The US did not win the war against Japan in WW II.

English comprehension not your strong point, eh? The title is:

"The US did not win the war against Japan in WW II"

What does your reply have to do with the theme?

 

I understood it totally. You claim that the US did not win the war, which means Japan won, as you see it. Dude, it's your God given right to believe whatever you want. If you want to believe in unicorns then go for it. I am going to be the last guy standing in your way. Yay you!!!! But always remember:

 

Are there no schools in your part of the country or is it just that they don't teach English?

 

I know English very well. You just have problems comprehending. I am here for you tho. Just keep believing in ........ well, anything you want to believe.

 

Your English comprehension is terrible. Here, in Sweden, we take our studies seriously and that includes English. I could tell you what you are doing wrong but I have seen this before and I know that you'll just try to weasel out of it.

 

Maaaate, the US did not win anything, it never has, all by itself including its own War of Independance. It lost plenty, and even then, never all by itself. It has always had allies of one kind or another.

 

Must I note it was a surprise attack without a declaration of war, due to issues, but we knew war was coming and soon it was the main issue they sucker punched the nation then after the attack delivered their declaration of war and angered us to a fervor at that point they were doomed and the massive war crimes done to our POWs and their barbarism to allies didn't help. We showed them great mercy in dropping just one then another bomb, the war had to end, and if forced to invade both sides would suffer savagely. The Emperor was wise in ending the war and submitting to the US Occupation when he did we were willing do to geopolitics then to help them rebuild and rearm on OUR terms. Does that sound like victory they were our bytch until we withdrew.

 

seems you forgot the months long campaign of napalm bombing of innocents, we dropped enough napalm to light their rivers a fire, millions of women and children killed by the usa, and just because the japs wouldn't surrender we then decided to drop three atom bombs upon them...
to this day, the usa is the only country in nato that refuses to sign the 'no napalm' treaty...

 

Absurd conclusions are one of the trademarks of the American mind.

 

They have a habit of it. But the worst part is (and we can see this as a common trait of the U.S.) if they ever do sign the treaty they will claim it was their idea and welcome the other nations who have agreed to follow the U.S. example.

 

I believe the actual document signed by the Japanese said unconditional surrender

 

What does the document have to do with it? You've got eyes - you can read. You've got ears - you can hear. You've got a brain - you can think. You know what "unconditional" means and you know that Japan succeeded in getting its own condition met, despite the U.S. refusing to agree to their condition in the beginning. The document and McArther's speech have nothing to do with anything other than changing the goal post to make it seem that the U.S. got the surrender they always demanded. You know it and I know it.

 

My eyes can read the document. It says unconditional surrender. They signed it. Whatever we did after that we did because it served our interests best. Those are the facts.


But we do have your opinions. Lol

 

The facts? The title of the document is a lie. The lies you believe (in this case) are not even as innocent as ignorance because you are now aware of the truth but insist on believing the lie - of your own free will.

 

Thank you for your opinion but that is all it is.

Fact: Japan signed an unconditional surrender

 

Mine makes sense .....

... yours, however, does not.

NOTE: If you are satisfied with the Washington lie then you have my permission to enjoy it to your heart's content. That's a matter between you and your conscience.

 

If you can prove it us a lie with verifiable facts do so. You have not. Your argument has failed

 

I proved it back on the first page. Looky here ...

... and here ...

unconditional
/ʌnkənˈdɪʃ(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective

1. not subject to any conditions.

Mine is not an "argument". It is fact by sheer definition.

NOTE: But again I remind you that you can believe what you want to believe. That doesn't mean any argument "has failed". I didn't start this thread to make you accept the truth. I am merely stating the truth. If reading the truth upsets you then why not just ignore it?

 

Uh...the Japanese did sign an unconditional surrender and we accepted it. And then we did whatever we thought was in the best interest of the US going forward. Those are the facts. The US accepted no conditions

 

It would seem if a country demands a condition they would put that in the surrender document.....wouldn't they?

 

Only if they had no reason not to admit the truth.
"Covering their tracks".

If you want satisfaction you ought to contact these people > > >

COLLINS:
unconditional
adjective [usually ADJECTIVE noun]
If you describe something as unconditional, you mean that the person doing or giving it does not require anything to be done by other people in exchange.

or even your own
MERIAM-WEBSTER:
unconditional
adjective
un· con· di· tion· al | \ˌən-kən-ˈdi-shə-nᵊl \
: without any special exceptions an unconditional surrender

NOTE: When you contact them be sure to tell them their definitions of UNCONDITIONAL are all wrong.

 

Yep. And the US offered nor gave any conditions for surrender. It was unconditional. I agree

 

The facts (and history) prove you are wrong.

... Japan's condition, yes.

Other than the aforementioned.

 

Where is the document outlining this condition please?

 

Wait.....are you saying that Japan did NOT sign a unconditional surrender? Really?