Trashing our history; Hiroshima

[BigBadBrian]

Trashing our history; Hiroshima
Thomas Sowell

August 9, 2005

Every August, there are some Americans who insist on wringing their hands over the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, so it was perhaps inevitable that such people would have an orgy of wallowing in guilt on the 60th anniversary of that tragic day. Time magazine has page after page of photographs of people scarred by the radiation, as if General Sherman had not already said long ago that war is hell.

Winston Churchill once spoke of the secrets of the atom, "hitherto mercifully withheld from man." We can all lament that this terrible power of mass destruction has been revealed to the world and fear its ominous consequences for us all, including our children and grandchildren. But that is wholly different from saying that a great moral evil was committed when the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What was new about these bombs was the technology, not the morality. More people were killed with ordinary bombs in German cities or in Tokyo. Vastly more people were killed with ordinary bullets and cannon on the Russian front. Morality is about what you do to people, not the technology you use.

The guilt-mongers have twisted the facts of history beyond recognition in order to say that it was unnecessary to drop those atomic bombs. Japan was going to lose the war anyway, they say. What they don't say is -- at what price in American lives? Or even in Japanese lives?

Much of the self-righteous nonsense that abounds on so many subjects cannot stand up to three questions: (1) Compared to what? (2) At what cost? and (3) What are the hard facts?

The alternative to the atomic bombs was an invasion of Japan, which was already being planned for 1946, and those plans included casualty estimates even more staggering than the deaths that have left a sea of crosses in American cemeteries at Normandy and elsewhere. "Revisionist" historians have come up with casualty estimates a small fraction of what the American and British military leaders responsible for planning the invasion of Japan had come up with.

Who are we to believe, those who had personally experienced the horrors of the war in the Pacific, and who had a lifetime of military experience, or leftist historians hot to find something else to blame America for?

During the island-hopping war in the Pacific, it was not uncommon for thousands of Japanese troops to fight to the death on an island, while the number captured were a few dozen. Even some Japanese soldiers too badly wounded to stand would lie where they fell until an American medical corpsman approached to treat their wounds -- and then they would set off a grenade to kill them both.

In the air the same spirit led the kamikaze pilots to deliberately crash their planes into American ships and bombers.

Japan's plans for defense against invasion involved mobilizing the civilian population, including women and children, for the same suicidal battle tactics. That invasion could have been the greatest bloodbath in history.

No mass killing, especially of civilians, can leave any humane person happy. But compared to what? Compared to killing many times more Japanese and seeing many times more American die?

We might have gotten a negotiated peace if we had dropped the "unconditional surrender" demand. But at what cost? Seeing a militaristic Japan arise again in a few years, this time armed with nuclear weapons that they would not have hesitated for one minute to drop on Americans.

As it was, the unconditional surrender of Japan enabled General Douglas MacArthur to engineer one of the great historic transformations of a nation from militarism to pacifism, to the relief of hundreds of millions of their neighbors, who had suffered horribly at the hands of their Japanese conquerors.

The facts may deprive the revisionists of their platform for lashing out at America and for the ego trip of moral preening but, fear not, they will find or manufacture other occasions for that. The rest of us need to understand what irresponsible frauds they are -- and how the stakes are too high to let the 4th estate succeed as a 5th column undermining the society on which our children and grandchildren's security will depend.
Thomas Sowell (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050809.shtml)

[BigBadBrian]

The A-bomb was a lifesaver
Jeff Jacoby

August 8, 2005

The 60th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has arrived with little of the fury that accompanied the 50th. A decade ago, a bruising battle broke out over the Smithsonian Institution's plan for an exhibit suggesting that the American use of atomic weapons had been a racist war crime that served no legitimate military aim.

With a restored Enola Gay -- the B-29 Superfortress that delivered the first bomb on Aug. 6, 1945 -- as a centerpiece, the Smithsonian's curators had intended to tell a story of American brutality and Japanese victimhood. “For most Americans,” their original script declared, “this war was fundamentally different from the one waged against Germany and Italy -- it was a war of vengeance. For most Japanese, it was a war to defend their unique culture against Western imperialism.” Such slanted revisionism pervaded the text, which The Washington Post rightly summed up as “incredibly propagandistic and intellectually shabby.”

