Mass killings by US forces in Afghanistan war

He's right, you know? Read some John Toland.

 

Forget the nukes? By no means, that's what we are talking about.

I read multiple view points, which is why my mind is open. The "Japan would never have surrendered" is the most commonly held viewpoint, especially in US (and may well be correct), but there are other views. Maybe its good to read about other views as opposed to just taking one view for gospel.

 

You forget the reason for the nukes.

 

You are entitled to your own opinion, puny man, but facts are facts and cannot be disputed. Your opinion is only that... opinion. And opinions don't do well against FACTS.

 

Again, there are multiple views. You have been told one view and taken it for gospel, and that view may well be correct, but why are people offended when they are told that there are other views? Why not at least consider them? That is what open minded people such as myself do.

Forget? No, I am well aware of the different views, including the most common one

 

Former interpreter says 'vast majority of Afghans' view Taliban as 'lesser of two evils' compared to the US
https://www.businessinsider.com/ex-...afghans-more-favorable-view-taliban-us-2021-9

 

That's the thing.....its not my opinion, or something I just cooked up. There are multiple views by historians, which you obviously are totally unaware of. That makes you the ignorant one.

But feel free to stick to the view you have been told to believe. No need to be aware of other views, but your view is not fact, it is simply a commonly held belief of what might have happened if the nukes had not been dropped. If there was another reason, it was probably as valid as the possibility that they would never surrender. Also, having multiple reasons is also a possibility.

 

There is an awful lot of comments from these "former interpreters". I'm afraid anyone can make something up and attribute it to "former interpreters".

 

Considering the history of the US military it is more likely than not.

 

Forgive me for noting but I don't think you are all that open minded or informed.

 

What we perceive as a 'common' message changes with time and distance from a fact. The further we get from real time the easier it is to rationalize the irrational. Common just means widely accepted and that changes with our curriculum in our schools.

 

Thanks for sharing. In your case it is a proven fact that you are not open minded, and you have proven it again in this thread.

It hasn't changed. They still teach the most common view, which is why you take it for gospel. They MIGHT mention that there are other views, but I doubt it.

 

What was the common view of my generation is not what would be considered the common view today. Somebody got it wrong.

 

The common view today is that the Japanese would never have surrendered and the bombs spared both countries from even grater bloodshed.

So, what was your view again?

This is not a history book, but supports the "multiple reasons" view, where the primary reason was to bring Japan to surrender, and stop further bloodshed.

American bomber drops atomic bomb on Hiroshima
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/american-bomber-drops-atomic-bomb-on-hiroshima
President Harry S. Truman, warned by some of his advisers that any attempt to invade Japan would result in horrific American casualties, ordered that the new weapon be used to bring the war to a speedy end.

In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a number of historians have suggested that the weapons had a two-pronged objective. First, of course, was to bring the war with Japan to a speedy end and spare American lives. It has been suggested that the second objective was to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union.

 

What an inexcusable piece of deflection to help make Biden look good.

 

I dont know why a foreign source would do that, especially when Biden is not even mentioned.

 

That the AUMF was passed with unanimous support in one House and one lone nay vote in the other shows how much of an effect 9/11 has on the public consciousness. Who could imagine Bush with 90%+ approval these days?

I support the withdrawal and credit both Biden and Trump for moving in that direction, but I think the actual execution of that withdrawal could have been handled much better.

Getting out of a war doesn't mean immediately drop everything and get out just as ending the war on drugs doesn't mean immediately making all substances purchasable at a pharmacy.

 

I agree, I tend to think dropping the bombs or not are both pretty reasonable positions. There are good arguments on either side.

I lean towards not doing so, and instead targeting a military base or asset. The technology would have been frightening enough to have an effect, though I admit hindsight is 20-20 and that WWII was total war to the death.

I know one thing: I'm sure glad the Americans developed it before the Germans or Russians.

 

You didn't simply ask a question - what a disingenuous pile of rubbish .. you made an insinuation phrased as a question that the poster was ISIS because he said things about the USA you didn't like.

The rest of your post was fine and well reasoned - Why you flying off the handle because I pointed out the the one part that was fallacy.

Then - you turn around and do the same thing in this post .. making wild insinuations - name calling basically - this time accusing someone of being a "Democrat" followed with a fallacious attempt to demonize the person by calling all Dems "fly off the handle, judge, condemn".

What is ironic is "fly off the handle, judge, condemn" is exactly what you are doing in the first post - and now the second - projecting your failings onto others.

 

You are dead wrong. I notice you are totally incapable of citing a reliable source for your silliness. HINT: Your imagination is NOT a reliable source.

 

They did not attempt to brind civilization to Afghanistan - You been lied to mate

 

This is a Debate-Forum not a Message Board!

If you have a good rebuttal, let's see it!

But the above quote is just pure invective ...

 

It doesn't even rise to that level. You're being gracious.

 

Americans are not stupid, but they kind of indoctrinated. I am not sure why.
Most people do not understand how Americans are thinking, what they do really want.
That is why, despite tremendous resources Americans cannot help to any nation.

 

I'm not sure that such a thought, though noble, should be a first-consideration of US Foreign Policy.

Let's get the "democracy" bit right in America first, shall we? Any country that elects as PotUS the loser of the national popular-vote should not be pointing a finger-of-blame at any other country.

Besides, no other country has tolerated such a voting outcome for the head-of-state ...