Moron Bush flapping his moron gums again

[SkyDekker 1,465]

It is not a character attack. Your posting style is atrocious. You really would get a lot more people reading your posts and maybe even agreeing with you if you would clean up your posts. As a suggestion, start with not posting 25 posts in rapid succession, but putting it all into one post. After that, I would work on the amount of quotes in the posts.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually saved the lives of many more Japanese, whom we would have had to kill if an Invasion took place.

Then how can you denounce the actions of Timothy McVeigh or the 911 terrorists with that logic? You can't.

Use emoticons rather than text, I think it works best for you.

Must suck to not be able to actually answer issues. I 've never been there. If I see something that sucks from my side I will be the first to point it out.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Lucky... seriously... your posting style is atrocious and repulsive. .

At least he got his history correct, unlike his critics from the right who have had to be dragged kicking and nitpicking the whole way in their denial.

1. Hiroshima was a "reserved target" by the Manhattan Project Targeting Committee. The committee minutes show clearly that they wanted a large undamaged target "so that we could more definitely determine the power of the bomb".

2. The US govt (AEC) deliberately exposed thousands of service personnel and civilians to radiation, by a number of methods including injection, exposure to fallout from nuclear detonations, deliberate releases from AEC facilities, and direct exposure to the detonations themselves.

The historical record from government documents is absolutely clear on both these points.

Hiroshima was a 'reserved target' only from May - Aug 1945...it was NOT a reserved target before that date as your own quotes from MP personnel show.

Your *interpretation* of the historical record may be clear in your own mind, but the documentation provided does not support it.

We're splitting hairs here. For the sake of this argument, let's assume that the US just didn't bomb several cities becuase they had no military importance or whatever reason you want. Then, at some point after the advent and construction of the 2 bombs, they had the question of where to use them so they chose civilian populations for effect value rather than military targets. They wanted to have huge numbrs of civilian casualties to force the Hirohito to surrender rather than to beat down the military, doesn't this shock you? Will I get an answet to that question? No.

[1969912 0]

Commander F. L. Ashworth, USN, was tasked with selecting a site for Army Air Force’s 509th Composite Group to use as an operational base for the B-29 aircraft, support equipment and personnel. Cdr. Ashworth toured the islands of Guam and Tinian in Februrary, 1945. Upon his return, he communicated his recommendation that Tinian be used to Gen. Groves by Top Secret memorandum.
---------------------------

Image of Memo linked below.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/2.pdf

"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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

They wanted to have huge numbrs of civilian casualties to force the Hirohito to surrender rather than to beat down the military, doesn't this shock you?

That is exactly the reason historically stated for the selection of the cities.

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

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I've separated this out from my last posting because it has nothing to do with this particular discussion, and is not meant to say anything one way or the other in regards to any of the content you've added in any given post. Likewise, it is not intended to accuse you of being a troll or anything of that nature, I say this meaning all the best.

Lucky... seriously... your posting style is atrocious and repulsive. You've rapid-fired almost a quarter of the posts in this thread and many contain vast quote blocks only to add a single line response. There's almost always a jungle of bold faced type, arrows, italics, white-space, broken quote blocks, urls, copied and pasted text, and text quoted multiple times in the same post waiting to the right of your name. Sometimes it's hard to tell what the heck you even wrote. When you combine that with statements that you take your opponents' silence to mean concession it's no wonder you "win" so many of your arguments around here.

Thanks. That needed to be said.

I second the motion.

And you also refuse to answer. Amazing at how the all the people who refuse to answer are the same ones who agree that misdirecting to a character attack is good idea?

I answered the question. You don't like the answer possibly but I answered the question. What answer are you looking for? We dropped the atomic bombs because we are mean hateful bastads and we should be nice. Nice and war don't mix.

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

[Tonto 1]

Quote

For fuck's sake people, dissent is BS, America is always right and liberals keep confusing things with factsand history. For fuck's sake, we enslaved people, fuck, sorry. We didn't allow women to vote until 85 years ago, for fuck's sake, they can now, so what's the big deal, let's go over it and never talk about it again. I have just one more thing to say and that's...... FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!!

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

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I've separated this out from my last posting because it has nothing to do with this particular discussion, and is not meant to say anything one way or the other in regards to any of the content you've added in any given post. Likewise, it is not intended to accuse you of being a troll or anything of that nature, I say this meaning all the best.