To convey the human suffering in the Pacific theater, for instance, museum officials selected 103 photographs -- 96 depicting Japanese victims, seven of Americans. By contrast, of the 70 photos that showed armed combatants, 65 were of Americans, only five of Japanese. While the original script quoted just one (anonymous) Japanese statement of anti-American hostility, it included no fewer than 10 American expressions of enmity toward Japan. Comparing the two “home fronts,” the script sketched an America of high wages, Frank Sinatra, and entrenched racism, while Japan was described in terms of hungry children, noble kamikaze pilots, and imported slave labor made necessary by “severe manpower shortages.”

Not surprisingly, the proposed exhibit evoked furious protests from veterans groups, military historians, and Congress, and after months of controversy the Smithsonian agreed to scrap its tendentious account. When the Enola Gay finally went on display, the accompanying text played the history straight. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki “destroyed much of the two cities and caused many tens of thousands of deaths,” it noted. “However, the use of the bombs led to the immediate surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands. Such an invasion, especially if undertaken for both main islands, would have led to very heavy casualties among Americans, Allied, and Japanese armed forces and Japanese civilians.”

Ten years later, the revisionists are still going strong. An article in the radical journal CounterPunch, for example, labels the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki “the worst terror attacks in history,” and trots out the old canard that their real purpose was to intimidate the Soviet Union. In the Los Angeles Times the other day, Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin asserted as “unpleasant historical facts” that “the atomic bombings were unnecessary,” serving only to devastate an “essentially defeated enemy.”

But the vast majority of Americans who lived through World War II would have regarded such glib judgments as preposterous. Paul Fussell, the historian and literary critic, spoke for millions when he titled his famous essay on the end of the Pacific war “Thank God for the Atom Bomb.”

Like countless young men in August 1945, Fussell was waiting to be shipped off to Asia for the planned invasion of Japan. He didn't expect to survive it. The fighting in Okinawa and Iwo Jima had already resulted in a horrific bloodbath and that was but a fraction of the toll that could be expected in the battle for Japan itself.

“On Okinawa, only weeks before Hiroshima, 123,000 Japanese and Americans *killed*each other,” Fussell wrote. A 21-year-old infantry officer, he had already been wounded twice in Europe; “the very idea of more combat made me breathe in gasps and shake all over.” So when the atom bombs were dropped, “we broke down and cried with relief and joy. We were going to live. We were going to grow to adulthood after all. The killing was all going to be over.”



More than ever before, the historical record confirms what those soldiers knew in their gut: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, hideous as they were, shortened the war that Japan had begun and thereby saved an immensity of lives. Far from considering itself “essentially defeated,” the Japanese military was preparing for an Allied assault with a massive buildup in the south. It was only the shock of the atomic blasts that enabled Japanese leaders who wanted to stop the fighting to successfully press for a surrender.

“We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war,” Kido Koichi, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, later recalled. Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief cabinet secretary, called the bomb “a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war.” That is still the right way to see it. President Truman's decision to use the new weapons stopped a war that would otherwise have raged savagely on, and made possible the transformation of Japan from vicious aggressor to peaceful democracy. Six decades after August 1945, it is clear: The bomb made the world a better place.
Link (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/jj20050808.shtml)

[thome]

History is rewritten wrong in here every day
and i guess everywere including mags the tv news and
by despots like saddam his people still believe in their ignorance.
the mid east fills up daily with anti american propaganda

The bombs dropped on japan are so uncomparable to tragedy
with their allegience to hitlers death camps and how american & british
pows were treated.

F em back then now they are one of the worlds shinning stars

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
The A-bomb was a lifesaver
Jeff Jacoby



Historical speculation at best...There are many that don't buy the "huge casualties when we invade JAPAN theory." The RED ARMY slaughtered the JAPANESE in open Manchurian plains using their tanks. This was because the JAPANESE had nothing to stop them with and their soldiers, instead of becoming the suicidal maniacs, became catatonic and surrendered en masse. Our casualty projections were based on fighting dug in troops on rocky, mountainous Pacific atolls, not the open plains (ideal tank and artillery country) of Japan proper.

