Moron Bush flapping his moron gums again

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

There's some wiggling going on, but it's not on my part.

As for the link, I seem to recall a certain college professor saying that it wasn't his responsibility to do research for others...

>>>>>>There's some wiggling going on, but it's not on my part.

How about denial, denial that we killed mom taking her kids to school times 70,000 twice, not to mention the after-affects. Go back to your river in Egypt.

Show me where I denied that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

You left out the genocide of the Native Americans...

t

Without a doubt, not ot metion Indian Schools after we decimated what, 6 million American Indians after we stole their country and have the gall to celebrate it once a year.

This kind of hot button rhetoric doesn't really help your credibility.

""There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them. It is a good propaganda term in an age where slogans and shouting have replaced reflection and learning, but to use it in this context is to cheapen both the word itself and the appalling experiences of the Jews and Armenians, to mention but two of the major victims of the last century."

[willard 0]

Hiroshima was more than just a departure point for troops. I could try to explain the reasons it was left untouched but that would be merely wasting my time.

Let's see...The Japanese militery kill 16 million Chinese civilians for no reason other than they were Chinese. We drop two bombs and kill 250,000 to stop them and you say we're the ones who were in the wrong? Holy Shit!

[champu 1]

Quote

That's becuase aiming at civilian populations is unjustifyable and you are left trying to as you won't admit that anyone doing so is scum as we were in that instance. Why is it some people refuse to admit that we have been atrocious at times thru history? ... Even though you feel that way ... Turning them away from military targets and onto civilian targets is OK? BRILLIANT ... With that, we should go back to a Monarchy. Let me guess, you vote for Bush to be king. As for, go wrong," I would assert that nothing went wrong, we aimed civilians and everything went as planned.

If you feel it's simply "your style" to quote a post in its entirety at the top, and then re-quote each line while attacking it a piece at a time, and you're happy with that... fine, knock yourself out.

But in this case you should know that you were too busy yelling at me to realize you're not even discussing the same point as I was, I was answering a question you asked. And on the point you were yelling at me about, I'm not even disagreeing with you. I see the same parallels you do when I read statements about having choose Hiroshima for producing the "greatest psychological impact", and I'm just as disgusted with the way we handled the radiation exposure cases. This whole WWII "debate" (and I take great liberty with the word in calling it that) is a tangent from the question, "What's so great about the US that we get nukes and Iran doesn't."

I'll repeat myself. By stating that I don't wish to see nuclear weapons proliferate, I'm not suggesting that we (the United States as a country) are perfect, I'm suggesting that we (humans as a species) are imbeciles.

[Lucky... 0]

Let me preface my response to this article by saying that it is basically an op-ed from a very conservative guy, James Kenneth Bowen. With that, that doesn't mean his facts are wrong and I am going to check those, but the opinions he asserts are just that and not fact. Now I will examine his posted fact. I think I can illustrate this authors biased opinion here:

The emotive impact of the use of an atomic bomb on a Japanese city, and its usefulness as a stick with which to beat the United States, has caused many people to ignore the fact that more people died in the conventional bomb attack on Tokyo on the night of 8/9 March 1945. At Tokyo, on this one night, the bombs and resulting firestorm killed 80,000 people and injured 44,000.

A stick to beat the American people? That is not objective writing, that is an opinion. Which is fine, but I wil pick the stated fact from there and address those, ignore his opinon.

>>>>>>Instead, Japanese industrial facilities were mostly dispersed in residential areas.

He posts no source and google produced nothing. I would love to read some substance here in citation.

>>>>>It has to be remembered that the Japanese people were products of a militaristic culture dating back hundreds of years. They felt intense pride in the power of their military, and Japan's military conquests in Asia and the Pacific.

And it's different in the US?

>>>>>>>In April 1945, the Japanese Suzuki government had prepared a war policy called Ketsugo which was a refinement of the Shosango victory plan for the defence of the home islands to the last man. These plans would prepare the Japanese people psychologically to die as a nation in defence of their homeland. Even children, including girls, would be trained to use makeshift lethal weapons, and exhorted to sacrifice themselves by killing an American invader. To implement this policy of training children to kill, soldiers attended Japanese schools and trained even small children in the use of weapons such as bamboo spears.

I researched Shosango victory plan and just Shosango and found nothing. I would like to read a cite there. But simply preparing your country for a tough war means nothing. Worrying about young girls comming at you wth bamboo sticksmeans nothing. What the author is trying to do is to create a country of tyrants thirsting for American blood to further his biased argument. But I would like to read this dcument.