Lucky... seriously... your posting style is atrocious and repulsive. You've rapid-fired almost a quarter of the posts in this thread and many contain vast quote blocks only to add a single line response. There's almost always a jungle of bold faced type, arrows, italics, white-space, broken quote blocks, urls, copied and pasted text, and text quoted multiple times in the same post waiting to the right of your name. Sometimes it's hard to tell what the heck you even wrote. When you combine that with statements that you take your opponents' silence to mean concession it's no wonder you "win" so many of your arguments around here.

Thanks. That needed to be said.

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

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.

>>>>We were at war with Japan.

Does that justify turning away from military targets and turning toward large civilian populations? Isn't that what terrorists do?

>>>>>>Pearl Harbor, does that ring a bell for you?

I think I recall, it's kinda foggy, but wasn't that where the Japanese made a sneak attack on US military personnel and machines? Yea, that's right, it was. Thx for reminding me of that where Japan atacked military targets.

>>>>>>>The idea of war is to win. Win at all costs.

OH, then why not just drop the bomb at every conflict? Oh, I see, it could lead to world anhilation. So perhaps war isn't about winning at all costs, it's about winning with the least amount of cost. WHat that cost the US was integrity, we showed that we would stoop to levels only terrorists enjoy by killing women and children in suburbia.

Patheic rhetotic like, war is hell, win at all costs is what people use to avoid having to discuss the mechanics of what really happened. And if we don't do that then how can we avoid these things in the future?

>>>>>>>Win at all costs. That is what the US did.

Yes and that cost is that people know the US are murderers.

>>>>>Many people died on both sides. It is what it is.

Oh thx, I was looking for 2 more pieces of rhetoric. But no, war is hell? Come on, you're slipping. War is hell when cowards beat you by killing your family when you're at war. That's what we did.

>>>>>>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.

And if you can't drop the conservative rhetoric long enough to discuss the issue of killing women and children in suburbia, then you are not opening the discussion to intelligent conversation. The US could have showcased the first bomb in a remote area that was visible to the Japanese and then give them ultimatum.

They could have attcked military targets and the few civilian casualties could be adressed as collateral damage, but when you avoid military targets and seek suburban areas then you have a whole new game.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Hey Mike, I find it very peculiar that someone would lecture me about nuclear weapons.(not you)

I will refrain from commenting.


BTW I do not have a Phd. so therefore I could not possibly know anything at all.

Do you know what it is to tur your guns away from military members and onto women and children?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It is not a character attack. Your posting style is atrocious. You really would get a lot more people reading your posts and maybe even agreeing with you if you would clean up your posts. As a suggestion, start with not posting 25 posts in rapid succession, but putting it all into one post. After that, I would work on the amount of quotes in the posts.

No, I have a brash, in your face style of putting the onus onto them, hence they do as you're doing and talk about the format rather than the substance.

As for the many posts, I had to work yesterday and came home to several posts so I addressed them all. IF the other side had answers they would welcome or at least ignore the format.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Lucky... seriously... your posting style is atrocious and repulsive. .

At least he got his history correct, unlike his critics from the right who have had to be dragged kicking and nitpicking the whole way in their denial.

1. Hiroshima was a "reserved target" by the Manhattan Project Targeting Committee. The committee minutes show clearly that they wanted a large undamaged target "so that we could more definitely determine the power of the bomb".

2. The US govt (AEC) deliberately exposed thousands of service personnel and civilians to radiation, by a number of methods including injection, exposure to fallout from nuclear detonations, deliberate releases from AEC facilities, and direct exposure to the detonations themselves.

The historical record from government documents is absolutely clear on both these points.

Hiroshima was a 'reserved target' only from May - Aug 1945...it was NOT a reserved target before that date as your own quotes from MP personnel show.

Your *interpretation* of the historical record may be clear in your own mind, but the documentation provided does not support it.

How many tons of bombs did the US drop on Japan from 1942 - April 1945? How many tons from May 1945 to Aug 5, 1945?

You attempt to wiggle out of your own error is laughable. Hiroshima WAS a reserved target, and that's that.

PS, found that link yet?

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

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...

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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

They wanted to have huge numbrs of civilian casualties to force the Hirohito to surrender rather than to beat down the military, doesn't this shock you?

That is exactly the reason historically stated for the selection of the cities.

RIGHT!!!! I'm not acting as if I have some secret here, the reason we chose a set of cities was to have the largst numbers of civilian casualties, not military. They ha a set of cities from which to choose and chose Hiroshima first. Again Mike, DOESN'T THAT SHOCK YOU THAT THE US WOULD AIM AWAY FROM MILITARY TARGETS AND INTENTIONALLY AIM TOWARD CIVILIANS FOR SHOCK VALUE AND TO SHOW THE WORLD WE WILL STOOP TO ANYTHING TO WIN? Think of it, women taking their kids to school and flash *** they are vaporized. Is that war or terrorism?