It may have been similar for the US and Brits once we landed and got our heavy armor ashore. In any case, I'm not saying I wouldn't have dropped the bomb, we butchered Japanese civilians using firebombs, what's the difference using an A-bomb? But perhaps they could have chosen a more military of a target, like the huge TOKYO Naval Yard which was difficult to target with conventional explosives.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Historical speculation at best...There are many that don't buy the "huge casualties when we invade JAPAN theory." The RED ARMY slaughtered the JAPANESE in open Manchurian plains using their tanks. This was because the JAPANESE had nothing to stop them with and their soldiers, instead of becoming the suicidal maniacs, became catatonic and surrendered en masse. Our casualty projections were based on fighting dug in troops on rocky, mountainous Pacific atolls, not the open plains (ideal tank and artillery country) of Japan proper.

It may have been similar for the US and Brits once we landed and got our heavy armor ashore. In any case, I'm not saying I wouldn't have dropped the bomb, we butchered Japanese civilians using firebombs, what's the difference using an A-bomb? But perhaps they could have chosen a more military of a target, like the huge TOKYO Naval Yard which was difficult to target with conventional explosives.

It really doesn't matter, does it? Look at it this way: You're a commander who can save troops by using a weapon or you can go in and take either heavy OR light casualties. Even light casualties to American troops was more than what was done with the A-Bomb option. Japanese casualties probably were not much of a factor in the end decision. American casualties were.

It's the same way with Berlin. The Americans and British could have easily beat the Russians to Berlin. Most Germans would have actually preferred that. But why spill British and American blood on territory that had already been decided would be Russian-governed after the war was over? It didn't make any sense.

:gulp:

[Redballjets88]

yeah we could have invaded but armor wouldnt have helped considering 80% of japan is mountainous and the 20% that isnt is highly populated urban areas

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Redballjets88
yeah we could have invaded but armor wouldnt have helped considering 80% of japan is mountainous and the 20% that isnt is highly populated urban areas

Really, where did you get that. Actually 50% of the Japan is mountainous/forested. But most of the population is settled on inland plains. The TOKYO plain would have been rolled up rather quickly. JAPAN was on the verge of industrial collapse and was running out of ammo (they could only equip about half of their divisions). Any mountain strongholds would have been sealed off with the defenders starving.

Most historians now think we would have suffered heavy initial casualties at the first landings (Operation Olympus) in the southern islands in the fall of 1945. But the Japanese may just as easily surrendered quickly for fear of SOVIET occupation. Nobody thinks the initial casualty estimates are correct. In any case, we would have rolled over them with tanks and artillery once the beachheads were secure. The strong Japanese defenses are useless if they get bypassed in a blitzkrieg assault.

[kentuckyklira]

Quite a few reliable sources state that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only bombed to test the effects of a-bombs in a real life situation. That´s why the állies refused the Japanese conditions of surrender. After all, once Japan was occupied what difference would the status of Japan´s emperor make? And don´t forget, the emperor stayed around and his kids and grandchildren are still around and revered by the Japanese population.

The US needed an excuse to test their bombs on real cities, filled with real civilians. More proof of this is, that one bomb was detonated at ground level and the other a few hundred feet above ground level to test the different effects.

Again and again, 2 wrongs don´t make a right, and just because the allies won the war doesn´t mean Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren´t atrocious war crimes.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by kentuckyklira


Again and again, 2 wrongs don´t make a right, and just because the allies won the war doesn´t mean Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren´t atrocious war crimes.

War is war, bitch. Don't start what you can't finish.

Too bad the Bomb wasn't ready in time for you Krauts.

:gulp:

[scamper]

The United States didn't start that war, they just finished it, you're welcome.

[Seshmeister]

I think it was more about scaring the shit out the Russians and ending the war asap before they reached Japan than anything else.

I have a bigger problem with Nagasaki.

I find it pretty suspicious that they used a plutoniium bomb rather than the Uranium one, it does smack of testing.

Also only giving 4 days for a country to realise what had happened to it before dropping the next one.

Could Trueman not have taken a group of Japs to a test instead or at least hit them with an ultimatum after Hiroshima and given them time to respond?

People always wheel out the argument that they would have fought to the last man but they didn't did they? They didn't wait until 50 bombs had been dropped.

I think they were by that point looking for an excuse to surrender.