>>>>>>>There is no evidence that Hirohito felt any genuine concern for the suffering of Japanese civilians as the war encroached on their lives. See Professor Herbert Bix: "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan" (2000), published by Harper Collins, and especially, the chapter "Delayed Surrender".

What he's saying is, 'Hey, if the Japanese don;t care about their own, why should we?' So that justifies killing 10's of thousands of Japanese civilians? Pathetic.

>>>>>>>>By July 1945, Japan's military and industrial resources had either been destroyed or dispersed widely and largely concealed from air attack.

Dispersed to where? Citation.

>>>>>>The first target was Hiroshima, a city on Japan's Inland Sea. At this time it was the headquarters of the 2nd General Army.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041011111052/http://www.nuclearfiles.org/redocuments/1946/460619-bombing-survey1.html

Hiroshima before the war was the seventh largest city in Japan, with a population of over 340,000, and was the principal administrative and commercial center of the southwestern part of the country. As the headquarters of the Second Army and of the Chugoku Regional Army, it was one of the most important military command stations in Japan, the site of one of the largest military supply depots, and the foremost military shipping point for both troops and supplies. Its shipping activities had virtually ceased by the time of the attack, however, because of sinkings and the mining of the Inland Sea. It had been relatively unimportant industrially before the war, ranking only significance. These factories were not concentrated, but spread over the outskirts of the city; this location, we shall see, accounts for the slight industrial damage.


In other words, at the time of the bombing it was militarily insignificant and manufacturing was dispersed to the outskirts of town, where the bomb had little / no effect.

>>>>>>At Hiroshima, 60,000 Japanese died and a similar number were injured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

As many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki may have died from the bombings by the end of 1945[1], roughly half on the days of the bombings.

So this author lowballs the actual numbers and ignores the ultimate deaths related to the bombs.

>>>>>>The primary target on this day had been the city of Kokura where a huge army arsenal was located.

I found nothing to affirm that Kokura had a huge military arsenal. Please post one.

>>>>>>>The atomic bombs were dropped on two cities of military significance...

They weren't at the time of the bombings.

>>>>>(a) because the Emperor of Japan and his government refused to surrender and were preparing the Japanese people for a fight to the death as a nation,

And we weren't? We also would have fought to the death.

>>>>>>>(b) because there were no readily discernable large military or industrial targets available for conventional air attack,

Oh, there had to be some or t here would be no threat. Did Japan have no air force, no navy? I believe they still did.

>>>>>>>(c) because the Allies faced the prospect of incurring horrendous battle casualties from a conventional amphibious invasion of Japan.

So the answer is to kill women and children?

>>>>>>>Makes the case for the atomic bombs pretty clear. If it makes the US terrorists then I think you are ignoring the history of the times.

It is an op-ed from a conservative guy, the opinion means zero, the substantive posted assertions are either unavailable or not valid at the time the bomb was dropped.

You still haven't addressed the fact the US conveined in May 45 to establish criteria of a desireable city with which to drop the bombs. They wanted urban casualties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

How about denial, denial that we killed mom taking her kids to school times 70,000 twice, not to mention the after-affects. Go back to your river in Egypt.

Whoa - that brash and in your face response really held up a mirror to the deniers on all sides.

Seriously - can you explain the Egypt comment? That's a bit (hiero)cryptic.

River in Egypt. Uh, anyway, back to the topic, er the issue that the US murdered 200-300k women and children for shock value.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There's some wiggling going on, but it's not on my part.

As for the link, I seem to recall a certain college professor saying that it wasn't his responsibility to do research for others...

>>>>>>There's some wiggling going on, but it's not on my part.

How about denial, denial that we killed mom taking her kids to school times 70,000 twice, not to mention the after-affects. Go back to your river in Egypt.

Show me where I denied that.

You refuse to answer it, to address it. Put it to bed, admit the US killed 200k+ women and children in 2 urban areas rather than aiming at military targets.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You left out the genocide of the Native Americans...

t

Without a doubt, not ot metion Indian Schools after we decimated what, 6 million American Indians after we stole their country and have the gall to celebrate it once a year.

This kind of hot button rhetoric doesn't really help your credibility.

""There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them. It is a good propaganda term in an age where slogans and shouting have replaced reflection and learning, but to use it in this context is to cheapen both the word itself and the appalling experiences of the Jews and Armenians, to mention but two of the major victims of the last century."

I know it's asking volumes from the side that is exempt from that, but can you post the site I posted and perhaps draw a little more out as to what you're asking/saying.

Again, quit misdirecting, just simply address the killing of 200k women and children in cities that weren't really important military bases at teh time of the bombings.

[mnealtx 0]

Speaking of redirecting....

