers and politicians could justify.

One was not excusable in any way shape or form. Only american's who believe the myth believe that. Neither were necessary, both were war crimes. Both were dropped as warnings to the Soviet Union. Indefensible in any way. Again with the US way of thinking..."We may have done something not so great but it was necessary and for the greater good". Same as everything they've ever done, either a mistake (collateral damage) or necessary. I would like to say I can't believe people are defending this action...still...but given those defending it...no surprise.

http://killinghope.org/essays6/abomb.htm

in any event, defining the issue as a choice between the
A-bomb and a land invasion is an irrelevant and wholly false
dichotomy. By 1945, Japan's entire military and industrial
machine was grinding to a halt as the resources needed to wage
war were all but eradicated. The navy and air force had been
destroyed ship by ship, plane by plane, with no possibility of
replacement. When, in the spring of 1945, the island nation's
lifeline to oil was severed, the war was over except for the
fighting. By June, Gen. Curtis LeMay, in charge of the air
attacks, was complaining that after months of terrible
firebombing, there was nothing left of Japanese cities for his
bombers but "garbage can targets". By July, US planes could
fly over Japan without resistance and bomb as much and as long as
they pleased. Japan could no longer defend itself.

[Ian]

One atomic bombing may have been excusable, but the second was unnecessary. I'm quite sure it was an act of vengeance. A war crime the lawyers and politicians could justify.

One was not excusable in any way shape or form. Only american's who believe the myth believe that. Neither were necessary, both were war crimes. Both were dropped as warnings to the Soviet Union. Indefensible in any way. Again with the US way of thinking..."We may have done something not so great but it was necessary and for the greater good". Same as everything they've ever done, either a mistake (collateral damage) or necessary. I would like to say I can't believe people are defending this action...still...but given those defending it...no surprise.

Pure revisionist bullshit. Not surprising that you buy every word of it though.

[Seth]

One atomic bombing may have been excusable, but the second was unnecessary. I'm quite sure it was an act of vengeance. A war crime the lawyers and politicians could justify.

One was not excusable in any way shape or form. Only american's who believe the myth believe that. Neither were necessary, both were war crimes. Both were dropped as warnings to the Soviet Union. Indefensible in any way. Again with the US way of thinking..."We may have done something not so great but it was necessary and for the greater good". Same as everything they've ever done, either a mistake (collateral damage) or necessary. I would like to say I can't believe people are defending this action...still...but given those defending it...no surprise.

http://killinghope.org/essays6/abomb.htm

in any event, defining the issue as a choice between the
A-bomb and a land invasion is an irrelevant and wholly false
dichotomy. By 1945, Japan's entire military and industrial
machine was grinding to a halt as the resources needed to wage
war were all but eradicated. The navy and air force had been
destroyed ship by ship, plane by plane, with no possibility of
replacement. When, in the spring of 1945, the island nation's
lifeline to oil was severed, the war was over except for the
fighting. By June, Gen. Curtis LeMay, in charge of the air
attacks, was complaining that after months of terrible
firebombing, there was nothing left of Japanese cities for his
bombers but "garbage can targets". By July, US planes could
fly over Japan without resistance and bomb as much and as long as
they pleased. Japan could no longer defend itself.

Horseshit. Their airpower may have been destroyed, but despite all that destruction they still refused to surrender and the Allies faced the prospect of a beach invasion against a population that would fight to the last man, woman and child. I love the horseshit quote "the war was over except for the fighting." What a ludicrous claim. War IS "the fighting" and President Truman didn't want to spend another half-million Allied lives, not to mention the people of Japan, on a ground invasion that would have prolonged the war by years.

The bombs were both necessary and reasonable and saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the long run. Japan could have surrendered after the first bomb, but they didn't. It's all on the Emperor and his military staff, who sacrificed all those Japanese citizens on the alter of Bushido.

Your revisionist history excerpt here is exactly why Stone's and Zinn's work is nothing more than pure undiluted Marxist propaganda.

[Coito ergo sum]

One atomic bombing may have been excusable, but the second was unnecessary. I'm quite sure it was an act of vengeance. A war crime the lawyers and politicians could justify.

One was not excusable in any way shape or form. Only american's who believe the myth believe that. Neither were necessary, both were war crimes. Both were dropped as warnings to the Soviet Union. Indefensible in any way. Again with the US way of thinking..."We may have done something not so great but it was necessary and for the greater good". Same as everything they've ever done, either a mistake (collateral damage) or necessary. I would like to say I can't believe people are defending this action...still...but given those defending it...no surprise.

It wasn't "necessary for the greater good" -- it was the least atrocious way available of defeating the Japanese. It wasn't a good thing. It was the least bad available option.

http://killinghope.org/essays6/abomb.htm

in any event, defining the issue as a choice between the
A-bomb and a land invasion is an irrelevant and wholly false
dichotomy. By 1945, Japan's entire military and industrial
machine was grinding to a halt as the resources needed to wage
war were all but eradicated. The navy and air force had been
destroyed ship by ship, plane by plane, with no possibility of
replacement. When, in the spring of 1945, the island nation's
lifeline to oil was severed, the war was over except for the
fighting. By June, Gen. Curtis LeMay, in charge of the air
attacks, was complaining that after months of terrible
firebombing, there was nothing left of Japanese cities for his
bombers but "garbage can targets". By July, US planes could
fly over Japan without resistance and bomb as much and as long as
they pleased. Japan could no longer defend itself.

You know how their industrial base had been crippled? By firebombing and massive destruction of their infrastructure.

Funniest line of that entire dopey paragraph: "the war was over except for the fighting." LOL.... The war was over, man. All except for that pesky "fighting" bit....lol

The thing is, there was quite a bit of fighting left to do. The bombs meant that fighting stopped.

[Ian]

Sandi's claim that the bombs were "indefensible in any way" only shows the intellectual level he's operating on. Which is to say that he believes what he wants to believe, and there's no way facts are going to convince him otherwise.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sandi's claim that the bombs were "indefensible in any way" only shows the intellectual level he's operating on. Which is to say that he believes what he wants to believe, and there's no way facts are going to convince him otherwise.

I bet he's one of those who think we goaded Japan into attacking us, and manipulated the Germans into initiating the final solution to bolster Prescott Bush's business interests.... it's always America's master plan....