As with most things this is not a black and white situation.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[WACF]

Right on the money...good post Sesh.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by WACF
Right on the money...good post Sesh.

You're drinking the same Kool-Aid as he is.

:gulp:

[Redballjets88]

klira you call dresden nagasaki and hiroshima horrible lets talk aushwitz dumbass quit being a sore loser

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Redballjets88
quit being a sore loser


PRICELESS!!!!!

:killer: :killer: :killer: :killer: :killer:

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Redballjets88
klira you call dresden nagasaki and hiroshima horrible lets talk aushwitz dumbass quit being a sore loser 14.51 posts a day!

No girlfriend, band, sports team or any other mentionable hobbies eh?? And you´re calling me a loser!!!

:p :rolleyes:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
14.51 posts a day!

No girlfriend, band, sports team or any other mentionable hobbies eh?? And you´re calling me a loser!!!

:p :rolleyes:

Do you say that to the people......say averaging 43.25 posts a day (Nickdfresh) that generally follow your political viewpoint? No, of course not. You have a faulty line of reasoning. Refrain from using it in the future, dumbass. :)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Do you say that to the people......say averaging 43.25 posts a day (Nickdfresh) that generally follow your political viewpoint? No, of course not. You have a faulty line of reasoning. Refrain from using it in the future, dumbass. :)

I didn't call anyone a loser due to their political beliefs, and at least my 43.25 posts per day are somewhat intelligent. Funny how 90% of the fuckwits in this forum are "neo conservatives..."

Of course BBB, the only thing you can come up with is uninformed shitty op-ed articles by those a little thick like OLLY BARF. How many lies are you going to tell today BigBlandBrie? Must be difficult to have to rationalize political beliefs by knowingly lying and playing semantic games to try to make your point. Leo STRAUSS would be proud, but apparently you're not very good at it...

And it doesn't take me long to post since I can think and type fast...;)

[Nickdfresh]

And whoever said I followed KENTUCKYKLIRA's viewpoint? I flamed him a bit yesterday in fact. See, unlike you and your bogus claims to the cuntrary, I actually am an independent critical thinker that does not merely adopt partisan rhetoric...

KENTUCKY owns you tools because the only thing you have to come back at him with is "you guys were NAZI's." Or, "you're a NAZI 'cause you're GERMAN blah blah blah."

[Warham]

90% of the people in this forum are conservative? I don't think so, Nick. Not even 90% of the flamers and aliases in this forum are conservative.

I've read several times on here how all the Roth Army Bush supporters have slid in the cracks in the floor because of the war in Iraq. Sometimes I'm the only one making a pro-conservative viewpoint in certain threads.

[thome]

These truths we hold to be self evident.

Even when we die of natural causes we leave a mess.

War is a messy ...........thing.

No one likes it but its the latest thing.

Since Cain let his brother know how he felt about .....things.

Why hiroshima and nagasaki we could have re- done berlin.

Sunk Dressden into the Earth .

Who knows wich way the cold wind will blow.

Better us that them better them than us.

I see no peace in our time .

These words 500,000 years ago on cave man walls.

A speedy end to my enemies life.

the only way to end this ......thing?

Today its money ,yesterday land ,before that ....love.

Too bad so sad its allways been like this.

This world can feel very cold in the winter.

No answers only questions War is Hell on Earth.

Or the natural however sick truth of life.

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Do you say that to the people......say averaging 43.25 posts a day (Nickdfresh) that generally follow your political viewpoint? No, of course not. You have a faulty line of reasoning. Refrain from using it in the future, dumbass. :) Where´d I say that Nick´s my hero??

How dumb can you be??

If Nick called me a sore loser he´d get the same response!

Now go put on that white hood, there´s a cross to burn somewhere!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
90% of the people in this forum are conservative? I don't think so, Nick. Not even 90% of the flamers and aliases in this forum are conservative.

I've read several times on here how all the Roth Army Bush supporters have slid in the cracks in the floor because of the war in Iraq. Sometimes I'm the only one making a pro-conservative viewpoint in certain threads.

I didn't say that...I said 90% of the Neo Cons that come to this forum are know nothing jack-offs that quickly get owned out (4MoreTears, THOME, McCARRENS, WAYNE L....) I wasn't referring to the present company of regular Neo Con posters who can hang, the point is BBB is a hypowit since he never challenges the el-retardo conservatives (like WAYNE [the pain] L.), even if I sense or he admits he doesn't really like them, yet calls out KK for the same thing...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
Where´d I say that Nick´s my hero??