While the shipping part of the base had more or less died off, this part was still true:

Quote

As the headquarters of the Second Army and of the Chugoku Regional Army, it was one of the most important military command stations in Japan, the site of one of the largest military supply depots

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Hiroshima was more than just a departure point for troops. I could try to explain the reasons it was left untouched but that would be merely wasting my time.

Let's see...The Japanese militery kill 16 million Chinese civilians for no reason other than they were Chinese. We drop two bombs and kill 250,000 to stop them and you say we're the ones who were in the wrong? Holy Shit!

Well don't waste your time posting evidence, that would make you liberal. Post the military significance at the time of the bombings. Address the fact that our leaders conveined and wanted the bombs dropped in urban areas, not remote military areas where casualties might be less. Oh, don't waste your time, go start a flag burning thread or something more important like that.

As for wrong, it is wrong to kill innocent Chinese and it is wrong to kill women taking their kids to school to the tune of 200k+. How does 1 wrong immunize the other? Holly shit!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

.

>>>>>If you feel it's simply "your style" to quote a post in its entirety at the top, and then re-quote each line while attacking it a piece at a time, and you're happy with that... fine, knock yourself out.

I usually try to remove the original post and just have the arrows and my response, don't always do it.

I like to take 1 thought at a time, whether it be 1 word or a paragraph, address it and then bring a conclusion home at the end. You can ask 5 questions in 1 sentence, so to be comprehensive I feel I need to break these down most of the time.

>>>>>>>>But in this case you should know that you were too busy yelling at me to realize you're not even discussing the same point as I was, I was answering a question you asked. And on the point you were yelling at me about, I'm not even disagreeing with you.

I know that, but when people start worrying about the format, which is largely like BillVon's, I think it's petty and distract from the thread. Usually a tactic of those out of gas in a thread to pick on format, spelling, ect. I realize we are on the same page as far as the substance goes. Anither example of how neo-cons stick together and libs will criticize each other, which is why we have had garbage elected 5 of the last 7 elections. BTW, I wasn't yelling.

>>>>>>I see the same parallels you do when I read statements about having choose Hiroshima for producing the "greatest psychological impact", and I'm just as disgusted with the way we handled the radiation exposure cases.

I wonder why the cons are so reluctant to address these issues?

>>>>>This whole WWII "debate" (and I take great liberty with the word in calling it that) is a tangent from the question, "What's so great about the US that we get nukes and Iran doesn't."

It was a collective effort. How many threads stay right inline?

>>>>>>I'll repeat myself. By stating that I don't wish to see nuclear weapons proliferate, I'm not suggesting that we (the United States as a country) are perfect, I'm suggesting that we (humans as a species) are imbeciles.

Agreed.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Speaking of redirecting....

While the shipping part of the base had more or less died off, this part was still true:

Quote

As the headquarters of the Second Army and of the Chugoku Regional Army, it was one of the most important military command stations in Japan, the site of one of the largest military supply depots

Right, at one time, but if you had posted a little more you would have revealed that due to mining the seaport I believe it was had sunked and made that virtually useless. At the time of teh bombing that very article says it was of very little use.

Furthermore, you still fail to address that the convention in May 45 wanted larger urban areas for shock value. Care to address that?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

the US murdered 200-300k women and children for shock value.

agreed, the shock to the Emperor to get him to surrender....

I thought the topic was whether the cities were reserved "on purpose" for the more esoteric justification of studying the effects of the weapon. (Getting Japan to surrender was just a happy side effect..... - I wonder if it could have been both, not either/or, in which case one reason might be discussed as justifiable (end the war), but the other (for the PhDs) is very distasteful and likely owned by few specific individuals.)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There's some wiggling going on, but it's not on my part.

As for the link, I seem to recall a certain college professor saying that it wasn't his responsibility to do research for others...

YOU WROTE:


Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lucky's claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were essentially untouched during the course of the war solely to provide targets for Fat Man and Little Boy.

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


Once again, in which post did Lucky claim that?

The reason you don't answer is that you CANNOT answer, because Lucky did not claim that.

Pretty dishonest there, Mike.

Can't claim that? Really?

Quote

2) Unmollested by US bombs for the purpose of seeing what the human damage would be

You seem to be missing an important word there Mikey. "SOLELY". The ONLY person to use the word "solely" (or imply it) was YOU.

Dishonest to misquote someone, and when called on it, to prevaricate some more.

Quote

Still waiting on the proof the military was told "hands off" prior to May '45...

No-one claimed they were.

There wasn't much need before March 1945 since only Kobe and Tokyo had been targeted by LeMay until then, and prior to Jan 1945 only precision bombing of military targets was going on.

You REALLY should learn some of your country's military history.

