willard

Just stating the facts. Sorry if you don't agree.

You too, huh? I might add that what you can say and do in SC depends on who you are. Try to get lies about you retracted and you get banned. Start a thread about another poster, write posts that are intended to solicite angry replies (known as "trolling"), and copying a private message into the public forums are ok if you know the right people.

To aid in putting this argument to rest i will offer up an explanation as to why Hiroshima was not bombed until the end of the war. Don't bother asking for sources or other proof, I'm merely relaying information that was told to me by a retired Army officer who passed away many years ago. But it still makes sense. Hiroshima, as we all seem to agree, had a limited amount of military activity going on during the war. Thogh small, it was important and became more so as other military installations throughout Japan were damaged or destroyed by Allied air raids. The Allies had a network of spys/informants in Japan who gathered vital information as to troop numbers, equipment, supplies, etc. and went to great risk to get that information to our intelligence people. Hiroshima, having a small amount of a lot of different activities going on, provided much needed intell that greatly aided our war effort. That was why it was left alone before May '45. The intell coming out was many times more valuable to us than any possible benefit from destroying it. Near the end of the war it's value as a nuke site was greater than it's value as a source of intell which, by then, was of less and less value since we had other, quicker, means of learning the same things. When the bomb fell that morning several of our people who were gathering that intell throughout much of the war died along with the rest. As I said, I can offer no sources or other evidence to back this up, only the words of a long departed Army officer who was there and worked with the information that came out of Japan. It is up to each reader to decide whether or not they want to accept this as a viable explanation. As to what happened after May'45, that is quite evident. Right or wrong is, as Kallend said, a matter of opinion.

What's your point? Or are you just playing "newsman" again? Still sore over the units of mass thread? Get over it. That's it, isn't it? I bet you really wanted to be a newsman when you grew up.

What's your point? Or are you just playing "newsman" again?

ROFL You are floundering in a quagmire of your own making. Ah, yes, kallend at his best. He asks for proof, he is shown proof, he doesn't like proof, so he resorts to attempting to make fun of people, straying off topic, etc. Not to mention telling lies about other members posts. Mr. Kallend, I hate to leave but this thread, and you, are boring me. Have a nice day and remember...it's not nice to tell lies about other people.

ROFL You haven't rebutted a single one of his points, which he made in detail. Irony score 10/10 I cited sources in my posts and you just misquote and hurl insults. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Show us where I misquoted. Get the hint? As to insults, you are ignorant. You are ignorant of the reasons Hiroshima wasn't bombed before it was chosen to be on the reserved list.

You asked for posts, i listed a small sample. There are more if you aren't too frigging' lazy to look them up. Why did you post the above statements? I never said anything to the contrary about any of the three. Stop crediting me with things i never said. Now, What have I claimed that I needed a source for? Now, where did I misquote someone in this thread? Also, where did I say I consider direct quotes from the minutes of the Manhattan Project to be "ignorant" or that I consider links to the President's Advisory Committee (on radiation exposure) to be ignorant? C'mon, Kallend, show us where. I spent the time gathering what you requested, now it's your turn. BTW, to refute just one claim of yours and Lucky's, and to show that what i infered from his post had to be exactly what he meant, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki According to Wiki, which you have a lot of faith in, as many as 220,000 died within a year as a direct result of the bombings and several thousand more over the years since. If Lucky is right and 250,000 WOMEN AND CHILDREN died from the bombs, then where is there room for anyone else? According to the math every victim, and then another 30,000, were women and kids. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Your reasoning is bullshit. Or are you like Kallend and want everyone to be 100% specific and detailed while you are being vague? Get a life.

"every person killed was a woman or child?" no-one claimed that. The first mention is at post #209. Continues up through 231,232 and more. The fact that he never mentions adult males or military personel being killed is an extremely strong insinuation that only women and kids were targeted/killed. "Hiroshima had no military value at all". Where was that claimed? Post #152."OK, and why was it untouched? Perhaps.....uh, cause it had virtually no militayr significance?" "It was left alone becuase it had no military significance, bombed with the A bombs because it was unmollested and there was collection of civilian victims to be murdered" "Hiroshima was left untouched throughout the entire war " no-one claimed anything about the entire war.. Post #31. Also #89, one of your own. "just for the purpose of judging the impact of a nuke and no other reason?" who claimed that? It was untouched prior to the May-July strategic bombing campaign because it wasn't a priority military target (April had been almost all precision bombing of priority military targets). It was untouched after that because it was a reserved target. Again, post #31. Also #74 makes a pretty implicite reference to the same idea. Hard to draw any other conclusion as to his insinuation There you have it, Kallend. Post numbers and quoted lines from those posts. If you re-read all the posts in this thread you will see that those i listed are just a few of many. What have I claimed that I needed a source for? Now, where did I misquote someone in this thread? Also, where did I say I consider direct quotes from the minutes of the Manhattan Project to be "ignorant" or that I consider links to the President's Advisory Committee (on radiation exposure) to be ignorant?