[mnealtx 0]

Will you just get to the point and call AQ today's heroes (as compared to our actions in WWII) so this thread can finally end???

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

[kallend 2,106]

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.

...

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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Commander F. L. Ashworth, USN, was tasked with selecting a site for Army Air Force’s 509th Composite Group to use as an operational base for the B-29 aircraft, support equipment and personnel. Cdr. Ashworth toured the islands of Guam and Tinian in Februrary, 1945. Upon his return, he communicated his recommendation that Tinian be used to Gen. Groves by Top Secret memorandum.
---------------------------

Image of Memo linked below.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/2.pdf

Gtreat find. But as I wrote, it was chosen because there was nothng there but 95% sugar cane fields. I think the civilian population was minimal. It is flat and nothing is there vs Guam. That was what I wrote previously but I have never seen that letter.

[kallend 2,106]

You know, Lucky, even though the historical record and US Government documents confirm everything you claim, and your detractors are nitpicking because they have no case to argue, your posting style IS irritating.

...

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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I've separated this out from my last posting because it has nothing to do with this particular discussion, and is not meant to say anything one way or the other in regards to any of the content you've added in any given post. Likewise, it is not intended to accuse you of being a troll or anything of that nature, I say this meaning all the best.

Lucky... seriously... your posting style is atrocious and repulsive. You've rapid-fired almost a quarter of the posts in this thread and many contain vast quote blocks only to add a single line response. There's almost always a jungle of bold faced type, arrows, italics, white-space, broken quote blocks, urls, copied and pasted text, and text quoted multiple times in the same post waiting to the right of your name. Sometimes it's hard to tell what the heck you even wrote. When you combine that with statements that you take your opponents' silence to mean concession it's no wonder you "win" so many of your arguments around here.

Thanks. That needed to be said.

I second the motion.

And you also refuse to answer. Amazing at how the all the people who refuse to answer are the same ones who agree that misdirecting to a character attack is good idea?

I answered the question. You don't like the answer possibly but I answered the question. What answer are you looking for? We dropped the atomic bombs because we are mean hateful bastads and we should be nice. Nice and war don't mix.

You answered around the question. The question is:

What do you think of a nation that kills mothers taking their kids to school at about 8am (time that bomb was dropped) instead of pursuing military targets?

[AWL71 0]

"I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb...having found the bomb, we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of young Americans. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us."

That is why Truman said we dropped the bombs and it looks like a good reason to me.

We tried conventional bombing with the Japanese but that did not work. To undermine Japan's capacity to continue the war, it was necessary for America to strike at Japan's industrial base. In doing so, the Americans faced a problem. Unlike the situation in many Western countries, most of Japan's major cities did not have clearly defined industrial districts in 1945. Instead, Japanese industrial facilities were mostly dispersed in residential areas. As precision bombing did not exist in 1945, it was impossible for high altitude American B-29s to destroy factories that serviced Japan's war machine without also hitting residential neighbourhoods that adjoined these factories.

As the cost in American lives soared, and Japan showed no inclination to surrender, the Americans finally decided in early 1945 to strike at Japan's war industries even if it inevitably cost civilian lives. For ten days in March 1945, huge formations of B-29 bombers carried out saturation raids on five of Japan's largest industrial cities, including Tokyo. The raids were then suspended. Instead of inclining Japan to surrender, the Japanese government was able to use the air raids to whip up hatred of Americans and stiffen the will of the Japanese people to fight to the death as a nation. This was not as difficult in Japan as it would have been in Western countries. 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. Japanese culture permitted Admiral Yamamoto to be viewed as a national hero after he engineered the treacherous sneak attack on the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese government plans a fanatical defence of Japan's home islands to the last man, woman and child

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.

The American government was aware from intelligence intercepts of the chilling implications of these Japanese defensive plans. Intelligence reports indicated that the Japanese would probably be able to muster two million troops and eight thousand aircraft for the defence of the four home islands against a traditional amphibious invasion. The dispersal of these military resources across Japan, and their careful concealment, would provide the Americans with no opportunity to destroy them from the air. The Ketsugo policy placed heavy reliance on suicide attacks on the American troops and their covering warships. For this purpose, several thousand aircraft would be adapted for suicide attacks. Other methods of suicide attack being developed included dynamite-filled "crash boats", guided human torpedoes, guided human rocket bombs (similar to the "Baka" rocket plane used against American ships at Okinawa), and specially trained ground suicide units carrying explosives. In addition, the invading Americans would have to face a civilian population drilled in guerilla tactics.

The Americans had every reason to be deeply disturbed when they learned about Japanese plans to defend the home islands by massive suicide attacks on American amphibious forces. The Kamikaze suicide attacks on Allied ships at Okinawa had alone produced a horrifying toll:

34 Allied warships sunk ;

368 Allied ships damaged (some fit only for scrap);

4,900 Allied sailors killed; and

4,874 Allied sailors wounded.

President Truman's military advisers warn him of the very high cost of an invasion of Japan

Faced with this knowledge of Japan's extraordinary plan to defend its home islands to the death, and the fanatical character of Japanese soldiers, and extrapolating the fanatical defence of Iwo Jima and Okinawa to an amphibious assault on Japan's four home islands, American military leaders were deeply concerned. They advised President Truman that an attempt to invade and subdue the Japanese on their home islands was likely to cost at least 1,000,000 American battle casualties.

The Potsdam Declaration gives Japan a last opportunity to surrender

On July 26, 1945, the Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration. Its purpose was to hasten Japan's surrender without the need for a difficult and very costly amphibious assault. It warned Japan that it faced "prompt and utter destruction" unless the Japanese swiftly agreed to an unconditional surrender. On July 28, Prime Minister Suzuki announced that Japan intended to "ignore" the Potsdam Declaration.

We have learned that underlying Suzuki's rejection of the Potsdam Declaration was Emperor Hirohito's stubborn resolve to continue the war until he received a guarantee from the Allies that his status as emperor would be preserved and that he would not be tried as a war criminal. 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".

When the Japanese refuse to surrender, President Truman elects to use the atomic bomb

By July 1945, Japan's military and industrial resources had either been destroyed or dispersed widely and largely concealed from air attack. The Americans were finding it very difficult to locate sizeable military or industrial targets for their B-29 bombers to attack with conventional bombs.

When informed that Japan intended to ignore the Potsdam Declaration, President Truman was faced with a dilemma. There was little scope for further conventional bombing. He was left with the choice of ordering an invasion of Japan's home islands or using the atomic bomb. Rather than risk the predicted 1,000,000 American battle casualties in an amphibious assault on Japan, President Truman elected to use the atomic bomb.

The first target was Hiroshima, a city on Japan's Inland Sea. At this time it was the headquarters of the 2nd General Army. On 4 August 1945, American aircraft dropped leaflets on Hiroshima warning the citizens to expect terrible destruction to be visited upon their city because Japan had refused to surrender. Although many civilians had already been evacuated to the country, this warning was largely ignored. On August 6, the first atomic bomb was dropped on this city. At Hiroshima, 60,000 Japanese died and a similar number were injured.

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.

Three days later, when the first atomic bomb had still evoked no response from Japan, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, a port with naval installations. The primary target on this day had been the city of Kokura where a huge army arsenal was located. Thick clouds over Kokura forced diversion of the B-29 with the second bomb to Nagasaki. At Nagasaki, 36,000 were killed and about 60,000 wounded.

Although these casualties from the two atomic bombs are disturbing, they almost certainly represent a very tiny fraction of the Japanese who would have died if the whole population of Japan, civilian as well as military, adults and children, had been mobilised by the Suzuki government to die as a nation in defence of Japan.

The atomic bombs were dropped on two cities of military significance (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, (b) because there were no readily discernable large military or industrial targets available for conventional air attack, and (c) because the Allies faced the prospect of incurring horrendous battle casualties from a conventional amphibious invasion of Japan.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/pacificwar/AtomBomb_Japan.html

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.

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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

For fuck's sake people, dissent is BS, America is always right and liberals keep confusing things with factsand history. For fuck's sake, we enslaved people, fuck, sorry. We didn't allow women to vote until 85 years ago, for fuck's sake, they can now, so what's the big deal, let's go over it and never talk about it again. I have just one more thing to say and that's...... FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!!

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.

America is great in ways, horrific in ways, but I can't stand people who refuse to think the US all good and ignore recent and not so recent histiry to build their perfect dream of the way they want it to have been - revisionists.

[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...

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

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

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

[Lucky... 0]

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.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Will you just get to the point and call AQ today's heroes (as compared to our actions in WWII) so this thread can finally end???

Nice try, I think AQ is scum. I also think that of all of our real heroic actions in WWII in all their ligitimate glory, dropping the bombs was scum too, as well as the testing done in the SP post-WWII.

[rehmwa 2]

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.

...
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

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You know, Lucky, even though the historical record and US Government documents confirm everything you claim, and your detractors are nitpicking because they have no case to argue, your posting style IS irritating.

Then it's working