Hiroshima at 75: bitter row persists over US decision to drop the bomb

Credible evidence required.

Nope.

Irrelevant

Questionable assertion & irrelevant premise.

Not if it stops more people getting killed.

This has become boring. If you can provide credible evidence for your assertions there might be something to discuss. If not then I'll leave you under your bridge.

 

Wrong again. Everything that I said is true.

On the other hand, everything that you said is false, so there's that.

You repeated your falsehoods. It was reasonable to counter with the truth again.

Actually you repeated your falsehoods far more often than I repeated the truth.

 

The only real feud is between leftist America hating academics and real historians as the former try make reality fit in the small delapidated box composed of their own increasingly vapid preconceptions.

 

I'm seeing a lot of denial - we can agree on that.

But considering the horrendous nature of the two war crimes, it's not surprising.

 

The A-bombs were dropped on military targets. That's not a war crime.

 

GYF.

Incorrect.

Ditto.

False; false.

Nonsensical/false/making excuses for horrendous terrorism.

Concur. Do your homework when you're ready to face the ugly truth. We can make personal attacks here now? (Cool beans.)

 

^^^ False/repetitive.

 

^^^ Bizarre/nonsensical/irrelevant.

 

False. The two worst in human history.

 

Wrong again. Japan did not try to surrender on any terms whatsoever until August 10, by which time both A-bombs had already been dropped.

We were not preventing Japan from surrendering. We would have delighted to have Japan surrender.

Neither Ike nor Einstein worked very hard to oppose the use of the A-bombs. Their opposition was feeble to the point of insignificance.

The A-bombs were dropped on military targets, so were not in any way terrorism.

That's a rather hypocritical complaint given that you repeat untrue statements far more often than I repeat my statements.

Wrong again. The A-bombs were dropped on military targets, so were not in any way a war crime.

What does that mean?

 

Not even close. The rape of Nanking beats either by a mile. And even that pales in comparison to the insane excesses of Mao's cultural revolution.

 

Not really. He was just commenting on your denial of reality.

 

^^^ More falsity/repetition.

Google's Your Friend.

 

ATD. Ditto. Ditto.

 

^^^ Bizarre/fallacious/nonsensical/irrelevant.

 

Wrong again. Everything that I've said is completely true.

That's a rather hypocritical complaint given that you've repeated untrue statements far more often than I've repeated my statements.

Ah. Thanks for the explanation. Your failure to support your claims is noted.

Not that I expected untrue claims to ever be supported, but there we are.

So are your endlessly repeated denials of reality.

 

Really, the only even vaguely interesting element of conversations like this is that both liberals and conservatives nakedly abandon all of their espoused values - humanism and Christianity alike - to embrace unfathomable denial, ignorance and amorality in the service of excusing the greatest terrorist war crimes in human history, and all in defense of one of the four worst presidents in US history, the mega-sociopath Truman.

As I've often said, there are two groups of conservatives who dominate US politics:

The Coca-Cola Conservatives (conservatives) and the Pepsi Conservatives (liberals), and nowhere do you see their striking similarities better than in their mutual defense of the unthinkable, the insta-Auschwitzes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

May G#d have mercy on our national soul.

 

It is proper that your untrue statements are denied.

No ignorance on my side of the debate. Note the absence of untrue statements in any of the pro-Truman posts.

The A-bombs were dropped on military targets, so were not in any way terrorism or a war crime.

Genocide victims might be a bit offended that you equate genocide with attacks on military targets.

 

What can one say?

The face of evil is so dull, so incredibly common and so dull.

 

All war at it's heart is terrorism all that separates good from bad is the reason why. All Tojo wanted was to turn the Western Pacific and much of Asia into a Japanese Empire. And they were willing to kill however many people they had to to make it happen. Meanwhile his bastardized version of the code of Bushido meant that he could not and would not surrender until the Japanese psyche had experience a cathartic moment. The A bombs produced that in a way nothing else could. Even at that late date the evidence suggests that without the emperor's direct intervention Tojo the man in charge would not have surrendered even in the face of the Bombs. The emperor at the time was the official face of Japan, but the political power was held by the shogunate as it had been since final unification under Nobunaga some hundreds of years earlier. Following VJ day the shogunate was permanently disbanded and the Japanese got a modern rather than a feudal system of government.

 

You have provided zero evidence that they were ready to surrender.

 

And won't...because they never made a serious offer and there is no evidence that one was coming

 

Some decent history, but...

Bottom line: Japan was prepared to surrender.

Rather than accept, we committed the two most horrendous acts of terror in human history.

THEN we allowed them to surrender on the same terms they wanted before.

I'm gonna go with that as a big ol' pair of no-nos on our part.

 

Educate yourself or do not; my attempting to educate you will only engorge your resistance and denial.

 

False.

Just one reason Ike worked so hard to stop the two greatest acts of terror in world history.