You can't even understand a simple message. I don't consider the things you listed to be ignorant. I never said they were so don't start that BS again. I consider YOU to be ignorant. You don't understand how something can be of such military value that to destroy it would cause serious harm to the war effort before nukes were even brought into the equation. Of course, I would expect nothing less from someone who claimed to know more about my business's financial status than I even though they never knew anything about it let alone have looked at the books.

Thank you for confirming my (and, I guess, Lucky's) point. That is EXACTLY why it was placed on the reserved list. Re-read Gen. Groves's memo about target selection. THANK YOU AGAIN

Thank you for confirming my (and, I guess, Lucky's) point. That is EXACTLY why it was placed on the reserved list. Re-read Gen. Groves's memo about target selection. THANK YOU AGAIN

Bravo - the best example of misquoting your opponent then attacking you own misquotes that I have seen in quite a while. Show me where I misquoted.

Sorry, Kallend, but it DID have military value. But it was of value only if left intact. I'm sorry if you can't comprehend how that can be, but those who know a bit about military strategy and intelligence gathering can. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

This coming from one who reads all other posts exactly as written...no more, no less. Now you complain and want people to understand what you mean from a vague reference. Talk about hypocrisy!

Because it was of more strategic use intact up until near the end of the war. I'll let you digest that thought for a while. It may take you some time to understand the concept.

1) As I said, it's a waste of time. I'd rather try to convince my dog she's a cat, at least she would understand what was going on. What evidence have you shown that Hiroshima had no military value at all? Or that every person killed was a woman or child? Or even civilian for that matter? What evidence have you posted that Hiroshima was left untouched throughout the entire war just for the purpose of judging the impact of a nuke and no other reason? It's not up to me to prove you wrong, only up to you to substantiate your claims. You want an argument for aiming at suburbs? Ok, how's this....we got to kill more Japanese that way. More killed with the bomb means less trying to kill our men in case an invasion is needed. 2) Not all were defenseless woman and kids. Some were holding scissors at the time. Fuck 'em. And all the rest. It was war and they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. 3) I wouldn't want to distract from this thread. Watching you try to prove the U.S. was wrong is quite amusing. At least, for the time being. I'm quickly becoming bored with you.

Why don't YOU tell us. I'm guessing anyone would be hard pressed to find any statistics on this. Outside of recent incidents, I doubt there are many cases of nooses being left out, as a form of intimidation. Well, we didn't have iPhones or DVD players 60 years ago, either. Someone is always coming up with new ways of doing things. Or space shuttles or supersonic aircraft. Or any number of things. Christ , Kallend, can't you stay on topic for once? That remark is about as far into left field as I've seen you get.

What part of the bombing don't you like? The fact that we killed 250,000? Or the fact that we used a nuke? Or maybe it was the saving of several hundred thousand American lives from not having to invade Japan to end the war that Japan started? C'mon, be honest...which part is it? I, for one, am glad we dropped the bomb and don't give a rat's ass about the civilians who were killed. It was a war they started, not us.

The facts say otherwise. We have already been through this ad nauseam. That is a value judgment, not a matter of fact. The facts say Hiroshima was a staging point for troop dispatch among other military uses posted elsewhere in this thread. That gives it military value. How much value is a matter of debate. The facts say the civilian population was not the sole reason for it being chosen as a potential target. So where do the facts say otherwise? Please inform us.

I hate to admit it, but I agree with your opinion on this 100%. Fuck.

Isn't there a playing piece shaped like a noose in the boardgame "Clue"? It's a piece of friggin' rope! Next thing they'll want to ban four-wheel-drive pickups because they represent rednecks.

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.

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.