How dumb can you be??

If Nick called me a sore loser he´d get the same response!

Now go put on that white hood, there´s a cross to burn somewhere!

Ohhhh, oh, oh, oh, ohhh.
It must have been cold there in my shadow,
to never have sunlight on your face.
You were content to let me shine, that's your way.
You always walked a step behind.

So I was the one with all the glory,
while you were the one with all the strength.
A beautiful face without a name for so long.
A beautiful smile to hide the pain.

Did you ever know that you're my hero,
and everything I would like to be?
I can fly higher than an eagle,
for you are the wind beneath my wings.

It might have appeared to go unnoticed,
but I've got it all here in my heart.
I want you to know I know the truth, of course I know it.
I would be nothing without you.

Did you ever know that you're my hero?
You're everything I wish I could be.
I could fly higher than an eagle,
for you are the wind beneath my wings.

Did I ever tell you you're my hero?
You're everything, everything I wish I could be.
Oh, and I, I could fly higher than an eagle,
for you are the wind beneath my wings,
'cause you are the wind beneath my wings.

Oh, the wind beneath my wings.
You, you, you, you are the wind beneath my wings.
Fly, fly, fly away. You let me fly so high.
Oh, you, you, you, the wind beneath my wings.
Oh, you, you, you, the wind beneath my wings.

Fly, fly, fly high against the sky,
so high I almost touch the sky.
Thank you, thank you,
thank God for you, the wind beneath my wings.
:)

Who is Bette Midler?

[Nickdfresh]

Who is Bette Midler?

[Sarge's Little Helper]

Who is Bette Midler?

Bette Midler is an actress/singer that bears an uncanny resemblance to Sammy Hagar. .. based on both being fat, old, red hair and both have FLOPPY, SLOPPY BREASTS. Bette was in a popular movie called Beaches and Sammy Hagar is just a plain Beatch.Thanks for your time..

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I didn't call anyone a loser due to their political beliefs, and at least my 43.25 posts per day are somewhat intelligent. Funny how 90% of the fuckwits in this forum are "neo conservatives..."

Of course BBB, the only thing you can come up with is uninformed shitty op-ed articles by those a little thick like OLLY BARF. How many lies are you going to tell today BigBlandBrie? Must be difficult to have to rationalize political beliefs by knowingly lying and playing semantic games to try to make your point. Leo STRAUSS would be proud, but apparently you're not very good at it...

And it doesn't take me long to post since I can think and type fast...;)

Geez dude, chill the fuck out.

I was simply pointing out that you had a shitload of posts also and kentucky never pointed to you as never having a life.

Yeah, I basically said you and he were politically tight. Shouldn't have done that.....BUT....you and he agree a hell of a lot more than I do. :D That was the point I was trying to make.

Don't get all bent out of shape over small potatoes.

My post wasn't intended to be about you.

My apologies.

:gulp:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
Where´d I say that Nick´s my hero??

How dumb can you be??

If Nick called me a sore loser he´d get the same response!

Now go put on that white hood, there´s a cross to burn somewhere!


Hmmm......

It's awful funny YOU bring up cross burning.

Where did THAT come from?

Oh yeah, I remember, it's in your blood:

http://www.eteachers.com.au/ICT_samples/Images/youth.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Geez dude, chill the fuck out.

I was simply pointing out that you had a shitload of posts also and kentucky never pointed to you as never having a life.

Yeah, I basically said you and he were politically tight. Shouldn't have done that.....BUT....you and he agree a hell of a lot more than I do. :D That was the point I was trying to make.

Don't get all bent out of shape over small potatoes.

My post wasn't intended to be about you.

My apologies.

:gulp:

It really had nothing to do with posts per day...Actually, he was calling one of your little high school TEXAS lapdog cheerleaders a hypocrite for spewing his bad grammar and dumb comments; don't make it about me...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Hmmm......

It's awful funny YOU bring up cross burning.

Where did THAT come from?

Oh yeah, I remember, it's in your blood:

http://www.eteachers.com.au/ICT_samples/Images/youth.jpg

GERMAN NAZI's didn't burn crosses, AMERICAN KLANSMAN did, starting in the 1860's.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I didn't say that...I said 90% of the Neo Cons that come to this forum are know nothing jack-offs that quickly get owned out (4MoreTears, THOME, McCARRENS, WAYNE L....) I wasn't referring to the present company of regular Neo Con posters who can hang, the point is BBB is a hypowit since he never challenges the el-retardo conservatives (like WAYNE [the pain] L.), even if I sense or he admits he doesn't really like them, yet calls out KK for the same thing...

Sorry, pal. Didn't understand ya there.

There are plenty of buffoons on both sides of the aisle.

;)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Sorry, pal. Didn't understand ya there.

There are plenty of buffoons on both sides of the aisle.

;)

This is true...I've gotten annoyed with both...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
It really had nothing to do with posts per day...

Yes it did...imbecile.

He was saying the guy didn't have a life because of his high daily average.

That says a hell of a lot about you, doesn't it? ;) :D

Go get a hobby...playing with choo choos or something.

:gulp:

[Warham]

Actually, Kentucky was calling him out on his 14 posts-per-day, and basically saying he had no life.

Brian's right on this one.

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Warham
Actually, Kentucky was calling him out on his 14 posts-per-day, and basically saying he had no life.

Brian's right on this one. Even I have to, humbly, admit you´re right here!

[Warham]

So, kentucky, what do you think of Nick's 43 posts a day?

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Warham
So, kentucky, what do you think of Nick's 43 posts a day? Well,

there have been lots of "Nick, get a life" posts here in the past!

I used to post a lot on a few other forums. But, back then part of my job was keeping an eye on stock market news all the time. Therefore, I was online from the moment I sat down at my desk to the moment I left it. And, since I was pretty good at my job, my boss didn´t mind me having a second window open with private stuff like music forums.

I don´t know what Nick does all day, and I certainly never reached 43 posts a day. Like I said before, if he bashed me using expressions like"sore loser", I´d certainly use the 43 posts a day to retaliate.

All in all, the guy from Texas claims to be 17, so he should be chasing some tail, doing his homework, or flipping some burgers to earn the money for a decent guitar, bass, drums or whatever, instead of posting 14 posts a day here and god knows how many on other forums all day!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Yes it did...imbecile.

He was saying the guy didn't have a life because of his high daily average.

That says a hell of a lot about you, doesn't it? ;) :D

Go get a hobby...playing with choo choos or something.

:gulp:

No, it had to do with a mouthy, ignorant little high school girl that was being bitchy and nonsensical. I write fast and cruise through these forums. And quite frankly, you're here (logged on) almost as much as I am, so what does posts have to do with it? I respond where other's lurk...So the fuck what?

Do you play with choos choos while you're logged on most of the day?

And I wasn't fucking with anybody BRIE, you were.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh


And I wasn't fucking with anybody BRIE, you were.

Yeah.....it's MY hobby. :D

uhu uhu uhu hu uhu huh huh huhu huh uhu

:killer: :killer: :killer: :killer:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Yeah.....it's MY hobby. :D

uhu uhu uhu hu uhu huh huh huhu huh uhu

:killer: :killer: :killer: :killer:

So is getting owned in political forums...;)

[ODShowtime]

Tough titties. The japs were askin for it. What they did in China alone was enough.

And they did a great job setting up a communist take over. We haven't even begun to see the real fallout from that

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Tough titties. The japs were askin for it. What they did in China alone was enough.

And they did a great job setting up a communist take over. We haven't even begun to see the real fallout from that

Fine but that's a kind of simplistic view of the world.

As an American are you happy to have your family wiped out because of the actions of your government?

Japan wasn't even a democracy.

If FORD was made president would you deserve it if something he did led to your mother being destroyed? You're both Americans after all...

Cheers!

:gulp:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So is getting owned in political forums...;)

Never by you. ;)

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Fine but that's a kind of simplistic view of the world.

As an American are you happy to have your family wiped out because of the actions of your government?

Japan wasn't even a democracy.

If FORD was made president would you deserve it if something he did led to your mother being destroyed? You're both Americans after all...

Cheers!

:gulp:

Sesh, is that your woman in your avatar? She looks quite lovely.