PS. "Hiroshima is the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list. Consideration should be given to this city", Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

Speaking of redirecting....

While the shipping part of the base had more or less died off, this part was still true:

Quote

As the headquarters of the Second Army and of the Chugoku Regional Army, it was one of the most important military command stations in Japan, the site of one of the largest military supply depots

Right, at one time, but if you had posted a little more you would have revealed that due to mining the seaport I believe it was had sunked and made that virtually useless. At the time of teh bombing that very article says it was of very little use.

Furthermore, you still fail to address that the convention in May 45 wanted larger urban areas for shock value. Care to address that?

Based on the research I have done shock value was needed. We were fighting a determined enemy. They tortured our prisoners and killed millions of Chinese for no reason other than they were Chinese. Case in point. Most rational foes would have surrended after one atomic bomb. It took two for Hirohito to get the picture. Truman was trying to end the war and shock value was needed IMO. His goal was to save American lives and he succeeded in that. America is far from perfect. It is just a matter of how you look ar it. Gas half full or half empty... and hindsight is always 20/20.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Royd 0]

And what needs to be answered is that of why the US turn its most awesome weapon on civilians for the cause of effect, to wow the other side and the world. I won't wait for it, it simply won't happen

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

Quote

I am going to make the answer simple. We were at war with Japan. Pearl Harbor, does that ring a bell for you? The idea of war is to win. Win at all costs. That is what the US did. Many people died on both sides. It is what it is. If you can't wrap your liberal beliefs around that simple fact that War is ugly and we did what had to be done then it is pointless to debate semantics.

Lucky is the kind of person who happens to be playing on a ball team who has won every game through the season, is in the last game of the state championships, and he intentionally throws the game because nobody has a right to be that good.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

the kind of person who happens to be playing on a ball team who has won every game through the season, is in the last game of the state championships, and he intentionally throws the game because nobody has a right to be that good.

People have made lucrative careers espousing that philosophy as good and decent. Many are political careers. I might try it as a radio gimmick. It could work.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[willard 0]

1) Not a waste to show evidence if you would be willing to accept it, but you're not. You're stuck on the idea that the U.S. was totally wrong for using nukes and nothing anyone can say or quote will change your mind.
2) It was wrong of the Japanese to kill 16 million Chinese. It WAS NOT wrong for us to kill 250,000 Japanese to stop them.
3) Why would I start a flag burning thread? The only time I would consider burning a flag would be to properly dispose of one in accordance with established protocol.
4) I agree with other posters that your continued quoting of extensive posts is silly and distracts from what little credibility you have.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

4) I agree with other posters that your continued quoting of extensive posts is silly and distracts from what little credibility you have.

He has the credibility of getting his facts right, unlike you, mnealtx, etc. Don't confuse style with credibility.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

If that's the best you can do, Kallend, give it up. You have made your share of stupid posts. But, unlike you, I don't continue to dig up the past for the purpose of trying to embarrass people.
He does not have his facts straight in this thread.
Hiroshima did have military value as a target.
Hiroshima was not chosen just for it's large civilian population (though that was one consideration).
The U.S. was not wrong for using the bomb.

[ExAFO 0]

This thread should be euthanized.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

I know it's asking volumes from the side that is exempt from that, but can you post the site I posted and perhaps draw a little more out as to what you're asking/saying.

Again, quit misdirecting, just simply address the killing of 200k women and children in cities that weren't really important military bases at teh time of the bombings.

What side is that?

How is that side exempt from asking volumes?

What site did you post? I saw none in the post I replied to.

Do you really think this country should be blamed for the genocide of six million "American Indians"?

Why?

I wasn't misdirecting. I was responding directly to your post.

As far as the justification for bombing the populations of those to cities, from what I've read, it seems like part of the objective was to break the spirit of firmly entrenched people and leadership. The specifics of this have already been thoroughly addressed here, as have the prospects for our troups if we didn't drop those atom bombs.

The results of those bombings are probably incomparable in world history, as isolated events. But in the grand scheme of things, it was the best option.

[1969912 0]

I found this in the Suggestions forum here on DZ. Looks interesting. See the screenshot. I have it installed, but have not added any user names yet.


http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2441682

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

If that's the best you can do, Kallend, give it up. You have made your share of stupid posts. But, unlike you, I don't continue to dig up the past for the purpose of trying to embarrass people.
He does not have his facts straight in this thread.
Hiroshima did have military value as a target.
Hiroshima was not chosen just for it's large civilian population (though that was one consideration).
.

The facts say otherwise. We have already been through this ad nauseam.

Quote

The U.S. was not wrong for using the bomb

That is a value judgment, not a matter of fact.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[1969912 0]

It works. Screenshot attached.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG