Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

USA war crimes - atomic bombs


Recommended Posts

 
Quote

 

  3 hours ago, capricorn said:

Had Japan not come to its senses and surrendered, a third nuclear bomb would probably have been dropped on another one of its cities. War is hell.

hot enough: You really ought to try learning a wee bit of history before you post.

===============================

  2 hours ago, hot enough said:

You really ought to try learning a wee bit of history before you post.

capricorn: This, from a poster who twists history to suit his one trick agenda.

  Quote

Plans for more atomic attacks on Japan

Groves expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use on August 19, with three more in September and a further three in October.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Plans_for_more_atomic_attacks_on_Japan

Your history lesson for today. :P

 

 

A history lesson describing the deep evil that is the USA really wasn't necessary. That you ran to the first encyclopedia you could find tells us a lot. I meant real history, not the lies that Americans and Canadians are daily fed. 
This is no different than the lies that have been distributed about the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the ones that you are so terrified about discussing. 
 
So, capricorn, I anxious await you bringing forth all your knowledge of history to illustrate how I twist things. 
 
Quote

 

 
Today is the 66th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.
 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What scholars up until this point in this topic you've presented 3 opinions of 3 generals on what they thought of the use of the atomic wpn on Japan...are these the scholars you talk about.....perhaps

I dont find it illogical to atomic bomb somewhere during a war as long as there is no any other options to get rid of your enemy and save innocent people. But its a crime if you are just doing it to s

Then you are obviously severely hampered by your lack of history. 

1 hour ago, hot enough said:
A history lesson describing the deep evil that is the USA really wasn't necessary.

What's the point of this thread since we already know what you really want to do is bash the USA, regardless of opposing opinions. I have better things to do with my time than provide you a soapbox for your anti-USA rants.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you trying to defend the USA's war crimes? Opposing opinions mean nothing.

“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

― Daniel Patrick Moynihan

And the truth is what illustrates that the USA is deeply evil, the top terrorist group, the only country to have illegally invaded over 70 sovereign nations since WWII. 

Quote

The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that (quite apart from the inaccuracy of this figure, as noted by Samuel Walker) most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.

Here is how General Dwight D. Eisenhower reports he reacted when he was told by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson that the atomic bomb would be used:

“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.”

In another public statement the man who later became President of the United States was blunt: “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” was also dismayed. Shortly after the bombings he stated publically: “The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/05/the-decision-to-bomb-hiroshima/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hot enough said:

....And the truth is what illustrates that the USA is deeply evil, the top terrorist group, the only country to have illegally invaded over 70 sovereign nations since WWII. 

 

 

...and Canada's #1 export market and source of capital investment, including arms manufacturers.

The uranium for much of the evil USA's nuclear weapons stockpile...even depleted uranium munitions....comes from....wait for it....Canada !

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that the war would have been over quickly without massive loss of American life, and loss of Japanese life greater than that which was lost in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, is as ridiculous as the notion that the US government was responsible for 9/11.

 

Edited by bcsapper
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The idea that the war would have been over quickly without massive loss of American life, and loss of Japanese life greater than that which was lost in both Horoshima and Nagasaki combined, is as ridiculous as the notion that the US government was responsible for 9/11.

 

 

Agreed....the Japanese loss far greater numbers (as did Germany), from conventional HE and incendiary munitions dropped by the U.S./Allies.  

U.S. strategic forces have recognized the evil of atomic bombs....so only UN approved thermonuclear (hydrogen) bombs will do now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that the USA is "evil" I find nonsense.  In WW2 the U.S.A. made great sacrifices of life and resources to defeat Japan in the Pacific and Axis powers in Europe.  I believe it was thought by the U.S. powers that be at the time before the atomic bombs were dropped that military leadership in Japan were not willing to surrender and that to actually take the main island of Japan would involve huge loss of young American lives. Tens of thousands of young American men had already sacrificed their lives on the Pacific islands.  It is fine for people who are looking at it in hindsight to give their opinion and claim it wasn't necessary, but the decision makers at the time were dealing with the information they had at that time. 

  

Edited by blackbird
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed....the Japanese loss far greater numbers (as did Germany), from conventional HE and incendiary munitions dropped by the U.S./Allies.  

U.S. strategic forces have recognized the evil of atomic bombs....so only UN approved thermonuclear (hydrogen) bombs will do now.

 

The B53...now there was a bomb. 9 megatons of hi-how-are-yah.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The idea that the war would have been over quickly without massive loss of American life, and loss of Japanese life greater than that which was lost in both Horoshima and Nagasaki combined, is as ridiculous as the notion that the US government was responsible for 9/11.

 

The Japanese Home Army was something like 35 million (poorly trained) volunteers.

That's a few Banzai charges, what?

:P

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Should we...could we...take advantage of this thread for...(gulp)...nuclear weapons "porn" ?

It has been a while....

 

I think it says a lot about the US that it enjoyed a 5 year period of monopoly...having the nuke and several methods to deliver said nuke...but didn't take over the world as most other insane mad with power imperialists would have...

What a B53 looked like going off was pretty impressive.

Only the Red Chinese use anything nearly that big, now.

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

The idea that the war would have been over quickly without massive loss of American life, and loss of Japanese life greater than that which was lost in both Horoshima and Nagasaki combined, is as ridiculous as the notion that the US government was responsible for 9/11.

 

The idea that you know better than the scholars who have studied this is what is ridiculous. You constantly comment without any knowledge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hot enough said:

The idea that you know better than the scholars who have studied this is what is ridiculous. You constantly comment without any knowledge. 

A fallacy known as the Law of Small Numbers.

Your experts are cherry-picked and no doubt many experts could be found with exactly the opposite opinion.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The US has tried and continues to try to this day. The only "insane mad with power imperialists" are the US and their little evil cohorts. 

Quote

The modern, educated, advanced nation of Iraq was reduced to a virtual failed state … the United States, beginning in 1991, bombed for much of the following 12 years, with one dubious excuse after another; then, in 2003, invaded, then occupied, overthrew the government, tortured without inhibition, killed wantonly … the people of that unhappy land lost everything—their homes, their schools, their electricity, their clean water, their environment, their neighborhoods, their mosques, their archaeology, their jobs, their careers, their professionals, their state-run enterprises, their physical health, their mental health, their health care, their welfare state, their women’s rights, their religious tolerance, their safety, their security, their children, their parents, their past, their present, their future, their lives…

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/02/05/the-us-destruction-of-iraq-we-should-never-forget/

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hot enough said:

The idea that you know better than the scholars who have studied this is what is ridiculous. You constantly comment without any knowledge. 

What can I say?  I base my views on reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

What can I say?  I base my views on reality.

Quote

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, went public with this statement: “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. . . . The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.”

You have never posted anything approaching reality. It's always insignificant remarks that are completely divorced from reality. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

What can I say?  I base my views on reality.

 

Operation Downfall...which was divided into two parts...was set to go. Folks all aghast at the US use of two rather small nuclear weapons (less carnage than Tokyo...as you point out) forget that weee fact.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hot enough said:

You have never posted anything approaching reality. It's always insignificant remarks that are completely divorced from reality. 

Nimitz had no say over the use of the Bomb.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hot enough said:

You have never posted anything approaching reality. It's always insignificant remarks that are completely divorced from reality. 

No-one forces you to argue.  A 9/11 conspiracy theorist has no right to tell anyone they are divorced from reality.

Are you suggesting that I should adjust the way I am on this site to suit your needs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

It's fine if you want to be an idealist, but one must also consider the reality of the times.

That is arrant nonsense. German war criminals were not spared the noose because of the "reality of the times".

 

Quote

The Poisoned Chalice

Media and double standards

 

U.S. Justice Robert Jackson, the chief of counsel for the prosecution at the Nuremberg Tribunal, addressed the Tribunal on the principle of universality, which is the foundation of any moral code that can be taken seriously. It’s the principle that we apply to ourselves the same standards that we apply to others, if not more stringent ones.

Justice Jackson admonished the Tribunal that this elementary principle must be its guide, or else its proceedings would be nothing but legal farce, an act of vengeance, victor’s justice. To quote Jackson’s memorable words:

If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them. And we are not prepared to lay down the rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us. We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.
 
...
 

Aggression, in the Tribunal’s judgment, was identified as “the supreme international crime,” differing from others only in that it encompasses all of the evil that follows. So with Iraq, the supreme crime of aggression encompasses the savage destruction of Fallujah, sectarian violence, death squads, the desperate flight of 2 million people, displacement of 2 million others and the rest of the horrors of the past few years that are too familiar to review, with the aggressors absolved from blame except in marginal respects, in keeping with the conventional refusal to sip from the poisoned chalice.

There was no ambiguity in the definition of the “supreme international crime.” In Justice Jackson’s opening statement to the Tribunal, he defined an aggressor as “a state that is the first to commit such actions, as invasion of its armed forces with or without a declaration of war of the territory of another state.” Very clear.

http://fair.org/extra/the-poisoned-chalice/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...