:gulp:

[NightProwler]

"There are many that don't buy the "huge casualties when we invade JAPAN theory."

How about a link?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by NightProwler
"There are many that don't buy the "huge casualties when we invade JAPAN theory."

How about a link?

Google one yourself. Use that exactly quote and also put in Hiroshima.

You may be surprised with what you'd find. Go on...you can do it, Sparky.

:gulp:

[NightProwler]

Too lazy to provide a link to back up a claim? LMAO Typical.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Sesh, is that your woman in your avatar? She looks quite lovely.

:gulp:


Uh...never mind. My mind just focused and I just realized what that picture was. My Apologies. More coffee..... :o :o :o

[NightProwler]

you thought that was a woman and she "looks quite lovely"?

LMAO

Admit it, you've never actually had sex. Not with a woman anyways!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by NightProwler
"There are many that don't buy the "huge casualties when we invade JAPAN theory."

How about a link?

There are few papers online directly stating this, however, if you read through everything, you find constant criticism of "revisionist" historians that have stated basically that US casualties could have been much lower, or that little real thought or study was give to the large numbers of dead projected my the US gov't.


Researchers look at the forest of documents created over fifty years ago and almost immediately become lost during their hunt for extreme comments and inconsistencies....That casualties would be massive was so basic an understanding, that it was functionally a "self-evident truth" held by decision makers at virtually all levels. Little or no paper discussion was required or conducted within the Army, and events beyond its purview rendered an invasion unnecessary.

From http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/invade.htm


The following guy believes the casualty projection, and gives some good reasons as to why they may be valid, but he fails to menition the Japanese industrial collapse and the fact they could not arm or equip over half of the troops they earmarked for the defense of JAPAN



Some historians have stated incredulously that Marshall's estimate of up to one million casualties for the invasion of Japan significantly exceeded those sustained in Europe. But while the naval side of the Pacific War displayed broad, sweeping moves, land combat in the Pacific had little in common with the mobile warfare that went a long way toward keeping casualties comparatively low in France and the central German plain. The closest European commanders came after D-Day to the corps-level combat was the prolonged fighting in the Huertgen Forest and Normandy's hedgerows, close-in, infantry-intensive fire fights that produced many bodies on both sides. It is also important to note that when they went to Potsdam, Truman and Marshall knew that total US casualties had recently exceeded the one and a quarter million mark, a number historians find unfathomable, what's more the bulk of the losses occurred in just the previous year of fighting against Germany.

http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/downfall.html


For more info overall on Operation DOWNFALL and it's two sub components, visit:

http://www.answers.com/topic/operation-downfall

People also forget how the SOVIETS shocked the JAPANESE high command by using massed armor and artillery, something US troops/Marines were largely unable to do up until Germany was defeated:



Achieving tactical and strategic
surprise, the Soviets launched a classic double envelopment
along the Manchurian border on 9 August 1945. Advancing
under the cover of darkness and pouring rain, the Soviets
advanced along three axes covering a frontage of more than
3000 miles. Using armor-heavy forward detachments and
displaying flexibility, audacity and initiative at all
levels, the Soviets crushed what opposition the Japanese
afforded and achieved impressive advances along what the
Japanese considered to be untrafficable terrain. The
Japanese Kwangtung Army faced severe shortages in all areas
and was in the middle of the redeployment of her defensive
forces when the Soviets attacked. Japan's lack of armor and
anti-tank weapons, failure to correctly estimate the size of
the Soviet force build-up and predict the Russian avenues of
approach were all reminiscent of her defeat at Nomonhan in
1939. The Soviet Army took excellent advantage of the
confusion surrounding the Kwangtung Army's surrender by
rapidly advancing and seizing key terrain before (and after)
the war's official termination.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/RMF.htm

[FORD]

Originally posted by Seshmeister


If FORD was made president would you deserve it if something he did led to your mother being destroyed? You're both Americans after all...



Ridiculous.... I don't even know his mother. Or at least I don't think I do ;)

Besides, the FORD administration will be the best thing to happen to America since FDR.

[BigBadBrian]

http://huberfortaxrelief.com/PHOTOS/Fayetteville_2005/DSCN1516w.jpg

[Warham]

hehe

Ain't that the truth.